Found 0 result
Showing 1163631- 1163640 of 0 result for ""
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe think that the rule laid down in the case cited does not apply to the present case. When the tenure of a tenant, admittedly in possession, is sold under Act X of 1859, in execution …
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe think that the words "suits to recover the occupancy or possession of any laud," &c., in cl. 6, s. 23 of Act X of 1859, refer only to possessory actions against the person entit…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashWe quite agree with the two learned Judges who have referred this case to us. The summary suit is found by them to have been commenced before the passing of Act X of 1859, although the…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThis case was referred to a Full Bench in consequence of a decision passed by Levinge and Roberts, JJ., on the 15th of May 1863, in the case of Dhurum Rawoot v. Ramnauth Sahoo 2 Hay''s…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J., Kemp, L.S. Jackson and Markby, JJ.@mdashWe are of opinion that the view taken by the Judge of the Small Cause Court is the correct one. The suit is brought upon the bond itself, and not up…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe question is whether, under s. 19 of the Bengal Act VI of 1862, a Deputy Collector can hear appeals upon reference by a Collector. It is contended that the words "all the powers ves…
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashThe plaintiffs in this case sued to redeem a mortgage, and one of them sought to compel the defendants to account for the usufruct. The Principal Sudder Ameen decided the suit against …
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIt is not the practice to hear more than one Counsel or Vakeel in support of original motions or applications against which no cause is shown in the first instance.
Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J.@mdashIt is said, in the plaintiff''s petition to this Court, that the defendants have applied for execution of the decree of the High Court made on appeal. More correctly speaking, they are…