that the statement of the defendant Anund Lall's witnesses, that plaintiffs were the sons, not of Mussumat Ato, but of Mussumat Jhoonnoo, (a sister of Mussumat Choonnoo), is entitled to no credit, as no mention of the fact is made in that defendant's jawabdawee; that, in short, he is satisfied that plaintiffs are the grandsons of Bintee Ram, and are, as such, agreeably to the decree of the Sudder Court, and the Hindoo law of inheritance, as declared by the pundit of the Sudder Court, entitled to succeed, in preference to the defendant, Anund Lall, who is only the collateral relative, viz., (a nephew) of Bintee Ram. Regarding the claim to wasilât, the Principal Sudder Ameen decreed for no more than Rs. 2,335-1, being Rs. 1,126-10-8 less than the amount claimed, under this head, by the plaintiffs. The Principal Sudder Ameen also dismissed that part of the plaintiffs' claim which related to the execution of the decree obtained by Mussumat Choonnoo, which he considered to constitute a separate cause of action, quite unconnected with the inheritance from Bintee Ram. The decree was to have effect against the defendant Anund Lall only, the other defendants being absolved, as they had been made defendants pro formá, and had no interest in the matter. From this decision both parties appealed. The present decision has reference to the appeal of the defendant Anund Lall. The defendants Suda Ram and others did not appeal. The only fault I have to find with the decree as it affects the defendant, Anund Lall, is the omission of the Principal Sudder Ameen to charge to the plaintiffs, with the costs, on the proportion of their claim which has been dismissed, a deduction which, however small, the defendant has a title to demand. I entirely concur with the Principal Sudder Ameen in the view taken of the merits of the case. There can be no doubt, on a perusal of the evidence, that the plaintiffs are the grandsons of Bintee Ram, and that, as such, they are entitled to succeed to his property. It is true that the plaintiffs did formerly claim to succeed as the donees of Mussumat Choonnoo. They, probably, were not then aware of their own hereditary rights; but this mistake cannot operate as a bar to their succession, now that they have preferred their claim by right of descent. The plaintiffs' vakeel having intimated his willingness to acquiesce in the slight modification of the Principal Sudder Ameen's decree proposed by the Court, it is unnecessary to refer the case to a full bench, and the Prin cipal Sudder Ameen's decision is modified accordingly. The 29th May, 1851. Present: A. W. BEGBIE, Judge. CASE No. 210 or 1850. Khan, Regular appeal from the decision of MADHO LALL AND KISHEN LALL, (Plaintiffs), Appellants, versus ANUND LALL, (Defendant), Respondent. THIS is a cross appeal connected with the case No. 157, in which Anund Lall, defendant, is appellant, versus Madho Lall and Kishen Lall, respondents. The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with that part of the Principal Sudder Ameen's decision which dismissed their claim to take out execution of the decree obtained by Mussumat Choonnoo, and a portion of their claim to wasilât. With reference to the opinion recorded by me in the appeal of Anund Lall, defendant, seeing no reason further to modify the decision of the Principal Sudder Ameen, I dismiss this appeal, with costs. The 31st May, 1851. Present: A. W. BEGBIE, Judge. CASE No. 102 of 1851. { Special appeal from the decision of J. P. Gubbins, Esq., Judge of Dehlie, dated 19th February 1851. AJOODHEEA PERSHAD, (Defendant), Appellant, versus JEEWUN BUKSH, (Plaintiff), Respondent. THIS case will be found reported at page 88 of the printed decisions for zillah Dehlie for the month of February last. A special appeal was admitted to try, "whether the Judge's decision be not open to the objection of incompleteness, inasmuch as he has omitted to record any opinion on a material point urged by the plaintiff as the cause of action, but which had been declared not proved by the Court of first instance." The Court observe that the plaintiff in his plaint has stated that, in 1846, Ramjee Dass, the brother of defendant, (the former proprietor of the house now occupied by defendant) had opened the door in question, whereupon Sheik Mendoo, (brother of plaintiff), complained in the Foujdaree Court, and agreeably to the decision of a punchayet, Ramjee Dass closed the door, and, on the 29th March 1846, executed an ikrarnamah to the purport that it should not be reopened; that the said house having since passed into the possession of the defendant the latter, on the 29th May 1850, reopened the door, on which plaintiff, who now occupies his brother's shop, again complained in the Magistrate's Court, and was referred to the Civil Court. Plaintiff sued accordingly, as the door could only be approached by passing over his ground: the Moonsiff decided that the plaintiff's statement, relative to the former closing of the door in conformity with the award of the punchayet, and the execution of the agreement by Ramjee Dass not to reopen it, were not proved and he, also, stated his opinion, that no injury accrued to the plaintiff from the opening of the door. He accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Judge in his decision has taken no notice whatever of the plaintiff's statement regarding the alleged punchayet and ikrarnamah of Ramjee Dass, but confines himself to the fact of the hurj or nuisance complained of by the plaintiff, which, in opposition to the opinion of the Moonsiff, he considers to be established, and has, also, found an additional nuisance, not complained of by the plaintiff, viz. that defendant has "picketed a bullock in the place to which it (the door) leads." It is hardly necessary to repeat here, (what has been often pointed out by this Court), that the Civil Courts should strictly confine themselves to the adjudication of the point or points at issue between the parties, as set forth by themselves. This rule has clearly been violated by the Judge in the present instance. He has not given an opinion on the case as stated by the parties themselves, and his decision is necessarily vitiated thereby, and must be amended. I accordingly reverse his order, and remand the case to be retried with advertence to the foregoing observations. The 31st May 1851. Present: A. W. BEGBIE, Judge. CASE No. 16 OF 1849. { Regular appeal from the decision of MR. S. R. GREENWAY AND OTHERS, (Plaintiffs), Appellants, versus RUNMUST KHAN AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Respondents. THIS is a suit to recover Rs. 5,442-12-4, principal and interest, due on certain vouchers and accounts. The Principal Sudder Ameen gave a decree in favor of the plaintiffs to the amount of Rs. 2,399-13-61, and dismissed the residue of the claim; a decision with which both parties, being dissatisfied, a double appeal was preferred to this Court under dates 26th January and 12th February 1849: owing to the death of the appellant's vakeel, and the absence on leave of the respondent's vakeel, delay unavoidably occurred in bringing the case to a hearing. The record was called for on the 21st November 1850, and another vakeel having been appointed by the appellant, the case was called on, when the pleaders on both sides requested that it might be allowed to lie over, as an amicable adjustment was in progress. On the 17th instant, accordingly, soolehnamahs were filed by both parties, of which the following is the purport. The defendants agree to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 4,361-11-4, principal, and interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum, from the date of the soolehnamahs, within the period of four years, the estates of Ramsaree, &c., which are already pledged to the plaintiffs to continue so, until the stipulated payment be completed: in the event of any default on the part of the defendants, the plaintiffs to be at liberty to bring to public sale the estates abovementioned, without let or hindrance from the defendants. In the event of the present incumbents of the estates, (Mussumat Peerun and Fuzul Hoossein), allowing the Government revenue, in any year, to fall in balance, and the estates, in consequence, being advertized for sale, plaintiffs to have the privilege of paying up the said balance, and to cause the public sale of the estates, in anticipation of the expiration of the period fixed for the payment to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further agree to forego all claim to interest, antecedent to the date of the soolehnamahs; and both parties are to pay their own costs, in both Courts. The defendants are to pay the interest stipulated year by year, and in default thereof, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to sue out execution for the whole amount due to them, with interest, and to bring to auction sale the aforesaid mouzahs in satisfaction of their claim. In conformity with the foregoing soolehnamahs, the decree of the Principal Sudder Ameen is modified, and a decree passed in favor of the (plaintiffs) appellants for the amount, and with the conditions recited in the soolehnamahs. The defendants withdraw their appeal, and will be entitled to the refund of the value of the stamp duty on their petition of appeal. CASE NO. 201 or 1849. Judges, S. S. BROWN, Öffg. Judge. Regular appeal from the decision of KOONWUR AJEET SINGH AND RAJAH CHEYT SINGH, (Defendants), Appellants, versus MIRZA AHMED BEG, (Plaintiff), Respondent. THIS was a suit to recover Rs. 23,351-15-10, principal and interest, being a balance due on a deed of kutkinnah. The plaintiff's statement is to the following effect. That the defendant, Rajah Cheyt Singh, gave in theeka, to Mirza Qasim Ali Beg, the deceased son of plaintiff, for the term of eight years, viz., from 1248 to 1255 Fuslee, at an annual jumma of Rs. 2,500, the three villages of Kurree, Gureebpore, and Kirpalpore, on the condition that the Rajah should pay the Government jumma, and that the theekadar should pay the annual rent, stipulated in the deed of theeka, to Mirza Mohumed Syed, (a creditor and mortgagee of the Rajah's), to the amount of Rs. 20,000, and that Mohumed Syed's receipts should be made over to the Rajah. The deed of theeka was executed on the 19th July 1840, and, on the same date, the theekadar, Qasim Ali, executed a deed of kutkinnah of these same villages, in favor of Koonwur Ajeet Singh, defendant, (the Rajah's brother), for the same amount and period as are specified in the theeka itself, and the Rajah executed a security bond on behalf of his brother, the kutkinnahdar, bind |