Nílátátchi v. Venkatachala Mudali-Civil Procedure Code, Sec. Pitchakutti Cheṭṭi v. Kamala Náyakkan-Lease in futuro-"Main- Pitchakutti Chetți v. Ponnamma Náṭchiyár-Regulation XXV of Rangasvámi Ayyangár v. Vañjulatámmál-Hindú law-Evidence Regina v. 'Aidrús Sáhib-Penal Code, sections 191, 193-False evi- Regina v. Dálápati Rau-Auterfois convict-Fraudulently se- ... Regina v. Subbayya Gaundan-Practice-Copy of Judge's notes PAGE. 131 13 153 148 146 168 72 28 38 83 30 138 31 1862, section 41........ Sabápati Mudali v. Muttusvámi Mudali-Suit in Small Causes Court against several obligors--Act XLII of 180, section 21... 103 Sabápati Mudaliyár v. Náráyansvámi Mudaliyár-Costs of action in High Court where amount recovered is less than 500 rupees-Letters Patent, clause 37-Act IX of 1850, section 101-Implied repeal of one enactment by another. Sarápu Venkadésan v. Málai I'svaraiyya-Civil Procedure Code, section 181-Fresh Account refused. Shaikh Rautan v. Kadangot Shupan-Malabar law-Káṇammortgagee's right to hold for twelve years... Simpson deceased, In the Goods of-Recall of Letters of Administration to Administrator General-Commission-Act VIII of 1855, sec. 22....... Sivappáchári v. Mahálinga Chetti-Right to conduct Marriageprocession on high road-Action for forcibly stopping such procession..... 115 1 112 171 50 Srínívása Ayyangár v. Kuppanayyangár, Ráyan Krishnamácháriyár v. Kuppanayyangár-Hindú law-Inheritance-Severance of adopted son from his natural fumily........ Subbarayulu Náyak v. Ráma Reddi-Effect of alienation of pro- prietary rights otherwise than as provided by Regulation Svámiyár Pillai v. Chokkalingam Pillai, Chokkalingam Pillai v. Svámiyár Pillai-Hindú law-Suit on behalf of minor to secure his share in undivided family property. Tanuviyán v. Valuganáda-Suit for proceeds of land-Paṭṭás and Táyumána Reddi v. Perumál Reḍḍi-Hindú law-Reḍdi Caste— Tirumani Chetți v. A'vudai Vélan-Civil Procedure Code, sec. 98— Satisfaction of suit-Return of stamp-duty-Act X of 1862, Varadarajulu Náyuḍu, Ex parte P.-Magistrate's discretionary 51 20 add" According to Hamilton v. Mills, 29 Beav. 198, Evans v. Salt cannot now be treated as law." 25, line 26 for "Ranga" read "Ranga": line 32 for "paṭṭa" read 46, line 4, for " adoptor" read" adopter.” 49, In the quotation from the Sarasvati Vilása line 5 for "sutah" At the end of the note, line 2 from bottom read " Vyavahára 77, line 7 for "Darmalinga" read Darmalinga." 81, for " Mailaraya" read " Mayilarayar." 83, head-note, first line: dele the comma after "convicted." 88, line 28 for " Contracts" read" Obligations.” 108, in margin, for " 15" read "11". 113, note, line 20 for "Mannadi" read "Mannáḍi": line 22 for 114, in margin for "16, 17" read" 15.” 115, in margin, line 2, for "16, 17" read" 15." 127, for "ANONYMOUS" read "TIRUMANI CHETTI against A'VUDAI 142, line 4 from bottom read " Mayne, (Srinivásácháriyár with 131, for " VENKATA'CHALA" read " VENKATACHALA." 170, line 3 for "respecting" read "refreshing." Where a Commissioner appointed under section 181 of Act VIII of 1859 to investigate the state of accounts between a debtor and a creditor, made his report, on which the judgment appealed against was founded, the High Court, on a regular appeal, refused to take a fresh account. THIS 1862. HIS was a regular appeal from the decision of L. C. Innes, the Civil Judge of Nandayal, in Appeal Suit August 30. No. 7 of 1860. Miller for the appellant, the defendant. Mayne and Rámánuja Ayyangár for the respondent, the plaintiff. The Court delivered the following judgment. This was a claim on a bond for rupees 4,062-8-0, with interest from the 1st September 1853, the date of its execution. The defendant admitted the bond; but pleaded a set-off; and that the amount had been liquidated by subsequent payments at different dates. Under the provisions of section 181 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Commissioner was appointed to investigate the (a) Present Phillips and Frere, J J. R. A. No. 54 of 1861. 1862. August 30. of 1861. state of accounts between the parties; and on his report the R. A. No. 54 Civil Judge passed judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of rupees 2,652-6-4, being the net amount found to be due by the defendant, with interest on the principal of the bond to the date of the decree. The defendant has now appealed against this decision. We are of opinion that the defendant has failed to show that his objections to the original decree rest on any tenable grounds. His vakil has endeavoured to argue that if the Court should now take a fresh account, it will be found that the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant. But we do not think it was the intention of the legislature that such a course should be followed in appeal, or that the materials on which the report of a commissioner is based should be again examined and scrutinized by the appellate court in detail, in a case in which the report of the Commissioner, prepared under the rules contained in section 181 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been approved of by the Court of first instance. To enter de novo on such an enquiry would entirely defeat the intention of the legislature in framing that enactment, the object of which was to shorten and simplify the procedure of the Courts in suits relating to matters of account. We therefore affirm the original decree, and adjudge the defendant to be further liable for the payment of interest on the net sum of rupees 2,652-6-4 from the date of the decree of the Civil Judge. The defendant will be charged with the costs incurred in the appeal suit. Decree affirmed. Appellate Jurisdiction (@) Special Appeal No. 504 of 1861. TANUVIYA'N and others......... VALAGANA'DA and others...................... .Appellants. ...Respondents. Where no pattás and muchalkás have been exchanged between the parties, occupants of land cannot be sued for its proceeds, even though they have admitted the plaintiffs to be the proprietors. THIS 32 IS was a special appeal from the decree of J. H. Goldie, the Civil Judge of Tinnevelly, in Appeal Suit No. 124 of 1860. The original suit was instituted by the plaintiffs to establish their right to 3,561 chains of punjey land and 29,480 palmyra-trees situated in the village of Kálváy, and to recover rupees 1,667-7-0, the value of the produce of the palmyra-trees from faşlí 1266 to faşli 1268 (A. D. 1856 to 1858). The Civil Judge, finding that there was not sufficient evidence of the plaintiffs' title, dismissed their suit. Sadagópáchárlu for the appellants, the plaintiffs. Mayne for the respondents, the defendants, referred to Regulation XXX of 1802, sec. 6 and Regulation V. of 1822, sec. 9. The following judgment was delivered. We consider that the plaintiffs have established no legal claim against the defendants, and that it was proper that the suit should have been dismissed; but that the grounds upon which the Civil Judge has decided against the plaintiffs, are not those upon which he should have acted. The Civil Judge has found that the defendants have acknowledged the plaintiffs as the proprietors of the land they occupy. The suit has been brought to recover from the defendants the proceeds of the land. These are designated damages, but in fact are rent. But as no paṭṭás and muchalkás have been exchanged between the parties, such a claim, pursuant to section 6 of Regulation XXX of 1802 and section 9 of Regulation V of 1822, is not recoverable at law. (a) Present Strange and Phillips, J J. 1862. September 1. 3. 4. No. 504 of 1861. |