ground that it had not been delivered within the time fixed, and consequently was of no force, and, proceeding to a decision on the merits, dismissed the suit. The appeal from the decision has been met by the respondent, who urges that the award was complete and valid, and could not legally be set aside. The appellant pleads for a decision on the merits, and contends that the award has been vitiated by not having been delivered into Court in time. This is the first point for decision in the case, for if the award be regular, it is valid in law, and must be upheld. Parties after referring their cause to arbitration, cannot be permitted to withdraw from it, when the issue is unfavorable to them, and the Courts are equally bound by the result. The Court are of opinion that the sense in which the Judge has understood the term "delivery" is not supported by the terms of the law of arbitration in the Regulation XXI. of 1803, and that the appellants' argument is not a tenable one. The law does not impose any restriction as to the place where the arbitration is to be held, and the provisions against any neglect or interested delay on the part of the arbitrator in the fixation of the time have obviously reference to the completion of the award by him, and not to its delivery into Court, which may be dependent on circumstances beyond the arbitrator's control. The common error on this point has perhaps arisen from the faulty rendering of the term "delivery" in the authorized translation of the Regulation, its real legal meaning being shown from the Section 7, where "delivery" and "6 completion" are used in the same sense. The Court accordingly hold that there has been no vitiation of the award, and that its non-receipt by the Judge on the prescribed date does not affect its validity. The arbitrator has awarded Rs. 117-3, out of the claim as principal with costs in proportion, which is decreed with interest from the date of decree to realization, in reversal of the decision of the lower Court. CASE No. 52 of 1851. Regular appeal from the decision of A. Lang, Esq., Judge of Allahabad, dated 26th December 1850. SHEO SUHAI, (Plaintiff), Appellant, versus MR. BERRILL AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Respondents. THIS was a counter suit brought by the defendant in the preceding case No. 51 against the plaintiffs in that suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,533-9-7, losses sustained by a breach of contract on the part of the defendants. The parties submitted their case to arbitration, and an award was given for Rs. 737, with costs in proportion, which was set aside by the Judge for the reasons already stated in the preceding case, and in a decision on the merits the suit was dismissed. The pleadings in appeal on both sides are the same, and the decision for the enforcement of the award, and for the reversal of the decision of the lower Court must be the same also. A decree is given accordingly on the basis of the award, which will bear interest from the present date. The 6th August, 1851. CASE No. 73 or 1851. Regular appeal from the decision of Mohumed Hoossein Khan, Principal Sudder Ameen of Bareilly, dated 10th December 1850. MUSSUMAT MASOOMA BEGUM AND OTHERS, (Plaintiffs), Appellants, versus DUTT RAM, (Defendant), Respondent. THIS suit has been brought to recover possession of certain land and baghs, and of certain shops, forming one-half of a gunje, also to collect, as proprietors, the established taxes of a hát, or fair. The above right and interest are stated to have been mortgaged to the defendant under two separate deeds, one for Rs. 1,200, dated 25th May 1827, the other for Rs. 800, dated June 1827; and the plaintiffs bring their action to oust the mortgagee on the ground that not only has the mortgage been redeemed, but a large surplus, amounting to Rs. 5,058, is due to the mortgagers. It is admitted by the defendant that the mortgage transaction took place as above; and it is not denied that the defendant has had the usufruct of the mortgaged property; but it is contended that so far from the mortgage having been redeemed, the proceeds of the property have not even covered the interest of the money advanced, and that the mortgagee is entitled to demand from the plaintiffs Rs. 6,494-10. The Principal Sudder Ameen held that the statement of neither party, in respect to the accounts, is correct. He observed that, on the showing of the plaintiffs, the whole sum realized by the mortgagee during his possession is Rs. 9,058: that being so, the mortgage was, in the Principal Sudder Ameen's opinion, still unredeemed, because, from the sum for which the plaintiffs claimed credit in account not less than Rs. 6,300 must be deducted, (relating chiefly to the collections of the fair), as being items the exaction of which by the mortgage is not sanctioned by law, and which, consequently, cannot be taken into account in effecting an adjustment. The Principal Sudder Ameen dismissed the suit. The decision of the lower Court is defective in an important particular. The Principal Sudder Ameen was not at liberty, in a case such as the present, to dispense with the course enjoined by Section 10, Regulation XXXIV. of 1803. He should have required the mortgagee to deliver in his accounts as prescribed by that Section, and to swear to the truth of them, at the same time allowing the mortgager to offer any objections he might desire to make. This has not been done; and the suit must be sent back for retrial, in accordance with the precedent of this Court (Nowul Singh, plaintiff, appellant, versus Dhurum Singh and another, defendants, respondents), dated 2nd May 1846. The suit is remanded accordingly, and the lower Court will understand that the whole case is open to reconsideration. The 13th August, 1851. Present: CASE No. 127 OF 1851. A. W. BEGBIE, Judges. S. S. BROWN, Offg. Judge. Special appeal from the decision of J. S. Clarke. Esq., Judge of Azimgurh, dated 7th September, 1850. MUNOHUR RAE AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Appellants, versus SHAH MUKBOOL ALUM AND OTHERS, (Plaintiffs), Respondents. THE particulars of this case will be found in the printed volume of decisions in the usual place. A special appeal was allowed to try, whether the Judge has not erroneously held that the decree of Court in 1833, which was favorable to the plaintiffs, is sufficient to sustain the whole of the present claim, and whether, the Settlement of the disputed land having been made with the defendants in 1836, their possession must not be assumed since that period. The Court hold that the aim and intent of the action brought by the plaintiffs in 1833, and the force of the decree then passed, have not been rightly apprehended by the Judge. The suit then brought was for rent of ten beegahs of land; and the Court, which tried the suit, finding the plaintiffs to be in possession, gave them a decree for rent, taking as a guide to its decision the boundary line drawn by the Ameen, who had been deputed for the purpose of local investigation. But that decree did not adjudge to the plaintiffs proprietary possession of even ten beegahs; and it is, therefore, worthless when cited in support of the present claim to proprietary possession of 74 beegahs 10 biswahs. With regard to the second point urged in the certificate of special appeal, the Court are of opinion that the suit falls under statutory bar: under the measurement effected by the revenue authorities in 1836, and which, in the province to which this district belongs, is in the nature of a Settlement, the land in dispute was assigned to the defendants. The ruqbabundee paper, the execution of which the measurement necessarily precedes, is dated March 1836, and the present suit, brought on the 11th September 1848, is not brought within the period during which it may be legally heard. It is nothing for the plaintiffs to urge that they have been in possession within twelve years from the date of suit; for they cannot have been in such proprietary possession as the law recognizes, in opposition to the order of the revenue authorities, which made over the land to another party. On this point the precedent of this Court (Rawut Ghunsam Singh, plaintiff, appellant, versus Durriao Singh and another, defendants, respondents) dated 8th January 1849, is decisive. The Court remarked in their judgment in that case: "it follows then that, under this provision of the law (Section 18, Regulation VII. of 1822) it was for the defendants to have sued to set aside the Collector's order, and so to establish their right to the land, if they claimed it, and not for the plaintiff, who had already obtained the land by order of the Settlement Officer." In the present case, it was for the plaintiffs, if they were dissatisfied with the Collector's order, to sue to set it aside, within the period of twelve years from the date on which it was passed; and this they have not done. The Court, for the above reasons, reverse the decisions of both the lower Courts, and dismiss the claim of the plaintiffs. The 13th August, 1851. Present: CASE No. 129 of 1851. A W. BEGBIE, Judges. H. W. DEANE, S. S. BROWN, Offg. Judge. Special appeal from the decision of C. Allen, Esq., Judge of Furruckabad, dated 21st September 1850. TILUK SINGH AND OTHERS, (Plaintiffs), Appellants, versus DOORJUN AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Respondents. THE printed volume of decisions of the Zillah Courts for September 1850 gives the particulars of this case. A special appeal was allowed to try, "whether the Judge is not in error in declaring that it lies with the plaintiffs to prove that the damages awarded by the revenue authorities are excessive, and whether, rather, it does not lie with the defendants to prove that the damages for which the revenue authorities |