« AnteriorContinua »
Doorga Doss Chowdry v. Ramanauth Chowdry
Eshan Chunder Chowdhooree, Golaub Koonwurree
hey Dossee v.
Fischer v. Kamala Naicker
Gerischunder Lahore, Mussumat Kripomoye Debia v.
91 268 275 164
Joykissen Mookerjea v. The Collector of East Burdwan
Kamala Naicker, Fischer v.
170 339 268
Lamb v. Bejoy Kishen Dass
427 291 379
Mabarajah Koowur Baboo Nitrasur Singh v. Baboo
199 Maharajah Sutteeschunder Roy v. Guneschunder
164 Maharajah Sutteeschunder Roy v. Sreemutty Ranee Surnomoyee
165 Mahomed Bauker Hoossain Khan v. Shurfoon Nissa Begum
136 Masseyk, Ram Gopal Mookerjea v.
239 Masulipatam, The Collector of, v. Cavaly Vencata Narrainapah
Page Mirza Jehan, Nowab Tajdur Baboo v.
(Note) 274 Mohun Lall Sookul 2. Bebee Doss
193, 492 Moonsbee Buzul-ul-Raheem v. Luteefut-oon-Nissa
379 Munmoheenee Debia, Chundermonee Debia Chowdhoorayn v.
477 Mussumat Kripomoye Debia v. Gerischunder Lahore 467 Mussumat Shurruffutoonnissa, The Bengal Government v. 225 Myna Boyee v. Oottaram
400 Nowab Tajdur Baboo v. Mirza Jehan
(Note) 274 Omanath Chowdry v. Sheikh Nujeeb Chowdry
498 Oottaram, Myna Boyee v.
400 Pertaub Sing, Ranee Birjobuttee v.
160 Rajah Rungasawmy Streemunth Jyengar Bahadoor,
Chetty Colum Comara Vencatachella Reddyer v. 319 Rajendro Dutt, Rogers v.
103 Rajmohun Gossain v. Gourmohun Gossain
91 Ramanauth Chowdry, Doorga Doss Chowdry v.
262 Ram Gopal Mookerjea v. Masseyk
239 Ranee Birjobuttee v. Pertaub Sing
160 Rogers v. Rajendro Dutt
103 Salik Ram v. Azim Ali Beg
270 Sheikh Nujeeb Chowdry, Omanath Chowdry v.
498 Shurfoon Nissa Begum, Mahomed Bauker Hossain
136 Sonatun Bysack v. Sreemutty Juggutsoondree Dossee 66 Sreemutty Anundomohey Dossee v. Doe dem. The East India Company
43 Sreerutty Juggutsoondree Dossee, Sonatun Bysack v. 66 Sreemutty Ranee Surnomoyee v. Maharajah Sutteeschunder Roy
165 Sumbhoolall Girdhurlall v. The Collector of Surat
1 Surat, The Collector of, Sumbhoolall Girdhurlall v.
Tarapersaud Roy Chowdry, Doogapersaud Roy Chow
dry v. Vencataswara Yettiapah Naicker v. Alagoo Moottoo
Zoramur Mull, Luckmec Chund v.
On appeal from the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut at
Bombay. In this case the question at issue related to the 13th, 16th, claim of the Appellant to a certain interest in land in 20th July,
1859. * Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,—The Right Hon. Lord Kingsdown, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, and the
an annual Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan.
fixed money Assessor,- The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel.
payment in the nature of
black mail, is alienable, and subject to sale or mortgage like other property.
Under an execution sale in satisfaction of a decree, Tora garas was sold. The purchaser paid the money into Court, which was paid out to the judgment creditor, and the purchaser had a conveyance of the Tora garas executed by the Court. The Government in the first instance acquiesced in the sale, but afterwards refused to register the name of the purchaser in their books as alienee, on the ground that Tora garas was, from its nature, and on public policy, inalienable ; nevertheless they received and applied the accruing payments to their own In a suit brought by the purchaser against the Government and the judgment creditor, the Sudder Court in the first place held the sale
illegal, on the ground of the inalienable character of Tora garas; and VOL. VIII.
Guzerat in Bombay, called Tora garas huk (a), which he had purchased at an execution sale by the Sheriff,
THE COLLECTOR OF
(a) In Guzerat, in the Presidency of Bombay, before that Province came, at the beginning of the present century, under the dominion of the British Government in India, predatory marauders were in the habit of plundering the villages; and, as the ruling power was not strong enough to afford protection against such attacks, the villagers entered into agreements with the robbers to pay them a species of black mail, as the price of their refraining from plunder, and also as the purchase of their assistance in case the villages were attacked by other depredators. These payments were called " Tora garas,” and the recipients were styled Grassias. Garas is defined in Wilson's Glossary to be “a hereditary claim to a small portion (a mouthful) of the produce of a village or villages by various Rajpoot chiefs, granted them by the local Government in remunera
secondly, acting upon the maxim, “caveat emptor,” refused to order the judgment creditor to return the purchase-money. Upon appeal such decree reversed by the Judicial Committee by reason,
First, that Tora garas was alienable, and capable of being attached and sold in satisfaction of a decree ; and
Secondly, that the decree was erroneous, as it would be manifestly unjust to deprive the purchaser of the purchase-money in the event of the sale being treated as a nullity.
Although the amount at issue was under Rs. 5,000, the appealable value, a special appeal was admitted by the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut from a decree of the Zillah Court. The sitting Judge upon the appeal, acting under the Act, No. III. of 1843, then in force, amended the certificate of the points at issue in the proceedings before the Zillah Judge by adding further points. Upon the proceedings coming before the full Court of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut that Court ordered the certificate to be further amended. After these proceedings had taken place, Act, No. XVI. of 1853, was passed, whereby the Act, No. III. of 1843, relating to special appeals, was repealed. By section 3 of the Act No. XVI. of 1853, power was given to the Sudder Dewanny Adavlut to determine appeals without reference to the points certified. Held, that under that Act, the whole subject at issue at the last hearing upon appeal was open to the Sudder Court's consideration.
Decree appealed from reversed with all the costs the purchaser had been put to in the proceedings in India and upon appeal. The costs of the execution creditor ordered to be paid by the purchaser, and charged by him in his costs against the Government.
The purchaser was kept out of the annual payment for upwards of twenty years, the Government being in receipt of the Toras garas. Held further (in the absence of evidence that such annual payments had been paid into Court) that the purchaser was entitled to simple interest at the rate allowed by the Courts in India on the arrears due when the suit was brought, and on each subsequent payment when it accrued due.