TABLE OF CASES. ERRATU M. It is requested that the following be substituted for the heading of case No. 478 of 1856, page 812 of the Decisions for April 1858. แ Regular Appeal from the decision of Mr. A. Littledale, Acting Judge of Shahabad, dated 17th March 1856." upon security of B., who pledged a house as security, which house C. afterwards bought. As A. failed to fulfil the contract, A., B. and C. were sued for the amount, but C. was discharged by the judge. On special appeal to make C. liable, held that, as B. had claimed the benefit of the Insolvent Court, the suit fell to the ground, so that no decree could pass upon it. Judge's order affirmed, Koylashnath Roy v. Radhalal Panday and others. The lower appellate court having admitted a sunnud as proof of the petitioner's incompetency to sue for the resumption of the land covered by it, a 1147 TABLE OF CASES. Ishurkishore Acharj and others v. Ramchunder Acharj Chowdree. Application for review of judgment rejected, with costs, the Court seeing no reason to doubt that the decision at which it arrived, when the case was first before the Court in special appeal, was correct, Raja Koernarain Roy v. Dhorinidhur Roy. ... Plaintiff's claimed a moiety of the Jelamoota zemindaree under the ordinary rules of the Hindoo law of inheritance. The defendant pleads a family custom under which the landed property invariably descended to the eldest son, or, in failure of issue, to the next male heir, in exclusion of all other heirs. As the defendant was unable to establish the existence of the alleged family custom, the decision of the lower court was reversed, and a decree given for the (plaintiff) appellant. Whenever a plea of family custom is set up against the ordinary law of inheritance, it is necessary that the usage be antient and invariable, and be established by clear and positive proof, Musst. Doolhen v. Sheikh Reazoodeen. ... Case remanded for re-consideration and decision after taking proof from (defendants) respondents as to the amount paid by them, as this was the only matter in dispute in consequence of their admissions in the case, Nuwab Sufdar Alee Khan Bahadoor v. Mrs. Caroline DeCruze. Plaintiff, petitioner, advanced money for the building of a boat to A. upon security of B., who pledged a house as security, which house C. afterwards bought. As A. failed to fulfil the contract, A., B. and C. were sued for the amount, but C. was discharged by the judge. On special appeal to make C. liable, held that, as B. had claimed the benefit of the Insolvent Court, the suit fell to the ground, so that no decree could pass upon it. Judge's order affirmed, Koylashnath Roy v. Radhalal Panday and others. The lower appellate court having admitted a sunnud as proof of the petitioner's incompetency to sue for the resumption of the land covered by it, a 1131 1132 1145 1147 without pronouncing upon the genuineness or otherwise of the sunnud, Khoobchand Chobey v. Ishureepersaud Dichhit and others. ... 1149 Case remanded for decision on the merits, the reasons assigned for not trying them, viz. that the summary orders, reversal of which was sought, had been affirmed on special appeal, being insufficient, 1150 Ryechand Roy Chowdree v. Mr. R. J. Carnegie and another. ... A. gave a six years' potta to B. providing that B. should pay rent to C., in liquidation of debt due to C. by A. Petitioner, plaintiff, subsequently bought the land from A. and sued B. for rent under the potta. Held that as A. could not have sued B., so plaintiff, only having A's rights, could not sue, Goluckchunder Roy and others v. Baboo Gopallal Takoor and others. Petition for review rejected, failing cause shown to change the Court's Inderjeet Munder and others v. Raja Teknarain Singh. New arguments not employed when the case was first tried rejected as grounds of application for review of judgment, Komroonnissa v. Ramdyal Sein and others. 1151 1152 1153 Case remanded for proof of execution of original bill of sale, or for explanation of its absence to be given, 1154 Pershun Tewarree v. Bheem Panday and others. Suit being laid on a title of inheritance to one Ishureepersaud for the Mr. R. Watson v. Ram Singh and others. The plea urged by plaintiff, appellant, in his plaint was that the potta was fictitious, whereas in apperl the ground set forth for its cancelment was that the original lessee was dead. The Court refused to allow this varied plea, and held that, as the potta had been recognised for 19 years. it could not be impugned on account of fraud, Narainpersad Sein and others v. Sheikh Badu Chowdree. Application for review of judgment rejected, Chundermonee Debea v. Kirteechunder Roy and others. 1155 1158 1159 Case remanded, as the proper issues had not been laid down for trial,...1160 Joykishen Mookerjee v. Cheeneebash Mundul. Held by the Court that the first issue arising out of the pleadings in this case was, whether the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendant of the land which he alleges he has held as lakhiraj, under colour of the collusive distraint suit between the zemindar and a third party, or was he dispossessed by the zemindar acting under the provisions of Section X. Regulation XIX. of 1793. If that issue be decided in plaintiff's favour nothing more will be necessary, and plaintiff must obtain a decree. Should that issue be decided in defendant's favour, the second issue will be whether plaintiff is entitled to be replaced by the court in the possession from which the zemindar has ousted him. Held also that, irrespective of the validity of his lakhiraj tenure, plaintiff is entitled to be replaced in possession of the property from which he was dispossessed by the defendant if he can satisfactorily show that his tenure does not fall within the class mentioned in Section X. Regulation XIX. of 1793, viz. that of tenures created since the 1st December 1790, and that it consequently is not one in which the summary powers of dispossession without a suit in court given by that law can be exercised by a zemindar. Case remanded for re-investigation with reference to the remarks made by the court, Nowab Ameerunnissa Begum alias Doolhun Begum v. Siddhee Nuzzeer Alee Khan and others. Plaintiff alleges that she procured from Calcutta 52 maunds of copper sheeting, and, at the request of Sadut Alee, deceased, let him have 49-16, he promising to return an equal amount on the receipt of copper from Calcutta. Sadut Alee having died, his heir offered to pay her an inadequate sum. Plaintiff therefore sues for the real value of the copper. Defendants admit that the copper had been given by plaintiff, though they do not in words say to Sadut Alee. They however plead nonliability, as the copper was received on account of the Nowab Nazim for the completion of the emambarah. The lower court gave plaintiff a decree. The judge, being of opinion that Sadut Alee had not taken the copper, as alleged by plaintiff, dismissed her claim. Held by the Court that, on an acknowledged principle of pleading, it was incumbent on the defendants to have clearly denied the allegation of plaintiff that Sadut Alee had received the copper. This they do not do, and their evasive answer is equivalent to an admission of plaintiff's allegation; moreover, their subsequent attempt to avoid liability by pleading that the copper was not for their own use, but for the use of the Nazim, shows that they intended their statement to be a confession of plaintiff's receipt by Sudut Alee, with a plea of avoidance subsequently added. Case remanded for re-investigation on the correct issue, and whether the 49 maunds of copper were received by Sadut Alee, under circumstances making him personally liable for its value, or not, Womeshchunder Roy v. Mr. E. Robert. This suit was instituted to recover a sum realized in execution of a summary decree passed for an arrear of rent due. A similar suit first instituted was nonsuited. Held that as two years had elapsed between the order of nonsuit in first suit and institution of the second, this lapse of time alone brought 1162 1166 |