« AnteriorContinua »
the suit. [Cockrane v. Hurrosoon-
pleadings were: first, whether a
A Mahomedan of the Shiah sect, by
a deed of dower, charged his whole
estate in satisfaction of her claim.
mand during the lifetime of the
her claim for dower, she was
heir-at-law of a Mahomedan of the
Power to charge ancestral estate.
See “ MORTGAGE."
The power of a Manager for an in-
fant heir to charge ancestral estate
which can only be ex-
ercised rightly by the Manager in No general rule can be laid down
varies with the circumstances, and
allege and prove the facts which
A mortgage Bond to secure a sum of
money lent to a party deceased, in
substituticn of a previous deed ex-
ecuted by a former proprietor, by
way of further security for a sum
advanced by the mortgagee to the
part of the ancestral estate, de-
scribed the widow as having a
beneficial proprietary right in the
mortgaged estates, although, in
fact, she was only the curator of
her son, a minor, the deceased's
heir. Held, that the description,
though inaccurate, was not such an
assumption of ownership as was
derogative to the rights of the heir ;
done by her as curator on behalf of
manpersaud Panday v. Mussumat
credibility of witnesses, unless it is
Meerza Ally Mahomed Shoostry] 27
Court below, the Judicial Commit-
missed for want of effectual prose-
India, which stood dismissed under
Exposition of the principles which in-
duced the Government to recognise
1. Appellant's costs in the Court be-
low allowed, and the suit referred
turb a judgment of a Court in
lowed after the arrival of the tran-
due prosecution of the appeal and
parte, the Respondent may, as a
terpetition to dismiss.
ex parte upon an allegation un-
was pending before the Master in
mutty Radamoney Do88ee3. 209
to have been taken in the Court.
Held, too late on appeal.
in the Court below in the reception
hadur v. Rangasamy Mudaly] 232
lant upon appeal, and in all the
jurisdiction in the Judicial Com-
Gopoo Nadaraja Chetty] - 309
1854, by the Supreme Court at
of a decree of the Sudder Court ap-
See “ SHERIFF," 1.
QUIA TIMET BILL.
See “ TENANT FOR Life."
Quære : Whether Ben. Regs. XI. of
1793, and X. of 1800, being con-
See " INHERITANCE."
in India for leave to appeal within
abide the determination of an ap-
and opposite decisions by the Sud-
amount of 5007.
abandoned by Statute, 8th & 9th
See “ SHERIFF,” 1.
See “ HINDOO LAW," 2.
Under the provisions of the Decen-
nial Settlement of 1789, the Ben-