Imatges de pÓgina
PDF
EPUB

fraudulentand void, as against the
('reditors of the vendor,and to have
been executed for the purpose of
defeating a sequestration. [Musa-
dee Mahomed Cazum Sherazee v.
Meerza Ally Mahomed Shoostry]

27

those words were not to receive
the same interpretation as a Court
of Equity in England would put
upon them, as creating a separate
estate in the widow; but that the
deed must be construed with refer-
ence to the situation of the parties
and the rights of the widow by the
Hindoo law, and that, as the deed
recited that she claimed and re.
ceived the money as her husband's
share in the joint estate in her
character as his heiress and legal
personal representative,such words
must be construed to mean, that it
was to be held by her in severalty
from the joint estate ; and as a
Hindoo widow she had only a life
estate in the corpus, the same at
her death devolved as assets of her
deceased husband upon his personal
representativein succession. Sree-
mutty Rabutty Dossee v. Sibchun-
der Mullick]

1
2. Where a purchase of real estate is

made by a Hindoo in the name of
one of his sons, the presumption
of the Hindoo law is in favour of
its being a benamee purchase, and
the burthen of proof lies on the
party in whose name it was pur-
chased, to prove that he was solely
entitled to the legal and beneficial

interest in such purchased estate.
Purchase of a talook in Bengal by a

Hindoo in his eldest son's name,
the conveyance, though in the
English form of lease and release,
held to be a benamee purchase, and
the son in whose name it was pur-
chased declared to be a trustee for
the father, and the talook part of

See “ SHERIFF," 2.

GHATWALLY.

By the tenure of Ghatwally, the lands

are held under a grant from the
ruling power, by the performance
of the defined duty of the Ghatual
guarding the Ghats or passes.
[Rajah Lelanund Sing Bahadoor
v. The Government of Bengal] 101

See “ INHERITANCE," 1.

" RESUMPTION."

GRANT.

See “ Hindoo Law," 3.

HINDOO LAW.

1. A deed of arrangement and release

in the English form, between mem-
bers of a Hindoo family in respect
of certain joint estate, claimed by
a childless Hindoo widow of one
of the co-heirs, in her character of
heiress and legal personal repre-
sentative of her deceased husband,
declared that she was entitled to
the sum therein expressed, as the
share of her deceased husband,
6 for her sole absolute use and

benefit."
Held, (reversing the decree of the

Supreme Court at Calcutta,) that

а

a

was a strong presumption, arising
from religious considerations, in
favour of a delegation by the de-
ceased to his widow, of authority
to adopt a son for him, yet that
the evidence entirely failed to

prove that fact;
Secondly, that the evidence established

his mental capacity at the time of

executing the Will; and
Thirdly, that by the Hindoo law

prevailing in Madras, a Hindoo
in possession, without issue male,
kinsman,or coparcener, had power
to make a Will disposing of an-
cestral as well as acquired estate.
[Nagalutchmee Ummal v. Gopoo
Nadaraja Chetty]

309

the father's estate. [Gopeekrist
Gosain v. Gunga persaud Gosain]
v

53
3. By the Hindoo law a verbal grant

or real estate is good, if followed

by possession by the grantee.
Thegrantors of real estate were Hin-

doos, and the grantees, the East
India Company. Held, that as
the Hindoo law which governed
the grantors' rights allowed a ver-
bal grant, the law of the grantees
regulated the matter, and, as there
was possession under the grant by
the grantees, the grant was valid.
[Doe dem. Seebkresto v. The East
India Company] -

267
4. A will by a Hindoo, without inale

issue, kinsman or coparcener, after
providing for the maintenance of
his widow, daughters, and female
relations, devised ancestral as well
as other real and personal estate
to trustees upon certain charitable
trusts; was impeached by reason,
first, that the Testator had author-
ised his widew, in an event which
happened, to adopt a son, which
act would have rendered him in-
competent to exercise a testamen-
tary power; secondly, that at the
time of the execution of the Will
the Testator was not of sufficient
mental capacity to make a testa-
mentary disposition ; and thirdly,
that the Testator being a Hindoo,
had no power by law of devising

ancestral estate by Will.
Upon appeal,-(Held, affirming the

decree of the Sudder Court in India,)
First, that although, in the absence

of male issue of the deceased, there

[blocks in formation]

INHERITANCE.

66

1. Upon the death of the Ghatwal

laat seised, the lands descend
entire to a male heir, as Ghatwal.
[Rajah Lelanund Sing Bahadoor

v. The Government of Bengal] 101
2. Family usage for fourteen genera-

tions, by which the succession to
the Raj zemindary of Tirhoot had
uniformly descended entire to a
single male heir, to the exclusion
of the other members of the family,

upheld.
A custom for the Rajah in possession,

in his lifetime to abdicate and
assign by deed the Raj title and
domain to his eldest son, or next
immediate male heir. Hold good,
and a deed so assigning the Raj
to an eldest son (provision being
made for Baboo allowances for the
younger sons), sustained. [Baboo
Gunesh Dutt Singh v. Laharaja
Moheshur Singh]

- 164
3. Whether by the Hindoo law cur-

rent in Bengal the interest of a
daughter in the estate of her de-
ceased father is of the same nature
as that of a widow. Quære. [1Iur-
rydose Dutt v. Sreemutty Uppoor-
nak Dossee]

433

interest, at the usual rate allowed
by that Court, should be allowed.
[ Sreemutty Rabutty Dorsee v. Sib-
chunder Mullick]

1
2. By the Act, No. XXXII. of 1839,

extending the provisions of the
Statute, 3rd & 4th Im. IV., c. 42,
sec. 28, to India, it was enacted,
“ That upon all debts or sums
certain, payable at a certain time,
the Court before whom such debt
or sums may be recovered, may, if
it shall think fit, allow interest to
the creditor, ata ratenot exceeding
the current rate of interest, from
the time when such debts or sums
certain were payable, if such debts
or sums be payable by virtue of
some written instrument at certain

time."
An instrument, in a nature of,

though not strictly, a Bond, was
executed in 1833, which provided
for the liquidation of the amount
therein specified by instalments,
but no provision was made for the
allowance of interest. The con-
dition for payment not having been
performed. Held, in an action
brought in 1819, to recover pri
cipal and interest upon the Bond,
that the Act, No. XXXII. of 1839,
was retrospective in its operation,
and authorised the allowance of
interest, although it was not pro-
vided for by the Bond. [Rajah
Bommarauze Bahadur V. Ranga-
samy Mudaly]

232
3. Upon the adjustmentofan account

of the principal and interest due
upon a Bond, a Kararnamah, or deed
of agreement, was entered into by

See Hindoo Law.”

“ TENANT FOR LIFE."
“ Widow.”

INTEREST.

1. In reversing a decree of the Su-

preme Court at Calcutta, the Ju-
dicial Committee directed that

[ocr errors]

the parties, in which, besides the !
original sum, a further sum for

!
interest accrued thereon was de-
clared due, and agreed to be paid
off by instalments before a given i
time. Payments were made at
irregular periods, which payments
the Bondholder claimed to appro-
priate to keeping down the interest
upon the whole sum composed of
both the original principal sum as
well as the sum mentioned in the
Kararnamah, as accrued thereon for
interest. Held, upon the con-
struction of the instrument, that
the principal sum alone carried
interest, and that all payments
made in pursuance of the stipu-
lations were to be applied in the
first instance to satisfy such in-
terest, the excess of the payments
only being appropriated towards
the liquidation of the principal
bum due. [Bamundoss Mookerjea v.
Omeish Chunder Ruce]

· 289

diction in the Judicial Committee
under sec. 4, of Mad. Reg. VIII.
of 1818, to call for security from
the Respondent when put in pos-
session. [Nagalutchmee Ummal v.

Gopoo Nadaraja Chetty] - 309
2. The Bombay Charter of Justice

(Dec. 1823) gives the Supreme Court
"full powerandauthority to admi-
nister and execute, within and
throughout the town and Island
of Bombay, and the limits thereof,
and the factories subordinate there-
to, &c., upon all persons so de-
scribed and distinguished by the
appellation of British subjects, as
aforesaid, there residing, the Ec-
clesiastical law, as the same is now
used and exercised in the Diocese
of London, in Great Britain, so
far as the circumstances and occa-
sion of the said town, island, ter-
ritories and people shall admit and

require."
Suit on the Ecelesiastical side of the

Supreme Court at Bombay by wife
against husband for restitution of
conjugal rights and for main-
tenance. Protest by the husband,
that the parties were Parsees pro-
fessing the religion of that sect,
and that the Court had no juris-
diction to administer towards them
the Ecclesiastical law as at the date
of the Charter was used and exer-
cised in the Diocese of London.
Upon appeal, Held, (reversing the
judgment of the Court below, and
maintaining the protest,) that the
Supreme Court of Bombay, on its
Ecclesiastical side, had no juris-
diction to entertain such a suit, as

IMPRISONMENT.

Change of place of confinement.

See " SHERIFF," 1.

JUDGMENT DEBT

(Sale of, by Sheriff).

See

SHERIFF,” 2.

JURISDICTION.

1. Quere: Whether there is any juris-

there existed such a difference be- | 2. In proceedings by the obligee of a
tween the duties and obligations of Bond before the Collector's Court
a matrimonial union

among
Par-

in 1844, upon an application for a
sees from that of Christians, that sequestration of the obligor's es-
the Court, if it made a decree, had tates, the obligor filed an account
no means of enforcing it, except of his liabilities, in which the Bond
according to the principles govern- in question was entered and certain
ing the matrimonial law in Doctors' payments mentioned. Held, that
Commons, which were in such a such acknowledgment took the
case incompatible with the laws Bond out of the operation of the
and customs of Parsees.

Mad. Reg. of Limitation, II. of
Quare: Whether, in such circum- 1802, sec. 18, cl. 4. [Rajah Bom-

stances, the Supreme Court can, marauze Bahadur v. Rangasamy
on its civil side, give relief to the

Mudaly]

232
wife. [Ardaseer Cursetzee v. Pe- 3. C. a Hindoo, by his Will, appointed
rozeboye]

348

G. and others executors, and there-

by gave and devised the residue of
See “ APPEAL,” 6.

his estate to his daughter, H., the

wife of G. All the Executors
LIEN.

proved, but G. alone acted in the

trusts of the Will, G.being largely
A Mahomedan widow has a lien upon

indebted to C.'s estate; andin 1831,
her husband's property hypothe- he by deed conveyed to II. part of
cated for dower. [ Ameer-oon-Nissa C.'s real estate as security for his
v. Moorad-oon-Nissal

211

debt. In 1833, G. was declared

insolvent under the Statute, 9th
See “ MAHOMEDAN LAW.

Geo. IV., c. 73. H. entered into
LIMITATION OF SUIT.

possession of the property so con-

veyed to her, and continued unin-
1. A demand for dower by a Maho- terruptedly to hold the same till

medan wife during the lifetime of the institution of the suit by the
her husband, held not necessary,

official assignee of the Insolvent
and although more than twelve

Court, a period of twenty-two years.
years had elapsed from the date of

Held, in the absence of any proof
the deed and the time when the

of fraud in the transaction of 1831,
widow set up her claim for dower,

or unfairness against II. in obtain-
she was not effected by the provi-

ing possession, so as to bring the
sions of Ben. Reg. III. of 1793, case within the exception in cl. 1,
sec. 14, and that the limitation sec. 3, of Ben. Reg. II. of 1805,
there provided for, formed no bar that the possession by H. for more
to her claim. [ Ameer-oon-Nissa v.

than twelve years was, by Ben.
Moorad-oon-Nissa

211 Reg. III. of 1793, sec. 14, a bar to

9

« AnteriorContinua »