Found 0 result
Showing 1157981- 1157990 of 0 result for ""
Pearson, J.@mdashThe first and last of the pleas in appeal are not pressed and are indeed admitted not to be tenable. The second plea is over-ruled in reference to the Privy Council''s ruling in the case of Ras Muni Dib…
Jackson, J.@mdashWe think it clear that the Subordinate Judge in this case is wrong, and that the suit was barred. 2. The plaintiffs sued to obtain a partition by declaration of their purchased right, and for use and o…
Jackson, J.@mdashIt appears to us that this suit was really barred. It was a suit brought by the plaintiffs against their agent and his sureties, on the ground that the defendant No. 1 had been appointed Naib for the pu…
Robert Stuart, C.J.@mdashThe decree of the lower Court in this case is clearly right, both in regard to the question of limitation and the joint liability of the defendants for the sum decreed. In the lengthened and anx…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashThis is a suit by the zamindar to enhance a ten-annas share of a dependant taluq. 2. The only defence which it is necessary for us to consider, is, that the taluq in question has been held at a…
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashA review having been granted in this case upon the ground that the previous judgment of this Court contained an inaccurate statement of the facts, and that a review was necessary for purposes of…
Jackson, J.@mdashWe think this a very clear case; it must be determined with reference to the 75th article of the Limitation Act of 1877. At the time when the contract was entered into, the Act of 1871 was in force, of …
Richard Garth, C.J.@mdashThe plaintiff took a mortgage-bond from Chemnarain on the 11th of March 1868. He obtained a money-decree on that bond on the 23rd of January 1869; and under that decree he had the mortgagor''s i…
Wilson, J.@mdashI think the defendants are entitled to judgment in this case, and on several grounds. The first ground of defence taken by Mr. Phillips is that the defendants are not themselves liable as parties to the …