Petition for CASE NO. 124 OF 1858; Application for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs. C. B. Trevor, NYAMUT ALEE, ADOPTED SON OF BAKHIR ALEE versus MUSST. SOOMITTRA, (RESPONDENT,) OPPOSITE PARTY. THE petitioner pleads for the admission of a review of the order review of an striking off his admitted special appeal, viz. that he was not aware order striking that it was requisite for him to file a fresh vakalutnama in the court after the death of his father. off an admitted special appeal, rejected, no valid ground exist ing for the same. The plea of ignorance of the practice of the court is not a valid one, and that of illness, which is tacked on it, is of equal invalidity. We therefore reject this application. Application for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs. C. B. MOHUNT RUGHOONATH DASS AND OTHERS, versus OMED SINGH and Others, (Respondents,) OPPOSITE Vakeels of Petitioners-Baboo Meherchunder Chowdree and Vakeel of the Opposite Party-None. THIS is an application on the part of (plaintiffs) appellants, for a review of judgment in the above case, and is made on two grounds, First. That the applicants had now obtained documents not available when we heard the case on the 30th November last, but which documents would prove their case. Secondly. That the fact of the defendants being plaintiffs' ticcadars from 1190 to 1253 B. S., afforded a strong presumption of the plaintiffs' proprietary right, and of the correctness of the claim to the land in suit as part of plaintiffs' mehal, Hurpore Madho. We observe that the documents tendered are a decree in a summary case before the Sudder Ameen, No. 984, dated 28th May 1846, brought by one Rajoo versus Daonub Chowdree, as malik of Hurpore Poorunder, and kubooleuts of 1190, 1240, and 1246. The applicants plead that these papers were not available when defendants were in possession as ticcadars from 1190 to 1253. We observe however that this suit was instituted in 1259, and the lease expired in 1253, so that for six years plaintiffs were in possession. This plea then cannot apply. We see no reason therefore to admit these documents at this stage. On the second objection, Mr. Allan has argued that a lessee cannot dispute the title of his lessor. But in this case the lease expired in 1253, consequently the relation of lessor and lessee then ceased. It has been urged that, as in this case the collector's registers and the meerabund papers shew a strong primâ facie case in favor of plaintiffs, it is for defendants to rebut the presumption they afford Ꭰ against them. We are of opinion, as we were on the first hearing, that the view we then took of these documents, of their bearing on the present suit, does not warrant the setting aside of the general rule that the plaintiff should prove his case, which they have here failed to do. Considering the evidence on which we came to the decision, a review of which is now sought, we think that decision correct. We further think there was no sufficient ground for this application for review, and we reject it. CASE NO. 76 OF 1858. Petition for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs. C. B. Trevor, SIDEE DEB MOOKERJEE AND OTHERS, (RESPONDENTS,) versus PURISHNATH ROY, (APPELLANT,) OPPOSITE Party. Vakeel of the Opposite Party-Roy Sreenath Scin. The pleader however only re-states the main arguments recorded there on behalf of his clients, viz. that although the Government had reduced the sudder jumma of the mehal, the (defendant) appellant had merely contracted to pay, that is to be the bearer of, whatever might be the sudder jumma to the Collectorate, and that he (defendant) appellant was consequently not entitled to a propor tionate reduction of his total putnee rent, which we had decreed him on his appeal. We held on a construction of " the terms of the lease, that it provi"ded that if the Government revenue should be increased, the put"needar should pay the increase, but that under any circumstances "no alteration should be made in the amount of the lessor's profits, and that," as long as the putneedar continued to pay the amount of "the profits agreed upon, and to liquidate the Government revenue "whatever it might be," he had" " acted up to his engagement, and 66 was entitled to have the benefit of the decrease which has been "made in the Government revenue." We see no reason to think this decision otherwise than, according to the special terms of the contract, correct; and we accordingly reject this application, with Petition for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs. C. B. Trevor, G. Loch, and H. V. Bayley, in Cases Nos. 238 and 239 of 1857, dated 31st March 1858. BEEBEE PURAN KOONWUR, (APPELLANT,) PETITIONER, versus GUNGANARAIN CHOWDREE, FOR SELF AND AS GUARDIAN OF HURREECHURN CHOWDREE AND OTHERS, MINORS, (RESPONDENT,) OPPOSITE PARTY. Musst. Beebee Puran Koonwur, Application for review re Vakeel of Petitioner-Baboo Kishenkishore Ghose. Vakeel of the Opposite Party-Baboo Shumbhoonath Pundit. by Baboo Kishenkishore on the part Two applications have been made of Puran Koonwur Beebee, against sufficient the order passed by us in the special ground for appeal case noted in the margin, appearing. (Defendant,) Appellant, versus Gunganarain Chowdree and others, (Plaintiffs,) Respondents, Sudder Dewanny Decisions of 1858, p. 574. decided by us on the 31st March last. The grounds urged are: first, that the Court should not have taken up the question of the illegality of the cesses appearing in the tehseeldar's accounts, as they had been found to be illegal by both the lower courts, and the special appeal was granted only to try whether on such finding a decree for the amount could be passed legally; and secondly, that if the Court had any doubt of their legality or illegality, the case should have been remanded for further enquiry. On the first objection, we observe that the lower courts found the cesses illegal simply from their designation in the tehseeldar's accounts. The Court therefore of its own motion, as it was competent to do, took up a legal point, and enquired whether the illegality in jected, no granting it An objection mode of execu law was apparent from the ameen's papers accepting them with the lower courts as correct, and was of opinion that their illegality was not apparent in law, and, acting on this opinion, dismissed the special appeal. To the course adopted by us, we see no objection; and we think that it was the one tending to do justice between both parties. On the second point, we have only to observe that the legality or illegality of the cesses was not in issue properly in this case, but only their collection or not by the tehseeldar. It would consequently have been a wrong course of procedure for us to remand the case for investigation upon this point. We repeat, what we have said in our former judgment, that no injury can occur to any party by the order which we have passed. The ryots, if these cesses be actually illegal, may sue the zemin dar for a return of the sums which he has now recovered from the tehseeldar, and which have actually been collected by the latter person. We reject these applications, with costs. THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 1858. PRESENT: H. T. RAIKES, ESQ., Judges. CASE NO. 193 OF 1858. Application for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs H. T. Raikes B. J. Colvin, and J. S. Torrens, in case No. 438 of 1856, decided on the 13th May 1858. MR. R. WATSON, (APPELLANT,) PETITIONER, versus JOYKISHEN MOOKERJEA AND ANOTHER, (Respondents,) Vakeels of Petitioner-Baboo Ramapersad Roy and Vakeel of the Opposite Party-None. THIS matter of the execution being contrary to the decree should taken to the be made the subject of objection to the lower court, and of appeal tion of a decree to this Court if necessary. On the general objections urged to the as contrary to decree passed by us, we see no reason to reconsider the judgment should be made passed, and reject this petition. the decree in the court in which execution is taken out subject to appeal. |