Perozeboye, Ardascer Cursetjee v. 348 Rajah Lelanund Sing Bahadoor v. The Government of Bengal 101 Rajah Pran Kishen Sing, Ranee Hurrosoondree Debiah v. Rughoonauth Sahoi Chotayloll v. Manickchund 491 491 . 232 490 251 262 Sreemutty Rabutty Dossee v. Sibehunder Mullick Sreemutty Raddamoney Dossee, Gungadhur Seal v. Sreemutty Soorjeemoney Dossee v. Denobundoo Mullick. APPENDIX. RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE. ORDER IN COUNCIL, 31ST OF MARCH, 1855. WHEREAS doubts have arisen with reference to the power of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to suspend or relax, under certain special circumstances, the Regulations in Appeal Causes established by Her Majesty's Order in Council of the 13th of June, 1853; Her Majesty, by and with advice of Her Privy Council, is pleased to order, and it is hereby ordered, That in Appeal Cases, in which a Petition of Appeal to Her Majesty shall have been lodged, and referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee, the said Regulations shall be subject to any Order or Direction which, in the opinion of the Lords of the Judicial Committee, the justice of any particular case may seem to require. March 31, 1855. C. C. GREVILLE. REPORTS OF CASES HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND THE LORDS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME AND SUDDER SREEMUTTY RABUTTY DOSSEE Appellant, AND SIBCHUNDER MULLICK Respondent.* On appeal from the Supreme Court at Calcutta. THE Appellant was the mother and, as such, heiressat-law and personal representative by the Hindoo law * Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-The Right Hon. Baron Parke, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan. VOL. VI. 11th & 14th Feb., 1854. A deed of and release in arrangement the English form, between members 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 representative of her deceased husband, declared that she was entitled to the sum therein expressed, as the share of her deceased husband, "for her sole absolute use and benefit." Held, (reversing the decree of the Supreme Court at Calcutta,) that 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 reference to A |