Found 0 result
Showing 1157461- 1157470 of 0 result for ""
Morris, J.@mdashThis conviction is bad in law, and must be set aside. The Sessions Judge states that the prisoner pleads guilty to the charge, and that the only question is as to what punishment should be allotted. We f…
Cunningham, J.@mdashThe plaintiff sues Raghoonath, his tenant, for the rent due on a 5-anna 2-pie share amounting to 4 rupees 5 annas. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the whole of this shar…
Pontifex, J.@mdashWe are of opinion that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court must be reversed, as we think that the learned District Judge has unduly stretched the doctrine of constructive notice against the plain…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashThe plaintiffs in this suit claim a prescriptive right of passage for boats over the defendants'' land, when it becomes covered with water during the rainy season. 2. The first Court found that…
Wilson, J.@mdashThis case raises a question which, so far as I know, has not been before decided. I do not think the question is one of any great difficulty; but as the suit is undefended, and I therefore had not the ad…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashThis is a rule obtained by Mahomed Hossein, who is the purchaser of certain land at an execution-sale, to discharge an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Patna on the 13th of September 1880,…
Cunningham, J.@mdashIn execution of a decree obtained against Pahulwan Singh, the eldest of four brothers, Zemindar the second brother, as guardian of the two youngest, minors, intervened u/s 269, Act VIII of 1859; but …
Garth, C.J.@mdashWe think it plain that, neither the words "shall answer all questions" in Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, not the words "shall be bound to answer all questions" in Section 119, of the same C…
Tottenham, J.@mdashIt appears to me that the reasons given by the lower Courts for entirely dismissing the plaintiff''s suit are not sound in law. It may be that, as observed by the District Judge, the power to make par…
Mitter, J.@mdashOn the secondappeal it is urged before us that the lower Appellate Court was in error in reversing the Munsif''s decree for cofirmation of possession. The suit was brought on the 3rd May 1878, after the …