General Index

P age .
' Aesretion ; See PracHco .. .. .. .. .. 361

Act 1850— XVIII See J u d ic ia l Officers' Protection- A ct,

Aot 188S—XL¥ ; See Indiay} P enal Code.

Act 1870— V n : See Court-fees Act.

Act 1872— 1 : See I n d ia n Evidence A ct.

Act 1872— IX. : See I n d ia n Contract A ct.

Act 1877— I : See Specific R elief A ct.

Act 1881— XXVI : See Negotiable Instrum ents A ct.

Act 1882— II : See I n d i a n T rusts A ct.

Act 1882— IV : See T ra n sfer o f Propert>j A ct.

Act 1885— ¥111 : See B engal T e n a n cy A ct.

Act 1894—-I : See L a n d A cquisition A ct.

Act 1895— XV : See Grown Qrants A ct.

Act 1898— V : See Code o f C rim inal Procedure.

Act 1908— V : See Code o f Civil Procedure.

Act 1908—IX : See I n d ia n L im ita tio n A ct.

Act 1908—XVI : See In d ia n Registration A ct.

Act 1909— III : See Presidency-tow ns Insolvency A ct,

Act 1912— IV : See I n d i a n L u n a c y A ct.

Act 1913— Vif : See I n d i a n Com panies A ct.

Act 1920— V : See P rovincial Insolvency A c t.

Act 1923— XXI ; See I n d ia n M erchant S h ip p in g Act.-

Act 1925— XXXIX : See I n d ia n Suceesaion A ct.

Act 1929— XX : See T ra n sfer of P roperty {A nundrnent) A ct.

A ct 1931—XXIII : See In d ia n Press {E m ergency Powers) A ti,

Act 1932— SX : See In d ia n Partnej'sJdp A ct.

Act 1936— XXI1 : See In d ia n Companies (A?nendmeni)]Aot,

ii GENERAL INDEX.

P age.

Administration : See J u risd ictio n .. .. .. 631

Administration suit : See J u risd ictio n .. .. .. 354

Admissibility : See A p p ea l .. .. .. .. 290

Admissibility— Oral evidence to every agreem ent, i f adm issible— I n d ia n Evidence

A c t { I of 1872), s. 92, prov. (1).
U nder prov. (1) to s. 92 of th e In d ian Evidence Act, oral evidence is
admissible to prove an agreem ent ah in itio th a t a docum ent was never
intended to operate a t all b u t was brought into e’x istence solely for the
purpose of creating evidence ab o u t some other m atter, b u t oral evidence
is n o t admissible to modify an agreem ent embodied in a document.
W here a k a b u liy a t provided th a t a te n a n t would hold two hdls of land a t a
certain rate, a separate oral agreem ent th a t one hdl thereof would be held
ren t free is n o t admissible in evidence.

T y a g a ra r a ja M u d a liy a r v. V ed a th a m ii, I. L. R . 59 Mad. 446 : L. R . 63 I.A.

126 ; M o tta y a p p a n v. P a la n i Q oundan, I. L. R . 38 Mad. 226, an d S a ty e n ­
dra N a th R o y C how dhury v. P ra m a n a n d a H a id a r, 39 C. W . N. 888,
distinguished.

P u lin B eharee Deb v. R a m a K a n ta M a h a ta K u rm i, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. 48

Affidavit of competency not filed with plaint : See J u risd ictio n .. 531

Agent, if can be trustee : See L im ita tio n .. .. .. .. 652

Agreement, Implied : See F a m ily trade .. .. .. .. 369

Agreement of parties as to value, if a bar to determination of market-value :

See L a n d A cquisition .. .. .. .. .. 231

Agricultural Debt— Debt Settlem ent B o a rd — C h a irm a n ’s notice— Courts in

D arjeeling— Ju risd ictio n to sta y su it— B engal A gricultural Debtors A c t
(B en . V I I o f 1936), ss. 1(3), ^(9), 8(1), 9, 34— Government o f In d ia A ct,
1919 (9 10 Geo. 5, c. 101), s. 107— Government o f In d ia A c t (25 26
Geo. 5, c. 42), s. 224, prov.— Code o f C ivil Procedure (A ct V o f 1908),
s. 115.

A lthough s. 224 of the Governm ent of In d ia Act, 1935, contains in effect a

reproduction of the term s of s. 107 of th e previous Government of In d ia
Act, 1919, it also contains a proviso, which makes it clear th a t s. 224
has no application w hatever to legal proceedings.

I t follows, therefore, th a t if any relief is to be obtained in revision, it m ust

be obtained im der s. 115 of th e Code of Civil Procediire or n o t a t all.

Xo Court situated in a district, in which th e Bengal A gricultural D ebtors A ct

has n o t been brought into force, can be compelled to issue th e stay order
contem plated in the la tte r portion of s. 34 of th e A c t; and in order to
obtain a stay order of th e n atu re contem plated b y s. 34, it follows th a t
th e Act m ust be in operation b o th in th e district in which th e B oard is
situated, to which an application is m ade for the settlem ent of a debt, and
also in the district in which th e Court is situated to which the notice u n d er
s. 34 of the A ct is actually sent.

The A ct not having been brought into force in Darjeeling, th e refusal of

th e Subordinate Judge of th a t d istrict to issue a stay order is n o t a m a tte r
w hich comes w ithin the scope of s. 115 of th e Code of Civil Procedure.
B hagaban D a y a l S h a h u w. C h a n d u L a l,l.~ L .'R .\\^ Z S '\lC o l. .. 256
 GENERAL INDEX. ijr

P age .
Agricultural Debt— E xiatence of debt— Sale in. execution af decrec and —
Notice fr o m Debt Settlem ent B oard, Y a lid ity of —Stai) of proecediivjs —
J u risd ic tio n — B engal A gricnllural Debtors A ct ( S e n . V I I of 1036), s. 3 L
A notice u nder s. 34 of th e Bengal A gricultural D ebtors Act cannot De
issued unless there is a debt in respect of whieli a suit or proceeding is p end­
ing in a civil or revenue Court.
J a g a B a n d liu S h a h a v. R a sh M a }d Das&e, I. L. R. [1937] 2 Cai. 625,
followed.
"Where, in execution of a decree, th e deeree-holder purchases the judgm eiit-
d eb to r’s property for the decretal am ount and a set-ofi" is allowed, there
is then no debt in existence even before “ confirm ation ” of the sale and the
Court has n o t to sta y further proceedings in exeeutoin upon notice
uiader s, 34 of th e Act.
I t is th e d u ty of a Court to be satisfied th a t the notice, received by it under
s. 34 of the A ct, is a valid one before it allows the stay of a suit or other
proceeding.
N risM n q h a C h a ra n N a n d i C h a u d h u ri v . K e d a r N a th O haudhuri, I. L. R.
[1938] 1 Cal. .. .. .. .. .. 345

Agrieuitural Debt— M ortgage decree— Sale- in execution a n d set-off— Satisfa ctio n

of decree in whole— S ta y o f proceedings— N otice o f sta y — Bengal A g r i­
cultural Debtors A c t (B en. V I I of 1936), ss. 18, 34,
W here, in execution of a decree in a mortgage suit, a p roperty is sold to
the inortgaseo for the sum due under the m ortgage and a set-off is allowed,
then the debt is extinguished ev^en before th e sale is confirmed and a notice
under s. 34 of the Bengal A gricultural Debtoi*a A ct cannot be issued to sta y
further proceedings in a civil Court.
N ris h in g h a C h a ra n N a n d i C h a u d h u ri v. K edar N a th C h a u d h u ri,
I. L. n . [1938] 1 Cal. 345. followed.
T he rights, survi\-ing to the m ortgagor after such set-off, im der O. X X X IV ,
r. 5 of th e Code of Civil Procedure do not have the effect of keeping ahve
th e TOovtgage debt.
The proviso to s. IS of the A ct does n o t relate to a decree which has been
wholly satisfied.
M a n in d r a M o h a n R a y T a lu k d a r v. B ip i n B ilia ri Talulcdar, I. L. E.,
[1938] 1 Cal. .. .. .. .. .. 697

Alluvion ; See P ractice .. .. .. .. .. 361

Amendment of plaint by appeal Court : See P ractice .. .. 361

Appeal— w hen lies on fa c ts— T r ia l hij j u r y , i f a privilege— Offence

triable b y assessors hut in fa c t tried h y j u r y , if a p p e a l lies on fa c ts— Charge
o f conspira.cy, i f triable w ith assessors— Object o f conspiracy how to be
proved— C onspiracy based an overt act w h ich is an offence., i f proper —
Charge to j u r y , w h a t it should be— A d m issib ility — Conduct o f a person
m issing, u iie n adm issible— Code o f C rin m ia l Procedure (A ct V o f 1S9S),
ss. 269, 410, 418, 536— In d ia n E vidence A c t ( I o f 1872), ss. 8, 32.
P e r B iswas J . (Mc N aib J. dubitante). U nder s. 418 of th e Code o f Crimi­
nal Procedure, a n appeal to th e H igh C ourt in th e case of an offence
triable w ith th e aid o f assessors b u t actually tried by ju ry lies on a m a tte r
of fact as well as a m a tte r of law.
T he words “ where th e tria l was by ju ry ” in s. 418(1) m ean “ where th e trial
was la w fu lly by ju ry ” an d do n o t m ean “ where th e tria l in fa c t was by
ju ry .” This m eaning is more favourable to th e accused and m ore in
consonance w ith justice.
W here, on the words of a a enactm ent, tw o constructions are open, the
C ourt should adopt th e more reasonable o r beneficial of th e tw o, or the
one w hich is th e m ore likely to avoid a m anifest injustice.
 GENERAL IXDEX.

P age.

Trial by jury is not necessarily an d in all circumstances a " privilege ' which,
the accused is bound to accept as such or which m u st be presum ed as
a m atter of law to be so beneficial as m ay be th ru st on him .
W here, therefore, through no fau lt o f an accused person a. tria l by ju ry
is imposed on him in disregard of an express provision of th e sta tu te
which entitles him as o f right to a tria l w ith the aid of assessors, it w ould
be a m anifest injustice to deprive him of a riglat of appeal on facts, which
he would otherwise have under th e law.
Section 536 merely cures an irregularity in procedure ; it provides th a t
where a trial which shouid have been held w ith the aid of assessors was
in fact hold by jury, it should be deemed to have been a valid tria l b u t
is silent on the question as to w hether it should be held to be a valid trial
by jury. In any case this section does not and cannot affect th e rig h t of
api^eal.

Section 53(> further provides th a t th e tria l shall not on th a t groim d onlij

be invalid ,■ where, therefore, a p art from the irregularity o f th e trial,
there is prejudice caused by reason of such irregularity, the saving p ro ­
visions of the section will no t apply.
In such a ease, if the accused is sought to be shut out of an appeal on facts,
this will certainly amormt to prejudice and on a strict reading of s. 536(7),
the trial will be incurably bad. Prejudice m ay also arise w here the Ju d g e
takes a view more favourable to th e accused th an th e ju ry , b u t is m iable
to give effect to it, because the trial is a trial by jury.

The charge of conspiracy is triable w ith the aid of assessors and n o t by

jm y . When such a charge is tried in th e same tria l w ith other charges
triable by jury, th e opinion of the jurors as assessors should be tak en w ith
regard to th e charge of conspiracj^ as contem plated b y s, 269(J) of th e
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Previous history of s. 269(3) reviewed.

An objection by one of sevei’al accused to such procedure cannot b in d the

others, the objection itself being illegal.
K ing-E m peror v. P ai'bhushankar, I. L. R . 25 Boxn. 680, an d E ka b b a r
M a n d a t v, Emperor, I . L. R. [1937] 2 Gal. 315, dissented from.

E m jie ro rx. M avsing Becliar, I. L. R . 33 Bom. 423; S iir ja K u r m i v . Qiieen-

Empre,‘}s, I. L. R. 25 Cal. 555 ; Cheru S h e ik h v. Etnperor, 40 C. W. N. 1374,
and BhutnatJi D ey, 4 C. L. R . 405, distinguished.
Queen v. Norhoo, 18 W. R . (Cr.) 59 ; Queen v. Doorga C hurn Shom e, 24 W. R .
(Cr.) 30 ; Em jv'ess v. M o h im C him der R a i, I. L. R. 3 Cal. 765 ; P a ttikc id a m
U m m aru v. Emperor, I. L. R . 26 Mad. 243, and other cases referred to.
P er C uriam . In a charge of conspiracy, th e object of th e conspiracy m u st
be proved as laid. W here a particu lar conspiracy is charged in the in d ict­
m ent, a different conspiracy cannot be found.
O^Co-andl v. lUg. 11 Cl. & Fin. 155 ; 1 Cox. C. C. 413 ; 8 E . R . 1061, and
E m peror v. L a lit M o h a n Chuokerbutty, I. L. R. 38 Cal. 559, referred to.
Wliere the object of th e conspiracy as chai'ged is to com m it m urder, it is
no t open to the prosecution to prove a conspiracy th e object of w hich
is to commit a m inor offence, namely, grievous h u rt under s. 325 or 326
of the Indian Penal Code. N either s. 237 nor s. 238 o f th e Code o f
Criminal Procedure has any application to such a ease.
Where a conspiracy w ith two different objects is alleged, a conspiracy w ith
onlj^ one of these obj ects is not a ‘‘ minor offence ’ ’ w ithin th e m eaning
o f s. 238 {2). jSTor, when an offence is alleged to constitute the o bject
of a conspiracy as charged, will a conspiracy to com m it a m inor offence
be a “ m inor offence ” .
Per B iswas J. Where a conspiracy Is sought to be proved b y p articip a­
tion in an overt act w hich itself am om its to an offence, th e proper course
is to pvit the accused on trial for th a t offence.
 GENERAL INDEX.

P age.

K a li D as B asu'v. King- Emperor, 39 C. L. J . 151 ; Reg. v. Boulton, 12 Cox.

C. C. 87 ; Emperor v. L a lit M ohan Chucherbutty, I. L. R . 38 Cal. 559, and
A m rita L a i H azra v. Emperor, I. L. R . 42 Cal. 957, referred to.
I n order th a t circum stantial evidence of a conspiracy to m urder m ay be
used for th a t piirpose, th e acts to be ta k e n into consideration m ust be
acts of some m em ber or m em bers of th e conspiracy if n o t of th e accused
actually charged.
Shivabai Becharbhai v. Emperor, I. L. R , 50 Bom. 683, distinguished.
i?. V. Brisac, 4 E ast 164 ; 102 E . R . 792, r e fe r r e d to.
I n sum m ing up the case to th e jury , a m ere cataloguing of th e witnesses is n o t
enough, b u t there should be a m arshalling of th e evidence, p o in t by point,
so as to present to th e ju ry a com plete picture w ith all its lights and
shades.
E nayet K a rim v. Emperor, I. L. R . 62 Cal. 337, followed.
Per M c N a i e J . An application b y a person to th e M agistrate shortly
before he was missing to th e effect th a t he seriously apprehended danger
to his life and liberty a t th e hands of certain persons, is admissible under
s. 8 of th e In d ian Evidence Act, as conduct, w hether such person is alive
or dead. Such docum ent in a proper case m ay also be admissible under
s. 32(i).
Oolah Biharee T ahal v. Emperor, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal 290

Appeal, Rejection of, Effect of : See Decree 171

Appeal, when lies on facts : See A ppeal .. 290

Apportionment, Principle of : See Practice 361

Arrears of rent. Decree for : See Landlord and Tenant 164

Assst, Benefit of mortgage as : See Jurisdiction 531

Assets, Existence of, it confers jurisdiction : See Jurisdiction 531

Assignee from one of two joint creditors : See Insolvency 491

Assignee, Subsequent mortgage to : See Mortgage 66

Attachment before judgment : See Insolvency 245

Attachment of third party’s property : See Insolvency 245

Auction-purchaser evicted by title paramount, Remedies of : See Execution 512

Award by Land Acquisition Collector : See Revision 400

Bank : See Depositor 121

Benamdar : See Execution 692

Benami : See Promissory Note 450

Ben. Act 1866— IV : See Calcutta Police A ct

Ben. Act 1879— IX : See Court of W ards Act.

Ti GENERAL INDEX.

F age-
Ben. Act 1885— III ; See B engal Local Self-G ovcrm nent Act.

Ben. Act 1890— 111 See Calcutta P ort A ct.

Aet 1919— ¥1 ; See B engal F ood A didfcration A ct.

Bsn. Act —III : See Calcutta M u n ic ip a l A ct.

Ben, Act 1932— XV ; See B engal M u n ic ip a l A ct.

Ben. Act 1936—VII : See B engal A gricultural Debtors A ct.

Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act (Ben. VII of 1936), ss. 1(3), 2 (9), 8 (1), 9, 34 :
See A gricultural Debt .. .. •■ •■ •• -56

Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act (Ben. VII of 1936), ss. 18, 34 : See A g ricultural
Debt .. -. .. .. .. .• 597

Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act (Ben. VII of 1936), s. 34 : See A gricultural

Debt .. .. .. .. .. .. 34,^

Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation (XI of 1825), s. 4 (1), (5) : See
Practice .. .. •• •• 361

Bengal Food Adulteration Act (Ben. VI of 1919), ss. 4, 6, : See P resu m p tio n 420

Bengal Local Self-Government Act (Ben. Ill of 1885), ss. 5, 18B, 138 (a), 148 :
See Local Self-Government .. .. .. .. 62

Bengal Local Self-Government Act (Ben. ill of 1885), ss. 18B (1) (c), 133,148 :
See Election .. .. .. .. .. 146

Bengal Municipal Act (Ben. XV of 1932), ss. 123,182, Sch. IV : See T a x .. 35

Bengal Patni Taluk Regulation (VIII of 1819), ss. 11,15 (2) : See P a tn i sale 427

Bengal Tenancy— Pre-em ption of occupancy holding by landlord — B en g a l

T en a n cy A c t { V I I I o f 1885), ss. 26C, 2 6 F .
U nder the provisions of th e Bengal Tenancy Act, the landlord is entitled to
have pre-em ption from th e transferee of an occupancy holding on paym ent
of the consideration m oney as set out in the notice under s. 26C (2) (a) of the
Act, where nothing is proved to have been paid w ithin the m eaning of the
provisions of s. 26F (5) of th e Act.
K u n ja K a rn in i B a y v. M a n g a l C handra A ic h , I. L. R. [193S] 1 Cal. .. 695
Bengal Tenancy— Becord-of-rights — A m en d m en t —Bona fide m istake — B engal
T e n a n cy A ct ( V I I I o f 1885), ss. 106, 1 1 5 B .

Section 115B of the Bengal Tenancy A ct of 1885 authorises th e review

and correction of entries in a record-of-rights by the revenue-ofticers w hich
have been made owing to bona fid e m istakes.
P er M ttk h eh jea J .
The words “ bona fid e m istake ” in th a t section
though n o t confined to mere clerical errors or accidental slips do n o t
include cases where th e entries are challenged as erroneous by one p a rty
and regarding which disputes do exist, which m ight have been decided
under s. 106 of the Act.
R a j M ohan Guha v. A la m Gazi, 17 C. W. N. 623, and B a u lc h a n d S e n v. S i n s
C handra Sen, 19 C. L. J . 251, followed.
A yea h a K h a tu n v. Chittagong P ort Comm issioners, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. .. 413
 GENERAL INDEX. VB'

P a g e.

Bengal Tenancy Act (Vlll of 1885), ss. 260, 26F : See Bengal Tcnatn'y 695

Bengal Tenancy Act (Vili of 1885), ss. 106, 115B : See Bengal Tenavtcy 413

Bengal Tenancy Act (Vili ©f 1885), Ch. X i¥ ; s. 146A ; See L a n d lo rd and

Tenant 164

Bengal Tenancy Act (Vili of 1885), s. 148A, cl. (8) (C) : See L a n d lo rd a n d
Tenant 171:

Bengal Tenancy Act (Vlll of 1885), s. 148A (9) : See L a n d lo rd and T e n a n t 262'

Betting slips, when instruments of gaming : See Gaming-house, .. €72.’

Calcutta Insolvency Rules, r. 79 : See P r iv y Council 13

Calcutta Municipal Act (Ben. Ill of 1923), ss. 412, 41 S, 488 : See Onus o58>

Calcutta Police Act (Ben. IV of 1866), ss. 46, 47 : See Gam ing-house 672:

Calcutta Port Act (Ben. ill of 1890), s. 142 : See L im ita tio n 440'

Capitalists, if a class : See News-sheet 4o5»

Cause of action : See J u risd ictio n 531

Certificated guardian. Authority of, to sue : See J u risd ic tio n 531

Certiorari, Writ of : See P rohibition, W rit o f 476-

Chairman’s declaration, when not conclusive ; See C o m p a n y L a w 90

Civil Court’s Jurisdiction to challenge Magistrate’s finding : Seo Local S e lf

Government .. .. .... 62

Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908) ss. 47,73 : See L a n d lo rd a n d T e n a n t . 175

Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), s. 47 ; 0. XXI, r. 63 : See E xecution

of Decree .. 280

Code of CivilProcedure (Act V of 1908), s. 110 : See P rivy Council 13

Code of CivilProcedure (Act V of 1908), s. 115 : See Agricultural Debt 256

Code of CivilProcedure (Act V of 1908), s. 115 : See Election 146

Code of CivilProcedure (Act V of 1908), s. 148 ; 0 . XXIII, r. 1 (2) : See Su it 273

Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0. VII, r. 11 : See Court-fee 196

Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0. IX , r. 9 : See S u it 213

Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0. XXI, rr. 13, 91, 93 : See E xecu­
tion 512

Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0. XXI, r. 103 : See L im ita tio n 685
 GENERAL INDEX.

P age .

Code of Civil. Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0. XXV, r. 1 : See S e cu rity fo r costs 688

G0de of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0. XXXIV, r. 14 : See Mortgage .. 66

Code of Civil Frosedure (Act V of 1908), 0. XXX¥, r. 4 : See Interpleader su it 53

Code of Civi! Procedure (Act V of 1908), ©. XXX¥lii, rr. 5, 6 ; See In so lv en c y 245

€ode of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0. XLVl, r. 1 : See P rom issory N o te 450

Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), ss. 233, 235, 403, 423, 537 : See
M isjoinder .. .. ., .. •• •• 98

Cods of Crimina! Prossdure (Act ¥ of 1838), ss. 269, 410, 418, 536 : See A p p ea l 290

Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), s, 438 : See M aintenance .. 509

Common employmeilt : See M aster a n d Servant .. .. 216

Common gaming-house, What is : See Gaming-house .. .. 672

Company Law—U ltra Vires— S u it b y {in d iv id u a l or] m in o rity shareholders

against com pany w ithout leave, i f u ltra vires— P assing o f resolution —
C h a irm a n 's dcdaration, when not conclusive— In d ia n C om panies A c t
( V I I of 1913), ss. 20, 21, HI.
A suit Ijy certain (individual or) m inority shareholders of a com pany in ­
stituted against it w ithout taldng its permission before su ch in stitu tio n
for a deeiaration th a t a particular resolution of th e com pany was n o t
binding oii it as not having been carried and passed under the provision
of the Indian Companies Act of 1913 is naaintaii^able if i t is mad© to
appear th a t the transaction was fraudulent or ultra vires.
A declaration by the chairm an of a m eeting of th e com pany (containing
his statem ent of the num bers of votes for and against a resolution passed a t
th a t meeting) th a t a particular resohxtion has been carried a t t h a t m eeting
is not conclusive if it is apparent from such statem en t th a t th e resolution
has not been passed according to law.
I n re C aratal ( New) M ines, L im ited, [1902] 2 Ch. 498, and A lliso n v. Johnson,
46 Sol. Jour. 0S6, followed.
D hakesw ari Cotton M ills, L im ited v. N eel K a m a l ChaJcrabarti, I . L. R .
[1938]1 Cah .. .. .. .. .. 90

Compensation to owner ; See L a n d A cquisition .. .. .. 231

©ompetency, Affidavit of, not filed with plaint : See Jurisdiction ,, 531

Composition : See Insolvency ,. .. .. .. ,. 401

Composition, Annulment of ; See Insolvency .. ,. .. 491

Consent of guardian in marriage : See M ahum medan Law .. .. 139

Conspiracy ; See A p p ea l .. .. ,. .. ,. £90

Conspiracy, Charge of, if triable with assessors: See Appeal .. 290

Conspiracy, Object of, how to be proved .. .. .. .. 290

 GENEB.VL I:N"DEX. is

P age.
Contract— In d e m n ity -b o n d to induce authorities to give advantages of public
u tility services, i f opposed to jjubldc p o lic y — N a tu r e of evidence ayainst.
agent acting w ith o u t authorit>/— M easure o f dam ages— In d ia n Coniraci
A c t { I X o f 1872), ss. 23, 235.
An agreem ent betw een a subject an d th e S tate, w hich reqiines paJ^llent
from th e su b ject for th e discharge of public duties relatin g to a m a tte r of
am enity w hich a S tate generally provides for ad raiiein g the m aterial
w elfare of its subject, b u t which it is n o t bound to do as p a rt of its fu n d a ­
m en tal constitutional obligations, e.g., an indem nity-bond to m ake good
th e loss of w orking a telegraph office, is n o t opposed to public policy.
I n re C a p ita l F ir e In su ra n ce A ssociation, 24 Ch. D. 408, relied on.
Glasbrook B rothers, L im ite d v. Glamorgan C ounty C ouncil, [1925] A. G. 270,
referred to .
G lam organ Goal C om pany, L im ite d v. GlajnorgansM re S ta n d in g J o in t
C om m ittee, [1916] 2 K . B. 206, referred to and explained.
A person u n tru ly representing th a t he h ad a u th o rity to act as agent of
an o th er an d inducing a tliird person to enter into a contract cannot be
sued on th e contract.
CoUen V. W right, 8 E l. & Bl. 647 ; 120 E .R . 241, relied on.
T he action against such a person is as on th e im plied w arran ty th a t he h ad
th e au th o rity , and th e measiu’e of damages iu such cases is t}ie benefit th a t
th e other p a rty w ould have had from the co ntract if the representation
h ad been true.
In re N a tio n a l Coffee P alace C o m p a n y. E x. p a rte P a n m u re , 24 Ch. T). 367,
referred to .
K is h o r i P r a s a d B h a k a t v. Secretary o f S ta te fo r I n d i a in Council, I. L. li .
[193S] 1 Cal. .. .. .. .. .. 463

G sntract — Specific perform ance— Oral agreement to sub-let— Specific R e lie f A c t

{ I o f 1877), ss. 12, 18, 19, 25, 27A .
A lessor claiming specific perform ance im der s. 27A of th e Specific B elief
A ct o f 1877 m u st show—
(a) th a t th e co n tract to lease is in w riting ;
(b) th a t it is signed by b oth th e p arties ;
(c) th a t it is required b y law to be registered, b u t has n o t been registered ;
{d) t h a t there has been delivery of possession of th e p ro p erty by the lessor
to th e lessee in part-perform ance of th e contraet.
A co n tract b y a w ritten offer verbally accepted does n o t a ttra c t s. 27A of
th e A et.
A v alid oral agreem ent to lease inim oveable p ro p erty , n o t followed b y
a form al or effective transfer, can be specifically enforced oven after th e
in tro d u ctio n of s, 27A in the Aet.
A c o n tract b y a lessee o f immoveable p ro p erty (under a lease containing
renew al elaiise) to sub-let the sam e before its renew al beyond the period
of th a t lease th en subsisting is n o t invalid by virtu e of s. 18 of th e A et and
such a contract is specifically enforceable, w here in fact renewal o f th e
lease was obtained a fte r entering into th e co ntract.
S a n fib C h a n d ra S a n y a l v. S a n to sh K u m a r L a h ir i, I . L . R . 49 Cal. 507,
referred to .
M a tila l v. N a n h e la l, I. L. R . 58 Cal. 692 ; L. R . 57 I . A. 333, relied on.
Qohul C h a n d ra L aio v. H a ji M a h a m m a d D in , I. L. E,. [1&38] 1 Cal. .. S63

Contractual partnership : See-Pami7y ^rai^e , .. .. , ,369

Co-sharor landlord : See L a n d lo rd a n d T e n a n t ^ .. -. 262

 GENERAL INDEX-

P age .
Co-sharers in leasehold, Grant of sub-lease by : See Sub-lease 206

Court, Discretion of : See Secu rity fo r costs 688

Court, if can revise valuation : See Gourt-Jee 196

Court, Inherent power of : See L u n a tic ISO-

Court, Jurisdiction of : See Insolvency 245

Courts, Jurisdiction of, in election disputes : See Election 146

Court-fee— Declaratory su it with consequential relief —Power o f Court to revise

va luation— Code of C ivil Procedure [Act Y of 1908), 0 . V I I , r. 11 — Court-
fees A ct ( V I I of 1870), ss. 7 iv{c}, SC .
T1i 6 valuation of the relief in a suit to set aside a deed o f sale, m ortgage
bond or promissory n ote m ay be revised by the Court u n d er s. 8C o f th e
Court-fees Act w ith reference to the objective value of th e dociunent.
A prom issory note has no objective value and the plaintiff m ay p u t any
value on a suit to set aside such docum ent. B ut the objective value of a
rnortgage-bond or deed of sale is the m arket-value of th e p ro p erty affected
by it.
While the power given to the Court under 0 . V II, r. 11 of th e Code o f Civil
Procedure was n o t m eant to enlarge any taxing section b u t to ensure th e
proper application of th e Court-fees Act and other A cts, s. 8C o f th e
Court-fees Act confers wider powers on the Courts of revising the v aluation
an d holding enquiry for th e purpose, although in cases w here there is no
objective valuation it m ay n o t be possible to say th a t th e plain tiff’s
valuation is wrong.
XJmatid B a tid v. N a n ji Koer, 11 C. W . N. 705 ; In re K a lip a d a M u k h e rji,
I . L. R . 58 Gal. 281, and N a ra y a n g a n j Central Co-operative S a le a n d
S u p p ly Society, L im ite d (in liquidation) v. M a fiju d d in A h m a d , I . L. R . 61
Cal. 796, referred to.
S a n ta P ra sa d S h a h a v. M rin a lin e e S k a h a , I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. 196

Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), ss. 7 iv (c), 80 : See Court-fee 19ft

Court of Wards : See P rohibition, W rit o f .. 476

Court of Wards Act (Ben. IX of 1879), s. 6(a) : See P rohibition, W rit of 476

Creditor’s right to present petition in insolvency : See Insolvency 132

Crown Grant— Restrictive covenant in lease of la n d vested in the Crown, i f affected

by the provisions of general law statutory or otherwise to the contrary —
Crown Grants A ct (X F of 1895), s. 3.
Lands vested in the CrovsTi by virtu e of s. 39 of 21 & 22 Viet. c. 106 are
Crown lands, and leases of such lands, e.(7., w aste lands o f th e Sundarbans
granted on behalf of th e Secretary o f S tate for India in Council b y Sundar-
barxs Commissioners, are Crown grants, and are governed by th e provisions
of the Crown G rants A ct (XV of 1895).
Ajiy restrictive covenant m ade in such g ra n t is valid and enforceable, n o tw ith ­
standing any rale of law, sta tu te or enactm ent of th e legislature to th e
contrary.
The Crown Grants A ct affects no t only th e provisions o f th e Transfer o f
Property Act b u t of any other law, statu to ry or otherwise, w hich m ay b©
inconsistent w ith the t ' ' ' 0;is and conditions m ade in th e grant.
 G EN E RAL IX D E X . x,i

PAfiE.
'T he Crown G rants Act has no appliea,tion to grants of kJeiU m nim i lands
%vhere the Secretary of S tate occupies the position of a x)rivate piroprit'tor.
.Secretary o f Sia fe fo r I n d ia in Council v. L alm o h a n C 'haudhuri, I. L. R. iKi
Cal. 523, explained and distinguished.
Sheo S in g h v. R a g h u h a n s K u m o a r, I. L. R . 27 All. 634 ; L. R. I. A.
referred to .
J n a n e n d r a N a th N a n d a v. J a d u N a th B a n erji, I. L. B . [U)3S] 1 Cal. .. 626

'€ r 0wn G rants Act (XV of 1895), s. 3. See Crown Granin ,. .. 626

■Custody : See Insolvency .. .. .. ., .. I .45

DamageSj Measure of : See Contract .. .. .. .. 463

Damages, Measure of : See M aster a n d Servant .. .. .. 216

Darjeelisig Gourts : See A gricultural Debt . . .. .. ' .. 2.56

Debt, Assignment of : See Insolvency .. .. .. .. 491

DeM, Esistersee of : See AgricuU ural Debt .. .. .. 345

Debt, Proof of : See Insolvency .. ,. .. .. 491

'Debt Settlement Board : See A g ricultural Debt .. .. .. 256, 345

Declaratory suit with consequential relief : See Court-fee .. .. 196

;Decree— E xecution — A p p e a l, Refection of, E ffect of—-L im ita tio n — I n d i a n

L im ita tio n A ct ( I X o f 190S), S c k . I , A rts. I S l , 1S2.
W here the decree of th e Court of first instance declared th a t th e plain tiff
would get khds possession by evicting the defendants, b u t gave th e la tte r
one m o n th ’s tim e to vacate the land, and th e appellate Court rejected th e
judgm ent-debtor’s appeal for non-paym ent of deficit Com-t-fee,
'held : (i) th a t th e rejection of the ju dgm ent-debtor's appeal by th e appellate
Court, while having th e effect of affirming th e decree of th e Court o f first
instance, as such, did n o t operate to revive th e sta y order added to th a t
C ourt’s decree or to give the defendants, judgm ent-debtors, any new
concession as regards th e tim e w ithin which they were to vacate th e land :
'(?'?■) th a t, thei’efore, th a t p a rt of th e decree of th e Court o f first instance,
which em bodied th e concession, m u st be deemed to ha\^e ceased to operate
a fter th e expiry of a m onth from the d ate o f th a t C o u rt’s decree :
a n d [Hi) th a t t le period of limita'Mon under A rt, 182 of th e schedule of th e
L im itation A ^t ran from th e d ate o f th e appellate C ourt's decree and
n o t after a m n th thereafter, and so th e decree-holders were n o t enabled
to benefit by the m o n th ’s grace w hich h ad been allowed to the judgm ent-
debtor b y the Court of first instance.
M a h a r a ja o f D arbhan ga v. H om eshivar S in g h , 6 P a t. L. J . 132 ; L. R . 4S
I . A. 17 ; N oor A li C how dhiiri v. K o n i M e a h , I, L. B . IS Cal. 13, an d N a m
N a r a in S in g h V. B o g h u n a th S a k a i, I. L. R . 22 Cal. 467, distingtiished,
B a sa n ta K u m a r P a l v . B a zlu r R a h m a n N a s k a r , I. L. B . [1938] 1 Cal. .. 171

®eere®, Execution of ; See E xecution ■ .. .. .- 692

® ecree, Satisfaction of, iit whole : See A g ricu ltu ra l Debi ,. , , 5S7'
sii GENERAL INDEX.

P age.

Decree for arrears of rent : See L a n d lo rd a n d T e n a n t .. .. 164

Oeeree-holder, Fraud Ijy, Effeet of : See E xecution .. .. .. 512

Design, Registration of, under Registration Act, Effect of : See T ra d e-m a rk .. 665

De novo trial, when can be ordered : See Procedure .. .. .. 588

D©pDsiiOK— Dcposilors w ith decree— S anction o f Court, w hen it takes effect—-

JSstoppel—Scheme— I n d ia n C om panies A ct ( V I I o f 1913), s. 153(6)
— In d ia ti C om panies {A m endm ent) A c t ( X X I I of 1936).
Tlie sanction of th e C ourt has a retrospective effect and, therefore, a scheme
operates n ot from the d ate on which the sanction was given by th e Court
b u t from the date on which it was agreed to by the creditors a t th e m eeting
for settling a scheme. The agreement, becomes binding from th e date
when it is ai'i'i\-cd at svibjeet to subsequent sanction by th e Court.
B.a.ijJud>ar D aifal v. B a n k o f U pper I n d ia , I. L. R. 41 AU.566 ; L. R . 46
I . A. 135, referred to.
Where th e bank has consented to a decree being passed in a suit brought
by a depositor, it is not estopped from taking its sta n d on the term s of a
sclieine subsec{ucnth'- sanctioned by th e Court, for th e principle of estoppel
does not operate against th e b ank in such cases.
M a h ig a n j L oan Office, L td . v. B iharee L a i C haki, I. L. R . [1937] 1 Cal. 781,
referred to and explained.
Prior to the passing of the Indian Companies (Amendm ent) Act, 1936, a
depositor with a decree stood in a different category from th a t of a depositor
w ithout a decree.
B a js h a h i B anking C orporationv. Su ra b a la Debi, 40 C. W . N. 1104, followed.
Before the statute law was changed in 1936, a depositor, who h ad filed a
suit for his m on ey b u t h ad obtained a decree against th e b ank subsequent
to the date of the creditors’ m eeting to settle a scheme, was bound b y
th a t scheme and could n o t afterw ards avail himself of th e advantage w hich
th e decree he had svibseq\iently obtained woiild otherwise h ave afforded
him. On the date of th e depositor’s meeting such a person was n o t a
Judgment-creditor, b u t only an ordinary depositor, who in stitu te d a
s u i t ; p rim a facie he is bound by the scheme and cannot th ereafter enforce
his decree against the bank.
B a d a rg a n j L oan Office, L im ited v. S h a h a r U d d in S h a h , I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. 121

Depositor with decree : See Depositor .. .. .. .. 121

Discretion of Court : See S ecu rity fo r costs ,. .. ., 688

Dismissal for default ; See S u it .. .. .. .. 213

Disqualified proprietor : See P rohibition, W rit o f .. .. ., 475

District Magistrate’s jurisdiction in election cases : See L ocal Self-G overnm ent 62

Easement, Right of, how to be exercised : See M isc h ie f .. ,, gso

'E l^^ilm — B isputes— P re d d in g Officer— \ iu t h o r i t 4 f '^ T ’6Tmn& designata—

CoiiH— Orders, illegal— Jurisdiction, W ant of ~ F i n a l i t y — A p p e a l— Me-
tn d o n — M igh Court’s powers— O riginal S id e -P re ro g a tiv e w rits-^S p ecific
R elief A ct ( I of 1877), s. 45— Government of I n d ia A ct, 1935 [25 & Oeo.
V, c. 42), s. 2U{%)— B m g a l Local Self-Oovernment A c t (B en . I l l of 1885),
<8S, 18B(1) (c), 138, U S and Election R ules, rr. l A , 29, B O ~C ode o f C ivil
Froeedure (A ct V of 1908), s. 115.
 G EN E RAL IN D E X . sifi

P ag e.

U nder th e provisions of tLe Beiiiral Local Self-Government Act, the D istrict

M agistrate functions not as an individual in his jjrpvate capacity, b u t as
constitutirLg a Court.
K o h h u P a rth a sa ra d lii N a id u v. Chintlachervu Koiesivara Rao, I. L. R . 47
Mad. 369, followed.
M u n ic ip a l Corporation of Baugoon v. M . A - S fia k u r, I. L. R . 3 R an. .360,
n ot followed.
I t is n o t possible fo r th e High Court to revise a n order made by a D istrict
M agistrate tm der r. lA of th e Election Buies.
C h a n d ra K ishore M a n d u ly . S h m in d r a K u m a r H oy Chau-dhury, 41 G. W . N.
441, distinguished and n o t followed.
On th e face of it, s, 148 of the A ct oiist.s th e jurisdiction of the C ourts as
regards decisions arrived at by tlie a u th o rity appointed under s. 138 of
th a t Act,
The provisions of s. 148 are so wide and definite iji their terms tliat even
the Jurisdiction of the H igh Court is exchido!d. There is a double ernj-jhasin
in the followinp: words used in tlia t section .-—"E very decision ^ * *
shall 1 e final * =! =* * and it shall n o t be questioned in any C o u rt’' ;
and tl.ose words liave -sufi'icient operative jiow^er to exclude proceediug.s
in revision in atldition to procediire by way o f appeal
M a h e d a r lia h m a n M i y a v. K a n tic lia n d ra Basic., I. L. R. 61 Cal. 980, referred
to.
Sectioii 115 o f th e Code o f Civil Procedure cannot be m ade applicable to
the circum stances of such a case in view of th e provisions o f s. 148.
I f this m a tte r had been one falling w ithin th e territo rial jtirisdietion o f th e
Original Side of th e H igh Court, it m ight h a\'e te e n dealt w ith either
ujider th e specific provisions of s. 45 of th e Specific Relief Act, o r under
the inherent powers of the High C ourt in its Original Jurisdiction to issue
prerogative writs.

T here is m uch in th e Rules fram ed under th e Local Self-Go%'ernment A ct

and in th e procedure laid down by it, which calls for atten tio n ; e.g., in,
addition to th e constitution of th e “ au th o rity , ” there are several other
rules w hich seem to lead to confusion, an d it is obviou,sly undesirable too
th a t the presiding officer should ever be th d "‘a u th o rity ” to determ ine
disputes of th e kind referred to in s. 18B o f th a t Act,
Shacheendra N a th D as v. S u rjya K a n ta M isra, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. .. 14&

Election dispute: See Local Self-Government .. .. 62

English Bankruptcy Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. V, g. 59), s. 130: See Insolvency .. 132:

English Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vic. c. 60), ss. 163, 261 (d): See
M erchant Shipping .. .. .. .. .. 433

I Bee Depositor and L a n d Acquisition .. .. .. 121, 231

Estoppel : See Mortgage .. .. ,. .. ,. 6&

Estoppel— In d ia n Evidence A ct { I of 1872), s. 116, whether exhaustive.

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act does not deal or profess to deal w ith
all kinds of estoppel which m ay arise between landlord and tenant. I t
deals with one cardinal and simple estoppel.
It does not apply to disentitle a tenant to dispute the derivative title o f
one who claims to have since the beginning o f the tenancy become
entitled to the reversion, though in such case there m ay be other grounda
o f estoppel.
x iv GENERAL INDEX.

P age.

I t is not limited to the case o f a tenant who, when he took the lease, was
not already in possession.
yCuthberston v. Irving, 4 H. & X . 742 ; 157 E. R. 1034 ; Claridge v. M acken­
zie, 4 Man. & G. 143 ; 134 E. R. 59 ; B ila s K unw ar v , Desraj R a n jit
Singh, I. L. R. 37 All. 557 ; L. R. 42 I. A. 202, and Vertannes v. Robinson,
I. L. R. 5 Ran. 427 ; L. R. 54 I. A. 276, referred to.
L a i M oham ed v. K allanus, I. L. R. 11 Cal. 519, and K etu D as v . Surendra
N a th S in h a , 7 C. W. N. 596, distinguished.
K rish n a P rasad L a i Singha Deo v . Baraboni Coal Concern, L td ., I. L. R.
[1938] 1 Cal. . . .. .. .. .. .. 1

'Execution : See Decree .. .. .. .. .. 171

Execution : See Landlord and T enant .. .. .. .. 175

Execution : See Lim itation .. ., .. .. 685

lExeciltion— Execution 0/ decree— P laintiff, benamdar 0/ application— R ight

of applicant to execute.
A person not a party to the suit, if he can prove that the decree-holder
is his benamdar, is entitled to execute the decree.
N i l K a n ta Qhosal v. R a m C hand R o y, [1928] A. I. R . (Cal.) 835, followed.
A b d u l K u reem v. Chuhhun, 5 C. L. R. 253, referred to.
Pradosh Chandra B asu v . Gordon, I. L. R. [1938] 1 Cal. .. .. 692

Execution— Sale in execution— Auction-purchaser evicted by title param ount.

Remedies of— S u it fo r money had and received fo r refund of purchase price—
M aintainability— Principles— F ra u d by decree-holder. Effect of— S u it
by purchaser at rent-sale fo r refund of purchase price— Code of Civil Proced­
ure {Act V of 1908), 0 . X X I , rr. 13, 91, 93— In d ia n Contract A ct ( I X of
1872) ,ss. 66, 72— Specific R elief A ct { I of 1877), ss. 38, 41.
Per A li J. Under the English law, actions for money had and received
N a s im
m ay be classified under the following heads :—
(i) money paid on mistake o f facts ;
(ii) money paid for a consideration which has failed ;
(Hi) money paid because it was extorted, or by duress and the like ;
•(iv) cases where the plaintiff has an actionable wrong done him by the
defendant and, “waiving the to rt” , sues in assumpsit, whether any of
his money has actually passed from himself to the defendant or not.

M organ v. Ashcroft, [1937] 3 All. E. R. 92, approved.

The principles gov^erning aforesaid actions for money has and received
are—
(a) the moral principle o f “injust enrichment” (formerly expounded
by Lord Mansfield, but now disapproved) and
(b) the principle of “implied promise to p a y ” (now approved).

.Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act recognises the heads (i) and (ii)
aforesaid classification ; and s. 65 of the Indian Contract Act and ss. 38
and 41 of the Specific R elief Act recognise the head (ii) of the aforesaid
classification.
I n India an action for recovery o f money paid for a consideration which
has failed is mainftainable as in England ; and the principle underlying
such actions can be invoked in cases of involuntary sales.
Dorab A lly K h a n v. Executor of K h a ja h Moheeoodeen, I. L. R . 3 Cal.
806; L. R . 5 L A. 116, followed.
 G EN E RAL IN D E X . sv

P ag e.

P er M u k h k r je a J .
l^'iider the Code o f Civil Procedure o f IWOS, a. su it by
an aiiction-purchaser for refund of th e ptircliase price on th e groiuici th a t
th e judgeaient-debto r liad no saleable in terest in th e propevty sold does
a o t lie.
T he auctioii-purchaser m ust h rst apply to set aside the wale w ithin 30 days
of th e sale under O. X X I, r. 91 of th e Code of Civil Procedure, and a fter
obtaining an order settm g aside th e sale, to apply for refund of th e p u r­
chase price u nder O. X X I, r. 93.
B u t w here th e auetion-pureha.ser \ras induced by tlie fraudulent m isrepre­
sentation o f tho decree-holder th a t th e judgiuent-debtor had saleable
in terest in th e prop erty sold, a suit b y such auction-piu’chaser for the
recovery of the f)Ui'c‘ha.se price ars m oney h ad and received on a to tal
failure of consideration does lie.
E ven if th e m isrepresentation w'a.s innocent or tliei’e m istake or ignorance
of facts, a suit by the auction-purchaser to recover th e purchase price paid
under circum stances leading to the invalidity of th e sale does lie. subject
to the equitable defence o f laches, delay and acquie.scenee,
A pui’chaser of a tenure a t a sale in execution, o f a rent-deeree came to know
in course o f his proceedings to tak e possession o f tlia t tenure th a t the
decree-holder landlord had, prior to allowing his previous execution ease
of tho sam e rent-decree to be stru ck off, aclcnowledged in proceedings
under s. 105 of th e Bengal Tenancy xAct a transferee of th e original temu'e-
holder as his te n an t, b u t th a t the decree-holder landlord did not join, th a t
transferee as p a rty in th a t execrition case befoi'e it was struck off. T h ere­
after th e purchaser filed a suit against inter alia the decree-holder la n d ­
lord for refund o f the purchase price an d of th e money p aid b y him a.s I'ent.
H eld by the Court th a t th e suit was m aintainable.
Case law discussed.
C h a ita n y a D a s B a n e r jiv . R a n jit P a l G h a u d h u ri, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. .. 612

E xecution, Sale fH : See A[/ricuU ural Debt . . .. .. 5D7

Exeeiition of Decree— S a le in execution —S u it to net aside void sales— Code

of Cii'ii Procedure {Aci V of lOOS), s. 47 ; 0 . X X I , r. 03— I n d ia n L i m i t a ­
tion A c t { I X of lOOS), A rts. 166, LSI.
W here, in execution of a money-decree in a eontribution-suit, th e exclusive
propei’ty of a, pro fo rm a defendant in th a t suit is sold, in spite of objections,
th e la tte i'’s rem edy to set aside th a t execution sale is b y an application
\m der s. 47 of th e Code of Civil Procedure an d n o t by separate sn it nxider
0 . X X I, r. 63 of the Code.
A separate suit filed under O. X X I, r. 6 S of th e Code of th e Civil Procedure
to set aside the execution-sale m ay be tre a te d as a n application w ithin
th e m eaning of s. 47(3) of th e Code.
A rticle 166 of th e In d ian L im itation A ct applies to applications to set aside
voidable sales i n execution of decrees, a n d n o t to applications to set aside
execution sales w hich are void, the la tte r being governed by A rt. 181 of
the Act,
N 'azibal I s la m M o lla v. Qolani A fs a r M o lla , I. L. R . 60 Cal, 1401, criticised.
N iro d e K a li R a y G h a u d h u ri v. H a ren d ra N a th R a y G h a u d h u ri, I. L , B .
[1938] 1 Cal. . . .. .. .. .. .. 280

Family arrangement, If cars supersede will : See ieWerso/j.dmwiwit'/'aiio'n .. 75

Family trade — J o in t M itakshara H i)id u fa in ily ancestral business— P a rtitio n

— A greem ent to carry on ancestral business as heretofore, till fin a l decree—
L o a n contracted 'ineanwhile by one member fo r f a m ily business— L ia b ility
of other members—-Im p lie d agreement— C ontractual partn ersh ip — I n d ia n
Partnei-ship A ct { I X o f 1932), ss. 4, 5.
A n agreem ent among th e m em bers o f a M itd k sh a r d jo in t ti'ading fam ily
to carry on th.e fam ily bushiess o n th e sam e lines as before a p a rtitio n m u st
be ta k e n in law to co n stitu te a p artn ersh ip w hen i>he jo in t fam ily is
dissolved.
 GENERAL INDEX.

P age .

<7rce)!iroorf V. jl/aJVii!.? [1!)33] A. G. 51, explained an d distinguished.

Wliere a 2[ildl:shard H indu joint fam ily o f Allalmbad consisting o f five
gi'oupa and carrying on ancestral trad in g businesses, w hich extended to
Bombay, Madras, C alcutta and Rangoon, after a pralirnhiary consent-decree
in a pai'tition-suit, by agreomeiit continued to carry on th e family business
as heretofore for the puiiaose of m aking profit, until the final decree should
be m ade (which actually took place five yeans later on), and where three
years after severance one of these groups contracted a loan for one p a rt
of the ancestral traduig huriuiess,

'held th at, although th e im m ediate effect of such severance h ad been

to m ake the memliers of th a t joint fam ily tenants-in-com m on, th e m em bers
of all the gi’oups were in law p artn ers under an im plied contractual
partnership, who were therefore liable for th a t loan, th e contractual
partnership being based upon an agreem ent to ba im plied from th e
conduct of the parties and the circumstances of th e case.
P er CosTELiiO A. C- J . (after reviewing the case-law dealing w ith joint H in d u
fam ily trading business) : A joint H indu family trad in g business stand s
on a dii'ferent footing from other assets, and a jo in t Hinchx fam ily
carrying on business is neces.sarily something in th e n atu re of a peculiar
kinti of partnership noiAvithstanding the pro\'isions of s. 5 of th e In d ian
Partnership Act ; b u t a joint family trading partnership appears to differ
from an ordinary partnership in two respects, viz., (i) it is n o t dissolved
bjr thci death of any m em ber, and (ii) a member of the fam ily becomes a
co-partner by operation of law.

S a m a lb h a i NatJiiibJiai v. So>msht)nr, I. L. R . 5 B o m . ‘A8 ; B a m la l T h a k u r s i-

das V. L a h m i 07ia>id M iinirain, 1 Bom. H . C. R. App. o l ; P etum doss v.
R am dhone Doss, T ay. 279 ; Ind. Dec. 2 (O. S.) 168, and B a g h w n a th ji
T a ra ch a n d v . B a n k of B om bay, I. L. E . ‘3 4 Bom. 72, referred to.

B alldshen D as v. B a m N a r a in S a h u , I. L. R ., 30 Cal. 738 ; L. R . 3 0 1. A. 139,

explained and distinguished.

P er M gN a i b J.A fam ily trad e carried on by mem bers of a H in d u joint

fam ily does not possess all th e incidents of partnership.

Z a la B a ij N a th P ra sa d v. B a m Qopal L a c h n i N a r a y a n , I , L. R . [1938]
1 Cal. .. .. .. .. ,. .. 369

Father’s debts : See JvisoZwe/icy .. .. .. 132

Fraud fey decrse-holder, Elfeetof : See Exec.ution .. .. 512

Gamlsig-h05ise— Common gam ing-house. W h a t is — TJismvery o f instrum ents

o f gam ing on search, E ffc c to f— B etting slips, when instruytm its of gam ing—
CalcuUa Police A cf {B en. I V of 1S6G), ss. 46, 47.

To constitute a common gaming-house as defined m s. 3 of th e C alcutta

Police Act, not only there m ust be instrum ents of gamm g used or k ep t in
the place, but such instrum ents m ust be kept or used for th e purpose o f
gain or profit of th e person owing, occupying or using such place.

U nder s. 4,7 of the Act, discovery of instrum ents of gaming in a place on a

proper search, as contem plated by s. 40 of the Act, would be evidence
n o t only to prove th e existence of these instrum ents in th a t place, as an
element to constitute a common gaming-Iiouse, b u t it would also be ev i­
dence on the point as regards th e m aking of profit or gain b y the owner or
occupier of the place, although, according to th e ordm ary law, such
discovery cannot be treated as an evidence of the la tte r fact. An accused
can explaiii away th e whole circumstance, b ut, in th e absence of any e x ­
planation or evidence to the contrary, a d uty is cast u pon th e Court to
weigh such evidence and th e Court m ay, if he thinks proper, convict th e
accused on this evidence though he is n o t bomid to do so,

Tianga L a i Ben v. E m peror, I, L. R . [1937] X Cal. 610, explained.

 G ENERAL IN D E X . ::vii

P ag e.

Slips of p aper, if th ey are used for th e erqoress purpose of facilitating b e ttin g

operations, are instrum ents of gaming. Slips containing nam es of liorses
and certain sm all fraetional anroirnta against eacli nam e -ivbicli could n o t
be 'iragered, a t the authorised tote were correetlj-' held to he instrum ents
of gam ing in th e absence of any explanation coming from th e accused.
T h at such slips do n o t show on tlie face o f them th a t th e owner o f the
place derived anj^ profit out of th e transactions or th a t th ey b ear a date-
earlier th a n th e date of search do n o t affect th e question, though the la tte r
fact m ay hai^e an im p o rtan t bearing on th e question o f th e weight to lie
attach ed to theso pieces of evidence.
A h d v l L a d f w E m peror, I. L, E-. [1038] 1 Cal. .. .. .. 672

GQYernment ei Imlla Act, 1919 (9 Si 18 6 es. Vj c. 1G1), s. 107 ; ftee A a rivu itu ra l
Debt .. .. .. .. .. .. 256

Government of India Acts 1935 (2S & 26 Goa. V, e. s. 224, prow. : See A g r ia d -
{nral Licbt. .. .. .... .. .. .. 256

Government of indSa Act, 1935 (25 & 26 Geo. ¥, c. 42), s. 224(2) : See Election . . 146

Goyernment of india Act, 1935 (26 Gee. V, C. 42), s. 226(1) : See P rohibition,
W rit o f .. .. .. .. .. .. 476

Guardsan, CertiHcateds Ayfliority of, to sue : See Ju risM ctio n .. .. 53i

Guaraiasi, Consent of, ifJ m arriage : See M a h o m e d a n L a w .. .. 139

Heirs: fiee Insolvency .. .. .. .. 132

Hjgh Courtj OriginaS Side, In election matters : See E lection .. ,. 141

High Courtj Revision by, in election cases : See E lection. ,. .. 146

High Gayrt Rules (Origlsia! Side), Ofi. XIX, r. 1 : See J u risd ic tio n .. o3l

Hindu Law ; See Ii} solvency . ..... ,

Husttan food, if so, who to prow : See On u-a ., .. .. 658

Implied agreement : See F a m ily trade .. .. .. .. 369

Impllsd agreem ent : Sublease .. .. .. .. 206

8ndefflnIty-&oiid to induce autfiorities to give adwaniages of publie wtifity serelee.

If opposed to pubSiC policy: See Contract .. .. .. 463

Indian Companies Act (VI! of 1913), ss. 20, 21, 81 : See C om p a n y L a w .. 90

Indian Companies Aet (VI! of 1913), s, 153(6) : See D epositor .. .. 121

indlsn Gompanles (Amendment) Aet (XXII 0f 1936) lE e e D epositor .. 121

Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872), ss. 23, 235 : See Contract .. .. 463

Indian Contract Act (IX of 18121, ss. 66, 72 : See Ex&cution .. .. 512

Indian Evidenee A ct (I of 1872), ss. 8 , 32 ; See *425jt?eaZ .. , S90:

xviii GENERAL INDEX.

P age .

Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 92, prov. (1) : See A drnisdbilify .. 48

Itlfiiaw Evidence Aet (I of 1872), s. 114 ; See Privy eouncil .. .. 13

Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), s. 116 : iM oppel .. .. 1

Infilan Liroltation Ast (IX of 190S), s. 10 : See L im itation .. 652

Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908), s. 14 : See Landlord a n d T e n a n t .. 262

Indian Limitation Aet (IX 1968), Ssh. 1, Art. 11A : See L im ita tio n .■ 686

latdlan Limitation Act (IX Cf 1908), Sch. I, Arts. 166, 181 See E xecution of
Dccrce ■. - . . • • • • ■ • • 280

Indian Limitation Act (IX oi 1908), Sch. 1, Arts. 181,182 : See Decree .. 171

Indian Lunacy Act (IV of 1912), ss. 56, 67, 71 : See Lunacy .. .. 180

Indian Merchant Shipping Act (XXi of 1923), ss. 2(8), 5(2)(c), 5(3),62(1) : See
31erchant tihij)ping .. .. .. .. .. 433

Indian Partnership Act (IX of 1932), ss. 4, 5 : See F a m ily trade .. .. 369

Indian Penal Code (Act XLV oi 1860), ss, 23, 420 ; See M iscM eJ .. ., 680

Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), ss. 478, 482, 486 : See Trade-marh ., 665

Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), s, 511 : See P resum ption .. .. 420

Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), ss. 4, 18 ; See N ew s-

sheet .. .. .. .. .. 4,55

Indian Registration Act (XVI of 1908), s. 17 : See P.egiatration .. .. 187

Indian Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), ss. 218, 234 : See Letters of A d m in is-
tration .. .. .. .. .. ,. 75

Indian Trusts Act (U of 1882), s. 6 : See L im itation .. .. .. 652

Inherent power of Court, how to be exercised : See Procedure .. .. 588

Inquisition : See L un a tic .. .. .. .. .. j_gQ

Insane, suit by : See Jurisdiction .. .. .. .. 531

insolvency ; See P rivy Council .. ,. ., __ 23

insolvency— HmcZu law — F ather’s debts— Heirs— “ Debtors ”— E ight do present

a petition in insolvency— Creditor’s right, i f a n y — E nglish B a n kru p tc y
Act, 1914 {4 ch 5 Geo. T'. c. o9), s. ISO— Presidency-towns Insolvency A ct
[1 1 1 j ) f 1909), s. 108— Provincial Insolvency Ack (F of 1920), ss. 7, 10,
13, 23{2), 27,

Under Hindu law the heirs are not personallv liable for the debts o f the
aeeeaaed, not even if they be the sous, grandsons or great grandsons of
he deceased. o &
 G EN ERAL IN D E X . si:£

P age.
In respect of the deceased fatlier's <iebta his wons are not “ de'i.tors ” enf itied
to present a p etitio n in insolvency under th e provisions of s. T and s. 10
of th e Provincial Insolvency Act.

N a g a su h ra h u ia n ia M u d a lia r v. K ru lin a m a v Jiu rin r, I. L. B . 50 3Iad. DSl,

referred to .

I t is as im jiist and inequitable for th e ci'editor of a deceased insolvent to

present a jDetition against a deceased insolvent’s represeritati^-e as for a
representative of a deceased insolvent to present a petition against himself.

Section 130 of th e English B ankruptcy Act, 1914, is reproduced in s. 108

o f the Pre.sidency-towns Insolvency A ct, 1909, b u t sim ilar provi.sions find
no place w hatever in th e Provincial Insolvency Act. 1920 ; and under
both th e form er A cts it i.s only a creditor who can present a petition for tl^e
ad m in istratio n of a decea.sed insolvent’s estate.

A b d u l R a h m a n M i y a v. G ajendra L a i S h aha, I . L. R . [1038] 1 Gal. .- 132

Insoivsncy—In te rim receiver— A ttachm ent of th ird 'p a rty 's property — Court,
J u risd ic tio n of-— A ttachm ent before ju d g m e n t— Code of Cii'il Procedure
{Act T’’ o f 1908), 0 . X X X V I I I , rr. 5, 0— P rovincial Insolvency A c t (F
o f 1920), ss. 4, 5, 20, 21(2), 21 prov.

Section 20 o f th e Provincial Insolvenej/ A ct relates only to th e p roperty

o f the debtor.

Sub-section {2) of s. 21 eontemj^lates an. order o f attach m en t, whicli is

analogous to an attach m en t before Judgm ent, a n d tlie provisions o f the
C!ode of Civil Procedure apply to such attacljiiaents by v irtue o f th e
provisions of s. 5 of th e Provincial Insolvency Act.

The proviso to s. 21 requires th a t th ere m u st fee som ething to show th a t

th e C ourt was satisfied as to any o f tlie things m entioned in th e proviso
ujion m aterial on which the Court could properly form a n opinion as to
w hether tlie necessary condition.s precedent to the m aking of an order
u n d er s. 21 were present or not.
W here th e C ourt appointed th e OfHeial Receiver interim receiver directing
him to tak e possession a t once, and in pursuance of th a t order he w ent and
took possession of a certain shop w ith all its contents in .^pite of th e fact
tlia t one P . P. D. a t once protested, setting u p a claim to be tlie sole o■v^^^e^
o f th a t shop, and where two creditors had asked for th is receiver to be
apjDointed really to tak e possession of properties, which m anifestly were the
pjroperties of th e petitioning debtors se t forth by him in tlie schedule
attac h ed to his jietition, b u t also of other properties n o t so set forth,
w hich were supposed to be the properties of th e d eb to r inckiding the
shop o f P. P . D .,

held : (i) th a t the order was bad in law having been m ade w ithout jurisdic­
tio n , an d th e consequential oi'der was also illegal ;

(ii) th a t th e receiver sliould have stayed liis h and u n til the question,
w hether or n o t th e shop was th e p roperty of th e d eb to r or of P. P. D., had
been determ ined by th e C ourt upon investigation ;

(iii) th a t if th e shop o f P. P. D. was in fa c t his own property, it would

n o t vest in the receiver by v irtue o f th e C ourt’s order, and th e m om ent
P. P. D . se t up a claim, to th a t piroperty, tlie m a tte r ought to have le e n
investigated, before th e receiver proceeded to exorcise any rights over th a t
property, an d as th a t had n o t been done those proceedings were wholly
misconceived ; and

(iv) th a t to all intents and purposes th e pjetitioa was really a petition

asking for an order o f th e kind contem plated by s. 21 of the Provincial
Insolvency Act,

H a s h m a t B ib i v. B h a g iva n D as, I. L. R . 36 All. 65, followed.

F a fit P d b a n D a w v. H a r i SadJian N a n d i, I. L . B- [1938] 1 Cal. .. 245

 G EN E B A L IN D E X .

P age .

iHSOlVGKCy— P'l’oof of debt— Assigurneiit of debt— Composition—-j^w vu lm en t of

composition and read] udicaiivn— Assignee from one of two jo in t creditors
''P e rso n in te r ^ ^ ite d — Prc6idency-toiu)i,s In so h e n c y A c t ( I I I of 1909),
,9 . 31(1).
In order to be entitled to m aintain an application to have a composition
aiiniiilt'cl or a debtor readjiKLicated insolvent, tli6 ap^plicant rxiust estafclisli
tliat he is a “ person interested ’’ ’within th e meauing o f s. 31(1) of th e Presi-
deiiey-towixs InvSolvency Act.

I n any ovc?nt it is discretionary w ith the Court w hether such a n application

shall be granted or n o t.

Wiiere tlie debtor owed some money to K and iST jointly, h u t th rough in ­
advertence it was m entioned in th e schedule as due to K alone, and the
iiroof was not form ally adm itted by the Ofticial Assianee under cl. 25 of
Sch. II,

held th a t an assignee from K alone was n o t a “ person interested ’’ w ithin the

meaning of a. 31(i) o f the Act.

In re Fros-t. Ex. parte Official Ileceifcr, [1899] 2 (^). E . 50, and In re Iliff,
51 \\'. R . (Eng.) SO, referred to.

A h m a d A ll v. A hul K usem F a zlid H vq , I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. .. 493

IllSelvSRSy Aisles, Salsatta, r. 19 : See P riv y Council .. .. 13

instniiBeKis of gaming, Dsscoyer^ of, Eifeet of : See Gam ing-house ., 672

ifsterias raeeiver : See Insolvency .. .. .. .. 245

Interim resegvsr : fiee .. ,. .. ,, ISO

irifgrpfeadS!' suit—D ism issal of the p la in tiff—

A t the first hearing,^" M e a n in g
of— J m is diction— Code of Civil Procedure {Act F o f 190S), 0 . X X X V ,
r. J.

The words “ at th a first hearing ” or “ a t the first hearing of th e suit, ”

appearing in the different Orders of tlie Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, do
not, in every case, refer to th e stage when th e issues ara fram ed or th e su it
is called on for hearing.
I n O. X XXV, r. 4 of th e Code the words ‘‘ a t th e first hearing ” refer to
the stage when, aft?r the pleadings have all le e n delivered, th e Court con­
siders them in order to understand the contentions of th e parties-—so th a t,
in a suit of interpleader, after the pleadings are all delivered and even b e ­
fore the suit is called on for hearing or tlie issues are fram ed, tlie Court has
jurisdiction, upon plam tifFs aprjlication to declai’C th a t lie is discharged
from all liability to the defendants and dismiss him ft'om tlie suit.
T a ra n M tvtd a l v. Piuj C handra M. andal, [1919] A. I. R . (Cal.) 70, comm ented
upon.
A-bdul Rahrnan v. S hib L a i SaJiu, 6 P a t. L. J . 650, rolled upon.
'Nationul Insurance Co., L td . v. D hirendra N a th B a n erji, I. L. R . [1938] 1
Cal- .■ .. .. .. .. .. 53

sloint decree-holders, Dispute ibetween : See L a ndlord m id T e n a n t .. I 75

aolnt trial ®f several ©fences, when permissible : See M isjo in d er .. 93

^ Judges Opinion ®f, fisw fe fte expressed : See M iadirection ., .. 636

 G E N E E A L I'JN^DEX. ss£

P age.

Judicial Officers— Protection (Mjainst damage svits Jor order./} prr^scd ?,;/ such
officers— protection to ■per-'ions bound to e.'-ccnte such order-3— " ,1 uri.'tuLHon ” ,
M e a n in g o f— J u d ic ia l Ojffiocr.r Protection A c t ( X V 1 1 1 oj ISJi)), s. 1,

U nder th e Judieinl Officers’ Protection A c t of 1850 a jiidicia] ofiicer i.s

protected against any liability to 1-e stietl in a civil (’xnirt for pa,ssii!«f ajiy
orders, w hether or not w ithin th e lim ils o f Lis j^iri.sdictiori. if he m ade
such orders in good faitli believing to have jua-isdiction to pass the same.

The protection given to judicial oflicers u:ider th e A ct extends to persons

bound to execute such orders as are m ade w ithin th e jurisdiction o f such
judicial officers.
T he word “ jiu'isdiction ” in th e A ct is taken in th e sense of aut]iorit-;\' or
piower to do an act and not in th e sense of autliority or power to do a n
a c t in a p articular m anner.
T e y en v. R a m L a i, I. L. B . 12 All. 115, followed.

Seu'al lia n i A g a rw a la v. Abdv.l M a jid , I. L. R. [1938] 1 Cah .. .. 5Sl

tludieial Offleers* Prstection i^ct (XViBI of 1850), s, 1 ; See J tu lic ia l Officer .. 581

Jurisdiction : See A grlculturcd Debt .. .. .. .. S45

Jurisdiction l See .Revision .. .. .. .• .. 400

Jurisdsctiss ^— P erson o f annound m in d , S u it b y — A u th o r ity of certificated

g u a rd ia n to sue— A ffid a v it of competency not fde.d vdth p la in t —-A d m in is­
tra tio n — B enefit of mortgage as asset— S u it fo r land-— Cause of action —
A ssets, E.t'i'i'lence of, i f confers j-urisdiction-— H ig h Court: P ules {O riginal
S id e ), Ch. X /X , r. 1-— Letters P atent, 1865, cJ. 12.
Mere absence of th e affida\dt of eompetencj^ recfuired Ijv r. 1 of Gliap. X IX
of the Pv'ules of th e H igh Court (Oiiginal ?ide) does n o t im pair the auth o rity
o f a certificated cviardian to in stitu te f;uit on helialf of a person o f u n ­
sound m ind. 'Failure to present such affidavit along w ith the plain t is a
defect of procedure w hich the Coint has power to cure.
A li M u h a m m a d K h a n v. Ish a q A li K h a n , I. L. R. 54 All. 57, and SatiJcaran
N arnhi v. JJevahi, [1922] A. I. R. (Mad.) 259, relied on.
M u h a m m a d A li K h a n v . J n s Earn, I. L . R . 36 All. 46, an d S r i C lu m d a n
B h u y a v. H aroo S e th i, 13 C. L. J . 544, distinguished.
A suit which do?s n o t ^eek directty a ri" h t to or title to or jjosseasion of
inimoveaVjle property b u t which affects immoveable property only inci­
d entally is n o t a suit for land w ithin the meaning of ei. 12 of the L etters
P a te n t.
Goculdas V. C haganlal, I . L. R . 54 Cal. 655, and P rovas C handra S in h a v.
AsJmtQsh iM'uk'herji, I. L, R . 5Ci Cal. 979, followed,
A su it was in stitu ted in the Hi,ii'h Court for constrtiction o f a will, for
adm inistration and accounts of the estate of th e deceased and for rem oval
of the adm inistrator a.i5pointed by th e Court o f 24- Pargands. The estate
consisted inter a lia of th e benefit of a m ortgage of immoveable properties.
AH th e as.sets of the estate, so far as they were ascertained, were situated
wdtliin tb e local limit.s of th e Origiiial .Turiisdiction of th e H igh Court on
th e d a te of suit.
Held (i) th a t it was n o t a su it for land.
Benode B c h a ri Bose v. N is ta r in i D assi, I. L. R . 33 Cal. ISO ; L. R . 32 I. A.
193, fohowed.
(ii) T h at p a rt of th e cause of action arose w ithin th e Original Jurisdietion
of the H igh Court.
E ngineer in ff S u p p lie s, L td . v . D h a n d h a n ia & Co., L L. H, 58 Gal. 539, relied
on.
X301 GENERAL INDEX.

P a ge.

A le xa n d e r B ra td i v . Tndralcrishna K a u l, I. L. R . 60 Gal. 918, an d S a m a -

rendranath M itra v. P yareecliaran LaJia, I. L. R. 61 Cal. 1023, referred
to.
(iii) T hat leave under cl. 12 of th e L etters P a te n t w as properly given and
tlie High Court was com petent to tr y th e suit.

B a b indra N a th M itr a v. P u m a C handra S in g h a , 1. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. 531

^IUriSd!Ciio^—»S'w^^/o r la n d — A d m in istration su it— C laim s ;for possession against

person in possession under in valid grant of letters of a d m in istra tio n — L etters
P atent, 1S6S, cl. 12.
The plaintiff, claiming to be th e tru e owner, sued th e defendant for th e
recovery of possession of immoveable p ro p rtie s , no p a rt of which was
situated w ithin th e jurisdiction of th e Original Side. I t was alleged th a t
the defendant had obtained possession ruider an invalid g ran t o f letters o f
adm inistration by the High Court. There were alternative prayers for
th e removal of th e adm inistrator and for adm inistration by and un d er th e
direction of the H igh Court.
H eld tliat the prayers for removal and for adm inistration by th e Court
were inconsistent w ith the j^laintiff’s case th a t m ider th e g ran t o f adm inis­
tration tlie defendant acquired no right or title and th a t the suit, so far
a.s the immoveable properties were concerned, was a suit for land w ithin
the meaning of cl. 12 o f the L etters P a ten t and th a t th e Court had therefore
no jurisdiction to en tertain it.
iShailesh K u m a r S in g h v. N a rsin g P a n d ey , I. L. Pu. [1938] 1 Gal. 354

Jurisdiction of Court : See Insolvency 245

Jurisdiction of Courts in election disputes ; See Election 146

Jurisdiction to stay suit : See A gricultural Debt 256

Jury, Charge to, Effect of, how to be construed : See M isdirection 636

Land, Suit for : See Jurisd ictio n 354

Land ; Suit for ; See Ju risdiction 531

Land Acquisition— V aluation of property — Compensation to owner — A gree­

ment of parties as to value, i f a bar to determ ination of market-t>alue —
Estoppel— L a n d A cquisition A ct { I of 1S94), ss. 11, IS , 23,
The owner of a property, which was acquired under th e L and Acquisition
Act, entered iirto a contract w ith th e acquiring p arty as to its value an d the
amoimt of compensation payable to the owner. In th e acquisition proceed,
ings the Land Acqiiisition Collector made his aw ard on th e basis of th e
contract and did n o t proceed to determine the m arket-value independently.
A reference was m ade under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act an d w as
rejected. The owner appealed to the High Court.
H e l d : (i) th a t the Collector was under no obligation to disregard th e
c o n tra c t;
{2) th a t in making his award on the basis of the contract, th e Collector
did not act erroneously ;
(S) th a t on a reference under s. 18 of the L and Acquisition A ct, th e
Special Judge m ust exercise his j urisdiction according to principles of law
and decide what evidence was to be adm itted for th e determ ination of th e
issues before Im n ;
(4) th a t the owner was estopped from leading before th e Court fu rth e r
evidence relating to th e m arket-value of th e property \m der s. 23 of th e
Land Acquisition Act.
 GEKEKiVL INDEX. sxlii

P age .
Fort P ress C om pany, L im ited v. M u n ic ip a l Corporation of the Citij of
B om bay, I. L. E,. 46 Bon,i. 767 ; L. B . 49 A. I. 383, explained.

B ijayaJcanta L a h ir i G haudliury x . Secretary of S tate fo r I n d ia in Council,

58 C. L. J . 38, and B ritish In d ia Steam N m icfation Co. v. Secretary of
Sta te fo r I n d ia , I. L. R. 38 Cal. 230, referred to.
A n a n ta R a m B a n e rji v. Secretary of State fo r I n d ia in C oum il, T. L. R.
[1938] 1 Cal. .. .. .. .. .. .. 231

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), ss. 18, 31(2) : See Revision .. .. 400

Landlord and Tenant— Co-sharer landlord— S u it fo r rent b y some, i f bars fu rth e r

prosecution o f certificate-proccedings p revio u d y in stituted by other co-
sharers — T im e taken by certificate-proceedings, i f excluded in com puting
period, of lim itation— B engal Tenancy A tt { V I I I of 1SS5), s. U S A , snb-s.
(9 )— I n d ia n L im ita tio n A ct { I X of 1908), s. 14.
A suit for rent b y a co-sliarer landlord to recox'er ren t due in respect of liis
sliare, to wliieh the other co-sharer landlords are m ade partie.s undex- th e
provisions of s. MSA of the Bengal Tenancy Act, does n o t bar under sub-
s. {9) of the said section the further prosecution of certifioate-proceedings
previously instituted by the other co-sharers in respect of their share.
And if th e latter choose to Avithdraw from the certificate-proceedings atid
join in the suit as co-plaintiffs under suh-s, (3). they are not entitled to
claim, under s. 14 of th e L im itation Act, the exclusion of time of th e
proceedings before the Centificate-Officer.

S a ti P ra sa d Garga v. Gobinda C handra Shee, I . L. R . 56 Cal. 805, dis­

tinguished.
H risM K e sh M itr a v, B a ra d a P ra sa d R a y G haudhuri, I , L. R . [1938]
1 Cal. .. .. .. .. .. 262

landlord and Tenant — Decree fo r arrears o f rent— Transferee o f portion o f hold­

in g not made p a r ty to suit, but jo in ed as p a r ty in execution proceedings after
landlord's knowledge o f transfer —Sale, i f passes the. entire holding— B engal
Teyim fcy {Act V l i l of 1SS5), Chap. X 'lV ; U tiA .
W here a landlord obtained a decree for arrear-s of re n t against the ten an ts,
w ithout m aking two purchasers o f portions of th e holding in execution of
m ortgage decrees parties to the ren t suit, as he h ad then, no knowledge
of the purchase, but, after he received information, of the same, he added
th e purchasers as parties to the execution proceedings,
held th a t the decree satisfied the condition laid down in s. 146A of the Bengal
Tenancy Act, axad the entire holding will pass in execution of th e decree
if brought to a sale.
Forbes v. M a h a ra J B a h a d u r Singh, I. L. R . 41 Cal. 926 ; L. B . 41 I. A. 9 1 ;
K rish n a p a d a G hatterji v. M a n a d a a u n d a ri Qkosh, I. L. R . 59 Cal. 1202 ;
F a/ridpur L o a n Office, L im ited v. N irode K r is h n a B a y , I. L. R . 56 Cal.
462 ; S a s h i K a n ta A charfec v . Lechoo Sheikh, 61 0. L. J . 548 ; a n d A y e s h a
K h a t u n v . M d . H o ssa in M olla, 41 0. W . N. 85, referred to.
M a h a r a j B a h a d u r S in g h v. l^ a ri M o lla n i, L L. B . 63 Cal. 1117, explained
and distinguished.
N a g m d r a N a th S in g h a S h a h a R a y v . N ira n ja n F a tra . I. L. R . [1938]
1 Cal. .. . . . . .. .. .. 164

Landlord and Tenant— E xecution— D ispute heliaem jo in t decree-holder»— Mat-e-

able distribution — L im ita tio n — B engal T enancy A d { V I I I o f 1885),
a. 14HA, cl. (8)(e)— Code o f Civil Proceditre {Act V o f 1908), ss. 4'^^ 73.
Although no period of lim itation is fixed under s. 14SA, cL {S) of the Beiigal
T enancy Act, a co-sharer landlord, w ho claims rateable distributian of
th e proceeds of the sale, m ust apply to th e Court ■within a reasonable
time.
Ksiv GENERAL INDEX.

P agb .

The analogy of s. 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which fixes th e tim e

lim it as being before the receipt o f the judgm ent-debtor’s assets by the
C ourt, m ay reasonaI>ly be applied to such cases.
•Section 47 of the Code of Ci\’il Proeedtu’e applies to a dispute betw een two
decree-hoideri-.
E orahji Coorai’j i v. K o la S a g h u n a th , I. L. R . 36 Bom. 156, a n d V enhata-
perutnal v. Venkata B ed d i, I. L. R . 39 Mad. 570, relied upon.
Jagadam ha L oan C om pany, L im ite d v . S a tye n d ra C handra Qliosli MouUlc,
i. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. .. •. .. -. .. 175

ia w , Slliistasitial question of ; See P r iv y Council .. .. .. 13

leasehold, Mortgage of : See Mortgage .. .. .. ,. 21

F a m ily arrangem€7it, i f can supersede the vnll— Grant oj probate or oj Letters

o f adm inistration, i f 6ars suhsequent question about title, or co7istriiction of
w ill—-Indian Succession A c t { X X X I X o f 1925), ss. 218, 234.
N o particular mode of expression is necessarjr to co n stitu te a residuary
legatee within the m eaning o f th e In d ia n Succession A ct. Persons, a l­
though not specifically nam ed as residuary legatees b u t to whom th e
whole estate has been left, m ay v ery well be regarded as residuary leg a­
tees for the pm’poses of s. 234 of th e Act. Such a person has locus standi
to apply for letters of ad m inistration w ith th e copy o f th e will annexed.
A pplications for probate or for letters of adm inistration w ith th e will annexed
as well as applications for revocation thereof are n o t governed by th e
law o f lim itation. Long delay in m aking such application is no do u b t
a circumstance which m ay be properly tak en into accoim t in deteim ining
th e question of the genuineness of th e will, b u t by itself it is n o t a ground
for refusing probate or adm inistration.
I n th e m atter of th e P e titio n of Ish a n Ohunder B oy, I . L , Pu. 6 Cal. 707 ;
K a sh i Chtmdra Deb v. Gopi K rish n a Deb, I. L. R . 19 Cal. 48 ; B d i M dne'khdi
V . M d n c l'ji K d v a sji, I. L. R. 7 E om . 213 ; G nanam uthu U padesi v . Vancfi
K oilqnllai N adan, I . L . R . 17 Mad. 379, and other eases referred to .
U nder s. 213 of the In d ia n Succession Act, i t is necessary to obtain p ro b ate
or letters of adm inistration w ith th e copy of th e will amiexed in order
to establish rights im der th e will.
T he question w hether th e estate h as been fully adm inistered m ay be rel­
e vant iji considering w hether letters ijf adm inistration should be granted
in a case of i.utestacy, b u t n o t w here th ere is a w ill and application is
m ade for probate or for letters of adm inistration ■R'ith a copy of th e will
annexed.
T he fact th at, by reason of a fam ily arrangem ent, th e will has been super­
seded or the estate has been adm inistered m accordance w ith th e wishes
of the parties concerned is no ground for refusing g ra n t o f pro b ate or
letters of adm inistration.
A d w a it Ch.. M ondal v. K rishnadhone Sarhar, 21 C. W. N. 1129, followed.
L a in Chandra Choxmlhury v. B ailam tha N a th Chowdhury, 14 C. W. N. 463 ;
I n th e goods of N n rsin g Chunder Bysaclc, 3 C. W . N . 635 ; LaJcshtni N a r a in
Chatterjee v. N anda E a n i Del}i, 9 C. L, J. 116, and Chancli Charan M a n d a l
V. B anke Behari M andal, 10 C. W . N. 432, distinguished.
T he gran t of probate or o f letters o f adm inistration is decisive only o f th e
genuineness of the will and o f th e rig h t o f the person to whom th e g ra n t
is m ade to_ represent th e estate. Such grant would be no b a r to th e
determ ination of any question of title or to a suit for constxuction of th e
will. The consideration, therefore, as to w hether an application for such
a g ran t is a device to seexire from the probate Court a decision u pon a
contestjsd question of title, or w hether th ird parties m ay have acquired
rights in the properties purporting to be disposed of b y th e will, is no
ground for refusing pro h ate or letters of adm inistration.
 GENERAL INDEX. ssv

P age.

P rosonno K iim a ri D ebi v . R a m Chandra Sitiijh Deb, 17 C. L. J . 66, d istin g ­

uished.
H o r m iisji N a v ro ji v . B d i D lianbdiji, I. L. R . 12 Bora. 164; B a l Gmnjadliur
T ila h V . Sakm arhai, I . L. R . 26 Born. 792, and otliei* eases referred to.

D urga P a d a B ern v. A tu l Chandra B ern, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. .. .. 75

Letters Patent, 1865, cl. 12 : See J u risd ictio n .. .. .. 354, 531

lla b filtf of shipowner : See M aster a n d S erva n t ., .. .. 216

Limitatiori : See Decree, .. .. .. .. .. 171

t Hee L a n d lo rd a n d T en a n t .. .. .. . . 175, 262

4.lmflati0n : See M ortgaije .. .. .. .. .. 66

. lin ijta tio n — Construction — “ J e i done or p u rportiuy o/' profosfsing to be done in

purauaHce o j ihift — Calcvtta P ort xict {B en. I l l o f 1890), a. 142.
I n eoiiiiectiori w ith the eoii.struotion o f an additional pipe line leading from,
the river Hooghly to th e respondent Coi'poration’s pump-horise, which line
had to be eai'ried under and across th e ap p ellan t’s railw ay track, th e re-
spondeiit.s suggested and the appellants ass^entcd th a t the work should he
done by the appellan ts’ staff a t the respondents’ expense in order to ensui’e
as little interference w ith the railw ay as po«sibIe,
■Pending discus,sion.3 as to this project, in Ju n e, 5926, a superintendent of
works of the appellants m ade two holo.4 in th e steel-plates of the railw ay
track, lyij'sg over the respondents’ existing pipe lines, in order to locate in
th e gi’oimd th e exact centre of one of th e existing tunnels enclosing a pipe
line. These holes were left open, and on th e 21st and 23nd July, 1926, as
a result of aii aiinorm al fall of rain in C alcutta, watei' rushed through the
holes, floorled tlie respondents’ pum ping plan t and p u t it out of action.
The respC'iulents clamied damages for negligence.
H d d th a t, in doing the exploratory work, the appellants were engaged in
work desi.gued for the proteetioir of th eir railway a n d leaving unrepaii'ed a
portion of th a t railw ay was an act done or pin-porting or professing to be
done in pursuance of th e C alcutta P o rt A ct, an d the suit by th e Corporation
of C alcutta was barred by Im iitation.
B ra d fo rd Corporation v. M yern, [1916] 1 A. C. 242, distinguished.
€ a lcu tta P ort C om m issioners v. Corporation of Calcutta, I . L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. , 440

U sutetion— E xecution— Resiftiancc to possession o f im m ovable property—"

Suhm quent su it to entahlish right to jjossession., tvJicn barred— Code of C ivil
Procedure (Act F of 190S), O . X X I , r. lOS—^ In d ia n L im ita tio n A ct { I X
o f 1008), A rt. 11 A ,

W hen an auction-piu-ehaser’s eornplaint against obstruetion, by a th ird

p a rty claiming possession by virtue of a rig h t to a n undivided share in th e
lan d is dismissed under O. X X I, r, 99 of the Code of Cl\dl Procedure, his
subsequent su it for a declaration of title and possession of a portion o f the
said land t^fter partitio n , and, excluding th e share claimed b y th e defendant,
is n o t governed b y A rt. I lA of the L im itation Act.

d u n p a t Fail. v. Iliisc tin i Berjarn, [1921] A. I . R . (All.) 9 2 ; B aldeo y.

K a n h a iy a la l, 21- C. W . N. 1001, an d B M m apipa v. Ir a p p a , I. L. R . 26
Bom. 146, distm guished.

S h a n m v g a m P illa i v. P a m h a li A m m a l, I , L. R . 4^9 Mad. 596, followed.

S a ty a K in k a r G hanti v . M alchan L a i M a rw a H , !. L, R . fl93;S] 1 Oal,

 GENERAL INDEX.

P agb.

Limitation— W hat is —A geni, i f can he a trustee — ‘■‘Specific- purpose,'''

M eaning of— In d ia n L im itation A c t ( I X of 1908), s. 10— I n d ia n T ru sts
A c t [ i f o f 1882), s. 5.

P and R -were t-vvo brothers, -who h ad some ejm uli properties. R h ad also
separate properties. In 1917, B having fallen ill asked P ’s sons (P having
died) to look after all th e properties. R died in 1919, lea^ang his widow
as his only heiress. P 's sons continued to manage th e properties after
R ’s death. In 1920 P ’s sons institu ted a suit for partitio n , claiming
half share in all the properties including the separate properties of R . The
su it was dismissed for default in 1924. P ’s sons bro u g h t a fresh suit for
partition in 1925. In th is suit, which was finally disposed of on F eb ru ary 2,
1933, an issue was raised as to w hether th e separate properties of R were
ejnidli or not, and it was decided th a t th ey were n o t so, b u t were self­
acquired properties of R . Thereupon P ’s sons gave up possession of these
properties to R ’s widow.

I n a suit for accounts by R ’s widow against P ’s sons in respect of the naanage-

m ent of these self-acquired properties from 1917 to February 2, 1933,
the question was w hether th e claim or any p a rt of it was bai’i'ed b y linait-
ation.

H eld th a t the question of lim itation depended on th e character in which

the defendants held possession.
As for the period from 1917 to the d ate of R ’s death in 1919,
held, possession was as agents of R , and th e claim was consequently barred
under A rt. 89 of th e In d ian L im itation Act.
As for the subsequent period, nam ely, from R ’s d eath to F ebruary 2, 1933,
accounts were claimed on the footing of a tru st in favour of the plaintiff.
H eld : (i) th a t to save lim itation a tru s t m ust be foimd in term s o f s. 10
of th e Indian L im itation Act, in other words, it m u st be shown th a t th e
alleged trustees are persons ‘‘in whom property has become vested in tru s t
for any specific purpose”;

(ii) th a t th e facts and circumstances of the ease did n o t establish such a

tru st.
Section 10 is not intended to comprise all fiduciary relations whatsoever,,
b u t the words “for any specific purpose” are intended as words o f restric­
tion and mean th a t the tru st is for a purpose which has been specified by th e
person who has created th e tru st. T rusts which th e law would im ply from
the existence of particular facts or fiduciary relations, b u t which have no t
been declared by any specific words, are excluded from th e operation o f
s. 10.
V id ^a Varuthi T hirtha v. B alusam i A yy a r, I. L. R . 44 Mad. 831 ; L. R . 48
I. A. 302; K haw S im Teh v. ChuaJi H ooi Gnoli Neoh, L. R . 49 I. A. 37 ;
Kherodemone^ Dossee v. Doorgamoney Dossee, I. L. R . 4 Cal. 455, and
BibhutibJmahan Datta v. A nadinath B atta, I. L. R . 61 Cal. 119, referred
to.
There is a well m arked distinction between the relation of agency and th a t
of tru st. An agency m ay often involve a relation of tru s t an d confi­
dence, and property in the hands o f an agent m ay sometimes be im pressed
■with a tru st for th e benefit of the principal, and in such circumstances an
agent may not be allowed to set up the S tatute of L im itation in bar of a suit
for,accounts by th e principal. B u t every agent standing in a fiduciary
relation is not precluded from settm g vip such plea.

B urdick v. Garrick, L. R. 5 Ch. 233, discussed.

A trustee de son tort would come w ithin th e operation of s. 10 of th e L im it­
ation Act, but th e existence of a trust, m ust be first established before
s. 10 m ay be applied against such person.
Dhanpat- Singh K hettry v. Mohesh N a th Tew ari, 24 C. W . N . 752, and A r u m illi
Perrazu v. A ru m ilti Subbarayadu, I . L. R . 44 Mad. 656 ; L. R . 48 I . A. 280,
referred to.
 GENERAL INDEX. xsvii

P age .
Section 5 of th e In.dian. T rusts Act, 1882, reqviires an instru iaeiit in w riting
to create a tr u s t in i-elation to im m ovable pro p erty . B u t it would be an
a c t of frau d if a defendant, though a tru stee in fact, is still to escape his ju s t
liab ility as such, m erely from th e non-existence of a n in stru m en t in w riting.
Such a case is covered by th e last parag rap h o f th a t section. This requires,
how ever, th a t a tru s t m u st be first established.
K a li P a d a D e v. H a r i D a si D asi, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. .. .. 652

Loan eontraeted fey one member for family business : See F a m ily trade .. 369

Local Self-Government— Election disputes— J u risd ictio n o f D istrict M agistrate

to entertain, after delerjaiioii of pow er to another— Ju risd ictio n of civil
Court regarding su its challenging the M a g istra te ’s fin d in g -—B engal Local
Self-G overm nent A ct {B en. I l l of lSS-5), ss. 3, 1 8 B , 1SS{b.), 148.

U nder th e B engal Local Self-Giovernraent A ct of 1885, a D istrict M agis­

tr a te has pow er to en tertain application for setting asicle an election im der
th e A ct an d to transfer th a t case to an o th er officer, even after his prior
delegation of powers to some other M agistrate, w’ho did no t deal w ith
an y such application.
The decisioii of th e election dispute by th e D istrict M agistrate or by th e
officer to whom he m ight transfer th e sam e is final an d civil Courts have
no jurisdiction to entertain an y suit challenging th e same.
S u b o d h C h a n d ra C hakrabarti v. Jnanendra- N a th G hakrabarti, I. L. R .
[1938] 1 Cal. .. .. .. .. .. .. 62

h m & ilt— In q u isitio n —In te rim receiver — Court, h ilierent power of — In d ia n ,

L u tiu c y A c t { I V o f 1912), ss. 56, 67, 71.
T here is inherent power in th e Courts dealing w ith lunacy m atters to ap p o in t
an interim receiver. B u t he will have to furnish adequate security before
taking charge of any of the properties of th e supposed lunatic.
The provisions of th e In d ian Limacy A ct of 1912 and its Amending Acts
are n o t absolutely exhaustive.
I t %vould be im fortunate if a Court in B ritish In d ia did n o t have in suitable
eii'cumstances pow er to appoint an in te rim receiver for th e protection,
of the property of a person who is alleged to be a lunatic, though ordinarily
it would iiot be proper either to app o in t a custodian or a manager before
th ere had been a definite fi.nditig on inquisition th a t th e alleged lu n atic
was in fact a lunatic.
S a r o j B a s in i Dcbi v. M ahenclra N a th B h a d u ri, I. L. R. 54 Cal, 836, ex­
plained.
As th is is a m a tte r which lies outside th e actual provisions of the sta tu te.
C ourts in B ritish In d ia are entitled to exercise th a t k in d o f inherent juria-
diction w hich originally was exercised by the C ourts o f Chancery in
E ngland in aU m atte rs concerning the welfare a n d th e care of infants a n d
lunatics.
E x p a rte W M tfleld, 2 A tk . 315 : 26 E. R . 392, an d I n re P ou n tin , 37 Ch. D .
609, followed, '
W here before th e inquisition th e Court h ad ordered the treaaury officer
to w ithhold R s. 200 o u t of th e pension of th e alleged limatio, who was a
retired Siibordinate Jtxdge, and to p a y over only th e b a la n c e; a a d th e
form er declined to m ake a p a rt p ay m en t o f th e pension.
held th a t the orders were n o t satisfactory or proper.
On appeal th e H igh Court appointed th e ' n a zir of th e inquisition Court
in te rim receiver of th e pension moneys o f th e alleged lunatic with directions
as to w hat paym ents should be m ade by th e n a sir m receiver: secuxifcy
being dispensed w ith as he was an officer o f th e Coul’t.
B a je n d ra K u m a r G upta v . S h a ile n d ra K n m a r Giupta,^ !,, L, R. [1938]: 1 ISO
:Kxviii GENERAL INDEX.

P age .
Hahomedasi Law— M arriage o f m inors— Consent o f g u a rd ia n — B ig h t of
repudiation on attaining m a jo rity i f m arried w ithout g u a rd ia n s fo rm a l
consent.
According to the Maliomedan law m arriage is a civil contract.
A m arriase contracted by a m inor Mahoinedan possessed of understanding
is dependant for its operation on the consent of his guardian, a n d is n o t
void, b u t can be ratiiied by th e m inor upon attaining m ajority.
■Wliere a minor Mahomedan ,^rl, before attaining puberty, entered into a
contract of marriage arranged b y her father, who did n o t forrnally appear
as her auardian at the time of th e marriage, she can, on attaining puberty,
osereise her option of repudiating th a t m arriage under th e Mahomedan
law provided no circumstance be present which wouid disentitle h er to
the exercise of th a t right.
J a y Giinnessa R ib i'v . M a h a m m a d A li S isiva s, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. .. 139
Maintenance— Order cancelling m aintenance, i f retrospective i n effect— Code
of Orijninal Procedure (T'' of 189S), s. 4SS.
An order under s. 488(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cancelling
a previous oi'der of maintenance, bakes effect from th e daf e on which it is
made, and has no retrospective operation. I t cannot affect th e arrears
due up to the date of the order of cancellation.
B hag S u lta n v. M uhaynm ad A h h a r K h a n , [1930] A. I. R . L ah. 99, followed.
T a r i B ala S u k la B a id y a v. K a h a l B a m SuJda B a id y a , I . L. B.. [1938]
1 Cal. .. .. .. .. .. .. 509

M&lh& See M alicious prosecutio7i .. . . . .. .. 202

Malicious prosecution— M alice— In d irect motive — Proof.

I n a suit for malicious prosecution malice is proved if it is shown th a t th e
prosecution was started w ithout reasonable and probable cause an d from
some indirect motive.
B a n si v. H u k a m S in g h , [1930] A. I. B . (All.)-216, a n d T . D . K a riip p a n n a
P iU ai V. F . Tf. H aughton, I. L . E,. 59 Mad. 887, approved.
S a tye n d ra C handra B h a tta c h a rjya v. A b d u l M a n im Khan, I. L. R .
[i93S] 1 Cal. .. .. .. .. .. 202

Marriage of minors : See M ahom edan L a w .. ,. ., 139

Master and Servant— Shipow ner a n d crew— Negligence of doctor— Negligence

o f master— L ia b ility of shipowner— Common em ploym ent— M easure of
damages.
L, a lashkar, was employed by th e shipowners, B rocklebank Steam ship
Com.pany, as a deck-erew in th e ship “M arldiar” on its voyage to America.
He fell ill and was examm ed by doctors a t ports of call, bu t his case was no t
considered sufficiently serious im til he rea,ohed A vonroouth, when i t was
declared to be advanced phthisis and he was sent to a hospital. H e was-
incapacitated for life and he sued th e shipowners, th eir agents an d the
master of the ship for damages. On evidence it was found th a t th e m aster
of the ship was careless and negligent in the m atter o f taking reasonable
and proper care of L, in his illness which developed into phthisis. The
owners raised the plea th a t they couJd not be held liable for th e negligence of
the m aster as the latter and L were under the common employm ent of
the owners.
H e ld : (i) th a t the o^vners, having employed com petent doetor.s, were not
liable for the negligence of the doctors ;
FarUon v. Denville, [19S2] 2 K . B. 309, followed ;
(is) th a t the owners were liable for th e negligence of th e m aster of th e
ship ;
 GENEllAL INDEX. satis

Page,

(iii) th a t, as L and tlie m aster were engaged in different- dBpartments of

d u ty unconnected w ith each other, the doctrine of corainon eaiplaym eat
did n o t a p p ly ;
B artonsliill Goal C o m p a n y v. M cG uire, 3 Maeq. 300, followed ;
B la n c h ctU Y . Secrcfary o f S ta te for I n d ia in Council, 9 A. L, J. 173, di.s.-;ented
from ;
P riestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1; 150 E. R . 1030 ; anion v. DenviUe, [1032]
2 K . B. 309, aud H e d ley v. P in k n e y & Sons /Steam ship C om pany, [1S9-1]
A. C. 222, referred to ;
(iv) th a t damages were payable to L for being incapacitated for life w ith
due regard to th e n atu re of his employment.
T . & J . BrochUbanh, L im ite d v , N oor A km o d c, I. L. R. [1938] 1 Cal. .. 216-

Merefiant Shipping — T u g vessel used in dockyard approachable fro m the- sea,

i f a sh ip ” used fo r ncwignlion— M e n em ployed in such v^’ssch i f cntitJed,
to p riv ih y e s of senm en— h i d ia n M erchant S h ip p iru j A c t ( X X I of 1923),
(IS. 2{8), o{2)lc), 5(3), 62 (1)— Enfilish M erchant S h ip jiin g A ct, 1S94
{57 & 5S V ic^c. GO), ss. 163, 261 (d).
A tug vessel propelled by steam and n o t exelu.yively by oars, which is used in
B ritish India only for towing ships w ithin a doeliyard whenever any .ship
enters the p o rt from th e .sea, is a “ .ship” w ithin th e m eaning of s. 2{S) of
the In d ian Alercharit Shipping Act and is governed b y s. 5(2) (c) of th e Act.

M a y o r, etc. o f Southport M orriss, [1893] I Q. B. 359, distingui.ghed.

Weeh V. Ross, [1913] 2 K. B. 229, foHowed.
B ut unles.s they are sea-going .ships registered in B ritish India, P a rt I I of
the English M erehai)t Shipping Act of 1894 will not apply to them and th e
m en employed in them will n o t have tlie privileges o f seam en a.s provided
by s. a-i{l)id) read w ith s. 3(2)(c) and s. 5(3) of th e Indiaii Jlereh an t
)Shipping Act.
Calcutta P ort Com m issioners v. B hubaneshw ar P ra sa d , I. L. R . [1938] I Cal. 433

Minor, Marriage of : See M ahom edan L a w .. .. .. 139‘

Mlscftief— ^^Wrongfid lo ss," M eanim j o f — N'uisance——Obstruction, w hen

am ounts to ituisance— E ig h t of easement, how to he exercised— h id ia n P en a l
Code ( X L V of I860), ss. 23, 426.
A priv ate p arty , having a right of easem ent, is n o t en titled to take the law
in his om i hands in order to remove a n obstruction unless it actually
am ounts to nuisance.
A dom inant owner, having a right-of-way over land belonging to another,
has no right liim self to remove an obstruction unless his right-of-way is
im paired by it. I f he does so, he has em ployed unlaw ful means and if loss
of p roperty is called thereby to another, he is guilty, under s. 426 o f th e
In d ian Penal Code,
E tnperor v. Z ip r u T a n a ji P a til, I , L. R . 51 B om . 487, a n d H y d e v. Qrahamt
1 H . & 0. 593 ; 158 E . E . 1020, xeferred to.
H a ri B ilash S h a u v, N a ra y a n Das Agarwala,r I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. 680>

Misdirection— Absem e of caution in aezual cases, if,vitia tes verdict—'O pinion

of the Judge, how to be expressed— of chmge, to the ju ry , how to 6e
construed.
The absence of th e xisual caution given to th e jury in S;exa:al cases to th e
effect th a t it is unsafe to rely on th e uncorroborated evidertce of tHa g ro ^ -
outrix does n o t necessarily vitiate th e verdict. T he e:0Gecfc 0^ such ornlssiori
depends upon th e facts of each case.
XXX GENERxlL INDEX.

P age.
Merely because the Judge formed a strong opinion himself vthich coloured
his presentation of the evidence to the jury or he gave expression to his
opinion on the evidence strongly, the charge to the jury cannot be held to
be vitiated , if he did not usurp the function of the jury but left the decision
of each point fairly to them.
The charge to the jury must be taken as a whole. There may be passages
to which exception may be taken but the verdict will not be set aside if the
cases of both sides had been fairly placed before the jury.
King-Em peror v. Barendra K u m a r Ohose, 28 C. W. N. 170, referred to,
A bdul Gafur Kotwal v. Emperor, I. L. R. [1938] 1 Cal. .. .. 636

JMisjoinder— Joint trial of several offences, when permissible— M isjoinder of

charges, i f vitiates the trial— “Sam e transactions,"' M eaning of—Retrial,
i f can be ordered on charges of which the accused has been acquitted at the
trial— Code of Crim inal Procedure {A ctV of 1898), ss. 233, 235, 403, 423,
537.
P er H e n d e r s o n J. Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies
to a case where something irregular takes place at a regular trial. It
does not apply when the trial is illegal from start to finish, as in the case
of a clear misjoinder of charges which could not be tried together.

.Subrahmania A y y a r v. K ing-Em peror, I. L. R. 25 Mad. 61 ; L. R. 28 I. A,

257, followed.

A b d u l R ahm an v. K ing-Em peror, I. L. R. 5 Ran. 53 ; L. R. 54 I. A. 96, and

Emperor v. E rm an A li, I. L. R. 57 Cal. 1228, distinguished.

P er B i s w a s J. Under s. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a separate

trial for every charge is the rule, the only exceptions allowed being those
under ss. 234, 235, 236 and 239. Unless, therefore, a case falls within
any of these exceptional provisions, it would be a clear breach of the
statute to join a number of charges in the same trial. A breach of these
provisions means the substitution of another mode of trial for that
designed by the legislature as the best means of securing a fair trial, and
the failure of justice in consequence thereof may be presumed and need not
be proved.

When there has been contravention of the statute in respect of the salutary
provisions relating to joinder of charges, there is such a breach of
the rtiles of procedure as to amoimt to an illegality going to the root of
the trial and therefore beyond the curative provision of s. 537 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that, in order that
several offences may be joined in one indictment, they must be committed
in one series of acts, so connected together as to form the same transac­
tion. The first element to establish, therefore, is a “ series of acts” which
would necessarily imply the acts being “ connected together,” but this will
not be enough ; it will have to be shown further that the acts form the
“ same transaction.”

The expression “ so connected together as to form the same transaction ”

does not include a series of acts which have no relation to each other as
cause and effect or as principal and subsidiary, or which are not shown
to follow, the one from the other,- as a necessary or natural sequel or con­
comitant. There must be one continuous thread of a common purpose
running through the acts. Mere difference in time or place between the
commiK^ion of one offence and of another will not necessarily import want
of mph continuity, they may be yet linked together by a community
and continuity of purpose and thus form the same transaction.

Per c It'}a»ii.. In a case where an accused was charged with an offence under
w. 302, Indian Penal Code, at the trial, but convicted imder s. 304, Part I,
and iiccoiitted of the charge imder s. 302, and the accused preferred an
appeal f^rom his conviction, but there was no appeal by the Local Govern­
ment against the acquittal,
 GENERAL INDEX. xxsi

P age.

helH that the appiellate Court has the power in ordering a retrial to direct him
to be tried on the charge as originally framed, though on the facts proved
he has been acquitted of the offence charged and convicted of a minor
offence. Section 403 of the Code o f Criminal Procedure is no bar thereto.
N azim uddin v. Emperor, I. L. R. 40 Cal. 163, and K rishna D han M an da l
V . Queen-Empress, I. L. R. 22 Cal. 377, followed.

N a im u d d in Biswas v. Emperor, I. L. R. 63 Cal. 1112 ; Abdul K h a n v.

Emperor , I. L. R. 62 Cal. 928, and N ity a Oopal S a d h u v. Emperor, 38
C. W. N. 1112, dissented from.
Per H e n d e r s o n J. From the words “ in an appeal from conviction ” in
s. 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it does not follow that the only
matter before the appellate Court from a conviction is the charge upon
which the appellant has been convicted. Such interpretation would
vmnecessarily narrow the scope of the words “order him to be retried by
a Court of competent jurisdiction” . When once the conviction and
sentence have been set aside and a retrial ordered, the whole matter
should be re-opened.

Per B i s w a s J. A retrial is not a second trial, but only a continuation of

the first trial. The trial is not concluded until the retrial has been held,
and it cannot, therefore, be said that an acquittal at the original trial
(no more than a conviction) remains in force during the retrial within
the meaning of s. 403(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Queen-Empress v. Jabanulla, I. L. R. 22 Cal. 97S, referred to,
K am ala K anta R a y G haudhuri v. Emperor, I. L. R. [1938] 1 Cal. .. 98

Misjoinder of charges, if vitiates trial : See M isjoinder .. 98

Mitakshara joint family ancestral business : See F a m ily trade .. .. 369

Mortgage— Decree fo r sale— Assignment of decree and rights under mortgage deed
— Subsequent mortgage to assignee— Sale under original decree—A p p lica ­
tion for personal decree fo r balance due— Application dismissed as barred
by limitation— S u it fo r personal decree on subsequent mortgage—M a in ta in ­
ability of suit— Estoppel—^Res .judicata— Code of Civil Procedure {Act V
of 1908), O. X X X I V , r. 14.

A mortgagee sued for recovery of a mortgage debt by the sale of the mort­
gaged property and obtained a decree for sale. P. paid the amoimt due
to the mortgagee and obtained from him an assignment of the decree and
his rights under the mortgage deed which included a right to a personal
decree. By a subsequent deed, the mortgagor mortgaged the same
property to P. together with two additional houses for the amount he had
paid to the original mortgagee and an additional advance.

This deed contained a provision which purported to give P. power to

includc the additional houses in the decree for sale already obtained
without bringing a fresh suit in the event of the debt not being paid within
a period therein stipulated.

The debt was not discharged within the stipulated period.

The additionally mortgaged houses were sold privately and the sale price
was paid to P.

P., in execution of the original decree, brought to sale the properties therein
comprised. The price realized being less than the debt due, P. applied
under the original mortgage deed for a personal decree. His application
was dismissed as barred by limitation.

P. then brought an action on the personal covenant in the subsequent mort­

gage for the balance of debt due after giving credit for the amoimts already
obtained by him.
 GENERAL INDEX.

P age .

Held that the suit w a s maintainable, the subsequent mortgage, Bot being
an adjustment of the decree but an entirely distinct traiisaction, the dis­
missal of his application for a personal decree on the earlier mortgage was
not a bar to his suit on the subsequent mortgage.
P radyum na K um ar M allik v. Dinendra M allik, I. Ij. R. [1938] 1 Cal. G6

Mortgage— Leasehold— Usufructuary mm-tgagee in possession of leasehold, when

liable to p a y rent to the, lessor— Trmisfer of Prop&rty Act ( I V of 18S2),
ss. 63, 72, 76, 108{i).
Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, enacts the statutory duties
of a mortgagee in possession vis-d-vis the mortgagor. I t gives no right
to the lessor of the mortgagor to use the mortgagee in possession for
rent.
A tisufructuary mortgagee (of a leasehold property) in possession is not
liable to the lessor of the mortgagor for the rent reserved by the lease.
A mortgagee in possession of a leasehold property is liable to pay rent to
the lessor of the mortgagor only in the event o f the whole of the mort­
gagor’s leasehold interest ha\Tiig been transferred to such mortgagee.
Shacheendra M ohm i Ghosh v. Calcutta Port Conimissioners, I. L. R . [1938]
1 Cal. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21

Mortgage, Bilsefit of, as a s ^ t : S e e .. .. .. 531

Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds : See Registration .. .. .. 187

Mortgage decree : See Agricultural Debt ,. .. .. .. 597

M a tm , InSireci : See M a licio m prosecution .. .. .. 202

Negligence of doctor : See Master and Servant ■■ *. ., 216

Negligence of master : Bgq .M aster and Servartfi ,, .. 216

Negotiable instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), ss. 8, 78 : See Promissory Note .. 450

News-sheet— Unauthorised 7iews-sheet, W hat is—Poster, how to be inter­

preted—“ Union Jack ” , i f an emblem of Oovcrnment established by
law in British India-— Class or section'% Meaning of— Capitalists, i f
a class— In d ia n Press {Emergency Powers) Act { X X I 1 1 of 1831), ss. 4, IS,
The question was-wlietlier a poster was hit by els. (d) and (/) of B. 4, sub-s. {!)
of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931, as bringing into
hatred or contempt, or as exciting disaffection towards His Majesty or the
Government established by law in British India, or as inciting the com­
mitment of an offence.
Held that in dealing with such a poster containing a caricature or cartoon,
the common sense interpretation of such a document, namely, th e im ­
pression it gives to a man of ordinary common sense, must be taken. It
is worse than useless to try to extract a meaning out of it by a laboured
commentary,
Where such a poster gives one the impression of being a mere call to labourers
to unity and to struggle to end the exploitation of labour by capital, the
poster is not hit by s. 4, sub-s. (J) of the Act, even tbotigh in this process
of exploitation the poor are represented as being crushed or oppressed.
Unity and struggle is no incitement.
The Union Jack is not the emblem o f the Qovemment established, by law
in British India within the meaning of the Act.
 GENERAL INDEX.

P age .
The words “ class or section ” in el. (d!) of s . 4(1) m ean a definitely ascer­
tain ab le body of individuals n o t an indeteim iiiate body or g to n p having
no clearly defined and non-variable cliaracteristics or criteria by which th ey
m ay be distinguished from any oth er body or group. Exploiters or c a p ita l­
ists as such do n o t constitute a elass or section w ithin th e meaning of th is
clause.
(S'ar^ar V. I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. 455

Nstice : /See ” PmhibUian, Writ of.” 476

Notice, Chairman’s ; See A gricultural Debt 266

Notice from Debt Settlement Board, Validity of : See A g ricultural Debt 345

l^uisance : See M isc h ie f 680

Obstriictlon, when amounts t® nuisance : See M iscM eJ 680

Occupancy holding, Pre-emption of, by landlord ; See Bengal T enm icy 695

Onus— B urden of proving whether an article is human, food, i f lies on the

prosecution-— Calcutta M unicipal A ct (Ben. I l l of 1923), ss, i l 2 , 428,
4S8.
In a prosecution for infringem ent of s. 412 of th e C alcutta Municipal A ct
i t m u st be first proved th a t w hat was being sold is an article of hum an,
food, and th e btiM en of proving i t I'cstR on th e prosecuting authority.
The law rraises no presum ption th a t th e prosecution m u st be in respeefc o f
a n article o f food referred to in s. 412, Onee it is shown th a t th e article is
a n article o f hum an food^ th en if th e p a rty ciuarged says it was n o t intended
for human, consum ption, th e onus o f proving th is will be on th a t p a rty
u n d er sub-s. (2) o f s. 418.
Merely because t« a leaves yield an article o f hum an food, it tloes n o t follow
that every p art of a tea shrub m ay be put to sim ilar use.
Corporation o f C alcutta v . P agli, I, L . R . 47 Cal. 53, distinguished.
The au th o rity of th e Couiirt m iist be vindicated and its ©ixlers effimed o o t,
b u t all things m u st b«> dcm© decently and in opds®i m to iM.piwe eon-
fidence -ia s«na@ o f justfe© of th e C ourt,
In th is cas© th e Magisfcmte, instead of gyanting th® accms®«i a copy of th®
ord er o f conviction prayed d i» e e t^ th e aeeuaed to* atten d persaiiaJBy
a n d th e n issued a distress w arrant for th e realisation o f th e fine imposed
on h im b y a tta e h m a it and sate of th e moveablea to th e aeeuaed.
M agistrate’s action adversely comm ented on.
Q anga D h a r N a th M a i v. Corporation o f Calcutta^ I . L. R. [1938] 1 Cal. . . S58

^ral agreement to sub-let: Bee Gontra&t .. .. ,». m

Oral evidence to vary agreements, If admissible ; See AehrmsibiMty • 48'

Oftginal Side®! High Court, iii'eleetlen cases ; See Eleotion

Original Side Hvlei,' ©fe. XlX^ r-1 .; 8m Jm isd ieiim , . , ,i,„ .m

Partition : See F a m ily trade . . .. ,, »,; 369

Partnenhip*v^M i|i»K !^:

xSsiv GENERAL INDEX.

P age.

Patl'i sals—-Proclamation from Court— Purchaser’s ^‘ju s t right ” to proclama­

tion— Jurisdiction—-Bengal Patni Taluk Reguulation ( V I I I of 1819),
ss. 11, 15{2).
W here after th e sale of a p a tn i, an application is m ade to th e Court for th e
issue of a proelam ation under s. 15, cl. (3) of th e P a tn i R egulation, i t is th e ,
d u ty of th e Judge to consider and determ ine w hether in th e eircximstances
of the case the purchaser can ju stly have a proclam ation issued in his
favour.
■ Byom R esh M^iMierji-v. N irendra N a ra ya n -Bagchi, I. L. R . [l-938] 1 Cal. 427

Persona designata and District Magistrate : See Ulection .. .. 146

Personal decree, Suit for, on subsequent mortgage :See Mortgage . . .. 66

Plaint, Amendment of« by appeal Court : See Practice .. .. .. 361

plaintiff, Dismissal of : See Interpleader suit .. .. .. 53

Possession, Claim for : See Jurisdiction .. .. ,. .. 354

Poster, how to be interpreted : See News-sheet .. .. .. 455

Practice—Amendment of p la in t hy appeal Court—Alluvion-—Accretion—

Apportionment—Principle— Bengal Alluvion and D ilurion Regulation
{XIofm5),s.4{l){5).
I n determining th e m ethod of division to be followed in respect of d isputed
land gained hy alluvial accretions in cases n o t specially provided fo r by th e
Bengal Begulation X I o f 1825, th e Court is to be guided by th e best ev i­
dence of any established local usage, or, in its absence, b y th e general
principle^ of equity an d jutice as under s. 4(5) of th e Bengal R egulation
X I of 1825, The C ourt is to see th a t each of th e rip arian owners gets a fair
and proportionate share of th e new river frontage.
W here in a suit for declaration of title to an<i for recovery o f possession
of a parcel of alluvial char-' land formed by the recess of a river on th e
basis of possession w ith o u t allegation of any established local usage,
an application for am endm ent of the plaint was m ade by th e plaintiff- ,
appellant to th e H igh Court 60 as to perm it evidence o f established local
usage, etc., to be adm itted, th e am endm ent prayed for was under tho cir­
cumstances of the ease allowed and th e case was rem anded.
Shahabuddin Sarhar v. K afiluddin Tapadar, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. .. . ggi

Pre-emption of occupancy holding by landlord : See Bengal Tenancy .. 695

Presidency-tgwns Insolvency Act (III of 1909), s. 31(1) : See insolvency ,, 491

Presidency-towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909), s. 108 : See Insolvency ., 132

Presiding o fficer; See .. .. 146

Pfetumption—Presumption of storage for sale, when arises—Attempt, i f

punishable— Bengal Food Adulteration A ct {Ben. V I of 1919). ss '■4, 6__
, In d ia n Penal Code { X L V of 1860), s. 511.

I n a prosecution for an oSence u n d er s. 6 of th e Bengal Food A didteration

Act, the-presum ption referred .to in sub-s* (4) reverses th e ordinary rule
 G EN ER AL IN 'D EX .

P age.
of evidence ,which rests th e onus of proof in a crim inal tria l ob th e prosecu­
tio n . I t shotild, tlierefore, be strictly construed. The fact th a t th e
article o f food w as in tra n sit in a e a rt and n o t deposited in any place for
th e purjjose of sale does n o t necessarily m ilitate ag ain st th e pxea-uniption
of storing for sale. B u t th e word “ p o ssessio n ” in sixb-s. (4) m u st be
given a strict in terp retatio n . I t means- actual physical possession, and
cannot be extended to include constructive possession. In a case, tliCTe-
fore, w here the article of food m eant fo r th e accused w as ixi actual posses­
sion o f another pei'son during tra n sit, th e presuitiptioii under th a t siilj-
seetion does n o t arise.
Fe6?> V. JSaier, [1916] 2 K . B. 753 ; JDaly v . W eU , Ir. B . 4 C. L. 309, and
W illia m s X. A lle n , ll'dlQ'] 1 K . B. 425, referreti to .
Section 511 o f th e In d ian Penal Code has no application to an a tte m p t to
com m it an offence under th e Bengal Food A dulteration Act.
Delay iii in stitu tin g th e prosecution an d lack o f care in fram ing th e com­
p lain t, adversely com m ented on.
lla m G harit Ram. B lia k a t v. C hairm an, R a js h a M D istrict B oard. I. L. R .
[1938] 1 Cal. .. .. .. 420

Privy Oounci!— X e a v e to ajipeal —Snbstm itial question o f law — Jnsolvency — ,

Rules— Code of C ivil Procedure {Act V of 190$), s. 110— In d ia n Evidence
A('t { I of 1872), s. 114‘— Calcutta In solvm ctj Exiles, 1910, r. 79.
W hore in an insolvenoy proceeding th e d eb to r had been 'wrongly p rev en t­
ed b y th e Ju d g e from p u ttin g in his affidavit (instead o f th e notice required
by r. 79 of th e C alcutta Insolvency R ules) and from relying upon th e
statem en ts contained in th a t docum ent,
held t h a t th e error w as n o t a su b sta n tia l question of law as contem plated
im der s. HO o f tlie Code o f Civil Proeedm ’e for gran tin g leave to appeal
to th e Judicial Com m ittee of th e P riv y Council.

The oxohision of th e affidavit in no wise p rw e n te d th e d eb to r from m aking

an answ er a t th e hearing, h ad lie chosen to do so ; h© could still have
given oral evidence in reb u ttal of th e case p u t forw ard by th e petitioning
creditor a t th e hearing, even th o u g h th e requisite “ notice ” had n o t te e n
filed by him .
In re Dale, E x parte Dale, 3 Oh. D. 322 a n d E x parte Learoyd, In re Luit-
m an, 13 Ch. D. 321, followed.

A h m a d M oham ed P a r u h v . P7‘aphtdla N a th 2’agore, I. L. E . [1938] 1 Cal. 13

Probate, Grant ofa if bars subsequent question aliout title or eanstriidSon Of w ii!;
See Letters of A dm inistration .. ,. .. 75

Prosediire'— Splitting up o f a case, i f permissihle-~''De novo trial, i f can be ord&t'ed •

— Inherent pou;er of Court, how to be exercised..

I f a C o u rt finds, at. th e tim e o f fram ing th e charges, t h a t &p r im a fa m e case

has been mad© o u t ag ain st th e ace,used b a t th e jo in t tria l o f afi o f them
would foe illegal on account o f m isjoinder o f charges, th e C ourt has inherent
power to sp lit up th e case directing a de novo tria l o f some of the aeoused
and proceeding w ith th e tria l o f others. . ; -

Wlien, in. th e course of a trial, an oooafiion arises TPhioli d m ian d s in ter­

ference, b u t fo r w hich th e Cod© of C rim iaal B ro c h u re does n « t specifie»Uy
provide, th e Court has inheren t power to na^he Sudh Ordier M of
justice require. Such power shoiild n o t be capricibtisly ‘Oif af'lpiir#
exercised b u t it is to be exercised ez dd>iia jusiitiae to do r^aJ
tia l justice for which alone the Courts exist. .

B u d h u L a i v. C hattv Qope, I. ,L. R . 44 Oal. S 1 6 ; Pigot v . AU M aham m ad

M and al, I . L. R , 48 C al..522, m A Rah-^n S h d h h .v . ^mp&ro^, I . L. R .
50 Cal. 872, TOferred to.. ,
xxxvi general in d e x .

P age.

It should ordinariiy b© possible for a Magistrate to decide the question of

joinder o f charges after the case has been opened by the Public Prosecutor.
He need not necessarily wait till the stage o f framing charges before Lc
makes up his mind whether a case should be split up.
R ash Behari Shaw v. Emperory 41 C. W. N . 225, distinguished.
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal A ffairs, Bengal v. Raghulal
R ahm an, 1. L. R . 62 Cal. 946,. referred to,
A k h il B a n d h u R a y v. Emperor, 1. L. R. [1938], I Cal. .. ., 588

Proclamation from Court : See Patni sale . . .. ,. .. 427

Prohibition, W rit of— Court of — Disqualified proprietor— Notice— E x e ­

cutrix of deceased husband's estate— W rits of Certiorari and Prohibition—
Court of W ards A ct {Ben. I X o f 1870), s. 6 (a)— Qovernment o f In d ia
Act, 1935 {26 Geo. V, c. 42), s. 226{1).
The rule o f the Court requiring uberrima fides on the part of the applicant
for an ex jjorie injuiiction applies equally to the case of an application
for a rule nisi for a writ o f prohibition and, where there has been a
suppression o f material facts, the Court will refuse the writ without
going into the merits o f the case.
R ex V. Kensington Incom e-tax Commissioners. E x parte Princess Edm ond
de Polignac^ [191’Zl 1 K . B . 486, relied on.
An order o f the Court o f Wards declaring a female a disqualified proprietor
under s. 6(a) o f the Court o f Wards Act is not a matter concerning the
revenue or concerning an act ordered or done in the collection thereof
within the meaning of s. 226(2^ of the Government e f India A ct, 1935,
Alcochf Ashdown and Company, L im ite d v . C hief Revenue-Authority, of B om ­
bay, I. L. R. 47 Bom. 742 ; L. R. 50 I.A. 227, relied on.
Secretary of State fop In d io in Council v. Shreegobinda Chaudhuri, I. L. R.
59 Cal. 1289, distinguished.
An executrix and tenant for life,, who had obtained probate o f her deceased
husband’s will, is the proprietor o f the estate within the meaning o f s:. 6
o f the Court of Wards Act.
Oanoda Sundary C haudhurani v. N a lin i R a n ja n R a h a , I. L. R. 3&Cal. 28,
distinguished.
The decision o f the Court of Wards that the applicant is a proprietor within
the meaning of s. 6 o f the Court o f Wards Act is not conclusive if, having
regard to the language of the Act and the admitted facts and documents^
it is erroneous.
Colonial B a n k of A ustralasia v. W illan, I. L. R. 5 P. C. Cas. 417, applied.
The making of an order by the Court o f Wards declaring that a female is
incompetent to manage her property without notice to or hearing the
person affected by it constitutes a breach o f the principles of natural justice
and is inr excess of any jurisdiction conferred by the Court o f Wards Act
and the Court of Wards should; be restrained from acting under it.
Cooper v. E o m d o f W orkafor the Wandsworth District, 14 G. B. (N.R.); 180;
143 E. R . 414 ; H opkins v. Smethwick Local Board of H ealth, 24 Q. B. I>.
712, and Lapointe v. L'A ssociation de Bienfaisance et de Retraite de la
Police de M ontreal, [1906] A. C, 535^ relied on.
The declaration by the Court o f Wards that a female is a disqualified pro­
prietor xmder s. 6(a) o f the Court o f Wards Act is not a purely administra­
tive act and the High Court has power to enforce the regular exercise
o f the powers of the Court o f W^'ards imder the section, by the issue
o f writs of Certiorari and prohibition.
In re N ational Carbon Compaaiy, Incorporated, I. L. R. 61 Cal. 450, and* In
re R am jidas M ahaliram , I.L. R. 62 Cal. 1011, relied on.
Indum ati Debi C haudhurani v. Bengal Court of W ards, I. L. R. [1&38] 1 CaK 476
 GENERAL INDEX. 3Ji

P ace.
Baraboni Goal Concern, Lim ited v. G okulananda M ohanta Thakur^ I. L. R.
61 Cal. 313 ; L. R. 6 1 1. A. 35, and N arendra N a th K u m a r x . A ta l Chunrlra
Banerjee, 27 C. L. J. 605, distinguished.
Chandra M a n i Debee v. Chandan M u ll In d ra K um ar, I. L. R. [1938] 1 Cal. 206

Sub-let, Oral agreement to : See Contract 563

Suit— D ism issal for default— Restoration of suit— Code of Civil Procedure
{Act V of 1908), 0 . I X , r. 9.
In an application for restoration under O. IX , r. 9, the plaintiff must show
some fact which was either not known to the Court when it dismissed
the suit or at least at that stage lacked satisfactory proof.
B a ij N a th Bothra v. K edar N a th Bothra, I. L. R. [1938] 1 Cal. 213

Suit— W ithdraw al of suit w ith leave to bring fresh suit on paym ent of costs—
Tim e limited— P aym ent of costs after institution of fresh suits w ithin time
extended by Court, i f bar to the fresh suit— Code of Civil Procedure (Act V
of 1908), s. H 8 ; 0 . X X I I I , r. 1{2).
Where the Court grants permission to the plaintiff to withdraw his suit
with liberty to bring a fresh suit by its order, namely, “ The plaintifif be
permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one tmless
barred as prayed for ; the defendant w ill get costs which m ust be paid
within one month as a condition precedent to a fresh suit ’ and the plain­
tiff, after instituting the fresh suit on the same cause o f action without
paying the costs, gets the time for paym ent of costs extended by an order
o f Court and thereafter pays in the costs within the extended time which
amount is withdrawn by the defendant without objection,
held that the Court having extended the time for payment o f costs imder
s. 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure without any objection from the
defendant, the fresh suit is maintainable.
Deb K u m a r R oy Choudhury v. Deb N a th B a m a B ipra, [1920] A. I. R
(Cal.) 897, referred to.
A b d u l K halehh v. Susheel Chandra C haudhuri, I. L. R. [1938} 1 Cal. 273

Suit by co-sharer for his share of royalty : See Sub-lease 206

Suit by person of unsound mind : See Jurisdiction 531

Suit by purchaser at rent-safe for refund of purchase price : See Execution 612

Suit for land : See Jurisdiction 354, 531

Suit to set aside void sales : See Execution of Decree 280

T ax— Trade tax, when to be paid— “ T r a d e ”, M eaning of—B engal-M unicipal

A ct [Ben. X Y of 1932), ss. 123, 182 ; Sch J V .

A taxing statute m ust be construed strictly, and the subject to be taxed

m ust be brought not merely within the spirit but within the letter o f
the law.
T ennant v. Sm ith, [1892] A. C. 150, referred to.
No license or tax can be required from a company vmder s. 182 o f the Bengal
Municipal Act, 1932, unless the company exercises a trade specified in
Sch. IV . The charging section is s. 182, and n o t Sch. IV, and the terms
in the schedule can have no independent efficacy in imposing liability.
sxsviii GENERAL INDEX.

P age.

F aiW id B a i v . Official T ru stee'o f B engal, I . L . R-. [1938], 1 Cal. 187

Regulation 1819— VIIi ; See B engal Patni Taluk R egulation.

Regutetlon 1S25—XI ; See B engal A lh ivio n a n d D iluvion R egulation,

Rent-sale and suit for refund of purchase price : See Execution .. 512

Rent-suit by some co-sharers, If bars further prosecution of certificate-proceedings

previously instituted by other co-sharers : See Landlord and Tenant .. 262

Repudiation of marriage : See Mahom edan Law .. .. .. 132

Res Judicata ; See Mortgafje .. .. .. ■ .. 66

Resolution, Passing of : See C om pany Law .. .. .. 90

Restoration of suit : See.5'ui« . .. - .. .. .. 213

Restrictive covenant in lease of land vested in the Crown : See Crown G rant . . 626

Retrial, if can be ordered on charges of which accused has been once acquitted :
See M isjoinder . . . . .... ,. . . . . ,. 98

Retrospective effect, if any, of order cancelling maintenance : M aintenance ' 509

Retrospective.effect of sanction of Court : Sqq.Depositor 121

Retrospective.operation t See Stattue .. ,. 607

Revision—Award by L an d Acquisition Collector— Reference to Court— Refusal

to refer, i f subject to revision— Jurisdiction— L a n d Acquisition A ct { I of
; 1894), ss, 18, 31(2).
In refusing to refer a matter for the determination of the Court under s. 18
o f the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector .acts in a ministerial or adniiinis-
trative capacity and the order of refusal is not subject to revision by the
High Court.
Administrator-General of Bengal v . L a n d Acquisition Collector, 24-Pergs.,
12 C. W. N. 241 and L eah Elies Joseph Soloman v. H . C. Stork I, L; R.
61 Oal. 1041, dissented from,
Bhagaban D as Skahv.. F irst L a n d Acquisition Collector of Calcutta I. L R
[1938] 1 Cal. .. .. .. ' ■. 4 0 0

Revision by High Court in election cases : See Election .. .. 145

Revision of valuation, by Court ; See Court-fee _ 196

Rules, High Court, Original Side, Ch. XIX, r. 1 : See Jurisdiction ., 531

Sale in execution ; See Agricultural Debt , . . .. 597

Sale In execution ; See Execution .. . ,, 512

Sale In exeoution : See Execution of Decree . ,, ,^ 280

Safe in m eaticm of decree and sei-off^: See Agricultural D&bt ., 345

 GENERAL INDEX. sx x is

P age .
Sale of portion of holding without knowledge of landlord : Landlord and
Tenant 164

Sanction of Court, when it takes effect ; See Depositor ■ 121

Sdheme : See Depositor 121

Seamen, Privileges of, when : See Merchant sh ip p in g 433

Security for costs— Circumstances in- tahich order is to he made— Discretion

of the Court— Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0 . X X V , 1.
The pow er of th e Court to m ake an order for security for costs under O. X X V ,
r. 1 o f th e Code o f Civil Procedure, 1908, is discretionary. In exercising
the discretion, the Court m ust have reg ard to th e ciicumstarLces of each
case, an d unless it Ids shown th a t an order for security for costs is necessary
for th e protection of th e defendant, th e Court ought n o t to m ake such an
order.
In th e goods o f Pretnckand Moonshee. Bidhatree Dassee v . M u tty L a ll
Ghose, I. L. R . 21 Cal. 832, followed.
Calico Printers Association v. Jeevan R a m Qanga B a m and Cortvpany,
I. L. R . 63 Cal. 897, discussed.
Cellular Clothing Co., L td. v. Sen. A hdul & Co., I. h . B . [1938] 1 Oai. 68S

Sit-Off : See Agrieultural Debt 345, 59T

Sexual cases : See M isdirection 636

Ship, What is : See M erchant Shipping 433

Shipowner and crew : See M aster and Servant 216

Specific performance ; See Contract 563

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), ss. 12, 18, 19, 25, 27A ,: See Contract 563

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), ss. 38, 41 : See Execution 312

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), s. 45 ; See Election 146

Splitting;up of case, if permissilJle : See ProcedMj-e .. .. 5B&

Statute— Betrospeotive operation—Principles— XJnregistered um fructuqry mort­

gagee i,7t possession'before A p r il'1, 1930, Position of—T ransfer o f Property
A ct { IV o f 1882), s. 53A —-Transfer o f Property {Am.end'ment) A ct ( X X of
1929), 16,63.

I n determining as to whether a statute has retrospectivQ Gperati0ii, tilie

Court has to take into consideration, amongst o th ^ s, th e foU6whig
ciples t—
A retrospective operation ought n ot to be given to a atatuta iSiiess in*
tantion o f the legislature th a t it should be so eonstiiied. ifl
an d unambiguous language.
Young v. A dam s, [1898] A. 469, referred to.
B ut it is obviously competent for the legislature to m ake the provisions
o f an A ct retrospective.
Strniih V. Calkmder, [1001] A . C., 297, referred to

5
si GENERAL INDEX.

P age .

A n enactm ent m ay be m ade retrospective by necessary in tendm ent.

Colonial Suqar liefin in q C ow pany, L im ite d v. Irv in g , [1905] A. C. 369, and
D elhi Cloth and General M ills Co., L td . v. Incom e-tax C om m issioner,
D elhi, I. L. E.. 9 Lah. 284; L. R . 54 I . A. 421, referred to .
A statu te dealing -with su b stan tiv e rig h ts would n o t ordinarily be con­
strued as retrospective, b u t m ay operate as such only on facte coming
into existence after th e passing o f tlae sta tu te .
In construing the intention o f th e legislatiu-e regarding an A ct, th e whole
A ct m ust be looked into in th e lig h t o f th e sta te of law a t th e tinoe it
w as passed, unless a c o n trary intention can be gathered from express w ords
or b y necessary im plication.
South Eastern Railway Co. v . Railway Commissioners, 5 Q. B. D. 217,
referred to .
B ut th e language of th e A ct is n o t to be strain ed im duly by a ttem p tin g to
bring it in w ith th e supposed in ten tio n of th e legislature.
Section o3A of th e T ransfer o f P ro p e rty A ct h as retrospective operation
to th e ex ten t tlia t i t applies to all su its filed on or a fte r A pril 1, 1930.
A s w in i K u m a r Chatterjee V. N a lin a k sk a B andopadhyay, 64 C. L. J . 558,
followed.
In a suit, in stitu te d a fter A pril 1, 1930, for declaration o f title and klids
possession, by a purchaser of im m ovable p ro p erty (purchased a t a sale in
execution of money decree) against th e prior unregistered usu fru ctu ary
mortgagee who was p u t in possession of th e sam e previous to A pril 1, 1930,
held th a t th e defendant u su fru ctu ary m ortgagee in possession was entitled
to th e benefit of s. 53A of th e T ransfer of P ro p erty A ct, although th e
usufructuary m ortgage a n d p a r t perform ance b y delivery of possession o f
the property were effected p rio r to A pril 1, 1930, an d t h a t th e plain tiff
w as entitled to declaration o f title b u t n o t to hhds possession.
M ahammad Hosain v.Jam iniN athB hattachqrJya, I. L. R . [1938] 1 Cal. 607

Statutfi 1894—57 & 58 Vie, C. 60 ; See E nglish Merchant S hipping Act.

Mttute 1914— 4 & 5 Geo, V., e* 59 : See E n g lish B a n kru p tc y A c t.

Statute 1919—9 & 10 Geo. V, c. 101 ; See Government of In d ia A ct, 1919.

Statute 1935— 25 & 26 Geo. V., C. 42 : See Government of In d ia A ct, 1935.

Statute, 1935— 26 Geo. V, c. 42 : See Government of In d ia Act.

Stajr ; See Agricultural Debt .. .. .. .. ., 597

Stay of proceedings : See A gricultural Debt .. .. ,, 345

Stay of suit : See Agricultural Debt .. ., .. .. 256

SliS»-leas«~-<7oZMery— Grant o f sub-lease by co-sharers in the leasehold interest,

each in respect of his share— S u it by one of such co-sharers alone fo r his
share of the royalty— Im p lied agreement.
W here a sub-lease of a colliery is granted b y all the co-sharers in th e lease­
hold interest, not Jointly b u t by each o f them in respect of h is p artic u la r
is an im plied agreem ent between the sub-lessee an d such
sub-lessors th a t the sub-lessee should p ay separately to one o f isuch sub­
lessors th e la tte r’s share o f th e to ta l royalty reserved under th e sub-lease,
gueh stib-lessor can com petently sue alone for his share of th e total, ro y alty .
Pfm nada N a ih May v. B a m a n i K a n ta R oy, I. L. R . 35 Cal. 3 31; L, B . 35
I , A. 73, relied upon. .
 GENERAL INDEX. sli

P age.

Baraboni Coal Concern, Lim ited v. O okulananda M ohanta T hakur, I. L. R.

61 Cal. 313 ; L. R. 6 1 1. A. 35, and N arendra N a th K um ar v. A tu l Chandra
Bancrjee, 27 C. L. J. 605, distinguished.
Chandra M a n i Debee v. Chandan M u ll In d ra K um ar, I. L. R. [1938j 1 Cal. 206

Sub-let, Oral agreement to : See Contract 563

Suit— D ism issal for default— Restoration of suit— Code of Civil Procedure
(Act V of 1908), O. I X , r. 9.
In an application for restoration under O. IX , r. 9, the plaintiff must show
sorne fact which was either not known to the Court when it dismissed
the suit or at least at that stage lacked satisfactory proof.
B a ij N a th Bothra v. K edar N a th Bothra, I. L. R. [1938] 1 Cal. 213

Suit— W ithdraw al of suit with leave to bring fresh suit on paym ent of costs—
Tim e limited— P aym ent of costs after institution of fresh suits w ithin time
extended by Court, i f bar to the fresh suit— Code of Civil Procedure (Act V
of 1908), s. 148 ; 0 . X X I I I , r. 1(2).
Where the Court grants permission to the plaintiff to withdraw his suit
with liberty to bring a fresh suit by its order, namely, “ The plaintiff be
permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one imless
barred as prayed fo r ; the defendant will get costs which must be paid
within one month as a condition precedent to a fresh suit ’ and the plain­
tiff, after instituting the fresh suit on the same cause o f action without
paying the costs, gets the time for paym ent o f costs extended by an order
o f Court and thereafter pays in the costs within the extended time which
amotmt is withdrawn by the defendant without objection,
held that the Court having extended the time for payment o f costs under
s. 148 of the Code of C^ivil Procedure without any objection from the
defendant, the fresh suit is maintainable.
Deb K u m a r R oy Choudhury v. Deb N a th B arna B ipra, [1920] A. I. R
(Cal.) 897, referred to.
A bdul K halekh v. Susheel Chandra C haudhuri, I. L. R. [1938] 1 Cal. 273

Suit by co-sharer for his share of royalty : See Sub-lease 206

Suit by person of unsound mind : See Jurisdiction 531

Suit by purchaser at rent-sale for refund of purchase price : See Execution 612

Suit for land : See Jurisdiction 354, 531

Suit to set aside void sales : See Execution o f Decree 280

Tax— Trade tax, when to be p aid— “ T ra d e '', M eaning of—B engal-M unicipal
A ct (Ben. X V of 1932), ss. 123, 182 ; Sch .IV .

A taxing statute must be construed strictly, and the subject to be taxed

m ust be brought not merely within the spirit but within the letter o f
the law.
Tennant v. Sm ith, [1892] A. C. 150, referred to.
No license or tax can be required from a company under s. 182 o f the Bengal
Miinicipal Act, 1932, unless the company exercises a trade specified in
Sch. IV. The charging section is s. 182, and not Sch. IV, and the terms
in the schedule can have no independent efficacy in imposing liability.
xUi GENERAL INDEX.

P agb.

T he words “ transacting busiaese for profit ” in colum n 2 of item 1 of Scli.

IV , in th e case of com panies, am o u n t to specification of a trad e w ithin
th e m eaning of s. 182.

Schedule IV does n o t strictly correspond to s. 182 in so far as it does n o t

give a list of th e trad es, professions or callings, b u t indicates th em by-
reference to th e persons exercising th e sam e. B u t th e w ords nsed in
th e designation o f com panies in th e schedule are sufficient to co n stitu te
specification of a tra d e .

O bservations of P atterso n >T. in B aranagar M m iid p a U ty v. B aranagar J u te

Factory Com pany, L im ited , I. L. R . [1937] 2 Cal. 211, dissented from .

Gcrporation o f Ocdcutia v . S ta n d a rd M arine Insurance C om pam j, I . L. R .

22 Cal. 581, and M u n ic ip a l Council. Cocanada v, Standard L ife Assuj'ajice
C om pany, I. L. R . 24 Mad. 205, explained.

T he w ord “ business ” in Sch. IV does n o t exclude ti-ade. O rdinarily speak­

ing, “ business ” m a y be said to be sjmonymous w ith “ tr a d e ” , though
in certain connections “ business ’'m a y be a much larg er word th a n trad e.
E v ery business is n o t a trad e , b u t every tra d e is business.

W here a company tra n sa c ts business for profit, or as a benefit society,

though not for profit, it is tx-ade.

D elany v. Dalany, L. R . 15 I r . 55 ; Rolls v . M iller, 27 Ch. D . 71, an d Doe

D em Wetherell v. B ird , 2 Ad. & El. 161; 111 E. R. 63, referred to.

I t is n o t essential to th e carrying on o f a trad e th a t th e person carrying

i t on should m ake o r desire to m ake a profit by it.

I n re D u ty on E state o f Incorporated Council of L aw Reporti^irj fo r E nglaiid

and W ales, 22 Q. B . D. 279 and Shaw v. Benson, 11 Q. B. D. 563, referred
to.

I t is not necessary u n d e r Soli. IV th a t th e profit m u st b e received and

realised w ithin th e m tinicipality ; all th a t is required is th a t th e business
should be for profit. I t is also n o t necessary th a t all th e operations con­
nected w ith th e business co n stitu tin g th e ,trade of th e com pany should
be carried on w ithin th e m unicipality. I t would be enough if th e t r n.n -
sactions w ithin the m im icipality a re carried on as p a rt of th e business.

Qrafnger and Son v. Gough, [1896] A, C. 325 ; E a je e S h a ik M eera Bowther

V. President of the Gorporation o f M adras, I. L. R . 33 M ad. 82 ; S u lle y v.
Attorney-Qeneral, 5 H . & KT. 712 ; 157 E . R . 1364, an d B u rm a -S h ell Oil
Storage and D istributing C om pany o f h id ia , L im ited v. Sudhangshu Bhoo-
: shan Ghatt&rji, I. L. R . 63 Cal- 1203, referred to.

W here the buying, bailing an d despatch o f ju te form ed an essential p a rt

o f th e business of a com pany o f ju te dealers, th e u ltim ate o b ject of
which was to m ake profit, and these operations were carried o n w ithin
th e municipality, th ough under orders issued from a n d contracts entered
into elsewhere, .

held th a t th e com pany was liable to tak e o u t a license and p ay th e trade-,

ta x to the launioipality u n d er s. 182 of th e B engal M unicipal A ct, 1932.

Landale c& Olark, Ltd. v , Jalp aig u ri M unicipality, I. L. R . [1938] 1 CaL 35-

Tim® limit for fresh suit : See Sm i .. .. .. .. 273

Title jiararaeiuit, Eviction by, of auction purchaser : See Maoemtion ..

 GENERAL INDEX, x liii

P age.

Trade-mark — Registration of a design under the In d ia n Eegistration A ct,

Effect of— Itid ia n Penal Code (Ace X L V of 1860), ss. 478, 482, 486,

I n Tnrlin. th ere is no sy stem o f reg istratio n of trad e -m a rk s as in E n g lan d .

All we have here ia th e reg istratio n o f a d eclaration of ow nership as
regards a p artietilar design under th e In d ia n R eg istra tio n A ct w hich
represents noth in g m ore th a n th e opinion a n d claim o f th e d eclarant. I t
caniaot be eq u iv alen t to registration o f a tra d e -m ark u n d e r th e E nglish
T rade M arks A ct. T he In d ia n E eg istratio n A ct d eals w ith docum ents
and n o t w ith trade-m ark s. A m a rk in order to be a trad e-m ark as
defined in s. 478 o f th e In d ian P en al Code m u s t he “ d istinctive ” in th e
■sense o f being “ ad ap te d to distinguish th e goods o f th e p ro p rieto r of a
trade-m ark from those of oth er persons” .
A m ark w hich m erely describes th e q u a lity or origin of an article or is such
as is com m only used in th e tra d e to denote goods o f a p articu lar k in d is
not “ d istinctive” . To determ ine w h eth er a m ark h as become a tra d e ­
m ark, th e C ourt h a s to ta k e into consideration th e e x te n t to which its user
has rendered th e m a rk in fa c t d istinctive of th e goods in question.
Swadeshi M ills Company, Lim ited v. Juggi L ai K am lapat Cotton Spin n in g
and Weaving MiUs Company, Lim ited, I . L . E.. 49 All. 92, an d Juggi L a i
K am lapat v. Swadeshi M ills Company, Ltd., I. L. R . 51 All. 182; L . jR.
56 I . A. 1, referred to .
A surnam e is n o t often suitable fo r th e purpose o f a trad e-m ark .
I n R e : Cadbury Brothers, £1915] 1 Ch. 331, referired to .
LoTce N a ih S en v . A sJm im K um ar De, I . L. R . [1938] I Cal. 665

Trade tax, when to be paid : See T a x .. .. .. 35

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), s. 53A : See S ta tu te 607

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), ss. 65, 72, 76, 108(1) : See Mortgage .. 21

Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act (X X of 1929), ss. 16, 63 ; See S ta tu te 607

Transferee of portion of holding not party to suit but Joined in execution pro­
ceedings : See Landlord and Tenant 164

Trust, What is : See Lim itation 652

Ultr& v i m I See C om pany L aw 90

Unauthorised news-sheet, What is : See News-sheet 46S

Union Jack, if an emblem of Sovernment established by law ; See News-sheei 456

Usufructuary m or^agea in possession, when liable to pai^ment : Soe Mortgage :2 i:

Usufructuary mortgagee, Unregistered : Bee Statute ., .. ;. 607

Valuation, If Court can revise i See Court-fee .. ..

Valuation of property : See L a n d Acquisition .. .. 231

Void S®1®, Suit to set aside : See Execution of D ^ e « .. 280

Wsthdrawal'of su it,; SeeSitit '

6
sdiv GENERAL INDEX.

F m ®.
Words and Phrases—
“ A t the first hearing ” : See Interplm der S u it 53

" Authoxity ” : See Election 140

“ Class or Section ” : See NewS'Sheet 455

Debtors ” : See Insolvency 132

“ Jurisdietioa ” : See J u d ic ia l Officer 581

“ Persons interested ” : See Insolveney 491

“ Residuary legatee ” : See Letters oj A d m in istra tio n 75

“ Same transaction ” : Se© M isjo in d e r 98

*' Specific purpose ’ ’ : See L im ita tio n 652

** T ra d e ” : See T a x 35

" Wtongfiil loss ” : See M isc h ie f 6S0

B . G. Pres8~1938-39—38970— 1900,