Found 0 result
Showing 1159731- 1159740 of 0 result for ""
Pigot and Hill, JJ.@mdashWe do not understand the Criminal Letter of the High Court, dated the 19th September 1865 W.R. 6 to lay down, that the liability of the Immovable property which is exacted by Section 70 of the P…
1. It is argued that the District Judge erred in holding that the stipulation in the bond sued on excluded proof of the alleged payment by otherevidence. Even if the judge, as is contended on the other side, did not ref…
1. We are of opinion that the District Magistrate is right. Section 20, clause II of the Court Fees Act has reference only to fees for processesissued in the case of ""offences,"" and it has been held that an order for …
1. Defendants appeal against so much of the decree as makes them liable to pay to plaintiff out of their family property the sum of Rs. 4,002-15-1,together with further interest and proportionate costs. This sum represe…
1. Defendants appeal against so much of the decree as makes them liable to pay to plaintiff out of their family property the sum of Rupees 4,002-15-1 together with further interest and proportionate costs. This sum repr…
1. Mr. Sankaran Nayar for respondents raises the preliminary objection that the appeal lies to the District Court and not to this Court, as the valueof the subject-matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 5,000.2. We cons…
1. We have no doubt that the statement A was really taken under the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the only question is whether the Magistrate acting under that Section had power to admi…
Muttusami Ayyar, J.@mdashThe second respondent is a person of weak mind, and the first respondent is his adoptive mother. The land in disputeoriginally belonged to the former, and on the 22nd December 1883, he executed …
1. This was a suit brought by the appellant to establish his right to certain yearly remissions and to have it declared that the Government is notentitled to levy full assessment without granting those remissions. They …
Muthusami Aiyar, J.@mdashThe second respondent is a person of weak mind and the 1st respondent is his adoptive mother. The land in disputeoriginally belonged to the former and on the 22nd December 1883 he executed a sal…