Indian Cases Vol LXXXXII

DAMAGE BOOK

Text problem book

m<OU 166628 >m

-eg

INDIAN CASES

CONTAINING

FULL REPORTS OF DECISIONS

OF

The PRIVY COUNCIL, the High Courts of ALLAHABAD,

BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, LAHORE, MADRAS,

PATNA arid RANGOON, the Courts of the Judicial

Commissioners of CENTRAL PROVINCES,

OUDH and SIND

REPORTED IN

The following 29 Legal Periodicals:

Allahabad (1) Indian Law Reports, (2) Law Journal, (3) Law Reporter Allahabad; Bombay (1) Indian Law Reports, (2) Law Reporter; Calcutta (1) Indian Law Reports, (2) Law Journal, (3) Weekly Notes; Lahore (1) Indian Law Reports, (2) Law Journal, (3) Punjab Law Reporter; Madras (1) Indian Law Reports, (2) Law Journal, (3) Law Weekly, (4) Weekly Notes; Nagpur (1) Law Reports, (2) Law Journal; Oudh (1) Cases, (2) Law Journal, (3) Weekly Notes; Patna (1) Indian Law Reports, (2) Cases, (3) Law Reporter, (4) Law Times; Rangoon (1) Indian Law Reports, (2) Burma Law Journal; Sind Law Reporter; — Criminal Law Journal and All India Reporter, WITH

A large number of extra Rulings not reported elsewhere.

VOLUME 92, 1926.

Founded by Hhalmb-ufl-nin. Chaudhri, U.A., LL B., M. L. 0 ,

Now President, Legislative Council, Punjab.

urtirrYioo ( Z. K. CHAUDHRI, B.A., LL.B., Bar-at-Law.

hDl'lORS ...{{j; H. CHAUDHRI, B.A., LL.B., Pleader.

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE MANAGER, AT THE "LAW PUBLISHING PUESS," LAHOKE.

CONSOLIDATED

Comparative Tables showing seriatim the Volumes and Pages of all Indian Law Journals and Reports for the period specified at the top of each table, with the corresponding Volumes and Pages of Indian Cases.

48 I. L. R., ALLAHABAD SERIES, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

tfccu

_. ._- .

ttj <v>

9 tuo .

fl bO .

Names of Parties.

£ C3 o>

l£o &§-«

Names of Parties.

w

Pnfl_J *Q Ctf "

<u

£*£

&'

£*,3

fn O

V-< O

&

$>*$

$>"

1

Shiva Nath Prasad v. Tulsui Ram . . .

89 4 SO

67

Bishnath Singh v. Basdeo Singh ...

88 484

4

Faqir Cliand v. Sant Lai

89 21)1

70

Nageshar Rai v. Nund Lai

88 908

6

Kashi Prasad v. Mathura Prasad . .

89 286

73

A. L. Browne v. 11. A. Pearce

89 882

9

Jagannath Prasad v. Jugal Kishore

89 492

77

Tajammul Husain v. Banwari Lai ..

88 752

12

Jogamaya Dasi v. Tulsa . .

89 444

81

Darshan Das v. Bikramajit Rai —

89 953

17

Muhamdi Bcgam v. Tufail Hasan

92 260

88

Fateh Singh v. (Jopal Narain Singh

89 1013

19

Zorawar Singh v. Bhagwan Singh ..

89 427

94

Agha Husain v. Qasim Ali

89 1018

23

Emperor v. Kamlapati Panth

91 51

97

Makundi Singh r. Parbhu Dayal . .

9O 2

27

Zahur Ahmad v. Taslim-un-iiissa ..

89 40 4

104

Kehri Singh v. Thirpal

92 282

31

Bhakta Shiromani v. Sital Nath .

88 1018

121

Sultan Begam v Sarvi Begam

9O 274

34

Shiam Lai v. Radha Ballabh

88 822

126

Kishan Dei v. Sheo Paltan

9O 258

44

Brij Raj v. Rani Sarup

9O 749

140

Emperor v. Ram Harakh Pathak . .

90 913

58

Muhammad Shafiq-Ullah Khan v

145

Ram Kunwar v. Govind Ram

92 414

Nuh-l llah Khan

88 054

150

Mulraj v. Indar Singh

92 471

60

Kanhaiya Lai v. Bhagwan Das -»

89 1053

2<t ALLAHABAD LAW JOURNAL, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

1

13 21

26 30 33

48 52

56 63 65 67 69 80

83 88 91

Kuar Mata Prasad v. Kuar Nagcshar Sahai

Ram Pratab Chamria v. Durga Pra- sad Chamria

Mahadeo Sahu v. Sarju Prasad Tewari

Narain Das v. Ram Chandra

Amir Ahmad v. Emperor

Sourendra Mohan Sinha v. Hari Pra- sad Sinha

Bansilal Abirchand v. Ghulain Moh- bub Khan

Lai Bahadur Lai v. Kamleshar Nath

Ram Sarup v. Gaya Prasad

Jagat Narain Lai v. Hawaldar

Pirthi Nath v, Kunji Kunwar

Kedar Nath v. Bisrnillah Begam . .

Fatima-ul-Hasna v. Baldco Sahai .,

Sultan Muhammad Khan v. Em- peror

Bisheshar Prasad Pandey v. Raghu- bir

Ahmad Husain v. Muhommad Qasim Khan

Dip Prakash v, tBohra Dwarka Pra- sad

^=r^

91 370

92 633

91 871

90 HO

91 47

91 1033

92 760

9O 988

9O 180

90 287

89 369

90 72

93 24

90 026

90 353

90 80

90 83

97 I Jawahir Singh v. Udai Parkash

100 I Al aha raj Bahadur Singh T. Seth

Hukum Cliand

105 Lai Cliand Mar wan v. Ramrup Gir

112 GhurahuDas v Shnkalraj Das

116 Bakhtawar v. Sunder Lai

120 Ahmad Husain Khan v. Hardial ,..

122 Dwarka Prasad v. Makund Sarup ...

125 Jeut Koeri v. Mathura Koeri

128 Amir Hasan Khan v. Emperor

129 Gulab Dei v. G. 1. P. Railway

130 Bachan Singh v. Bijai Singh 133 Akbar Ali v. Raja Bahadur 137 Uieo Prasad v. Narain i Bai 118 Emperor Y. Bhima

149 Bachan v. Raghunath

150 Panna Lai v. Emperor

151 Debi Din v. Emperor 153 Daud Khan v Emperor 155 Mimir v. Emperor

161 Kashi Prasad v. Emperor

162 Kadhori v. Emperor

163 Ram Sarup v. Emperor

165 Shyain Sunder Sinha v. Emperor ...

167 Sumaria v. Emperor

168 Raghunath Kaudu v. Emperor ...

93 21C

93 219

93 280

91 59

9O 992

9O 243

9O 290 90 91

90

787 37 99

9O 238

91 90 91

34

938 53

92 26i

40 959

49 533

588

91

91

91

91

92

92 452

92 4*6

To be printed. y| 882 91 888

ii INDIAN CASES. [1926

24 ALLAHABAD LAW JOURNAL, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926— concld.

170

Kalka r. Ran jit Singh

91 704

224

Emperor T. Daulat Singh

92 743

171

Khamani v. Emporer

92 584

225

Mohammad Ayub v. Surajpal Singh

91 783

173

Abdul Hafiz Khan v. Emperor

92 441

227

Lallan Misir v. Ram Richcha . .

93 690

176

Abdullah v. Badr-\il-l«lam

91 C34

228

Emperor v. Kesar

92 591

178

Chhidda v. Emperor

92 463

230

Jalal Uddin v. Emperor

92 857

180

Ram Nath v. Emperor

94 897

235

Gopal Das v. Baij Nath

91 930

185

Mittar Sain v. Data Ram

9O 3000

239

Faujdar Mahto v. Kmperor

91 815

208

Kallu T. Emperor

91 SOS

241

Radha Kishim v. Kashi Math

92 510

210

Kishen Praaad v. Kunj Behari Lai

91 790

244

Muhammad Ibrahim v. Ram Chan-

215

Baliadura T. Emperor

92 4flO

dra

92 514

21G

Banwari r. Emperor

91 814

248

Kunwar Chiranjit Singh v. liar Swa-

217

Banwari Lai Y. Jhunka

92 454

lup

94 782

221 1

Qazi Fariduddin r. Emperor

94 894

32 34

42 49 56

1 11

25 46 49 60 64

67 71

73

75 78

7d

89

91 95

98 99 102

111 115

126 138

69

91

817

84

92

367

87

SI

949

91

86

66

107

91

342

y3

225

111

50 I. L. K., BOMBAY SERIES,

India Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd. v. Climax Industrial Syndicate

Leon Moses v. Solomon

Emperor v. By ram Nowroji Ga- madia

Emperor v. Nathu Kasturchand Mar wad i

Raghunath Rithkaran y. The Im- perial Bank of India, Ltd. ^«

Emperor v. Dawood Kazi

, 28 BOMBAY LAW KEPORTER

Bai Shanta v. Umrao Amir Malek . . Mabel Pan ton v. Administrator Gene- ral of Bombay Jamshedji v. Secretary of State for

India Bapu Hambira Patil v. Shankar

BahuPatil Kasamkhan Alimedkhan v. Kaji

Abdulla Kasamkhan Ahmedkhan v. Kaji

Isub Larnbodar Dhonddeo Deo v. Bharani-

dhar Ganesh Deo

Collector v. Manager, Kurla Estate Krishnaji Vishrain Nadkarni v.

Gangaji Ambaji Metry Bhimanna Ivuniaji v. Venichand

Fattechand Hueensaheb Gtjbarsaheb v. Haian-

saheb Sayad Abdul Hueseinsaheb Haidarsaheb v. Babaji

Dhonddev

Emperor v. Kazi Dawood Kazi Ravishankar Jagjivan v. Savailtl

Kriehnalal

Emperor v. Fakirbhai Nathubai . . . Emperor v. Umaji Krishnaji

Sonavni

In re Ishvarlal Maneklal Trivedi ... Emperor v. Tarak Das Gupta Emperor v. Dorabefcah Bomanji

Dubaah

Emperor v. Ramnath Mahabir Emperor T. Harjivan Valji

Mrs. Flora Saeioon v. Mama

Pestonji Shapurji r, Nowroji

Ardeflhir H.

Jarnehedji

93 151

141

93 161

143

93 184

148

93 213

158

93 135

161

173

93 127

187

93 195

93 142

193

204

93 123

211

93 215

21T

220

93 218

239

93 222

93 225

337

93 240

243

93 244

2G4

93 150

271

93 158

93 247

281

93 232

288

93 690

291

To be

293

printed.

297

398

To be

300

printed.

94 D

FOR JANUARY FEBRUARY, 1926.

Parashuram Shamdasani v. Tata Industrial Bank

G. 1. P. Railway Co., Ltd. v. Chandu- lal bheopralap

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Sanjana & Co. Ltd. ...

Viahwunath Shamba Naik v. Ram- krishna

Chunilal Mokamdas v. Mrs. E. Chris- topher

Emperor v. Ramnath Mahabir

FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

Framroz Ecluljre Dinshaw v.

Mahomed Essa .-.

Navanitlal Hurjivandas v. Purshot-

tam Hurjivan Purshottam Hurjivan v. Navanitlal

Hurgovandas Emperor v. Shan Ahmed Nabi

Ahmed

Saklat v. Bella Vaithialinga Mudaliar v. Srirangath

Anni Homeshvar Singh v. Jugal Kishore

Marwari

Farid-un-nisa v. Mukhtar Ahmed . . . Soundara Raj an v. Natarajan Bansilal Abirchand v. Ghulam

Mahbub Khan Ram Protap v. Durga Prosad Ja^jivandas Jamnadas v. Nagar

Central Bank Limited Girdhardts Coorji v. Kerawala

Karsandas A Co. Indaji Majaji v. Cooverji Nowroji

Gamadia

Von Wulting v. Jivandas & Co. . . Mahomedalli Allabux v. Jafi'erbhoy

Abdullahbhoy Lalji Emperor v. Abasbhai Abdul

Hussein Emperor v Kutubuddin Khan Aeh-

raf Khan ...

In re Mahomed Azam ...

Emperor v. Framji Bomanji Banaji Emperor v. Achaldas Jethamal Emperor v. Pandu Ramji ,..

Emperor v. Maridas Lazar Emperor v. Shankar Narayan

Gosavi

91 153

92 548 92 517 92 537

92 368

93 690

94 21 94 11 94 15

92 213 92 200

92 85

9O 596 89 049 92 289

92 760

92 633

93 619 93 622

93 £52

93 857

93 918 93 967

93 881 93 891 93 896 93 703 93 992 93 1051

93 1051

Vol. 92J CONSOLIDATED COMPARATIVE TABLES. ill

28 BOMBAY LAW REPORTER; FOR JANUARY-FBBROARY, 1926- concld.

302

In re Mangru Feku Mom in . .

To be

509

Shankarlal Purshottam Gor v

printed.

Dakor Temple Committee

94 47

305

Narayan Govind Deahspanda v.

323

Rachel Benjamin v. Benjamin Solo-

Dhondo Krishna Tathe

94 76

mon Benjamin

94 59

307

Rupchand Ganesh v. Bhogilal Ratan-

in

Vasantrao Govindrao Prabhakar v.

chand

94 72

Nanabhai Sadanand

94 95

1

6

14 34 42

46 51

65 76

1

8

14

23 37 41

45

51 67 70 79

83

94 100 104

169

173 178

180 183

V

53 I. L. R., CALCUTTA SERIES, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

Bhupendra Narayan Singh r. Madar

Buksh Bhupendra Narayan Singh v. Nara-

pat Singh Bidyadhar Bachar v. Manindra Nath

Das Meher Bano Khanum Y. Secretary

of State for India Nareeh Chandra Bose r. Krishna

Bhabini Dasi

Forbes v. Ali Haidar Khan Dwijendra Nath Mullick v. Gopiram

Gobiiidaram John Batt & Co. (London), Ltd. v.

Kanoolal & Co.

88

92

681

95

90

607

101

89

?26

103

89

997

115

133

94

997

129

9O

308

131

89

200

157

163

95

21

89

789

Banailal Abirchand v. Ghulam

Mahbub Khan Chandi (Jharan Mitra Y Ashutosh

Lahiri . .

Reference from the Munsif, 4th

Cjurt, Habiganj, In re Bhagat Brothers, Ltd., In re Counsel v. Sukumari Devi Barber v. Debenham Samserali Hazi v. Emperor Nagendra Nath Palit v. Kabindra

Nath Deb

Kabatulla v. Emperor . .

Ramkumar Sewchand Roy v. Nanu-

ram Poddar

Emperor v. Isabella Coal Company

43 CALCUTTA LAW JOURNAL, FOR JAMOARY-FBBRDIR?, 1926.

Debendra Nath Sinha v. Nagendra Nath Sinha

P Banerjee v. Bepin Behary Ghose

Beni Madhab Sapui v. Jadu Nath Sapui

SivadasDutta v. Birendra Krishna Dutta

Bansilal Abirchand v. Ghulam Mah- bub Khan

Homeshwar Singh v. Jugal Kishore Marvvari

Ram Protap Chamria v. Durga Pro- sad Chamria

Saklat v. Bella

R. M. Watson v. F K. Watson

Vernon Mihvard Bason v. A. H. Skone

Port Canning and Land Improve- ment Co. Ltd. v. Achhiruddi Mollah

Kuar Mata Prasad v. Kuar Nageshar Sahai

Shaft Ahmed Nabi Ahmed v. Em- peror

S. Soundara Rajan v. C. M. Nata- rajan

Superintendent and Rememberancer of Legal Affairs v. Kiran Bala Dasi

Nagendra Nath Roy v. Jugal Kishore Roy

Gopiram Bhotica v. Bisseswar Dutt

Mahomed Rafique v. Emperor

Santosh Kumar Roy v. Rakhal Chan- dra Hazra

108

92 760

110

90 506

113

92 633

116

92 200

94 52S

126

94 532

132

135

92 37

142

91 370

146

92 211

152

92 289

155

171

93 73

176

9O 281

180

93 81

93 70

184

187

94 740

202

Jatindra Chandra Banerjee v. Mur- al id hur

Rahimuddi Meaji v. Amina Bibi ... Beni Madhab Mukhopadhya v. Sar-

bananda Barman Sarajubalo, Roy Chowdhurani v.

Kmmini Kumar Chowdhury Gnanada Gobindo Choudhuri v.

Nalini Bala Debi Radha Nath Dutt v. Chandra Kumar

Dutt Jamini Mohan Sarkar r. Nagendra

Nath Pal Hem Chandra Jelia Y. Satya Kinkmr

Sen

Samserannessa v. Abdue Samad . . Mohendra Nath Roy v. Nabadwip

Chandra Nandr Lai M^a Y Emperor Sudhir Chandra Daes v. Indumati

Chaudhurani Victor v. King-Emperor

30 CALCUTTA WEEKLY NOTES, FOR JANUARY, 1926.

Rajendra Narain Dhanj Deo Y. Ku- mar Gangananda Singh

In re Gopaldas Aurora

Joriiia Aktar Khatun v. Hafizuddin Khan

Upendra Mohan Roy Chowdhury v. Narendra Mohan Roy Chowdhury

Low & Co. v. Hazarimull Babu

89 737 94 793

186 190

90 633

192

9O 878 94 780

193 196

In ike matter of Rtjendra Kumar

Dutta Superintendent and Rememberancer

of Legal Affairs v. Sader 8aik ... Kalidas Kuha v. Deodhari Mistri . .

Kondapalli Vijaynratnam v. Manda-

paka Sudarsana Rao Hashmat Ali v Nasib-ul-Nisa

92 760

94 684

89 289 88 005 91 417

90 4 94 731;

94 212

9O 542

94 657

95 245

95 79

94 907 94 844

94 873

94 920

95 130 94 811 94 837 91 718

891000

91 935

93 1018

94 5

93 1038

94 611 93 961

94 893

91 701

Not reportable.

89 733 88 114

199 204 209 214

215 218 228

231

1 4

10 12 15 17 21

30 32 35 40

1

3

7

10 13

18 22 29

I

18 34 36 39 42 44

INDIAN OASES, 30 CALCUTTA WEEKLY NOTES, FOR JANOART, 1926— concld.

Official Trustee of Bengal v. W. G.

Bowden Taraprosad San v. Madhu Sudan

Giri Gopiram Behariram v. Agents, East

Indian Ry. and O. & R Ky. Sachindra Lai Hitter v. Panchanon

Mitter

Valliant v. Eleazar Maung Bya v. Maung Kyi Nyo Radha Kissen Goenka v. Thakursi-

das Khemkti Prosonna Kumar De v. Ananda

Chandra Bhat tachar j ee

7 I. L. R., LAHORE

Nand Kishore v. Sultan Singh

Khizar Hayat v. Allah Yar Shah

Kamir v. Mewaz

Sunder Singh v. Ram Nath

Crown T. Raj Pal

Relu Mai v. Ahmad

Mir Dad v. Crown

Tara Singh r. Crown Crown v. Piara Singh Rang Ilahi v. Mahbub llahi Roshan v. Nigahia

8 LAHORE LAW JOURNAL, FOR JANUARY, 1926.

[1926

r

233

Surendra Narain Sinha v. Bejoy

94 857

Singh Deodhoria

89 785

236

Satya" Ncranjun Shaw v. Karnani

91 35

Industrial Bank, Ltd.

93 56

238

Hari Mati Dasi v. Hari Dasi Dasi . .

88 1041

94 762

240

Mohammad Keshab v. Emperor ...

91 703

242

Baijnath Singh v. Vally Mahomed

94 871

Hajee Abba

86 332

87 513

248

Lucia Jacob v. David Alexander

9O 198

Wills

89 824

254

Brajaballav Ghose v, Akhoy Bagdi

93 115

93 80

259

Ramanuj Rai v. Dakshineswar Rai

93 101

263

Srinath Bhattacharya v. Jatindra

93 8G

Mohan Chatter ji

89 892

SERIES, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 192G.

93 1007

42 Rugh Nath Dass-Ram Sarup v. Sul-

93 1009

zer Bruderer & Co.

92 712

931011

50

Sheru v. Crown

94 406

93 1013

55

Lai Chand v. Hans Kumar

92 651

93 1052

61

Jawahar Singh v. E. D. Sassoon &

92 947

Co

94 377

To be

65

Chet Singh v Crown

94 401

printed.

70

Ghulam Jannat v. Crown

94 403

94 131

73

Qaim v. Nura

94 422

94 129

77

Fitzholmes v. Crown . .

To be

94 25

printed.

94 27

80

BhikaRamv. Crown

94 414

Si

Rannun v. Crown

94 901

Abdul Khaliq v. Fateh Mohammad 93 334

Budhu Mai v. Gokal Chand ... 92 101 5

Dhani v. Biru ... 93 337

Narain Singh v, Mohan Singh ... , 93 340 Punjab Akhbarat & Press Co. Ltd. i

v. Ogilvie ... 93 314

32 35 39 43 47 51

Ralla Singh v. Bishna Shankar Das v. Shambu Nath Singh Ram v. Kala Wali Shall v. Bihari Lai Abdul Satar v. Udha Lai Jagat Singh r. Crown

49 I. L. R., MADRAS SERIES, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUAKY, 192(5.

Hope Prudhomme & Co. v. Hamel

and Horley, Ltd. Adusumilli Gopala Krietnayya v. Adivi Lakshmana Rao

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Krishna Chandra Gaja- pathi Narayana Deo

Rukku Shetti v. Ramachaiidraya ...

88 307

To be printed.

91 92

940 342

38 Sait Siva Pratapa Bhattadu v. A E. L. Mission

49

71 74 98

116

50 MADRAS LAW JOURNAL,

Surendra Mohan Sinha v. Hari

' 91 1033

Mahammad Raza Saheb Belgami v.

Sadasiva Rap Kuppu Mudali, In re Gam Mallu Dora v. Emperor Janakiram Chetty v. Nagamony

Mudaliar Ayiswaryanandaji Saheb v. Sivaji

Raja Saheb

93 355 93 351

92 1012

93 369 93 695

To be printed.

To be printed.

92 918 9O 659 9O 297

93 662 92 928

FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

V.

Prasad Sinha

Kuar Mata Prasad v. Kuar Nageshar Sahai

Palaniappa Chettiar v. Rajetwara Sethupathi A vl

Akella Kesavaramayya v. Visamsetti Venkataratnam

Bulkee Bee v. Kaka Hajee Muham- mad Ummar

Ramaswanri Goundan v. Alagia Singaperurnal Kadavul

Kandasami Chetty, In re

91 92 92 93

92 92

370

366

626

99

823 862

46

48 49

51 51

59

Karnam Venkatsubba Rao v, Adina-

raytna Rao Narayanaswami Pillai v. Gopala-

krishna Naidu Pazhaniandy Tarakan v. Murukappa

Tarakan

Arumuga Padayachi, In re Addepalli Venkata Gurunadha

Ramaseshiah v. Akella Kesava

Ram i ah Raja Rajeswara Muthuramalinga

Sethupathi Avergal v. Secretary of

State for India in Council ( ...

92 472 92 483

92 124

91 1000

92 973 92 311

Vol. 92] CONSOLIDATED OOAfPARATIVE TABLW. f

59 MADRAS LAW JOURNAL, FOR JANUARY- FEBRUARY, 1926— concld.

63

07 7* 75

77 70 90 94

97 |

100 102 107

112

114 116 118 120

136 114

145

10 13 16 19 22 26 29 31 36

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

v. Krishna Chandra Gajaptthi

Narayana Deo Mahadeva Aiyar v llamakrishna

Reddiar Vadrevu VUwasundara Kao Bahadur

r. Vannam Paidigadu Venkatanaraeimha Rao v. Hemadri

Suryanarayana Krishiiamachariar v. Municipal

Council, Sri i an jfiim Alagirisami P>llai v. Lakshmanan

Chetty Muthuvenkatarama Reddiar v. Ofli-

cial Receiver of South Arcot Rukmani Animal v. Mulhurama

Reddi Vasireddi Sree Chandra Mouleswara

Prasada Bahadur v. Rameswara

Somayajulu Parasurama Mudaliar v. Muthuswami

Pillai Vecrasami Mudali v. Vcnkatachbla

Mudali Mulkoori Gavariah v. Chenna

Sariah

Kancherla Pushkaramba v. Nagarat- namma • .

Pokala Mahalakshmi Ammal, In re Ayyaru Pillai r. Vuradaraja Pillai Ltjwanti v. Safa Chand Ghulam Rasnl Khan v. Secretary of

State for India in Council Koyyalamudi Subanna v. Koduri

Subarayudu

Subhan Ali v. Imami Begam Imani Satyanarayana v. Devarakonda

Satyanarayanamu rthi Mulugu Chengayya v. Aruvela

Devasanamba Garu

91 940

92 053

91 485

92 P02

91 933

92 1021 92 398 92 747

92 402

91 313

92 20

To be printed.

Not

'epoi table 9* 337 92 770 88 198

86 654

92 805 88 347

92 85 92 720

23 LAW WEEKLY, FOR

Shaft Ahmad v. Emperor

Bansilal Abirchand v. Ghulam Mah-

bub Khan Bhupendra Narayan Singh v. Madar

Buksh

Bohioetti Mamayya v. Official Re- ceiver, Guntur Ravipati Rarnaiah v. Ravipati Lak-

shmi Narayana Pazhaniandy Tarakan v. Murukappa

Tarakan Nomula Ramayya v. Nadipineni

Appayya Trustee!, Parakkat Devaswom v.

Venkatachalam Vadhyar Swaminatha Odayar v. Thiagaraja-

swami Odayar Kommineni Appalasvvamy v. Kom-

mineni Simhadri Appadu

Municipal Council, Tuticorin r.

Shunmugha Moopanar Thanappa Ohetty v, Dsuf Khan

Safe'tT

92 312

92 760

92 681

92 726

9! 660

92 124

91 452

92 709 92 846 92 844 92 610 92 753

148 150 153 157 161

172 176

1(0 Ib3

190 191

200 205 208 213

215 221

228

232 234 237 239 242

16 51

Venkata Siva Rao r. Chittoori Rama

Kristnayja t •••

Manepalli Satyanarayanamurthi v.

Thommandra Erikalappa ^ Parakkat T)evaswom v. Venkata-

chellam Vadhyar Rathan Singh v. Oommissirmer of

Income Tax R»:;iur')| i1^ Pandarathar v. Tiru-

pathia Pillai

Unnamalai Ammal v. Abboy Ohetty Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

v Messis King and l*artridge .. Chittammal v. Ponnuswami Naicker Sundaram Aivar v. Thiyagaraja

Pillai * -

Venkatesam Chetty v. Mothichand

Gulabchand Rajendni Narain Dhanj Deo v.

Kumar Gangaiianda Singh Kahakkal v Palani Koundan Sethu Konar v. Ramaswami Konar Nidavolu Atehutam v. Ratnaji Govindan Nair v. Kanhirthotikayil

Ithalutty •••

Pattanayya v. Paitayya Rajagopalachariar v. SamiRcddi ... Kathamuthu Pillai v. Subramaniam

Chettiar

Arunachalam Ohetty v. Abdul Sub- han K :;ii?ili:n-" Mudaliar v. bhanmuga

Mudaliar Solayappa Naicker v. Shunmuga-

sundaram Pillai •• '

OlHcial Receiver, Tanjore v. Sankara

Aiyar •

Cheggaumull Sowcar v. Desur

Manicka Mudaliar Kandala 'Hiiruvenkatacharlu v.

^Altoo Saliib

JANUARY- FEBRUARY, 1926.

Nowroji Rnstomji Wadia v. Govern- ment of Bjinbay

Motilal Itchhalal Gandhi v. Haji Moos,iHi]i Mahomed

56

58

63 69 75 80

81 85 87

90

Arumuga Pa«layachi, In re .

Zamorin R^ja Avl, Calicut v. \en-

katagiri P.ittar •

Lakshmana Aiyar v. Sankarapandiam

Pillrl T1 • :

Chidnmbara-n Chettiar v. Parvatlu

Achi Mahabir Prasad Tcwari v. Jainuna

Akclla Ram-iaomayajulu v. Official Receiver, Godaveri at Rajahmun-

dry Sankaranarayana Roddi v. Koppaya

Reddi •-

Vadappalli Varadacharyulu v. Khan-

davilli Narasimhacharyulu Subbain Goundan v. Sennimalai

Goundan Vellayan Ambalam, In r*

92 700

92 062

92 709

92 1051

95 12

92 524

92 iH3

92 57o

Not re portable.

93 293

89 737

92 533

94 526 92 977

94 557

92 782

93 49

94 5G1 93 356

92 989

93 3

93 271

94 384 94 45S

90 48

83 440

9J 1000

92 245

93 27G 93 16 92 31

92 249

91 973

92 615

92 400

91 960

INDIAN CASES. 23 LAW WEEKLY, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926— concld.

[1926

92 9

99 101 103

105

138

14

149

151

157

161

168 17S

175 178 182

186 193 199

205 210 213 213 215 219 220

Muthuveeraswami Nayudu v. Aii-

namalai Chettiar Chittammal v. Ponnuswamy Naic-

ker

Kaliba Sahib v. Subbaroya Aiyar... Kaliappa Goundan, In re Venkata Siva Rao v. Kama Krist-

nayya Govindoss Chathurbhujadoss & Co

v. Sukdevadoss Ramprasad Sura Lakshmiah Chetty v. Kothan-

darama Pillai Rarnachandra Aiyar, OiTiciaJ

Receiver, Tan j ore v. Sankara Aiyn Seetharama Naidu v. Govindasami

Chettiar Muhammad Yakub Sahib v. Mahaboi

Bi Bi Banjoisi Narasamma v. Banjoisi

Saraaamman Pachayappa Chetti v. Sivakami Am-

mal

Unnamali Animal r. Abboy Chetty Kunwar Chiranjit Singh v. Har

Swarup Kuppuswamy Mudaliar T. Chokka-

linga Mudaliar Nagalla Kotayya v. Koganti Kott- appa . ,

Noorbhai /. Karuppan Chetti

Rama Vadhyar v. Krishnan Nair ... Nidavolu Atchutam r. Ratnaji Mahadeva Aiyar v. Ramakriahna

Reddiar Sankaran v. Vattkkiniyedath Kiran-

gat Manakkal Sreeduaran Muthayan Chettiar T. Panchavarna

Nadar Komaraswami Chetti v. Sundara

Mudaliar Vuyyuru Lakshma Reddi v. Alia

Virareddi tfuthuswami Aiyyar <& Sons v.

Ramalinga Mudaliar Hahalakshmi {Animal v. Venkata

Naicker Lai Bahadur v. Ambika Prasad ... i

91 1056

92 57; 92 62 92 75C

92 79(

93 169 88 327

93 271 92 971

94 756 92 61

91 671

92 524

94 783

91 454

9O 551

Not e portable

93 20

92 977

92 653 90 316

93 641 92 724 86 957

94 334

93 446 91 471

I

22

23:

240 262 2<55 267

272

277

281

296 300

305

308 311 314 319 320

327 336

3:59 349 353 361 364 367

Kaliakkal v. Palani Koundan Kesavalu Naicker v. Corporation of

Madras Dust Muhammad Khan Sahib v.

Kadir Batcha Sahib Mcer Mahomed Noorulla v. Mari

Naiijappa Nainivaru Dharman v. Zamiudar of Ettiya-

puram Rat han Singh Y. Commissioner of

Income Tax to the Government of

Madras Mathilda Sicev. Fritz Gaebele

Komirisplti Satyanarayaaa v. Veer- anki China Venkatarao

Vemulapalli Seetharamamma v. Ma- ganti Appiah

.V .: • Vl\l\\ T. Ramaswamy Thevan

>.'.-• .•'••..! Aiyar v. Official Receiver, Tanjore

Gutha Viraraghavayya v. Vemula- palli Ramakotayya

Muthuraman Chettiar v. Uppaluru

Scctharamayya Arunachallam Chetty v. Abdul Su-

ban Venkata Gurunadha v. Kesava

Ramiah Doraiswaini Aiyar v. Balasundaram

Aiyar Proprietor of Pedamamidipalli v.

R yo t s of Peda m am i d ipal 1 i Sanjivi Reddy v. Koneri Reddi Sluiinniitilui Velayuda Mudaliar v.

Col let* tor <jf Tanjoro Jamanathan Chettiar v. Kanaga-

sabapathy Chettiar S'atesa I^ithar v. Ganapathi Subbu

Pathar \asi Aiyar v. Official Receiver,

Tanjore Juduthuru Thimmappa v. Bala-

krishna Mudaliar vaki Narasamma v. Kaki Venkata-

raju iangayya Naidu T. Basana Simon

92 533 92 1053

92 950

93 259 93 H

92 1051

To be

printed.

To be printed.

92 827 91 1024

93 877

To be printed.

91 985

93 356

92 973

94 420

94 164

93 8

93 639

94 955 94 68 93 914

92 915

93 686

94 639

(1926) MADRAS WEEKLY NOTES, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY.

1

Narayana Tyengar v Thippayya ...

92 847

22

Soundararajan v. Natarajan

92 289

2

Meer Mohammad Noorulla Sahib v.

27

Subramaniam Chetty v. Ramaswami

Mari Nanjappa Nainivaru

93 259

Chetty

91 11

4

Meenakshisundara Nachiar v. Veer-

29

VenkaUiswami v. Kotilingam

91 1051

appa Chettiar . .

92 838

32

Han m ant Rao v. Emperor

89 843

5

Suppu Chetti v. Arunachalam Chet-

33

Bhadrayya v. J .:,. ,v • ' .

91 1017

tiar

Not

34

Kuppuswami V. ;... gv: v. Chocka-

reportable.

linga Mudaliar

91 454

6

Ramaswmy Chetty v. Chengalroya

36

Subbramaniam Patter v. Velu Nair

92 481

Pillai

94 892

38

Gonnabathnla Thammayya v. Gonna-

7

Imani Satyanarayana v. Devarakonda

bathula Chinnayya

92 594

Satyanarayanamoorthy

92 85

40

Kasturi Narasimha Suryanarayana

8

Rajamanicka Chetty v. Venkata-

v Achuthana Lakshminarasimham

91 924

ramanaRao

93 84

41

Nee Jam Venkataratnamma v. Venja-

9

Butchiraj u v. Seetharamay ya

93 955

moori Narasimhacharyulu

92 470

11

Vaithilinga Mudaliar v. Srirangath

45

Rarnu Chetty v. Panchammal

92 1028

Anni

92 85

^ 1

J3

Vol. 92] CONSOLIDATED COMPARATIVE TABLES.

(1926) MADRAS WEEKLY NOTES, FOR JANDARY-FBBRUARY-COIICICL

Yii

4

4

6 63

66

69

73

81

94

96

101 106

108 112

114 116 117

118 120 121

123 124

126 128

Vonkatarama Iyer v. Sundaram Iyer 92 1045 Surendra Mohan Sinha v. Hari Pra-

sad Binha ... 9 1 1033

Shall Ahmed v. Emperor . . 92 212

Muthu Veerappa Chettiar v. Siva-

gunmatha Pillai . . . 92 603

Pasumarti Seethanna r Thammandra

Yasikalappa .. 91 765

Manem Ayyanna v. Pultrarti Veera-

bhadram ... 91 771

Tulasidais Oovindjee v. Madhava-

dass Laljee ... 92 570

Raja Rajindra Narain Dhanj Deo v.

Kumar Gangananda Singh .. 89 737 Nntarajan v. Muthiah Chctty ... 95 972 Rarnalinga Mudaliar v. Arunachala

Mudaly .. 93 338

Knar Mata Prasad v. Knar Nageshar

Sahai ... 91 370

Vasudevan Y. Arunachala Iyer . . 93 1 Ram Pratab Chainria v. Durga Pra- sad Chamria . . 92 633 Nag Kuer v. Sham Lai Sahu . . 92 274 Venkatachariar v. Pachayappa

Chetty ... 92 516

Bansilal Abirchand r. CJhulam

iMahbub Khan ... 92 760

Thirumalachariar v. Atimoola Kara-

yalar . . 92 776

Poovanalingnn Servai v. Veerayi .. 92 1055 Kuehu Iyer v. Vengu Amnml . . 93 360 Ramasami Uoundan v. Alagia Singa-

perumal Kadarul ... 92 823

Ram as \vami lyengar v. Raghava

lyengar ... 92 1046

Muthu veeraswami Nayudu v. An-

namalai Chettiar . 91 105G

Chittammal v. Ponnuswamy Naic-

ker .. 92 573

Caliba Sahib v. Subbaroya Aiyar 92 621

Sohisetti Mamayya v. Official Re- ceiver, Guntur ... 92 726 ^avipati Ramaiah v. Ravipati Lak-

shrni Narayana ... 91 660

deputy Collector, Cocanada v. The Maharaja of Pittapur . . 93 651

129 131 135 137 140 141 143

146 147 149

152 156 159 162 163

165 167

169

169 172 174

178 180

182 192

Arunaohalam Chetty Y. Abdul Suban 1 Sahib Proprietor of Kalagampudi v. Ryots

of Kalagampudi Numula Ramayya v. Nadipinerii

Appayya Madura Hindu Premanent Fund Ltd.

v Kainakshi Ammal Swaminatha Odayar v. Thiagaraja-

s warn i Odayar Akolla Kesavaramayya v. Visamsetti

Venkataratnam Bulkee Bee v. Kaka Hajee Muham-

mad Ummar Shaib Chiranjit Singh v. Har Svvarup Kandasami Chetty v. Emperor Arumuga Padayachi v. Emperor Venkata Qunmadha Ramaseshiah v.

Kesaya Ramiah Lakshmana Aiyar v. Sankarapandiam

Pillai Chidambaram Chettiar v. Parvathi

Achi Ramachandra Aiyar Y. Sankara

Aiyar Seetharama Naidu Y. Govindaeami

Chettiar Banjoisi Narasamma v. Banjois'i

Sarnsamman

Muthu Pillai v. Alagirisami Pillai Govinda Pillai v. Ramanathan Chet-

tiar Akclla Ramasomayajulu v. Official

Rcceirer, Godaveri at Rajahmun-

dry Tiruvangalath Nellyoton Paidal

Nayar v. Emperor

Chittammal v. Ponnuswamy Naic- ker

Mallappa v. Neelana Gowdra

Karc Gowd Kaliba Sahib v. Subbaroya Aiyar.. Munuswamy Pillai v. Madhi Hussain

Khan Sahib Visvanatha Mudali v. Doraiewamy

Chinnatha Rowther v. Karunji Andi

9 NAGPUR LAW JOURNAL, FROM JANUARY TO MARCH, 1926.

1

3

7

11

17

1

5

11

13

Narayandas v. Pandurang Ramchandra v. Lakshman Narayandas v. Radhabai Khurshid Begam v. Abdul Shanker v. Vithaldas

93 212

92 803

93 196 92 913

To be planted.

22 34 40 43 45

Shanker Rao v. Pandurang Purushottam v. Sahu National Stores v. Ramsaran Bhagwan v. Emperor Ramu v. Puna

93 356

94 164

91 452 94 487

92 846

92 626

93 99

94 782 92 862

91 1000

92 973

93 27(5 93 1C 93 271 92 976

92 61 91 961

91 714

92 249 92 624 92 577

£3 625

92 621

94 453

91 193

93 644

92 646

91 295

94 380

94 406

94 3*6

22 NAGPUR LAW REPORTS, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

Ma1- '1 --:- i.1 v. Emperor

Templo of Sri Ramchandra Khamlia v. Kanhaiyalal

Maruti v. Ukarda

of

91 242

92 121

To be printed. 94 741

14 17 19 23 28 30

Asabi v. Kanhyalal Sli-T-iisiiri v. Kalusingh Piluram v. Mahadeo Purushottam v. Sahu (lend ,

Padmun Singh v. Subransai Samsherkhan v. Abdul Sattarkhan.

94 754 SO 734 91 290

295 791

91 94 94

70

Tilt

i

G 10 15

19 37

42 49

53 55 61

69

95

109

111

115

121

145 156

160 165

1*8 171 176 181 186 191 195 198 201 J04 210 213 217 222

INDIAN OASBfi.

29 OUDH OASES, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926,

[1K6

1

Girdhari Lai v. Emperor

86 993

23

Munnu Lai v. Hirde Ram

86 1008

7

Karya Singh v. Shira Katan Singh

86 913

24

Lulta Prasad v. Ma ha raj Bahadur —

87 316

10

Uma Nalh Bakhsh Singh v. Janki

26

Ahmad Mirza Bog v. Allahabad Bank

Bakhsh Singh

86 864

Ltd., Lucknow *-.

94 317

14

Maharaj Din v. Balbhaddar Pra-

31

Ram Parkiish v. Junki Prasad

88 203

sad

85 481

37

Qudratullah Khan v Gulqandi . .

89 570

15

Gaya Praia d v Jagan Natli

86 932

44

Nowal Kislmre v ISmperor

89 147

18

Mathura Prasad v. Kunwar Bahadur

51

A dial Singh v. Shnghunath Kuar

Singh

87 284

Babuain

9O 470

21

Kandhai Lai v. Anantu

87 172

13 OUDH LAW JOURNAL, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

Abdul Ohani v. Mustafa Husain ... Sheo Nandan v. Hira Lai Rais-un-riisa v. Zorawar Sah Saheb Din Raghubur Dayal v. East

Indian Railway Kuar Mata Prasad v. Kuar Nageshar

Sahai Abhaidat Singh v. Ragho Indar

Partab Sahi Parbhu v. Puttu Peoples Industrial Bank Allahabad

v Mahesh Charan Sinha Karingan v. Harihar Dutt Gopal Das v. Ram Pbal Sidheshwar T. Ganga Sagar

Mukta Prasad v. Emperor Sukh Lai v. Murari Lai Sheo Ram v. Tula ft'iL'hsibnr Singh v. Gokaran >»v:«".ari of State for India in

Council v. Har Charan Das Gajraj Singh v. Kanhu Singh Sarju v. Sheoraj

, 126

93 645 !

92 247 132

92 675 ;

138

93 22

144

146

91 370

147

119

91 976

95 995

152

154

93 631

9 £ 34

160

92 685

To be

166

printed

9* 193

167

95 1019

93 1023

170

93 833

172

174

91 927

91 942

176

94 179

178

Pirtha Singh v. Mohammad Ali

Mohammad Khan Ganga, Bakhsh Singh v. Mania

Bakhsh Singh Chandoo v. Mnrli Dhar Manni Lai v Sajjad Husain Ram Adhin v. Riasat Ali Amina Bibi v. Kalka Singh Bishwanath Prasad v. Abdus Samad

Khan

Gur Prnsad v. Sitla Dei Tullu v. Thakumin Srimati Indar

Knar Ram Prasad v. Khusal Singh

Masih 1'ddin Ahmad v. Munir

Ahmad Faqjr Mohammad Khan v. Shamhhu

Dat

Ram Dayal v. Nisar Husain Khan . . Hasib-un-nisa v. Bishnath Kunwar Lai Bahadur v. Bcni

Madho

Manzur Husain v Vikalat Fatima... Hasan Baqar v. Shoo Narairi

Singh

*3 OUDH WEEKLY NOTES, FOR JANCJARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

Bengal North Western Railway v.

Bansi Dhar . .

Saheb Din Raghnbar Dayal v.

East Indian Railway Company,

Limited

Emperor v. Parakh Shall Ahmed Nabi Ahmed v. Em- peror

Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swamp Mathura Prasad v. Emperor Dubri v. Ram Naresh Singh Phuljhari v. Har Prasad Mahadeo Prasad v. Ram Phal Mahabir v. Ram Saran Singh Ummatul Fatima v. Ali Akbar Jhalri v. Rama Bharose Pandey . . Bilodarv. Emperor Ram Nath v. Emperor Dilawar Khan v. Kulsum Bibi Sitla Bakhsh Singh v. Gulab Singh Dasrath v. Sandala National Bank of Upper India, Lucknow v. Dina Nath Sapru . .

92 603

228

231

93 22

233

92 744

237

92 212

94 782

241

93 66

245

93 297

93 378

248

92 685

260

93 108

267

95 271

93 53

274

93 145

277

93 352

93 02

279

93 927

284

93 310

95 234

*

Mahomed Saadat Ali Khan v. Kuer

Lai

Ramdei v. Jlumni Lai Ram Suchit v. Kalaka Prasad People's Industrial Bank Ltd.,

Allahabad v. Mahesh Charan

Sinha

Raghubar Singh v. Gokaran Ganpat Sahai v. Koshalendra Pratab

Sahi

Sukh Lai v. Murari Lai Parbho v. Puttu Ram Shankar Singh v. Lai Bahadur

Singh

Sheo Ram v. Tula Devendra Nath v. Ram Rachpal

Singh

Yusuf Khan v. Riyasat Ali Haidari v. Nariandra Bikramjit

Singh

94 188

92 613

92 732

93 272

95 463 95 486

94 788 94 796

93 873

To be printed.

91 1020

91 1014 91 1031 91 867

91 1043 91 1016

91 917

93 912 95 596 93 951

93 93

631 833

93 962 95 1019 95 995

92 637

93 1023

93 302 93 446

93 677

*NOTE.— Decisions of the Board of Revenue, U. P. not printed in Indian Cases.-r-[#cJ.]

Vol. 92J CONSOLIDATED COMPARATIVE TABLES.

5 I. L. R., PATNA SERIES, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

1

Aditya Prasad Singh v. Ram Nara-

63

Jagwa Dhanuk v. Emperor

93 884

yan Das

87 531

80

Midnapur Zamindari Co., Ltd. v.

8

Subedar Kai v. Rambilas Rai

9O 817

Ram Kanai Singh Deo Darpa Saha

91 169

13

Raj end ra Narayan Bhanja Deo v.

96

Mahanth Tokh Narayan Pun v.Ram

Commissioner of Income Tax, B.

Rachhya tiingh

90 806

&O.

91 288

106

Agent of the Bengal-Nagpur Rail-

20

Ambika Prasad Singh v. Commis-

way Company, Limited v. Hamir

sioner for Income Tax, Bihar and

Mull Chagan Mull

9O 374

Orissa

93 999

110

Ramohandra Modak v. Emperor ...

93 963

23

Khudi Rai r. Lalo Rai

931001

118

Great Indian Peninsula Railway v,

25

Siban Rai v. Bhagwat Dass

92 219

Datti Ram

90 812

33

Daroga Oope v. Emperor

881045

128

Radhe Lai r. East Indian Railway

40

Peari Dai Debitors v. Naimish

Company, Limited

9O 680

Chandra Mitra

9O 822

135

Sourendra Mohan Sinha v. Hari

46

Bibi Wajihunnissa Begum v. Babu

Prasad

91 1033

Lai Mahtou

9O 871

1-S7

Sib Sahai Lai v. Sir Bijai Chand

58

Hira Bibi v. RamHariLall ... 1 89 659

Mahtab

9O 862

(1926) PATNA CASES, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY.

1

Sri Sri Baidyanath Jiu v. Har Dutt

29

Ramdhani Singh v. Kewai Mani

i * • ' " ^

Dwari

94 826

Bibi

9O 929

4

Sheikh Abdul Ghaifar v. Mrs. F. B.

34

Kuldip Singh v. Kumar Kamakhya

Downing

94 841

Narain Singh

93 300

9

Bibi Hafsa v. Kaniz Fatima

96 3

37

Badri Narayan Singh v. Mahanth

11

Uma Jha v. Chetu Mandar

95 187

Kailash Gir

93 303

13

Ramyad Dusadh v. Emperor

95 273

40

Hansraj Sangechi r. Jogesar Prasad

88 1020

16

Mahari Dhangar v Bnldeo Narain ..

90 657

42

Malik Mukhtar Ahmad v. Wasi

19

Sib Sahai Lai v. Sir Bijai Chand

Ahmad Khan

93 289

Mahtab .-

90 862

44

Madaran Kassab v. King-Emperor

86 964

24

Sheikh Mabub Bakhsh v. Mahmu-

49

Ram Golam Sahu v. Chintaman

dan

93 273

Singh

93 939

7 PATNA LAW TIMES, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

1

Sadhu Sao v. Awadh Bihari Saran

71

Prasana Kumar Banerji v. Kaleyan

Singh

89 802

Char an Mandal

90 352

4

Diljau Ali v. Akhtari Begum

88 1035

73

Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur v.

9

Sheikh Imdad Ali v. Nand Kumar Lai

88 478

Lakhnath Roy

89 21

11

Asharfi Dhimar r. Muhammad

75

Garbhu Mahton v. Bibi Khudaijatun-

Dindalal

88 989

nissa

89 170

14

Jamal Momim v. King-Emperor ...

86 153

79

Jang Bahadur Singh v. King-Em-

*

19

Raja Rajendra Narain Bhanj Deo

peror

93 40

y. Kumar Gangananda Singh ...

89 737

82

Bhiumath Misra v. Jaggarnath

22

Lekhraj Mahton v. Jang Bahadur

Prasad

89 814

Singh -.

89 822

871

Bambhadur Lai v. Gangora Kuer ...

89 232

25

Sham Narayan Singh v. Basdeo

90

G. I. P. Railway Co. v. Rameshwar

Prasad Singh

88 537

Prasad

9O 687

27

Nazirul Hassan v. Abdul AVahab

95

Sadho Saran Pande v. Subhadra ...

89 195

Khan

89 811

97

Sourendra Mohan Sinha v. Hari Pra-

30

Badri Gopo v. King-Emperor

93 146

sad

91 1033

35

Tulshi Prasad Ram v. J. A. W. Wil-

111

Jogindra Narayan Chaudhuri v.

son

90 74

Chinai Muhammad Sircar

89 275

30

Ram Saran Singh v. Mohammad Jan

114

Ranjit Narayan Singh v. Ram Ba-

Khan

89 706

hadur Singh

94 593

39

Bibi Hajo v. Har Sahay Lai

89 992

124

Rai Kashinath Singh Bahadur v.

42

Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur v.

Kailas Singh

89 236

Durga Mandar

90 454

127

Lachman Sahay v. Gauri Charan

45

Sudha Krishna Mukerji v. East

Mahton

94 556

Indian Railway Company

9.1 1

129

Debi Prasad Dhandhaya T. Mahesh

47

Sahdeo Singh v. Kishun Behari

Lai

89 32

Pandey

90 559

134

Raghunandan Thakur v. Babu

49

Sheodhari Rai v. Jhingur Rai

83 993

Kishundeo Narain Mahta

To be

52

Ram Chandra Singh v. Jang Baha- dur Singh

9O 553

136

Thakur Sao v. Abdul Aziz

printed. 91 41

57

Radhe Lai v. East Indian Railway

9O 680

138

Kawleshwar Lai v. Satya Brata

611

Ramjea Prasad v. Bishundutt

<?O 244

Banarji

9O 194

65

Gokul Tatwa v, King-Emperor ...

89 1030

140

East ladian Railway Co. v. Gober-

6fc

Haro Mandal v. Dhiranath Das ...

9O 691

dhan Das

9O 790

INDIAN OASES. 27 CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

[1926

i

2

4

5

6

7

8

9 11 15 17 II 19 21 21 22 23

24 26 27 29 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 43 44 44 46 49 57 60 62 61 65 66 68 69 71 73 74 75 76

77 80 81

83 84

87 88 19

90 90 91 95

97

98 100

Jowanda Mai v. Emperor

Akbar Ali v. Raja .Bahadur

Emperor v. Syed Khan

Amir Hasan Khan v. Emperor , .

Harihar Dat v. Maksud Ali

Data Ram v. Emperor

Panna Lai v. Emperor

Thakur Sao v. Abdul Aziz

Emperor v. Param Hukh

Amir Ahmad v. Emperor

Daud Khan v. Emperor . .

In re Ayyaperumal Pillai

Kamlapati Punth v. Empsror

Emperor v. Ohet Khan

Emperor v. Bhima

Yamunabai v. Emperor

Nazar Muhammad Khan v. Hara

Singh Bedi

Sham Sunder Lai v. Emperor Feroze v. Emperor Ghurahu Das v. ShakJilruj D<IB Bell v. Emperor Payakkal v. Athoppa Ooundan Hyder v. Emperor In re Manargan Jairaj Singh v. Bansi Jamna v. Emperor . .

Ismail v. Emperor Nathoomal v. Emperor Lachmi Kuer v. Parian Narain Rampratab Marwari v. Satif Abdul Wahab v Emperor . .

In re Vodde Subbigadu Rupan Singh v. Emperor Bhttlan v. Emperor Kudaon v. Emperor Sheo Shankar v. Emperor Samundar v. Emperor Ohainu v. Emperor Mahadeosingh v. Emperor Nago v. Atmaram

In re Bhau Vyaukatesh Chakorkar Bajirao v. Dadibhai Abdullah v. Emperor Ritha v. Emperor Jawala Singh v. Madan Gopal Selvamuthu v. Chinnappan Chet-

tiar

Ahmed v. Emperor Hamid Ali Bepari v. Emperor Public Prosecutor, Madras v. Kimidi

Annam Naidu

Fateh Bahadur v. Abdul Raheem In re Appaswamy Iyer Ghaza Ali v. Emperjr Abdul Ali Sahib v. Amiruddin ... Vishnoo Nainaram v. Dipchand

Sitaldas

In re Dyta Seetharamayya Emperor v. Radho Ramakrishna Iyer v. Sithai Ammal Denepudi Narasayya v. Chiguluri

Venkiah Ramachandran Servai v. President,

Union Board

Emperor v. Qadir Bakhsh Shah ... In re Peramasami Ragudu

91

9r

91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 9! 91 91 91

91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 9! 91 91 91 91 91 92 9i 91 91

91 91 91

91 91 91 91 91

93 HI 91

.33 34 36 37 33 39 40 41 13 47 40 50 51 53 53 51

55

56

5-

50

61

62

64

65

67

61)

70

72

75

76

76

78

22.1

231

236

238

210

241

242

244

245

247

249

250

251

252 253 256

385 3H7 388 301 392

393 394 394 395

91 399

91 91 91

529 530 532

101 104

105

107

107

108

10:) 110 in

115 113 114

in

121

120

127 128 1-29

132

134 136 137 13!) 140 142 142 113 145

146 147 150 152 153 158 159

160 161 16 r) 170 175 176 177 181 182

184 1H5 183 186 190 191 192 193

Munir v. Emperor

Fazal Ahmad v. Abdullah Khan ...

Ramaawaini Chettiar v. Rama-

nalhan Chettiar Buhri v. Emperor Devasikamam Mudaliar v. Narayana

Prasad

Ramaswariti v. Emperor ...

Ahmad v. Emperor Ismail Sha v Emperor Emperor v Snbrao Sesharao Alia v. Emperor Piru Rama Uavaldar v. Emperor Hunrmt AH v. Emperor Emperor v. Abdul Gani Bahadur-

bhai

Chogatta v. Emperor Emperor v. Chand Mahaboob Superintendent and Remembrancer

of Legal A (Taiis, Bengal v. Sader

Saik Marmlayya Thevar v Shunmuga

sundara Thevar Mohamad Keshab v. Emperor Kalka v. Ranjit Singh Thomas James Henry Arnup v.

FCedar Nath Ghosh Qadir BakhsU v. Emperor Shaikh Garib H.iji v. Muchiram

Sahu

Nazir Singh v. Emperor Kallu v. Emperor Raines war Singh v. Emperor Lahanu Manaji v. Emparor Pakhar Singh v. Emperor Baiiwari v. Emperor Ohhakauri Lall v. Isliar Singli Fuujdar iMahto v. Emperor Ram Pdda Ohatterjce v. Basanta

Baishnabi

Sumaria v. Emperor Praf ulla Kumar Roy v. Emperor . . Emperor v. Karim Kajmahamad ... Raghunath Kandu v. Emperor Smith v. Emperor Dip Singh v. Emperor Maharani Dassi v. Commissioner

of Police, Calcutta Kutta Bella Ravat v. Emperor Sheosatyanarayanlal v. Emperor . . Gamadia v. Emperor Lai Singh v. Emperor Debi Dm v. Emperor In re Vollaynn Amhalam Ernp^ror v. Mohit Kumar Mukerjee Wdsudeo v. Emperor Bircndra Nath Chatterjee v. Uma- nanda Mukherjee In re Arumuga Padayachi Hanmantrao v. Emperor Harnam Singh v. Emperor Diwan Dhimar v. Emperor Abdulla v. Emperor Kashi Ram Khosla v. R. L. Diskshit Gahra v. Emperor Abdullah v. Emperor

91 533

91 536

91 537

91 539

91 91

539 540

91 541

*< I 542

91 543

91 544

91 689

91 690

91 600

91 097

91 699

91 701

91 702

91 703

91 704

91 801

91 804

91 805

91 806

91 808

91 809

91 811

91 812

91 814

91 814

91 815

91 881

91 882

91 833

91 8S6

91 888

91 889

91 891

91 895 91 896 91 915 91 1)19 954 959

91 91

9! 960 91 993 91 997

91 998 91 1000 91 1001 91 1002 91 1002 91 1006 91 1007

91 1003

92 145

Vol. 92] CONSOLIDATED COMPARATIVE TABLfeB.

27 CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926— concld.

210

211 212 215 217 218 220 222 223 225 228

229 230

231 232 233 235 238 239

240 241 243 247 248 249 250 251

1 2 9

13 16

1

7 17

18

20 21 22 27 29 30 33 34 35 36 41 43 44 45 46

Y'shwanath Prasad Pandey v

Emperor ^ 92 162 j Abdul Qadir v. Emperor .. Q£ 103 Bajirao v. Dadibai .. 92 161 Partap Singh v. Emperor . 92 1(>7 Rahimbeg v. Emperor .. 92 160 Ram Charan v. Emperor . 92 170 Uttim Singh v. Judhan Rai . 92 172 Bhajiratl-i v. Emperor ... 92 174 Pali v. Emperor .. 92 175 Hashmat Hussain v. Emperor . . 92 209 Shaft Ahmad Nabi Ahmad v. Em- peror ... 92 212 Akbar Ali v. Emperor ... 92 213 In the matter of K. M., First Grade

Pleader . 92 214

Tuisi v. Emperor ... 92 215

Amiruddin v. Emperor ... 92 216

Hari Singh v. Emperor ... 92 217

Siban Rai v. Bhagwat Dass . . 92 219

Lachhman ^i-iir* v K :-.:>eror .. 92 222 Surendra N:»«:i Hv.1. i •• v. Shashi

Bhushan Sarkar ... 92 223

Miran v. Emperor . . 9-2 224

Pohlav. Emperor .. 92 417

Kishanchand v. Emperor .. 9i 419

Daya Kam v. Emperor . 92 423

Momoon v. Ibrahim . 92 424

Qaim Din v. Emperor .. 92 425

Ram Sarup v. Emperor . 92 42Q

Gulabchand Rupji v. Emperor .. 92 427

ALL INDIA REPORTER,

Privy Council.

Chiranjit Singh v. liar Swarup ...

Man Singh v. Nawlakhbati

Lai Chand Marwari v. Mohant

RamrupGir Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. Solh

Hukum Chand •lawahir Singh v. Udai Parkash

• Allahabad High Court.

Kishan Dei v. Sheo Paltan

Mitar Sain v. Data Ram

De Mello v. New Victoria Mills Co.,

Ltd. Jorhawan r. Municipal Board, Go-

rakhpur

Mohamdi Begam v. Tufail Hasan . . Dvvarka Prasad v. Makund Sarup .. Hasan Ali v. Emperor Kamalapatti Panth v. Emperor Basanti Bai v. Nanho Mai Kanhaiya Lai v Bhagwan Das Muia v. Einparor Kumari v. Adit Misir Agha Husain v. Qasim Ali Brij Raj v. Ram Sarup Pirfchi Nath v. KunjiKoer Tajammul Husain v. Banwari Lai Brij Behari Lai v. Emperor Bijai v. Narain Ahmad Husain r. Muhammad Qasim

Khan

94- 782

94 830

93 280

93 219

93 210

90 358

87 724

90 287

88 814 92 2(50 90 2i)0

?2i) 51

89 357

89 105, J

90 150 89 37!)

89 1018

90 749 8^ 369 88 752 88 724 88 5U2

91

232 253 251 257 263 265 2(iG 274 275 276 377 278 280

283 284 285 28G 287 289 296 297 299 300 300 301 302 302 303 303

Kallu v. Emperor Champa Devi v. Pirbhu Lai Nga V\T;i Gyi v. Emperor "Woodtt'nrd v. Emperor Koramat Mandal v Kmporor Abdul llniiz Khan v Empeior Khijiruddiu v Emperor

Hfitun Mani v. Hans Ram Bhola v. Emperor

Kadhori v. Emperor

Keramat Mandal v. Emperor . .

Banwari Lai v, Jhunka

Thokala Seshainma v. Yellaturi Venkamma

Madat Klian v. Emperor

Bahadur v Emperor

Tcja Singh v. Emperor

Chandiram v. Emperor

Chhidda v. Emperor . .

Ram Kuran v. Emperor

Klmmani v. Empoior

Indar Singh v. Emperor

\Vasal v. Emperor

Kashi Prasad v. Kmperor

limperor v. Gulab . .

Krishna Gopal T. Emperor

L. A. Morrison v. H. M. Crowder ...

Emperor v. Ghulani Mohammad

Emperor v. Kesar

KaLip Xath v. Emperor

FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926.

Allahabad High Court — contd.

90 80

47 48

50 55

57 58

62 C>4 05 60 67 68 70 71

79 82 83 85 87 89 90 93 95 101

92 428 92 429 92 430 92 433 92 439 92 441 92 442 92 450 92 451 92 452 92 453 92 454

92 456

92 459

92 460

92 461

92 462

92 463

92 577 584

Bankey Lai Kapoor v. Allahabad

Bank Ltd. Shanq Ullah Khan v. Nuhullah

Kb an

Nathu Lai v. Raghubir Singh Hafiz Zahur Ahmad v. Taslim-un-

nissa

Ram llarakh Pathak v. Emperor . . Biaheshar Prasad Pandey v. Raghu- bir

Rain Kuer v. Goviiid Ram Jai Narain Singh v. Mandhai Singh Lakhaii Singh T. Babu Ram Bhagwan Rai T. Jaddu Raj Rai ... Nageshwari Rai T. Nand Lai Hot Ram v. Dat Prasad Singh •T.i^.'iMiaxiL Dati v. Tulsa Dip Prakash v. Dwarka Prasad Meliarban Singh v, Pauna Lai Shankar Kurmi v. Md. Moqim Ali

Khan

Piaro Lai v. Sri Thakurji Komil Prasad v. Bharat Indu Srilal Goaika v. Kesho Das Bhagwan Din v. Sri Kishen Zahid Ali v. Suk.hu Lonia Jagann.iLh Piasad T. Jugul Kishore Ballabh Das v. Sri Kishen Begam Sultan v. Saryi Begam Sheo Prasad T. Naraini Bai Lakshnii Fldur Mills Co., In the matter of

585

92 92

92 587 92 5S8 92 92

588 589 92 590 92 590 92 591 92 591

88 848

88 954

89 946

89 404

90 913

90 353

91 4H 88 535 88 1021 88 746 88 908

88 829

89 444 £O 83 89 617

88 927

88 964

69 466

87 89 89

368 161 509

89 492

89 581

90 274 9O 91S

89 9W

rii INDIAN OASES.

ALL INDIA REPORTER, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926— contd.

[1W6

Allahabad High Court — concld.

Bombay High Court~ concld.

102

Mulraj v. Indar Singh

92 471

40

Rachappa Chanbasappa v. Ningappa

103

Misri v. Rajmati

89 849

Kasappa

91 349

111

Megh Baraii Singh v. Rama Das . .

89 956

42

Sevadasji Chandradasji v. Municipal

113

Kehri Singh v. Thirpal

92 282

Corporation for the City of Bom-

111)

Sahu Banarsi Prasad v. Kuer Man-

bay

94 654

mohan Lai

89 288

43

Chandulal Maganlal v. Motilal Hari-

120

Harakh Sonar v. Gopi Kishun

89 134

lal

92 545

122

Ram Sarup v. Emperor

92 426

44

Collector v. Ramchandra Haris-

122

Browne v. Pearce

89 882

chandra

91 300

124

Narain Das v. Ram Chander

90 116

46

Emperor v. Chand Mahaboob

9 1 699

126

Mahadeo Prasad v. Harbans Singh ..

89 179

47

N. H. Moos v. Government of Bom-

127

Abdullah v. Bad r-ul-Islam

91 934

bay

91 357

128

Darshan Das v. Bikramajit Rai ...

89 953

49

Gangaram Hari Teli v. Ganesh

130

Channu Dutta Vyas v. Svvami Gyan-

Pandurang Ghanekar

91 318

nandji Maharaj

9O 976

50

Haji Rehemtulla v. Secretary of

131

Muhammad Yusuf Khan v. Mahadeo

State

92 351

Prasad

89 131

51

Usuf Dadabhai v. Chand Mahomed

9 1 299

136

Bishnath Singh v. Basdeo Singh ...

88 484

52

Giriappa Subanna v. Govindrao Gan-

136

Beti Bai v. Tantya Singh

89 574

rao

91 314

140

Bir v. Gajadhar

89 19

54

Vishveshwar Subrao Kulkarni v.

141

Kashi Prasad v. Emperor

92 588

Sadashiv Venkatramanayya Harite

93 930

142

Shiam Lai v. Jotia

89 383

55

Ramchandra Trimbak v. Dattu

142

Ahmad Husain Khan v. Hardial ...

9O 243

Rama Patil

91 347

143

Amir Ahmad T. Emperor

91 47

57

B. N. Gamadia v. Emperor . .

91 949

144

Muhammad Rahim v. Emperor

89 1025

62

Emperor v. Subrao Seslmrao

91 543

145

Kashi Prasad v. Mathura Prasad ..

89 286

63

Derji Padamsey v. Thommadra

14C

Gulab Dei v. G. I. P. Railway

9O 99

Erikalappa

92 555

147

Emperor v. Parana Sukh

91 43

64

Emperor v. Piru Rama Havaldar ..

91 689

152

Shabhar Hussain v. Abbas AH

9O 324

153

Ohunni v. Baldeo Singh

89 8!)

155

Reoti Ram v. Laehman Prasad

89 402

Calcutta High Court.

156

KedarNath Y. BismillahBegarn

90 72

157

Ghurahu Das v. Shakalraj Das

91 59

157

Faqir Chand v. Sant Lai

89 291

1

Pryag Kumari Debi v. Siva Prosad

158

Jagat Narain Lai v. Hawaldar

9O 287

Singh

93 385

159

Harihar Dat v. Maksud Ali

91 38

56

Shuncii Bibi v. Mobarak Ali .-.

87 94

160

Debi Din v. Emperor

91 959

57

Nandalal Rai v. Mukundalal De ...

89 24

161

Muhammad Abdul HatnidKhanv.

59

DwijendraNath v. Gopiram Govind-

Uda

90 996

ram

89 200

161

H.bibButhv. Samuel Fitz & Co.

65

Sarat Kaniini Dasi T. Nagendra

Ltd.

89 22

Nath Pal

89 1000

164

Babu Rani v. Ram Sarup

89 410

73

Rakhal Chand ra Bardhan v. Prosad

165

Jairaj Singh v. Bansi

91 67

Chandra Chatterjec

9O 229

166

Roshan Lai v. Maharaj Prasad

89 344

80

Rajendra Nath Datta v. Bhabini

167

Emperor v. Bhima

91 53

Dasi

87 811

168

Miran v. Emperor . .

92 224

82

Husena Banco v. Brojendra Kishore

Roy

89 373

Bombay High Court.

83

Kara Mohan Saha v. Sudhanshu

Bhusan Pal

851002

1

India Spinning and Weaving Co.

85

Ram Sundar Das v. Satindra Mohan

Ltd. T. Climax Industrial Syndi-

Tagore

89 190

cate

91 347

86

Tara Prasanna Sinha v. Jnanendra

13

Kishenprasad & Co. Ltd. v. Rajaram

Narayan

88 1039

Ramharakh

94 570

87

Nalini Ranjan Sen Gupta r. Corpo-

18

Parashuram D. Shamdasani v. Tata

ration of Calcutta

89 781

Industrial Bank

91 153

89

Emperor v. Mohit Kumar Mukcrjec

91 993

21

Rupchand v. Jankibai

91 817

92

Durga Ram Das v. ttharat Ram Das

85 739

26

lianmavva v. Arenkappa

91 305

95

Niranka Sashi Roy v. Swarganath

28

Pudumjee & Co, v. Moos

91 334

Banerjee

9O 121

21

Mayashankar v. Burjorji

91 978

97

Jotindra Nath Roy v. Narayan Das

33

Dodbasappa Dharmappa v. Pradhan-

Khetry

9O 901

appa Venkappa

91 426

100

Adam Sajan & Co. v. Asutosh Bando-

39

Gulabchand Ramsukh v. Ramsukh

padhya

86 1046

Rampratap

91 294

102

Rash Behary Karury v. Corporation

of Calcutta

87, 970

Vol 9^1 CONSOLIDATED COMPARATIVE TABLES.

ALL INDIA REPORTER, FOE JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926— contd.

Lahore High Court.

Madras High Court — contd.

1

Habib, In the matter of

89 833

31

Muhammad Sahib v. Alagappa

4

Hari Singh v. Emperor

92 217

Ohettiar

90 1042

6

Buta Singh v. Jagu

89 884

33

Muthukuruppa v. Sivabhagyath-

7

Dhanpat Rai v. Qopal Kuar

9O 1052

amnial

9O 880

9

Kisheii Chand v. Nank Chand

89 973

35

Raimiswami Chettiar v. Lodd Go-

10

Natha Singh v. Sundar Singh

92 258

vindass

91 612

11

Kanshi Ram r. Prem Singh

89 879

57

Samu Asari v. Anachi Animal

91 561

12

Allah Wasai v. Emperor

89 457

39 Muhammad Batcha Sahib T. Aruna-

13

Ismail v. Ibrahim

89 995

chalain Chettiar

9O 875

14

Hussain Bakhsh v. Sarbuland

92 268

42

Ranganatha Aiyar v. Srinivasa

16

Nur Hussain Shah v, Hussain Bibi

89 429

Aiyengar

90 1037

19

Haq Dad v. Crown

9O 927

46

Deiyac'hila Aiyangar v. Venkata-

20

Eclipse Motor Car Co. v. Mr. H. O.

chariar

88 967

War burton

89 721

50

Periamurugappa Asari v. Manicka

21

Devi Chand v. Jai Chand

9O 1047

Chetty

87 213

23

Pars Ram v. Tehu -,

89 960

51

Salakshi Animal v. Doraimanikka

24

Firm Jai Singh Diyal Singh v.

Nad;in

9O 829

Narmal Das

92 235

54

Kambhotlu v. AshreiT Husaiu . .

89 945

25

Daulat Bam v. Ghulam Fatima

89 953

55

Venkatacharyulu v. Venkatasubba

26

Gopi Chand v. Kirpa Ram

9O 1030

Rao

9O 725

27

Hari Kishen v. Mulkh Raj

89 857

57

Madura Dovasthanam v. Sundaram

28

Ismail v. Crown

91 70

Anna vi

91 525

30

Mohammad Akram v. Mula Singh . .

89 414

59

E. C. Kent v. E. E. L. Kent

9O 669

31

Ram Rukni v. Daulat Ram

9O 1056

62

Ayyanna v. Pulavarti Veerabhad-

31

Samail v. Haji . .

89 378

rain

91 771

32

Budhu Ram v. Kalu Rain

91 30

64

Durga Bai Animal v Ramanatha

33

Feroze Din v. Ghulam Fatima

89 434

Rao

9 1 566

34

Begam Bibi v, Bulaqi Shah . .

9O 1050

65

Subramaniu Aiyar v. Shanmugam

.35

Iliirbli.'iuu.m v, Taja .,

89 590

Chettiar . .

92 566

37

(iirdiiia Mul v- Muhammad Khan

9O 41

66

Guntur Nanisimham v. Nyapati

39

Padmun v. Achliar

89 792

Narayan Rao Garu

92 405

40

Firm of Hira Singh Pritam Singh

72

Sankaralinga Mudaliar v. Official

v. Secretary of State

9O 1054

Receiver of Tinnevelly

92 504

41

Khem Chand v. Narain Das Sethi ...

89 1022

78

Chinna Vavanan v. Chetkiappa Chetti

91 10

43

Kesho Das v. Tulsi Dass

89 229

81

Veiiku Shettithi v. Ramachand-

45

Suhan Singh v. Emperor

89 513

rayya

92 342

47

Firm Bhogi Lai v. Amar Natli . .

9O1012

84

Ayiswaryanandaji Saheb v. Sivaji

47

Mainrez v. Emperor

89 390

Raja Saheb

92 928

48

Mohar Singh v. Emperor

88 4 50

96

Lakshmi Animal, In re

91 729

49

Dliawa v. Emperor . .

89 961

101

Krisknaswami Bhagapathar v.

50

Sawaii Singh v. Emperor • .

89 705

Thirumalai Iyer

9O 410

51

Muhammad Sadiq v. Emperor

89 458

109

Pachaiyappa Chetti v. Sivakami

52

Ahmad Gul v. Rahim Khan

89 831

Animal

91 671

54

Mohammad v. Emperor

89 252

112

Naruyanasami Pillai v. Gopala-

' 6P

Hazara Singh v. Knvperor

9O 153

krishna Naidu

92 483

A

Babo v. Emperor

89 1027

113

Viiihilintfji Mudalipir v. Chidam-

62

Ramsaran Dass v. Firm Ram Lai-

baram Pillai

91 720

Ram Labhaya

89 479

114

Mahadeva Iyer r. Ramakrishna Red-

62

Sundar Singh v. Bhau Singh

90 1032

diar

92 653

63

Said Nur v. Emperor

89 718

117

Pasumarti Scothanna v. Thammandra

Yasikalappa . .

91 765

Madras High Court.

118

Narasiinha Mudali v. Narayanasami

Chetty

92 333

1

Visvanatha Mudali T. Doraiswami

119

Sriuirasa Rao v. Kanaparthi Ven-

Mudali

91 193

katanarasainma

91 727

6 Valluru Appalasuri v. Sasapu

120

Govindaawami Pillai v. Doraiswami

! Kannamma Nayuralu

9O 881

Mudali

91 181

12

Vuppulury Somasundaruui r.

122

Prathipati Suryanarayana v. Prathi-

Bhimisetti Kondayya

91 443

pati Seshayya

90 343

18

Veeraswami Mudali r. Vonkatachala

123

Kallukutt Parambath Pcrachaii v.

Mudali

92 20

Putem Pcctikakkal Kuttiali ...

91 144

20

Shuja-ul-mulk T. Umir-ul-umra

91 597

125

Secretary of State v. Srceramamur-

29

Ramaswami Reddi v. Rajagopala-

thi

91 179

chariar

91 270

126

Khajamyan Rowther v. Appavu

Pillai

9O 642

•,',', , ... i '•

INDIAN CASES. ALL INDIA REPORTER, FOR JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1926— contd.

[1926

128 128

130 132

133 133 135

135 136 138 139 140 141 143 114 146 146 148 149 150 150 152 153

154 154 155 156 157

159 liO

161 162

Madras High Court— contd.

Radhakrishna Aiyar v. Vinayaka-

swamiar Alapati Kamaswami v. Dusari Ven-

katanarayana

Sivan Pillai v. Venkatesvvara Ayyar Gopalakrishna Konar v. Vilanga

Konar . .

Muthu Veerappa Chettiar v Siva-

gurunaiha Pillai Kommareddi Ramachandrayya v.

Vodury Venkataratnam Kamaya BaiiL •••..— \tr.i \ Naickcr v.

Vadamalai Tnvanatha Sundanidoss

Theaver Hurugappa Chettiar v. L. K. S. 8.

Firm Periakaruppa Thevan v. A. Kaniyol-

aswamigal Karipinerii Rajayya v. Kalapatpu

Annapurnamma Marudayya Thevar r. Shanmuga-

sundara Thevar Trustee of the Vizianagaram Estate

v. Paila Achanah Nagala Kotayya v. Koganti Kot-

appa Marath Veetil Kalliani Amma v.

Cochin Sircar Metta Kama Bhatlu v. Metta Annayy;

Bhatlu Naiwalt Sulaiman Ali Khan v.

Venkatanaryana Garu Munuswami Nayakar v. Abdul Azeea

Sahib Tulasidass Govindjee v. Madhava-s

da§s Maharajah of Jeypore v. Sobha Sun-

dar Dalai Official Assignee of Madras T.

Zamindar of Odayarpalayam Kunnath Packi r. Kunnath. Muham- mad Payida Ramakrishnayya v. Barrey

Nagarazu Krishna Jute & Cotton Mills Co.,

Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Vizia-

nagram Khazi Muhammad Khan, In rt

Deraguptapu Narasimham v. Deva-

guptapu Chendramma Chockalingam Pillai v. Pichappa

Chettiar Nallakakhan Ambalam v. Kallalagai

Devasthanam Vasireddi Sree Chandra Monies wara

Prasad Bahadur v. Yadavalli

Kameswara Somayajulu Kaman Mada v. Malli Muthia Chettiar v. Venkatasubbara-

yulu Naidu Popakannu Errappa Reddi v. Ped-

damuniswami Setti Arumuga Thambiran v. Namasivaya

Pandara Sannadhi

91 08

92 330 92 556

90 819 92 C03 92 800

92 415

90 721

91 1027

92 308 91 702 91 280

90 551

91 310

90 605

91 166

91 724

92 570 91 576

90 1054

91 638 91 608

91 297

Not reportabl*

92 321 92 599

91 319

92 402 91 202

90 1033

91 264 91 109

Madras High Court— concld.

164 Govindaswami Pillai v. Ramanathan

Chettiar 1C5 Ramaftwami Chettiar v. Ramanathan

Chettiar 166 Sriranga Narayana Jeer v. Ahobila

Jeer :

168 Vcerannan Ambalam v. Ayyachi

Ambalam 173 Venkataranga Aiyar v. Ramasamy

Aiyar 175. Gandha Korliah v. Janoo Hassan ..

177 * Vemulamanda Bhadrayya v. Penu-

metcha Jaggaraju

178 Sirma Karuppan v. Muthiah Chet-

tiar ••;

179 Subramanian Chetty v. Ramaswami

Chetty 181 Kuppusvvami Mudaliar v. Chocka-

linga Mudaliar 183 Suggusetty Subbayya v. Irngulapati

Gangayya

183 Pfiramasami Rayudu, In re

184 Thutta Venkataswami v. Vissamsetti

Kotilingam

186 P<;oraiialiii^a/M Servai v. Voerayi ...

187 Alaga Pillai v. Ramaswami The-

van

189 Chandayya Hegde v. Kaveri Heg-

dathi

190 Mahalinga Naicker v. Vcllaya Naic-

ker a ...

191 I Venkataratnamma v. Narasimha-

charyulu

Nagpur Judicial Commissioners Court.

1 Sheosatyanarayanlal v. Emperor . .

5 Nagarmal v. Abdul Rahman

6 Jairarn v. Laxman

9 Mahadeo T. Shioram

10 Balwantrao v. Farid Sahib

10 Onkar v. Dhanaingh

15 Ganpati v. Salu

17 Nizamuddin v Jam ma

20 Mira Moti Ju Deo v. Janki

21 Premsukhdae T. Peerkhan 25 Nathu v. Sheosa

29 Ratanlal v. Govinda

31 Lalchand v. Narhar

31 Bhau v. Syed Chand

33 Jiajaram v. Ramchandra

35 Gokulv. -'.. .:-V-' ,'

37 Shankar- «' . . "^1 .'. '.' • .

40 Dattu v. Bhaooaingh

44 Bulakichand v. Amiralli

48 Jirabai v. Ramdularibai

49 Choturam Bhikraj v. Narayan

50 Anandrao v. President, Municipal

Committee, Nagpur

51 Mahamad Niyajuddin Khan

Jethu

52 Bisan Singh v. Fatechand

53 Ramprasad v. Emperor

91 714

91 537

91 631

92 968

93 670 91 780

91 1017

92 373 91 11

91 454

92 687 91 532

91 1051

92 1055

91 1024

92 390 92 412 92 470

91 945

89 941 91 971

90 51

89 216

90 963 89 345

693 926

88 89

95 979

89 636

90 349 89 896 87 921 89 944

90 89 88 87 89

76

782

235

12

991

90 210

89 929

87 623 89 829

88 178

.. ,92] CONSOLIDATED

ALL INDIA REPORTER, FOR

TABLES.

r, 1926— contd.

Nagpur Judicial Commissioner'* Court concld.

f)udh Chief Court— concld.

49

Hira Lai v. Maagal Dei

88 511

ft5

Pfcttatraya v. Amr^t

99 7£?

49

Tawai&ul Kfcan v.jjld. Metdi Ali

57

Q'. I. P. Railway Co. T. Jtodjbi&kipaji

Khan

90 37$

60

Jaikisari Tnmbik v. Sitaram Maharaj gJans-

99 *#

53

53

Bhagan v. Sukhdeo Singh Raza Husain Khan v. Subhani

J69 660 90 59$

'"'tjian ,.

89 1016

55

Ghuttur Singh v. Phulang Singh . .

90 119

61

Shiosahai Sonar v. Ramkrishna

92 6&

56

Tirbha,wan Dutt Pande v. Ram

62

Govindrao v. Sarjabai

89 872

Piare

88 65

64

Sarjabai ' v. Yadeosa

dO 58

57

Emperor v. Md.Shafi

9D 539

65

Udairam v. Thakur Prasad

89 933

59

Sitapat Ram v. Mahabir Prasad . .

87 438

66

Secretary and President Municipal

59

Bunyad Singh v. Naubut Singh ...

90 &1?

67

Committee, Nagpur v. Devidas Bruel & Co. v. Kesheorao

88 480 89 446

61 P2

Maharji v. Baghoman Baijnath v. Ramdas Sahu

89 476 90 321

68

Jtanhairam v. Kalicharan

91 2J8

03

Suktipat Lai v. Emperor

89 972

71

Ohunnilal v, Jtishandas Ram das ..

89 407

64

Santu Chamar v. Arjun Misra

88 542

73

Fakira Sambhaji Kunbi v. Emperor

87 918

Jnder Kuer v. Mohammad Taqi

9O 505

75

Shanker Rao v. Raghunathrao ...

89 331

68

Agent, Rohilkand-Kumon Railway

75

Dulichand v. Sonai

90 239

v. Gauri Lai

9O 46

77

Janki Sethani v. Seth Laxmi Nar-

68

Har Pershad v. Sheoshanker

9O 679

ayan

89 129

69

Kalka Singh v. Jagwant Kunwar ...

89 722

79

Lai Chand v. Emperor

89 974

72

Kalka Singh v Bishuaath Singh . .

89 221

79

Chimashani v. Venkatrao

02 841

74

Abdul Rahman Khan v. Noor Jahan

ftCi "Vift

75

Amna Khatun v. Md. Wali

88 481

Oudh Chief Court.

76

Ahmad Hasan v. Kodi Lai

90 351

77

Abhaidat Singh v. Ragho Indar

^

Mohammad Jaimur Khan y. Ragbu-

Partab Sahai

91 976

nath Singh

91 1015

79

Baboo Lai v. Mirza Md. Askari

89 57?

2

Achal Singh v. Shagunath Kuer ...

SO 4(70

80

Gajadhar v. Aulad Husain

9O 375

12

Rudra Partab Singh v. Suraj Kuer

I 617

13

Sajjad Ali Khan T. Ja^i:. :.j.:iPi.j>

9O 371

Patna High Court.

15

Ambika Prasad r. Athar Ah

89 182

16

Dwarka Das v. Agent E. I. Ry. Com-

1

Baijnath Rai v. Mangla Prasad

pany

94 672

Narayan Sahi

90 732

17

Jagan Nath Singh v. Jag Jewan

5

Pershad Tewari v. Emperor

9O 661

Das

91 93

9

Tarnji Singh r. Satnarain Maharaj

9O 895

17

Jagmohan Singh v. Sheo Manual

14

RamesJiwar Singh v. Durga

Singh

90 332

Mandar

90 454

18

Sajjad Husain v. Mul Chand

90 951

10

Aghori Koeri v. Kishundeo. Narayan

19

Ram Hartikh v Salik Ram

69 332

Mahta

86 397

20

Sitla Bux Singh v. Ram Newaz

9O 741

17

Ramchandra Singh v. Jang Bahadur

22

AjLakhdum Thater v. Emperor

87 595

Singh »-.

9O 55$

29

Ramcharan v. Sartaji

9O 766

20

Badri Chaudhry v. Emperor

92' 874

34

Jamna Pershad v. Ramlal

9O 327

23

Lekhraj Mahton v. Jang Bahadur

§6

Hasnu Khanv. Emperor

89 241

Singh

89 822

27

Sheo Darshan v. Emperor

9O 159

25

Faujdar Rai v. P'mperor

9O 445

.27.

Sri Ram v. Suraj Bali

88 507

27

Anant Potdar v. Mangal Potdar ...

91 483

28

Maqbul Husain v. Estate of Ch.

28

Raj Kishore Lai v. Alam Ara Be-

Shafiq-uz-zaman

89 225

gum

9O 6?

31

Haidri Khanam v. Ahmad Ali

9O 430

29

Ram Charan Singh v. Emperor ...

89 153

32

Zuhara Begam v. Mashuq Fatima...

88 175

29

Shamsher Narain Singh v. Moham-

33

Bhagwati Prashad v. Lall Bahadur

90 404

mad Sale

9O 320

34

Chandra Pal Singh v. Bishan Singh

87 1053

31

Hari Sankar Rai v. Tapaikuer

88 923

35

Gobind Prasad v. Narbhir Singh ,.,

90 577

""32

Kishore Ahir v. Emperor

88 864

36

Chutkan v. Emperor

90 444

33

Baijulal Marwari v. Thakur Prasad

37

Hari Kishen Dass v. Maiku Lai ...

87 959

Mar war i

9O 262

38

Narain Das v, Debi Din Singh

90 566

34

Ram Saran Singh r. Mohammad

39

Swami Dayal v. Maqsood Husen . .

88 141

Jan Khan

89 706

40

Thakurian v, T?ota Ram

To be

36

Barhamdeo Rai v. Emperor

9O 439

printed.

37

Jagdip Singh v. Harku Singh

89 863

tt

La%hhm*aD*»Vv tfhagiratb

9O 487

40

Radhe Lai v. East Indian Railway ...

9O 680

43

Harkiaiban D^vu Sundro Bibi

89 424

42

Bibi Wajibunnissa Begum v. Babu

44

Secretary of State for India v.

Lai Mahton

SO 871

Bishan Narain Bhargava

90 524

47

Rameswar Narayan Singh v. Mahabir

45

Sker Khan v. Misri Lai

89 107

Prasad

90 325

46

Ram Prasad v. Paul Brothers

9O 381

49

Ganesh Lall v. Biseear Pacdey . .

88 820

XVI

INDIAN CASES. ALL INDIA REPORTER, FOR JANUARY- FEBRUARY, 1926— concld.

[1926

53 54

r.5

f>7

58 61 €2 61 €7 €8 70 71

73 76 77

80

1 2 3

4

7

9 10

IS 14

17

Patna High Co urt— concld.

Harbans Narain Singh v. Mohammad

Sayeed

Gokul TatAva v. Emperor Keshub Prasad Singh v. Harihar

Prasad Singh Asharfi Dhimar v. Muhammad Din-

dalal

Harnandan Das v. Atul Kumar Pra- sad . . Emperor v. Phagunia Bhuian Chakauri Lai v. Deo Clwud Mahton Bibi Hajo v. Mar Sahay Lai Gobinda Bruin v. Kiisto Sardar Nandau Singh v. Siaram Singh . . Debi Daynl Singh v Oango Kuer .., Sobhit Mallah v Krnperor Sadhu Sao v. A\vadh Bihar Saran

Singh

Lanrentius Ekka v. Dukhi ICoeri ... Sheo Dani Kuer v. Ramji Upadhya Nathan Praead Shah v Kali Prasad

Shah Prasanna Kumar Banerji v. Kalyan

CharanMandal

Rangoon High Court.

Ma Than r. Mg. Ba Gyaw

Maung Po Toke v. Maung Po Qyi

Rainey v. Burma Fire & Marine In- surance Co , Ltd.

Maung Shwe Ye v. Maung Po Mya . .

Maung Kyi Oh v. Maung Kyaw Zan

Kalenther Ammal T. Ma Mi

Ma Sein Bye T. S. R. M. M. R. M. Chetty Firm

Emperor r. Mg, San Nyein , .

China and Southern Bank, Ltd. T. Te Thoe beng

Halima Bee Bee r. Khairunnissa Bee Bee

9O 293

89 1030

99 703

88 OSO

90 158 891013 9O 27S

89 902

90 489 89 151

89 1020

90 ICO

89 802 92 179

90 757

90 785 90 352

93 124

92 112

91 623

91 684

93 110

92 125

91 663

93 79

92 ^

91 644

J

19 23 25

31

9 15

17

18

19 20

22 26

27 31 34 35 37 40

42

48

Rangoon High Court — concld.

Ma Pan v. Maung Ne U '

Maung Po San v. Maung Po Thet . . .

Municipal Corporation of Rangoon

v. M. A. Shakur Punushwami v. Veeramuthu

Find Judicial Commissioner's Court.

Emptror v. Nabu

Jiviaj Lakhamal v. Dinanth & Co. . . Doomal v. Khrmoomal Jothmal K haras v. Bawanji Narsi Himalaya Assurance Co. Ltd. v.

. Assudam al Harbhagwan Das Japan Trading Co., Ltd. v. Secretary

of State Pevandbai v. Thaoomal Panjoo-

mal

Pursu v. Emperor Moolchand Kishindas v. Thakuribai

Assanmal Chatumal v. Dilbar Tulsidas Keshowdaa v. Ramzan

Abdulla

Naraindas v. Khatamnal Khimanmal Tejumal v. Lalchand

Ghanomal Mulchand Sobhraj v. Radhakishin

Parumal

Official Receiver v. Naraindas- Lota- ram Chptumal Bulchand v. Lilaram Lak-

hmichand Khuahiram Tejbhandas v. Jhali-

bai Jan Muhomed v. Ghulain Rasul

Khan Firm of Madhowji Thawor v. Yar

Hussain Hydar Dasti Devibai v. Dayabhoy Moiilal Emperor v. Dodo

91 63d

91 653

91 550

91 67<J

90 434 93 214 89 335 92 394

88 878

91 145

88 741

89 259

To be pointed. 89 159

89 238 83 916

89 609

90 932 £9 493 9O 64 89 342 89 10*

88 S80

89 164 89 451

Alphabetical List of Cases reported in Volume 92 of Indian Cases with references to the Volumes and Pages of other Law Journals and Reports.

An asterisk (*) denotes case* not reported yet elsewhere.

Names of coses reported.

Abdul Bari Mnlliek v. Emperor Abdul Hafiz Khan v. Emperor

Abdul Majid v. Wahiduliah . .

Abdul Qadir v. JOmperor Abdul Qadir v. JJahi Baklisli Abdul Qadir v. Jlalri Bakhsh

Abdul Rahtman Sahib & Co. v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Abdul Wahed Khan v. Tamijannessa Bibi Abdullah v. Emperor Adam Sirdar v. Bisweswar Da-* Addopalli Kondayya v. Vandru Veeranna Addepalli Venkata Garunandha v. Akella Kesnva Ramiah

Ah Khauug v. Emperor

Ahmad Baig v, Model Mill Nagpur, Ltd. . ,

Ahmun Zaida v. Gurdas Ram

Aishau v. Municipal Committee, Lahore

A jo Mian v. Emperor

Akabaiv. Narayan Akbar Ali v. Emperor

Akella Rainasomayyagulu Godavari

v. Official Receiver,

Alagirisami Pillai v. Laksmianan Chetty Aiampath Krishnan V. Municipal Prosecutor, Cunna- nore

Alapati Ramaswanu v. Dasari Venkataranayana Alella Kesavaramayya v. Yisamsetti Venkatanara- . simha

Alice Georgina Skinner v. Mukarram Ali Khan Allahabad Bank Ld. y. Bhagwan Das Johari Allah Bakhsh v. Municipal Committee, Rohtak Amiruddin v, Emperor

Anandrao y, paulat

Appajee Pillai v. Manika Mudali

Arshed Ali v. Emperor

Arshad Ali v. Zorawar Singh

Arunchellam Chettiar v, U. Po Lu ...

Asa Nand v. Mahmud

Asanalli Nagoor v. Mahadu Meera . .

Aswap Ali Bepari-v. Duia Mia

Ata Husain v. Mustafa Husain

Atma Ram v. Nanak Chand

Attar Singh v. Kirpa Singh

Ayiawaryanandaji Saheb v. Siwaji Raja Saheb

Where reported.

42 0. L. J. 585; A. I. R. 1026 Cal 157; 27 Cr.

L. J.375; 30 O. W. 644 L. R. G A. 203 Cr.; 24 A. L. J. 173; 27 Cr. L. J.

265; A.I. R. 1926 All. 168 A. I.R. 1926 All. 284 27 Cr. L.J. 211 A.I R. 1926 Lah. 251 "•Lahore High Court

21 L. W. 516; A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 736 A. I.R. 1926 Cal. 679

A. I.R. 1924 All 233; 27 Cr. L. J. 193 A.I. R. 1026 Cal. G81 A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 543

50 M. L. J. 51; 23 L. W. 314, (1926; M W. X.

149; A.I. R 1926 IV{ad. 417 4 Bur. L. J. 143; A. I. It. 192,5 Rang 363; 27

Cr. L.J. 336 "

A. L R. 1926 Nag. 262 A. I. R. 1026 Lah. 225 "Lahore High Court

6 P. L. T 626; A. I. R, 1925 Pat. 696; 27 Cr. L.J. 353

A.I. R. 1926 Nag. 251

7 L. L. J. 520; A, I. R. 1925 Lah. 614; 27 Cr L. J 229

23 L. W. 80; (1926; M. W N. 169; A. I. R. 1926*

Mad. 360 50 M. L. J. 79; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 371

23 L. W. 413; 27 Cr. L J. 361; A. L R.V1926 Mad. 430

(1925) M. W. N. 781; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 128 ...

(1936) M. W. N. 141; 50 M. L. J. 36; 23 L. W.

678; A. I. R. 1926 Mud. 452 L. R. 5 A. 607 Civ.; A. I. R. 1925 All. 77

24 A. L. J. 323; A. I. R. 1926 All. 262 A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 223

40 0. L. J, 306; A. I. R. 1925 Cal. 217; 27 Cr L.J. 232

22 N, L. R. 37; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 274 21L.W.652

30 0. W N. 166; 27 Cr. L. J. 378

8L. L. J. 60

4 Bur. L. J, 01; A. L R. 1925 Rang. 2G6; 3 R

318

7 L. L.J 542

22 L, W. 820; A, I. R. 1926 Mad. 259 A. I. R. 1926 Cal, 580 *Allahabad High Court A. I. R. 1926 All 274 A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 175 A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 84; 49 M. L J. 568; 49 M.

116

Page.

887

441

496 1G3 761) 791 620 905 145 601 672

973

752

23

630

526

863 36

213

249 1021

873 330

626 330 309

216

909

30

241 491 843 54ti 571 297

028

INttfAfr OASES.

[1926

Ayyaru Pillai v. Varadarnja Pillai Babu v. Emperor

Bachan v. Raghuuath . . •

Badri Choudhry v. Emperor Badri 8ahu v. Pearc Lai Misra

Dago v. Roshan Beg Bahadura v. Kmpcror

Baijnatli Singh v. Hari Prasad Bal

Buikuntha Nath-De v. Shaik Hari

Baikuntha Nath Knr v. Adhar Chandra Pain

Bajirao v. Dadibai

Bajrang Bali y. Mahrajia

Balaram Manjhj v. Jagaimath Man j hi

Baldeo Kurmi v. Kanhi Chamnr

Baldeo Singh v. Gi.lab

iialsiiet Mahadshet Yckawdc v. Hari Baburao Rane. .

Bangflhi Badan llaldar v. Katan

Banjoisi Narasamma v. Banjoisi Sarasamman

Bantu v. Lehnu Das Ban war! Lai v Jhimka

Bonu Mai v. Paras Ram *.

Barati v. Surit

Bar$Rtv. Kolu Mai

Barkat Bibi v. Abdul Aziz

liarkoo v. Atmaram

Basant Rai Bhandari v. Salik Ram . .

Bashir Ahmad v. Zobaida Khatun

Basliirulla Bhuiya v. Meajan

B,atisa K.uer .v. Raja Ram Pandey • .

Batuk Natli v. Jugal Kishore B. N. Ry. Co. v. Makbul

Bengal North- Western Ry. v, Bansi Dhar Beivi Ram v. Kmpcror Kha^gat Singh v. Mathra Bhagirathi v. Kmperor

Bhagwandas- Paras Ram v. Jado Nath ».

Bhagwati Dayal v. Dhan Kunwar Bliagwati Singh y. Gurcharan Dnbe Bhatu Ram Modi v. Fogal Ram

Bhola v. Emperor

Bhunjanga Rao v: Periyathambi Goundan Bhupendra Narayan Singh Bahadur v. Madar Bakhsh Sheikh ;

Bibi KhodaijatuT Kabra v. Harihar Missir

Bishen Singh v. Wasawa Singh ...

Bohisetti Mamayya v. Official Receiver, Guntur

Bombay Baroda & Central India Ry. v. Gulabbhai

Bhagwandas Bulli Malv. Jhabba

Buta v. Ghul am Muhammad r- , ..

Cecil Cole v. Nanalal Moraji Dave

Cha_mari Singh v, Public Prosecutor, Gaya

50 M. L. J. 116; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 431 . I 770 24 A. L. J. 280; 27 Cr. L. J. 313; A, 1. R.

1926 All. 276 • 697 24 A. L. J. 149; 48 A. 221, A. 1 R. 1926 All.

304 ... 264 6 P. L. T. 620, A. 1. K. 11)26 Pat. 20; 27 Cr. L.

J. 362 • 874

6 P. L. T. 839; A. 1. R. 1926 Pat. 140; (1926)

Pat. 137 ... 350

* Lahore High Court 484 24 A. L. J. 215; 27 Cr. L. J. 284; A. I. R.

1926 All. 301 ... 460 A. I. R. 1924 Pat. 628; (192J) Tat. 209; 7 P. L.

T. 353 .. 326

A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 592 ... 6J)9

A. I. R, 1926 Cal. 653 .. 727

27 Cr. L. J. 212; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 280 ... 161

*0udh Chief Court ... £32

A. 1 R. 1925 Pat. 760 . . 684

i 24 A. L. J. 337; A 1. R. 192« All. 312 .. 095

| *0udh Chief Court .. 237

I 27 Bom. L. R. 1487; A. J. R. 1926 Bom. 119 . . 542

i *Calcutta High Court . . 961

i 23 L. W. 157; (1926) M. W. N. 163; A. L R.

1926 Mad. £53 . . 61

•"Lahore High Court . 723 27 Cr. L. J.278; 21 A. L. J. 217; A.I R. 1926

All. 229 ... 454

7 L. L J. 337; A 1 R. 1923 Lah 010 .. 254 A. 1 R. 1926 Nag. 277 .. | 916 7 L. L. J 509; A. J R. 1925 Lah. 627 .. 178

2 L. O. 186 . . , ..46 *Nagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court ... 818 A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 288 ... 519

3 O. W. N. 10;>; A. I.It. 1923 Oudh 166 *65 A. I. R. 10^6 Cal. 690 ... 593 (1925) Pat. 343; A. I. R. 1926 Pat. 192; 7 P. L.

T 393 177

i 24 A L, J. 281; A. I. R. 1926 All. 285 '.'.'. 551 A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 755; (1926; Pat. 74; 27 Cr. L.

J. 313; 7 P. L. T. 343 . . 697

3 O. W. N. 145; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 218 .. 603 27 Cr. L. J. 310; A. I. R. 1926 All 237 . . j 694 "Lahore High Court - ... 982 30 C. W. N. 142; 27 Cr. L. J. 222; A, I. R. 1926

Cal. 550 .. 174

A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 236 . . 898

I 24 A. L. J. 331; A. I. R. 1926 All. 311 . .. 1027

1 L. R 5 A. 647 Civ.; A. I. R. 1925 All. 96 ... 332

' (1925) Pat. 357; 5 Pat. 223; A. I. R. 1926 Pat.

141; 7P.L. T. 340 ... 629'

27 Cr. L. J. 275 ... 451

•Madras High Court ... 1047

A. I. R. 1925 P. C. 297; 23 L. W. 9; 52 I. A.

439; 53 C. 1 P.O. ... 681

4 Pat. C88; 7 P. L. T. 333; A. I. R. 1926 Pat. I

209 . . 900

A.I. R. 1926 Lah. 177 ... 317 23 L. W. 10; (1926) M. W. N, 124; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 338 ... 720

A. I. R. 1926 All. 296 ... 532

A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 504; 7 L. L. J. 280 ... 569

A.I. R. 1926 Lah. 247 ... 725 26 Bom. L. R 8*0; A. I. R. 1925 Bom, 18; 49

B. 172 . ^ 101 4 Pat. 484; A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 677; 27 Or. L.

J. 371; 7 P. L. T, 372 .. 883

. 921

INDIAN CASE&

Champa Devi v. Pirbhu Lai

Chan Klliam v. Neo Thcin Theoug Ohandtiyya Hegdo v. Kavcri Hegadthi Ohandirum v. Emperor Chandoo v. Muriidhar Chandra Kumar Guha v, Elahi Buksha Chandra Mouleswara Prasada v. Vadavalli Kames- wara

Cii'Liidni1 ••!.•;. i Bui v. Bakaram Cliandrabhan Prakaslmnth v. E T. liy. Co. Chandrika Prasad v. Nazir Husain Oliaudulnl Maganlal v. Motiial iianlal Chst Ham v. llaioho Clihidda v. Emperor

Chimashani v. Veukalrao

China v. To Thoe Seng

ChintLilapati Butchi Seela^ya Cam v, Gollavilli

Appadu

Chiragh I>m v. Emperor Ciiiraiiji Lai v. Shib Lai Citittammal v Poimusami Nairkpr

Chockalingani Pillai v. 1'idiappa ChHliar Chunilal Mokamdas Marwadi v. Christopher

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Luoknow Ice Asso- ciation

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v, M. H. Sanjana '& Co.

Commissioner of Income Tax,, Madu-a v, Meesiu King & Partrige ~.

D. R. K. Saklat v. Bella »

Darbari Mai-Ram Sahai v. Secretary of State Dawlat v. Kashirao Daya Ram v. Emperor

Deo Kali v. Ranchoor Bux

Devji Padamsey v. Thommadra Erikalappa

Dhana Mohammad v. Nastulia Molla ..«

Dlianpat Rai v. Kahan Singh

Dkanrajgirji Narasinggirji v. Tata Sons Ltd,

Digambar, In re

Din Mohammad v. Matab Bibi

Dittu Ram v. Nawab

Diwaii Chand v. Emperor

Doras wami Nadar v. Joseph L. Mother

Dost Muhammad v, Kadar Batcha

Duma Tom a Rumav v. Nathu Farsha Kurel . .

Durga Bai, hi the matter of

Durga Prosad Lahiri Choudhuri v. Raton Mahommed

Sarkar

Dwarka v. Emperor

East Indian Railway v. Firm Baldeo Gutain Kmperor v. Daulat Singh — , Vt Ghulam Mohammad

• v. Gulab

— — — v. Kesar

27 Cr. L. J. 253; 24 A. L. J. 3i>9; A. T. R, 1926

AIL 287

A. 1 R. 192"> Hang. 361; 1 Bur. L J. 13S 19 M. L. J. 727; A. I. R. 1'JiG Mad. 180 27 Cr. L. J. 2sr>

13 O L. J. 13*, A T. R. 1926 Oudh 311 A. I. H. 1926 Cal. C67

(1925) M. VV.N. 776; 22 L W. 833; 50 M. L. J.

97; A. 1. R. 1926 Mad. 157 A. 1 R. 1926 Nag. 276 21 A. L. J 305, A. I. R. 1926 All. 200 A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 303

27 Born. L. R. 1192; A. 1. R. 1926 Bom. 43 .. 2L. 0.178

21 A L J. 178; 27 Cr. L. J. 287, A. I. R. 1926 All. 225

8 N L. J. 135; A. I. R. 1923 Nag. 79 3 R. 477; A. I. R. 19?6 Rang. 14

A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 526 7 L L. J. 621, 27 Cr. L. J. 330 A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 242

23 L. W. 94; (1926; M W. X. 121 & 172; 50 M. L. J 180; A I R 1926 Mill 303

22 L W. 579, (IILM; M. W. N. bUL'; A. 1. H. 1926 Mad 155

27 Bom. L. R. 1162; A. I. R. 1026 Bom. 65, 50 13.107

A. I. R. 1026 Oudh 191

27 Bom. L. R, 1471; A, I. R. 1926 Bom. 129; 50

50 M. L. J. 176; 49 M. 296; A, I, R. 1926 Mad.

338 -

23A.L.J. 1016; A. L R. 1925 P. 0.298; 49

M. L. J. 821; 13 C L. J. 23, 30 C. W. N. 269;

28 Bom. L. R. 168; 3 R. 582 P. C. ... 6L 499; A. I. R, 1926 Lah, 116 .. A.I. R. 1926 Nag. 280 ••

6 L. 489; 27 Cr. L. J. 217; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 83 •

A. I R. 1926 Oudh 253; 13 0. L. J. 208 . . 27 Bom L R 1494; A.I. R. 1926 Bom. 63 ... A. J R lOJGCal C37 ...

2 L. C 107 ..-

26 Bom L. R. 858; A. I. R. 1921 Bom. 473; 49 B.I .-

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 306 ...

A.I. R. 1926 Lah. 203 ..

7 L L. J. 448; A I. R. 1925 Lah. 639 ...

27 Cr L. J. 333; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 227 ... A. I. R 1926 Mad. 319 ...

23 L W 240; A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 466 ... 27 Horn. L. R. 249; A. I. R. 1925 Bom. 431 . .

24 A L. J. 310; A. I. R. 1926 AIL 301 . .

"Calcutta High Court ...

27 fV. L J. 3 '3 ...

•Allahabad High Court ••

24 A. L. J. 224; 27 Cr. L. J. 327 ... A I. R. 1925 Lah. 510; 7 L. L, J. 331; 27 Cr.

L. J. 302 ...

27 Cr. L.J. 300 ...

27 Cr. L. J. 303; 24 A*L. J. 228; A. I, R, 1926

All. 226 ..

429 7fr'G

390 402 732 616

402 "35 022 G81

463 841 233

814 7J6 991

573

599 068

517 943

200 3:.2

10 5c5

948 479

272

749

119

950

16

855

U-07

743

590

588

N CASfeB.

Emperor v. Manant K. Mehta

v. Mathro

v. Maung Than Gyaung

— v. Nga Tun Maung

v. Tej Ram

Fnt^h Mahommcd v. Mitha Fntchchand v. Parbati Bai Fazlar Rahman v. Abdul Samad Firm Bihari Lal-Jai Narain v. Har Narain Das Firm Budhu Mai-Parma Nand v. Gokal Chand Firm Jai ^' ." lv -.'• <'• ^- \ V rmal Das Firm of]: I*. H r \ : v. Ghulam Mahbub

Khan

Firm of Ram Prosad-Ram Kissen v. Haro Kumar

Chin-

Ful ihand Mohanlal v. Harilal Nansa

(jaja la \ Kara} an Patkar v. Jivangiri Chamelgiri < janga H -.!• ':-:: S! :^1: v. Mania Bux iSingh Oangal1 s . !'•' •„ N .::; v. B. B. & C. 1. Hy. (jlanpat Rai v. Kani Ram-Muuna Lai Gaur.i Telin v. Shriram Bhoyer Gam i Shankar v. Bhairon Pershad Gauri Shankar v. Decruzo Ghissu v. Amir Ali Khan Gobind Lai Dutt v. Official Assignee, Calcutta Gokul Das v. Nathu

Gonnabathula Thammayya v. Gonnabathula nay y a

Gopal v. Collector of Aligarh

Gopal v. Krislmarao

Gopal Chandra Banerjee v, Bhutnath Sasmal

Gopnl Chandra Das v. Satya Bhanu Goehal

Gopilal Bhawaniram v. Pandurang

Govinda Nadan v, Rumasami Chcttiar

G. F. P. Railway v. Kunj Behari Lai G, f. P. Ry. Co v. Chandulol Sheopratap

Guduthuru Thirnmappa v. Balakriahna Mudaliar . . Gulabchand Rupji v. Emperor

Gimtur Narasimham v. Nyapati Narayanarao Garu ... Haji Rahmatulla v. Secretary of State for India Hakim Din v. Qutab Din Hari Singh v. Emperor

Hasumat Husaain v. Emperor Hazura Mai- Lai Chand v. Rang Ilahi Hem Chandra Sen v. G Irish Chandra Saha Hitendra Singh v. Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga

Hussain Bakhsh v. Sarbuland , .

Ibrahim y. Shah Mahomed Imam Ali v, Emperor

Imam Satyanarayana v, Devarakonda Satyanarayana Murte «.

v. Debi laciar bingh v. Emperor

27 Bom, L. R, 1343; 49 B. 892; A, I. R, 1026

Bom. 110;27Cr. L. J.303 27 Cr. L. J. 309; A. I. R. 1026 Sind 101 A. T. R. 1925 Ran*. 375; 4 Bur. L. J. 145; 3 R.

514; 27 Cr, L. J. 312 854 A. 1. R. 1925 Rang. 36?; 4 Bur. L. J. 1C9; 27

Cr. L. J 337 • • 849

27 Cr. L. J. 360 ... 892

* Lahore High Court .- 479 18 S. L. R. 85; A. 1. R. 1925 Sind 269 ... 196 "Calcutta High Court ... 960

* Lahore High Court .. 674 8 L. L.J. 3;7L. 113 ... ( 1015 7 L. L. J. 553; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 24 , . , 235

A. I. R. 1925 P. C. 290; 49 M. L J. 806; 43 C. L J. 1; 23 L. W. 3; 24 A. L. J. 48; (1926) M. W. N. 108; 28 Bom. L. R. 211; 53 C. fc8; 30

C. W. N. 577 P. C. . . | 760

"Calcutta High Court .. 298 27 Bom. L R 1503; A. 1. R. 1926 Bom. 69; 50

B. 121 .. ; 549

27 Bom. L. R. 1165, A I. R. 1920 Bom. 131 527

13 O. L J. 132 .. 612

24 A. L.J. 328 .. £>22

24 A. L. J. 283; A. I. R. 1926 All 293 .. ! 535

A. L R. 1926 Nag. 265 . . , C£6

A.I. R. 1926 Oudh 207 .. | 17

S O. W. N. 378 .. | 673

*Allahabad High Court .. 555

29 C. W. N. 16:3; A. 1. R. 1925 Cal. 291 ... 563

24 A L.J. 291 ,., 492

22 L. \V. 752; (1926) M. W. N. 38; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 282 ... ! 594

"Allahabad High Court .. , 134

*Nagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court . • 678

42 C. L. J. 520; A. 1. R. 1926 Cal. 312 ... 411

A. I. R. 1926 Cal, 634 ... 963

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 241 ... 640 (1925) M. W. N. 927; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 224; 23

L. W. 573 .. 106

A I. R. 1926 All. 228 .- 993 27 Bum. L. R. 1500; A. L R. 1926 Bom. 138; cO

B. 84 .. 548

23 L. W. 361; 50 M. L. J. 298; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 427 ... 915

27 Bom. L. R. 1039; A. I. R. 1925 Bom. 467; 49

B. 799; 27 Cr. L. J. 251 ... 427 f

22 L. W. 592; A. 1. R. 1926 Mad. 66 .. 405

27 Bom. L. R. 1507; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 50 .. 351

A. L R. 1926 Lah. 211 .. 264 7 L. L. J. 576; A. I. R. 1926 Lah 4; 27 Cr. L

J. 233 . 217

7 L. L J. 96; 27 Cr. L. J. 225 .. 209

"•Lahore High Court ... 273

•"Calcutta High Court .. 107 (1925; Pat. 359; A. I R. 1026 Pat. 147; 7 P. L

T. 392 .. 626 7 L. L. J. 548; 6 L. 536; A. I. R, 1926 Lah

14 .. 268

*Lahore High Court ,. 263

27 Cr. L. J. 338; A. L R. 1926 Lah. 212 .. 650

50 M. L. J. 144; (1926) M. W. N. 7; A. I. R.

1926 Mad. 428 .. 86

A. I. H. 1926 Nag. 174 ... 683 27 Cr. L. J. 297; 24 A. L. J. 270; A. I. R. 1926

All 302 ... 585

VoL92j

INDIAN OASES.

Indarpal Singh v. Kalloo

Indian Vacuum Brake Co., Ltd. v. E. S. Luard

Ishar Das-Dharam Chand, In the matter of

Ish war Das v. Emperor

Isram v. Qangia

Iswor Sant v. Torendra Nath Kuila

Jagrup Singh v. Indrasan Pande

Janangir y. Ham Harakh „

Jai Narain v. Jafar Beg

Jalaluddin r. Emperor

Jam shed ji Naoroji Gamadia r. Maganlal Bankeylal

<fe Co.

Jang Bahadur v. Jagat Narain . ,

Jasoda Koer v. Janak Missir Jeobaran Singh v. Ramkishun Lai

Jeomal v. Emperor

Jethanand Tekchand y. Secretary of State for India ,,,

Jitendra Nath Chatterjee v. Jasoda Sahun

Jiwa Ram v. Jhanda Sin^h

Jotsing Harising Advani v. Secretary of State for India . .

K. Venkat Reddiar & Co. v. Desikachariar K. M. First Grade Pleader, In the matter of

Kadhori v. Emperor

KalaGellav. Shivji

Kala Khan v Natlm Khan

Kalap Nath v. Emperor

Kalenther Ammal v. Ma Mi

Kaliani Anni v. Thirumaiayappa Mudaliar

Kaliappa Goundan v. Maniam Sellappa Goundnn ..

Kaliba Sahib v. Subbaraya Ayyar

Kalka Prasad v Panna KaUiiickai v. Palani Koundan

Kailu v. Emperor Kallu Mai v. Partab Singh .Kandasami Chettiar v. G. F. F. Foulkes Kandasami Chetty, In re

Kaniza v. Hasan Ahmad Khan Kankai v. Tikaram Kannammal, In re

Kannuri Venkata Siva Rao v. Chittoori Rama Krish- nayya

Kanshi Ram v. Muhammad Abdul Rahman Kanshi Ram v. Prabh Dial-Arjan Dass & Co. Karingan v Harihar Dutt

Karipineni Rajayya v. Kalpatapu Annapurnamma ... Kftshi Prasad v. Emperor

Kehri Singh v. Thirpal

Keramat Mandal v. Emperor

Kcramat Mandal v. Emperor

Keaaralu Naicker v, Corporation of Madras

*0udh Chief Court

42 C. L. J. 543; A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 152; 53 C.

306

A, I. R.I 926 Lah. 168 27 Cr. L J. 344; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 290 *Nagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court 42 C. L. J. 560: A. I. R. 19-'6 Cal. 163 24 A. L. .J. 323; A I. R. 192o All. 216 130. L. J.243 24 A. L. J 355 24 A. L. J. 230; 27 Cr. L. J. 345; A. I. R. 1923

All. 271

27 Bom. L. R 514; A. I. R. 1925 Bom. 314

A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 318

4 Pat. 3U; A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 787

4 Pat 503; A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 623; 27 Cr. L. J.

359

27 Or. L J. 326

*Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court (1925) Pat. 353, A. 1, U. 19^0 Pat. 122; 7 P. L.

T. 299 1 L. C. 43

A. I. R. 1026 Sind 130

22 L. W. 490; A. I. R. 192', Mad. 1279

A. I. R. 1924 Mad. 479; (1924; M. W. N. 5; 27

Cr. L J. 230 F. B. L. R. 6 A. 216 Cr ; 24 A. L. J. 162; 27 Cr. L. J.

276; A I.R. 1926 All. 103 *Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court A I II 1926 Lah. W9 27 Cr I, .1. 303; 24 A. L. J. IDS; A. I. R. 1926

Ail. 288

3 H. 474; A. I. R. 1926 Rang. 9 *MadrasHigh Court

23 L W 101; A. 1. R. 1926 Mad. 296, 27 Cr. L. J. 3:14

23 L. W. 99; (19*6) M. W. N. 123 & 178; A.I.

H. 1926 Mai. 3bo A I LI 19:26 All. 233 23 L \V. 227; 5U M L, J, 200; (19?6) M. W. N.

245; A. 1 H. l9-'6 Mad. 41* 27 Cr. L. J. *5-»; A 1. R. 1926 Lah. 240 A. 1. R. 1926 Oudh 301 A. I. K. 1926 Mad. 39ft 50 M. L. J. 44; V192«) M. W. N. 14G; 27 Cr. L.

J. 350; A.I. R. 1926 Mad. 346 3 O. W. N. 114; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 231 A. I. K. 1926 Nag. 239

23 L. W. .384; 27 Cr. L. J. 311; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 570

(1925) M W. N. 8"4; 23 L. W. 103; 50 M. L. J. 14«, A. I. R. 1926 Mad 246

6 L. L. J. 336; A. 1 R. 1925 Lah. 216

7 L. L. J. 457; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 018 3O W. N 58; 13 O. L. J 53

22 L. W. 828; A I. R 1926 Mad. 138

24 A. L. J. 161; A. I. R. 1926 All. 141; 27 Cr. L.J.300

L. R. 6 A. 213 Rev.; 23 A. L. J. 965; A. I. R.

1926 All. 113; 48 A. 104 42 C L J. 528; 27 Cr. L. J. 277; A. I R. 1926

Cal. 117 42 C. L. J. 524; 27 Cr. L. J. 263; A. I. R. 1926

Cat 3.'0

23 L W. 233; 50 M, L. J, 301; A. 1, R. 1926 Mad. 381

670

1008 249 856 295 U81 I 263

101?

857

9

906 1031

871 742 371

617 346

354 214

459 491

uuo

501 125 355

750

621 3

523 42H

787 loO

862 82 80

695

7CO

403

$59

34

568 282 453 439 1053

INDIAN CASES.

[1926

TCesheo v. Jagannath Kesheorao v. Marotirao Khamani v. Emperor

Khoras, R. P. v. Bha^anji Narsi Khazan Singh v. Uiniao Singh Khem Kuran Das v. Baldeo Singh Khijiruddin v. Emperor

Khoday CipiiKr.durn Sah v. Swaminadha Mudaliar Khurshed Meerza v. Faizuddin AH KhurshM Begam v. Abdul Rashid Kidar Nath v Bhikham Singh Kisnn v. Jasodabai Kishanchand v. Emperor Komarasami Chetti v. Sundnr Mudaliar Kommareddi Ramachandiayya v. Vodury Vcnkatarat- nam

Komminoni Appalaswamy v. Kommineni Simhadri

Appadu

Koyyalamudi Chinnayya v. Koyyalamudi Mangamma Koyyalamndi Suhbiumu v. Koduri Subbarayudu Krishna G opal v ICmperor l\utluilinga Mudaliar v. Shanmuga Mudaliar

It. A. Morrison v. H. M Crowder Lachhman Singh v. Empeior

Lachhman Singh v I!am Das Ladha Singh v Sundar Singh Lakshmi CJiand v. Mukta Parshad Lai Chand v. Huns Kumar 7/alchand Doomal, In re Lalit Kumar Sen v. Emperor

Lallu Singh v. Our Xarnin

Lalman v. Shiam Singh

Langley Billimoria & Co. v. Lakhmichanc'-O opal-

das Laurentius Ekka v DhukiKoeii

Laxman Bhiknji v Secretary of State for India Leoh Moses v. Solomon Jiulnh Meyer

Government v. Doma Kunbi M. S. S. Chettyar Firm v. Ma Tin Tin Ma Me Mva v. Ma Min Zan

Ma Shews II v. Ma Shin Ma Tok v. MJI Yin Madat Khan v. Emperor

Mahabir Prasad Tewnri v. Jamuna Singh Mahadeo Prasad v. Anandi Lai Mahadeo Prasad v. Ram Thai Mahadeva Ivor v. Ramkrishna Reddiar Mahalinga Naicker v. Vellaya Naickor

Malmmmad Raz.-i Snheb B»'lgami v. Sadasiva Rao Mahnraj DhiiMj u[ Uarbhanga v. Commissioner Income Tax

Maharaj Din v. Bhairon

of

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 81: 22 N. L. R. 5 ... ' 121

8 N. L. J. 227; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 139 . . 102 L. R 6 A. 207 Cr ; 21 A. L J. 171; 27 Cr. L.

J 296; A. I. R. 1926 All. 306 • .. 584

A. I. R. 1926 Sind 6 ... 394

A. J. R. 1925 All. 44; L. R. 5 A. 609 Civ. ... 335

A. I. R. 192G All. 282 ,.t 1046 42 C. L. J. 504; 27 Cr. L. J. 266; A. L R. 1926

Cal. 139; 53 C. 372 .. 442

22 L. W. 67fl; A. I. K. 1920 Mad. 213 . . 112 •Calcutta High Court .. 902

9 N, L, ,7. 11; A. I. R, 1926 Nag. 234 .. 913 *0udh Chief Court 679 A.I. R. 1925 Nag. 298 ... 530 27 Cr. L. .1.243 .. 419

23 L. W. 212 ... 724

22 L. W. 582; (1925) M. W. N, 804; A. I, R.

1926 Mad. 133 . . 800

23 L. W. 29; A. 7. R. 1926 Mad. 384 ... 844 *Madraa High Court .. C61 50 M. L. J. 125; A. 1. R. 1926 Mud 3<)0 ... 805 27 Cr. L. J. 301 ... 589 50 M. L. J. 231; 23 L. W. 373; (1926) M. W. N.

274; A. I R. 1926 Mad. 461 .. P89

27 Cr. L. J. 302 .. 5fcO

7 L L. J 582; 27 Cr. L. J. 238; A. I. R. 1926

Lah 143 ... 222

"Lahore High Court . . 949

•Lahore High Court ... 762

8 L L. J. 67 ... 10C6 7 L, L. J. 590; A. I R, 1926 Lah. 108; 7 L. 55 C51 A I. R. 1925 Sind 259 .. 1016 42 C. L. J. 551; A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 174; 27 Cr.

7, J. 382 .. 8P4

•Allahabad High Court ... 768

24 A, L, J. 288; A, I. R, 1926 All. 291 ... COS

*Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court .. 621 4 Pat. 766; A. I. R. 1926 Pat. 73; 7 P. L. T.

3o2 .. 179 27 Bom. 7, R. 463; A. I. R. 19*5 Horn. C65; 49

B. 554 ... 110 27 Bom. L. R. 1460; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 139; 50

B. 32 ... 367

27 Cr. L. J. 339 ... 851

A. J. R. 192?,5 Rang. 349; 4 Bur L. J. 179 ... 677 A 1. R. 1925 Rang. 320; 3 R. 490; 4 Bur. L J.

159 .. 368

A. 7. R. 1925 Rang. 381; 4 Bur. L. J. 146 ... 775

3 R. 77; A. I R 1925 Rang. 228 .. 489 I 7 L L. J. 628; 27 Cr. L. J. 283; A. L R. 1926

i Lah. 221 ... 459 A.I. R. 1925 P. C. 234; (1925) M. W. N. 738;

23 L. W. 75 P. C. ... 31 47 A. 90; 22 A. L. J. 887; L. R. 5 A. 749 Civ.;

A.I. R. 1925 All. 60 ... 348 3 O. W. N. 186; 13 0. L. J. 55; A. I. R. 1926

Oudh 258 % ' », ... 685 23 L. W. 199; 50 M. L. #%;:A. 7. R. 1926

Mad. 114; (1925) M W. N. 70? ... 654 22 L. W. 794; (1923) M. W. N. 884 A. I. II. 1926

Mod ICO .. 412

49 M. 49, A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 297 .. 918

6 P. L. T. 355; 2 P*l. L. U. 212 Cr.; (1925^ Pat.

49; A. I. R 1920 Pat. 313 ' .. 338

A. L R. 1926 All. 290 ... 473

Vol. 02J

INDIAN CA8B8,

Mahipal Singh v. Sarj oo Prasad Mahomed Ghaus v, Mahomed Ali Shah Mahomed Siddiq v Li Kan Shoo Mahtab Shah v. Ali Haidar Shah

Manayikrnma Zamorin Raja of Calicut Y. Venkata-

giri Pattar Man^palli Satanarayanamurthi v. Thommandra Eri-

kalappa

Mansaram y. Hudhu

Maqsud Ali v, Abdullah

Marotrao v. Municipal Committee, Nagpur

Masala v. Emperor

Mattapalli Venkataratnam v. Veppu Sitaramayya ...

Mating Ba Thein v. Ma Than Myint

Maung Han v. Ko Oh

Maung Mya Din v. Maung Ye Gyi

Maung Po Seik v. U Nandiya

Maung Po Toke v. Mauns: Po Gyi

M-iun^ San Pwe v. Hamaclanee

Maung Sein Htin v. Chee Pan Ngaw

Maung Set Kliaing v. Maung Tun Myein

Maung Than v. Zainai Bibi Maung Tun v. Emperor

Mayappa Chettiar v. Kolandaivelu Chettiar McDonnell v. Emperor

Meenakshi sundara Nachiar v. Veerappa Chettiar Mg Po Kin v. Mg, Po Oh Miran v. Emperor

Mohammadi Begnm v. Tufail Hasan

Mohan Singh v. Nathu Mai

Momoon v. Ibrahim

Mo)lji Murarji Sunderji v. Pinto

M)ti Mai-Ram Samp v. Dan la t Ram

Musch.ees-ud-din v. Emperor

Muhunmad v. Muhammad Ali . ,

Mahammad Abdul Gaffur v. Muhammad Samaud-

dia

Muhimmad Afzal v. Muhammad Mahmud .Muhammad Ibrahim v. Ram Chandra Muhammad Ibnhim v Yado Muhammad Ismail v. Vahiduddin Makammad Mohideen Marac.iy.ir v. Ramanadban Chettinr . .

Muhammad Zakaria v Kishun Narain Muktind Lai v. Lorindi Bai Mul Chand v. Kmperor Mulai Rai v. Emperor

Mulraj v, 1 ndar Singh

Mulugu Chcngayya v. Aruvelu Devasanambagaru...

Mumtaz Ali v. Allah Banda

Municipal Committee, Perozepore v. Milkhi Ram Municipal Committee, Taran Taran v. Mul Raj Municipal Council, Cochin y. Pratath Bavu Devussi . . Municipal Council, Tuticorin v. Shunmugha Moopa- nar

Municipality of Tando Adam v. Khair Mahomed Munshi Ram v. Bhagrwaii Das Murad Bibi v Arnir Hamza Murli Das v, Achut Das

3 O, VV. N 100; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 141 ... 99

A, I. R. 1926 Lah. 183 , . . . 1 294

A, I. R. 1925 Rang 372; 4 Bur. L. J. 154 ... 768 6 L. 338; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 429; 7 L. L. J.

190 .. 700

23 L. W. 58 . . 24$

50 M. L, J, 150; 23 L. W. 396; (1926) M. W. N.

282- A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 410 .. 962

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 289 „ 708

L. R. 6 A. 112 Civ.; A I, R. 1925 All. 312 ... 468

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 281 .. 7v6

27 Cr. L. J. 358 ... 870

A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 305 . ... 314

3 R. 483, A. I. R. 1926 Rang, 49 ..

A. I R. 1925 Rang. 366; 4 Bur. L. .T. 180 .

A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 350; 4 Bur. L. J. 136 ... 719

A. I. R. 1925 Rang. .V4: 4 Bur. L. J. 178 ... 6G7

3 R. 492; A. I. R. 1926 Rang. 2 ... 142

A. I. R. 1925 Rang 382; 4 Bur. L. J. 166 ... 777

3 R. 275; A. 1. R. 1925 Rang. 275 .. 270 A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 221; 4 Bur. L. J. 69; 3 R.

«2 ... 512

3 R. 488; A. I. R. 1926 Rang. 50 208 A. I R. 1925 Rang. 353; 4 Bur. L. J. 172; 27

Cr. L. J.318 .. I 702

"Madras High Court ... | 715

A. L R. 1925 Rang. 345; 4 Bur. L. J. 117; 3 R. I

524; 27 Cr. L. J. 321 . 737

(19'J6) M. W. N. 4 ... 838

A. I. R. 1925 Ran?. 373; 4 Bur. L. J. 160 ... 730 23 A. L. J. 1027; A. I. R. 192vi All. Io8; 27 Cr.

L. J. 240 ... 224

23 A. L. J. 88S; A. I. R 1926 All. 20; 48 A.

17 ... 260

*Lahore High Court . . 299

A. I. R. l»2o Sind 143; 27 Cr. L. J. 248 .. 424

*8ind Judicial Commissioner's Court ... (>67

A 1 R 19 J6 Lah 2:il ... 2^6

27 Cr. L J. 382; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 233 ... 894

A.I. R. 1»26 Lah 2-13 .. 289

47 M. L. J. 730; A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 297 ... ! 139

24 A. L J 307 ... 840 24 A. L. J 241; A T. R 1926 All. 289 ... 514 A.I R. 1926 Nag. 238 ... 553

21 A L J. 311, A. I. R. 1926 All. 270 ... 503

22 L W. 872; A. T. R. 1926 Mad. 217 .. 597 A. I R. 19^6 All. 26< ... 644 7L L. J. 198 .. 131 27 Cr. L. J. 377; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 250 . . &S9 24 A. L J. 314; 27 Cr. L. J. 351; A. I. R. 1926

All. 277 . 863

A. I. R. 1926 All. 102; 48 A. 150 .. 4/1 50 M. L. J. 145; 23 L. VV. 390; V1926; M. W. N

289, A. I R. 1926 Mad. 406 .. 720

*Allahabad High Court .. 600

A. I R 1925 Lah. 505; 7 L. L. J. 358 .. (i02

"Lahore High Court .. 765

22 L. W. 671; A. 1. R. 1926 Mad. 235 .. 18

(1925) M W. N 880; 23 L. W. 31; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 251; 49 M. 210 , ... 610

A 1. R. 1025 Sind 260 ... 1019

7 L L. J 598; A. 1. R. 1926 Lah. 152 ... 595

"Lahore High Court . 278

5 L. 105; A. L R. 1924 Lah. 493 ... 138

INDIAN OASES,

[1926

MuBtaqimuddin v. Emperor

Muthu Veerappa Chettiar v, U, K. Sivagurunntha Pillai

Muthuvenkatarama Reddiar v, Official Receiver, South Arcot

Nachiappa Chettiar v. Mahomed Sabir Khan ,,.

Kuer v. Sham Lai Sahu

Nanak Chand v. Ram Prasad

Nand Ram v. Ishar

Narain Das v. Emperor

Karain Das v. Saraj Din •«

Naraaimha Mudali v. Potti Narayanasami Chetty • ,

Narasimham v. Chendramma

Narnyan v. Dhudabai

Narayanaswami lyengar v. Thippayya

Narayanaswami Pillai v. Gopalakrislma Naidu

Natha Singh v. Sunder Singh

National Bank of India v. Lakbpat Hai *.

National Bank of Upper India v. Banai Dhar Naunihal Singh v. Alice Georgina Skinner

Nazar Shah v. Emperor

Nee-lam Venkotaratanamma v. Vinjamoori Varaha

Nga Wa Gyi v. Emperor •+

Nidavolu Atchutam v. Ratnaji

Nihal Singh v, Secretary, Gurdawara Guru Tegh

Bahadur

Nilkanth v. Gajanan Noor Din v. Siilakhan Mai Official Receiver v. Lachmibai Official Receiver, Tanjore v. Nagaratna Mudaliar

Pakkir Mahamud v. Pichai The van

Pal Singh v Ganga Singh

Palaniappa Chettiar v. Rajarajeswara Sethupathi

Pali v. Eniperor

Pancham Lai -v. Muhammad Yaqub Pandurang v. Sambhasheo Pandurang Govind Fate v. Maifuzbhai Parakh v. Emperor

Parbodh Singh v. Bodh Raj Parineahar Lall v. Emperor

Partap Singh v, Emperor • •

Parumal Thawerdas v. Makhan

Parvatibai Trimbakrao v. Vishvanath Khanderao

Raste Pattainayya v. Pattayya

Pazhaniandy Tarakan v. Murukappa Tarakan

Pearey Lai v. Allahabad Bank Ltd Peria Nambi Srimvasachariar v. Kuna Ramasamy Naicker

24 A. L. J. 327; 27 Cr. L. J. 377; A. I. R. 1926 All. 297

22 L. W.617; 49 M. L. J. 697; (1926) M. W. N, 63; A. L R. 1926 Mad. 133; 49 M. 217

50 M. L. J. 90; 49 M. 227; A. I. R. 1926 Mad.

350 *

A 1. R. 1925 Rang. 303; 4 Bur. L. J. 135 A. I. R, 1925 P. C. 257; 23 A. L. J. 1045; (1926)

M. VV. N. 10J; 7 P. L. T. 275; 23 L. W, 628

P,0,

A. I R, 1926 All. 250 7 L. L. J. COO- A, I, R. 1926 Lah. 128 27 Cr.L. J.325 A. 1. R. 1926 Lah. 238

22 L. W. 637; 49 M. L. J. 720; A. I. R. 1926' [ Mad. 118

! 49 M. L J. 547; 22 L. W. 669; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 154

I 21 N. L. R. 38; A. I. R. 1925 Nag. 299 , (1926^ M. VV. N. 1; 23 L. W. 382; A. I. R. 192&

Mad 366

i (1925) M. W. N. 780; 22 L. W. 618; A. I. R. i 1926 Mad. 112; 50 M. L. J. 48 7 L. L. J. 559j A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 10

2 0. W N. 508; A. J. R. 1925 Oudh 483

3 0. W. N. 83; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 248

23 A. L. J. 691; A I. R. 1925 All. 707; 47 A. 803

27 Cr, L J. 334

49 M, L. J. 756; (1926) M. W. N. 44; A. I. R. 19l'« Mad. 191

3 H. :*3; A, 1, R, 1925 Rung, 219; 4 Bur. L. J, 23;*7Cr. L. J 251

23 L. VV. 193; 50 M. L. J 208; (1926) M. W, N, 258; 49 M, 211; A. I. R. 11)26 Mad. 323 ,.,

j A. I. R.I 926 Lah. 228

; A. I. R.I 926 Nag. 248

i A. I. R, 1926 Lah. 230

! A. I. R. 1926 Sind HO

j 49 M. L. J. 643; (1925) M. W. N. 907; A. I. R.

1926 Mad. 194 *Madras High Court I 2L C. 19i

! 22 L. W. 858; 50 M. L. J. 34; A. I. R. 1926 I Mad. 243; 49 M. 208 ~

I 7 L. L J. 256; 27 Cr. L. J 223

24 A. L. J. 313; A. I. R. 1926 All 294 21 N. L. R. 159; A. I. R. 1926 Nag 200 A. I. R. 1926 'Nag. 257

3 O VV. N. 160; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 202; 27 Cr. L. J. 328

7 L L J. 414; A. I. R. 1025 Lah 603

4 Pat. 472; A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 678; 27 Cr. L. J. 373

27 Cr. L. J. 215; 7 L. 91 A.I. R. 1926 Sind 113

27 Bom. L R. 1509 A I. R. 1926 Bom. 00

50 M. L. J, 215, (1926) M. W. N. 262; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 453

23 L. W. 16; 50 M. L. J, 49; A. T. R. 1926

Mad. 367 21 A. L. J. 334; A. T. R. 1926 All. 244

A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 509

C03

398 370

274 316 597 741

960

333

321

663

847

483

258

144

94

63 7oO

470 430 977

731

364

759

5

497

465

42

366*

175

558

47

40

744 195

S85 167 575

4

782

U 526

Vol. 92]

INDIAN CASES.

Peyy^ty Gopalam Gam v, Adusumilly Gopalakrish-

nayya

Pohla v. Emperor Pohumal v, Karachi Port Trust Pooranaliugam Servai v. Veerayi

Port Canning and Land Improvement Co. v. Heirs oi

Bahir Molla

Pothi Annapurnayya v. Pothi Nagaratnamma Prag Devi v. Nathu Mai Prabhudayal v. LaHa Das Prayaga Doss Jeevaru v. Pachella Doraiswami

lyengar Punjab Commercial Syndicate v, Punjab Co-operative

Bank Ltd. Puran v. Emperor Puran Chand v. Emperor Qaim Din v. Emperor Qamar Jahan Begam v. Munney Mirza . .

Racharla Narayanappa v. Kondigi Bheemappa

Radha Kishen-Ohimi Lai v. Alisa Mal-Ishar Dae

Radha Kishun v. Kashi Nath

Raghubir Singh v. Nathu Mai

Haghunath Das-Rani Sarup v. Sulzer Bruderer &

Co. Rahimbeg v. Emperor

Raisun Nisa v. Zorawar Sah

Rajeawari Muthuramailinga v. Secretary' of State for

India

Ram Badan Upadhiya v Sankatha Misra Ram Bhaj v. Duni Chand R'im Charan v Emperor RamCharanv. Emperor

Ram Karon v. Emperor

Ram Kuer v. Govind Iv£in M,

Ram Kumar Das v. Haxfnarain Dns

Ram Labhaya v Kartatt ftingh'

Ram Nath Singh v. Gajadhar Lai

Ram Newaz v. Nankoo ."* . ,

Ram Pher Singh v Sheo Sa ran Singh

Ram Protap Chamria v. Durga Prosad Chamria

Ram Sa ran Das v. Girdhari Lai Ram Sarup v. Emperor

Ram Shankar Singh v. Lai Bahadur Singh

Rama Rao v. Rangaswamy Rao Ramakka v. Negasam

Ramasami Goundan v. Alagia Singaperumal Kadavul

Ramaswami Aiyangar v. T. Raghava Aiyangar

Ramchandra v. Lakshman

Ramdhani Muchi v Khakshardas Tati

Rampal Singh v. Raj rang Singh

Ramu Chetty v. Pancharamal

Ranzor Singh v. Secretary of State for India

Ratan Mani v. Hans Ram

Rathan Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

Ratilalv. Rughnath Mulji

*Madras High Court

7 L. L. J. 442; 27 Cr. L. J. 241

A. I. R. 1925 Sind.22i; 18 S. L. R. 106

22 L. W. 782; (1926) M. W. N. 114 A. I, R. 1926 Mad. 186

43 C. L. J. 45, A. I. R. 1925 Cal. 693

A. I. R. J920 Wad 591

7 L. L J. 230

A. I. R. 19-0 Oudh 293

23 L. W, 520

6L. 512; A.I. R. 1926 Lah. 96

27 Cr. L. J. 383; A I. R. 1926 All. 298

* Lahore High Court

7L. L. J. 223; 27 Cr. L. J 249

12 0. L. J. 313; 2 0. W. N. 413; A. I. R. 1925

Ondh613

A. 1. R. 1926 Mad. 491 7 L. L. J. 603; A. I. R. 3926 Lah. 91

24 A. L. J. 241; A. I. R. 1926 All. 266 *Allahabad High Court

7 L. L. J. Oil; 7 L. 42; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 125

7 N. L. J. 208; A. L It. 1925 Nag. 154; 27 Cr.

• L. J. 217 ^

3 O. W. N. 121; 13 O. L. J. 10; A. L R 1926

Oudh 228

50 M. L. J 59; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 341

"Allahabad High Court

A. L R. 1926 Lah. 240

2AA. L. J, 317; 27 Cr L. J. 370

5 L, 416; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 185; 27 Cr. L. J.

218 7 L. L. J 371; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 483; 2 L. C.

197; 27 Cr. L. .L 289 A. LR 1926 All. 62; 48 A. 145 "•Calcutta High Court 7 L. L J. 406; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 651 A. I. R. 11*26 All. 300 A.I. R. IMG All. 283 3 O. W. N. 138; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 196 3 O. W. N 127; A. I R. 1925 P. C. 293; 49 M. L. J. 812; 43 C. L. J. 14; 24 A. L. J. 13 j (1926) M. W. N. 96; 3 Pat L. R. 330; 28 Bom. L. R. 217; 53 C. 258 P. C. 24 A L. J. 286; A. 1. R. 1920 All. 305 24 A. L. J. 163; A. I. R. 1926 All. 122; 27 Cr.

L. J. 250; 48 A. 230 3 O. W. N. 267; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 277; 13 O.

L. J. 2J6

A.I. R. 1926 Mad. 419 47 M. 800; 48 M. L. J. 89; A. I. R. 1925 Mad.

145 22 L. W 701; (1926) M. W. N. 117; 50 M. L.

J.42; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 280 (1926) M. W. N. 118

N. L. J. 3; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 298 A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 677 3 0. W. N. 73: A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 211 (1926) M. \V. N. 45; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 402 ... Lahore High Court 27 Cr. L. J. 274 50 M. L. J. 157; 23 L. W. 267; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 462 *Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court

416 417 206

1055

37 730 163 764

£90

322 695 9U1 425

559 541 705 510 1013

712 169 675

311

1030

813

882

170

577 414 104 261

478 401

757

633 567

426

637

98

792

823 1046

603 1031

126 1028

319

450

1051

378

10

INDIAN OASES.

[WB

Relu Mai v. Ahmad

Rishi Kesh Law v. Sons arid Heirs of Shamsher

Khan

Roshan Lai v. Rustomji ' ,.,

Rudan Singh v. Knlka Singh Rudrappa v. Mariappa Rukmani Ammal v. Muthuswami Reddi Ruldu Ham v. Surain Singh

Rustom K. Sidhva v. Indian Merchants Association 8. 0. Mitra v. Nawab Ali Khan Sadasheo v. Bapu Sadasheo v. Karim Saerhru Mal-Har Charan Dass v, Dlianpat Rai-Diwan

Chand

Snhai iVIistri v Satali Darji Sikharam v. Sheoram Sankaralinga Mudaliar v. Official Receiver, Tinnevelly

Sant Sahai v. Chhutai Kurrni

Sarda Bux Singh v Kandhia Bux

Sartaj Koer v. Mahadeo Bux

Sasi Bhusnn Malliek v Sedananda Mallick

Satheppa Chettiar v Muthusami Pillai

Savarese v Wakf Estate of Ismail Ahmad Mada

Seetharamma Naidu v. Govindasauii Chettiar

Sekkhu Mustabu v. Nani

Shafi Ahmud-Nabi Ahmad v. Krnperor

Shaikh Karim v. Emperor

Shakur, M. A. v. Municipal Corporation, Rangoon ...

Shankar v. Pandurang

Shankar Bakhsh v. Taluqdei

Sheikh Badel y. Abdul Rahim

Sheo Charan Singh v. Kishno Kuer

Shoo Nandan v. Hira Lai

Sheosahai v Ramkrishna

Shib Narain v. Gajadhar

Sliidraj Bhojraj Desai v. Renaki Konda Mahar

Shiva Aithala v. H...I...V, :•«•. •• Aithala

Shri Goverdhanlalji Alaliarnj v. Shri Chandra-

prabhavati Shunkar v. Mahadei Siban Kai v. Bhagwat Das

Sidik v. Emperor

Singh Ram v. Kala

Sinn a Karuppan v. Muthiah Chettiar . .

Sinnanna Kone v. Muthupalaiii Chetti

Sita Ram v Nanak Chand

Sital Prnsad Singh v. Jagdeo Singh

Sitapat Rai v. Mohammad Asghar Sites war Roy v. Tepua Barman Sivan Pillai v. Venkateswara Iyer Soundara Rajan v. Natarajan

Sri Kishen v. Chandra Sekhar Baksh Singh Srinivasa Chetti v. Chenna Chetti Sripati Dutta v. Bibhuti Bhusan Dutta Subbiah Goundau v. Sonnimalai Goundan Subramania Aiyar v. Krishna Iyer Subramania Iyer v. Shunmugam Chettiar

7 L. 17; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 183 . . 1 947

"Calcutta High Court, 48

A.I. R. 1»«6 Lah. 249 .. 669

A, I R 192GOudh309 ... 903

A.I R. 11)26 Mad. 490 ... 385

50 M. L. J. 94; 27 Cr L. J. 331 . . 747

7 L L. J. 618; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 120 . . 531

*Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court . 374

2 0. W. N. 920; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 153 . . 50 A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 162 .. 33 A.I. R. 1926 Nag. 267 .. 211

7 L L J. 420; A. I R. 1925 Lah. 596 . . 198

*Patna High Court ... 1.33

21 N. L. R. 189; A. L R. 1926 Nap. 229 ' ... 334 49 M L. J. 616; (1920) M. \V. N. 832; A. I. R.

1926 Mad. 72 . . 504

3 O. \V. N. 65; A I. R. 1926 Oudh 199 ... 23 *0udh Chief Court ... 665 A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 332 ... 657 * Calcutta High Court 845 A. I R. 1926 Mad. 537 . 393 A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 376; 4 Bur. L. J. 157 .. 771

23 L. W. 149; (1926) M. W. N. 162; A. I. R.

1926 Mad. 352 . . 976

A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 536 377 A. I. R. 1925 P. C. 305; 49 M. L. J 834- 23 L. W. 1 (192fi) M. W. N. 62; 43 C. L J. 67- 3 0. W. N. 165; 28 Bom. L. R. 158; 27 Cr L J. 228; 30 C. W. N. 557 P. C. .212

27 Cr. L. .7. 319; A. 1 R 1926 Nag. 27ft ... 703

A 1. R. 1925 Rang. 367; 4 Bur. L. J. 161 .. 780

9 N. L. J. 22 646

30. W. N. 375 '" 722

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 273 ' 7^5

C P. L. T. 860; A. I R. 1923 Pat. 146 . 2

13 0. L. J 6; A I. R. 1926 Oudh 226 ... 247 A.I. R. 1926 Nag. 61 ..I 62

24 A L. J. 260 ... 772 27 Bom. L. R. 1490; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 140 .. 554 49 M. L. J. 719; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 233 . 523

27 Bom. L R 1496; A. L R. 1926 Bom. 136 . . 552

13 0 L. J 241 .. 46 6 P. L. T. K33; 27 Cr. L. J. 2^5; 5 Pat. 25*

A. I. R. 1926 Pat 176 ... 219

27 Cr. L. J. 332 .. 748

8 L. L. J. 39; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 241; 7 L. 173... 1012

22 L \V. 816; A. I. U. 1926 Mad. 178 .. 373

A.I R. 1926 Mad. 378 ... 352

A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 182 313 4 Pat. 294; A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 577; 7 P. L. T.

415 .. 474

A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 193 ... 29

A. I. R. 1926 Cal 589 ... 908

22 L. W. 796; A. I. R 1926 Mad. 130 . 556 A. I. R. 1925 P. C. 244; L. R. 6 A. d\ C.)

180; 23 A. L. J. 1010; 48 M. 906; 49 M. L. J. 836; 43 C L. J. 70; 28 Bom. L. R. 204- (1926) Mv W. N. 22; 3D C. W. N. 434; 52 I. A!

310 P. C. ... 2*9

*Allahabad High Court 353

23 L. W 705 . 251 53 C. 319; A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 593 ... 940 23 L. W. 87 . 400 (1925) M. W. N. 887; A 1. R. 1926 Mad. 211 . 833 49 M. L. J. 363; 22 L. W. 538; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 65 ... 566

Vol. 92]

INDIAN OASES

11

Subramaniam Patter v. Velu Nair

Buggusetty Subbayya v. Irugulapati Qangayya Sukhdeo v. Ram Dulari

Sukhdeodas Ram Prosad v. Jaintilal Jamunadas Sultan Abdul Kadir v. Mohammad Rsuf Surendra Nath Banerjee v. Shashi Bhusan Sarkar

Surendra Nath Das Gupta v. Satyendra Nath Suryabhan v Renuka

Susil Chandra Guha v. Gouri Sundari Devi Swaminatha Odayyar v. Thiagarajaswami Odayar ... Tadepalli Subba Rao v Motamari Lakshminarayana .. Tahilram Tarachnnd v. Vassumal Deumai Taj Mohammad v Farid Khan Tapiram v. Ju»Mlki-hoiv Taramonee Choudhuram v Sheikh Elim Tarkeshwar Prasad Tcwari v. Devendra Prasad Tewari

Teja Singh v. Emperor

Tliakar Singh v. Indar Singh

Thaknr Singh v. Sonkuar

Thamaya Bangarurtwami v. Thirunatliasundra Doss ..

Thanappa Chetty v. Esuf Khan Sahib

Tharamal Parkara Kalpathoor v. Uruppoyil Ambu ..

Thirumalachaviar v. Athimoola Karayalore

Thirumalai Pillai v. Arimadiella Padayachi Thokala Seshamma v. Yellaturi Venkamma

Tikaram v. Narayan

Tiruvangalath Nellyoton Paidal Nayar, In re

Trustees, Parakkat Devaswom v. Venkatachalam Vadhayar

Tukaram v. Chintaram. Tulsi v. Emperor

Tula si< lass Gov.ndjec v. Madhavadass Lalajee Umasasi Dob I v Akrur Chandra Maxumdar

Umrao Singh v. B?ni Prashad-Mohr Chnnd Unnamalai Ammal v. Abboy Chetty Uttim Singh v. Judlian Rni

Vrtdapalli Varadacharyulu v. Khandavilli Xarasimha- charyulu

Vaithi Matharan v. Narayannxwami Iyer Vaithialinga Mudalliar v. Srirangath Anni

Vallabhdas Tulsidas v. Nagardas Juthabai Vceranan Ambalam v. Ayyachi Ambalam

Veerappa Chettiar v. Sundaresa Sastrigal Vecraswami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali

Veeraswami Pillai v. Chidambaram Chettiar Vemulapalli Saelharamammi v. Maganti Appiah

49 M. L. J. 717; 22 L. W. 749; (1926) M. W. N.

36; A. I. R 1926 Mad. 249 ..

22 L. W. 827; A. I. R 192G Mad. 183 ... A.I. R. 1926 Oudh 313 ... A. I R 192G Cal. 697 .

23 L. W. 4C8 . 42 C. L J L27; 52 C. 939, 27 Cr. L. J. 239;

A. I. R. 1920 Cal 437 ..

"Calcutta High Court ..

8 N L. J. 232; A I. R. 192G Nag. 81 ...

"Calcutta High Court ...

23 L \V 2C, C1926) M. W N. 140 ...

22 L W. 3S9; A. I. R. 1925 Mud. 1211 . . A. I. R li)2o Sind 111) . "I ahore High Court .

21 N. L. R 1G9: A I R. 1926 Nag. 209 .. A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 582 . .

3 Pat. L R. 270; 7 P. L. T. 267; A. I R. 1926

Pat 180 ...

7 L. L. J. 631; 27 Cr. L. J. 285 . .

"Lahore High Court .

"Xagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court . .

(1925; M. W. N 779, A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 135,

23 L W. 406 ..

23 L. W. 36

49 M. L J 691); (1925) M. W. N. 917, A.I. R. 1926 Mad. 260 ...

22 L. W. 695; (1926) M. W. N. 112, A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 256 ..

A I. R. 1926 Mad. 510

22 L. W. 863; 27 Cr. L. J. 280; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 218 ..

A. I. R. 1926 Nag 246 ...

22 L W. 691; 0926) M. W. N. 169; A.I. R. 1926 Mad. 225 ...

23 L. W. 22; 50 M. L. J. 153; A. L R. 1926 Mad 321 .

20 N. L. R. 17; A. I R. 1924 Nag. 91 .

7 L L J. 389; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 599; 27 Cr.

L. J 2:il 221.. W Oil', (1923^ M W N. 68, A. I R. 1926

Mad 118 ' ..

CO (AW. N. 160; A T. R. 1026 Cal. 542; 53

C 297 ..

"Lahore High Court ..

23 L. W. 168. 50 M L. J. 172 ...

3 Pat. 288; A. I. R. 1924 Pat, 589; 27 Cr. L. J.

220; 7 I*. L. T. 288 ...

(lr)?5) M. W. N. 886; 23 L. W. 85; A. I. R. 1926 Mad 253 ..

22 L. W. 673; A. I R. 1926 Mad 210; 27 Cr. L J.313 .

A. I R. 1925 P. C. 240; L. R. 6 A (P. C ) 169, 49 M. L J. 769; 42 0. L. J 563; 48 M. 883; 30 (\ W. N. 313; 28 Bom L. R. 173; (U)2o) M. W. N 11; 52 I. A. 322 P. C. .

23 Bom. L. R. 1213 .. 22 L. W. 772; (1925) M W. N. 857; 49 M. L.

J. 791; A. I. R. 1926 Mad 163 ...

49 M L J. 36rt; 18 M 676; 22 L. W. 606;

A. I. R 1925 Mad 1201 . .

22 L. W. 118; (1925; M W N. 763; A. I. R. 1926 Mud IS; 50 M. L J. 102 ...

"Madms Hijjh Court ...

23 L \V 285; (1926) M. AY. N. 238; A. L R. 1020 Mad. 457 ...

C87 F25 ,"92 396

223

544 118 1)46 846 593 562 77!) 305 7H

184 461 721 824

415 753

109

776 520

456 44

624

709 327

215 570

984 839 524

172

61o

855

85 143

968 300

20 819

827

INDIAN OASIfflS.

[1926

Venoatachariarv, Bontham Pachayappa Chetty Venkata Narasimha Raov. Hemadu Suryanarayana ..

Veukatarama Aiyar v. Sundaram Aiyar Venkatasubba Rao v. Adinarayana Rao

Venku Shettithi v. Ramachandrayya

Venugopal Nayudu, In re

Vepuri Subbayya v, Secretary of State for India . .

Vinayak v. Kaniram

Virappa Govindappa Konraddi v. Basappa Virbhad-

rappa Vishvanath Shamba Naik v. Kamkrishna Martoba

Kasbekar

Vishvanathbhat Annabhat v Mallappa Ningappa

Vishwanath Prasad v. Emperor Vithoba v. Sadasheo

W, & T. A very Ld. v. Keaaorarn Poddar Wasal v. Emperor

Washilian v, Mir Nawab AH

Wilayati Begam v. Jhandu Mal-Mithu Lai Woodward v, Emperor

Yado v. Ambashankar

Yasin Bibi v, Munwar Hussain

Yusif Mahbub & Co. v. Salloh Mahomed Zukoobai v. Bhalsingh

22 L, W. 698; (192*) M. W. N. 106; A. 1. R.

1926 Mad, 250 . 510 50 M. L, J, 75; 23 L, W. 409; A. I. B. 1921

Mad. 325 . . 802

(1926) M, \V, N. 48 .' 1045 22 L, W. 631; 50 M. L. J, 46; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 227 . 473 49 M. L. J. 634; 22 L. W. 883; (1925) M. W.

N. 866; A. L R. 1926 Mad. 8J; 49 M. 29 ... 342

27'Cr. L.J. 384 ... 896

*Madraa High Court . . 78

A.I, R. 1926 Nag. 293 .. 810

27 Born. L. R, 1511; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 139 ... 354

27 Bom. L, R. 1478; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 86; 50

B. M .. 537 27 J3om. L. R. 1103; 49 B, 821; A, I R. 1925

Bom, 514 ... 623

27 Cr. L. J. 210; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 98 . 162

A, I, R. 1926 Nag. 253 • 58

30 C. W. N. 152; A. I. R. 1926 Cal, 481 ". 1001 A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 495; 7 L. L. J. 277; 27 Cr. L

J- 299 . 587 3 Pat. 1018; A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 138; 7 P. L. T

«l ..' 133

24 A. L. J. 349; A. I. R 1926 All. 286 897 A. I.B. 1925 Sind 233; 18 S. L. R. 199; 27 Cr

I-J.237 .. 433

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 260 75 22 A. L. J. 700; A. I. R. 1924 All. 709; 46 A

743; L. R. 5 A. 524 Civ. . .' 345

'Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court 387

8 X. L. J. 20.3; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 155 ... 74

Table showing seriatim the pages of Volume 92 of Indian Cases and the corresponding Pages of other Law Journals and Reports.

An asterisk (*) denotes casts not reported yet elsewhere.

Page

Names of cases reported.

Jagrup Si ugh v. Indrasan Pande

Sheo Charan Singh v. Kishno Kuer . .

3 Kalka Prasad v. Panna

4 j Parvatibai Trimbakrao v Vishvanath Khanderao j lluste

3 Official Receiver v. Lachmibai (j I Jamshedji Naoroji Gamadia v. Maganial Bankvylal <fc 1 Co.

14 Pearcy Lai v. Allahaba<l Bank, Ltd.

Ui Duma Tomn Rumuv v. N,Ulm Fart»ha Kuivl 17 Gnnri Shankar v. Bhairou Fcrs'iad

15 Municipal Council, Cochin v. P ratal h Bavu Devusisi 10 , Deo Kali v. Rtinehoor Bux

20 Ve'iras \vami Mudali v Youkatachnla Mudaii

23 S.tnt Sahai v. Chhutai Kr.rnii

25 Ahmad Baig v. Model Mill, Nagpur, Ld.

29 Sitapat Ram v. Mohammad Asghar

30 i Appajee Pillai v. Manika Mudali .-

31 ' Mahabir Prasad lV,vari v. Jainuna Singh . .

33 Sadasheo v. Bapu 31 Karingan v. Ranliar Dull 35 i Cliet Ram v. llaichu ;{6 ' Akabai v. Narayan

37 I Port Canning and Land Improvement Co. v. Heirs of Bahir Molla

40 i Pandurang Govind Fate v, Maifuzbhai 12 Pal Singh v. Ganga Singh

41 , Tikaram y. Narayan

46 ! BarkatBibiv Abdul Aziz 4G ' Shunkar v. Mahadei

47 IV -I .:• •:.. v. Sambhasheo

48 i Resin Kesn Law v. Sons and Heirs of SJuimesher

I Khan ... I

50 i S. C, Mitra v. Nawab All Khan .

58 ' Vithoba v. Sadasheo

61 Banjoisi Nanisamma v, BanjoisiSarasammari

62 Sheosahai v. Ramkrishna . . i 83 Naunihal Singh v. Alice Qeorgina Skinner ... j

71 Zukoobai v. Bhalsingh •• j

75 Yado v. Amba Shankar ... j

78 Vepuri Subbayya v. Secretary of State for India . . i 80 Kankai v, Tikaram

82 Kaniza v. Hasan Ahmad Khan — 85 i Imani Satayanarayana v, Devarakonda Satyanarayana i Murte

85 Vaithialinga Mudalliar r. Srirangath Anni

94 j National Bank of Uppar India v. Baasi Dhar 98 Rama Rao v. Rangaswamy Rao

"Where reported.

24 A. L J. 325; A. I. It. 1926 All. 2IC 6 P. L T. H60; A 1. R. 1926 Pat. HO A. T.R. 1926 All. 233.

27 Bom. L U. 1501); A. I. R. Utefi Bom 5)0 A. I. R. PJ26 rfind 140.

27 Bom. L. R. 314; A.I U. 1923 Bom. 314

24 A. L. J. 3.U, A. 1. R. 192G All. 244

27 Bom. L R. 2i(J, A 1. R 1925 P,,, v 431

A 1. R. I(.i260iidh207

22 L W. 071, A I R. ]»20 Mud. 23 >

A. 1 R jytfi Oudh 253, 13 0. L J 208

22 L \V UR; (1923) M. W X 763, A 1 R IWBMad. Jb, 5r) Al. L. J. 102 ' ' '

3 O. W. N.63, A I. U. 1926 Oudh 19!)

A. 1. R. 1926 Nag. 262.

A. I. R 1926 Oudh 193.

21 L. \V. 652.

A. 1. R. 1925 P. C. 231; (1925. M. W. N 738- *3

L. W. 75 P. C. ' '

A. L R. 1926 Nag. 102. 3 0. W. N. 58; 13 0. L, J. 33, 2L. C. 178. A. L R. 1926 Nag. 25 L

43 C. L. J. 43; A, I. R. 1926 Cal, 693,

A.I. R. 1926 Nag. 257.

2 L. C. 194.

A. I R. 1926 Nag. 246.

2 L. C. 166.

130. L J.211.

21 N. L, R. 159; A. 1. R, 1926 Nag, 200.

* Calcutta High Court

2 0. W. N. 920, A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 153 A. 1. R. 1926 Nag. 253.

23 L. W. 157, ^1926) M. W. N. 163, A, 1. R, 1926 Mad. 353.

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 61.

23 A. L. J. 691; A. 1. R. 1925 All. 707; 47 A.

803.

8 N. L. J. 205; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 155 A. L R. 1926 Nag. 260. *Madras High Court. A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 239.

3 0, W. N. 114; A. L R. 1926 Oudh 231.

50 M. L. J. H4; (1926) M. W. N. 7; A. L R. 1926

Mad. 428. A. I.R. 1925 P. C, 249; L. R. 6 A. (P. C.) 160-

49 M. L. J. 769; 42 C L. J. 563; 48 M 883';

30 C. W. N. 313; 28 Bom. L. R. 173; (1926

M. W. N, 11; 52 I. A. 322 P. C. ( '

3 0. W. N. 83; A, I. R. 1926 Oudh 248 A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 419.

CASES.

[1920

91 10J

KI:

104 106

107 109

110

112 118 119 121 124

125 126 131 133

133 134 138 139 142 143 144 145 162 163 164 167 169

170 172

174

175 177

178 179 183 184

191

195 196 198

200

206 208 209 212

213

Mahipal Singh v. Sarjoo Prasad Kandasami Chcttiar v. G. F. F. Foulkes Kesheorao v. Marotirao Ram Kumar Das v. Haranarain Das Govinda Nadan v. Kamasami Ohettiar

Hem Chandra Sen v. Girish Chandra Saha Tharamal Parkam Kalpathoor v. Uruppoyil Ambu .

Laxman Bhikaji v. Secretary of State for India

Khoday Gangadhar Sah v. Swaminadha Mudaliar ..

Suryabhan v. Renuka

Doraswami Nadar v. Joseph L. Mother

Kesheo v. Jagannath

Pazhaniandy Tarakan v. Murukappa Tanikun

Kalenther Amrnal v. Ma Mi Rampal Singh v. Raj rang Sin#h Mukund Lai v. Lorindi Bai Washihan v. Mir Nawab Ali

Sahai Mistri v. Satali Dnrji

Gopal v. Collector of Aligarh

Murli Das v. Achut Das

Muhammad Abdul Gaffur v. Muhammad Sanisuddin

Maung Po Toke v. Maung Po Gvi

Vallabhdas Tulsidas v. Nagurdsis Juthabhai

National Bank of India v. Lakhpat Rai

Abdullah v. Emperor

Vishwanath Prasad v. Emperor

Abdul Qadir v. Emperor

Bajirao v. Dadibai

Partap Singh v. Emperor

Rahimbeg v. Emperor . .

Rain Charan v. Emperor Uttim. Singh v. Judhan Rai Bhagirathi v. Emperor

Pali v. Emperor

Batisa Kuer v. Raja Ram Pandey

Barkatv. Relu Mai

Laurentius Ekka v. Dhuki Koeri

Prag Devi v. Nathu Mai

Tarkeshwar Prasad Tewari v, Devendra Prasad Te-

3ecil Cole v. Nanalal Moraji Dave

Parbodh Singh v. Bodh Raj

Fateheand v. Parbati Bai

Saghru Mal-Har Charan Dass v. Dhanpat Rai-Diwan

Chand D. R. K. Saklat v. Bella

'ohumal v. Karachi Port Trust daung Than v. Zainat Bibi lashmat Hussain v. Emperor Shafi Ahmad-Nabi Ahmad v. Emperor

Akbar Ali v. Emperor

3 0. W. N. 100; A. 1. R. 1926 Oudh 141.

A. I. R. 1926 Mad ^96.

8 N. L. J. 227; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 139.

^Calcutta High Court.

(1925) M. W. N. 927; A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 224; 23

L. W. 573.

^Calcutta High Court, 49 M. L.J. 699; (1925) M. W. N. 917; A. I. R.

1926 Mad. 260. 27 Bom. L. R. 463; A. I. R. 1923 Bom, 305; 49

B. 554,

22 L. \V. 679; A. I. 1926 Mad, 218

8 N. L. J. 232; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 84.

A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 319,

A. J. R. 1926 Nag. 81; 22 N, L. R. 5.

23 L. W. 16; 50 M. L. J. 49; A, I. R. 1926 Mad. 3G7.

3 R. 474; A. L R. 1926 Hang. 9.

3 O. W. N. 73; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 211.

7 L. L. J. 198.

3 Pat. 1018; A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 138; 7 P, L. T.

424.

*Patna High Court. ; * Allahabad High Court. 5 L. 105, A 1. R. 1924 Lab. 49.'i. 47 M. L.J. 730; A. I R. 1925 Mad. 297. 3 R 492; A. 1. R 11)26 Rang. L\ 23 Bom. L. R. 1213.

2 0. W. N. 508; A. I. R. 1!»25 Oudh 433. A. 1. R. 192 i All. 233; 27 Cr. L J. 19.1. 27 Cr. L. J. 210; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 98. 27 Cr, L. J. 211.

27 Cr L. J. 212; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 286.

27 Cr. L. J. 215; 7 L. 91.

7 N, L, J. 208; A, I, R, 1925 Nag. 154; 27 Cr, L,

J. 217. 5 L. 416; A. 1 R. 1925 Lah. 185; 27 Cr. L, J,

218.

3 Pat. 288; A. I. R. 1924 Pat. 589; 27 Cr, L. J, 220; 7 P. L. T. 288.

30 C. W. N. 142; 27 Cr. L. J. 222; A, I. R. 1926

Cal. 550.

7 L. L. J. 256; 27 Cr. L. J. 223. (1925) Pat. 343; A. I. R. 1926 Pat, 192; 7 P. L,

T 393 7 L.L. J. 509; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 627.

4 Pat. 766; A. L R. 1926 Pat. 73; 7 P. L. T. 362. 7 L. L. J. 230.

3 Pat. L. R 270; 7 P. L. T. 267; A. I. R 1926

Pat. 180, 26 Bom. L. R. 880; A. I. R. 1925 Bom, 18; 49 B<

172.

7 L. L. J. 414; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 603, 18 S L. R. 85; A. I. R. 1925 Sind 269.

7 L. L. J. 420; A. I. R, 1925 Lah. 596.

23 A. L. J. 1016; A. I. R. 1925 P. 0. 298; 49 M,

L. J. 821; 43 C. L. J, 23; 30 0. W. N. 289; 28

Bom. L. R. 161; 3 R. 582 P. C. A. I. R. 1925 Sind 221; 18 S. L. R. 106. 3 R. 488; A. I. R. 1926 Rang. 50. 7 L. L. J. 96; 27 Cr. L J, 225. A. I. R. 1925 P. C. 305; 49 M. L. J. 834; 23

L. W. 1; (1926) M. W. N. 62; 43 C. L, J. 67;

3 0. W. N. 165; 28 Bom. L. R. 158; 27 Or,

L. J. 228; 30 0. W. N. 557 P. C. 7 L. L. J. 520; A. L R. 1925 Lah. 614; 27 Cr. L.

J. 229.

Vol. 92]

15

214 215 216 217 219 222 223

221 225

233 235 237 241 241 2i5

247 249

249 251 252 253 254 257

258 259 260 261 262 263 264

261 265 263 270 272 273 274

278 282

289

294 295 296 297

299

K, M. First Grade Pleader, In the matter of

Tula! v. Emperor

Amiruddin v. Emperor

Hari Singh v. Emperor

Siban Rai v. Bliagwat Dass

Lachliman Singh v. Emperor

Surendra Nath Banerjce v. Shashi Bhushan Sar- kur

Miran v. Emperor

Dhanrajgirji Narasinggirji v. Tata Sons, Ltd.

China v. Te Thoe Seng

Firm Jai Singh-Diyal Singh v. Narmal Das

Baideo Singh v. Gulab

Asa Nand v. Mali mud

Sadasheo v. Karim ; :

Manavikrama Zarnorin Raja of Calicut v. Venkatagiri

Paltar

Sheo Nandan v. Him Lai Akella Ramasomayyagulu v. Official .Receiver,

Godavari

Ishar Das-Dharaui Chand, In the matter of Srinivasa Chetti v. Chenna Ohetli Din Mohammad v. Matab Bibi Maung Ba Thein v Ma Than Myint Banu Mai v. Paras Ram

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Luc-know Ice Asso- ciation

Natha Singh v. Sunder Singh Kanahi Ram v. Prabh Dial Arjan Das & Co. Mohamdi Begam v. Tufail Hasan . .

Ram Labhaya v. Kartar Singh Jahangir v. Ram Harakli Ibrahim v. Shah Mahomed Bachan v. Raghunath

Hakim Din v. Qutab Din

Bashir Ahmad v. Zobaida Khatuii

Hussain Bakhsh v. Sarbuland . •

Maung Sein Htin v. Ghee Pan Ngaw

Dittu Rain v. Nawab

Hazura Mal-Lal Chand v. Rang Hahi

Nag Kuer v. Sham Lai Sahu

Murad Bibi v. Amir Hamza »«

Kehri Singh v. Thirpal

Muhammad v. Muhammad Ali Soundara Rajan v. Natarajan

Mahomed Ghaus v. Mahomed Ali Shah

Isram v. Gangia

Moti Mai-Ram Sarup v. Daulat Ram

Attar Singh v. Kirpa Singh

Firm of Ram Prosad-Ram Kissen v. Haro Kumar

Basak Mohan Singh v. Nathu Mai ...

A. I. R, 1924 Mad. 479; (192i) M. W. N. 5; 27

Cr. L. J. 23!) F. B. 7 L. L. J. 389; A. 1 R. 1925 Lah. 599; 27 Cr. L.

J. 231. 40 C. L. J. 306; A. I. R. 1925 Cal. 217; 27 Cr. L,

J. 232. 7 L. L. J. 576; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 4; 27 Cr L J.

233

6 P. L. T. 833; 27 Cr. L. J. 235; 5 Pat. 25; A I. R. 1926 Pat. 176.

7L. L. J.582; 27 Cr. L. J. 238; A.I. R. 1926 Lah. 143.

42 C. L. J. 127; 52 C. 959; 27 Cr. L. J. 239; A.

I. R. 1926 Cal. 437. 23 A. L. J. 1027; A. I. R. 1926 All. 168; 27 Cr.

L. J. 240. 26 Bom. L R. 858; A. I. R. 1924 Bom. 173; 49

B. I. 3 R. 477; A. I. R. 1926 Rang. 14.

7 L. L J. 5,5 J; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 24. *0udh Chief Court.

7 L. L. J. 542.

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 267.

23 L. W. 58.

13 O. L. J. 6; A. I R. 1926 Oudh 226.

23 L. W. *•'(); 1926 M. W. N. 169; A. I. R. 192,

Mad. 360.

A. 1. U. 11)26 Lah. 1G8. 23 L. W. 705. A. 1. R, 1926 Lah. L;03 3 R. 483; A I. R. 1926 Rang. 49. 7 L. L. J. 397; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 640,

A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 191.

7 L. L. J. 559; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 10.

7 L. L. J. 457; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 618

23 A. L. J. 888; A. L R. 1926 All. 20; 48 A. 17 7 L. L. J. 466, \. L R. 1925 Lah 051.

13 0. L. J. 243. ^Lahore High Court.

24 A L. J. 149; 48 A. 224; A. I. R. 1926 All 304.

A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 211.

3 0. W. N. 105; A. I. R. 192,> Oudh 186

7 L. L. J. 548; 6 L 536; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 14.

3 R. 275; A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 275.

7 L. L. J. 448; A. 1. R. 1925 Lah. 639.

*Lahore High Court.

A. I. R. 1925 P. C. 257; 23 A L. J. 1045- (1926) M. W. N. 101; 7 P. L. T. 275; 23 L W 628 P. C

*Lahore High Court.

L. R. 6 A. 213 Rev.; 23 A. L. J. 965; A I R 1926 All. 113; 48 A. 104. ' '

A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 243.

A. L R. 1925 P. C. 244; L. R. 6 A. (P C) 180; 23 A. L. J. 1010; 48 M. 906; 49 M L J 836; 43 C. L. J. 70; 28 Bom. L. R. 204; (1926) M. W. N. 22; 30 C. W. N. 434; 52 I. A. 310

A. L R. 1926 Lah. 188.

*Nagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court

A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 231.

A. L R. 1926 Lah. 175.

"Calcutta High Court.

"Lahore High Court,

16

INDIAN CASES.

300

305 308 009 311

313 314 310 317 319 321

Veerappa Chettiar v. Suiidaresa Sastrigal

Tapiram v .T ,LM *•::-'.

Karjpinuui Rajayya v. Kalpatapu Anmumniumma .. Allahabad Bank, Ld. v Bha&waii Das Juhari Kajeswari Muthuramalinga v. Secretary of Stale ior

India

Sita Ram v Nanak Chaud

MattapHlli VeiilviitarahiHni v Vuppu JSilarainayya .. Nanak Chaud v. Rani Pntvul Bishen Singh v. Wasawa Sin^h Ranzor Singh v. Secretary uf State lor Indi i Narasimhaiu v. Ch^udramiiia

327 330 330 332 3.J2 333

33 1 3

338

345

316 318

350

351 352 353 354 354

335 361

364 366

367 368 358

370 371 373 374 377 378 385 387 390 392 393 394 396

Punjab Commercial Syndkato

live Bank, Ltd. Baijxiath Singh v llari Pra^ad

;unjab CVopera-

49 M. L. J. 366; 48 M. 676; 22 L. W. 603; A I.

R. 1925 Mad. 1201.

21 N. L. K. 169; A. I R 1926 Nag. 209. 21' L W S28, A I R. 192o Mad. 13 >. 24 A. L J. 323; A. 1. R. 1926 All. 262.

3(3 M. L. J 59; A. T. R. 1926 Mad. 341 A. I K. 192(5 Lhh 18:? i A. I. R 11)26 Mad. 305. A I R. 1926 All. 2SO A T. U. U2GLah. 17 /. * Lahore High Court.

49 M. L. J. oi7; 22 L. W. 669; A. 1. R. 19^6 Mad. 154.

Tukaram v. Uhintaunn

Alice Gcorgina Skinner v. Mii^arram Ali Khan

Alapatl Raiuaswami v. Das.iri Veiikataran.iA ana

Hhapf \vatl Suigh v. (1uivhnr,in DU!KJ

Dcirbari Mai-Ram S.ihai v Sc /ivtaiy of State

NVrasimha Mudali v. Pntti NLu\iyunru-am' Chttty .

Sakharam v Shoojam Kbazan Singh v. I'nirao Singh

Maharaj Dhiraj uf Dai hlian^a v. Cuaimii.bionrr of Income Tax

Venku Shettithi v. liamaHiaudiayra Yasin Bibi v. Munwar Hussabi

Ji\va Ram v. Jhanda Singh Mahadeo Prabad v. Anaiidi Lai

Badri Sahu v. Pearc Lai Mi^ra

Haji RalimaUilUi v Secretary of Slate tor India ..

Sinuaima Kono v. Muthupalani Chetti

Sri Kishen v Chandra S?khar Baksh Siiifth

K. Vcnkat Reddiar & Co. v. nesikuohanar

Virappa Govindappa Konradcli v. Basappa Virabhad-

rappa t . ,

Kaliani Anni v. Thirumalayappa Mudaliar Jotsing Harising Advaiii v. Secretary of State for

India . .

Nilkanth v. Oajanan Palauiappa Chettiar v. liujarajesvrai'a Sethupathi ....

Leoh Moses v. Solomon Judali Meyer

Ma Me Mya v. Ma Min Xan

Chunilal Mokamdas Marwadi v. Christopher

Nachiapjia Chettiar v. Mahomed Sabir Khan

Jethanand Tekohand v. Secretary of State for India

3inna Karuppan v. Muthiah Chettiar

Rustom K. Sidhva v. Indian Merchants Association

Sekkhu Mustabu v. Nani . .

Ratilal v. Ruglmath Mulji

Rudrappa v. Mariappa

Yusif Mahbub & Co. y. Salloh Mahomod

Chandayya Hegde v. Kaveri Hegadthi

Sukhdeodas Ram Prosad v. Jaintilal Jamunadaa ...

Satheppa Chettiar v. Muthusami Pillai

Khiaras, R. P. v. Bhawanji Narsi

Sultan Abdul Kadir r. Mohammad Ksuf

j 6L. 512; A. L R H'26 Lnli PC. i A 1. R. 1924 Pat. G2S, (1921) Pat. 209; T. •-""

P. .L,

20 X. L. R. 17; A. I. R 1021 Na?. 01.

L K. 5 A. 607 Civ ; A. 1. R. 1925 All. 77.

(i:j-'5) M. \V. N. 7cSl, A 1. R. 1926 Mad. 128,

i,. U 5 A. 617 Civ.; A. I. R. 1925 All. 96.

6 L 4JU; A. 1 R P>26 Lah 116.

22 L W. (J37; 49 M. L. J. 720; A. I. 17, 19l76

Mad 118.

i'l N. L R. 181); A. I R 192d Na$. 229. A. 1. II 1J):>3 All 41; L. R. :> A. (509 C^iv.

G P. L. T. :;.r>, "2 Pai. L R. 2ii» Cr , (1925^ P:it.

49, A. I R 19iT) Pat 313 49 M. L. J. 034, 2J L. W 88,3; (1923) M W. N,

86G; A. I. R. 1920 Mad 81; i9 M 29. 22 A. L. J. 700; A. I. R. 1924 All. 799; -16 A.

713; L R. 5 A 521 Civ. 1 L. C. 43. 17 A. 90; 22 A L. J. 837; L. R. 3 A. 749 Civ.;

A.I. R 1925 All. 00. 6 P. L, T. 859, A. 1 R. 1920 Pat, HO; (1926; Pat,

i;>7.

27 Bom. L. R. 1G07; A I. R. 1926 Bom, 50,

A. I R. 192ft Mad. 378.

*Allahabad High Couit.

22 L. W. 190; A I R. 1923 Mad. 1279,

27 Bom. L R. 1511; A. I, R. 1926 Bom, 139, *Madras High Court.

A. 1. R. 1926 riind 130. A. 1. R. 1020 Kag. 248. 22 L. W «58, M M. L. J. 34; A, L R. 1926 Mad.

243; 49 M. 206. 27 Bom. L. R. 14GO; A. 1. R. 1926 Bom, 139; 50

B. 32. A. 1. R. 1925 Rang. 320; 3 R. 490; 4 Bar. L. J.

159. 27 Born. L. R. 1462; A. 1. R, 1926 Bom, 65; 50 B.

107.

A I. R. 1925 Rang. 303; 4 Bur. L. J. 135- *Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court.

22 L. W. 816; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 178. *Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court. A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 536.

*Sirid Judicial Commissioner's Court.

A. 1. R. 1926 Mad. 490.

*Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court,

49 M. L. J. 727: A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 189,

A. I. R. 1926 Cal 697.

A. 1. R. 1926 Mad. 537.

A. I. R. 1926 Siud 8,

23 L. W. 468,

Vol. 92]

INDIAN OASES.

17

398

400 401 402

403 405 411 412

414 415

416

417 410 423 424 425 426

427

428 429

430 433 439 441 442

450 451 452

453 454 456 459 460

461 462 463

465 468 470

471 472

4T3 474 478 479 479

Muthuvenkatarama Reddiar v. Official Receiver,

South Arcot

Subbiah Goundan r. Sonnimalia Goundan Ram Newaz v. Nankoo Chandra Mouleewara Prasada v. YadavalliJKames-

wara

Kanshi Ham v. Muhammad Abdul Rahman Guntur Narasimham r. Nyapati Narayanarao Garu .. Gopal Chandra Banerjee v. Bhutnath Sasmal Mahtlinga Naicker v. Vellaya Naicker

Ram Kuer v. Govind Ram

Thamaya Bangaruswami v. Thirunathasundra Dosa

Gopalam Garu v, Adusumilly Gopalakriah- nayya

Pohla v. Emperor Kishanchand v. Emperor Daya Ram v. Emperor Momoon v, Ibrahim Qaim Din v. Emperor Ram Sarup v. Emperor

Gulabchand Rupji v. Emperor

Kallu v. Emperor Champa Devi v. Pirbhu Lai

Nga Wa Gyi v. Emperor ...

Woodward v. Emperor Keramat Mandal v. Emperor Abdul Hafiz Khan v. Emperor Khijiruddin v. Emperor

Ratan Mani v, Hans Ram

Bhola v. Emperor

Kadhori v. Emperor . .

Keramat Mandal v. Emperor

Banwari Lai v. Jhunka

Thokala Seihamma v. Yellaturi Venkamma

Madat Khan v. Emperor

Bahadura v. Emperor

Teja Singh v Emperor Ghandiram v. Emperor Chhida Y. Emperor

Pakkir Mahamud v. Pichai Thevan '

Maqsud Ali v. Abdullah

Neelam Venkataratanamma v. Vinjamoori Varaha ...

Mulraj v. Indar Singh

Venkatasubba Rao v Adinarayana Rao

Maharaj Din v. Bhairon Sital Prasad Singh y. Jagdeo Singh Ram Nath Singh v. Gajadhar Lai Dhanpat Rai v. Kahan Singh Fateh Mahomed r, Mitha

50 M. L. J. 90; 49 M. 227; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 350.

23 L. W. 87.

A.I R. 1926 All. 283.

(1925) M. W. N. 776; 22 L. W. 833; 50 M. L. J. 97; A. L R. 1926 Mad. 157.

6 L. L. J. 336; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 216. 22 L. W. 592; A. 1. B. 1926 Mad. 66. 42 C. L. J. 520; A. I. R. 1926 Gal. 312.

22 L. W. 794; (1925) M. W. N. 884; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 190.

A. I. R. 1926 All. 62; 48 A. 145. (1925) M. W. N. 779; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 135; 23

L. W. 406.

* Madras High Court.

7 L. L. J. 442; 27 Cr. L. J. 241. 27 Cr. L. J. 213.

6 Ii. 489; 27 Cr. L. J. 247; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 83. 27 Cr. L. J. 248; A. I. R. 1926 Sind 143.

7 L L. J. 223; 27 Cr. L. J. 249.

24 A. L. J. 163; A. I. R. 1926 All. 122; 27 Cr. L. J. 250; 48 A. 230.

27 Bom. L. R. 1039; A. I. R. 1925 Bom. 467; 49

B. 799; 27 Cr. L. J. 251. 27 Cr. L. J. 252; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 240. 27 Cr. L. J. 253; 24 A. L. J. 329; A. I. R. 1926

All. 287. 3 R. 55; A I. R. 1925 Rang. 219; 4 Bur. L. J. 23;

27 Cr. L. J. 254 A. I. R. 1925 Siud233; 18 S. L. R. 199; 27 Cr. L.

J. 257. 42 0. L. J. 524; 27 Cr. L. J. 263; A. I. R. 1926

Cal. 320. L. R. 6 A. 203 Cr ; 24 A. L. J. 173; 27 Cr. L. J.

265; A. L R. 1926 AIL 188. 42 C. L J. 504; 27 Cr. L. J. 266; A. I. R. 1926

Cal. 139; 53 C. 372. 27 Cr. L. J. 274. 27 Cr. L. J. 275. L. R. 6 A. 216 Cr.; 24 A. L. J. 162; 27 Cr. L. J.

276; A. I. R. 1926 All. 193. 42 C. L. J. 528; 27 Cr. L. J. 277; A. I. R. 1926

Cal. 147. 27 Cr. L. J. 278; 24 A. L. J. 217; A. I. R. 1926

All. 229. 22 L. W. 863; 27 Cr. L. J. 280; A. I. R. 1926 Mad.

238. 7 L. L. J. 628; 27 Cr. L. J. 283; A. I. R. 1926

Lah. 221. 24 A. L. J. 215; 27 Cr. L. J. 284; A. I. R. 1926

All. 304.

7L L. J. 631;27Cr. L. J. 285. 27 Cr. L. J. 286. 24 A. L. J. 178; 27 Cr. L J. 287; A. I. R. 1926

All. 225.

*Madras High Court.

L. R. 6 A. 112 Civ.; A. I. R. 1925 All. 342. 49 M. L. J. 756; (1926) M. W. N. 44; A. I. R.

1926 Mad. 191.

A. L R. 1926 All. 102; 48 A 150. 22 L. W. 631; 50 M. L. J. 46; A. I. II. 1926 Mad.

227.

A. L R. 1926 All 290,

4 Pat. 294; A. I. U. 1925 Pat. 577; 7 P. L. T. 415, A. I. R. 1926 All. 300. 2 L. 0. 107 'Lahore High Court.

18

INDIAN CASES,

481

482 483

484 489 491 492 493 496 497

503 504

510 M2 514 516

517

520 522 523 f.24 525 526

526 527 530 531 532

533

535 537

541 542 544 545 546 548

549

549

551

553 554 555 555 556 558 559

562 563 566

Subramaniam Patter v. Vein Nair

Durga Bai, In ihe matter of

Narayanaswami Filial v, Gopalakrishna Naidu

Bago v. Roehan Beg

Ma Tok v. Ma Yin

Asanalli Nagoor v. Mahadu Meera

Gokul Das v. Nathu

KalaGellav Sbivji

Abdul Majid v. Wahidullah

Official Receiver, Tanjore v. Nagaratna Mudaliar .„

Muhammad Ismail v. Vahiduddin

Sankaralinga Mudaliar v. Official Receiver, Tinnevelly

Radha Kiehun v. Kashi Nath Maung Set Khahig v. MaungTun Nyein Muhammad Ibrahim v Ram Chandra Vencatachariar v. Bontham Pachayappa Chetty

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v. M. H. ttenjana & Co.

Thirumalai Pillai v. Arunchella Padayaohi

Ganga Dhar-Baij Nath v. U B. A C. T Ry.

Shiva Aithala v. Rangappaya Aithuia

ITnnaxnalai Animal v. Abboy Chetty

Dignmbar, In re

Peria Nambi Srinivnsachariar v. Kuna Ramasamy

Naicker

Aisban v. Municipal Committee, Lahore Gajanan Narayan Patkar v. Jivangiri Chamelgiri ... Kisan v. Jasodabai Ruldu Ram v. Surain Singh Bombay Baroda <& Central India Ry. v. Gulabbhai

Bl >v.-K/}!S

KalhaKKai v. Palani Koundan .

Ganppt Rai v. Kani Ram-Munna Lai Vishvanath Shamba Naik v. Ramkrishna Nartoba Kasbekar

Racharla Narayanappa v. Kondigi Bheemappa Balshet Muhadshet Yekawde v. Hari Baburao Rane Surendra Nath Das Gupta v. h'atyendra Nath Chandulal Maganlal v Motilal Harilal AtaHusainv Mustafa Hu sain G. I. P. Ry. Co. v. Chandulal Sheopratab

Basant Rai Bhandari v. Saltk Ram

Fulchand Mohaiilal v. Harilal Nansa ["t

Batuk Nath v. Jugal Kishore

Shri Goverdhanlalji Maharaj v. Shri Chandraprabha-

vati

Muhammad Ibrahim v. Yado Shidraj Bhojraj Desai v. Renaki Konda Mahar Ghissu v. Amir Ali Khan Devji Padamsey v. Thommadra Erikalappa Sivan Pillai v. Venkateswara Iyer Pancharn Lai v. Muhammad Yaqub Qamar Jahan Begam v. Munney Mirza

T'ahilram Tarachand v. Vassumal Deumal Gobind Lai Dutt v. Official Assignee, Calcutta Subramania Iyer v. Shumnugam Chettiar

567 Ram Saran Baa v. Girdhari Lai

TT."-" **"-' '- "" ••- '

49 M. L. J. 717; 22 L. W. 749; (1926) M. W. N.

36; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 249. 24 A L J 310 A. I R. 1926 All. 301. (1H25) M. W. N. 780; 22 L W. 618; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. J 12; 50 M L. J. 48. *Lahore High Court. 3 R. 77; A 1. R. 1925 Rang 228. 22 L. W. 820: A. I R. 1926 Mad. 259. 24 A.L. J. 291.

*8ind Judicial Commissi oner's Court. A. I. R. 1926 All. 284. 49 M. L. J. 643; (1925) M. W. N. 907; A. I. R.

1926 Mad. 194.

24 A. L. J. 311; A. I. R. 1926 All. 270. 49 M. L. J. 616; (1925) M. W. N. 832; A, I. R.

1926 Mad. 72.

24 A. L. J. 241; A. I. R. 1926 All. 266. A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 221; 4 Bur. L. J. 69; 3 R. 82. 24 A. L J. 244; A. I. R. 1926 All. 289.

22 L. W. 698; (1926) M. W. N. 106; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 250.

27 Bom. L. R. 1471; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 129; 30

B. 87.

A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 540. 24 A. L. J. 328. 49 M. L. J 7J9; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 233.

23 L. W. lf>8; 50 M. L. J. 172. A. I. R, 1926 Nag. 306.

A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 509.

•"Lahore High Court

27 Bom. L. R 1405; A. I. R. 1926 Bom, 131.

A-I. R. 1925 Nag. 298.

7 L. L. J. 618; A. I. R. 1926 Lab. 120.

A.I. R. 1926 All. 296.

23 L. W. 227; 50 M L. J. 2fO; (1926) M. W. X. 245; A. I. R. 1926 Mad 412.

24 A. L, J. 283; A, I. R 192(5 All. 293.

27 Bom. L. R, 1478; A.I. R 1926 Bom. 86; 50 B.

94.

A. I. R. 1926 Mad, 494. 27 Bom. L. f . 1487; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 119. "•Calcutta High Court. 27 Bom. L. R 1492; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 43. •"Allahabad High Court. 27 Bom L. R. 1500; A, I. R. 1926 Bom. 138;

50 B. 84

A. I. R. 1920 Oudh 288. 27 Bom. L. R. 1503; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 69; 50

B. 124. 24 A. L. J. 281; A. I. R. 1926 All. 285.

27 Bom. L. R. 1496; A. I. fc. 1926 Bom. 136.

A. I R. 1926 Nag, 238.

27 Bom. L. R. 145*0; A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 140.

"Allahabad High Court.

27 Bom. L. R. 149,4; A. I, R. 1926 Bom. 63.

22 L. W. 796; A. J. R. 1926 Mad. 130.

24 A. L. J. 313; A*I. R. 1926 All. 294.

12 0. L J. 313, 2V0. W.S. 413; A. I. R. 19J5

Oudh 613. * A. I. R. 1926 Sind 119. 29 C. W. N. 163; A I. R. 1925 Cal 291. 41) M. L. J. 363; 32 L. W 533; A. I. R. 1026

Mad. 65. 24 A. L. J, 286; A. I, R. 1926 All, 305,

Vol. 92]

INDIAN CA8BS,

569 570

571 573

575 577

584 581 587 588

588 589 590 590

591 591

593 593

591

595 597

597 599

600 601 602 603

603 608 610

612 615

616 617

620 621 621

622 624

626 626

Bulli Mai v. Jhabba

Tulasidass Govindjee v. Madharadass Lalajee •

Atma Ram v. Nanak Chand

Chi Mammal v. Ponnuaami Naicker

Parumal Thawerdas v. Makhan Ram Karan v. Emperor

Khamani v. Emperor Indar Singh v. Emperor Wasal v. Emperor Kashi Prasad v. Emperor

Emperor v. Gulab

Krishna Gopal v. Emperor

L. A. Morrison v. H M. Crowder ...

Emperor v. Ghulam Mohammad

Emperor v. Kesar Kalap Nath v. Emperor

Bashirulla Bhiriyav. Meajan

Tadepalli Subba Rao v. Motamari Lakshmi-

narayana Gonnabathula Thammayya v. Gonnabathula Chin-

nayya

Munshi Ram v. Bhagwan Das

Muhammad Mohideen Maracayar v, Ramanadhan

Chettiar

Nand Ram v. Tshar Chockaliugam Pillai v. Pichappa Chettiar

Mumtaz Ali v. Allah Banda Adam Sardar v. Bisweswar Das Municipal Committee, Ferozepore v. Milkhi Ram ... Muthu Veerappa Chettiar v. U. K. Sivagurunatha Pillai

Bengal North- Western Ry. v. Bansi Dhar

Lalman v. Shiam Singh

Municipal Council, Tuticorin v. Shunmugha Moopanar

Ganga Bakhsh Singh v. Maula Bux Singh Vadapalli Varadacharyulu v, Khandavilli Narasimha- chary ulu

Chandra Kumar Guha v. Elahi Buksha Jitendra Nath Chatterjee v. Jasoda Sahun

Abdul Rahiman Sahib & Co. v. Shaw Wallace A

Co. Langley Billimoria & Co. v. Lakhmichand-Gopal-

Das Kaliba Sahib v. Subbaraya Ayyar

Chandrabhan Prakashnath v. E. I. Ry. Co. Tiruvangalath Nellyoton Paidal Nayab, In re

Hitendra Singh v, Maharajdhiraj of Darbhanga ...

Alella Kesavaramayya T. Visawsetti Venkatanara- simha

A. I. R. 1025 Lah. 504; 7 L. L. J, 280.

22 L. W. 642; (1926; M. W. N, 68; A. L R. 1928 Mad. 148.

A I. R. 1926 All. 274.

23 L. W. 94; (1926) M. W. N, 121 A 172; 50 M. L, J. 180; A. I R. 1926 Mad. 363.

A. I. K. I02'l Bind 113.

9 L. L J. 371; A. 1 R. 1925 Lah. 483; 2 L. C.

197; 27 Cr. L. J. 289. L. R. 6 A. 207 Cr.; 24 A. L. J. 171; 27 Cr. L, J.

296; A. I. R. 1926 All. 306. 27 Cr. L. J. 297; 24 A. L. J. 270; A. I, R. 1926

All. 302. A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 495; 7 L. L. J. 277; 27 Cr. L.

J. 299.

24 A. L. J. 161; A. I. R, 1926 All. HI; 27 Cr, L. J. 300.

27 Or. L. J. 300.

27 Cr. L. J. 301.

27 Cr. L. J. 305.

A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 510; 7 L. L. J. 331; 27 Cr. L.

J. 302. 27 Cr. L. J. 303; 24 A. L. J. 228; A. I. R. 1926

All. 226. 27 Cr. L. J. 303; 24 A. L. J. 292; A. I. R. 1926

All. 288. A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 690.

22 L. W. 389; A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 1214.

22 L. W. 752; (1926) M. W. N. 38; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 282. 7 L. L. J. 596; A. L R. 1926 Lah. 152.

22 L. W. 872; A. I R. 1926 Mad. 217. 7 L L J. 600; A. T. R. 1926 Lah. 12*. 22 L. W. 579; (J925) M. W. N. 602; A. I. R.

Mad 155.

'Allahabad High Court. A. I. R 1926 Cal. 6*4. A. I. R. 1925 Ltth. 505; 7 L. L. J. 358.

22 L W. 617; 49 M. L. /. 697; a92(tt M. W. N. 63; A.I R. 1926 Mad. 133; 49 M. 217.

3 O. W. N 145; A. 1. R. 1926 Oudh 218.

24 A. L J 288; A. I R 1926 All. 291.

(1925) M. W. N. F80; 23 L. W. 31; A. 1. R. 1926

Mad. 251; 49 M. 219. 13 O. L. J. 132.

(1925) M. W. N. 886; 23 L. W. 85; A. I. R. 19J6

Mad. 258.

A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 667. (1925) Pat. 353; A. I. R. 1926 Pat. 122; 7 P. L

T. 299.

21 L. W. 516; A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 736.

*8ind Judicial Commissioner's Court

23 L. W. 99; (1926) M. W. N. 123 A 175; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 365.

24 A. L. J. 305; A I R. 1926 All. 299.

22 L. W. (191; 1626 M. W. N. 169; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 225.

(1925) Pat. 359; A. I. R. 1926 Pat. 147; 7 P. L T. 392.

(1926) M. W. N. 141: 50 M L. J. 3C; 23 L. W. 678; A, I. R. 1926 Mad. 452,

INDIAN OASES,

[1926

128 629 631 633

637

640 64* 646 651 €53

€56 657 661

663 665 667 667 669 670 672 673 674 675

677 678 679 681

681 683

684 685

687 688 689

693 694 695

697

697 702

703 705 708 709

709

713 714

Vishvanathbhat Annabhat v. Mallappa Ningappa .., Bhatu Ram Modi v, Fogal Ram ' , .

Arunchellam Chettiar v. U To Lu Ram Protap Chamria v. Durga Prosad Ohaniria

Ram Shankar Singh v. Lai Bahadur Singh

Gopilal Bhawaniram v. Pandurang

Muhammad Zakaria v. Kishun Narain

Shankar v. Pandurang

Lai Ohand v. Huns Kumar

Mahadeva Iyer v. Ramkrishna Reddiar „

Ahmun Zaida v. Gurdas Ram %%(

Sartaj Koer v. Mahadeo Bux

Koyyalamudi Chinnayya v. Koyyalamudi Mang- amma ,0

Narayan v. Dhudabai Sarda Bux Singh v. Kandhia Bux Maung Po Seik v. U Nandiya Moolji Murarji Sunderji v. Pinto Roshan Lai v. Rustomji Indarpal Singh v. Kalloo Addepalli Kondayya v. Yandru Vecranna Gauri Shankar v. Decruze

Firm Bihari Lal-Jai Narayan v. liar Narain Das ... Raisun Nisa v. Zorawar Sah

M. S. S. Ohettyar Firm v. Ma Tin Tin Gopal v. Krishnarao ttt

Kidar Nath v. Bhikham Singh Bhupendra Narayan Singh Bahadur v. Madar Bakhsh Sheikh

Chandrika Prasad v. Nazir Husain Indal v. Debi

Balaram Manjhi v. -1 :Lr:ii\--'t\-]\ Manjhi Mahadeo Prasad v. K,:;:i I':.;:i

Suggusctty Subbayyav. Irugulopati Gangayya

Maung Han v. Ko Oh

Emperor v. Manant K. Mehta „.

Emperor v. Mathro

Beni Ram v. Emperor

Kannammal, In re \\\

Babu v. Emperor

B. N. Ry. Co. v. Makbul

Maung Tun v. Emperor Ml

Shaikh Kariin v. Emperor

Radha Kishen-Ohuni Lai v. Ahsa Mal-Ishar Dai ...

Mansaram v. Budhu

Mahfab Shah v. All Haidar Shah ] '. \

Trustees, Parakkat Devaswom v. Venkatachalam Vadhayar

Raghunath Dai-Ram Sarup v. Sulzer Bruderer & Co. Mt

Ttramonee Ohoudhurani v. Sheikh Elim

27 Bom. L. R. 1103; 49 B. 821; A. I. R. 1925

Bom. 514. (1925) Pat. 357; 5 Pat. 223; A. I. R. 1926 Pat

141; 7 P. L. T. 340. 4 Bur. L. J. 91; A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 26fl; 3 R

318. 3 O. W. N. 127; A. I, R. 1925 P. 0. 293; 49

M. L. J. 812; 43 C. L. J. 14; 24 A. L. J. 13;

(1926) M. W. N. 96; 3 Pat. L. R. 330; 28

Bom. L. R. 217; 53 C. 258. P. C. 3 0. W. N. 267; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 2?7; 13 O.

L. J. J16.

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 241. A. I. R. 1926 All. 268. 9 N. L J. 22

7 L. L. J. 5£0; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 108; 7 L. 55 23 L. W. 199; 50 M. L. J. 67; A. I. R. 1926 Mad.

114; (1925) M. W. N. 707. A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 225. A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 332.

*Madras High Court.

21 N. L. R. 38; A. I. R. 1925 Nag. 299.

*Oudh Chief Court.

A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 374; 4 Bur. L. J. 178.

*Sind Judicial Commissioner's Cour£.

A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 249.

*Oudh Chief Court.

A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 543.

3 O. W. N. 378.

*Lahore High Court.

3 0. W. N. 121; 13 0. L. J. 10; A. I. R. 1926

Oudh 228.

A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 349; 4 Bur. L. J. 179. *Nagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court. *0udh Chief Court.

A. I. R. 1925 P. C. 297; 23 L. W. 9; 52 I. A.

439; 53 C. 1 P. C. A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 306. A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 174. A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 760. 3 0. W. N. 186; 13 0. L. J. 55; A. I. R. 1926

Oudh 258.

22 L. W. 827; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 183. A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 366; 4 Bur. L. J. 180.

~ Bom L. R. 1343; 49 B. 892; A. I. R. 1926

Bom. 110; 27 Cr. L. J. 305. 27 Cr. L. J. 309; A. I, R. 1926 Sind 101. 27 Cr. L. J. 310; A. I. R. 1926 All. 237.

23 L. W. 384; 27 Cr. L. J. 311 A. L R. 1926 Mad. 570.

24 A. L. J. 280; 27 Cr. L. J. 313; A. I. R. 1926 All 276.

A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 755; (1926) Pat. 74; 27 Cr. L,

J. 313; 7 P. L. T. 343. A. I. R 1925 Rang. 353; 4 Bur. L. J. 172; 27

Cr. L. J. 318.

27 Cr. L. J. 319; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 279. 7L L. J.603; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 91. A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 289.

6 L. 338; A. 1. R. 1925 Lah. 429; 7 L. L. J 190.

21 L. W. 22; 50 M. L. J. 153; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 321.

7 L. L, J. 611; 7 L, 42; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 125. A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 582.

Vol.92J

INDIAN CASES.

21'

715 719 720

721 722 723 724 725 726

727 730 731

732 735 736 737

741 742 743 744

746

747 748 749 750

750 752

753

757 759 760

76* 764 765 766 768 769 770 771 772 775 771

777 779 780 782

785 786 787 790

791 792 796

May appa Ghettiar v. Kolandaivelu Ohettiar

Maung Mya Din v. Maung Ye Gyi

Mulugu Chengayya v. Aruvelu Devasanambagaru ...

Thakar Singh v. Indar Singh

Shankar Baksh v. Taluqdei

Bantu v. Lehna Das

Komarasami Ohetti v. Sundar Mudaliar

Buta r. Ghulam Muhammad

Bohisetti Mamayya v. Official Receiver, Guntur

Baikuntha Nath Kar v. Adhar Chandra Pain Pothi Annapurnayya T. Pothi Nagaratnamma Nihal Singh T. Secretary, Gurdawara Guru Tegh

Bahadur

Ohandoo r. Murlidhar Ghandrabhaga Bai v. Bakaram Mg. Po Ki» T. Mg. Po Oh McDonnell v. Emperor

Narain Da* v. Emperor Jeomal v. Emperor Emperor v. Daulat Singh Parakh v. Emperor

Chiragh Din v. Emperor

Rukmtni Ammal v. Muthuswami Reddi

Sictik v. Emperor

Diwan Chand v. Emperor

Kaliappa Goundan v. Maniam Sellappa Goundan ..

Nazar Shah v. Emperor Ah Khaung v. Emperor

Thanappa Chetty v. Esuf Khan Sahib Ram Pher Singh v. Sheo Saran Singh Noor Din v. Sulakhau Mai

Firm of R. B. Bansilal Abirchand v. Ghulam Mahbub Khan

Ladha Singh v. Sundar Singh

Prabhudayal r. Lalta Das

Municipal Committee, Taran Taran v. Mul Raj

Mahomed Siddiq v. Li Kan Shoo

Lallu Singh T. Gur Narain

Abdul Qadir T. Ilahi Bakhsh

Ayyaru Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai

Savareie T. Wakf Estate of Ismail Ahmed_Mada ...

Shib Nnrain r. Gajadhar

Ma She we U T. Ma Shin

Thirumalachtriar v. Athimoola Karay alor

Mtung San Pwe v. Hamadanee

Taj Mohammad v. Farid Khan

Shakur, M. A. v. Municipal Corporation, Rangoon . .

Pattamayya v. Pattayya

Sheikh Badal v. Abdul Rahim Chan Eliiam v. Neo Thein Theong Kallu Mai v. Partab Singh

Kannuri Venkata Siva Rao v. Chittoori Rama Krish- nayya

Abdul Qadir v. Ilahi Bakhsh ,..

Ramakka v. Negasam ».«

Marotrao v. Municipal Committee, Nagpur

"Madras High Court.

A. 1. R. 1925 Rang. 350; 4= Bur. L. J. 136.

50 M. L. J, 145; 2.3 L. W. 390; (1926) M. W. N.

289; A. L R 1926 Mad. 406, *Lahore High Court. 3 O. W. N. 375. "Lahore High Court. 23 L. W. 212. A. 1. R. 1926 Lah. 247.

23 L. W. 10; (1926) M. W. N. 124; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 338.

A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 653. A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 591.

A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 228.

13 O. L. J. 138; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 311.

A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 276.

A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 373; 4 Bur. L. J. 160.

A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 345; 4 Bur. L. J. 147; I R.

524; 27 Cr. L. J. 321. 27 Cr. L. J. 325. 27 Cr. L. J. 326.

24 A. L. J. 221; 27 Cr. L. J. 327.

3 O. W. N. 160; A. I R. 1926 Oudh 202; 27 Cr. L. J. 328.

7L.L. J.621; 27 Cr. L. J. 330.

50 M. L. J. 94; 27 Cr. L. J. 331.

27 Cr. L. J. 332.

27 Cr. L. J. 333; A. I. R. 1926 Lah, 227.

23 L W. 101; A. I. R! 1926 Mad. 296; 27 Cr. L.

J. 334. 27 Cr. L. J. 334.

4 Bur. L. J. 143; A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 363; 27 Cr. L. J. 336.

23 L. W. 36.

3 O. W. N. 133; A I. R. 1926 Oudh 196. A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 230.

A. I. R. 1925 P. C. 290; 49 M. L. J. 806; 43 C. L. J. 1; 23 L. W. 3, 24 A. L J. 48- (1926) M. W. N. 108; 28 Bom. L. R. 211; 53 C. 88; 30 C. W. N. 577 P, C.

* Lahore High Court. A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 293.

* Lahore Hi#h Court.

A I. R 1925 Rang 372; 4 Bur. L. J. 154

*Allahabad High Court.

A. L R. 1926 Lah. 251.

50 M L. J 116; A. L R. 1926 Mad. 431.

A. I. R. 1925 Rang 376; 4 Bur. L. J. 157.

24 A L. J. 260.

A I. R. 1925 Rang. 381; 4 Bur. L. J. 146.

22 L. W. 695; (1926) M. W. N 112; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 256.

A, I. R. 1925 Rang. 382; 4 Bur. L. J. 166. "Lahore High Court. A. L R. 1925 Rang. 367; 4 Bur. I'. J. 161. 50 M. L. J 215; (1926) M. W. N. 262; A. I R. 1926

Mad. 453.

A. L R. 1926 Nag 273. A. I. R. 1925 Rang. 361; 4 Bur. L. J. 138 A. I. R, 1926 Oudh 301.

(1925) M. W. N. 874; 23 L. W. 103; 50 M. L. J.

148; A.I. R. 1926 Mad. 2 16. "Lahore High Court.

47 M. 800; 48 M. L. J. 89; A. L R. 1925 Mad. 145, A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 281.

INt>IAN CASfcS.

800

802

805 810 813 814

818 819 822 823

824 825

812 833

838 830 840 841 843 844

845 846 847

640

650 851

854

855 855

*

862 863 865

870 871

873

674

S82

883

885 897 869

Kommareddi Ramachandrayya v. Vodury Venkata- ratnani

Venkata Narasimha Rao yana

v. Hemadu Suryanara-

Ramchandra v. Lakshmtn

Koyyalamudi Subbanna v. Koudri Subbarayudu ...

Vinayak v. Kaniram

Ram Bhaj v. Duni Chand

Chintalapati Futchi Seetayya Garu v. (Jollavilli

Appadu

Barkoo v. Atmaram

Veeraswami Pillai v. Chidambaram Chettiar . .

Dawlat v. Kashirao Ramasami Goundan v. Alagia Singaperumal Kada-

vul

Thakur Singh v. Sonkuar . .

Sukhdeo v. Ram Dulari

Vehmlapalli Seetharamamma v. Maganli Appiah .. Bajrang Bali v. Mahrajia . .

Subramania Aiyar v. Krishna Iyer . .

Meenakshisundara Nachiar v. Vcerappa Chtttiar Umrao Singh v. Bcni Prashacl-M eh r Ohand MuhammacT Afzal v. Muhamn ad Mahmud Chimashani v. Venkatrao Aswap Ali Bepari v. Dula Mia Kommineni Appalaswamy v. Kommineni Simhadri

Appadu

SattiBhusan Mallick v. Sndananda Mallick Swaminptha Odayar v. Thiagarajaswami Odayar ... Naraj anaswami lyengar v. Thip^ayya

Fmperor v. $ga Tun Maung

Imam AH v. Emperor

Local Government v. Doma Kunbi

Emperor v. Maung Than Gyaung

Vaithi Matharan v. Narayanaswami Iyer Dwarka v. Emt

Ishwar Das v.

>ror peror

Jalal Uddin v. Emperor

Kandasami Chetty, In re

Mulai Rai v. Emperor

A jo Mian v. Emperor ,M

Masala v. Emperor

Jeobaran Singh v. Ramkishun Lai • .

A lam path Kriehnan v. Municipal Prosecutor, Cunna nore

Badri Choudhry v, Emperor

SUm Charan v. Emperor

Chamari Singh Y. Public Prosecutor of Gays • .

Parmeshar Lall v. Emperor 4..

Abdul Bari Mallick v. Emperor4

Mul Chand v. Emperor ^

22 L. W. 582; (1925) M. W. N. 604; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 153.

50 M. L. J. 75; 2,3 L. W. 409; A. I. R. 1926 Mad.

325.

9 N. L. J. 3; A. I. R. 1926 Nag. 298. 50 M. L. J. 1%25; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 390. A. I. R. 1926 Nag, 293. A. I. R. 1926 Lati. 240.

A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 526.

*Nagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court.

*Madras High Court.

A. I. R. 192(5 Nag 280.

22 L. W. 701; (1926) M. \V. N. 117; 50 M. L. J. 42; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 280

*Nagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court. A. 1. R. 1926 Oudh 313.

23 L. W. 285; (1926) M. W. N. 238; A I. P. 19?6 Mad. 457.

*0udh Chief Court

(1925) M. W. N. £87; A. J. R. 1926 Mad. 211. (1926)M.W. N.4.

*Lahore High Court.

'J4 A. L. J. 307.

8 N. L. J. 135; A. I. R. 1C2G Nag. 79.

A. L R. 1926 Cal. 580.

23 L. W.29; A. L R. 1926 Mad. 384.

"Calcutta High Court.

23 L. W. 26; (1926; M. W. N. 140.

(1926) M. W. N. 1; 23 L. W. 382; A. 1. R. 1026 Mad. 366.

A- L K- 1925 Rang. 362; 4 Bur. L. J. 169. 27 Cr.

L. J. 337.

27 Cr. L. J. 338; A. L R. 1926 Lah. 212. 27 Cr. L. J. 339. A. I. R. 1925 Rang 375; 4 Bur. L. J. 145; 3 R.

514; 27 Cr. L. J. 342.

22 L. \V. 673; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 210; 27 Cr. L. L. J. 343.

27 Cr. L. J. 343.

27 Cr. L. J. 344; A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 2SO.

24 A. L. J. 230; 27 Cr. L. J. 345; A. 1. R. 1926 All. 271.

50 M. L. J. 44; (1926) M. W. N. 146; 27 Cr. L. J.

350; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 346. 24 A. L J. 314; 27 Cr. L. J. 351; A. 1. R.

1926 All. 277. 6 P. L. T. 626; A, I. R. 1925 Pat. 696; 27 Cr, L.

J. 353,

27 Cr, L. J. 358, 4 Pat, 503; A, I, R. 1925 Pat. 623; 27 Cr. L. J.

359.

23 L. W. 413; 27 Cr. L. J. 361; A. I. R. 1626 Mad, 430.

6 P. L. T. 620; A. I. R. 1926 Pat. 20; 27 Cr. L J. 362.

24 A. L. J. 317; 27 Cr, L. J. 370.

4 Pat. 484; A. I, R. 1925 Pat, 677; 27 Cr. L. J,

371; 7 P. L. T. 372. 4 Pat. 472; A. I. R. 1925 Pat. 678; 27 Cr. L. J.

373. 42 C. L J 585; A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 157; 27 Cr. L.

J. 375; 30 0. W. N. 644 27 Cr. L. J. 377; A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 250.

Vol 92J

INDIAN CASE&

889

890 892 894

895 895 897

897 898 81)9

899 900

90;

903

903

906

90S

JH)

1)1

915

916 918 923 928

940 913

016 947 948 949 950 980 961 962

063

073

076 077

080 981 982 984

000 091 003

Mustaqhuuddin v. Emperor

Arshed All v Emperor Rmperor v. Tej Ram • Lalit Kumar Ssn v. Emperor

Mughees-ud-din v. Empsror

Puran v. Emperor

Venugop. 1 Nayudu, In re

Durga Prosad Lahiri Choudhuri v. Ratan Mahommed

Sarkar

Wilayati Begam v Jhandu Mal-Mithu Lai Bhagwandas-Paras Kam v. Jado Nath Prayaga Doss Jeevaru v. Padiella Doraiswaini lyen-

gar

Baikuntha Nath D.3 v. Shaik Hiri Bibi Khodaijatul Kobra v. Harihar Misser

Khurshed Meerza v. Faizuddia Ali

Kudan Singh v . Kalka Singh

Abdul Wahed Khan v. Tamijannsssa Bibi

Jang Bahadur v. Jagat Narain

Siteswar Roy v. Tepua bornidn

Anandrao v. Daulat

Khurshid B?gam v. Abdul Rashid

Guduthuru Thimmappa v. Baiakrislma Mudaliar . .

Barati v. Surit

Mahammad Raza Sahab Belgami v. Sadasiva Rao . . GauraTelin v. Shriram Bhoyer Ayiswaryaiiandaji Saheb v. Sivvaji Raja Saheb

Sripati Dutta v. Bibhuti Bhusan Dutta Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Messrs, King & Partrige

Stisil Chandra Guha v. Gouri Sundari Devi Relu Mai v. Ahumad Dhana Mohammad v. NasLulla Molla Lachhman Singh v. Ram Das Dost Muhammad v. Kadar Batohu Faziar Rahman v. Abdul Hamad Bangahi Badan Haldar v. Ratan Manepalli Satanarayanamurthi v. Thommandra Eri kalappa

Gopal Chandra Das v. Satya Bhanu Ghoshal Allah Bakhsk v. Municipal Committee, Rohtak Veeranan Ambalam v, Ayyachi Ambalam

Addepalli Ramiah

Venkata Garunadha v. Akella Kesava

Seetharama Naidu v Govindasami Chettiar Nidavolu Atchutam v. Ratnaji

Narain Das v. Saraj Din

[swor Sant v. Torendra Nath Kuila

EJhagat Singh v. Mathra

Umasasi Debi v, Akrur Chandra Mazumdar

Arshad Ali v. Zorawar Singh

Kuthalinga Mudaliar v. Shanmuga Mudaliar

Kala Khan v. Nathu Khan Puran Chand v. Emperor Q. I, P, Railway v. Kunj Behari Lai

24 A. L. J. 327; 27 Or. L. J. 377; A. I. R. 1926

All. 297.

30 C W N. IGfi: 27 Cr. L. J. 378. 27 Or. L. J. 380. 42 C. L. J. 551; A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 174; 27 Cr. L,

J. 382.

27 Cr. L J. 382: A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 256. 27 Cr. L. J 383; A. I. R. 1926 All. 2)8. 27 Cr. L. J. 381.

* Calcutta High Court.

24 A. L. J 319; A. I. R. 1926 All. 286. A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 230.

23 L. W. 520.

A. I. R 1928 Cal. 592.

4 Pat. 683, 7 P. L. T. 333; A. I. R. 1926 Pat.

209.

"•Calcutta High Court, A. I. R 1926 Oudh 309. AIR. 1026 Cal 679 A. I. R. 1926 Oudh 318. A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 580

22 N. L. R 37; A I. R. 1926 Nag. 274. 9 N. L J. 11; A I. R 1926 Nag. 231.

23 L W. 361; 50 M. L J. 298; A. I. R. 1926 Mad 427.

A. I. K. 1920 Nag 277.

49 M. 49; A I R. 1926 Mad. 297. A. I. R. 192fi Nag. 265

A. 1. R. 1926 Mad. 84; 49 M. L. J. 568; 49 M.

110. 53 C, 319; A. I. R, 1926 Cal. 593.

50 M, L, J. 176; 49 M, 296; A, I, R 1926 Mad. 368.

* Calcutta High Court

7 L 17; A I. R. 1^26 Lull. 183. A. I. R. 11)26 Cal. 637.

* Lahore High Court.

23 L. W. 240; A I R. 1926 Mad. 466. ^Calcutta High Court,

* Calcutta High Court.

50 M. L. J. 150; 23 L. W. 396; (1926) M, W. N

282; A. I. R 1926 Mad. 410. A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 634. A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 223.

22 L. W. 772; (1925) M. W. N. 857; 49 M. L, J. 791; A, I.R. 1926 Mad. 168.

50 M. L. J. 54; 23 L. \V. 314; (1926) M. W N, 149; A.I. R 1926 Mad 417.

23 L. W. 149; (1926) M. W. N. 162; A. I. R 1926 Mad. 352.

23 L \V. 193; 50 M. L. J. 208; (1926) M. W N.

258; 49 M. 211; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 323. A I. R. 1926 Lah. 238. 42 O. L J. 560; A. I. R 1926 Cal. 163. "Lahore High Court. 30 n W. N. 160; A. I. H. 1926 Cal. 542; 53 C.

297.

8 L. L J. 60, 50 M. T, J. 234; 23 L. W. S73; (1926) M. W, N,

274; A. 1. R 1926 Mad, 464. A I R. 1926 Lah. 229. "Lahore High Court. A. 1, R, 1926 All 228,

INDIAN OASES.

[1M6

094 995 1001 1006 1007 1003

1012 1013 1015 1016 1017 1019 1021 1027 1028 1030 1031 1034 1045 1046 1046 1047 1051

1053 1055

Ghiranji Lai v. Shib Lai . •

Baldeo Kurmi v. Kashi Chamar

\V. & T. Avery Ld. v. Kessoram Poddar

Lakshmi Chand v. Mukta Parshad

East Indian Railway v. Firm Baldeo Gutain

Indian Vacuum Brake Co. Ltd. v. E. S. Luard

Singh Ram v. Kala

Raghubir Singh v. Nathu Mai

Firm Budhu Mai-Parma Nand v. Gokal Ohand ...

Lalchand Deomal, In re ...

Jai Narain v. Jafar Beg

Municipality of Tando Adam v, Khair Mahomed „.

Alagirisami Pillai v. Lakshnianan Chetty

Bhagwati Dayal v. Dhan Kunwar

Ramu Chetty v. Panchammal

Ram Badan Upadhiya v. Sankatha Misra

Ramdhani Muchi v. Khakshardas Tati

Jasoda Koer v. Janak Missir

Venkatarama Aiyar v. Soundaram Aiyar

Ramaswami Aiyangar v. T. Raghava Aiyangar

Khem Karan Das v. Baldeo Singh

Bhunjanga Rao v. Periyathambi Goundan

Rathan Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

Kesaralu Naicker v. Corporation of Madras •-• Pooranalingam Servai v. Veerayi

A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 242.

24 A. L. J. 337; A. I. R. 1926 All. 312.

30 C. W. N. 152; A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 481.

8 L. L. J. 67.

'Allahabad High Court.

42 0. L. J. 543; A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 152; 53 0.

306.

8 L. L. J. 39; A. L R. 1926 Lah. 244; 7 L. 173. *Allahabad High Court. 8 L. L J. 3; 7 L. 113. A. I. R. 1925 Sind 259. 24 A. L. J. 355. A. I. R. 1925 Sind 260. 50 M. L. J. 79; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 371. 24 A. L. J. 331; A. I. R. 1926 All. 3J1. (1926) M. W. N. 45; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 402. 'Allahabad High Court. A. I. R. 1926 Oal. 677. 4 Pat. 394, A. I R. 1925 Pat. 787. (1926) M. W. N. 48. (1926) M. W. N. 118. A. I. R. 1926 All. 282. 'Madras High Court. 50 M. L. J. 157; 23 L. W. 267; A. I. R. 1926

Mad. 462. 23 L. W. 233; 50 M. L. J. 301; A.I. R. 1926

Mad. 38L 22 L. W. 782; (1926) M. W. N. 114; A. I. R.

1926 Mad. 186.

TABLE

OF

Cases Applied, Approved, Considered, Disapproved,

Dissented from, Distinguished, Explained, Followed,

Not Followed, Overruled and Relied upon In

Volume 92 of Indian Cases, 1926.

Page.

Abdul Hakim Khan Chaudhuri v. Elahi Baksha Saha,85Ind. Cas. 103; 52 0. 43; 29 0. W. N. 138; A. I. R. 1025 Gal. 309 (Followed) - , 963

Abdul Rahman Shah v. Shahana, 58 Ind. Cas. 748; 1 L. 339; 82 P. W. R. 1930; 1 L. L. J. 188 (Relied on) .. 802

Abid Ali v. Arabunnissa, 1 O. C. 75 (Followed) 265 Aduram Haldar v. Nakuleswar Rai Chowdhury,

49 Ind Cas. 137; 29 C L. J. 48 (Relied on) ... 514 Ahmad Raza Khan v. Ram Lai, 26 Ind. Cas. 922;

13 A. L. J. 204; 37 A. 203 (Relied on) ... 99

Aizunnissa Khatoon v. Kariiiumnisaa Khatoon, 23 C. 130; 12 Ind. Dec. (N. s ) 87 (Dissented from) ... 82

Alice Qeorgina Skinner v. Mukarram Ali Khan, 92 Ind. Cas. 330; A.I R. 1925 All. 77; L. R. 5 A. 607 Civ. (Not followed) . . 566

Anantarama Aiyar v. Yusuf ji Oomer Sahib, 36 Ind. Cas. 903; 31 M. L. J, 133; (1916) 2 M. W, N. 236 (Relied upon) ... 5

Andukuri Venkatarama Das v. Pachigolla Gavar- raju, 70 Ind. Cas. 677; 43 M. L. J. 153 at p. 156; (1922) M. W. N. 305; 16 L. W. 228; A. I. R. 1922 Mad. 173; 31 M. L. T. 154 (Distinguished) 472 Arumugam Chetty v. Muthu Koundan, 52 Ind. Cas. 525; 42 M. 711; 9 L. W. 565; (1910) M. W. N. 409; 37 M. L. J. 166; 26 M. L. T. 96 (Relied on) . . 85

Arunachalam Chettiar v. Rajeswara Setupati, 71 Ind. Cas. 257; 15 L. W. 63; (1921) M. W. N. 873; 30 M. L. T. 84; 42 M. L. J. 74; A. L R. 1922 Mad. 55 (Distinguished) ... 354

Arura v. Bur Singh, 84 Ind. Ca§. 67; 5 L. 371; A.

I.,R. 1925 Lah. 31 (Relied on) . . 260

Asutosh Goswami v. Upendra Prosad Mitra, 38 Ind. Oas. 17; 21 C. W. N. 564; 24 C. L. J. 467 (Relied on) ... 960

Attra v. Mangal Singh, 65 Ind. Cas. 264; 2 L. 300; 4 L. L. J. 1; 27 P. L. R. 1922; A. I. R. 1922 Lah. 43 (Followed) 762, 791

Aulia Khan v. Kanshi Ram, 17 Ind. Cas. 677; 45 P. R. 1£L3; 25 P. W. R. 1913; 145 P. L. R. 1913 (Not followed) ... 762

AutHikesavaloo Naicker v. Shah Abdulla, 29 Ind. Oas. 62; 2 L. W. 479; (1915) M. W. N. 337 (Relied on) . . 405

Ayisa Umma T. Puthiyadurayil Kumna Chum- kandi Abdulla, 76 Ind. Cas. 126; (1923; M. W. N. 670: A. I. R. 1924 Mad. 178; 19 L. W. 613 (Relied on) ... 782

B

Badcock v.Hunt, (1889) 22 Q. B. D, 145; 58 L. J.

. Q, B. 134; 60 L. T. 314; 37 W. R. 205; 53 J. P. 340 (Explained and distinguished) ... 361

Bai Balagavri v. Motilal Ghelabai, 72 Ind. Cas. 224; 47 B. 523; 25 Bom. L. R. 199; A. I. R, 1923 Bom, 247 (Distinguished) ... 785

B- — contd.

Page,

Bai Divvali v. Umedbhai Bhulabhai Patel, 36 Ind.

Cas. 564; 40 B. 614; 18 Bom. L. R. 773

(Relied on) Bai Somi v. Chokshi Ishvardas Mangalaas, 19 B.

245; 10 Ind. Dec. (N. s ) 166 (Relied on) Balakrishna Aiyar v. Muthuswami Aiyar, 3 Ind.

Cas. 878; 32 M. 271; 5 M. L. T. 145; 19 M. L. J.

70 (Distinguished) Balkaran Upadhya v. Gaya Din Kalwar, 24 Ind.

Cas. 255; 36 A. 370; 12 A. L. J. 635 (Distinguish- ed) Balkishen Das v. Bedmati Koer, 20 C. 388; 10

Ind. Doc. (N. s.) 263 (Relied on) Balwant Singh v. Rev. Rockwell Clancy, 14 Ind.

Cas. 629; 34 A. 296; (1912) M. W. N. 462; 11

M. L. T. 344; 9 A. L. J. 509; 15 C. L. J. 475;

16 C. W. N. 577; 23 M. L. J. 18; 14 Bom. L. R.

422; 39 I. A. 109 (P. C.) (Distinguished) 524 Bapu Ammal v. Govinda Padiyachi, 7 M. L. J.

261 (Followed) Barada Kinkar Chowdhury v. Nabin Chandra

Datta, 4 Ind. Cas. 408; 11 C. L. J. 83; 14 C. W.

N. 465 (Followed) Bavah Meah Saib v. Khajee Meah Saib, 4 M. H.

C. R. 21S (Relied on) Bepin Behari Saha v. Abdul Barik, 35 Ind. Cas.

613; 44 C. 950; 21 C. W. N. 30; 24 C. L. J. 446

(Relied on) Bhagwan Sahai r. Narsingh 8ahai, 3 Ind. Cas.

615; 31 A. 612; 6 A. L. J. 871 (Relied on) Bhagwat Prasad Tewari v. Muhammad Shibli, 66

Ind. Cas. 892; 20 A. L. J. 270; A. I. R. 1922 All.

110 (Relied upon) ... 493

Bhaishankar Nanabhai v. Municipal Corporation

of Bombay, 31 B. 604; 9 Bom. L. R. 417 (Fol- lowed) ... 790 Birendra Ghose v. Em-poror, 7 Ind. Cas. 359; 37

C. 467; 14 C. W. N. 1114; 11 Cr. L. J. 453

(Relied, upon) ... 419

Bisheshar Singh v. Ram Daur Singh, A. W. N.

(1887) 302 (Followed) ... 373

Bishun Prashad Pathak v. Sashi Bhusan Misra,

73 Ind. Cas. 294; A. I. R. 1923 Pat. 133; 2 Pat.

L. R. 17 (Distinguished) ... 723

Bomadevara Naganna Naidu Bahadur v. Ravi

Venkatapayya, 76 Ind. Cas. 594; 46 M. 895;

(1923) M. W. N. 554; 21 A. L. J. 726; A. L R.

1923 (P. 0.) 167; 33 M. L. T. 262; 45 M. L. J.

657; 25 Bom. L. R. 1290; 18 L. W. 913; 28 C. W.

N. 568; 39 C. L. J. 312; 50 I. A. 301 (P. C.)

(Distinguished) ... 352

Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram, 42 Ind. Cas. 43;

45 0. 94 at p. 106; 33 M. L. J. 486; 22 M. L. T.

362; 6 L. W. 592; 126 P. W. R. 1917; 15 A. L.

J. 777; 19 Bom. L. R. 866; 3 P. L. W. 313; 26

C. L. J. 572; 104 P. R. 1917; (1917) M. W. N.

811; 22 C. W. N. 169; 127 P. L. R. 1917; 44 I. A.

218 (P. 0.) (Relied on) ... 1031

640 251

364

330 709

720 373

782

915

802 672

INDIAN OASfcS.

[1926

~ conoid.

Page.

British & Beningtons Limited v. N. W. Cachar Tea Co. Ltd., (1923) A. C. 48; 92 L. J. K. B. 02; 128 L. T. 422; 28 Com. Cas. 265 (Followed) . . 002

Brojender Ooomar Roy, In re, B. L. R. Sup. Vol. 728; 7 W. R. 520 (Followed) . . 1031

Brojeudro Goomar Roy v. Madhub Chunder Ghose, 8 C. 343; 4 lad. Dec. (N. s.) 219 (Relied on) ... 792

Central Bank of India v. Nadirshaha Mehta, 79 Iiid. Cas. 445; A. I. R. 1924 Sind 13 (Relied upon) . 667

Champsey Dossa v. Gordhandas Kessowji, 40 Ind. Cas. 805; 19 Bom. L. R 381 (Followed) . . 112

Ghandan Singh v. Laxman, 90 Ind. Cas. 949, 21 N. L. R. 98; A. I. R. 1925 Nag. 438 (Distinguish- ed) . 785

Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 72 Ind. Cas. .566; 49 I. A. 144; 30 M. L. T. 295; 20 O W. N. 697; 41 P. L. R. (P. C ) 1922; 3 P. L. T. 4.33; A. I. R 1922 P. C, 112; 16 L. W. 37; 17 P. W. R. 1922; 3 L 127; 43 M, L. J 332; 24 Bom. L R. 1238; 4 U. P. L. R. (P. C.) 99; 36 C. L. J. 459 (P. C.) (Fol- lowed) ... 1013

Chhajmal Das v. Sirya, A. W. N. (1906) 251; 3

A. L. J. 625(iYot/oMoW,) . . 3 Chundeechurn Dutt v. Eduljee Cowasjee Bijnee,

8 C. 678; 11 C. L. R. 225; 4 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 437 (Relied on) ... 633

Chunilal Fulchand v. Mangaldas Govardhandas, 16 B. 592; 8 Ind. Dec. (N. s ) 874 (Followed) . 465

Clayton's case, (1816) 15 R R. 161; 1 Mer. 572; 35 E. -R. 781 (Distinguished) . 047

Committee of Management of Hyderabad v. Ramchand Gownkiram, 87 Ind 'Cas. 258; 16 S. L. R. 98 at p. 101; A. I. R. 1923 Sind 1 (Ex- plained and distinguished^ . . 361

Constable v. Nicholson, (1863) 32 L. J. C. P. 240 at p. 244; 14 C. B. (N. s ) 230; 11 W. R. 698; 143 E. R. 434; 135 R. R. 672 (Relied on) ... 465

Corea v. Appuhamy, (1912) A. C. 230; 81 L, J. P C. 151; 105 L. T. 836. (Relied on) . . 99

Cory Brothers and Company Limited v. The Owners of the Turkish Steamship "Mecca", (1897) A. C. 286; 66 L. J. P. 0. 86; 76 L, T. 579; 45 W. R, 667 (Followed) ... 947

Cotton v. Vogan, (1896j A. C. 457; 65 L. J. Q.

B. 486; 74 L, T, 591; 61 J. P. 36. (Followed) 610

D

Davood Mohideen Rowfcher v. Jayarama Iyer, 62

Ind, Cas. 284; 44 M. 937; 40 M. L. J. 38; 13

L. W. 281; (1921) M. W. N. 43; 29 M. L. T.

78. (Followed) ... 20

Devasigamony v. Sethuratna Iyer, 87 Ind. Caa.

363; A. I R. 1925 Mad. 1034. (Followed) . . 100 Devata Sri Ramamurthi v. Venkata Sitarama

Chandra Row, 22 Ind. Cas. 279; (1914) M. VV.

N. 95. (Relied on) ... 20

Dhulabhai Dabhai v. Lala Dhula, 64 Ind. Cas.

115; 46 B. 28; 23 Bom. L. R. 777; A. 1 R. 1922

Bom. 137. (Relied on) ... 663

Dinobundhoo Nundee v. Keshub Chunder Ghose,

3 W. R. Mis. 25. (Relied on) ... 792

Doraisami v. Chidambaram Pillai, 75 Ind. Cas.

46; 47 M. 63; 45 M. L. J. 413; 18 L. W. 577;

33 M. L. T, 25; (1923) M. W. Nf 817; A, L R.

d, 130, (Not followed) ... 308

D — concld.

Page Drobomoyi Gupta v. Davis, 14 C. 323; 7 Ind.

D^o (N. s ) 214. (Distinguished) 963

Durbar Ivlutehar v. Khachar Harsur, 32 B. 318;

1 ) Born L. R. 297. (Distinguished) . 787

Ours* i Spanker v. Ram Pnisad, 14 C. P. L. R. 151 at p. 152. (Relied on) ... 305

Ea^t Indian Railway Company v. Fazal Elahi,

85 lad Cas. 474; L. R. 6 A/ 59 Civ.; A I. R.

192.5 All. 273; 47 A. 136 (Not followed) v Nathumal

Bohari Lai, 39 Tnd. Cas. 130; 39 A. 418; 15 A.

L. J. 321 (Not followed) Eastern Shipping Co. v. (Juah Beng Kce, (1924)

A. C. 177; 33 L J. P. 0. 72; 130 L. T. 462; 40

T. L R 109. (Relied on) Emparor v. Allahdad Khan, 19 Ind. Cas. 332; 11

A L J. 442; 14 Cr. L. J. 236; 35 A. 3)8.

(Followed) v. Anappa Bharamg'inda, 9 Bom. L. R

347; 5 Cr.. L J. 32.1 (Relied upon)

-- v. Balaram Da*, 71 Ind. Cas 685; 19

C 35S; A. I R. 1922 Cal. 382; 24 Cr. L J. 221. upon)

v. Ganga Prasad, 29 A, 68 i; 4 A T; J. 005; G Cr. L. J. 107; A. \V. N. (1907; 233. (Relied 071)

v. Satyendra Nath Roy, 57 Ind. Cas.

277; 1 P. L. T. 379; (1920) Pat. 225; 21 Cr. L. J. 613. (Dissented from)

603

603

715

441 419

167

429

896

Fazal v. Mangaldas, 66 Ind. Cas. 726; 46 B. 499 at p. 502; 23 Born L R. 1U4; A. I. R. 1922 Bom. 303. (Followed} ... 9

Firm Balraru Daes-Fakir Chand v. Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company, 88 Ind. Caa. 559; L>3 A. L. J. 615; L. R. 6 A. 310 Civ., A. 1. R. 1923 All. 562; 47 A. 724. (Followed) ... 1007

Frost v. Knight, (1672) 7 Ex. Ill; 41 L. J. Ex. 78; 26 L. T. 77; 20 W. R. 471. (Followed) ... 333

Gadi Neelaveni v. Mavappareddi Gari Narayana Reddi, 53 Ind. Cas. 8i7; 43 M. 94; 37 M. L. J. 599; 26 M. L. T. 377; 10 L. W. 603; (1920) M. W. N. 19. (Relied on) ^ ... 615

Gajadhar Pan.de v. Jadubir Pande, 85 Ind. ,Cas. 31; 22 A. L. J. 980; L. R. 5 A. 780 Civ.; A. 1. R. 1925 All. 180; 47 A. 122. (Distinguished) ... 316

Ganapathi Brahmayya v Kurella Kamiab, 54 Ind. Cas. 45; 43 M. 141; 10 L. W. 476; 38 M. L. J. 123. (Doubted) ... 112

Gandla Pedda Naganna v. Sivanappa, 28 Ind. Cas. 232; 33 M 1162 at p. 1L70; 16 M. L. T. 310; 27 M. L. J. 520. (Followed) ... 982

Ganga Ram v. Natha Singh, 8J Ind. Cas. 820; 5 L. 425; A. I. R. 1924 P. 0. 183; 22 A. L. J. 688; 47 M. L. J. 64; 20 L. W. 101; 26 Bom. L. R 750; 10 O. & A. L. R. 771; 35 M. L T. 141; (1924) M. W. N. 599; 2 Pat. L. K. 257; 11 0. L, J. 534; 6 L. L. J. 551; 51 1. A. 377; 1 L. C. 446; L. R. 5 A. (P. C.) 133; 6 P. L. T. 97: 1 0, W. N. 469; 29 C. W. N. 558 (P. C.). (Fol- lowed) ... 762 Garuda Sanyasayya v. Nerella Muthemnia, 48 lad. Cas. 740; 9 L. W. 1; 35 M. L. J. 881; 25 M,L, T, 89, (DistinguMtd) „. 950

92]

TABLE OF dASBS ALLIED Ac.

27

— amold.

Gauri Shanker Singh v Sheo Nandan Misra, 78 Ind. Gas. 911; 46 A. 384; 22 A. L. J. 369; A. I. R. 1924 All. 543; L. R. 5 A. 306 Civ. (Fol- lowed) ... 85

Ghulam Jilani v. Tmdad Husam, 4 A. 357; A. W, N. (1882) 67; 2 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 979. (Not followed) ~ 313

Ghulla Singh v. Sohan Singh, 69 Ind. Gas. 818; 3 L. 280; A. I. R. 1922 Lah. 219; 4 L. L. J. 500. (Relied upon) ... 966

Glegg v. Bromley, (1912) 3 K. B. 474; 81 L. J. K. B. 1081; 106 L. T. 825. (Followed] ... 973

Glyn Mills Co. v. East and West India Dock Co., (1882) 7 A. C. 591 at p. 614; 52 L. J. Q. B. 146; 47 L. T. 309; 31 W. R. 201. (Relied upon) ... 206

Gobind Das v. Rup Kishore, 77 Ind Gas. 409; 4 L 367; 6 L. L. J. 25; A. I. R. 1924 Lah. 65. (Followed) . 566

Gomathi Ammal v. Kupputhayi Aminal, 14 M. L. J. 175. (Followed) .. 335

Gopal Rai Phul Chand v. G. T. P Railway Co., 82 Ind. Gas. 313; 16 A. 837; A. I. R. 1924 All 621; L. R. 5 A. 575 Civ. (Not followed) 603

Gopal Singh v. Bhaga, 69 Ind. Cas. 305; A. 1. R. 1924 hah 206. (Construed) . 966

Gopala Krishnier v. Uanapathy Aiyar, 58 Ind. Gas. 121; 12 L. W. 772 at p. 775; (1920) M. W. N. 478. (Distinguished) ... 950

G. I. P. Railway Go. v. Firm Bhola Nath-Debi Das, 70 Ind. Gas. 854; 45 A. 56; A. I. R. 1923 All, 79 (Not followed) ., 603

Grish Ghunder Lahiri v. Shashi Shikhareswar Roy, 27 C, 951 at p. 967; 27 I. A. 110; 4 G, W. N. 631; 10 M. L. J. 356; 2 Bom. L, R. 709; 7 Sar. P. G. J. 687; 14 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 622 (P. C). (Relied on} ... 139

Gulaari Lai v. Latif Husam, 35 Ind. Gas. 27; 38 A. 181; 14 A. L. J. 84. (Followed) .. 282

Gurdit Singh v. Charan Das, 72 Ind. Cas. 797; A. I. R. 1922 Lah. 415. (Relied upon) . . 966

H

Hakim Lai v. Mooshahar Sahu, 34 G. 999 at p.

1018; 11 0. W. N. 889; 6 G. L. J. 410. (Relied

upon) •>• 5

Hamid Husain v. Kubra Begam, 44 Ind. Cas

728; 44 A. 332; 16 A. L. J. 132. (Followed) 913 Hanuman Kamat v. Hanuman Mandur, 19 C.

123; 18 I. A. 158; 6 Sar. P. G. J. 91; 9 Ind. Dec.

(N. s.) 527 (P. 0.). (Followed) . . 787

Har Prasad v. Tajammul Husain, 44 Ind, Cas.

720; 16 A. L. J. 239. (Not followed) ... 995

Hari Ram v. Indraj, 69 Ind Cas. 167; 44 A. 730;

20 A. L. J. 631; A. I. R. 1922 All. 377; 9 0. &

A. L. R. 123. (Relied on) ... 260

Harvey v. Shelton, (1844) 7 Beav. 455; 49 E. R.

1141; 13 L. J. Ch. 466; 64 R. R. 116. (Relied

on) .. 792

Hasan Premji v. Jerbai, 0. 0. J. Appeal No. 41

of 1920 decided by Macleod, C. J. and Shah,

J. on December 17, 1920 (unrep.). (Followed} 225 Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapore fcemindari

Co , 53 Ind. Gas. 534; 47 C. 485; 37 M. L. J.

525 17 A. L. J. 1117: 24 G. W. N. 177; (1920)

M. W. N. 66; 27 M.-L. T. 42; 11 L. W. 301;

46 I, A. 240; 22 Bom, L, R, 488 (P, 0,), (Relied ,ri " 553

H — oenald.

Page.

Hirad: H. ' : ». v. Oadigi Muddappa, 6 M. H. C. R. I1--' .'.' on) .. 106

Hnin Yin v. Than Pe, 44 Ind Cas. 337; 9 L. B R. 92; 19 Cr. L. J. 321; 11 Bur. L. T. 58. (Relied upon) ... 743

Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Babooee Munraj Koonweree, G M. I. A. 393; 18 W. R. 81vr Sevestre 253n; 2 Suth. P, C. J. 29; 1 Sar. P. 0* J. 552; 19 E. R. 147. (Relied on) 378, 827

Husenuddin Nurddiu v. Dulakshidas Kesavlal 77 Ind. Gas. 474; A. I. R. 1923 Bom. 299. (Not followed) _ 566

I

Indramani Dasi v. Surendra, 64 Ind. Cas. 852- 35 C. L. J. 61; A. I. R. 1922 Gal. 35. (Rdicd on) ~. 497

Irulappan Scrvai v. Veerappan, 69 Ind. Cas 918- 42 M. L.J. 113; 15 L. W. 99; (1922) M W N 67; 31 M. L. T. 71. (Not followed) ' . '. 975

Ishrappa Gaaap Hsgde v. Krishna Putta Shankar Hegde, 67 lad. Gas. 833; 24 Bom. L R. 428- 46 B 1)25; A. I. K. 1922 Horn. 413. (Relied 071)' ... 663

Isuri Prasad Singh v. Umrao Singh, 22 A. 234- A. ^W. N. (1900; 46; 9 Ind. Dec. (N s j 1187*. (Relied on) ' tt< 439

Iswar Datt Upadhiya v. Mahesh Datt Upadhiya 89 Ind. Gas 114;"2i A. L. J. 862; L. R 6 A 451 Civ.; A. I. R. 1925 All. 747. (Followed) ..! 1

Jadubir v. Gajadhar, 75 Ind. Cas. 785; 21 A L,

J. 809; A. 1 K. 1924 All. 169; L. R. 5 A. 53 Oiv.

(Distinguished) <t< 31(5

Jagannath v. Dibbo, 1 Ind. Cas. 818; 6 A L j*

49 at p. 51; 31 A. 53. (Followed) ' . .' 471

Jagannath Khan v. Bajrang Das Agarwala, 62

Ind. Gas. 97; 48 C. 61. (Distinguished) . . 943

Janoothassan v. ^lahamad Ohuthu, 83 Ind Cas

425; 47 M. 877; 47 M. L. J. 356; 20 L. W.' 677:

A. L R. 1925 Mad. 155. (Followed) Janoothassan v. Haharnad Ohuthu, 82 Ind Gas

425; 47 M. 877; 47 M. L. J.356; 20 L. W. 677- A* I. R. 1925 Mad. 155. (Relied on) . .' 491,

Javerbhai Jorabhai v. Gordhan Narsi, 28 Ind Cas. 442; 17 Bom. L. R. 259 at pp. 265, 266; 39

B. 358. (Relied on) ... 640 Jivan Bhaga v. Hira Bhaiji, 12 B. 363; 6 Ind

Dec. (N. s,) 726. (Distinguished) ^ 759

Jivan Bhaga v. Hira Bhaiji, 12 B. 363; 6 Ind

Dec. (N. s.) 726. (Followed) . .' 393

Jogendra Nath' v. Baladeb Das, 35 C, 961; 12 C.

491

W. N. 127; 6 C. L.J, 735. (Relied on) ... 99

Joshi Sahib Prakash v. Jhinguria, 78 Ind. Cas 416; 46 A. 144; A. I. R. 1924 All. 446. (Relied

on) ... 615

Jumo Allarakhio v. Emperor, 34 Ind. Gas. 649-

9 S. L. R. 223; 17 Cr. L. J. 233. (Relied upon) 419 Jurugumilli Brahmayya v. Chellaghali Achiraju

70 Ind. Gas. 615; 45 M. 716; (1922) M. W. N

280; 31 M. L. T. 91; 43 M. L. J. 221*; A. I. R.

1922 Mad. 373. (Relied on) ... 8H

Jwala Singh v. Teja Singh, 71 Ind. Cas. 801*

A. I. R. 1924 Lah. 273. (Not followed) .' 753

Jyoti Prakash Nandi v. Mukti Prakash Nandi 81

Ind. Caa. 734; 51 0. 150; A. I R. 1924 Oal, 485.

(Relied on) Mf 49^

OASIS*

[1926'

Page. Kalliani Amma v. Matathil Veetil Achuthan Nair,

53 Ind. Gas. 239; 10 L. W. 174; (1919) M. W. N.

573; 37 M L. J. 309. (Followed) .. 415

Kaiyan Singh v. Raja, 3 Unreported Decisions, 'p. 343. (Followed) ... 1046

Kamakshi Achari v. Appavi Pillai, 1 M. H. C.

li. 448. (Distinguished) ... 968

Kambam Bali Reddy v. Emperor, 22 Ind. Gas.

756; 37 M. 119; 15 Or. L. J. 180, (Followed) . . 851 Kamruddin Hyder v. M. N. Hitter, 89 Ind. Gas. f>277;52 0. 342; A. L R. 1925 Gal 735. (Fol- lowed) ... 563 Kaunuaami Pillai v. Jii^a!-^.:.-.!'.::!. 46 Ind. Gas.

265; 41 M. 701 at j- ins, Itflri M. W. N. 497; . 24 M. L. T. 46; 8 L. W. 145; 35 M. L. J. 27.

(Not followed) ... 800

Kannusami Thonjirayan v. Muthusami Pillai, 38

Ind. Gas. 194; (1917) M. W. N. 5; 5 L. W. 250.

(Relied on) . . 342

Kanshi Ram v. Sharf Din, 66 Ind. Gas. 161; A. I.

R. 1922 Lah. 356. (Followed) ... 723

Kanwar Ranzor Singh v. Chippal, 37 P. R. 1900;

P. L. R. 1900 p. 303. (Followed) ... 526

Karim Bakhsh v. Idu Shah, 40 Ind. Gas. 381; 4

O. L. J.334. (Distinguished) ... 665

Karim Buksh v. Queen-Empress, 17 C. 574; 8

Ind. Dec. (N. e.) 922 (F. B.). (Relied on) ... 885 Karean Sadashiv Patil v. Gatlu Shivaji Patil, 19

Ind. Gas. 442; 37 B. 320; 15 Bom, L. R. 227.

(Followed) ... 112

Kartimbar Pandrapandaram v. Audimula Ponna-

pundaram, 3 Ind. Gas. 725; 33 M. 262; 6 M. L.

T. 261 (Followed) ... 800

Kedar Nath v. Shanker Lai, 78 Ind. Gas. 934; 36 '

A. 303; 22 A. L. J. 185; A. I. R. 1924 All. 514; L.

R. 5 A. 80 Oiv. (Distinguished) ... 553

Khiarajmal v/Daim, 32 C. 296; 9 0. W. N. 201;

2 A. L. J. 71; 7 Bom. L. R. 1; 1 0. L. J. 584;

,32 I. A. 23; 8 Sar. P. 0. J. 734 (P. C.). (Folr .-lowed) .. 832

Khulna Loan Co., Ltd. v. Jnanendra Nath Bose,

45, Ind. Gas. 436; 22 G, W. N. 145 (P. O.). (Fol- lowed) ... 847

Khushalchand v. Nandram, 12 Ind. Oas. 572; 13 Bom. L. R. 977; 35 B. 516. (Distinguished) ... 803

KonaThimma Reddi v. Secretary of State for India, 78 Ind. Oas. 91; 47 M. 325; 19 L. W. 59;

46. M. L. J. 60; (1924) M. W. N. 146; A. I. R.- ,,1924 Mad. 523. (Followed) .. 790 Krishna v. Subbanna. 7 M. 564; 8 Ind. Jur. 504; 2

Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 975. (Followed) ... 364

Krishna Mohun Basak v. Kunjo Behari Basak, 9

0. L:R. 1. (Relied m) ... 792

Krishna Variar v. Kunji Torbanar, 3 M. L. J. 190.

(Not followed) ... 373

Krishnabai v.>Manohar, 30 B. 593 at p. 597; 8

Boni. L. R. 671. (Followed) ... 785

Kriihnaswamy Naidu v. Chengalroya Naidu, 76

Ind. Oas. 836; 47 M. 171; 18 L. "W: 870; 45 M.

-L.J.813; 33 M. L.T.207; A. L R.,1924 Mad,

114. f Relied on) ,. 615

KrisbBftyyar T. Venkayyar, 6 M,J81; 2 Ind. Dec.

(N. s.) 334. (Relied on) ... 770

Kundan Lai v. Jagan Nath, 30 Ind. Oas. 92; 37 A.

649; 13 A. L. J. 908. (Not followed) . . 947

Kunhi Amma v. Ammu Amma, 16 Ind. Gas. 178; 36 ,M. 591; (1912) M. W. N. 1233: 24 M. L.

J.559. (Relied on) ... 390

Lachmi Narain v, Nirotam Das, A. W. N. (1906) 272; 29 A. 69; 3 A. L. J. 688. (Followed) .. 3

Lakshmindrathirtha Swamiar v. Raghavendra Rao, 59 Ind. Gas. 287; 43 M. 795 at p. 798; 12 L W. 139; 39 M. L. J. 174; (1920) M. W. N. 568; 28 M. L. T. 269. (Followed) ... 483

Lai Singh v. Emperor, 91 Ind. Gas. 954; 5 L. 396; A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 19; 27 Cr. L. J. 170. (Distinguished) . . 167

Lallabhai Vajeram v. Bai M,. .',-.:, fcv. ri. 18 B. 59; 9 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 548. Jt . •• / . -., ... 802

Lekh Ram v. Ramji Das, 57 Ind. Gas. 215; 1 L. 234 (Followed) .. 624

Lokasikhamani Mudaliar v. Tliinpnroyn Chettiar, 38 Ind. Oas. 415; 5 L. W. 506, ^101' ' M. W. N. 420. (Followed) ... 556

Lord Rivers v. Adams, (1878) 3 Ex. D. 361; 48 L. J. Ex. 47; 39 L. T. 39; 27 W. R. 381, (Re- lied on) .. 465

Luckmee Chund v, Zorawar Mull, 8 M. I. A. 291 at p. 307; 1 W. R. P. 0. 35; 1 Suth. P. C. J. 425; 1 Sar. P. C. J. 763; 19 E. R. 511. (Re- lied on) *. 915

Lutchmeeput Singh v. Sadaulla Nushyo, 9 0. 698; 12 G. L. R. 382; 5 Shome L. R. 27; 4 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 1115. (Relied on) ^ 465

M

Madderer, In re, Three Towns Banking Co. v.

Maddever, (1884) 27 Ch. D. 523; 53 L. J. Ch.

998; 52 L. T. 35; 33 W. R. 286. (Relied on) 405 Madhavrao Waman Soundalgekar v. Raghunath

Venkatesh Deshptnde, 74 Ind. Gas. 362; 50 I.

A. 255; 25 Bom. L. R. 1005; (1923) M. W, N.

689; A. I. R. 1923 P. G. 205; 33 M, L. T. 389;

47 B. 798; 28 G. W. N. 857; 20 L. W. 248; 47 . M. L. J. 248 (P. 0.). (Distinguished) ... 247

Mahomed Ghouse Sah v. Thimma Setti, 1 Mysore

L. J. 90. (Followed) ... 112

Majju v. Teja Singh, 44 Ind. Gas. 814; 29 P. R. , 1918; 114 P. W. R. 1918; 118 P. L. R. 1918.

(Disiinauished) ... 297

Manga I Naran v. Emperor, 87 Ind. Gas. 424;

49 B. 450; 27 Bom. L. R. 355; A. I. R. 1925

Bom. 268; 26 Cr. L. J. 968. (Followed} ... 851 Manghi Ram v. Firm of Ram Saran Das Maman

Chand, 26 Ind. Oas. 415; 23 P. R. 1915; 35 P.

W. R. 1915; 100 P. L. R. 1915. (Distingui- shed) ... 674 Manji v. Ghulam Muhammad, 57 Ind. Gas. 207;

1 L. 249. (Followed) .. 297 Manji r. Ghulam Muhammad, 61 Ind. Oas. 415;

2 L. 73; 3 L. L. J. 75. (Followed) . 297 Mannox v. Greener, (1872) 14 Eq. 456 at p. 462;

27 L. T. 408. (Followed) . . 516

Mannu v. Tulshi, 64 Ind. Gas. 958; 20 A. L. J.

39; A.I. R. 1922 All. 33. (Relied upon) ... 493. Manorath Das v. Ambica Kanta Bose, 1 Ind. Oas.

57; 90. L.J. 443; 13 C. W. N. 533. (Relied

on) .. 770

Mata Din v. Ahmad Ali, 24 Ind. Cas. 874; 1 0.

L.J. 263. (Distinguished) ... 665

Mayer Alderson and Burgesses of Southmolton

v. Attorney-General, (1854) 5 H. L. 0. 1 at p.

31; 10 E. R. 796; 23 L. J. Oh. 567; 18 Jur. 435;

101 R.R.I. (Followed) .» 515

Mohammad Abdullah Khan v. Bank Instalment

Company Ltd., 2 Ind. Cas. 379; 31 A. 495; 6 A,

L. J. 611, (Distinguished) ... 687

TeL 92]

TABLB OF OASES APPLIBD Ac.

29

M — ooncld.

Page.

Mohammad Mondul v. Nafur Mondul, 26 0. 820; 3 0. W. N. 770; 13 Ind. Deo. (N. s.) 1125. (Relied on) . . 827

Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsunissa Begum, 11 M. I. A. 551; 8 W. R. P. 0, 3; 2 Suth. P. C. J. 59; 2 Sar. P. 0. J. 259; 20 E. R. 208. (Followed) .. 913

Moti Singh v. Maghar, 11 Ind. Gas. 880; 22 P. R. 1912; 163 P. W. R. 1911; 244 P. L. R. 1911. (Followed) .. 299

Motilal Pratabchand v. Surajmal Joharmal, 30

B. 167; 6 Bom. L. R. 1038. (Explained) ... 273 Muhammad Abdul Gaflhir Rowther v. Hamida Beevi Animal, 52 Ind. Cas. 505; 42 M. 661; (1919) M. W. N. 484; 25 M. L. T. 242; 36 M. L. J. 456. (Distinguished) ... 354

Muhammad Abdul Majid v. Muhammad Abdul Aziz, 19 A 155; 24 I. A. 22; 7 Sar. P. C. J. Ill; 9 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 103 (P. 0.). (Followed) 314 Muhammad Habibullah v. Mushtaq Husain, 37 Ind. Cas. 684; 14 A. L. J. 1183; 39 A. 95. (Relied upon) ... 5

Muhammad Mosam Khan v. Bakhtawar, 70 P.

R. 1895. (Followed} . . 526

Muhammad Sajjad Ali Khan v. Muhammad Ishaq Khan, 54 Ind. Gas 504; 42 A. 154; 1 U. P. L. R. (A.) 168; 18 A. L. J. 83. (Followed) 1027 Mul Chand v. Mukta Prasad, 10 A. 83; A. W. N. (1387) 287; 6 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 56. (Distingu- ished) . . 803 Muniappa Naik v. Subramania Ayyar, 18 M. 437; 5 M. L. J. 60; 6 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 654. (Fol- lowed) . . 833 Municipal Committee, Chiniot v. Bashi Ram, 69 Ind. Cas. 895; A. I. R. 1922 Lah. 170. (Relied upon) ... 966 Municipal Committee of Delhi v. Devi Sahai, 62 P. R. 1907; 105 P. L. R. 1908; 147 P. W. R. 1907. (Followed) ... 765 Muppavaraju Venkata Radha Krishna Rao v. Venthurumilli Venkatarao, 84 Ind. Cas. 965; (1924) M. W. N. 922; 47 M. L. J. 552; 20 L. W. 711; 35 M. L. T. 135; A. 1. R. 1925 Mad. 229; 48 M. L. J. 713. (Followed) ... 1045 Muthaya Shetti v. Kanthappa Shetti, 45 Ind. Cas. 975; (1918) M. W. N. 334; 34 M. L. J. 431; 7 L. W. 482; 23 M, L. T. 291. (Relied on) ... 342 Muthukaruppan Samban v. Muthu Samban, 25 Ind. Cas. 772; 38 M. 1158; 1 L. W. 754; 16 M. L. T. 344; (1914) M. W. N. 768; 27 M. L. J. 497. (Relied on) .. 478 Muthusami Chetty v. Chinnammal, 24 Ind. Cas. 320; 26 M. L. J. 517. (Followed) ... 504

N

Nabu Bepari v. Sheikh Mahomed, 5 C. W. N.

207. (Distinguished) .. 98

Nachimuthu Gnetty v. Andiappa Pillai, 42 Ind.

Cas, 708; 6 L. W. 630; (1917) M. W. N. 778.

(Followed) ... 626

Nagappa Pillai v. Arunachalam Chetty, 85 Ind.

Qas. 1016; 47 M. L. J. 876; A. I. R. 1925 Mad.

281. (Followed) ... 968

Nagindas Bhukandaa v. Ghelabhai Gulabdas,

56 Ind. Caa. 449 & 450; 44 B. 673; 22 Bom. L.

B. 322. (Dissented from) ... 673

Nagindas Maneklal v, Mahomed Yusaif Mil- chela. 64 Ind. Cas. 923; 46 B. 312; 23 Bom. L.

R. 1094; A. I, R. 1922 Bom, 122, (Rtlied Hp on) „ 378

N-coneld.

Pagt.

Naina Muhammad Rowther y. Abdul Rahaman

Rowther, 72 Ind. Cas. 207; 46 M. 135; (1922)

M. W. N. 845; 17 L. W. 188; 32 M. L. T. 82;

A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 257. (Followed) . . 396

Nalannad v. Kambirampora Ravuni Nair, 84

Ind. Cas. 973; 47 M. L. J. 686; (1924) M. W.

N. 792; 20 L. W. 876; 35 M. L. T. 127; A. L

R. 1925 Mad. 260. (Not followed) ... 827

Namberumal Chetty v. Kotnyya, 21 Ind. Cas.

773; 14 M. L. J. 498. (Relied on) . ... 674

Nanda Kumar v. Ram Jiban, 23 Ind. Caa. 337;

41 C. 990; 18 C. W. N. 681; 19 C. L. J. 457.

(Followed) . . 317

Natarajula Naicker v. Subramanian Chettyar, 69

Ind. Cas. 939; 45 M. 778; (1922) M. W. N. 450;

A. I. R. 1922 Mad. 181; 16 L. W. 705; 43 M. L.

J. 695. (Pillowed) ... 626

Nathu v. Shadi, 29 Ind. Cas. 495; 37 A. 522; 13 A.

L. J. 714. (Not followed) ... 265

Natla Bapiraju v. Puran Achutha Rajajee, 5 Ind.

Cas. 456; 20 M. L. J. 337; (1910) M. W. N. 549;

7M. L.T.17C. (Followed) ... 113

Nepal Rai v. Debi Prasad, 27 A. 447; 2 A. L. J.

105; A. W. N. (1905) 40. (Followed) ,.. 624

Nilkanth v. Teshwant, 65 Ind. Cas. 331; 18 N.

L. R. 134; A. I. R. 1922 Nag. 248. (Dissented

from) t ... 803

Nilmoni Chowdlniri v. Basanta Kumar Baner-

jee, 29 Ind. Cas. 814; 19 C. W. N. 865. (Relied

upon) ... 5

Niranjan v. Gajadhar, 30 A. 133; 5 A. L. J 71; A.

W. N. (1908) 45. (Followed) . . 995

Nritia Gopal Singh v. Chandi Charan Singh, 10

C. W. N. 1088; 4 Cr. L. J. 215. (Pillowed) ... 164

Official Assignee of Madras v. Annapurnammal 20 Ind. Cas. 901; 14 M. L. T. 150. (Relied upon) ... 5

v. Sam band a

Mudaliar, 60 Ind. Cas. 205; 43 M. 739; 39 M. L. J. 345; 28 M. L. T. 258. (Reliedupon)

Pachkauri Lai v. Mul Chand, 66 Ind. Cas. 503;

44 A. 554; 20 A. L. J. 437; A. I. R. 1922 All.

279. (Followed) . .., 1015

Panchanada Velan v. Vaithinatha Sastrial, 29 M.

333; 16 M. L. J. 63. (Followed) ... 352

Panchanan Basu v. Chandi Charan Misra, 6 Ind.

Cas. 443; 37 C. 808; 14 C. \V. N. 874. (Relied

on) .. 553

Pandiri Bangaram v. Karmoory Subbaraju, 8

Ind. Cas. 388; 34 M. 159; 8M. L. T. 285. (FoZ-

lowed) ... 471

Pansulari Venkataswami v. Mentana Rama-

chandraRaju, 18 Ind. Cas. 520; 38 M. 138; 24

M. L. J. 298; 13 M. L. T. 218; (1913) M. W. N.

285. (Distinguished) ... 973

Parbati v. Baij Nath Pathak, 16 Ind. Cas. 406; 35

A. 3; 10 A. L. J. 300. (Followed) . . 479

Parkodi Achi, In re, 68 Ind. Cas. 444; 45 M. 246;

14 L. W. 624; 41 M. L. J. 587; (1921) M. W. N.

854; 30 M. L. T. 88; A. L R. 1922 Mad. 211,

(Followed) ... 824

Pearl Mill Co. v. Ivy Tannery Co., (1919) 1 K. B.

78; 88 L. J. K. B. 134; 120 L. T 28; 24 Com.

Cas. 169. (Relitd on) ' ,., 333

30

Pooley v, Harradine, (1857) 110 R, R, 668; 7 E, & B. 431; 26 L. J. Q. B. 156; 3 Jur. (N. s.) 488; 5 W. R, 405; 119 E. R. 1307, (Belied upon) ., 667

Prohlad Chandra Das v. Biswa Nath Bera 82 Ind. Cas. 411; 51 0. 972; 28 0. W. N. bD4- 40 0. L. J, 79, A. I. R, 1924 CaJ. 1047. (Disiin* guished) . . 973

INDIAN OASES.

Queen- Empress v. Adam Khan, 22 A, 106; A. W N. (1899) 211; 9 Ind. Dec. (N. s)1100. (Not followed)

v. Bisheshar, 16 A. 124; A. W.

N. (1894) 10; 8 Ind. Dec. (N. 3.) 80. (Dissented

, Mastana, il P. R, 1899 Or".

from) (Followed)

v. Virappa Chetti, 20 M. 433;

895

885 170

1 Weir 233; 7 Ind. Dec. (N. e.) 307, (Followed) 818

R. y. DeBerenger, (1814) 3 M. A S. 67; 105 E. R. 536; 15 R. R. 415. (Relied upon) . . 419

~ v. Gurney, (1869J 11 Cox C. C. 414. (Relied upon) . . 419

•~ v, Murphy, (1838) 8 C. & P. 297. (Relied upon) ... 419

— v, Parsons, (1762) 1 Bl. W, 392; 92 E. R. 222. (Relied upon) ... 419

Rabindra Chandra Chatterjee, In re, 67 Ind. Cas. 985; 40 0.* 850; 35 0. L. J. 520; A. 1. R. 1922 Cal. 484. (Followed) ... 896

Radha Churn Chukerbutty, In re, 10 C. W. N 1039; 4 C. L. J. 229; 4 Cr. L. J. 160. -Dissented from) * ... 896

Radhakiian Hakumji v. Balwant Ramji, 7 B. 530; 8 Ind. Jur. 146; 4 Ind. Dec. (N. s) '357. (Dis- tinguished) . 759

P...." "'-'." v. Udechand, 11 C. P. L. R. 65. (heiieaon) ,., 305

Raghunathaswanri Jyengar v. Gopaul Rao, 68 Ind. Cas. 667; 41 M. L. J. 547. (1«21) M VV N 732; 15 L. W. 123; A. I. R. 1922 Mad. 307. (Not followed) . . 308

Ragunath Das v. Sunder Das Khetri, 24 Ind Cas 304; 42 C. 72; 18 C W. N. 1058; 1 L. W.' 567; 27 M. L. J. 150; 16 M. L. T. 353: (1914) M* W, N. 747; 16 Bom. L. R. 814; 20 C L, J

- 555; 13 A. L. J. 151; 41 1. A. 251 (P. C.). (Relied o») . . 308

Raj Kumari Debi v. Barkatulla Mandal, 12 Ind Cas. 161; 39 C. 278; 14 C. L. J. 407- 16 C W* N. 6. (Followed) ... 961

Raja of Ramnad v. Venkatarama Iyer, 69 Ind Cas. 923; 45 M. 890; 16 L. W. 274; (1922) M' W.N.501; 31M.L. T. 158; 43 M. L. J. 264; A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 6 (F. B.). (Relied on) ..! 976

Rajah of Ramnad v. Venkataramaiyer, 69 lad Cas. 923; 45 M. 890; 16 L. W. 274; (l922) M w' N. 501; 31 M. L. T. 158; 43 M. L. J. 564" A i R' 1923 Mad. 6. (Followed) ' t J 412

Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Mukku Narsava, 7 Ind* Cas. 202; 37 M. 1; 8 M. L. T. 258; (1910 M w' N. 369. (Followed) ' 863

Rajah of Vizianagram y. Rajah Setrucherfa Somasekharaz, 26 M. 686; 13 M, L, J. 83. (Fol-

».>1056

R-eoatd,

[1926

Page.

Rajangam Ayyar r, Rajangam Ayyar, 69 Ind, Cas. 123; 46 M. 373; 31 M. L, T. 136; 4 U P. L, R. (P. 0.) 85: 16 L. W. 615; A. I. R. 1922 P. C, 266; 27 C. W. N. 561; 44 M. L. J. 745; 37 C. L. J. 435; 21 A.L. J. 460; 501. A. 134 (P. 0.). (Relied upon) .. 1028

Ram Bharos v. Baban, 22 Ind. Cas. 734; 36 A. 129; 15 Cr. L. J. 158; 12 A. L. J. 106. (Fol- lowed) ... 895

Ram Bilas Singh v, Ramyad Singh, 58 Ind, Cas. 303; 5 P. L. J. 622; 1 P. L. T. 535; 2 U. P. L. R. (Pat.) 228. (Relied upon) ... 378

Ram Chandra v. Muhammad Nur, 73 Ind, Cas. 656; 21 A. L. J. 485; 45 A. 545; A. I. R. 1923 All. 591. (Distinguished) ... 31«

Ram Charan v. Lakhi Kanta, 7 B. L, R. 704; 16 W. R. 1 (Followed) ... 960

Ram Lai Singh v. Hari Charan Ahir, 5 Ind. Cas. 999; 37 0 194; 11 C. L. J. 410; 11 Cr. L. J. 348. (Relied upon) . . 855

Ram Narayau Rai v. Ram Davi Rai, 63 Ind. Cas. 282; A. I. R 1923 Pat. 98; 6 P. L. J. 680; (1922) Pat. 129. (Not followed) ... 980

Ram Nundun Singh v. Janki Koer, 29 C 828; 29 I. A 178; 7 C. W. N. 57; 4 Bom. L. R 634; 8 Sar. P. 0. J. 351 (P. 0 ). (Relied on) . 126

Ram Prasad v. Rahat Bibi, 33 Ind. Cas. 622; 18 0. 0.367. (Followed) ... 265

Ram Singh v. Mathura, 14 Ind. Cas. 599; 3t A. 354; 9 A. L. J. 303; 13 Cr. L J. 247. (Distin- guished) • •• 588

Ramachandra Iyer v. Perameswaram Munbi, 50 Ind. Cas. 693; 42 M. 360; 38 M L. J. 396; 25 M. U T 304; 9 L. W 492; (1919> M. W. N. 370. (Relied on) ' • .,950

Ramakka v. Nagasam, 02 Ind. Cis 13 5; 47 M. 800; 48 M. L. J. 89; A. I. R. 1^5 Mad. 145. (Relied on) ... 193

Ramakrishna Pillai v. Balakrishna Aiyar, 62 Tnd. Cas. 71*; 41 M. L. J. 60; 13 L. W. 541; (1921; M. W. N. 646. (Relied upon) ... 300

Ramamirtha Ayyan v. Gopala Ayyan, 19 M. 433; 6 M L. J. 2)7; 6 Ind. Dec. (N.s.)10o7. (Fol- lowed) ... 479

Ramanadan Ohetti v. Pulikuti Servai, 21 M. 288; 8 M. L. J. 121: 7 Ind Dec. (N. s ) 559. (Followed) 20

Ramaauthan Chettyar v. Kalimuthu Pillay, 18 Ind. Cas. 189; 37 M..163; 24 M. L. J. 619. (Reli- ed on) • « 491

Ramaaawmi Chettiar v. Oppilamani Chetti, 4 Ind. Cas. 10 9; 33 M. 6; 6 M. L. T. 269; 19 M. L.J.671. (Relied on) .. 709

Ramffulam Singh v. Sheo Deonarain Singh, 51 Ind. Pas. 152; 4 P. L. J. 287. (Not followed) 802

Ratan Chand Jawala Das v. Asa Singh Bagha Singh, 62 Ind. Cas. 898; 4 L. L. J. 217; A. I. R. 1922 Lah. 188. (Relied on) • •• 674

Ratan Chand-Jwala Das v. Asa Singh-Bagha Singh, 59 Ind. Cas. 669; 3 U. P. L. R. (L.) 3; 26 P. W. R. 1921; 31 P. L. R. 1919. (Relied on) 674

Ratan Lai v. Birjbhukan Saran, 61 Ind. Cas. 774. (Distinguished) • •• 787

Ratnam Pillai v. Nataraja Desikar, 84 Ind. Cas. 200; 46 M. L. J. 341; 19 L. W. 367; <1924^ M. W. N. 361; A. I K. 1924 Mad. 615; 34 M, L. T 31. (Relied an) •• WQ

Reference under Court F^es' Act, 29 M. 367; 16 M. L, J. 287. (Followed) *» W*

Vol. 92J

TABLE OF CASES APPLIED <*c.

R—cencld,

Page,

Rerigate Rural District Council v. Sutton Dis- trict Water Co., (1908 x 99 L. T. 168; 72 J. P. 301; 6 L. G. R. 930. ^Followed) ... 58

Richards v. Starck, (1911) 1 K. B. 296; 80 L. J. K. B. 213; 103 L T. 813; 27 T L. R. 29. (Followed) 968

Rudrappa v Karsingrao, 29 J3. 213; 7 Bom. L. R. 12. (Followed) ... 58

J}.1!1:1 :'. v. Krishnaewami, 75 Ind. Cas. 189; hi. W 237; ;m3j M W. N. 6(54; 47 M. 139; A. I, R. 1924 Wad, 369. (Followed) ... 556

Sabapathy Chetty v. Ponnusawmy Chetty, 28 Ind.

Oas. 365. (Followed) ... 524

Samia Pillai v. Chockalinga Chettiar, 17 M. 76;

4 M. L. J 8; 6 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 52. (Relied on) 709 Bankaralinga Nadan v. Rajeswara Dorai, 31 M

236; i2 C. W. N. 946; 4 M. L T. 101; 18 M. L.

J. 387; 10 Bom, L. R. 781; 8 C. L. J. 230; 35 I.

A. 176 (P. C.) (Distinguished) ... 311

Sankaranaryanam Pillai v. Rajamani, 83 Ind.

Cas. 196; 47 M. 462; 46 M. L. J. 314; 34 M. L.

T. 152; A. I. R. 1924 Mad. 550; 20 L. W. 357.

(Followed) ... 524

Sankunni v. IkkoraKutti, 52 Ind. Cas. 989; (1919)

M. W. N. 570; 10 L. W. 155; 37 M. L.J.209.

(Followed) . . 968

Sarup Narain v. Sheo Shankar Lai, 42 Ind. Cas.

416; 4 0. L. J. 522. (Followed) . 317

Sasibhushan Mookerjee v. Rndhanath Bose, 25

Ind. Cas. 267; 19 C VV, N. 835, 20 C. L. J. 433.

(Relied on) 544

Sasti CharanNundi v. Annapuruna, 23 C. 699; 12

Ind Dec. (N. s.) 465. (Dissented from) .. 984

Sat Narain v. Behari Lai, 84 Ind. Cas. 883; 23

A, L J. 85; 47 M. L. J. 857; 10 0 & A. L. R. '

1332; A.I. R. 1925 (P. C.) 18; (1925) M. W. N.

1; L. R. 6 A, (P. C ) 1; 26 P. L. R. hi; 27 Bom.

L. R. 135; 21 L. W. 375; 1 L. C 500; 1 O. W. N.

916; 6 L. 1; 29 C. W. N. 797; 52 I. A. 22 (P. C.)

(Pillowed) 309

Satis (liandra Cl akrabarti v.Ram Dayal Oe, 59

Ind. Cas. 143; 48 C. 3H8; 32 C. L. J. 94; 24 C.

W. N. 982; 22 Cr. L. J 31. (Relied on) 429

Satyendra Kath Sen v. Narendra Nath Gupta, 81

Ind. Cas 867; 39 C. L. J 279; A. I. R 1924 Cal.

'806. (Relied upon) . 493

Secretary of State for India v. Mathnrabai, 11 B.

213; 7 Ind. Dec (N. s.) 600. * Distinguished) .. 465 Seshamma Shettati v. Chickaya Hegade, 25 M.

507; 12 M. L. J. 119. (Distinguished) ... 963

Sevak Jeranchod BhogiJal v. Dakoie Temple

Committee, 87 Ind. Cas. 313; 49 M. L. J 25; 23

A. L. J. 555; A. I. R. 1925 (P. C.) 153; L R. GA.

(P. 0)117; (1925) M. W. N. 474; 2 O. W. N.

535; 41 C. L. J. 628; 22 L. W. 246; 27 Bom. L.

R. 872 (P.O.). \Faiowed) .. 556

Sevugan Chetty v. K \ i.-Vi {• Ai> :mir i". 13 Ind. Cas.

268; 36 M. :ii8; ll- .M. L t. j,' 7; "a2 M. L. J. 139.

(Relied on) * ..330

Seymour v. Pickett, (1005) 1 K.B. 715; 74 L. J.

K B. 413; 92 L. T 510V 21 T. L. R. 302. (Fol- ' lowed) ' - "... 947

Shankar Bharati v. Naraeinha Bharati, 69 Tnd.

Cas. 80; 47 B. 106; 24 Bom. . R 925; A. I. R.

1922 Bom. 383. (Followed 1027

Shankar Sahi v. Baichu Ram,) 86 Ind. Cas. 769; 47

A. 381; 23 A. L J, 204; L. R. fi A. 214 Civ,;

A. I, R, 1925 All, 333, (Distinguished) .*. 378

8-cotttd, ^

Page,

Shanmuga Mudaliar v. Kumaraswami Mudali, 90 Ind. CUB. 4*0, 21 L. W. 403; A. I. R. 1925 Mad. b70; (1925) M. W. N. 655; 48 M. 661. (Dis- sented from] ... 9C8

Sharada Moyee Burmonee v. Wooma Moyce Bur- monee, 8 W. R. 9. 'Followed) ' . . 833

Sharpe v. Wakeiielcl, (1891) A. O/ 173; 60 L. J. M. 0. 73, 64 L T. 180; 39 \V. R. 551; 55 J. P. 197. (Followed ; ... 1031

Sheikh Muhammad v HabibKhan, 67 P. R. 1905; 113 P. L. R. 1905; 94 P. W. R. 1305. (Followed) 1012

Shiva Nathaji v. Joma Kashinath, 7 B 341; 7 lud. Jur. 656; 4 Jnd. Dec. (N. B.) 229. (Follow- ed) ... 40

SitaRamv. Raja Ram, 12 P. R 1892. (Followed) 252

Sita Ram v Ram Lai, 18 A. 410; A. VV. N. (1896) 162; 8 Ind. Dec. (M. s ) 999. (Followed) ... 20

Sitaramaswamy v. Dulla Lakshmi Narasamma, 48 Ind. Gas. 840; 41 M. 510; 8 L. W. 21. (Dis- tinguished) ... 946

Sivakolundu Pillai v. Ganapathy Iyer, 37 Ind. Cas. 964; (1917) M. W. N. 89. (Followed) . , 833

Smith v. Lion Brewary Co , (1911) A. C. 150; 80 L. J. K B. 566; 104 L. T. 321; 75 J. P. 273; 55 S J 2<59; 27 T. L. R. 201; 5 Tax. Cas. 568. (Relied on) ... 943

SofaollKhanv. Woopean Khan, 9 W. R. 123. (Followed) . 58

Sonba v. Ganesha, 17 Ind. Cas. 887; 8 N. L. R. 182. (Distinguished) ... 803

Sowbagia Ammal v Manika Mudali, 42 Ind. Cas. 975; 33 M, 601; 22 M. L. T. 386; (1917) M. W. N 782; 6 L W. 701. (Relied on) .. 497

Sreenath Das v. Ghanashyara Naik, 46 Ind. Cas. 534;3PLJ. 405 (Followed) ... 317

Sri Krishna Doss v. Chandook Chan:), 4 Ind. Cas. 509; 32 M. 334; 5 M. L. T. 125; 19 M. L. J. 307. (Relied on) ... 20

Srinivasa Row v. Pichai Pillai, 21 Ind. Cas. 629; 38 M 650; 25 M. L. «J. 567. (Relied upon) ... 300

Strong & Co. Ltd. v. Woodfield, (J8C6) A. C 448; 75 L. J. K B. 864; 95 L. T. 2J1; 22 T. L. R. 754 (Relied on) ... 943

Subbaiya Pandaram v. Muhamad Mustapha Mar- acayar, 74 Ind. Cas. 4^2; 47 M. 751: 21 A. L. J. 730; A 1. R. 1923 P C. 175; 45 M. L. J. 588;

25 Bom. L R. 1275; 18 L. W. 903; (1924) M W. N. 60: 28 C W N. 493; 2 Pat.L. R. 104; 33 M. L. T. 2^5; 40 C. L. J. 20; 50 I. A. 295 (P. C.). (Relied on) ... 342

Subhadrayamma v.'Venkatapati, 80 Ind. Cas. 807; 48 M. 230; A. I. R 1924 P C. 162; 47 M. L. J. 93;

26 Bom. L. R. 786; 20 L. W. 298; (1924) M. W. N. 607; 29 C. W. N. 57; L. R. 5 A. (P C.) 147

(P. C.). (Followed) ... 973

Subrahmania Pathar v. Narayana Nayar, 24 M.

130. (Relied upon) ... 394

Subriunania Chettiar v. A'.1-. : : • Chettiar, 80 M.

268; 2 M. L. T. 189. (•' ' . :, ... 782

Subramania Chettiar v. Raja of Ramnad, 43 Ind.

Cas. 187; 41 M. 327; 6 L/W. 762; (1917) M. W.

N. 872; 34 M. L. J. 84. (Relied on) ... 497

Subramanian v. Lutchman, 71 Ind. Cas 650; 50 j

I. A. 77; A. I. R. 1923 P. C. 50; 44 M. L. J. 602;

32 M. L. T. 184; 25 Bom. L. R. 582; 1 R. 66; 2

Bur. L. J. 25; 3ft C. L. J. 41; 18 L. W. 446; (1923) • M. W. N. 762; 28 C, W. N. 1; 50 C, 338 (P. 0.)

(Followed) • ... 948

INDIAN OASES.

[1986

Subrao Mange^fc v. Mahadevi Bhatta, 21 Ind. Gas.

330; 38 B. 105*at p, 110; 15 Bom." L. R. 848.

(Dissent efl frdyi) \ • • •

Sundaresam Gh'ettiar v. Viswanatha Pandara

Sannadhi/7& h*L Cas. 10^45 M?703; 31 M. L

T 66- 16 L. jy\f3; 43 M. L J. 147; (1922>M!

W N. 444; A. E R. 1922 M5d. 405. (Relied

on) 481

Sundaresam Chettiar v. Viswanatha Pandara

Sannadhi, 72 Ind. C»s*103* 45 M, 703; 31 M>L.

T 66- 16 L. W. 83;<43:M*L. J.*t7; (1922) M. W.

N. 444; A. I. R. 1922 Mad. 402. (Followed) ... Sunder Lai v. Raghunandan Prasad, 83 Ind. Cas.

413; 3 Pat. 253; 5 P. L. T. 133; A. I. R. 1921 Pat.

465. (Dissented from} ..

Surjumull Murlidhar Chandick v. Ananta Lai

Damani, 74 Ind. Gas. 1029; 4(5 M 948; 45 M. L.

J 399; 18 L. W. 485; (1923) M. W. N. 743; A. I.

R. 1924 Mad. 352. (Relied upon) .

Syed Ahmad v. Emperor, 22 Ind. Cas 163; 35

A. 575; 11 A. L. J. 933; 15 Or. L. J. 19. (Fol- lowed) • - Syud Mahomed Hossein v. Shaikh Montogul Haq,

18 W. R. 440. (Distinguished) ...

Tajbi Abalal v. Mowlakhan Alikhan, 29 Ind. Cas 603; 41 B. 485; 19 Bom. L. R. 300. (Fol-

lowed) • '

Tansuturi Sriramulu v. Nalam Krishna Row, 25

Ind Cas. 1001; 38 M. 585; (1914) M W. N. 646;

16 M. L. T. 303; 27 M. L. J. 589; 15 Or. L. J. 673.

(Distinguished) •

Thadi Ramamurthi v. Moola Kamiah, 24 Ind.

Cas 667; 16 M. L. T. 123; (1914) M. W. N. 733.

(Followed) •••

Thakur Prasad v. Fakir Ullah, 17 A. 106; 5 M.

L J 3; 22 I. A. 44; 6 Sar. P. C. J. 526; 8 Ind.

Dec. (N. s.) 393 (P. C.). (Relied on) ..

Tafaluddi Peada v Mahar Ah bhaha, 26 C. 75;

13 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 654. (Followed) . .

Tula Ram v. Tulshi Ram, 60 Ind. Cas. 3; 42 A.

559- 18 A. L. J. 699. (Relied upon) . .

5pr

,520

483 504

1046 493

82

748

50*

802 948 378

Udhasimr v. Emperor, 35 Ind. Cas. 670; 10 S. L R. 69 at p. 71; 17 Cr. L J. 366. (Relied up-

on) • - 419

Uma Charan Chakrabarti v. Nibaran Chandra

Ohakrabarti, 75 Ind. Cas. 2; 37 C. L. J. 452; A.

1 R 1923 Gal, 389. (Followed) 560

United Telephone Co. v. Donohoo, (1886) 31 Ch.

D 399;55L.J.Ch.480;54I,T. 31; 31W.B.

326. (Distinguished) .- 562

[ToendraNathNag Chowdhry v. Bhupendra hath

Nag Chpwdhry, 9 Ind. Cas. 582; 13 C. L. J. 157.

(Distinguished) ••

Jeher's Wiltshire Brewary Co. v. Bruce, (1915)

A O 433' 84 L. J. K. B. 417; 112 L T. 651; 6

TaxOas/399; 59 S, J. 144; 31 T. L. R. 104.

(Relied on) ...

940

943

V — concld.

Page.

Vaidyanatha Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar, 82 Ind. Cas. 804; 47 M. 884; 47 M. L. J. 361; 35 M. L. T. 189; A. I. K. 1924 P. C. 221; (1924) M. W. N 749; 10 O. & A. L. R. 1076; 26 Bom. L. R. 1121; 20

- L. W. 803; 22 A. L. J. 983; 40 C. L. J. 454; 29 C. W. N. 154; 51 I. A 282; 26 P. L. R. 1; L. R. 0 A. (£>. C.) 17; 1 O. W. N. 617 (P. C.) (Re- lied on) .. 950

Vaithinatha Aiyar v. T-: iyn^.-ir/iia Aiyar, 68 Ind. Cas. G31; 41 M. L. J. 20 at. p. 29. (Fol- lowed) ... 516

Varada Pillai v. eTosvarathnammal, 53 Ind. Cas. 901; 43 M. 244; (1919) M. W. N. 724; 10 L. W. 679; 24 C. W. N. 346; 38 M. L. J. 313; 18 A. L. J. 274; 46 I. A. 28j; 2 V. P. L. R. (P. C ) 61; 22 Bom. L. K. 411 (P. C ). (Followed) ... 99

Vasudevan Nambudri v. Mammod, 22 M. 212; 8 Ind. Doc. (N. s.) 151. (Distinguished) .. 968

Velayutha Muppan v. Subramanian Chetti. 18 Ind. Cas. 498; 2U M L J. 70; 13 M. L. T. 207; (1913) M. W. N. 130 (Followed) ... 833

Vembu Iyer v. Srinirasa lyengar, 17 Ind, Cas. 609; 2,'i M. L. J. 638 at p. 016; 12 M. L. T. 547. (Re- lied on) . . 827

Venkata Jagannadha v. Veerabhadrayya, 61 Ind. Cas. 667; 44 M 613; 41 M. L J. 1; 34 C. L. J. 16; 14 L. W. 59; (1921) M. W. N. 401; 30 M. L. T. It; 26 C. W. N. 302; A. I. R. 1922 P. C. 9G; 48 I. A. 244 (P. C ). (Relied on) ... 472

Vcnkateswara Aiyar v. Somasundrarn Chettiar, 44 Ind. CUs 551; 7 L. W. 280; (1918) M. W. N. 214. (Relied on) .. 405

Venkati Kama Reddi v. Pillati Rama Reddi, 38 Ind. Cas 707; 40 M. 204; 31 M. L. J. 690; 4 L. W. 465; 20 M. L. T. 450; (1917) M. W. N. 112. (Followed) . . 479

Vishnu Vishvanath Niukar v. Ramchandra Sada- shiv Ninkar, 73 Ind. Cas 1017; 25 Bom. L. R. 508; A. I. R. 1923 Bom. 453. (Distinguished) ... 378

W

Walkar v. Frobisher, (1801) 6 Ves. Jur. 70; 31 E.

R. 943; 5 R. R. 223. (Relied on) . . 792

Wallingford v Mutual Society, .1880) 5 A. C. 685;

50 L. J. Q. B. 49; 43 L. T. 258; 29 W. R. 81.

(Distinguished) ... 968

Wazir v. Girdhari, 71 Ind. Cas. 847; A. I. R. 1923

Lah. 311. (Followed) ... 980

William Cecil Keyiner v. Emperor, 22 Ind. Cas.

145; 36 A. 53; 12 A. L. J. 1; 15 Cr. L. J 1.

(Followed) - ..895

Williams v. Millington, (1788) 2 R. R. 724; 1 H.

Bl. 81; 126 E. R. 49. (Relied upon) ... 394

Williams & Co., In re\ Official Receiver, Ex parfc,

(1913) 2K. B. 88; 82 L. J. K. B. 459; 108 L. T.

585; 20 Mauson 21; 57 S. J. 285; 29 T. L. R. 24?.

(Followed) ... 620

Wilmott v. Barber, (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96; 43 L. T.

95; 28 W. R. 911. (Followed) ... 1017

Wolmershauseri v. Gullick, (1893) 2 Ch. 514; 3

R. 610; 68 L. T. 753. (Relied on) 715

Zain-ul-Abdin Khan v Muhammad Asghar Ali

Khan, 10 A. 166; 15 1. A. 12; 5 Sar. P. 0. J. 139; .

6 Ind. Dec. (s. 8.) 112 (P. C.). (Followed) , ... 803

Zohrav. Mangu Lai, 28 A. 753; 3 A. L. J. 569; A. « W. N. (1906) 223 (F.B.). (Followed) - 282

INDIA

VOLUM

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT.

SECOND CIVIL APPEAL No. 1628 OF 1924.

December 11, 1925. Present : — Mr. Justice Walsh and

Mr. Justice Kanhaiya Lai. JAGRUP SINGH— PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT

versus

INDRASAN PANDE AND OTHERS— DEFENDANTS — RESPONDENTS.

Agra Pre-emption Act (XT of J922), s. 12 (#)— Person "claiming pre-emption," meaning of — Vendee, or intended vendee, whether included.

The vendee, or proposed vendee, or contemplated vendee, or intended vendee, is a person "claiming pre- emption" within the meaning of the clause "more persons than one of the same class claiming pre- emption11 in a. 12 (3) of the Agra Pre-emption Act. [p. 1, col. 1.]

Iswar Datt Upadhiya v. Mahesh Datt Upadhiya, 89 Ind. Gas. 114; 23 A. :L. J. 802; L. It. 6 A. 451 Civ.; (1925) A. 1. R. (A.) 747, followed.

The. ordinary meaning of "to pre-empt" is to pur- chase in preference to others, that is to say, even of the whole world, and pre-emption is the effect of the purchase. The vendee, if he is successful in the end over other competitors, does in fact pre-empt and is, therefore, properly spoken of as a person claiming pre-emption, [p. 1, col. 2.]

Second appeal from a decree of the Ad- ditional Subordinate Judge, Azamgarh, dated the 30th July 1924. Mr. P. L. Banerji, for the Appellant. Dr. S. N. Sen, for the Respondents. JUDGMENT.— This appeal raises a simple question of law on the construction of s. 12 sub-s. (3) of the new Pre-emption Act. That question is this. The sub-section providing that in a case "where there are more persons than one of the same class claiming pre-emption,11 is the vendee, or proposed vendee, or contemplated vendee, or intended vendee, a person claiming pre- efiption within the meaning of the section. In the case of Iswar Datt Upadhiya v. M&hesk Datt Upadhiya (1) a Division Bench

(1) 89 Ind. 0*s. 114; 23 A. L. J, I iv,; (1925) A. I. R, (A.) 747,

1

L. R, 6 A, 451

of this Court, including one member of the Court now sitting, has decided that question in the affirmative. Nothing is more im- portant in connection with this question and with the new Act than that the deci- sions of this Court should be consistent, and, unless there were some very strong reasons compelling us to take a different view, we should prefer to follow the view taken in the case just cited. In that case for some reason the respondents were un- represented, and it might be said that that fact, to some extent, detracts from the authority of the decision because the appeal was allowed in their absence. But in this case the respondents have had the ad- vantage of Dr. Sen to represent them and we do not think that anything could be said on behalf of the other view which has not already been said. We agree with the decision, however, on this further ground. The ordinary meaning of "to pre empt1' is to purchase in preference to others, that is to say, even of the whole world, and pre- emption is the effect of the purchase. The vendee, if he is successful in the end over other competitors, does in fact pre-empt and is, therefore, properly spoken of as a person claiming pre-emption. It has been pointed out to us on behalf of the appel- lant that whereas "the right of pre emp- tion" is spoken of in other parts of the Act, in this particular sub-section the word used with reference to what is being claimed is simply pre-emption. We are further of ^opinion that this interpretation satisfies another test, namely, the true construction of s. 10 where it is quite obvious that the expression "equal11 or "inferior11 right of pre-em ption is used with reference to the vendee. We can understand how it was that the Courts below came to the decision they did. The authority to which we have referred had not then been reported. It

SHEO CHAttAN SINGH r. KI8HNO KOEfe.

has been found that the plaintiff is related 1o one of the vendors and the husband*' 61 Ihe other vendor within four degrees. The' wajib ul-arz filed shows that the property in question was obtained by one of the vendors and the husband of the other vendor from their fathers respectively, who were own brothers. The appeal must be allowed and the suit decreed subject to the condition that the plaintiff is required to pay Rs. 1,320, on account of the sale consi- deration, found by the Courts below, within two months from this date. If such payment is made he will get his costs here and hitherto including fees in this Court on the higher scale -from the defendant vendee. If he fails to pay, his suit shall stand dis- missed with costs here and below, includ- ing fees in this Court on the higher scale. N. H. Appeal allowed.

PATNA HIGH COURT.

CIVIL REVISION No. 95 OF 1925.

June 4, 1925.

Present: — Justice Sir John Bucknill, KT. SHEO CHARAN SINGH— DECREE- HOLDER — PETITIONER

versus

KISHNO KUER AND ANOTHER— JUDGMENT-DEBTORS — OPPOSITE PARTY. Civil Procedure Code (Act (V of /0M), () XXI, rr. C>6> 72 — Execution of decree — Sale --Decree-holder, whether bound to bid up to any fixed sum.

There is no legal necessity for a bidder at an auction-sale, whether he be tho decree-holder or an outsider, to purchase the property at the full price at \vhick it may have been valued in the sale proclama- tion. On the contrary, the value of the property is really only that which it will actually letch, assuming t hat there is no fraud or malpractice with regard to the bidders and that the sale has been reasonably and properly made public, [p. 2, col. 2.J

Application against an order of the District Judge, Gaya, dated the 16th Feb- ruary 1925, against that of the Munsif, First Court, Gaya.

Mr. Brij Kishore Prasad, for the Peti- tioner.

Mr. Siva Nandan Rai, for the Opposite Party

JUDGMENT.

Bucknill, J,— This is an application in civil revisional jurisdiction made to this Court under somewhat curious circum- stances.

The applicant obtained a decree for rent against the opposite party here in the

[921.0.1926]

Court of the Munsif of the first Court of Gaya, Having obtained his decree he then -applied for execution. It would seem that there were four properties which were put up for sale and the Court allowed the decree- holder (that is, the applicant here) to bid for the properties at the sale. There seems no doubt that the valuation which was put on the properties was, that the first was put at Rs. 46, the second at Rs. 1,470, the third at Rs. 3,075 and the fourth at Rs. 55. There is nothing on the record or before me to indicate in ary way that the sale procla- mations were not duly published and in fact on the 21st January last the sale was proceeded with. It would appear from the record that there were other bidders besides the decree-holder. Now the Munsif made a curious order on the 22nd of January, that is to say, the day after the sale. He placed in his order-sheet the following words : —

" Decree-holder did not bid for the valua- tion fixed by the Court. The case is dis- missed, vide order passed on the sale pro- clamation."

When - we turned to the sale proclama- tion we saw that the note or order there reads :

"The decree-holder does not wish to' bid up to the value fixed by the Court. The property on sale is 28*45 acres nakli, hhaoli and belagan lands. The decree is for Rs. 5G6-9. lie wants to purchase the property for a nominal value. This cannot be allowed ; as the decree-holder does not care to bid for more, so I dismiss the case/1

Now it is very difficult to see how on the language of these two orders it was really altogether open to the Munsif to adopt the course which he did. I do not know that there is any legal necessity for a bidder at an auction-sale, whether he be a decree- holder at whose instance the property being sold is being put up for sale or whether he be an outside person, to purchase the property at the full price at which it may have been valued in the sale proclamation. On the contrary it would seem that after all the value of the property which is thus put up to auction is really only that which it will actually -fetch at that auction as- suming, of course, that there is no fraud or malpractice with regard to the bidders and that the sale has been reasonably afcd pro- perly made public. I have no doubt that there is a good deal of force in what is

[92 I. 0. 1926J

KALKA VttASAD V. PANNA.

urged by the learned Vakil who appeared for the opposite party, namely, that owing to there being a number of sales conducted oa the same day it was not very feasible for the Munsif to have recorded at great length his reasons for his order in the order-sheet. There is nothing except the suggestion contained in the order which is endorsed on the sale proclamation where the Munsif says that the decree-holder wants to purchase the property for a nomi- nal value which leads one to suppose that there was anything improper or wrong in the way in which the sale had been made public or in the way in which the bids took place. On the other hand, there is certain- ly this to be said in favour of the Munsif s view, namely, that so far as the second property was concerned the amount which was in fact bid was a very trilling one compared with the value which was put upon the property in itself. In that in- stance it will be observed that whilst the value was Rs. 1,470 the price bid was Rs. 232. As regards the third property put up for sale the difference was very much worse ; for, there, whilst the value was Ks. 3,075 the bid for it was Rs. 231. What I think the Munaif should have done was to have expressed his views as to the un- satisfactory nature of the sale in clearer terms and to have given his reasons which ought to be substantial ones for declining to proceed with the sale. I do not think that the reasons which he has given are good reasons for dismissing the execution casa ; for, so far as we can see, the decree- holder had done nothing really wrong in refusing to bid up to the total valu3 which had been fixed on the property. I think the Munsif s order should have been, after having set out his reasons, to have ordered that there should be an issue of a fr£sh sale proclamation under circumstances of proper publicity which would ensure that at the next auction when the property should be put up for sale there should be suitable bidders. Under such conditions no doubt the properties Wv)uld fetch what- ever they were really worth and what the public was ready to pay for them. It may ba said with regard to the 1st and 4th properties that the prices which were offer- ed were substantially equivalent to the prices at which the two properties were valued and that is certainly so. At the same time these two properties are of very little account aggregating just Rs. 101

in value. It does not, therefore, seem desir- able to split these two properties away from the other two or to regard the two pro- perties entirely separate!}7.

I should mention that after the decision by the Munsif it would seem that the decree-holder preferred some sort of appeal to the District Judge of Gaya. What exactly happened before the District Judge it is difficult to understand. From the order- sheet of the 5th February there seems to be a note by the serishatadar saying that the order complained of is not appealable (vide O. XLIII, r. 1 and s. 104, 0. P. C.) On the same day the District Judge minutes: " put up in presence of Pleader." No date is mentioned as to when it should be put up. But on the 16th Feb- ruary we get an order of the District Judge "Pleader absent. File/' Whether this is tantamount to the dismissal of the appeal or whether this is tantamount to the ad- journment of it I do not know. However, to my mind the conclusion is after all the same, for although the matter has come up to this Court by way of complaint against what appears to have been the serishtadars order of the 5th February, there is also a complaint quite clearly made that the order which the Munsif passed on the 22nd Jan- uary was illegal. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the order which was passed by the Munsif on the 22nd January is an unsatisfactory one.

It must be set aside and the Munsif ordered to re-instate ; the execution case, to direct that a new sale proclamation shall be issued and that such precautions should be taken with regard to the publicity of the conditions under which the sale will be held so as to ensure that a reasonable and proper sale will be held upon the date fixed. There will be no order for costs in this application.

z. K. Order accordingly.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT.

SECOND CIVIL APPEAL No. 1642 OF 1925.

December 11, 1925. Present :— Mr. Justice Sulaiman. KALKA PRASAD— PLAINTIFF— APPELLANT

versus PANNA — DEFENDANT — RESPONDENT.

Agra Tenancy Act (II of 1901), ss. 175, 182— Dis* trict Judge, order of— Appeal, third, ~ to High Court whether lies.

PA1VATIBAI TfetM&AKRAO fc. viSMVANAtfl kHAfoDfeRAO RAST& [92 I. 0. 1926]

Section 182 of the Agra Tenancy Act only allows u second appeal to the High Court and not a third appeal.

Therefore, no appeal lies to the High Court from an order passed by the District Judge on ail appeal from an appellate order of a Collector.

Lachmi Narain v. Nirotam Das, A. W. N. (1906) 272; 29 A. 69; 3 A. L. J. 688, followed.

Chhajmal Das v. Sirya, A. W. N. (1906) 254, 3 A. L. J. (v25, not followed.

Second appeal against a decree of the Dis- trict Judge, Jhansi, dated the 22nd of August 1925.

Mr. S. N. Varma, for the Appellant.

JUDGMENT*— This purports to be an appeal from an order passed by the District Judge on an appeal from an appel- late order of a Collector. Thus it is a third appeal to the High Court. Section 182 of the Agfa Tenancy Act only allows a second appeal to the High Court and not a third appeal. Section 175 bars all appeals which are not provided for. It is, therefore, clear that the appeal does not lie.

The learned Vakil for the appellant re- lies on the case of Chhajmal Das v. Sirya (1) where a learned Judge of . this Court entertained a third appeal. That case was contrary to the decision in Lachmi Narain v. Nirotam Das (2) reported in the same volume at page 251, and must be deemed to have by implication been over- ruled by the decision of the Bench in the case of Lachmi Narain v. Nirotam Das (3) reported in the same volume at page 272, As no appeal lies, this appeal is 'according- ly dismissed under O. XLI, r. 11

N. H. Appeal dismissed.

(1) A. W. N. (1906) 254; 3 A. L. J. 625.

(2) A. W. N. (1906) 251, 3 A. L. J. 623.

(3) A. W. N. (1906) 272; 29 A. 69; 3 A, L. J. 688.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT.

FIRST CIVIL APPEAL No. 150 OF 1924.

September 1, 1925.

Present: — Sir Norman Macleod, KT.,

Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Coyajee.

PARVAT1BAI TR1MBAKHAO

PATYARDHAN— PLAINTIFF—

APPBLLANT

versus

VI8HVANATH KHANDERAO HASTE— DEFENDANT — RESPONDENT.

Hindu Law Adoption— Agreement between adoptive and natural fathers reserving right of making Will to adoptive father, legality of.

An agreement between the adoptive father and the natural father of the minor about to be adopted, made

at the time of adoption, -wliereby full powers are reserved to the adoptive father to dispose of the family pioperlitid by Will, is not valid according to the Hindu* Law and is not binding on the adopted son. [p. 4, col. 2.]

First appeal from the decision of the First Claes Subordinate Judge at Poona, in Suit No. 1021 of 19*1.

Mr. P. B. Shingne, for the Appellant.

Mr. G. N. Thakor, (with him Mr. W. B. Pradhan), for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT*— The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 6,580 with costs of the suit and future interest at six per cent from the estate of the deceased testator Rao Badadur Khanderao Vishwanth Raste in the hands of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed this amount as the arrears of annuity of Rs. 400 a year payable to her under the Will of her deceased father.

The claim has been dismissed by the lower Court on various grounds, and we think that this appeal can be disposed of in a very simple manner.

The defendant was adopted in 1896, and Ex. 82, the tharavpatra, was executed at the time as constituting an agreement be- tween the natural father of the defendant, who was then a minor, and the adoptive father. One clause of the agreement was to this effect that the adoptive father had made a Will; that the adopted boy should act up to the terms of the Will, and in case the adoptive father made other Wills, the adopted son should behave according to the terms of the other Wills. That clause in effect gave the adoptive father an absolute right to dispose of all his pro- perty even after the adoption in any way he pleased. The Will under which the plaintiff claimed \* as made after the adop- tion. At that time the joint family consist- ed of adoptive father and the adopted son, and according to llidnu Law the father would have no power to make dispositions by Will of the joint family property.

We do not think an agreement of this nature is in consonance with the principles of Hindu Law with regard to agreements which can be made at the time of the adop- tion between the adoptive father and the natural father of the boy taken in adop- t.on. The result of such an agreement would be that the adopted eon would lose his right in his natural family, and would either acquire no rights at all, or would only acquire rights which were liable to be defeated, in his new family. The appel- lant being aware of the difficulty of the

[92 I. 0. 1926]

OFFICIAL REC1EVBR V. LACHM1BAI,

tharavpatra endeavoured to rely upon the payments made to her by the adoptive father before he died. Huch payments, which, as a matter of fact, were not disputed by the adopted son and had never been disputed since the death of the adoptive father, could only be considered as gifts in prccsenti of certain cash, and could not possibly constitute a claim to anything in the nature of aay annuity.

We agree with the Judge that Ex. 82 offended against the law of minors and the general principles of Hindu Law as regards adoption. We, therefore, dismiss the ap- peal with costs.

z. K. Appeal dismissed.

SIND JUDICIAL COMMIS- SIONER'S COURT.

JUDICIAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION

No. 329 OF 1923.

September 22, 1925.

Present: — Mr. Rupchand Bilaram,

A. J. C. OFFICIAL RECEIVER—APPLICANT

versus LACHMIBAI— OfPONENT.

Provincial Insolvency Act (V of W20), ss. ,53, 5|, difference between— Encumbrance created within two yean of adjudication — Consideration —Good faith — Burden of proof

Where an incumbrance created by an insolvert within two years of his adjudication, is challenged m the Insolvency Court the onus lies on the incumbran- cer to prove both good faith and valuable considera- tion, [p. 6, col 1.]

Official Assignee of Madras v. Annapumammal, 20 Ind. Cas 901; 14 M L. T. 150, Anantarama Aiyar v ~\us8nfji Oomer Sahib, 36 Ind Cas. U03, 31 M. L. J 133; (1916) 2 M. W. N 236, Official Assignee of Madras v. Sambanda Mudahar, 60 Ind. Cas. 205, 43 M 739, 39 M L.J. 345; 28 M. L. T. 258, Nilmont Chowdhuri v Basanta Kumer Banerjee, 29 Ind. Cas. 814; 19 C W. N. 865 and Muhammad Habibullah v. Mushtaq Hu&atn, 37 -Ind. Cas. 684, 14 A. L. J, 1183, 39 A. 95, relied upon.

There is a radical difference between 8. 53 and s. 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Under s. 54 the Court is not concerned with the motive of the trans- feree but only with that of the debtor. It is he who id said to have given the preference and whether the trans- feree acted in good faith or not is immaterial. Where, however, the three months1 limitation contemplated by s. 54 has expired, it is open to the transferee to prove that whatever the motive of the transferor may have been, he on his part acted in good faith. And where the consideration of the transfer is a past debt the transferee stands in a better position than otherwise. He has hia own interests to serve ando^es no duty to the ether creditors to protect their interests. He is in the absence of any statutory limitation imposed by

the Law of Bankruptcy, as much at liberty to secure the payment of his debt by superior diligence as by accepting a voluntary preference provided he goes no further than what is necessary to serve his own pur* pose [p. 8, col. 1.]

Hakim Lai v. Mooshahar Sahu, 34 C. 999 at p. 1018; 11 O W. N. 889; « C. L. J. 410, relied upon.

Official Assignee of Bengal v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd , 87 Ind. Gas. 392; 29 C. W. N. 374, (1925; A. I. R. (C.) 640, referred to.

Application under s. 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.

Mr, Dingomal Narainsing, for the Official Receiver.

Mr. Kimatrai Bhojraj, for the Alienee.

Mr. Srikishendas (J. Lulla, for the Insol- vent.

JUDGMENT.— The Official Receiver has applied under s. 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for annulment of a, mort- gage-deed executed by the two insolvent brothers Valabdas and Sunderdas on the 1st September 1921 in favour of their pa- ternal aunt Lachmibai. The two brothers belong to Shikarpur. They carried on business at Karachi with the aid of gumash- tas in the firm name of Naraindas-Sunder- das; Naraindas being their father who died in 1916. The deed recites that Jamnadas husband of the mortgagee had an account with the firm of Naraindas Sunderdas; on which a sum exceeding Rs. 14,000 was due to him and that he had advanced a further sum of Rs. 10,000 to the two brothers on 28th March 1921 and the two brothers had by a letter dated 17th May 1921 agreed with Jamnadas to mortgage to him a half undivided share in their residential house at Shikarpur in the sum of Rs. 24,000 made up of the two sums of Rs. 14,000 and 10,000 and that Jamnadas having died on 25th May 1921 the mortgagors had in consequence of the arrangement made with Jamnadas executed the mortgage- deed in favour of his widow and legal re- presentative.

The two brothers were adjudicated as insolvents o i llth December 19^2 in pur- suance of an application presented to this Court on 31st October 1922 by one of the creditors of the insolvents. The incumb- rance purported to have been created by the mortgage-deed, assuming it to have been in pursuance of the letter dated 17th May 1921, is within two years of the order of adjudication.

Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is a re-enac'tment ipsissimis verb is of s. 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907 and the exception contained iu s, 36

OFFICIAL RECEIVER V. LACHM1BAI.

of the old Act in favour of uan incumb- rancer in good faith and for valuable con- sideration" and a similar exception contain- ed in s. 55 of the Presidency Towns Insol- vency Act have been the subject of judicial interpretation. It has been consistently held by the different High Courtsthat where an incumbrance made within two years of adjudication is challenged in the In- solvency Court the onus lies on the in- cumbrancer to prove both good faith and valuable consideration, cf. Official As- signee of Madras v. Annapurnammal (1), Anantarama Aiyar v. Yussufji Oomer Sahib (2), Official Assignee of Madras v. Sambanda Mudaliar (3) and Nilmoni Chowdhuri v. Basanta Kumer Ranerjee (1), Muhammad Habibullali v. Mushtaq Ilusain (5).

It has not been seriously disputed that the same considerations apply to s. 53 and that it is for the opponent to prove both valuable consideration and good faith in order to entitle him to succeed.

The evidence of the consideration for the deed appears to be fairly strong and con- clusive.

The insolvents carried on their business with the aid of gumashta and maintained regular books of account. They have pro- duced their books from Sambat 1974 on- wards. These books show large sums of money due to Jamnadas from time to time. The balances due to him when the account books of Sambats 1974, 1976, 1977 and 1978 were closed and fresh account books kept were Rs. 16,956-12-9, Rs. 14,725-0-6, Rs.13,887-8-6 and Rs.15,195-7-9 respectively. No amounts appear to have been withdrawn by Jamnadas in Sambat 1974 or the year 1921. There are correspond ing entries in the account books kept by Jamnadas himself. Exhibits 16 to 18 are the entries in his books. Exhibit 19 is a Vatak or memo, of account prepared by the insolvents1 gumashtas and handed over to Jamnadas in the usual course of business and prove a similar in- debtedness 6f the insolvents to Jamnadas. No evidence has been called in rebuttal to prove that about Rs. 15,000 were not due to Jamnadas by the insolvents1 Karachi firm.

(1) 20 Ind, Gas, 901; 14 M. L T 150,

(2) 36 Ind. Gas. 903, 31 M. L. J. 133, (1916) 2 M W N.236. ' ' '

(3) 60 Ind. Gas. 205; 43 M. 739, 39 M. L J 345- 28 M.L.T. 258,

(4) 29 Ind. Gas. 814; 19 G W. N 865

(5) 37 Ind. Cas. 684; M A, L. J. 1183; 39 A. 95

[92 I. C. 1926j

It would also appear that Jamnadas had a banking account with the firm of Pirbdas Kanayalal of Shikarpur who had a branch lirin in Bombay as well. Another Shikar- puri firm carrying on business at Bombay in the name of Tejbhandas Thoriomal had a branch firm at Karachi of the same name. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid by the firm of Pirbdas-Kanayalal at Bombay to the linn of Tejbhandas Thariomal of Bombay on behalf of and under instructions from Jamnadas. The Karachi branch firm of Tejbhandas-Thariomal appear in their turn to have paid the Rs. 10,000 to the insolv- ents on 26th March 1921. Harbhagwandas the Manager of the Bombay Branch of Pirbdas Kanayalal has produced an entry from sahi book of his firm of the payment of Rs. 10,000 to the firm of Tejbhandas Thariomal on account of Jamnadas and duly signed by him. The AT •••:!.!• z part- Ler of Pirbdas Kanayalal biniuirpur has produced a debit entry Ex. 9-1 from his Shikarpur books showing that Rs. 10,000 were duly debited to Jamnadas' account in their books. Pahlajrai, the present Manager of the Karachi branch of Tejbhandas Thariomal, has put in an entry from his cash book of the payment of Rs. 10,000 to the insolvents' firm which is signed by their gumashta Gobindo, and has also produced the letter, Ex. 13, given by Jam- nadas to them, authorising them to pay Rs. 10,000 to the insolvents. The insolvent Valabdas has explained that this sum of Rs. 10,000 was an advance to the insolvents and not to their firm. It was, therefore, credited in their gharoo (private) books as paid to them by Jhamnadas and then transferred by them in their capital account in the shop books as an advance fromthem. Exhibits 22 to 25 are entries in the insolvents gharoo books. Exhibits 2(> and 27 are the corresponding entries in their firm books. The sum of Rs, 10,000 was in- dubitably paid by the insolvents to their firm as part of the capital and had been duly accounted for. It has not been shown that the insolvents had any other source where from to bring the Rs. 10,000. 1, therefore, hold that the mortgage deed is for valuable consideration.

An attempt was made on behalf of the opponent to prove that at the time of the further advance of Rs. 10,000 the insol- vents had agreed to execute a deed of moitgage in favour of Jamnadas. The only evidence on this point is t^e statement 04:

[92 I. 0. 1926 j

OFFICIAL RECEIVER V. LACiUJlBAT,

the insolvent Valabdas. I have no hesita- tion in holding that his evidence on this point is false. There is no mention of the alleged oral agreement in the letter, Kx, 7-2, which is said to have been given by him to Jamnadas on 17th May 1921. The whole tenor of this letter shows that there could have been no oral agreement between the .parties to create a mortgage prior to this letter. It recites that a sum of Us. 15,000 or 10,000 were due by the insolvents' firm to Jamnadas and that the insolvents had taken from him a further sum of Rs. 10,000 which lie had sent for from the firm of Pribdas Kanayalal at IJombtiy thiough Tejbhandas Thariomal and that about Rs. 25,000 or 2t>,()0l) plus interest were due by them and then it recites as follows:

"On account of the same we have under- taken lo mortgage with you without posses- sion the half portion of our house for Us. 24,000 in words twenty four thousand. Whenever you choose deed will be executed in your favour and registered. We have agreed to execute fora period of five years, The interest will be paid at the xate of 8 annas per cent., per mensem. Therefore, this chit is given to you in writing/'

If there was a prior oral agreement one would have found specific mention of it in this letter. There is no mention of this oral agreement in the mortgage deed either. The explanation of Valabdas as to the reason why he did not pass this writing in favour of Jamnadas at the time of the advance is preposterous, lie states that at that time it was arranged that insolvents were to give in mortgage to Jamnadas such of their properties as he might select and it was only after Jamnadas made his selection that he passed the letter Kx. 7-2. Jamnadas was their uncle and knew all about their property and this delay of about one month and 24 days to make the selection is un- accountable.

It would appear from the evidence that the insolvents were in financial difficulties from the end of 1920. They traded in piece- goods and had bought both on the sterling and rupee basis large quantities of cloth for forward delivery at a time when the exchange had risen to over 2 shillings to the rupee. In December 1920 the exchange dropped down to 1 shilling 5 pence thereby seriously affecting the insolvents. The price of cloth purchased on the rupee basis had

also gone down to a certain extent through other causes.

In December 1920 they sold some of their property to Pirbdas Kanayalal to keep them going and it appears that in March 1921 they either borrowed from Jamnadas the sum of Rs. 10,000 or appropriated to themselves this sum which 'had been paid to them by Tejbhandas Thariomal on account of Jarnnadas, and used this amount for the same purpose. They evidently expected the exchange to go up and thx* prices to rise. They appear to have taken some deliveries of piecegoods upto April 1921 though such deliveries were not so brisk. The exchange instead of showing any improvement grew from bad to worse and in May 1921 Messrs. Kahn and Kahn through whom the insolv- ents had imported large quantities of piece- goods fixed the exchange in respect of all the insolvents goods at 1 shilling 3| pence. The fixing of the exchange by Messrs. Kahn and Kahn deprived them of all chances of reducing their estimated losses by a rise in exchange. The estimated loss due to Messrs. Kahn and Kahn at this date was about a lac of rupees. They had other losses to pay. Their attempts to execute certain transfers in favour of their relations and particularly their submitting to an award in favour of their mother followed by a consent decree which is the subject matter of another application appear to be all sub- sequent to this date. lam of the opinion that the promise if any made by the insolvents to Jamnadas to secure his claim was made in May 1921 and not at the time of alleged advance of Rs. 10,000.

I entertain some doubts if Ex. 7-2 is the letter handed over by Valabdas to Jamha- das at the time it purports to have been written. It refers to a half share of the house being given in mortgage. The insolvents owned at that time the whole house. The award transferring half of this house to their mother is dated July 1921. No explanation has been offered why the in- solvents agreed in May 1921 to mortgage only a half share of the house to Jamnadas unless it be assumed that before this letter was given the insolvents had agreed to give the other half to their mother. The opponent has lelied on a recital made in the alleged Will of Jamnadas Ex. 7-1 which is said to have been made on 2 1st May 1921 about the writing given to Jamnadas. This genuineness of this Will is being litigated in another Court and I do not propose to

8

OFFICIAL KECBIVER V. L4CHMIRAI.

(92 I. 0. 1926]

discuss the evidence as to its genuineness in the present proceedings* Clause 5 of this Will assuming it to be genuine does not give the purport of the letter passed in favour of Jamnadas and is inconclusive. It is not necessray for the purpose of this case to hold definitely if p]x, 7-2 is the letter given to Jamnadas, Whether the insolvents promised on the 17th May 1921 with Jamnadas that he would secure to him the re- payment of the debt already advanced or if Ex. 7-2 has been tsubstituted for an- other after the death of Jamnadas. It would equally appear that there was no obligation on the insolvents to execute the mortgage-deed in favour of their aunt on the 1st September 1921 and its execution without any pressure from the aunt amounts to fraudulent preference within the mean- ing of s. 54 of the Act. If the petition for insolvency had been filed within three months of this date, I would have had no hesitation in declaring it to be void. Differ- ent considerations however arise in the cir- cumstances of the present case. There is a radical difference between ss. 53 and 54. In s. 54 the Court is not concerned with the motive of the transferee but only with that of the debtor. It is he who is said to have given the preference and whether the transferee acted in good faith or not is im- material. Where, however, the three months' limitation contemplated by s. 54 has expir- ed, it is open to the transferee to prove that whatever the motive of the transferor may have been, he on his part has acted in good faith. And where the consideration of [he transfer is a past debt, the transferee stands in a better position than otherwise. He has his own interests to serve and owes no duty to the other creditors to protect their interests. He in the absense of any statutory limitations imposed by the Law of Bankruptcy, is as much at liberty to secure there-payment of his debt by superior diligence as by accept- ing a voluntary preference provided he goes no further than what is necessary to serve his own purpose. See the observa- tions of Mukerji, J., in Hakim Lai v. Moosha- harSahu(6). What then are the limita- tions imposed by the Law of Bankruptcy on the rights of the creditor to secure to himself the re-payment of a past debt? Where he has secured an advantage by his superior diligence, it would appear that he cannot be deprived of such advantage either

(6) 34 C. 999 at p. 1018; 11 C. W. N 889; C C. L. J. 410.

under s. 53 or s. 54 of the Act. Where he has not secured it by such superior diligence but has accepted a preference voluntarily made by his debtor, he may not retain it, if an insolvency petition is filed for the adjudication of the debtor within three months of such preference. It would, there- fore, follow that if the three months have elapsed, it is open to the creditor to say that in accepting such preference he has only secured to himself his own interests, and to rely on the presumption arising there- from to prove his good faith. The onus then shifts on to the Official Receiver to prove other circumstances to warrant an inference that the act of the creditor in accepting a preference was an act of bad faith according to the Law of Bankruptcy, On behalf of the Official Receiver an at- tempt was made to show that <there were other circumstances in the present case to rebut the inference arising in favour of the opponent as a creditor. In the first place it was said that the property mort- gaged to him was substantially the whole of the property by the insolvents, and it was urged that as such it was an act of bankruptcy and void as not having been accepted in good faith. Reliance was placed on the recent case of the Official Assignee of Bengal v. Yokohama Specie Bank Ltd., (7). Though I afforded an opportunity to the Official Receiver after he had closed his case to prove ,that this property was substantially the whole of the insolvents' property, he has failed in his attempt. Admittedly the insolvents had another pro- perty at Karachi which was mortgaged by them with Messrs. Tattersall & Co. for Rs. 16,000 on the 22nd February 1922. They had a certain amount on stock-in- trade, and it was open to the Official Recei- ver to show what its value was. He has not done so. The insolvents have, on the other hand, put in certain statements to prove that they took delivery of a consider- able quantity of piecegoods after the mortgage- deed. The opponent is a woman, and it cannot be assumed without further proof that she knew that her nephews were •: • :'i:i: ji: u to her all that they possessed. li Ex. 7-J i$ genuine, and the mortgage- deed was executed in pursuance of the promise made by the insolvents to Jamna- das, it would appear that at that time the insolvents possessed one more immoveable

(7) 87 Ind. Cas. (C.; 640,

0. W. N. 374; (1925) A, I R,

[92 I. 0. 1826] JAII8HBDJI NAOftOJI GAMADIA *. MAGANLAL BANKBTLAL & CO.

property which they morl inure1 1 with Messrs Hiranand Naraindas for Ks. 15,000 and had also other considerable assets.

It is no doubt true that after May 1921, the insolvents at no time possessed suffi- cient assets to pay off their creditors in full, and though I have a shrewd suspicion that the object of the insolvents to attempt to carry on their business for over a year after they were to their knowledge hopeless- ly gone, was to benefit some of their rela- tions and to make it difficult for the Official Receiver to take possession of all the property which would otherwise have been available for distribution, I find it difficult to hold that the incumbrance in favour of the opponent falls within the principle enunciated in the Calcutta case.

It was further alleged on behalf of the Official Receiver that as the opponent had no issue, the object of the mortgage-deed was to secure to the insolvents the advantage of the transfer, the opponent holding the property on their behalf as a benamidar. A considerable amount of argument was ad- dressed at the Bar with regard to the vali- dity of the alleged Will of Jamnadas, and especially the provision in respect of "dharam". It is however not necessary for me to go into the question either of the validity of the Will or of the bequest to "dharam" as it would appear that the pos- session of the opponent de hors the Will is even better. As a Hindu widow she is entitled to an absolute estate in the cash left by her husband. I am not, however, prepared to hold in the absence of any evi- dence on the point that the mortgage-deed was executed in favour of the opponent as a benamidar for the insolvents. Admittedly Jamnadas has left two brothers who are both alive, and it cannot now be said whe- ther on her death, the property left by her would vest in the insolvents or in the bro- thers of Jamnadas. This will depend on who are alive at the time the inheritance opens up on her death. It is to be regretted that I should have arrived at this conclu- sion which deprives the creditors of their right to claim a rateable distribution out of the half share of the residential house mort- gaged to the opponent. The conduct of the insolvents in continuing to carry on their business from certain mala fide motives requires a separate consideration and can- not be made a ground for setting aside the incumbrance in the absence of proof of bad faith on the part of the opponent. TUis ap-

plication, therefore, fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case; I make no order as to costs. If the Official Receiver wishes to appeal against this decision, I shall readily grant him the required per- mission, p. B. A. Application dismissed.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT.

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL

No. 95 OF 1^24. February 27, 1925.

Present: — Sir Norman Macleod, KT., (1hief Justice, and Mr. Justice Coyajee. JAMSIIEDJI NAOROJI GAMADIA— DEFENDANT — APPELLANT

versus

MAGANLAL BANKEYLAL & CO.— PLAINTIFFS—RESPONDENTS.

Contract Act (IX of 1872), s. 178 Shares handed over •for purpose of raising money— Pledge of shares — Misrepresentation, shares obtained by— Pledgee, rights of — Fraud, meaning of— "Goods," whether includes share certificates

A person who without enquiry takes from another an instrument signed in blank by a third party and fills up the blanks cannot, even in a case of a negotiable instrument, claim the benefit of being a purchaser for value without notice so as to acquire a greater right than the person from whom he himself received the instrument, [p. 12, col, 21

France v. Clark, (1884) 26 Ch D 257, 53 L. J. Ch. 585, 50 L T 1; 32 W. R 466, referred to

The obtaining of goods or documents by fraud of which the proviso to s 178 of the Contract Act speaks must mean obtaining possession by such a trick or fraud as excludes real consent and, therefore, cannot be the foundation of any other contract, [p. 13, col 1 ]

Defendant No. 1 who was a partner in a firm which had b^en dissolved represented to defendant No. 2 that his liabilities in respect of his partnership in the dissolved firm did not exceed a certain sum and in- duced defendant No 2 to enter into a partnership with him for the purpose of starting a new business. Defendant No. 2 handed over shares in certain com- panies to defendant No. 1, together with transfer forms with blank transfers duly signed by him, and authorized the first defendant to borrow money on the shares for the purpose of the new business to be started by them. The first defendant pledged the shares with the plaintiff and utilized the proceeds to discharge his liabilities as a partner in the dissolved firm In a suit by the plaintiff to enforce the pledge of the shares

Held, (1) that the first defendant having been autho- rized by the second defendant to pledge the shares it rould not be said that he had obtained possession of the shares by means of an offence or fraud ; [ibid ]

(2) that at the most it could only be said that the first defendant induced the second defendant to negotiate with him with regard to starting a new- business by misrepresenting the amount of his

10

JAM8HEDJT NAOROJI 0AM ADU V. MAGANLAL UA^KEYLAL & CO. [92 I. CV1926J

ties in Ins old business and that such a misrepre- sentation would enable tho second defendant to avoid the agi cement to stait a new business and fo teeover the shares entrusted to the ihst defendant fnr the purpose o£ raising money for that business; [ibid]

(3) thai the misrepresentation, however, Imd not the effect of rendering the pledge of the shares with the plaintiff before the rescission of the contract nuahd and that the plaintiff was, therefoie, entitled to enfoiee his pledge [ibid j

Per Coyajee, J — The term "goods" used in s 178 of the Contract Act is wide enough to include share certificates [p 13, col 2.]

Fazal v Mangaldas, 66 Ind Cas 726, 16 H 48!) at p 502, 23 Bom, L. R. 1144. (1922) A I R (H ) 303, fol- lowed.

Appeal from the decision of Mr, Justice Kemp.

Mr. Kanga, Advocate-General, (\vith him Mr. Khergamralla), for the Appellants.

Sir Thomas Strangman, (with him Mr. Kania, for Respondent No 1 JUDGMENT,

Macleod, C. J.— The plaintiffs filed tin's suit seeking to recover the sum of Rs. 20,671-9-0 from the first defendant, and praying for a declaration that the pledge of the shares mentioned in Ex. E to the plaint was binding on the second defendant, and that the second defendant had no right to prohibit the transfer of the said shaies to the name of the plaintiffs. They also prayed that they might be authorised to sell the shares mentioned in Ex. D and appropriate the net proceeds towards part satisfaction of the decree to be passed in their favour.

Plaintiffs alleged that the first defend- ant had borrowed certain amounts from them on security of certain shares. On April 12, 1921, it was found that Rs. 38,000 were due by the first defendant and the first defendant passed a writing to the plaintiffs whereby he promised to pay the plaintiffs the said sum of Rs. 38,000 on demand with interest, and gave details of the shares which were to remain as security. There- after the plaintiffs had received a certain amount of interest on certain shares and also sold certain shares under thefinstructions of the first defendant. On making up the account the amount of Rs. 26,671-90 was found due to the plaintiffs against which the plaintiffs had in their possession the shares mentioned in Ex. D to the plaint, out of which fourteen shares of the Emperor Edward Mills and one share of the Nagpur Mills stood in the name of the second defendant. The plaintiffs had in their possession theshaie certificates and transfer forms signed by the second defendant, who had given notice to the companies- con-

cerned not to transfer tha shares to any other person. The first defendant had failed to pay the sum of Rs 26,671-9-0, and hence the suit was filed claiming the relief abovementioned.

The first defendant filed a written state- ment asking for an account but at the hearing he admitted the claim.

The second defendant in his written statement alleged that in April 1920 the first defendant had induced him to join the first defendant in cotton business as financ- ing partner, representing that he only owed Rs. 16,000 on the transaction of the Firm of Framioze Boga & Co. of which he had been a partner and which had been dis- solved. Relying on the representation the second defendant agreed to become a part- ner' with the first defendant upon the terms of two writings dated April 24, 1920, and as the second defendant had not sufficient cash it was arranged that he should hand over to the first defendant certain shares with blank transfers signed by him on which the first defendant should be at liberty to borrow money for the purposes of the said business. The aggregate value of the shares was Rs. 2,03,839 and amongst them were fourteen shares of the Emperor Edward Mills and one share of the Nagpur Milh. Thereafter the second defendant discovered that the first defendant's liabili- ties in the Firm of Framroze Boga & Co., far exceeded Rs. 16,000 and that he had employed the money raised on the security of the said shares of the second defendant in paying off those liabilities. When the second defendant threatened the first de- fendant with proceedings he executed a writing in favour of thw second defendant, on May 20, 1920 and on January 28, 1921, executed a • • ' r :.r k f ids property known as the U13h? • : \ l< ,.! 5 ism11 to secure re-pay- ment of one lakh.

Accordingly the second defendant con- tended that the first defendant had obtain- ed possession of the said shades by means of an offence and fraud, so that the pledge of the shares in favour of the plaintiffs by the first defendant was not valid and bind- ing on the second defendant

By way of counter -claim he prayed that the plaintiffs might be ordered to return the shares to him.

The following issues were raised at the trial: —

(1) Whether the suit shares were handed over to the first defendant under the cir-

[92 I. 0. 1926J JAMSHEDJI NAOROJI OAMADIA V. MAGANLAL BANKBYLAL & CO.

11

cumstances mentioned in para. 3 of the written statement ?

(2) Whether the first defendant obtained possession oE the shares by means of an offence and fraud ?

(3) Whether the pledge alleged by the plaintiffs was valid and binding on the second defendant ?

(4) Whether second defendant was entitl- ed to his counter-claim?

The Trial Judge believed the story of the second defendant that first defendant told him that the liabilities of the old firm amounted to Rs. 16,000 only, but was of the opinion that the second defendant was willing that the money to be raised on pledge of the shares was to be utilised in paying off that liability besides helping to start the new business

On the second issue he decided that the first defendant obtained the shares by a material misrepresentation of fact, but that as the interests of a bona fide pledgee under s. 178 of the Indian Contract Act had in- tervened, the second defendant could not be placed in the status 'quo ante. Con- sequently he held that the pledge was valid and binding on the second defendant who was entitled to redeem the shares on pay- ment of the amount for which they were pledged.

A fifth issue had been raised whether the second defendant had not ratified all the acts of the first defendant whereby he was estopped from disputing his liability to the plaintiffs.

The Judge held that the mere fact that he took further security from the first de- fendant did not amount to a ratification.

The second defendant has appealed. "•' His*main ground of appeal was that the learnedJJudge should have held that the first defendant had obtained possession of the shares from the appellant by means of an offence or fraud.

He contends that first defendant falsely represented that his old debt was only Rs. 16,000 and that if he had known that the debt amounted to a very much greater sum he would not have given the first defendant the shares to pledge.

What the appellant's case against the first defendant was on January 25, 1921, is made 'clear from his Solicitors' letter of date, Ex. No, 2. After referring to the writing of April 24, 1920, whereby first defendant agreed to execute a mortgage in respect of two of his properties in favour of the second

defendant whenever called upon to do so for securing the moneys to be advanced and the fact that second defendant handed over certain shares with blank transfer forms signed by him to enable the first defendant to raise moneys thereon for financing the new business which was to be started, he complains that the moneys so raised were utilised^for liquidating the private debts of the first defendant in abuse of the confi- dence.reposed on him by the second defend- ant without his knowledge and consent so that the new business was never started. On second defendant discovering this he wanted to prosecute the first defendant but he promised to redeem the shares very shortly. As the first defendant had neither redeemed the shares nor executed the mort- gage though he had given a fresh writing on August 10, ly^O (Ex. 2), he was called upon to redeem the shares within twenty- four hours or pay the value thereof and in default proceedings either civil or criminal would be taken against him. There is no suggestion in that letter that the original intention was that first defendant should pay off old debts to the extent of Rs. 16,000 out of the amountlborrowed on the shares or that second defendant would be entitled to give notice to the different companies not to re- gister any transfers.

In his evidence the second defendant said : —

"Franiroze Boga was dissolved in April 1920. First defendant proposed I should finance his business after the dissolution. I said I had shaies and he could raise money on them to continue a business with me as partner. He said the existing liabilities were Rs. 16,000. My shares were not to go towards that. I would not have given those shares to the first defendant if 1 had known the liabilities were Rs. 8U,000. About August 1920 I came to know he had raised monies on my shares and used them for his own purposes.. Then I got the writing of August 10, 1^20, executed by first defendant. 1 also got the first defendant to execute a promissory note for Rs. 1,30,000 on April 30, 1920, On January 28, 1921, 1 took a second mortgage of the first defendant's Bombay building. I threatened first defendant with legal proceedings (that was by the letter of January 25, 1921), and he gave me the seconc •• 'In1 .,-

On \t ::.:!;, i 920, the second defendant had given the first defendant a writing Ex. F, authorising him to borrow monies on the

12

JAMSHEDJI NAOROJI OAMADIA V. MAOANL.AL DANKBY1AL & OO. . [92 I. 0. 1926]

shares given to him either by making badlas or by overdrawing monies by depositing the said shares with some Bank or with big Shroffs.

Cross-examined about that document he said : —

11 1 did not understand when I signed it that I was giving first defendant unreserved liberty to pledge. The letter is plain enough. I say it did not authorise first defendant to pledge the shares for any purpose he want- ed. First defendant said he had to dis- charge liability of Rs. 16,000 and he wanted money for that also. The shares of value of those I deposited were to finance this business also. First defendant got these shares from me by fraud viz., obtaining them for partnership and thus misapplying them.1'

It is difficult owing to these contradictory statements to arrive at any satisfactory con- clusion whether first defendant was authori- . sed or not to spend out of the monies bor- rowed on the shares, Rs. 16,000 or any other sum towards discharging his own liabilities. It is true that there is some foundation for the allegation to this effect of the second defendant in the writing Ex. 6 given by the first defendant to the second defendant on April 24, 1920, bat against that there is the statement of the second defendant in his evidence that his shares were not to be used by the first defendant for raising money to pay off his own liabi- lities. The first defendant said he did not tell the second defendant his private liabili- ties were Rs. 16,000. Second defendant did not ask what were the liabilities of the firm the first defendant was continuing. The shares were not given for the new business. They were given so that he could raise margin money. Second defendant had given him shares before by way of margin money. On his own confession the first defendant was guilty of misappropriation of the monies borrowed on the shares. The second defend- ant's case cannot stand- higher than this: "I know the first defendant wished to wind up his old business He told me the liabili- ties of that business were Rs. 16,000 and I was willing that monies should be raised to pay off those liabilities and provide the capital for our partnership business. If I had known that first defendant's liabilities were Rs. 80,000 I would not have con- sented to start a new business with him, and 1 would] not have handed over the shares,1^

But in my opinion the case set up in Ex. 2 is the right one and that the second defendant gave the shares to the first defendant to raise money thereon for th* new business.

The question, therefore, is, as propounded by the Advocate- General whether the per- sons who advanced money to the first defend- ant on the shares standing in the name of the second defenctant were bound to make inquiries as to the first defendant's title to deal with the shares, or whether the second defendant by putting into the hands of the first defendant his shares with blank transfers signed by him was estopped from disputing the title of a holder of the shares and transferees who received them in good faith from the first defendant and advanced money to the first defendant on security of the shares.

It is impossible to lay down any general rule. The answer to the question must depend on the facts of the case. The de- cision in France v. Clark (1) is not of much assistance. France, the registered holder of certain shares, deposited the certificates with Clark as security for £. 150 and gave him a blank transfer signed by himself. Clark deposited the shares and the transfer with a third party as security for £. 250. The third party filled in the transfer in his own name and sent it in for re- gistration. It was held he had no title against France except to the extent of what was due from France to Clark. A person who without inquiry takes from an- other an instrument signed in blank by a third party and fills up the blanks cannot, even in the case of a negotiable^instrument, claim the benefit of being a purchaser for value without notice so as to acquire a greater right than the person from whom he himself received the instrument. Clark was regarded in the light of an equitable mortgagee of the shares. The documents themselves showed that Clark was not the owner and there was no evidence of a mercantile usage that the holders of such documents were treated as having the right to transfer. Blank transfers with share certificates were not negotiable instruments. In this case the first defendant was the agent of the second defendant to raise money on the shares. I cannot agree with the learned Judge when ha says the first defendant wa* a principal. The letter of

(1) (1884) 26 Oh. D, 257; 53 I,. J. .Ch. 585; 50 I., T, 1; 32 W. R, 466.

I. 0. 1926] JAMSHEDJI NAOROJI GAMAttIA V. MAGASLAl, BANKETLAL & CO.

April 24, 1920, is clearly an authority to the first defendant to raise money on the shares on behalf of the second defendant, the moneys to he utilised according to the terms of Ex 2 in the business to be started by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as partners. The first defendant being authorised to pledge the shares it cannot be said that he had obtained possession of them by means of an offence, or fraud. At the most it may be said that he induced the second defendant to negotiate with him with regard to start- ing a new business by misrepresenting the amount of his liabilities in his old business. Such a misrepresentation would enable the second defendant to avoid the agree- ment to start the new business and to recover the shares entrusted to the first defendant for the purpose of raising money for that business. The question whether the pledge of the shares before the rescission of the contract would be invalid is considered by Messrs. Pollock and Mulla in their notes to s. 178of the Indian Contract Act, at page 639. The authors think that the use of the term ''fraud" in juxtaposition to offence would seem to indicate that it is confined to the substantive wrong of deceit. If possession of goods obtained under a contract voidable on the ground of fraud is possession obtain- ed by fraud a pledge by the possessor could be invalid even before the rescission of the contract although an out and out sale would be valid under s. 108. I agree with their conclusion that it was not the intention of the Legislature to depart from the Common Law, and that the obtaining of goods or documents by fraud of which the proviso to s. 178 speaks must mean obtaining possession by such a trick or fraud as excludes real consent and, therefore, can- not be the foundation of any contract. The fraud, if any, committed by the first defend- ant was not committed in obtaining posses- sion of the shares but in his disposition of the moneys obtained by pledging them.

Even assuming that the pledgee on being asked to lend money on the shares with blank transfers standing in the name of the second defendant was put on inquiry with regard to the title of the first defendant, he would have been shown the letter of authority signed by the second defendant.

I think, therefore, the decision of the learned Judge was right and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Coyajee, J«— I agree in holding that the pledge of the share certificates created

by the first defendant in favour of the plaint- iffs is valid: s. 178, Indian Contract Act. The term "goods" used in that section is very wide (s. 76 of the said Act), sufficiently wide to include share certificates [Fazal v. Mangaldas (2).] In my opinion the evidence in this case which is fully discussed in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, makes it clear that the first defendant had not obtained those certificates from the second defendant by means of "fraud" with- in the meaning of that expression as used in the proviso to s. 178. The proviso, it would seem, does not exclude from the operation of the section the case of goods obtained under a contract voidable on the ground of fraud. For it would be anomalous that although a person who has obtained possession of goods under a contract void- able at the option of the other party to it can transfer full ownership of these goods before the contract is rescinded (Exception 3 to s. 108), he cannot make a valid pledge at all of the same goods.

In this case the second defendant handed over the share certificates and transfer forms duly signed to the first defendant on April 24, 1920. On that day twoMocuments (Ex. E and Ex. No. 6) were exchanged be- tween them. The one passed by the second defendant gave the first defendant author- ity to raise moneys on the pledge of those certificates in language both plain and wide. It says : — ' I authorise him and give my consent to borrow monies either by making badlasor by overdrawing monies by depositing the said shares with some Bank or big shroffs" The material statements in the other document are: — "With regard to the cotton brokerage business which I <have been carrying on... in the name of Messrs. Framroze Boga and Company and with re- gard to the current business of the said brokerage which I have taken upon myself in the said firm you have this day (given) to me certain shares... to enable me to borrow monies thereon... For the monetary assistance which you have given to me 1 bind myself to make an agreement with you as soon as the accounts of my old customers are settled." The agreement here referred to was a contem- plated partnership agreement between the parties. It seems to me that the effect of the evidence of the second defendant read with these documents and with his attor*

(2) 66 Ind. Gas. 726; 46 B. 489 at p. 502; 23 Bom. L. L, R, 1144; (1022) A. I. R. (B.) 303.

14

PfcAREY LAL V. ALLAHABAD BANK LTD.

ney's letter of January 25, 1921, (Ex, No. 2), is this ; Not that the pledge of the share certificates was unauthorised, but that the monies so borrowed were wrongly applied by the tirst defendant to unauthorised uses. But with this the plaintiffs have no concern. They have acted in good faith in making the loan on the pledge of the share certi- ficates.

In my opinion the decree of the learned Judge is right and this appeal must fail.

z. K. Appeal dismissed.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT,

EXPIATION FIRST CIVIL APPEAL No. 170 OF

1925.

Decembers, 1925.

Present:— Mr. Justice Mukerji.

PEAREY LAL— PURCHASER—APPELLANT

versus

THE ALLAHABAD BANK LTD., MEERUT — DECREE HOLDER AND Babu BAIJNATH PRASAD AND ANOTHBB— JUDGMENT- DEBTORS —RUSPOMDB VTS.

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), s. V, 0 XXI, r 58~Mon<>y~decrce- Attachment of property —Objec- tion by transferee from jiidgmenl-debtoi — Decision, finality of—Appeal, whether lies—Property attached being decree in favour of judgment-debtor, effect of -- Execution of decree -Insolvent judgment-debtor- - Question of title between scheduled creditor* decision of —Revision -Provincial Insolvency Act (V o-f 19^0), s. 50.

Where an objection is raised by a transferee from the judgment-debtor to attachment of the property in execution of a money-decree, and the question arises whether the transfer in favour of the objector is good or not, the question relates to the title to the property sought to be attached, and comes within the purview of O. XXI, r. 58, 0. P. 0 , and the decision is final, subject to the result of any suit that might be in- stituted, and is not open to appeal. The fact that the property attached is a decree makes no difference, (p. 15, col. l.j

There is nothing in s 50 of the Provincial In- solvency Act which says that any question of title raised between two scheduled creditors will be decided by the Insolvency Oouit, and a decision of such ques- tion by the Execution Court is not open to revision Ip 15, col. 2.]

Execution first appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Meerut, dated the 12th of December 1924.

Dr. K . N. Katju, for the Appellant.

Mr. Shambhu Nath Seth for Mr. P. L. Banerji, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT.— This is an execution first appeal and has arisen under the following ^circumstances. A certain suit

[92 I. 0. 1926]

No. 428 of 1922 w$s instituted by two persons Baij Nath and Murli Dhar against one Oaneshi Lai as Defendant No. 1 and the Allahabad Bank Ltd., as the defendant No. 2. The suit of Baij Nath and Murli Dhar was decreed for a sum of about Rs. 8,000 against Ganeshi Lai but it was dismissed as against the Bank. The Bank was awarded costs to the amount of Rs. 513-12. The decree was passed on the 27th of March 1923. On the 12th of May 1924 the Allahabad Bank applied for the attachment of the decree obtained by Baij Nath and Murli Dhar against Ganeshi Lai in order to realise the money due to the Bank, Previous to this application for attachment, by a sale-deed dated the 6th of February 1924 Baij Nath and Murli Dhar had bold the decree held by them against Geneshi Lai to the appellant, Pearey Lai. Ganeshi Lai was declared an insolv- ent. Pearey Lai as a transferee of the decree obtained by Baij Nath and Murli Dhar against Ganeshi Lai got himself entered in the schedule of creditors. The Allahabad Bank had a debt payable by Ganeshi Lai which arose out of a different transaction and in that capacity the Bank was also entered in the schedule of cre- ditors of Ganeshi Lai.

The Allahabad Bank in their application mentioned the fact that Baij Nath and Murli Dhar had sold their decree to Pearey Lai and that Pearey Lai had obtained an entry into the schedule of creditors of Ganeshi Lai. The Bank asserted that the transfer to Pearey Lai by Baij Nath and Murli Dhar was a fictitious one and prayed that the decree might be attached and the Insolvency Court might be requested to send the money that may be due on account of the decree of Baij Nath and Murli Dhar in Court for payment to the Bank.

Pearey Lai raised two objections. First, he said the question of title as between the Bank and Pearey Lai should be settled by the Insolvency Court and secondly he said that lie was a lona fide transferee for value and the decree was not attachable as the property of Baij Nath and Murli Dhar. The Court below has found both the points against Pearey Lai and hence the appeal.

A preliminary objection has been tak^n' by Mr. Seth that the appeal is incompetent inasmuch as the objection of Pearey Lai was one that fell within the purview of 0, XXI, r. 58 of the C. P, C. and the order

[92 1. 0. 192fi]

PEAREY LAL V. ALLAIIAfeAD BANK LTD.

15

of the Court below was final subject to the result of any suit that Pearey Lai might bring to prove his title.

Dr. Katju maintained that the appeal was maintainable under s. 47 of the C. P. 0. and in case the Court should hold otherwise he requested that his appeal might be treated as a petition in revision.

On the question as to whether an appeal lies or not I am clear that no appeal lies. The position is this. A (the Bank) has obtained a decree against B. (Baij Nath and Murli Dhar) for money. In execution of that decree A attaches a certain property (in this case a decree) belong! n# to B. Before the attachment C (.Pearey Lai) has obtained a sale-deed in his favour in respect of the property attached The question has arisen as to whether C's title is good or whether the transfer in C's favour is fictitious. The question has been raised by a person who is not a party to the decree. The question to be litigated is as to title to the property sought to be attach- ed. In my opinion the case comes clearly within the purview of 0. XXI, r. 58 of the C. P. C., and the decision is final subject to the result of any suit that may be instituted. Dr. Katju's contention is that the property to be attached being a decree Pearey Lai, the moment he obtained an assignment of it, in his favour, became a legal representative of the judgment- debtor and that, therefore, the case fell within the purview of s. 47 of the C. P. C. He conceded that if the property attached had been anything but a decree 0. LVI1I, r. 21 would have applied. I do not see how the case can come within the purview of s 47 merely because the property to be attached happens to be a decree. Further, the question to be decided is not one relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. It is whether the sale-deed on foot of which Pearey Lai claims to be a representative is a fictitious one or not. This question, has nothing to do with the execution, discharge er satisfac- tion of the decree which was passed in favour of the Allahabad Bank and against Baij Nath and Murli Dhar.

I hold that no appeal lies.

Considering the appeal as a petition in revision, I have to see whether the Court below had any jurisdiction or not to decide the question, that is to say, whether the Court below or the Insolvency Court should have decided the question whether Allaha-

bad Bank was entitled to attach the decree passed iu favour of Baij Nath and Murli Dhar, in spite of the supposed transfer of it by the debtors in favour of Pearey Lai. Dr. Katju has pointed out s. 50 of the Provincial Insolvency Act as authorising the Insolvency Court to dispose of the question. That section simply says that in certain cases at the instance of a receiver or a creditor the Insolvency Court may order the expungement of an alleged credi- tor's name from the schedule of the reduc- tion of the amount of the debt due to him. But there is nothing in the section which says that any question of title raised be- tween two scheduled creditors will be decided by the Insolvency Court. I hold that the Court below had the jurisdiction.

Such being my finding it is clear that I need not go into the merits of the appeal.

I have however heard Dr. Katju on the merits also and find myself in agreement with the finding of the Court below.

The Bank's case as made out in then- petition of objection dated the 29th of June 1!)25 (page 7 of the Paper Book; was to the effect that the Bank's debtors had no means whatsoever, except the decree against Ganeshi Lai, by which to pay the debt due to the Bank, ride para 3. The witness that was examined on behalf of Pearey Lai stated that he had not seen Baij Nath at Meerut since the sale deed was executed in favour of Pearey Lai and he was unable to say whether Baij Nath had left Meerut for good or not. Baij Nath executed the sale- deed for himself and as an attorney for Murli Dhar. Evidently, therefore, Murli Dhar was not at Meerut. This circumstance must have weighed greatly with the Court below as it weighs with me. The debtors of the Bank have left the town having sold their valuable decree for Rs. 8,000 for the small sum of Rs. 300. Dr. Katju told me that the receiver had declar- (d a dividend of only Rs 400 and odd in favour of Pearey Lai. His argument is that this was the only sum recoverable under the decree of Baij Nath and Muili Dhar from the Insolvency Court. But I am not aware whether there are or not other assets of Ganeshi Lai to be realised. Some explanation ought to havq been offered in the Court below as to why the valuable decree for Rs. 8,000 was sold almost for a song. I agree with the Court below that the transfer in favour of Pearey Lai was a fictitious one,

46

The appeal fails on each and every point andlit is hereby dismisssd with costs which will include Counsel's fees in this Court on the higher scale.

N. H, Appeal dismissed.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT.

SECOND CIVIL APPEAL No. 233 OF 1923.

November 13, 1924. Present: — Sir Norman Macleod, KT., Chief

Justice, and Mr. Justice Crump. DUMA TOMA RUMAV AND OTHERS- DEFENDANTS — APPELLANTS

versus

NATHU PARSHA KUREL AND OTHERS— PLAINTI FFS-— RES PON DENTS.

Specific performance — Option to obtain property on payment of certain sum within period mentioned, nature of— Consideration, absence of — Offer, whe- ther can be accepted after death of party to whom offer is made.

Defendants' predecessor agreed with the plaintiffs' predecessors that the latter could, within a period of ten years from the date of the agreement, tender a certain sum of money and demand conveyance of certain property from the former. In a suit for specific performance of the agreement by the plaintiffs againat the defendants :

Held, (1) that if the agreement was to be treated as a contract it was unenforceble as being without con- sideration ;

(2) that if the agreement amounted to a mere offer, not having been accepted by the persons to whom it was made in their lifetime, it could not be accepted by their auccessors-in-interest after their death, and was not, therefore, capable of being sued upon.

Second appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge, Thana, in Appeal No. 205 of 1921, confirming that pf a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Bassein, in Civil Suit No. 143 of 1920.

Mr, R. W. Desai, for the Appellants.

Mr. G. S. Kao, for- the Respondents. JUDGMENT.

Macleod, C. J.— In this suit the plaintiffs sued for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit land by the 1st defendant's brother Juzia which the plaintiffs eaid was entered into on Decem- ber 5, 1910, by Juzia Rumav on the one hand and on the other by Farsha Degu Kurel, father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, and Simav Ina, husband of plaintiff No. 3 and brother of plaintiff No. 4, both dead at the time of the suit. The terms of the docu- ment on which the plaintiffs relied are set out at page 2 of the print. The' effect of

DUMA TOMA KUMAV V. NATHU PAtSfiA KUfifiL. [98 I. 0, 1926J

that document was that Farsha and Simav could within a. period of ten "years from the date of the document tender Rs. 1,500 and demand a conveyance from Juzia. There are two ways in which the document can be read ; (1) as an offer by Juzia which was to remain open for ten years acceptable by Farsha and Simav at their option ; or (2) as an agreement by Juzia that he would hold the property for ten years at the disposal of Farsha and Simav and to sell to no one else. The latter would be a contract and the first would be an offer. If the docu- ment amounts to a contract then there was no consideration proceeding from Farsha and Simav for the agreement by Juzia to sell the property to no one else during the ten years. Therefore, the contract would be unenforceable as being without consideration. But if the document amounts to a mere offer to Farsha and Simav that a conveyance would be given on their tendering Rs. 1,500 within ten years, it would remain an offer and would not become a contract until the offer was accepted. Then the question would arise whether the offer made to Farsha and Simav could be accepted by their legal representatives. No authority has been shown to us for such a proposition, and it seems to me uncontestable that if A makes an offer to B and nothing further is done before B dies, B's representatives could not claim to have a right to accept the offer made by A to B. On this ground it seems to me that the representatives of Farsha and Simav, who are the present plaintiffs, are either suing on a contract without consideration or are claiming a right to sue for a declaration that they are entitled to accept an offer made to their ancestors, which is not a right recognised in law. It seems to me, therefore, that the suit should have been dismissed and accord- ingly we make that order^ with costs throughout.

Crump, J. —I concur.

z, K. Suit dismissed.

1. 0.1926]

SHAtf fcAR t7. BHAIRON

1?

OUDH CHIEF COURT,

SECOND CIVIL APPEAL No. 305 OF 1924.

November 5, 1925. Present:— Mr. Justice Ash worth and

Mr. Justice Raza.

GAURI SHANK A R— PLAINTIFF

— APPELLANT

zersus

BHAIRON PERSHAD— DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT.

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1883), s 05 (e)— Mortgage — Mortgagee empowered to obtain possession of portion of mortgaged property on payment of certain amount to third person— Possession obtained on pay- ment of larger amount - -Mortgagor, whether liable for excess amount paid— Interest, covenant providing for payment of, up to certain date — Mortgagee, whether entitled to interest after date fixed.

Where a mortgage-deed empowers the mortgagee to obtain possession of a portion of the mortgaged property from a third person on payment of a certain sum of money, and the mortgagee, m order to obtain possession of the property, is compelled to pay a larger amount of money than is mentioned in the mortgage-deed, the mortgagor is bound to bear the whole of the expenses incurred by the mortgagee in obtaining possession of such property [p 18, col 1 1

Where a mortgage-deed expressly provides that interest shall not be payable to the mortgagee after a certain, date, the mortgagee is not entitled to interest after such date, [p 18, cols 1 & 2 ]

Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Unao, dated the 12th April 192 h modifying that of the Munsif, North Unao, dated the 29th March 1923.

Mr. Bishambhar Nath Srivastava, for the Appellant.

Mr. H. N. Misra for Dr. J. N. Misra, and Mr. Surrendra Nath Srivastava, for the Re- spondents.

JUDGMENT.— This is the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff sued for redemption of a 2-annas share in the village of Jindas- pur on payment of the sum of Rs. 500 principal money secured by a irn/rlgii^c- deed dated the 26th of August 1862. " The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree for redemption but required him to pay in addition to the Rs. 500, principal sum, the sum of Rs. 419-9-0 which had been expended by the mortgagee in get- ting poroession from a prior mortgagee. It refused to credit the mortgagee with interest after the date mentioned in the mortgage-deed as that up to which interest would be payable by the mortgagor. On appeal the Subordinate Judge upheld the first finding of the original Court but allowed interest for a period subsequent to tbat just mentioned. The plaintiff appeals 2

against the decision of the lower Appellate Court on both grounds.

Four persons originally held 16-annas in village Jindaspur. On the 25th of June 1859, two of them Mohan Lai and Beni Prasad lYi-.r-turnsriMl the whole 16 annas to Raja Tej Kishen for Rs. 450. It is not disputed that they were in a position to mortgage the whole 16 annas. Now one of the four persons Mohan Lai was re- corded as owner of 10-annas share out of the 16-annas share from before this mort- gage. His 10 annas share was confiscated in 1860 by Government for rebellion and granted to Ram Ghulam. There is evi- dence on this record, namely Ex. V to show that the confiscation had the effect of Gov- ernment acquiring not only the equity of redemption but absolute rights in the 10- annas share. It is a qanunyo's report. Accordingly Ram Ghulam acquired an un- incwnhered share in 10 annas share. On the 26th of August 1862 another of the four persons Beni \\lio was recorded as owner of a ;2 annas share • '.. ... : his 2 annas share to Ram Ghulam for Us, 500. It is this mortgage of which redemption is being asked in the present case. The mortgage-deed records that the mortgagor was leaving Rs. 56-4 with the mortgagee for redemption of the 2-annas share from Raja Tej Kishan. In pursuance of this deed Ram Ghulam attempted to redeem the property from Raja Tej Kishan 's trans- feree by offering the Rs. 56-4 and brought a redemption suit to that effect. It was held by the Assistant Collector of Unao under a judgment dated the 16th of May 1878 that he could only redeem 2 annas share by paying up the total sum for which the whole l(i-annas share had been mortgaged to Raja Tej Kishen. In that suit he had made one of the present plaintiffs, namely, Gauri Shankar, who is the son of Beni, the mortgagor, a co-plaint- iff. The lower Courts held that under the mortgage- deed in suit the mortgagor in effect gave a warranty to the mortgagee that he would get possession of the 2-annas payment of Rs. &6-4 and that as the mortgagee had to pay Rs. 450 the mort- gagee is entitled to get the difference bet- ween the two sums in addition to the mort- gage-money. The first question that arises in this appeal is whether they were correct in so holding.

Whatever was the contention for the ap- pellant-mortgagor in the lower Court, w^

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, COCHIN I?. PfcATATH BAVA fcEVUSSI.

[C£ L

find that in the Court of first appeal his contention was that Ram Ghulam having obtained from Government 10 annas out of the 16-annas originally moitgaged was bound t,o contrfbute to that extent himself in redemption of a prior mortgage for Rs, 450. k We are, however, satisfied that this objection fails for the following reason: Bam yfnulam obtained the property from Government free of incumbrance. The buiden, therefore, of the whole of the mort- gifge was thrown on the (5-annas of which the equity of redemption remained with the mortgagors. Accordingly the conten- tion in the lower Appellate Court failed. In this Court it has been urged that both Beni and Ram Ghulam well understood the facts of the case and that Rs. 56 4 would not suffice to redeem the original mort- gage. It is said that the agreement was that Ram Ghulam should redeem the whole mortgage but only held Beni liable for twc- sixteenth of it. With this argument we <3o not agree We construe the mortgage-deed to mean, as urged by the defendants, that the mortgagor covenanted that the mort- gagee should get possession of the 2- annas on payment of Rs. 56-4. The mortgagee has failed to get possession of that owing to a decision of a Court with the correctness of which we are not concerned. The curious thing about this decision of IGtfy May 1878 ie that the Court only decreed possession of 2 annas on payment of Rs. 450 and not possession of the 6- annas share remaining to the mortgage. This decision appears to us to be an accident which could not be foreseen by the parties to the mortgage and both on the interpretation which would give to the mortgagee and on the principle under- lying s. 65 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act, we consider that the mortgagor is bound to bear the whole expenses incurred in obtaining the promised possession of the property.

The appellant also appeals against the lower Court's decision that he must pay interest after the date up to which the deed recites that interest shall be paid and urged that the decree of the Court of first instance on this point should be restored. The lower Court has cited certain rulings which have again been relied on by the respondents' learned Counsel in this case. The language of the mortgage deed is quite clear, namely, that interest shall be payable at a certain rate so long as possession is not obtained by the ir ortgagee up to 8 years

and that after 8 years the only remedy of the mortgagee was to sue for foreclosure. The rulings quoted to us are all to be distinguished Irom the present case. They- were based on deeds which had no express provision that interest should cease at a certain date but only provided that interest was payable until the date on which sale or foreclosure could be claimed. In the face of the clear language of the deed we agree with the Court of first intstance that no interest could be decreed after the 8 years.

Accordingly we allow this appeal in part and dismiss it in part and restore the decree of the Court of first instance. The parties will get their costs in this Court according to their success and failure and the defen- dant will get whole costs in the lower Appellate Court.

z, K. Appeal partly allotted.

MADRAS HIGH COURT.

SECOND CIVIL APPEAL No. fc49 OF 1922.

March 26, 1925.

Present:— Mr. Justice Phillips. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, COCHIN

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIKMAN — DEFENDANT

No. 1 — APPELLANT

versus

PRATATH BAVU DEVUS8I AND ANOTHER

— PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT No. 2 —

RESPONDENTS.

Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 188^), 8. 201 — Suit against Municipal Council for declaration of title to land -Notice, whether necessary— Madras. Survey and Boundaries Act (IV of 181)7), s 13, appli- cability of — Dispute (is to boundaries, absence of — •' Adverse possession— Sweeping land, effect of.

Defendant Municipality sent a notice to the plaintiff informing him that he had no right to a certain piece of land and that he should establish his right by suit. The plaintiff thereupon instituted a suit against the Municipality for a declaration of his title to the land:

Held, that the suit "vras not one on account of any act done by the Municipality within the meaning of s. 261 of the Madras District Municipalities Act- and that no notice was, therefore, necessary to be 'served on the defendant under that section [p, 19, col l.J

In order to apply the ..provisions of s. 13 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, it is necessary to show that there was a dispute before the boundary was settled, or an appeal was preferred from the settlement of the boundary. The meaning of the section is that when there has been a dispute between parties as to a certain boundary line and that dispute has been settled by a competent officer, that decision ie binding and can cnjy be .- ect aside by taking

[92 I. 0. 1928]

DEO KALI V. RANCHOOR BCX.

19

it.: r^:-i'! steps for that purpose within a certain 1 !:*••> .;, I ' cola. 1&2]

The* act of sweeping a piece of land occasionally does not amount to adverse possession against the true owner, [p. 19, col 2.]

Second appeal against a decree of the Court of the District Judge, South Malabar, in A. 8. No. 129 of 1921, preferred against that of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cochin, in 0. 8. No. 11 of 1918.

Mr. A. V. K. Krishna Menon, for the Appellant,

Mr. T. A. Ananta Iyer, for the Respond- ent.

JUDGMENT.— This is an appeal against a decree declaring plaintiffs right to certain land in Cochin Municipality. The District Judge has found that the land is used as a right of way, that it belongs to the plaintiff and that recently the Muni- cipality interfered with his possession and that consequently he is entitled to the declaration sued for.

The main objection taken is that no notice of this suit was given to the Municipality under s. 261 of the District Municipalities Act of 1884 but inasmuch as this is a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property, it is difficult to see how it can be treated as a suit "on account of any act done by the Municipal Council." No doubt in the plaint, the cause of action is stated to be the putting and beating of gravel on the plaint site but if one looks into the facts it appears that the plaint has not been accurately drafted and the real cause of action is the notice sent by the defendant informing the plaintiff that he had no right to the property and that he should estab- lish his right by a suit. In that view I do not think this is a case which can come under 8.261 of the District Municipalities Act. In this connection I may refer to President of the Taluk Board, Sivaganga v. Narayanan (1) and also Syeed Ameer Sahib v. Venkatarama (2) arid Govinda Pillai v. Taluk Board, Kombakonam (3).

The next objection is that the suit is barred by limitation by reason of the pro- visions of s, 13 of the Survey and Bounda- ries Act, In order to apply the provisions of this section, it is necessary to show that there was a dispute before the boundary was settled or an appeal preferred from the settlement of the boundary. In fact it means

(1) 1C M. 317; 3 M L J. 12; 5 Tnd Dec. (N\ s) 928.

(2) 1G M 293, 5 Ind, Dr*, (\*. a ) 913

(3- 4 Ini, Cas. 32; 32 M, 37 J; 10 M. L. J, 333; 4 M. U T, 209, «

that when there has been a dispute between the parties as to a certain boundary line and that dispute has been settled by a competent officer, that decision is binding and can only be set aside, by taking appropriate steps within a certain time. In the present case there does not appear to have been any dispute at all. In fact the District Judge linds that notice of the settlement of the boundary is not proved to have been served upon the plaintiff. This objection must also fail.

The District Judge has found that the pro- perty belongs to the plaintiff and that the only act of adverse possession by the Munici- pal Council has been the act of sweeping the land occasionally and that cannot be said to be adverse possession as against the real owner. There is no other reason for not accepting his finding in accordance with which his decree is right.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

v. N. z. K.

Appeal dismissed*

OUDH CHIEF COURT.

SECOND CIVIL, APPEAL No. 310 OF 1924.

November C, 1925.

Present : — Mr. Justice Raza.

DEO KALI AND ANOTHER — DEFENDANTS —

APPELLANTS

versus RANCHOOR BUX AND ANOTHER -

PLAINTIFFS— RESPONDENTS. Hindu Law —Reversions r, transfer by, during life* time of Widow, validity of~~Reverbwtu.r accepting transfer from other i^eterswner — Estoppel— Evidence Act (I of 1872], s. 115.

A tiansfer made by a next reversioner during tlra lifetime Qf a Hindu widow who is in possession of her deceased husband's estate is inoperative under the Hindu Law, as during the widow's lifetime a revcrsioncr has no interest in the estate capable of transfer but merely an expectancy, [p. 20, col 2 ]

Where, therefore, a reversiuiier of a deceased Hindu accepts a mortgage of certain property forming pait of the estate of the deceased from some other rever- sioners, he is net estopped fiom subsequently con- tending that he has a share in the property which was mortgaged to him, inasmuch as the mortgage is a void transaction and no estoppel can arise out of such a transaction, [ibid J

Appeal against a decree of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Qonda, dated the 15th April 1924, upholding thaUofth*

MtJbALl V.

Munsif, Gonda, dated the 19th April 1923.

Mr. S. M. Ahmad, for the Appellants.

Mr. Makund Behari Lai, for the Respond- ent.

JUDGMENT. -This is a defendants1 appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a certain property specified in the plaint. The parties are the descendants of one Kashi Ram. Kashi Ram had four sons, namely, Ratan Din Manodut, Siridat and Acharji. Ranchur Bakhsh plaintiff is one of the two sons of Sri Dat Deokali defend- ant No. 1 is the son of Mandat and Suraj Bakhsh defendant No. 2 the son of Acharji. Chhatarpal defendant No. 3 is the brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs' case was that Ratan Din was owner of the plots in suit, that he died childless about 30 years ago and was succeeded by his widow Musammat Biranji, that she also died in 1912 leaving the parties as her nearest re- version ers and that the plaintiff was entitl- ed to a one-fourth share, but was in pos- session of a one- sixth share only. He, there- fore, claimed a one-twelfth share over and above the share already possessed by him. The suit was contested by the defendant,0) Nos. 1 and 2 on various grounds. The claim was decreed by the first Court and the defendants1 appeal was dismissed by the Court of first appeal. It was held that Ratan Din was the owner of the plots in suit but after his death Musammat Biranji had been in possession of the land in suit till 1912. It was pleaded by the contesting defendants in respect of two plots Nos. 22 and 622 that the plaintiff had taken a mort- gage of the plots from them and was, there- fore, estopped from denying their title so far as these plots were concerned. The lower Courts rejected the defence holding that there was no estoppel in the circumstances of the case. The contesting defendants have now appealed to this Court. Their learned Counsel Jias confined his arguments to the question of estoppel only. He contends that the plaintiff cannot question the right of the appellants in respect of plots Nor>. 22 and 622 as he had taken a mortgage of those plots from the appellants. I am not prepared to accept the contention. It was a simple mortgage and was executed by Deokali appellant No. 1 on 30th May 1904. Musammat Biranji died in April 1912, It is clear that the mortgage was void as Deokali as the reversioner of Musammat Biranji had no rights to mortgage the plots jn dispute in her lifetime.

rob T p

l_yz i. u.

As pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Harnath %uar v. Indar Bahadur Singh (1) "a transfer made by a next reversioner during the lifetime of the widow is inoperative under the Hindu Law, as at its date he has no interest capable of transfer but merely an expectancy.'1

It is true that as between a mortgagor and his mortgagee neither can deny the title of the other for the purposes of the mortgage but the present suit is not a suit based on or connected with the mortgage. In my opinion the plaintiff is not estopped from questioning the validity of the mort- gage in the present suit. No other point was argued in this appeal.

The appeal fails and must be dismissed* I dismiss this appeal and order the con- testing appellants to pay the costs of the contesting respondents.

The decree of the lower Court is confirmed in all respects.

z. K. Appeal dismissed.

(1) 71 Ind. Gas. 620; 9 0 L. J. 652, (19*22; A I, R. (P. 0.; 403; 9 O & A. L. R. 270; 44 M. L. J. 489; 37 C L. J. 346, 45 A 179; 27 C. W. N. 949, 50 I. A 69; 18 L W. 383, 26 0, C 2?3; 33 M. L. T. 216; 5 P. L. T 281, 2 Pat. L, R. 237 (P.O.).

MADRAS HIGH COURT.

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 923 OF 19?3,

August 18, 1925. Present: — Mr. Justice Jackson. VEERA8WAMI MUDALI— PLAINTIFF- PETITIONER

versus P, R. VENKATACHALA MUDALI

AND OTtfEKS — DEFENDANTS NOS. 1 TO 5 —

RESPONDENTS.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), s. 9— Tenant, dis-> possession of — Summary suit by landlord against tres- passer-, maintainability of —Revision — Interference by High Court— Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), s. 115.

A plaintiff who seeks possession summarily under s. 9 of the Specific Kelief Act must show that at the date of the suit he ia entitled to such relief. A landlord, therefore, cannot bring a suit in ejectment under this section where his tenant has been dis- possessed by a third jmrty. [p. 21, col 2.]

Ramanadan Chetti v, Pulikuti Servai, 21 M. 288; 8 M. L. J 121; 7 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 559, SitaRamv.Ram Lai, 18 A. 440; A. W, N. (1896) 162; 8 Ind. Dec. (N. s.) 999 and Davood Mohideen Rowttier v. Jayarama Iyert 62 Ind. Cas. 284; 44 M. 937; 40 M. L. J 38; 13 L. W. 281; (1921) M. W. N. 43; 29 M. L. T. 78, followed,

The High Court will not ordinarily interfere by way of revision with a decree under B. 9 of the Specific* Belief Act. Wbere4 however, the remedy under th^

[92 L o. mej

YEEftASWAUI MUDALI V. VBNKATaCHALA MUDiLt

21

Section te clear, the parties will not necessarily bo driven to another suit, [p. 21, col 1.]

Devata Sri Ramamurthi v. Venkata Sitarama- Chandra Row, 22 Ind. Oas. 279; (1914) M. W N 05, Sri Krishna Doss v. Chandook Ckand, 4 Ind Gas. 509; 32 M. 334; 5 M. L. T. 125; 19 H. L J. 307, relied on.

Petition, under a. 112 of Act V of 1908 and s. 107 of the Government of India Act, pray- ing the High Court to revise a decree of the Court of the District Munsif , Poonamalle, in O. 8. No. 475 of 1922.

Mr. K. Rajah Iyer, for the Appellant.

Mr. B. Somayya, for the Respondents,

JUDGMENT,— Plaintiffs in two con- nected suits Nos. 475 and 476 of 1922 on the file of the Court of the District Mnnsif of Poonamalle brought under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act were unsuited on the ground that on the date of the suits, the plaint lands although trespassed upon by defendants were leased to others and, there- fore, only their lessees and not plaintiffs themselves were entitled to sue. This petition is brought in order to revise that decision.

Plaintiffs have their remedy by way of suit and in such circumstances this Court will not ordinarily interfere by way of revi- sion, Devata Sri Ramamurthi v. Venkata Sitaramachandra (1). But if the remedy is clear, the parties will not necessarily be driven to another suit, [Sri Krishna Doss v. Chandook Chand (21] Therefore, the ques- tion for determination in this case resolves itself into whether there is clear authority supporting or contravening the decision of the District Munsif.

There has been sharp divergence of judicial opinion upon the point as was clearly revealed when it came before a Pull Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Blennerhassett, J., could see no reason why a landlord who has put a tenant in posses- sion should not himself sue to eject a trespasser. Edge, C. J., affirmed as prevail- ing all the world over that when a man creates a tenancy under him which entitles the tenant to the exclusive use of the property the man creating the tenancy can- not have any right to actual possession so long as the tenant is entitled to possession. It was accordingly held with the concurrence of four other Judges that in these circum- stances plaint' ffs might be entitled to a

(1) 22 Ind. Cas. 279; (1914) M, W. N. 95.

(2) 4 Ind. Oas, 509: 32 M. 334, 5 Mf L, T, J25; 19 M- t. J. 307f

declaratory decree that the trespasser could not interfere with his right to receive rent; and a decree to be put into possession of the rents; but so long as he did noL, him- self possess the right to enjoy physical possession, he could not eject the trespasser [Sita Ram v. Ram Lai (3).]

Two years later the question came before a Bench of this Court, which assumed it to be an elementary rule that a plaintiff who seeks possession must show that at the date of the suit he was entitled to such relief [Ramanadan Chettiv. Pulikutti Servai (4),]

So far the law on the matter was clear and the next Madras ruling [Jagannatha Gharry v. Rama Rayer (5)] hardly affected the previous decisions, for it was held that the landlord must be entitled to possession at the time of suit, and he was so entitled in that case because jthe lease had termi- nated immediately after the dispossession of the tenant by a third person and the tenant was no longer interested in the matter. But unfortunately 'the head-note to this ruling is drafted as if affirming that a landlord can always bring a suit for pos- session when his tenant has been dispos- sessed by a third party. For this unquali- fied statement there might seem at first to be better authority in Rangaswamy lyengar v Krishna Govindan (t>) when Sankaran Nair, J., sitting alone does appear to allow a landlord to sue for physical possession of property of which his tenant had been dis- possessed. But though that is the effect of the judgment, the 'reasoning proceeds on the assumption that it is only a question of receiving rent, a matter about which as Sir John Edge showed in Sita Ram v. Ram Lai (3) there is no difficulty. An earlier Madras case is cited [Innasi Pitlai v. Sivagnana Desikar(7)] which also is entirely confined to the question of rent; and before concluding Sankaran Nair, J., makes it clear that he is not differing from Ramanadhan Chetty v. Pulikutti Servai (4). It is not an easy judgment to understand, but it is no authority for holding that the landlord can sue in these cases.

In Krishna Namhudri v. Secretary of

(3) 18 A, 440, A. W. N. (1896) 162, 8 Tnd Dec. (N. s) 999.

(4) 21 M. 288; 8 M. L. J. 121, 7 Ind. Dec. (N. s) 559.

• (5) 28 M. 238. (6) 8 Ind, Cas, 844; (1910) M. W. N. 838; 9 M, U T,

21(7) 5 M, fc. J. 95-

22 mSASWAMI MBDALI t>. VRNKATAOHALA MUD ALL

State (8), Wallis, J., and Abdul Rahim, J., re-affirmed [Ramanathan Chetty v. Pulikutti Servai(4)]andits statement of the elementary rule.

Thus it may he said that at this date there was no real difference of opinion and the ruling of the Allahabad High Court Full Bench prevailed.

In Ambalavana Chetty v. Singaravelu Odayar (9) a plaintiff who had long been out of possession seems to have suggested that if his tenant had been in possession (which was not the fact) there would be no bar of limitation. His plea was rejected on the facts but his hypothesis was fully discussed by 8undara Iyer, J., who has assembled the various rulings on the point.

His Lordship says that it is held that the landlord where his tenant is ousted by a trespasser may sue under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act in Rangaswami lyengar v. Rama Raycr (6) and Innasi Pillai v. Sivagnana Desikar(7). But as shown above none of these cases is real authority for that broad proposition. HI ' •* • ^, - that Hamanathan Chetty v. . (4) and Krishnan Nambudri v. Secretary of State (8) are against him, but on the whole is inclined to hold that the landlord has a cause of action (page 155*). This opinion it may be noted is obiter and is not very strongly expressed. •

In 1914 it was held in Somai Ammal v. Vellayya Sethurangam (10) that if a land- lord had given a lease to a tenant the landlord might eject a trespasser in order to put his tenant into possession. The tenant in that case "had not been put in possession at all, but was anxious to obtain possession." Such a case seems to proceed on the assumption that the landlord has a right to immediate possession in order to fulfill his contract and the elementary rule in Ramanathan Chetti v. Pulikutti Servai (4) would not then be infringed. It is not as though only the tenant had the right of immediate possession.

In Tiruvengada Konan v. Venkatachala Konan (11) it was ruled that though a land- lord is not entitled to immediate or khas possession, he may obtnin a decree for the possesion of the reversion and for formal

(8) 4 Ind Cas. 30, 19 M L J 317; 5 M L. T. 213.

(9) 15 Ind Cas 146, (1912) M W N 669

(10) 26 Ind. Cas. 317, 29 M L J 233, (1915) M. W. N. 12, 16 M. L. T. 532; 1 L W 1047

(11) 32 Ind. Cas. 198; 39 M. 1042; 30 M. L. J

" *?age of 15 Ind. Cas.— (JBd.\ ' ~~"

[92 I 0. 1826]

possession. This ruling practically follow^ Sita Ram v.' Ram Lai (3). It also questions whether the obiter dictum in Ambalavana Chetty v. Singaravelu Odayar (9) is not too broadly stated. In 1916 the question came before Old field, J., and Phillips, J., Kathiri Unite v. Kutti Chekkutti Mudaliar (12). They held that a landlord could sue to enable himself to fulfil his contract to give or restore possession to his tenant. Of course, ifthe ruling stopped at the words uto give " it would merely re-affirm Somai Ammal v. Vellayya Sethurangam (10) but the addition of the words "to restore" opens up the whole question and in effect this is, a ruling contrary to Ramanathan Chetty v. Pulikutti Servai (4) Oldfield, J., begins by remarking that the exposition of the law in (Ambalavana Chetty v. Singaravelu Udayan) (9) is consistent with the decisions in Narainasaivmy Naidu Garu v. Yerramali Ramkrishnayya (13) and Somai Ammal v. Vellayya Sethurangam (10). The former merely states what is more elaborately de- veloped in the latter ruling that a landlord can sue in order to fulfil his contract to put his lessee in possession. Of course, the broader proposition in Ambalarana Chetty v. Singaravelu Udayan (9) that he can sue whenever his tenant is dispossessed is not inconsistent with these rulings. Then Old Field, J., finds that the rulings admit ex- ceptions to the general rule ; though it seems that they establish only one excep- tion, if it can indeed be called an excep- tion. This rule is that on the date of the suit the landlord must show that he has a right to be in possession. If he has never put his tenant in possession and has to get possession in order to do so, he has a right to be in possession and his suit is not in contravention of the rule. But when it is also claimed that after a landlord has put his tenant into possession and that tenant has been dispossessed, the landlord may sue to restore his possession, it is not to set up an exception to the rule, it is to negative the rule altogether. Oldfield, J., proceeds that he cannot follow Krishna Nambiar v. Secretary of State (8) in so far as it rules that a landlord cannot give or restore. Krishna Nambiar v. Secretary of State (8) is not concerned with the question whether he can give ; but it certainly rules that he cannot restore and in declining to follow

(12) 39 Ind. Pas. 425; 5 L W. 330; (1917) M, W. N. 339.

(13) 5 Ind Cne, 479; 33 M. 499; (1910) H, W, N, 221 and 280 "

[921. 0. 192flJ

this ruling Oldfleld, J., is maintaining the opposite and i;\vrr: 'line Ramanathan Chetti V. Pulikutt Servai (4). No doubt his Lord- ship seeks to distinguish this ruling by finding on ^the facts that the trespasser colluded with the tenant and is, therefore, (see concurring judgment of Phillips, J. j only the licensee of the tenant against whom the landlord can have no cause of action during the continuance of the lease. But in Ramanathan Chetty v. Pulikutti Servai (4) although it was al- leged in the plaint that the tenant and trespasser , had colluded there is no finding to that effect or any mention of collusioain the body of judgment, when their Lordships lay down the elementary rule they are not (")n*i-'l"npir collusion.

Kathiri Kutti Musalic* v. Chek Kutti Musalier (12) must be taken as contrary to Ramanathan Chetti v. Fulikutti Servai (4) in fact Phillips, J., practically states, as much in his concluding sentence.

The whole question was then reviewed by Wallis, C. J., in Davood Mohideen Rowther v. Jayarama Iyer ^14). The principle underlying the rule is fully explained and the three ruling cases Ramanathan Chetti v. Pulikutti Servai (4) Krishnan Nambiar v. Secretary of State (8) Sita Ram v. Ram lal (3) are approved. The acceptance of the obitor dictum in ^mbalarana Chettij v. Singara- velu Odayar (9) as authority is depreciated with an expression of regret that Sita Ram v. Ram Lal (3) was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. The learned Chief Justice even goes so far as to find that the landlord cannot sue in order to fulfil his con- tract, at page 940* differing from the view already expressed by Sadasiva Iyer, J , in (Somai Ammal v. Vellayya Sethuranaga (10) which view Sadasiva Iyer, J., re-affirms in a dissenting judgment in this case; | Udoy Kumar Dass v. Katyani Debi (15)] it is held that the veivv of Sundara lyar, J , in (Ambalavelu Chetty v. Singaravelu Udya (9) cannot be justified on principle and is opposed to what :-:•«:•; * ' Tx>rd Alver- stone, 0. J., as -. •••-..- : doctrines [Walter v. Yolden (16).]

I think it clear from the above exami- nation of the authorities that the view

(14) 62 Ind. Gas. 281; 41 M. 037; 40 M L J 38, 13 L. W. 281; (1921) M. W. N. 43; 29 M L. T. 78

(15) 60 Ind. Cas 126; 41) 0 048 at p. 064; 35 C L J 292; (1922) A. I R (C ; 87.

(16) (1902) 2 K. B 301; 71 L. J. K. B 693; 87 L. T. 97; 51 W. R 46; 18 T L R 668

SAKT SAHAI fc, CHHOTAI XUfcMI.

of the learned District Munsif is well-sup- ported and there is no justification for revision. 1 consider that the question is concluded by Sita Ram v. Ram Lal (3) Ramana'hm Chetty v. Pullilcutti Servai (4) Davood Mohideen Rowther v. Jayaram Iyer (14). The petition is dismissed with costs, v. N. v, Petition dismissed.

Z. K.

OUDH CHIEF COURT.

FIRST EXECUTION OF DECKBB APPEAL

No. 74 OF 1924.

November 23, 1925.

Present:— Mr. Justice Hasan and

Justice Raza. SANT 8 A.H AI— APPLIC \XT— APPELLANT

cersus

CHHTTTAT KURMI AND ANOTHER - DEFENDANTS — RESPONDENTS.

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1008), s. 1^8— Limitation Act (IX of 1008), .<?. 6 -Mortgage,— Redemp- tion suit— Deere tal amount determined by Trial Court enhanced by Appellate Court— Restitution -Applica- tion by mortgagee for recovery of mesne profits, whe- ther application for erecitl ion- -Minority of applicant --Limitation, extension of

Where in pursuance of a decree for redemption passed by a Trial Court, the plaintiff pays the amount mentioned in the decree and obtains possession of the moitgaged property, but the amount payable under the decree is subsequently enhanced by the Appellate Court, an application by the mortgagee to recover mrtsne profits from the mortgagor by way of restitution for the period between the date on which possession of the mortgaged property was taken by the mort- gagor und the date on which he paid the difference between tho decretal amount payable under the decree of the Trial (-ouit and that payable under the. decree of th? Appellate Court, is an application for execution within the meaning of s 6 of the Limitation Act andUie mortgagee is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of that section [p 24, cola. 1 & 2]

[Case-law discussed ]

Appeal against an order of the Sub- ordinate Judge, Fyzabad, dated the 22nd September 1924.

Mr. II. K. Ghosh, for the Appellant.

Messrs. U. Husain and N iamatullah, for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT.— This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Fyzabad, dated the 22nd September 1924. The facts are few and simple. On the 12th August 1911 the respondents brought a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated the 2:}nd August 1903 against the appellant. In defence the appellant claimed money due under two deeds of further

SANT 8AHAI V. CHHDTAI KURMI.

charge also as the price of redemption. The Trial Court rejected the respondents1 claim and decreed redemption on payment of Ks. 11,329-7. This amount was paid within the time fixed by the redemption decree to- gether with a certain amount of costs and the respondents entered into the possession of the mortgaged property on the 25th August 1912. On an appeal to the late Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh the decree of the Trial Court in the matter of the amount redemption money was varied in favour of the appellant and the respond- ents were ordered to pay the sum of Rs. 12,119-15-3 to the appellant for the purpose of redeeming the mortgaged pro- perty. On the 12th November 1913 the respondents paid the difference between the two sums of money payable under the decree of the Trial Court and the decree of the Judicial Commissioner's Court.

The application, out of which this appeal arises, was made on the 28th May 1923 by appellant for the purpose of recovering Rs. 2,665 from the respondents as mesrie profits, by way of restitution, for the period between the dates of the two deposits already mentioned. The application was made under s. 44 of the C. P. C. To save limitation the appellant claimed the benefit of s. 6 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, for the reason that at the time from which the period of limitation was to be reckoned he was a minor. One of the pleas in defence to the appellant's claim was that the provisions of s. C of the Indian Limitation Act were inapplicable because the appel- lant's application was not "an application for execution of a decree," to which those provisions apply. The Court below has accepted this plea and dismissed the appli- cation.

We are of opinion that the appeal suc- ceeds. We are unable to discover any reason in principle for entertaining the view that an application made for restitu- tion under s. 144 of the C. P. C. is not an application for the execution of a decree. This is particularly true in a suit founded on a p- , rluMiro to which the provisions of O. XXXI V of the C. P. C. apply. The decree in a suit for redemption, as the present suit was, enures to the benefit of the mortgagor and the ir.orStMirw alike. Such a decree imposes an obligation on the mortgagor in favour of the mortgagee for payment of the mortgage-money and in the event of pay- the mortgagor enters into possession

[9210,19263

when the mdrtgage is usufructuary and in default the mortgagee is given the right to bring the property to sale in satisfaction of the mortgage-money. The final decree, therefore, which the Court of the Judicial Commissioner passed imposed the liability of payment tof a further sum of money on the mortgagor before he was entitled to take possession. This obligation or* the part of the mortgagor created a correspond- ing right in favour of the mortgagee to remain in possession until full payment as directed by the final decree was made. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the present application is in substance an application made for seeking the aid of the Court in working out the final decree.

The right of restitution arises under a decree of the Court of Appeal which decree has varied or reversed the decree of the Court of first instance. Restitution is thus a benefit which would only accrue by exe- cuting the decree of the Court of Appeal, Under the old C. P. C. an application made under s. 583 of that Code was treated by their Lordships of the Privy ^ Council as an application for execution in Prag Narain v. Kamakhia Singh (1). A Divi- sional Bench of the High Court at Allah- abad in the case of Jiwa Ram v. Nand Ram (2) has expressed the opinion that the law as enacted in s 144 of the new Jode is different from what it was in s. 583 of the old Code. With great respect we are unable to agree with that opinion. It is true that the words "execution" and "to execute'* were used in s 583 of the old Code and are not used in s. 144 of the new Code, but this change, in our opinion, makes no difference in substance. Those words, it appears to us, were superfluous and the law remains the same in spite of their disappearance, As we have said before, an application for restitution is the same thing as an applica- tion for execution of a decree passed in appeal when that decree varies or reverses the decree of the Court of* first instance. The view taken in the Allahabad case seems to be shared by some of the Judges of the High Court at Patna [see Balmakunda Marwari v. Basanta Kumar Dassi (3) and

(1) 3 Ind Cas 798; 31 A. 551; 10 C. L. J. 257; 11 Bom. L. R. 1200; 6 M. L. T. 303; 14 G W. N. 55; 19 M. L. J. 599; 13 O. C, 180; 36 I . A. 197 (P. C.).

(2) 66 Ind. Cas, 144, 44 A. 407; 20 A. L. J. 226; (1923) A. I. E f A ) 223.

(3) 78 Ind Cas 200; 3 Pat. 371; (1924=) Pat. 33, 5 P^ L, T. Ho; (WK) A, J. R, (Pat) I,

£12 X. 0. 1928] AHMAD BA1G fl, MODBL

Krupasindhu Roy v. Batthadra Das (4) and also by the late Chief Court of the Punjab in Ram Singh v. Sham Parshad i(5). With regard to these cases we content ourselves with quoting a passage from the judgment of Macleod, C. J., in the case of tiamidalli v. Ahmedalli (6) and say respectfully that we ^ entirely agree with the opinion express- ed in that quotation, which is as follows :~— "No doubt, as mentioned by Mr. Mulla in his Code of Civil Procedure, last edition, page 315, a different view has 4< been taken by the High Court of Patna and the Chief Court of the Punjab. With all due respect to the learned Judges of of those Courts, it appears to me that tfce decision I have referred to is correct, and that an application for restitution cannot be ^ treated as anything else than an appli- cation for execution of the decree of the Appellate Court. It is the decree of the Appellate Court which entitles the sucess- ful appellant to get back something which he had been deprived of by the decree of the lower Court, under which the then successful party had actually received pos- session. In order, therefore, to get back what he has lost, the successful appellant must apply for execution of the order which entitles him to get back that possession.11 In Kurgondiganda v. Ninganganda (7) it was held that the provisions of s. G of the Indian Limitation Act applied to an appli- cation made under s. 141 of the C. P. C., in- asmuch as that was an application for exe- cution of a decree. Another case decided by the Bombay High Court on the same lines is ^Shirbai v. Yesu (8). We wish to emphasize that the view which weare taking is supported by the authority of the opinion of Sir Dawson, Miller, C. J., of the Patna High Court in the case of Basanta Kumari Dassi v. Balmakund Marwari (9). Our opin- ion is further fortified by the decision of a Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Sumasundaram Filial v. Chokkal- ingam Pillai (10). The same view seems to have been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Madan Mohan Dev v. Nogendra

(4j 47 Ind Cas. 47; 3 P L J 367

(5) 44 Ind Cas. 301; 67 P. K. 1918; 36 P. W R. 1918; 15 P. L. R. 1918.

(6) 62 Ind. Caa. 233; 45 B. 1137; 23 Bom. L. R. 480. m 41 Ind. Gas. 238; 41 B. 625, 19 Bom. L,R 638. (B) 48 Ind. Cas. 130; 43 B. 235; 20 Bom. L. R. 925.

A ^ P I?d Oas- 918» 2 Pat- *277*> <1923) pat' A I. R. (Pat.) 371; 1 Pat L. R. 338.

(10) 38 Ind. Cas. 806, 40 M, 780; 5 U W, 267,

MILL KAGPUR, LD. 25

Nath Dey (11) and Gtngadhar Maruuri v. Lachman Singh (12),

On the gounds stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Court and, as the decision of that Courb had proceeded on a preliminary point we remand the case under O. XLI, r. 23, of the C. P. CM with directions that the case, be re-entered in the proper register to its original number and disposed of accord- ing to law. The appellant will be entitled to his costs in this Court in all events. The costs in the lower Court will abide the result.

z. K. Appeal allowed.

(11) 39 Ind. Cas. 640; 21 C. W. N. 541. (12; 6 Ind Cas. 125; 11 C. L J. 541.

NAGPUR JUDICIAL COMMIS- SIONER'S COURT.

FIRST CIVIL APPEAL No. 14 OF 1925.

June 30, 1925.

Present: — Mr. Findlay, Officiating J. C,

Mirza AHMAD B AIG AND OTHERS —

DEFENDANTS — APPELLANTS

versus

MODEL MILL NAGPUR, LTD.— PLAINTIFF — RESPONDENT.

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), s. 100— Charge, oral, legality of — Bcma fide purchaser for vfilue, whether affected — Benami transaction — Proof, nature of

A charge may be created orally in India. If it is in writing the document creating it must be registered, [p 27, col 1.]

A charge cannot be enforced against a bona fide, purchaser for value and the absence of the publicity which is secured by rrgi-lrMtMii cannot in the case of an oral charge prejudice the right of third parties dealing with the property for value in good faith. [ibid.]

In view of the extraordinary prevalence of benami transactions in India, even a slight quantity of evi- dence may suffice to prove it. [p 27, col 2 ]

Appeal against a decree of the Sub- Judge, First Class, Nagpur, dated the 31st October 1924, in Civil Suit No. 192 of 1953.

Mr. V. N. Herlekar, for the Appellants.

Mr. M. B. Kinkhede, R. B , for the Re- spondent.

JUDGMENT.— The plaintiff-respond- ent, the Model Mills Nagpur, Limited, sued the defendant appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Nag- pur, for possession of a house situated on the outskirts of Nagpur and for damages thpreaucnt.

The first three defendants are real ; the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are

26

AHMAD BAIG V. MODEL MILL NAGPUfl, LD;

the minor sons, and defendant No. 6 the minor daughter of defendant No, 1; de- fendant No. 7 is the minor daughter of de- fendant No. 2; and defendant No. 8 is the mother-in-law of defendant No. 2.

By a registered sale-deed, dated the 27th ol January 1923 (Ex. P-2), the first seven defendants sold the house in suit to the plaintiff Company. The plaintiff's case, further, was that after the execution of the sale-deed the first seven defendants being the vendors, requested the Managing Director of the Model Mills, Sir M. B. Dadabhoy to allow them to occupy the pre- mises on sufference for a period of two months only, which was to expire on the 31st of March 1923, This was permitted. On lObh March 1923 registered notices were sent to the iirst three defendants requiring them to vacate «the premises by the date in question, and holding them liable for damages if they failed to do so. Defend- ants Nos. 1 and 2 wrote in reply to say that they had already surrendered the house, while defendant No. 3's notice came back endorsed as refused. The plaintiff's case further was that the first three defend- ants and defendant No. 8 had colluded and that the latter defendant had been dis- honestly set up to obstruct the plaintiff from getting possession, the object being to obtain further money in respect of the sale transaction out of the Company. Pos- session of the house was accordingly claim- ed, as well as damages for seven months from the 1st of April to the 31st of October

1923

Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 ad- initted the execution of the sale-deed and Stated that they have no interest therein. The case proceeded ex parte against de- fendant No. 3, while as regards the minor defendant No. 7 her father defendant No.2 refused to act as guardian ad litem and accordingly defendant No. 8 was so ap- pointed flhe real contesting defendants, i. e., defendants Nos. 7 and 8, took up the following position.

Their defence was that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had no right to sell the property in suit, that the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 each had interest in it, that the house site was bought by defendant No. 3 and the late Hamidabibi, wife of defend- ant No. 2, by a sale-deed dated the 27th of October 1919, and that they had built

e bouse thereon. Further, it was alleged for the" construction ol the house the

defendant No. 8 and Mu&tmmat Rahani- bibi, the mother of the first three defend- ants had each advanced Rs. 6,000 on the understanding that the entire premises should remain in their possession as a sort of a possessory mortgage till the re-pay- ment of the whole amount. Further pleaa . as regards the shares of the various de- fendants in the property were offered, which it is unnecessary to consider at present.

In the first Court the original Judge who dealt with the case, gave a finding as regards the alleged advance of Rs. 12,000 by the defendant No. 8 and Rahanibibi. This finding was that the alleged con- tract of possessory mortgage, not being in writing and registered, could not be proved by oral evidence. The Subordinate Judge who finally dealt with the case found that the sale in favour of the plaint- iff had been duly proved and that con- sideration had passed. He also held that Hamidabibi had been a mere benami pur- chaser of the site and had no real interest therein or in the house in suit. As regards defendant No. 8, she was also held to have no interest in the house in suit. It was further held that the plaintiff Company had no knowledge whatever of defendant No. 8 having any right or interest in the property when the sale-deed in its favour was executed. Again, it was held that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were the sole owners of the house and that the names of the minor defendants were only included in the sale-deed in order to avoid future trouble. Other incidental findings were given which need not be repeated here.

On appeal the first position taken up was that the lower Court was wrong in excluding the evidence as to the alleged advance of Rs. 12,000 by defendant No. 8 and Rahanibibi. It is now urged that defendant No. 8 had never claimed mortgage interest in the house. It is not easy to see how this position can now be consist- ently taken up, in view of the latter portion of para. 2 of these defendants1 written state- ment on the record. The language used in this written statement was inartistic from the legal point of view ; but if it can fairly be construed at all, it certainly implies that a mortgage like lien existed on the property. It is urged that the right the defendant No. 8 claimed to have over the property might be described as a charge, and I have been referred to the fact that under the Transfer of Property Act there is no pro-

t92 I. 0. 1926J

BA1G V. MODEL MILL NAGPUR, LD,

27

prescribing a definite mode in which a charge should be created ; but it seems to me perfectly immaterial, however, for the purposes of the present case to go into this question, for the simple reason,' that a charge cannot be enforced against a bona fide purchaser for value. That is indeed "the reason why in law in this country a charge may be created orally, although, if it is in writing, the document in question must be registered. Thus, the absence of the publi- city ^ which is secured by registration can- not in the case of an oral charge prejudice the right of third parties dealing with the property for value in good faith. On this part of the appeal, therefore, my finding is that on the pleadings made by the defend- ants in the lower Court, that Court was correct in its excluding the oral evidence as to the alleged agreement with reference to defendants No. # remaining in possession of the house until the money alleged to have been advanced by her for the purchase was refunded. If, on the oilier hand, it had been permissible to regard this alleged agreement as constituting a charge, the appellants would be no farther than before, BO long as the lower Court's finding that the Model Mills Company had no notice of defendant No. S's claim to the house stands good. No document is in existence in im- posing any species of lien or charge on the estate, and clearly, therefore, from this point of view defendant's only remedy in this connection is agiinst her alleged debtors, to whom she had advanced the money in question.

I next pass to the second ground of appeal, which is to the effect that the lower Court was wrong in holding that Hamidabibi was a mere bcnami purchaser of the site of the house in question and that she had no interest therein. Tn para. 2 of the plaintiff's written statement, dated the 7th of March 1924, it was admitted that the sale-deed of 27th January 1923 contained the name of Hamidabibi, wife of Hafizulla Baig. It is unfortunate that this sale-deed has not been available in the case, but the plaintiff's sale- deed (Ex. P. 2) recites the fact that the purchase was made in the joint names of defendant No. 3 and of defendant No. 2's wife Hamidabibi.

Incidentally, I may observe here that much has been made by Counsel for the appellants of the fact that one of the most important witnesses in this case is Sir M. B. Dadabhoy, a gentleman occupying a high

position in Indian society, and it has been suggested that his evidence requires careful scrutiny. I fully concur that this gentle- man's evidence must receive the same scrutiny as that of any other witness. But even so, I cannot see the slightest reason for supposing, as has been" suggested by the appellants, that he has been influenced in his attitude as a witness by the idea, he is said to have entertained, that the present suit was nothing more or less than an at- tempt at blackmail or, as I have preferred to say, an attempt by private individuals to ob- tain more money in respect of the sale tran- saction out of a wealthy Company. For my own part, I do not see a shadow of ground for suspecting, in the least, the bona fides of any part of the evidence of this witness. He states that on making enquiry with re- ference to the defendant's title, defendant No. 2 informed him that his wife's name had been recorded for the simple reason that he himself was then in Government service and as such was prohibited by rules applicable to him from ordinarily acquiring immoveable property. When to this all im- portant admission by the defendant No 2 is added the fact that none of the first three defendants entered the witness-box, there is not, in my opinion, the slightest reason, for doubting the correctness of the lower Court's finding on issue No 2 (a) and (6) to the effect that the site of the house was purchased, in reality, by the three brothers, defendants Nos. i, 2 and 3 and that Hamidabibi was a mere bcnami purchaser.

The principles enunciated by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Moham- med Mahbub All Khan v. Bharat Iiulu (1) are fully applicable to a case like the pre- sent. In view of the extraordinary pre- valence of benami transaction sin India, even a slight quantity of evidence may suffice to prove it. In this case we have the all important admission of defend- ant No. 2 himself made to Sir M. B. Dadabhoy to the effect stated above. In this connection I think this statement com- bined with the fact that defendant No. 2 was a Government servant sufficiently es- tablishes the point, especially as the defend- ant has not gone into the witness-box on the other side. I may add on this ques- tion, viz, with reference to the money re- quired for the purchase of the site that in the defend ants' lengthy written statement

(1) 53 Lid. Caa, 5$; 23 C. W. N. 321; (1919) JI. W, N. 507 (P. 0,).

AHMAD BAlO V. MODEL MILL NAGPUR, LD,

no mention was made of the fact that Hami- dabibi had advanced the money for the site. This story seems to have been deve- loped for the first time by defendant No, 8 when examined as D. W. No. 1. Kar story then was that she advanced Rs. 300 and Asiaualla adva/ased the other Its. 300. The very flimsy evidence of this witness and of Wazirkhan (D. W. No. 3) is, in my opinion, wholly insufficient to establish this story of how the consideration for the purchase of the house site was obtained, and I do not think that it could, with any safety, be ac- cepted.

The third ground of appeal is to the effect that the lower Court should have held that the plaintiff Company purchased the house with fall knowledge of defendants Nos. 7 and 8's rights. For my own part, I find it impossible on the evidence on record to admit that this supposition is even a reason- able one a priori, much less that it has been established by the evidence on record, It is perfectly clear that Sir M. B. Dadabhoy, a lawyer himself, made every possible en- quiry before launching into the purchase. In this conection the evidence of the prior mortgagee Narayan is highly important. His enquiries, before he had advanced money on the property, had also led him to the sarneconclusion, i.e >that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were the owners of the property. It would be the last thing in the world which a business Company like the plaintiff one would do to embark on a purchase of this sort without making adequate enquiry, and I cannot find any reason whatever for hold- ing that the plaintiff Company had any no- tice whatever of defendant No. 8 having any interest in the house.

The 4th ground o£ appeal is to the effect that the lower Court ought to have held that defendant No. 2 was not the guard- ian of defendant No. 7 and that the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff was not for the benefit of the minor and was not bind- ing on her. On this point I have little or nothing

Related documents

• 28 U.S.C. § 2349 — Jurisdiction of the proceeding#556769
• Nebraska Test #2269: Case IH Steiger 645#332949
• Nebraska Test #2268: Case IH Steiger 595#332950
• NRS-1738 | Head Office Breach reports#336991
• 25 U.S.C. § 1304 — Tribal jurisdiction over covered crimes#582304