CASE NO. 208 OF 1858. RANEE KISTOMONEE DEBEA, (APPELLANT,) PETITIONER, versus RANEE KASEESOONDREE AND OTHERS, (Respondents,) Vakeels of Petitioner-Baboo Shumbhoonath Pundit and Vakeels of the Opposite Party-None. AN application was this day made by Mr. Doyne on behalf of Kaseesoonderee Debea, against the reception of the petitions of review of the judgment passed in his client's favor, put in by Ranee Kistomonee before the deputy register of the Court, as noted in the deputy register's proceedings of the 24th March 1858. The ground of objection to the reception of the petition, raised by the learned counsel, was that, as there were three appeals decided by the Court on the 30th June 1857, there should have been three petitions of review; and as Ranee Kistomonee only filed one, against the order dismissing her own appeal, this petition against the order of the Court decreeing Ranee Kaseesoonderee's appeal, cannot now be received, or if it can, it should have been filed on full stamp, and not on paper of two rupees' value, it having been filed after more than three months from the date of the judgment for the review of which the application was made. all the opposing parties were heard in review, and was granted after such hearing; and as no objection to the hearing of the three cases, notwith the review standing the filing of only was offered by either on the part of Ranee one petition, the vakeels, Kaseesoondree or the collector The circumstances out of which the application has arisen are as follows. Maharanee Kistomonee Debea, widow of the late Maharaja Bissonath Roy, sued Kissonath Roy and his wife, Kaseesoonderee Debea and others, for possession, with mesne profits and interest, of certain property movable and immovable. The lower court gave the plaintiff a partial decree. Against that decision three appeals were preferred to this Court, one by the defendant, Kaseesoonderee Debea, against so much of the decision as decreed to plaintiff property which she claimed under a special deed of gift to her by Ranee Joymonee; another by the collector of Moorshedabad, as agent of the Court of Wards, on behalf of Koilaschunder Roy, the minor son of Doorgachurn Roy, deceased, the husband of the aforesaid Kaseesoonderee, against so much of the decision of the occurred must lower court as gave to the plaintiff property claimed by him under a deed of gift by Ranee Joymonee; and a third by Ranee Kistomonee, the plaintiff, against so much of the decision as rejected the claim adduced by her on behalf of the minor adopted child, Gobindnath Roy. The first point which the Court considered at the first hearing of the suit was, the proof regarding the adoption of the child, Gobindnath Roy, and not being satisfied with the evidence produced by the of Moorshedabad, any informality on Ranee Kistomonee's part that may have be considered waived by the opposite party, been overlook to have been and to have ed and Colldoned by the Court. The deputy register is directed to accept the petitions put in by Ranee two other Kistomonee for form's sake, to issue the separate no tices, and to have the cases separately ready for hearing, it being clearly understood that the order passed on the 30th June 1857 plaintiff to substantiate the fact of the adoption, her suit necessarily fell; in other words, the appeals of Kaseesoonderee Dabea and the collector were decreed, and the appeal of Ranee Kistomonee was dismissed, with all the costs of both courts*. Subsequently, Ranee Kistomonee petitioned this Court for a review of the judgment passed adverse to her; and on the 19th December, two of the judges who originally heard the suit, for reasons given, into which it is unnecessary here to enter, granted the application for review of the whole casef. It would seem that the petition of review was explicitly for a review of the three appeal cases, Nos. 437, 438, and 439; but, by by the Court some error, Ranee Kistomonee only filed one petition of review, and on her filing subsequently, for form's sake, separate petitions in the other two cases, objections presented themselves to the mind of the deputy register regarding their reception, in consequence of which that officer addressed to us a roobukaree, dated 24th March 1858, requesting that instructions might be issued to him on the subject by the judges who admitted the review. covers the three cases. As the petition for review was for the review of the order passed by this Court in the cases Nos. 437, 438, and 439; as, moreover, the vakeels of all the opposing parties appeared and were heard in review, and the review was granted after such hearing; and as no objection of the nature now raised by counsel was made at the time by the vakeels of Ranee Kaseesoonderee and the collector of Moorshedabad, who argued against the admission of the review, we think that any informality on Ranee Kistomonee's part that has occurred, must be considered to have been the waived by the opposite party, and been overlooked and condoned by the Court. As, however, it is necessary for form's sake that three separate petitions should be filed, and as it seems that these petitions have been put in by the applicant for the review, Ranee Kistomonee, we think that, on whatever date put in, they should be accepted. We therefore direct the deputy register to accept the two other petitions of review submitted by Ranee Kistomonee, and in which the names of the respondents are entered, issue the requisite notices on the parties mentioned, and make the cases separately ready for hearing, it being clearly understood that the order passed by us on the 30th June 1857 covers the three cases. As to the objection raised by Mr. Doyne, on behalf of Kaseesoonderee Dabea, and by the collector of Moorshedabad, on behalf of the minor, Koilaschunder Roy, to the receipt of the documents filed by the petitioner for review, Ranee Kistomonee, inasmuch as she has neglected to pay in the stamp fees required for the new exhibits * See Decisions of 1857, page 1127. under the Court's Construction No. 1058, dated 18th November 1836, we think that it is now too late to attend to it, and, as the exhibits were ordered by the Court to be received at the hearing of the review, that order must stand, the applicant paying, if she has not already paid, the necessary fees. A copy of this order will be forwarded to the deputy register for his information and guidance. Application for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs. H. T. Raikes, J. H. Patton, and J. S. Torrens, in case No. 182 of 1857, dated 13th May 1858. DOORGAPERSAD ROY AND OTHERS, (RESPONDENTS,) PETITIONERS, versus SOORODHONEE DEBEA CHOWDRAIN, (APPELLANT,) Vakeels of Petitioners-The Advocate General and Baboo which kept the deceased Vakeel of the Opposite Party-Baboo Dwarknath Mitter. THIS is an application for a review of our judgment in this case, In review, so far as that judgment has reversed the decision of the principal judgment sudder ameen, adjudging to the plaintiffs, petitioners, possession of maintained, the property now in the hands of the widow. The learned counsel widow in has argued that sufficient indication on the part of the widow to possession of alienate the property of her husband from the reversionary heirs, husband's prois apparent from the attempt to set up a power of adoption; and that the Court's remarks as to the failure of that attempt being sufficient to deter her from future similar practices, are open to question, as the present failure is no guarantee she will not have recourse to other schemes, and the proof of this attempt should induce the Court to dispossess her at once. perty. She in had failed adopt an heir; but the assumption thence drawn, that she meant to alienate the the rever We do not, however, see any necessity for modifying our opinion property from on this point, and we have some doubts as to whether the plaintiffs sionary heirs, would be put into possession under any circumstances, as seeing that whoever they their rights as reversionary heirs on the decease of the widow might be, peticannot be certain, and it is only on the supposition that they will others, a mat K tioners or ter of doubt at be the actual heirs at that time that the case has any status before present, was not sufficient the Court, a matter which cannot be reckoned with certainty at the present time. reason for dispossessing her by order of Plaintiff, an auction-purchaser, sued defendant fora of land as PETITION No. 521 or 1858. wwwwwww IN the matter of the petition of Bhubosoondree Debea Chowdrain, filed in this Court on the 7th April 1858, praying for the admission of a special appeal from the decision of Mr. W. T. Trotter, judge of certain portion Mymensingh, under date 11th January 1858, affirming that of being situated Syed Ahmed Buksh, principal sudder ameen of that district, under date 13th December 1855, in the case of Bhubosoondree Debea, plaintiff, versus Nimyechunder Seromonee and others, defendants. Vakeel of Petitioner-Baboo Onokoolchunder Mookerjee. Vakeel of the Opposite Party-None. within her purchased estate. The defendant claimed the land as belonging to his estate, and produced his It is hereby certified that the said application is granted on the decree show following grounds. ing that in a suit between the former owner of the plaintiff's estate and himself, he had obtained a decree for the very lands now in dispute. The lower court, on the strength of those docu ments, dismiss ed plaintiff's claim. Held on appeal that plaintiff, an auction-purchaser, is en titled to have the point in issue between her and the defendant decided on the evidence brought for Plaintiff sued Nimiechunder Seromonee for 3 khadas 9 pakees of land as belonging to her estate, viz. 10 gundas share of the zemindaree in pergunnah Borabazoo. The lower court was of opinion that the plaintiff's claim, as regards the land claimed by the defendant, Nimiechunder Seromonee, was not valid, because, although the land may have been proved to be situated within chuck Koyrah, yet the latter obtained two decrees for the same, in which it was adjudged that the land appertained to Nimiechunder's kharija talook No. 510, and possession was accordingly awarded to him under defined boundaries; the principal sudder ameen therefore rejected the plaintiff's claim as regards those lands, and awarded defendant costs against her. On appeal, the judge observed as follows:-" From a perusal of the principal sudder ameen's fysala of the 7th September 1847 and chittas &c., I remark that Nimiechunder Seromonee had obtained a decree for the land claimed by him, and other lands, and that possession was awarded by an ameen deputed for the purpose by the court." The appeal of plaintiff on the point was therefore dismissed, with costs. Plaintiff now appeals specially, urging that she, an auction purchaser, cannot be bound by decrees to which she was not a party, and that the and that the lower courts, instead of deciding the matter in dispute ward by her, in the suit to between her and Nimiechunder Seromonee on the strength of such decree passed decree, should also have looked into the evidence, filed by her, to which she was show that the land sued for belonged to her estate. not a party, weight, is not re-investiga We think that the objection raised by plaintiff to the finding of though of the lower courts is a valid one, and that it was incumbent on the conclusive courts, as between plaintiff, an auction purchaser, and the defendant, this case. evidence in to have looked at all the evidence produced by plaintiff, as well as The case that brought forward by defendant, to prove her right to the land remitted for in dispute, and not merely to have relied on certain decrees passed tion with rein favor of the defendant in a suit to which the plaintiff was no party. As then the enquiry which has been instituted below is in this particular defective, we remit the case to the judge, with. directions that he will remand it to the principal sudder ameen for re-investigation, keeping in mind the foregoing remarks made by the Court. ference to the Court's re marks. Petition for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs. B. J. Colvin, A. THAKOOR RASBEHARY LAL, AND OTHERS, (APPEL- versus KHAJAH MUKHBOOL ALEE (RESPONDENT,) OPPOSITE Vakeel of Petitioners-Moulvee Aftaboodeen Mahomed. Vakeel of the Opposite Party-None. for review of THIS application is founded upon the circumstance that, besides Application the point upon which the special appeal was admitted, and in rejec- judgment, on tion of which the judge's order was ultimately affirmed, there were grounds which other reasons for reversing his judgment which were not consider- might havd ed. We cannot admit this plea, because it was the duty of the the first hearpleader of the petitioners, at the time of hearing, to bring the reasons ing, rejected. in question to the Court's notice. Application rejected. been urged at |