Found 0 result
Showing 1158541- 1158550 of 0 result for ""
Macpherson, J.@mdashI think that the question which it loft for the decision of the Court must be answered in the affirmative. The case states (para. 4) that it has been the practice in Calcutta for tenants to remove sn…
Phear, J.@mdashThe question of limitation is not altogether a simple one. The defendants contend that; the enactment of s. 29 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 alone governs the case, and if it does, the whole of the plaintiff'…
Sir Richard Couch, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe are of opinion that the decree it admissible in evidence. The question of its value when admitted is to be determined by the lower Courts. The defendant has alleged that it was obtai…
Phear, J.@mdashThe essential facts of the plaintiff''s case are that the property which is the subject of suit originally formed part of his zamindari Sultangnnge in the District of Malda(sic) was surveyed by the Revenu…
Robert P. Collier, J. 1. This was a suit instituted by the Rajah of Pachete against a great number of his ryots, about fifty, "to," in his own language, "obtain possession of ten rekhs, or a ten annas share of mouzah …
Sir Richard Couch, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe question thus raised is one upon which the authorities upon the law in Bengal do not agree. In the Dayabhaga, Ch. xi, s. 6, v. 9, it is said: "The succession of the grand-father''s …
Sir Richard Couch, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe are of opinion that the word "commission," in s. 13 of Act X of 1873, includes any omission, and is not limited to accidental or negligent omissions. In this case the affirmation was…
Montague E. Smith, J. 1. In this case their Lordships, having heard the argument on the appeal, propose to give judgment upon its merits, and some observations will subsequently be made on the objection which was take…
Barnes Peacock, J. 1. In this case Luchmun Singh brought a suit against Shumshere Singh in the Court of the Settlement Officer of Seetapore. His suit was to recover one-fourth of an estate situate in that district. Lu…