Found 0 result
Showing 1159061- 1159070 of 0 result for ""
Shephard, J.@mdashThe plaintiff claims as the adopted son of the late Seetharamiah. This title he fails to make good because he has not provedthat the widow by whom the adoption was made acted underauthority from her hu…
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit without costs. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge which onthe substantial issues of fact (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th is in the plaintif…
Banerjee and Sale, JJ.@mdashThis is a rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet to show cause why his order dated 4th September 1894 should not be set aside and the appeal re-heard. The ground upon which we ha…
Muthusami Aiyar, J.@mdashThree persons hold money-decrees against one Seetaramiah and one Venkatasami had with him certain stamps andother things of Rs. 95-2-0 value belonging to the-j judgment-debtor.2. Petitioner had …
1. The first question, which does not seem to be prominently brought to the notice of the District Judge, is whether the appellant, the constable, was in effect the prosecutor in the case or whetherhe was only acting in…
Banrjee and Sale, JJ.@mdashThis is an appeal by the Local Government u/s 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of the Sessions Judge of Bankura acquitting on appeal the accused Karuna Baistobi, who had …
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.@mdashThe question referred to a Full Bench is whether the provisions of Section 7 of the Limitation Act are applicableto, and govern, a suit for which special provision is made by Section 77 of…
1. The question raised by this appeal is whether the defendants being the proprietors of certain villages irrigated by the Parayankulattur tank, canbe made liable for the costs of repairs of that tank incurred by the Go…
1. The appellant is the jenmi of certain land in Malabar. By karars, dated 9th January 1843 (Exhibit I) and 18th January 1858 (Exhibit A), he andhis predecessors had granted to Government perpetual permission to fell ti…