gal Government, in 1790, assessed the whole of the Zemindary of Khuruckpore, including certain Ghatwally lands, at a fixed jumma. This Settlement was made perpe- tual in 1796, under Ben. Reg. I. of 1793, at the same fixed jumma. In 1838, the Government set up a claim to resume, for the purpose of revenue assessment, the Ghat- wally lands in this Zemindary. Such claim dismissed, by reason,- First. That the Ghatwally lands were part of the Zemindary of Khuruck- pore, and were included in the Permanent Settlement of the Ze- mindary, and covered by the jumma assessed on that Zemin- dary; and
Second. That lands of Ghatwally
tenure were not liable to re- sumption under cl. 4, sec. 8, Ben. Reg. I. of 1793, as included in allowances made to Zemindars for Tannah, or police establishments. [Rajah Lelanund Sing Bahadoor v. The Government of Bengal]
The East India Company, as repre- senting the Indian Government, have a freehold in the bed of navigable rivers in India, and to the land between high and low water mark. [Doe dem. Seebkristo v. The East India Company] 267
After an appeal had been asserted from a decree of the Sudder Court at Madras, the Appellant applied
to that Court under sec. 4, of Reg. VIII. of 1818, and the Circular Order of 21st September, 1826, for an order calling upon the Respon- dents, who had been in possession of the estates in dispute before the institution of the suit, to give security as prescribed by that Regulation. The Sudder Court refused the application as not being within the provisions of the Regu- lation. Upon petition, the Judicial Committee declined to interfere, as there was no allegation of waste by the Respondents in the petition. Quære: Whether there is any juris- diction in the Judicial Committee under sec. 4, of Mad. Reg. VIII. of 1818. [Nagalutchmes Umma! v. Gopoo Nadaraja Chetty] - 309
SEQUESTRATION.
A sequestrator in possession is not to
be disturbed by a claimant, without leave of the Court. The usual mode is to apply for permission to bring an action of ejectment, or to examine, pro interesse suo. Under a writ of sequestration the
sheriff seized a moiety of an estate in the possession of 4.; A. pre- sented a petition to the Court, en- titled in a cause then pending, claiming the land under a deed of sale executed by the Defendant, pendente lite, praying to be put in possession, and to be allowed to go before the Master and examine witnesses, pro interesse suo. Pro- ceedings were taken under this petition before the Master, but
1. A., in the custody of the Sheriff, and confined in the gaol at Bombay, under a writ of execution issued against him upon a judgment of the Supreme Court at Bombay, was permitted by the Sheriff, with the sanction and authority of the judg- ment creditors, by reason of illness, to go out of prison, and temporarily reside outside the precincts of the gaol, upon the condition that he
should continue under the surveil- lance of the Sheriff's officers, and to which condition A. agreed, and continued for a time to reside out of gaol at a private house, where he was constantly under such sur- veillance. Upon 4.'s becoming con- valescent, the Sheriff, at the in- stance of the judgment creditors, took him back to gaol. Upon an application by A., to the Supreme Court at Bombay, to discharge him
out of custody, on the ground that the writ of execution was satisfied, that Court held, that A., having agreed to the condition imposed on him by the judgment creditors, of continuing in the custody of the Sheriff's officers while out of gaol, was estopped from saying that he was out of the Sheriff's custody when permitted to leave the gaol, and that a change of the place of imprisonment in such circumstances did not amount to a discharge out of custody. Such judgment affirmed, upon appeal, by the Judicial Committee. Where an execution creditor is willing to allow a debtor to go out of prison for a temporary purpose, the cus- tody continuing, the Sheriff may refuse, unless ordered by a rule of Court; but if, without any rule of Court, all parties agree to the debtor leaving the prison, and, from a laxity of surveillance of the Sheriff's officers, the debtor escapes, it is a question of fact for the jury, if the judgment creditor brings an action against the Sheriff, whether the judgment creditor did not him-
self contribute to the escape. If the Sheriff alone, on the ground
of a debtor's ill-health, makes any relaxation of the imprisonment, by letting the debtor reside out of prison, it would be an escape. [Haines v. The East India Com- pany]
467 2. A., by four deeds, conveyed certain real estates near Dacca, in bena- mee, to S., his mistress, by virtue of which she took possession. By a
Will made subsequent to the date of the conveyances, A. appointed G., his illegitimate son, executor, and after satisfying certain charges thereby created, which would ex- haust his whole estate, gave G. a life estate in the residue. A. was involved and in pecuniary difficul- ties, and an action was brought against him in the Supreme Court at Calcutta by some of his creditors, which action was pending at the time of his death, and was revived against G. as A.'s heir, and judg- ment obtained against G. without reference to his character as ex- ecutor of A. Under an execution sale in satisfaction of this judg- ment, the Sheriff sold "the right, title, and interest" of G. to V. (whose interest afterwards became vested in B.) for a nominal sum. Ejectment by B. founded on the title under the Sheriff's Bill of sale, against S. and G., to recover possession of the real estate in S.'s possession, impeaching the con- veyances made to her by A. as void as against 4.'s creditors. The Court in India decreed possession to B. on the ground of the con- veyances being fraudulent. Decree of the Sudder Court reversed by the Judicial Committee by rea-
First, that the title of S. to the lands
under the conveyances was esta- blished.
Second, that in the circumstances of
G. having only an uncertain right in unascertained property, it was not such an interest as could be
Bill,quia timet, by reversioner against the daughter of an intestate Hin- doo in possession of personalty, dismissed.
A Court of Equity will not interfere,
unless it is shown that there is danger from the mode in which the tenant for life in possession is dealing with the property.
The mere fact of the tenant for life
keeping in hand, for about three months, part of the corpus for the alleged purpose of an eligible in- vestment does not amount to waste, nor is in derogation of the rights of those entitled to reversion. [Hurrydoss Dutt v. Sreemutty Up- poornak Dossee]
The presumption of the Hindoo law, in a joint undivided family, is, that the whole property of the family is joint estate, and the onus lies upon a party claiming any part of
A wager contract in India (before the passing of the Legislative Act, No. 21, of 1848) upon the average price opium would fetch at a future Government sale, held legal, and an action thereon maintained. The Plaintiff and Defendants, by contracts in writing, wagered as to the average price to be obtained for opium "of the 30th of November," "of the first lelaum, or public Go- vernment sale of opium." At the time when these contracts were entered into, the first Government sale had been advertised for the "30th of November, 1846." The sale on that day was prevented by a combination of opium speculators interested in similar contracts. The Government sale was again ad- vertised, and took place on the 7th of December following, when opium of the quantity and description ad- vertised for sale on the" 30th of November" was sold. Held: first, that the date mentioned in the con- tracts, the 30th of November," was a description of the period when the first public Government sale of opium usually took place, and formed no part of the risk contem- plated by the wagers, the subject
of the contracts, and was immate- rial; and, secondly, that according to the true construction of the con- tracts, the first actual public Govern- ment sale which took place next after the date of the contracts satisfied the terms of the contracts; and upon a certain average being realised thereon, the event on which the Plaintiff had wagered was determined in his favour, and he was entitled to recover the dif- ferences under the averages. [Rug- hoonauth Sahoi Chotayloll v. Ma- nickchund]
2. Rules for construing Wills of Hin- doos.
Primarily, the words of a Will are to to be considered. They convey the intention of the Testator's wishes; but the meaning to be attached to them may be affected by surround- ing circumstances, among which is the law of the country in which the Willis made and its dispositions are to be carried out. If that law has attached to particular words a particular meaning, or to a parti- cular disposition a particular effect, it must be assumed that the Testa- tor, in the disposition he has made, had regard to that meaning, or to that effect, unless the language of the Will, or the surrounding circum- stances, displace that assumption. A Testator by his Will made an ab- solute gift of his real and personal estate to his five sons (an undivided Hindoo family) in equal shares; and in a subsequent part of his Will, in the event of any of his five sons dying without a son or son's son, there was a gift over to such of
his sons or sons' sons as should be alive. After the death of the Tes- tator, the sons lived together, and no partition of the joint estate was made, the surplus income and the increment being kept with the common stock. Upon the death of one of the sons without leaving a son or son's son, his widow, who was entitled to a life interest in her husband's estate, claimed her hus- band's share of the accumulation of income, and the increment thereon. Held, upon a construction of the Will, that in the absence of any direction of the Testator that his sons should continue a joint family, such an intention could not be im- ported into the Will, and that the Testator's intention was, that his sons should enjoy during their lives the interest of their respective shares of the property; and there- fore, that, although the deceased co-sharer's share went over to the survivors, the widow of the de- ceased was entitled to one-fifth of the surplus income which had ac- cumulated since the Testator's death, and during her husband's lifetime, and the increment arising out of such accumulations. [Sree- mutty Soorjeemoney Dossee v. De- nobundoo Mullick]
See "HINDOO LAW," 4.
BANGALORE EXAMINER PRESS.
« AnteriorContinua » |