Copyright
Chas. A. Stevens & Bros.

The Indian decisions (New series) : being a re-print of all the decisions of the Privy Council on appeals from India and of the various high courts and other superior courts in India reported both in the official and non-official reports from 1875 (Volume 7) online

. (page 145 of 155)
Online LibraryChas. A. Stevens & BrosThe Indian decisions (New series) : being a re-print of all the decisions of the Privy Council on appeals from India and of the various high courts and other superior courts in India reported both in the official and non-official reports from 1875 (Volume 7) → online text (page 145 of 155)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


defendants had had no notice until the case was in appeal. NAIKU
KHAN v, GAYANI KUAR, 15 A. 1S6 - =13 A.W.N. (1893) 69 ... 837

(2) Act XIX 0/1873, ss. 113 an i 114 Partition, application for Order on

objection as to title raised in course of partition proceeding) "Order "or
" decision" Apaeal. A Collector or Assistant Collector trying a question
of title raised in the course of the hearing of an apolioation for parti-
tion under the N.W.P. Land Revenue Act (Act No. XIX of 1873} is not
bound to cause a formal decree to be drawn up embodying the result of
his order or decision on such point. An appeal will lie from the " order "
or " decision " of such Collector or Assistant Collector. NlAZ BEGAM v.
ABDUL KARIM KHAN, 14 A. 500 = 12 A.W.N. (1892) 62 ... 688

(3) Act XII of 1881 (N.W.P. Bent Act), ss. 93, cl. (h) 189 Act I of 1887 General

Clauses Act), s. 3, cl (IB) Valuation of subject-matter of suit- -Appeal valued
for purposes of jurisdiction at a higher amount than the suit, Where a
plaintiff in a suit under 8. 93 of the N.W.P. Rent Act valued his suit at
Rs 46-3, which valuation was not objected to either by the defendant or
the Court, and subsequently, being defeated in his suit, preferred an appeal
which he valued at a very much greater amount. Held, that he must be
bound by the valuation put by him upon his suit and could not by alleging
a greatly enhanced value obtain an appeal which would not have lain on
the valuation stated in the plaint. RADHA PRASAD SINGH v. PATHAN
OJAH, 15 A. 363 = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 148 ... 950

(4) Act IX of 1887, s. 25 Revision Letters Patent, -s. 10 Appeal. No appeal

will lie under s. 10 of the Letters Patent from an order of a single Judge
of the High Court in revision under s. 25 of Act No. IX of 1887. GAURI
DATT v. PARSOTAM DAS, 15 A. 373 = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 122 ... 957

(5) Civ. Pro. Code, ss. 206, 582, 588, 591 Letters Patent, North-Western Provin-

ces, s. 10 Amendment of decree Order of a single Judge of the High Court
amending an appellate decree Appeal from such order. Whether an
order made by a single Judge of the High Court directing the amend-
ment of a decree passed in appeal by a Division Bench of which he had
been a member is an order made under s. 206 read with ss. 582 and
632 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or by virtue of the .inherent power
which the High Court has in the exercise of its appellate civil jurisdic-
tion to amend its own decrees, it is ona to which the provisions of
Ch, XLIII of the Code of. Civil Procedure are applicable, and from such

989



GENERAL INDEX.

Appeal (Continued). PA a

order no appeal under s. 10 of the Letters Patent will lie. MD. NAIM UL-

LAH KHAN v. IHSAN-UL-LAH KHAN, 14 A. 226 (F.B.) = 12 A.W.N.(i892)i4 515

(6) Civ. Pro. Code, ss. 496, 588, cZ. (24) Order refusing h set aside an

injunction Appeal. Au appeal will He under s. 588, ol. (24), of the Code
of Civil Procedure from an order under e. 496 of the Code refusing to
set aside an injunction. ZABADA JAN v. MUHAMMAD TAIAB, 15 A. 8 =
12 A.W.N. (1892) 140 ... 719

(7) Civ. Pro. Code, ss. 522, 625 Award Decree en an award filed in

Court, how to be framed Appeal. When an award has beeo filed in Court,
as provided by s. 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment and
decree based thereon must be drawn up specifically in terms of the
award. If the decree merely decrees in general terms the claim of one
party or of the other, it cannot be said that such decree is in accordance
with the award, and being " not in accordance with the award " an appeal
will lie therefrom. UMMI FAZL v. RAHIM-UN NISSA, 13 A. 366=11
A.W.N. (1891) 129 ... 233

(8) Civ. Pro. Code, s. 562 Appeal from ordir of remand Effect of findings of

fact and findings of law. On an appeal trom an order of remand under
s. 562 of the Code ot Civil Procedure the High Court is bound to accept
the findings of fact of the Court which made the remand, that Court
being a Court of first appeal, provided that there is evidence to support
them ; but where the High Court has decided a question of law in an
appeal from an order under s. 562 of the Code, that decision of the question
of law will be final for all purposes in the suit and in any appeal which
may subsequently be made to the High Court. GAURI 8HANKAR v.
KABIMA BIBI, 15 A. 413 = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 178 ... 985

(9) Letters Patent, s. 10 Civ. Pro. Code, ss. 2, 556. 559, 587, 588, 632 Appeal,

dismissal of. for default " Order" " Decree." No appeal will lie under
s. 10 of the Letters Patent from the order of a single Judge of the High
Court dismissing an appeal for default.

. The decision of a Court dismissing a suit or an appeal for default is an
" order " and not a " decree." MANSAB ALI v. NIHAL GHAND, 15 A,
359=- 13 A.W.N. (1893) 113 ... 947

{10) Rules of Court of the 30th November , 1889 Practice Memorandum of appeal
Avptal described as " first appeal from order " instead of first appeal
from decree. It is- not a fatal objection to an appeal that the same is
described in the memorandum as " First appeal from Order " being in
reality a First appeal from a decree, it not being shown that the respon-
dent was in any way prejudiced by such miadesoription or that by
reason thereof n insufficient stamp was placed on the memorandum.
SANT LAL v. SRI KISHEN, 14 A. 221 = 12 A.W.N. (1892) 66 ... 512

(11) Appeal Decree conditional upon payment of a certain sum within a speci-
fied time Appeal presented after the expiration of the time so fixed. The
pUintifi in a pre-emption suit obtained a decree in bis favour, conditional
on payment into Court of a certain sum within a specified time ; other-
wise his suit was to stand dismissed. He did not comply with the terms
of .the decree, but, after the expiration of the term mentioned therein,
appealed against it.

Held that the appeal would lie both in respect of the sum fixed by the
decree to be paid by the plaintiff-appellant, and the discretion of the Court
as regards the period allowed for payment. KODAI SINGH v. JAISRI
SINGH, 13 A. 189 (F.B.) ... 118

{12) Jurisdiction Exerciseby Subordinate Judge of jurisdiction of District Court
Appeal Bengal Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887), ss. 23, 24 Power of
appellate Court to add respondent Limitation Civ. Pro. Code, s. 559
Minor Guardian Bengal Minors Act CX.Li of 1858). s. 7. The words in
s. 24 of the Bengal Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887) " subject to the rules
applicable to like proceedings when disposed of by the District Judge,"
include the rules relating to appeals. Therefore orders passed under that
section by a Subordinate Judge in proceedings under the Bengal Minors,
Act (XL of 1858) transferred to him under s. 23 (2) (&) of the former Act,
are appealable to the High Court and not to the Court of the District
Judge.

990



GENERAL INDEX,

Appeal (Continued), PAGE

The power of an appellate Court to make a person a respondent, under s. 559
of the Civ. Pro. Code, is not affected by the Limitation Aot (XV of 1877).

ID exercising its powers under s. 559 of the Civ. Pro. Code, an appellate
Court is competent to make a person a respondent who in the original suit,
was arrayed on the same side with the appellant.

The grant of a certificate under s. 7 the Bengal Minors Act (XL of 1858)
should not be based exclusively of considerations of propinquity of rela-
tionship without regard to the other circumstances of the case affecting
the interests of the inmov and the fitness of the person appointed. SOHNA

v. KHALAK SINGH, 13 A. 78= 11 A.W.N. (1891) i ... 49

(13) Execution of decree Party improperly brought on the record as representative

of deceased judgment-debtor Appeal Costs Civ. Pro. Code, ss. 2,
244, cl. (c), 540. One B.D. was made a party to an application for execu-
tion of a decree as one of the representatives of a deceased iudgment-debtor.
It had been decided in a previous suit that B.D. was not related to the
judgment-debtor in such n manner that he could become his legal repre-
sentative, and in this proceeding also he objected that he was not such
representative, and his objection was allowed and the order allowing it
remained unappealed and became final. The Court, however, while
allowing the objection, did not give the objector his costs.
Held, that the objector did not, by being unproperly brought into the execu-
tion proceedings, lose his right of appeal, and further, that he could under
the circumstances appeal on the question of costs alone. BlSHEN DAYAL
v. BANK OF UPPER 'INDIA, LTD., .13 A. 290 = 11 A.W.N. (1891) 94 ... 183

(14) Execution cf decree Default cf purchaser at sale in execution Deficiency

in price arising in re-sale Older against defaulter to make good such
deficiency No appeal from such ' order Civ. Pro. Code, ss. 2, 293.
540, 58a. No appeal lies from an order under 8. 293 of the Code of Civil
Procedure directing a defaulting purchaser at a sale in execution of a
decree to make good the loss happening on a re-sale occasioned by his
default. ILAHI BAKHSH v. BAIJ NATH, 13 A. 569 = u A.W.N. U891)
156 ... 359

(15) Execution of decree Default of purchaser at salein execution Deficiency in

p>ice arising on re-sale Order against defaulter to make good such,
deficiency App?al Civ. Pro. Code, ss. 2, 293, 540, 588. No appeal
lies from an ocJer under s. 293 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing
a defaulting purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree to make good the
los.a happening on a re-sale occaoioned by his default. So held by Edge,
J . Mahmood and Knox, 33., Straight, J., dissenting. DEOKI NANDAN
RAI v. TAPESRI LAL 14 A. 201 (F.B.) = 12 A.WN. (1892) 74 ... 499

(16) Execution of decree Order dismissing application under s. 295 of the Civ,

Pro. Cede, for participation in assets Civ. Pro. Code, ss. 2, 244,
295 Appeal. No appeal will lie from an order under s. 295 of the Code
of Civil Procedure dismissing, on the ground that the decree was barred
by limitation, a decree-holder's application to share in the assets realized
under another decree against the same judgment-debtor. Such an order
cannot be regarded as a decree under s. 244 read with s. 2 of the said Code.
KASHI RAM v. MANI BAM, 14 A. 210 = 12 A.W.N. (1892) 56 ... 505

U7) See APPELLATE COURT, 15 A. 315,

(18) See CIV. PRO. CODE, s. 559, 14 A. 1S4.

<19) See COSTS, 15 A. 333.

(20) See CRIMINAL APPEAL.

(21) See EXECUTION OF DECREE, 13 A. l,

<22) See INSOLVENCY. 14 A. 145.

(23) See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 14 A. 50.

(24) See LETTERS PATENT, 14 A- 361.

(25) See MORTGAGE (REDEMPTION), 13 A. 94.

(26) See OATHS ACT, ss. 10 and 11, 13 A. 336.

(27) See PAUPER APPEAL, 13 A. 305.

(28) See PAUPER SUIT, 13 A. 326,

(29) See PRE-EMPTION, 13 A. 376,

991



GENERAL INDEX.

Appeal (Concluded). PAGE

(30) See PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, 15 A 183.

(31) See REMAND, 15 A. 119.

(32) See SANCTION TO PROSECUTE, 15 A. 61.

(33) See SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE ACT, Ss. 9 and 19, 13 A. 214.

Appeal to Privy Council.

(1) Act I of 1868, s. 3, cl, (I) Act X of 1877, s. 599 Civ. Pro. Code, s. 599 Act
Vll of 1888, s. 57 Act XV of 1877. ss. -2 and 5; sch. . arts. 177 and 178
Jppiicaricm /or Ztoue <o appeal to Her Majesty in Council Limitation.
Section 599 of Aot No. XIV of 1882 was not inconsistent with article 177
of the second schedule ot Aot No. XV of 1877 as read in conjunction with
the provisions contained in the sections of that Act which are applicable
to article 177. The limitation therefore for an application for leave to
appeal to Her Majesty in Council is six months from the date of the decree
to appeal from which leave is sought.

The provisions of the second paragraph of s. 5 of Act No. XV of 1877 do not
extend to applications for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, In
the mailer of petition of 8ITA RAM KESHO, 15 A. 14 = 12 A.W.N. (1892)
152 ... 724

Refusal of leave to appeal from a judgment and conviction under tlie Indian
Penal Code General rule as to refusal of leave to appealin criminal cases
Misdirection of a jury not of itself a ground. Although in very special
and exceptional circumstances, leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council
may be granted in a criminal oase, no countenance was given to the view
that an appeal would be allowed merely on the ground that the Judge
trying the case had misdirected the jury.

There was no reason to believe that there had been any misdirection by the
Judge, or that he had, as he was alleged by the petitioner to have done,
misconstrued, in charging the jury, a section of the Penal Code. Not
only on the latter ground, but on the broader ground above stated, the
petition was rejected. In the matter of MAOCEEA, 15 A. 310 (P.O.) =
20 LA. 90 = 6 Bar. P.C.J. 344 = 17 Ind. Jur. 430 ... 915

Appellate Court.

(1) Act I of 1887 (General Clauses Act} s. 3, cl. (13) Act XII of 1887 (Bengal

N.W. Provinces and Assam Civil Courts Act) s. 21, cl. (a) " Value of
the original suit " "Amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit "
Jurisdiction Civ. Pro. Code, &. 2 Decree, definition of. For the
purpose of determining the proper appellate Court in a Civil suit what
is to be looked to is the value of the original suit, that is to say, the
"amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit." Such " amount
or value of the subject-matter of the suit" must be taken to be the value

assigned by the plaintiff in his plaint and not the value as found by the
Court, unless it appears that, either purposely or through gross negli-
gence, the true value of the suit has been altogether misrepresented in the
plaint.

An order of a District Judge returning a memorandum of appeal to be pre-
sented in the proper Conrt on the ground that the value of the suit is
beyond the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction is not a decree within the
meaning of s. 2 of the Civ. Pro. Code. MAHABIR SINGH v. BEHARI
LAL, 13 A. 3v!0 = ll A.W.N. (1891) 107 ... 202

(2) Civ. Pro. Cede, ss. 566 and 567 The framing a new issue by an appellate

Court Evidence recorded in one suit admitted by consent at the hearing
of another. In the Court of first lustanoo the appellant, upon the title of
a sister's son was one of the plaintiffs who obtained a decree for an inherit-
ance, the suit having been heard at the same time with another, in
which relations of the deceased owner, alleging themselves to be of the
same <jotra wtih him, also obtained a decree as his heirs. Evidence in the
latter suit was received in that of the appellant by consent of parties, both
suits having been brought against the same defendant, whose title, as
widow of a sou alleged to have been adopted by the last owner, was set up
in both but was not proved.

Appeals having been filed in both suits, in that; brought by the sister's son a
new issue was framed by the appellate Court, under section 566, Civil

992



GENERAL INDEX.

Appellate Court {Concluded). PAGE

Fro. Code, as to whether he was entitled as nearest of kin, or was excluded
by the other claimants, whose suit was, at the time, compromised.

Held, that, after what had taken place in regard to both suits the appellate
Court could frame this issue, although it was new, and had not been
raised by the defendant's written answer.

With reference to the evidence in the one suit having been imported as a
whole into the other at the first hearing ; and the admission of evidence
upon the trial of the new issue; it was held, that the parlies intended
that the evidence should be admitted and that no irregularity had taken
place materially affecting the decree of the High Court, which dismissed
the suit of the sister's son, on return made under section 567. CHANDI
DIN v. NARAINI KUAB. 14 A. 366 (P.O.) ... 603

(3) Civ. Pro Code, ss. 566, 567 Reference of issues for determination-

Transfer. Where an appellate Court has made an order ot reference
under s. 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the return to such order
must be made to the same Court, and such Court is not competent to
transfer the appeal for disposal elsewhere. UDIT NARAIN SINGH v.
JHANDA, 15 A. 315 = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 108 . ... 931

(4) Court-lee Appeal Ground of appeal going to the ivhole of the respondent's

decree. Where one of several appellants takes a ground of appeal which
goes to the root of the respondent's case, and which, if successful, would
deprive the respondent of his decree as a whole, and not merely of his
interest in it quoad the particular appellant, the appellate Court is justi-
fied in refusing to hear such appellant on such ground as aforesaid unless
be pays a Court-fee sufficient to cover the whole relief obtainable on suoh
ground of appeal. BUJHAWAN RAI v. MAKUND LAL, 15 A. 112=12 A.
W.N. (1892) 248 ... 739

(5) Bee APPEAL, 13 A. 78.

(6) See CRIMINAL APPEAL, 13 A. 171.

(7) See DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, 14 A. 356.
(9) See EXECUTION OF DECREE, 13 A. 394.

(9) See HIGH COURT, JURISDICTION OP, 13 A. 575.

(10) See SESSIONS COURT, 15 A. 205.

(11) See STAY OF EXECUTION, 15 A. 196.
Application for execution of decree.

See EXECUTION APPLICATION, 15 A. 84.
Arbitration.

(1) Arbitration under the Civ. Pro. Code Invalidity of award when not

wiide within the time fixed by the Court Civ. Pro. Code, ss. 508,
514, 521 Cost- When once an award has been delivered it is no longer
competent to the Court to grant further time, or to enlarge the period for
the delivery of this award under section 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Where an award was not made within the period fixed by the Court's order
but wag made after the date given in the last order extending the time
for its delivery, held, that the award was invalid. The decree of the Court
dealing with the award as if duly made within the time, could not be
treated as enlarging it.

Order to be that the suit should proceed. Neither party to be entitled to
costs in either Court below after the first judgment with regard to the
stage at which the objection was taken ; and the costs prior to that to
abide the issue. RAJA HAR NARAIN SINGH v. C. B. KUAR, 13 A. 300
(P.O.) = 18 LA. 55 = 6 Bar. P.C.J. 14 = 15 Ind. Jur. 283 189

(2) Civ. Pro. Code, s. 514 Arbitration Power of Court to extend time for

making award. A Court has power to act under s. 514 o the Code of
Civil Procedure at any time before the award is actually made, whether
the time previously limited for making the award has expired or not.
RAM MANOHAR MISR v. LAL BEHARI MISR, 14 A. 343=12 A.W.N.
(1892) 18 ... 587

(3) Act XIX of 1873 (N.W.P. Rent Act), s. 221 Civ. Pro Code, s. 521

Arbitration Award delivered after expiration of time allowed by Court.

993
A VII 125



GENERAL INDEX.

Arbitration (Concluded). PAGE

The principle of the ruling of the Pcivy Council in Raja Ear Narain Singh
v. Chaudhrain Bhagwat Kuar (18 I. A. 55 = 13 A. 300) is upplioable also to
arbitrations under s. 221 of Aot No. XIX of 1878. GAURI 8HANKAR V,

BHABAN LAL, 14 A. 34 r / = i2 A.W.N. (1892) 20 ... 590

Arrest.

See GRIM. PRO. CODE, a. 55, 14 A. 45.
Assessors.

Bee SESSIONS COURT, 13 A. 337.
signee of decree.

LIMITATION ACT, art. 120, 13 A. 368.
Assignment of lease.

See USE AND OCCUPATION, 14 A. 176.
Attachment.

(1) Sen CIV. FRO. CODE, PS. 268. 274, 15 A. 134.

(2) See EXECUTION OF DECREE, 13 A. 76.
See EXECUTION OP DECREE, 15 A. 380.

See HINDU LAW (MAINTENANCE), 15 A. 371.

A achment before judgment.

(1) See MORTGAGE (GENERAL), 14

See REVISION, 15 A. 405.
A tempt.

(1) Letters Patent, s. SI Act XLV of I860, ss. 415,51 1 Attempt Acts necessary to
constitute an attempt. Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code was not meant
to cover only the penultimate act towards completion of an offence and
not acts precedent, if those acts or dene in the course of the attempt to
commit the offence, or done with the intent to commit it and done towards
its'-commission.

Whether any given act or series of acts amounts to an attempt of which the
law will take notice or merely to preparation is a question of fact in each
case. In re petition of R. MACCREA, 15 A. 173= 13 A.W.N. (1893) 71 ... 929

(2) See PENAL CODE, ss. 511, 207, 300, 299, 14 A. 38.
Auction-purchaser.

(1) See APPEAL, 13 A. 569; 14 A. 201.

(2) See EXECUTION OP DECREE, 13 A. 119.

(3) See MORTGAGE (PRIORITY), 13 A. 288.

(4) See MORTGAGE (SIMPLE MORTGAGE,) 13 A. 28.
) See SEPARATE SUIT, 13 A 383, 244.

Award.

(1) See APPEAL, 13 A. 366.

(2) See ARBITRATION, 13 A. 300.

(3) See ARBITRATION, 14 A. 347.

Baqqals,

See RES JUDICATA, 15 A. 327.
Bias.

Criminal Procedure Code, s. 555 Act I of 1878, s. 9 Jurisdiction of officer in
charge of the exercise and opium administration of a district to try cases under
the Opium Act Meaning of tlie term "personally interested." A Magis-
trate in charge of the excise and opium administration of a district is
not " personally interested " in the observance of the provisions of Aot No.
1 of 1878. He is therefore not precluded from exercising jurisdiction in
respect of offences against the above mentioned Act. In re petition of
GANESH, 15 A. 192 (F.B.) = 13 A.W.N. (1803) 79 ... 841

Breach of Contract.

(1) Bee INTEREST, 13 A. 330;

(2) See BET OFF, 15 A. 9.

994



GENERAL INDEX.

Burden of proof, PAGE

(1) Sae ACT XI OP 1878, as. 19 (//, 25, 15 A. 129.

(2) See HINDU LAW (ALIENATION), 14 A. 179.

(3) Sae HINDU LAW (JOINT FAMILY), 13 A. 216.

(4) See HINDU LAW (WIDOW), 14 A. 420.

(5) Sae LANDLORD AND TENANT, 13 A. 571.

(6) Sae POSSESSORY SUIT, 14 A. 193,

(7) See APPEAL, 14 A. 500.

(8) See WAJIB-UL-AR/, 15 A. 410.
Bai-bii-wafa.

Construction at document Mortgage Sale-" Bi-bil-wafa, naturaofActlVof
1882 (Transfer of Property Ac 1 .), s. 53 Pre-emption. The transaction
known to Mubammadan lw as a bai-bil-wija is a mortgage within the
meaning of s. 58 of Act IV of 1882, and not a sale.

The plaintiff in a suit for pra-emption had, prior to the sale of the property
claimed, executed a deed in respect of his share in the village in virtue
of which he claimed the right to pre-empt, the material portion of which
deed was as follows : " Thirdly, if I, the vendor, or the heirs of me, the
vendor, AH Jan alias Ali Ahmad, should pay off the entire consideration
money mentioned above on the Puranmashi of Jeth Sudi 1299 fasli to the
said purchaser, she should without any objection or hesitation receive the
money, and returning the property sold, described above in the document,
to me the vendor, revoke the sale."

Held that this deed was a ba\ bil-Wdfa or mortgage by conditional sale and
that as the conditional sale had not become absolute at the time when
the right of pre-emption accrued, the conditional vendor or mortgagor
was still a shareholder in the village, and therefore had still a subsisting
right of pro eruption. ALI AHMAD v. RAHMVT-ULLAH, 14 A. 195 =
12 A.W.N. (1892; 42 ... 495

Cause of action.

Sae LANDLORD AND TENANT, 15 A. d99.
Certificate of guardianship.

See APPEAL, 13 A. 78,

Champerty.

Agreement to supply money for another per sm's suit Excess of the reward render-
ing mch agreement inequitable- A fair agreement to supply money to a
suitor to carry on a suit, in consideration of the lender's having a share
of the property sued for, if recovered, is not to be reg*rded as necessarily
opposed to public policy, or merely, on this ground, void. But in agree-
ments of this kind the questions are, (a) whether the agreement is ex-
tortirn i ta and unconscionable, so as to be inequitable against the borrower ;
. or (&) whether the agreement has been made, not with the bon-z fidt
object of assisting a claim, believed to be just, and of obtaining reason-
able compensation therefor, but for improper objects, as for the purpose of
gambling in litigation, or ol injuring others, so as to bs. for these reasons,
contrary to public policy. In either of these oases, effect is not to be
given to the agreement. Here, upon the facts the above case (6) did not
arise, and this agreement was not contrary to public policy. But this
agreement foil within ca?e (a) and the judgment of tbe High Court was
affirmed, that the agreement was so extortionate and unconscionable, in
regard to the excess of tbe reward, that it was inequitable, and, therefore,
not enforceable against the defendant. RAJA MOHKAM RlNGH v. RAJA
RUP SINGH, 15 A. 352 'P.O.) = 20 LA. 127 = 6 Bar, P. C J. 327 = 17 Ind.
Jur. 376 ... 943

Charge.

(1) See CO-SHARERS, 14 A. 273.

(2) See INTEREST, 13 A. 330.

(3) See MORTGAGE (SIMPLE MORTGAGE), 13 A. 28,
Civil Procedure Code (Act VIII of 1859).

S. 271 Sae MORTGAGE (SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY), 14 A, 509.

995



GENERAL INDEX.

Procedure Code (Act X of 1877). PAGE

8s. 45. 212, 244 (a) See TRANSFER OF SUIT, 14 A. 531.
Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882).



Online LibraryChas. A. Stevens & BrosThe Indian decisions (New series) : being a re-print of all the decisions of the Privy Council on appeals from India and of the various high courts and other superior courts in India reported both in the official and non-official reports from 1875 (Volume 7) → online text (page 145 of 155)