the Judge upheld that part of the Principal Sudder Ameen's decision which was unfavorable to the plaintiffs, and reversed that part which was favorable to them. In other words, he dismissed the plaintiff's claim in toto. From this decision a special appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs and admitted on the following grounds.

"I admit a special appeal to determine, whether the Judge was warranted in partially reversing the decision of the Additional Principal Sudder Ameen without recording a fuller statement of the reasons upon which his decision is grounded."

The Court observe that the Additional Principal Sudder Ameen has recorded at considerable length his reasons for decreeing as he did. On the other hand, the decision of the Judge is so extremely concise, that it is utterly impossible for this Court to decide, on inspection of the two decrees, which of the two is the correct one.

In his decision on the defendants' appeal, the Judge refers to his decision on the plaintiffs' appeal, for his reasons for dismissing the plaintiffs' suit in toto. On referring to that decision, I find the whole of the Judge's reasons comprised in the following brief sentences. "The documents filed by the defendants substantiate the facts of the case as above narrated, and the whole of the circumstances seem to favor the right of the defendants. The plaintiffs put forward no evidence, documentary or oral, to satisfy me as to their title to any of the four gardens claimed by them, and in the absence of more convincing proof on their part, I concur in the decision arrived at by the Principal Sudder Ameen, so far as the appellants are concerned in the present instance, and dismiss the appeal with costs." This style of decree is equally unsatisfactory to the losing party and to this Court, which has to determine as to its justice. There is not the slightest attempt at argument; no reasons (strictly so to speak) given in refutation of the arguments of the Principal Sudder Ameen; and without these, it is impossible in the Court of ultimate appeal to record any opinion on the merits of the case. In a precedent of the Calcutta Sudder Court noted in the margin* the following wholesome rule is laid down by two of the Judges of that Court, viz., "that a decree of a lower Court is not to be set aside without a full statement and consideration of all the reasons upon which it is grounded." The present decision certainly does not fulfil the above requirement, and it is accordingly annulled, in order that the Judge may reconsider his decision, and record a fresh judgment, setting forth his reasons in detail for disapproving of that part of the Principal Sudder Ameen's decision, which is favorable to the plaintiffs, should he, on reconsideration, see no reasons for coming to a different conclusion.

* Dwarkanath Bose, petitioner,

20th April 1850.

The 13th May, 1851.
Present: A. W. BEGBIE, Judge.

CASE No. 25 OF 1851.

Special appeal from the decision of
Moulvee Mohumed Hussun Khan,
Principal Sudder Ameen of
Bareilly, dated 31st May 1850.

NUJEEB KHAN, (Defendant), Appellant,

versus

MUJJOO KHAN, (Plaintiff), Respondent.

THIS was a suit to obtain possession of one-sixth of the remindaree of Khidowra, &c., six villages, agreeably to a byeRamah executed by the defendants, Mohumed Syed Khan and Syed Mohumed Khan, in favor of the plaintiff, under date 22nd September 1849. The defendants, Mohumed Syed Khan and Syed Mohumed Khan, filed an ikbaldawa. The defendant, Nujeeb Khan, objected that the said byenamah was fraudulent and invalid, inasmuch as the dakhil kharij of the estates had been prohibited by the Court, and the byenamah had been fabricated, in order to prevent him (Nujeeb Khan) from realizing the amount of a money decree, which he had obtained against the sellers, Sijeed Khan, Syed Mohumed Khan and others.

The Moonsiff was of opinion that the transfer was fraudulent and collusive, and, consequently, invalid, for the reasons stated by the defendant, Nujeeb Khan, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In appeal, the Principal Sudder Ameen took quite a different view of the case, and passed a decree in the plaintiff's favor.

A special appeal was admitted to try, 1stly. "Whether the Principal Sudder Ameen is not in error in ruling that the transfer of the estate by the defendants, Mohumed Syed and Syed Mohumed, to the plaintiff, Mujjoo Khan, was not barred by the prohibition of dakhil kharij contained in the Moonsiff's roobakarree of the 13th September 1849, in the case of Nujeeb Khan, plaintiff, versus Mohumed Russool Khan and others, defendants. 2ndly. Whether (admitting the legality of the said transfer) the Principal Sudder Ameen's decision be not incomplete, inasmuch as he has recorded no opinion relative to the alleged collusive nature of the transfer, the fact of such collusion having been found by the Court of first instance."

In regard to the first point of the certificate, I am of opinion, that had the proceedings of the Moonsiff, under date 13th

September 1849, been in all respects complete, it would have rendered the subsequent transfer to the plaintiff invalid, for although the application of the plaintiff was confined to the prohibition of the dakhil kharij in favor of the son of Russool Khan, (one of the defendants in the other suit), the order of the Moonsiff was general and prohibited any dakhil kharij whatsoever. The plaintiff in that suit was then aware or apprehensive of a particular transfer, and made this only the ground of his application, and in this respect his proceeding was quite regular. But the respondent's vakeel now urges, that the simple fact of the Moonsiff having addressed a roobakaree to the Collector to prohibit the dakhil kharij, is not sufficient to invalidate a transfer made in opposition to the Court's mandate, and that it was incumbent on the Moonsiff to issue a proclamation of attachment, under the provisions of Clause 2nd, Section 5, Regulation II. of 1806, which was not done. I admit the force of this argument. The words of the law are," the attachment in such cases shall be made by a written order of the Court to be read and proclaimed upon the spot, and to be affixed in some conspicuous situation at the place where the property is situated; after which, any private alienation of the property sequestered, whether by sale, gift, or otherwise, during the continuance of the attachment, shall be deemed illegal and void." Now, it is clearly proved, that the Moonsiff did not issue the required proclamation of attachment, and the transfer made by the defendants, Mohumed Syed and Syed Mohumed, to the plaintiff Mujjoo Khan, was not therefore "illegal and void."

But, with regard to the 2nd point in the certificate, I am of opinion, that the decision of the Principal Sudder Ameen is, for the reason therein stated, incomplete and unsatisfactory. The Moonsiff having expressly ruled that the transfer was fictitious, fraudulent, and collusive, it behoved the Principal Sudder Ameen also to express an opinion on this point; which he has not done. He seems to think, that because the property had not been attached in the manner prescribed by law, any transfer, however collusive, was allowable, and must be upheld a conclusion obviously erroneous and incompatible with the requirements of justice. The Principal Sudder Amcen has overlooked Construction No. 1299, and other authoritative precedents, which recognize the principle, that no collusive or fraudulent transfers of property, made with the view of evading satisfaction of judicial decrees, shall be deemed to be valid.

I accordingly annul the decision of the Principal Sudder Ameen, and remand the suit, in order that he may pass a fresh decision, with advertence to the foregoing observations.

The 12th May, 1851.

Present: H. W. DEANE, Judge.

CASE No. 67 of 1849.

Regular appeal from the decision of
Nuwab Abdoollah Khan, Principal
Sudder Ameen of Meerut, dated 8th
January 1849.

SAADUT ALI AND OTHERS, (Plaintiffs), Appellants,

versus

HUR GOPAL AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Respondents.

THE particulars of this claim are given in the printed decisions of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut for July 1848, at page 272.

The plaintiff's having been three times nonsuited in the lower Court, at length obtained a decree in their favor. The Sudder Court, on appeal, preferred by the defendants, remanded the case, on the 31st July 1848, for fuller investigation. The order then made is in the following terms. "With reference to the fact, that the defendants are in possession, and to their positive assertions that they hold possession under the title they derived by purchase from Sabut Ali, who had held the property separately and as his own for years previous to the transfer of the said property to them, so that the suit, as the defendants affirm, is barred by the statute of limitation, it was clearly the duty of the lower Court to have taken notice of this very important point, and to have determined what evidence the plaintiffs had adduced to show that, within the limit allowed by law, they, the plaintiffs, had held joint possession of the several plots of ground and buildings from which they now desire to oust the defendants. In fact, after considering all the pleas urged by both parties, it was the duty of the Principal Sudder Ameen to have decided how far, and in what manner, the plaintiffs had proved their claim, with reference to the counter-pleas and counter-evidence adduced by the defendants. All this has been entirely omitted by the Principal Sudder Ameen. The case is consequently so incomplete, that the Court are under the necessity of remanding it for re-trial to the file of the Principal Sudder Ameen, who will proceed to the adjudication of the suit, with due advertence to the above remarks."

The Principal Sudder Ameen has now dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs; and they appeal accordingly.

The suit is brought for partition of the entire serai; it has, however, for its object, especially, the annulment of a sale to the defendants, Hur Gopal and others, by Sabut Ali, of a portion of the serai (1200 yards) the plaintiffs pleading joint possession with the defendants, while it is urged, on the other side, without denying the ancestral title of the plaintiffs, as owners of half the serai, that separate possession of his share, in which the above 1200 yards are included, has been had by Sabut Ali, so as to render the transfers of his share, which have from time to time taken place, sometimes by forced sales, sometimes voluntarily, independent of any consent on the part of the plaintiffs.

The Principal Sudder Ameen, in deciding against the claim of the plaintiffs, has remarked that the fact of possession by each party, of specific portions of the serai, has been clearly established, no objection having been offered when, on some occasions, a part of the ground was sold as belonging to the plaintiffs, and when, on other occasions, a part of it was sold as belonging to the defendant Sabut Ali. A division, partial at least, was admitted by the plaintiffs, in a petition presented to the tehseeldar on the 10th August 1835, by Saadut Ali and Murdan Ali, and, in the opinion of the Principal Sudder Ameen, the plaintiffs have failed to prove joint possession within the legal limit of those plots. of ground which have passed from time to time to the defendants, Hur Gopal and others. Their pleas are unsupported either by documentary or oral evidence. Kesho Ram, who built a house on a portion of the ground, has been styled by the plaintiffs their own ryots, and has not been designated the ryot of both parties, which expression would have been used had the parties held jointly, and a hissanamah, executed by Kesho Ram for 2000 yards of ground, half of which was the property of the plaintiffs and half of the defendants, assigned to each party payment of a specific amount. In fine, it being clearly indicated that for many years the plaintiffs had recognized the separate possession of Sabut Ali, and the frequent alienations of parts of the property as his exclusive share, the Principal Sudder Ameen rejected the claim.

In this judgment I concur. The chief documentary evidence proffered by the plaintiffs is as follows:

Record of the suit brought by Kulloo and others to recover possession of half of Sabut Ali's share, dismissed on the ground of the dispossession of the plaintiffs.

A keraienamah by Kesho Ram, dated March 1839, under which he binds himself to pay a certain amount of rent to Saadut Ali and Murdan Ali, on the one side, and to Hyder Ali (father of Sabut Ali) on the other.