demand, the answer of the defendant Sheoburan Singh, supported by oral evidence only, and that not altogether satisfactory, that a jumok was effected, is not such an answer to the claim as can be taken to absolve that defendant from a prima facie liability. The oral evidence is not satisfactory; because, with the exception of the testimony of three persons, it consists of the depositions taken on the part of the defence in the former suit, to which Sheoburan Singh himself did not answer. Had such an arrangement as that pleaded by Sheoburan Singh really taken place, it is scarcely possible that the sureties should have failed to protect themselves by procuring a record of it in some shape or other. But there is no trace of any such record. The Court pass a decree for the principal sum claimed, against the property inherited by Sheoburan Singh from his father, in reversal of the judgment of the Principal Sudder Ameen. They however deem it proper, no rate of interest having been specified in the security bond, and in consideration of the delay which has taken place in bringing forward the claim (the former suit having been nonsuited on the 19th May 1842, and the present action not having been instituted till the 24th April 1848), to make an abatement in the plaintiff's charge of interest, under the authority of the Circular Order of the 5th May 1837. Interest on the principal sum is hereby decreed to the plaintiff from the date of the demand, viz. 15th September 1837, at the rate of five per cent. per annum. This order is not to be understood to extend so as to affect the decree which has been passed against the defendants Juggoo Singh and Bhugnoo Singh, on their confession of judgment. The 30th August, 1851. CASE NO. 192 or 1851. Special appeal from the decision of Moulvee Mohumed Hoossein, Principal Sudder Ameen of Bareilly, dated 14th May 1851. GOLAB RAI, (Plaintiff), Appellant, versus BULDEE AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Respondents. THE suit was brought for Rs. 296, principal and interest, due under a bond, dated the 15th Sawun 1252 Fuslee. Out of the six persons sued, two only appeared in the Moonsiff's Court, who failed to adduce any evidence in defence; and the Moonsiff, being of opinion that the claim was proved from the evidence to the bond, and the other papers filed in proof of the debt, which the bond covered, decreed the suit. In the appeal, which was preferred by all the persons sued, and which was admitted for all, without advertence to the rule in paragraph 4, Circular Order 16th April 1841, the Principal Sudder Ameen proceeded to reverse the decision on conjectural grounds, without noticing the reasons of the Moonsiff's judgment, and a special appeal was admitted, without summoning the respondent, to try, whether the decision was not imperfect. The Principal Sudder Ameen was bound to take into consideration the reasons of the judgment of the lower Court, and to put on record his reasons for discrediting the oral and documentary evidence on which that judgment was based. He may have done so; but there is nothing in his decision to show that it was done, or to satisfy the losing party that his case had had a fair hearing. The decision is annulled, and the case remanded, in order that it may be decided on its merits. The costs will be charged as usual. The 30th August, 1851. Present S. S. BROWN, Offg. Judge. CASE No. 193 OF 1851. Special appeal from the decision of T. C. Plowden, Esq., Judge of Ghazeepore, dated 19th April 1851. SHEOUMBUR RAI AND OTHERS, (Plaintiffs), Appellants, versus MUSSUMAT ROOKUMI KUOR AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Respondents. THE decision appealed from is in the printed volume of the month. A special appeal was admitted, without summoning the respondent, to try, whether the Judge, in his decision, had adjudicated the pleas of the parties. The suit is based on the alleged fact of possession of the hereditary share claimed by the plaintiffs up to the year 1841; and the cause of action is laid on the exclusion of the plaintiff's from the Settlement record by the act of the Collector. The fact of this possession was found by the Moonsiff; and the proof of it formed the first point to be determined in appeal, before the reason deduced by the Judge from the Circular Order of the 11th January 1839, in rejection of the suit, could be considered On this point the Judge only incidentally observes, that "it appears that the plaintiffs never had the Settlement, so that their exclusion is no new grievance." But the circumstance of the plaintiffs' names not having appeared in previous Settlements for the one-anna share claimed by them is not conclusive against possession. The plaintiff's allegation is, that when the rights of the share in the estate came under enquiry at the time of the preparation of the Settlement record, his right was disallowed, and that his dispossession dates from that period. There has not been therefore any disposal of the first and chief point of fact at issue between the parties, and the case is accordingly remanded for retrial in advertence to the foregoing remarks. The costs will be charged as usual. The 6th September, 1851. Case No. 232 or 1850. Regular appeal from the decision of Moul vee Mohumed Hoossein Khan, Principal Sudder Ameen of Zillah Mynpoorie, dated 11th September 1850. MUSSUMAT RANEE BHUGHELUN, MOTHER AND GUARDIAN OF RAJAH TEJ SINGH, A MINOR, AND SON AND HEIR OF RAJAH NURPUT SINGH, DECEASED, (Defendants), Appellants, versus BUKHTMULL AND BIRJ LALL, (Plaintiffs), Respondents. THIS was a suit to recover Rs. 19,755, principal and interest, of three expired instalments, according to a confession of judgment filed by Rajah Gunga Singh, deceased; and to establish the existence of two instalments still due thereon, amounting to Rs. 11,001: total amount of claim Rs. 30,756. Plaintiffs represent that the late Rajah Gunga Singh, of whom the minor (Rajah Tej Singh) is the representative, was indebted to them in the sum of Rs. 36,001, on a bond. Two of the instalments falling due, plaintiffs sued Rajah Gunga Singh for the amount, Rs. 4,500; eventually, an arrangement was made by the parties to the following effect: the Rajah filed a confession of judgment in the suit, under date 21st September 1841, agreeing to pay Rs. 40,001, on account of principal and interest, consolidated with the principal, and Rs. 10,000, on account of interest on the yearly instalment in advance, viz. from 1249 to 1258 Fuslee, on the condition that, if the instalments were not duly paid, interest at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum should be paid for the period by which the instalments were exceeded. A decre was accordingly passed in favor of plaintiffs for Rs. 4,500: of this sum, Rs. 2,100 have been realized, and for the recovery of the balance of Rs. 2,400, steps will be taken. Four instalments, amounting to Rs. 18,000, had been paid, agreeably to the ikbaldawa, when Rajah Gunga Singh died, since that event, no further payments have been made, the Rajal's immediate successor, Nurput Singh, pleading poverty in excuse for the non-fulfilment of the engagement. Plaintiff was therefore compelled to institute this suit, to enforce his claim against Rajah Nurput Singh, and the Ranee Guhulwar, who is also a claimant to the succession of the Rajah Gunga Singh. The defendant, Rajah Nurput Singh, in reply, ascribed the institution of the suit to the instigation of the Ranee Guhulwar, and her chela Mandhata, on account of the dispute between them and himself, relative to the succession. He declared that the confession of judgment was filed on the part of the Rajah Gunga Singh through the dishonesty of his karinda, and the other people about him, who, surreptitiously, got possession of his seal, and by whom the Rajah's accounts, which would throw light on the transactions between that person and the plaintiffs, are fraudulently withheld; but from some detached accounts, found on a shelf in the Rajah's baruhduree, it appears, that only Rs. 15,000 were due to the plaintiffs, up to 1248 Fuslee, which amount included interest at 24 per cent. per annum. Through the roguery of the Rajah's karinda, the bond, on which plaintiff's former suit was based, may have been executed. The plaintiffs had promised, when the Rajah filed the confession of judgment, to explain the Rajah's accounts to him, but had never done so. The plaintiffs' claim is untenable, being in violation of the law against usurious interest. He challenged the plaintiffs to produce their books, to shew that illegal interest had not been charged. The plaintiffs had allowed the Rajah credit for only Rs. 2,000 on account of the proceeds of mouzah Meroulee, being at the rate of 1000 per annum, whereas, it can be shown that the actual collections were not less than Rs. 1,300 per annum; and although the village had remained three years in plaintiff's' possession they had not credited the proceeds of the third year to the Rajah. The Principal Sudder Ameen's decision is to the following purport. That there were four points for consideration. 1. Was there any agreement between Rajah Gunga Singh and the plaintiffs when the former entered the confession of judgment, that the latter should explain his account to the Rajah? 2. Did the bond on which the plaintiffs sued the Rajah comprize any interest, or was it only for the principal of a debt? 3. Had the plaintiffs collected Rs. 1,300 a year from mouzah MeFoulee, as alleged by defendant, or only 1,000, as stated by themselves? 4. Did they make the collections from the village during three years, or only for two? On the first point, the Principal Sudder Ameen decided that no such agreement as that asserted by the defendant had been entered into by Rajah Gunga Singh and the plaintiffs, as it was apparent, even from the evidence of defendant's own witnesses, that a settlement of accounts had taken place between the parties prior to the execution of the bond, there was, therefore, no necessity for any fresh adjustment: had there been any such agreement, why did Rajah Gunga Singh make over the village of Meroulee to the plaintiffs? The evidence adduced by the defendant to this fact is also unworthy of credit, the witnesses being his servants and dependants, and their testimony at variance with the defendant's own statement in his reply: the witnesses say |