Found 0 result
Showing 1159881- 1159890 of 0 result for ""
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashFirst, as to whether the Court should remand the case in order to ascertain whether any enquiry is necessary as to the fact of the possession of the widow, and for an investigation of …
Norman, Officiating C.J. 1. In this particular case it was clearly improper to allow an amendment of the plaint, which was originally one for possession and mesne profits, by making it a suit for resumption. The suit w…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIt appears to me that the Principal Sudder Ameen was right in dismissing the case, first, upon the ground that the defendants had a right in this tenure which it was not in the power o…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J. and Trevor, J.@mdashThis is a case which was brought whilst Act XIV of 1859 was the Law of Limitation, and therefore that law is applicable to the suit. S. 14 enacts--"In computing any peri…
Macpherson, J.@mdashI remain of the opinion expressed by me in making the order referring the case to a Full Bench that, so far as the mere question of jurisdiction is concerned, the Court which made the decree first ap…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIn this case the plaintiff was not a person liable under the decree, but he was the holder of the tenure sold under it. The Judge finds that the transfer of the tenure to him had not b…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashI have no doubt that there may be an alternative finding as well in a case in which the evidence proves the commission of one of two offences filling within the same sections of the Pe…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIn this case, which was a suit for enhancement of rent, it appears from the decision of the Zilla Judge that the defendant pleaded that the tenure existed previously to the decennial s…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J., Loch and Macpherson, JJ.@mdashThe first question referred to us is (reads). It appears to me that, under the section referred to (which is not very clearly worded) this Court has power to …
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIt appears to me that the Collector had just as much jurisdiction to reverse his own order upon review as ha had to make it, and that the case is now the same as if the order of the Co…