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 150 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 150 of 155)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


holding. GULZAR 8INGH V. KALYAN OHAND, 15 A. 399=13 A.W.N.
(1893) 170 . 975

1022



GENERAL INDEX.

Landlord and Tenant (Concluded PAGE

i9j Occupancy holding, transfer of First and second mortgages of occupancy
holding Suit by second mortgagte to eject first mortgagee \n possession.
Where an occupanoy holding was mortgaged under two successive mort-
gage deeds to different parties, aad the mortgagees under the first mortgage
having been put in possession, the mortgagees under the second mortgage
EiKd to cjrrt them.

Held, that, both parties being wrong doer?, inasmuch as bolh mortgages
were illegal, the defendants, who were in possession, had a right, as
against, the plain'iffs, to retain possession. USUF KHAN v. 8ARVAN, 13
A. 403 = 11 A.W.N. (1891) 141 ... 258

(10) Zamindar and tenant Ltsior and lessfa Lessee taking least direct from
samindar Suit ty cccvpancy ttnant to tject tamindar's lessee Equitable
estoppel. Where a person tock a permanent lease of a cultivatory holding
direci from the zemindar without making any inquiries as to who were
the cultivators and on what tenure they held ; and where, the permanent
lessee having commenced to build, one of the cultivators, being an oo-
cnpanoy tenant, subsequently brought a suit in ejectment against him :
held, that the lessee should, by the knowledge that the land was a culti-
vatory holding, have been put on his guard and have made inquires as to
the exr.ot condition of the title, and that as he bad net done so the doo-
trine of equitable acquiescence cculd not be applied in his favour. BlSHE-
SHAR v. MUIRHEAD, 14 A. 362 = 12 A.W.N. US92) 36 ' ... 600

{11) Act Xll (f 1681. ss. 7, 8, 9 Landlord and tenant Occur ancy tenant,
power of, to nMetPtrpetual leate by occucancy tenant The effect of a
perpetual lease made by an occupanoy tenant of his occupancy holding to
a person not, a cn-sbarer in the right of occupancy considered. MAHESH

SINGH v. GANESH DUBE, 15 A. 231 (F.B.) = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 130 ... 866
<12) Act XII of 1881, ss. 7, 8, 9 ~Ex-prcprictiry tenant, power of, to sub-let,
Right af a.cupar.cy. An ex-proprietary tenant can sub let the whole or
any pare of Lis occupanoy holding, and buch a sub-letting is not forbidden
by ?. 9 of Act No. XII of 1881. KHIALI RAM v. NATHU LAL, 15 A. 219
(F.B.) = 13 A.W.N (1893) 125 859

413) Act XII of 1881, ss. 93. 95, els, (m) and (n) Jurisdiction Civil and
Revenue Courts No suit will lie against a landlord in a Civil Court for
the wrongful dispossession of a tenant from a holding to which Act
No. XII of 1881 applies.

Where a plaint in a Civil Court alleges facts which, if true, would show that
the dispute or matter involved in the suit was one to which s. 93 or s. 95
of Act XII of 1881 would apply, the plaint should be rejected under ol. (c)
of s. 54 of the Code cf Civil Procedure, or possibly in some cases returned
under s. 57 of the same Code.

The plaintiffs, alleging themselves to be ocoupanoy-tenants and to have been
wrongfully dispossessed by their landlords, who had made a lease of the land
in suit, nued the landlords and the lesfees of such landlords for recovery of
possession and for damages. Held (hat such suit was exclusively cogniEi-
ble by a Court of Revauue. TARAPAT OJHA v. RAM RATAN KUAR, 15
A. 3S7 F.B ) = 13 A.W.N. (1893; 164 ... 967

(14) See APPEAL, 15 A. 186.

(15) See EASEMENT, 14 A. 185.

(16) See JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS, 13 A. 17, 15 A. 115.

(17) See JURISDICTION OF REVENUE COURT, 14 A. 381,

(18) See PRE-EMPTION, 13 A. 224,

(19) See RELINQUISHMENT, 13 A. 396.

(20) See SET OFF, 15 A. 404.

(21) See USE AND OCCUPATION, 14 A, 176.

(22) Bee VALUATION OF SUIT, 15 A. 63.
Lathi.

Act XLV o' 1860, s. 148 " Deadly iveapon "Lathi.lhe question whether or
not a lathi is a "deadly weapon" within the meaning of s. 148 of the
Indian Penal Code is a question of fact to be determined on the special
circumstances of each case as it arisee, QUEEN-EMPRESS v. NATHU,
15 A, 19 = 12 A.W.N. (1892) 158 ... 727

1023



GENERAL INDEX.

Lease. P A I

(D See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 14 A. 362,

(2} See USE AND OCCUPATION, 14 A. 176.
Legal Necessity.

See HINDU LAW (WIDOW), 14 A. 420.
Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.

Act XVIII of 1879, L<gal Practi'.ivntrs Act, s. 13. A pleader's profes-
sional misoonduot having amounted to " reasonable cause," within the
meaning of s. 13 of the Leg^l Practitioners Act, XVIII o 1879, for suspend-
ing him from practice, their Lordships declined to interfere with the
decision of the High Court as to the punishment, it not being clearly
shown that, the quantum awarded was unreasonable and exoeeeive. In the
matter of P.W, QUARRY, 13 A. 93 (P.O.) = 5 Sir. P.C.J. 638 = 17 I. A. 199 68

Legal Representative,

(1) See APPEAL, 13 A. 290,

(2) 830 RES JUDICATA, 13 A. 53.
Letters Patent.

(1) S. 10 Civil Procedure Code, ss. 556, 558, and 588 cl. (21), Dismissal of
appeal for default Avptal under s. 10 of tha Letters Paten 1 , from order of
dismissal. No appeal under s. 10 of the Letters Patent will lie Irom an
order under s. 556 of the Code of Civil Procedure dismissing an appeal for
default, the appellant not having had recourse to the procedure provided
by s. 658 of the said Code. POHKAR SINGH V. QOPAL SINGH, 14 A.
231 = 12A.W.N. (1892) 30 599

(2 F 10-8ee APPEAL, 14 A. 226 ; 15 A. 359 ; 15 A. 373.
Letters Patent Appeal,

Bee Al'PEAL.

Lien.

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

(2) s^o LANDLORD AND TENANT, 15 A. 375.

Limitation,

(1) Civil Procedure Code, s. 54 Act No. VII of 1870, s. 28 Act No. XV of

1877, s. 4 Plaint insufficiently stamped Power of Court to grant time for
malting good the deficiencyLimitation. When a Court fixes a time
under cl. (a) or ol. (6) of s. 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure it must be a
time within limitation. Section 54 does not give a Court any power to
cxtetd the ordinarily prescribed period of limitation for suits. JAINTI
PRASAD v. BACHU SINGH, 15 A. 65 = 13 A.W.N. (1893) '29 ... 768-

(2) Act XV of 1877, s. 4-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 541, 542. 584, 585. 587

Limitation Second Appeal Plea ol limitation as to first appellate Court
taken orally by appellant in Second Appeal Court not bound to consider
such plea. An appellant in a Second Appeal raised orally at the hearing
a plea not taken in his memorandum cf appeal to the effect that the
respondents' appeal to the lower Court (where they had been appellants)
bad been barred by limitation, when it was presented.

Held that, even though the plea proposed to be raised was one involving a
question of limitation, the appellant was not, entiled as of right to be
heard in support of it without the leave of the Court granted under s. 542
of the Code of Civil Procedure ; that the Court was not itself bound to
consider that plea, and under the circumstances did not think it necessary
to enter into. AHMAD ALI v. WARIS HUSAIN, 15 A, 123 = 13 A.W.N.
(1893) 47 ... 796

(8) See APPEAL, 13 A. 189.

(4) See CIV. PRO. CODE, s. 230, 15 A. 198.

(5) See CIV. PRO. CODE, s 559, 14 A. 154.

(6) See FORFEITURE ACT, s 20, 13 A. 108.

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

(8) See POSSESSORY SUIT, 14 A. 193.

(9) Bee PRE-EMPTION, 14 A. 529.

1021



GENERAL INDEX.

Limitation Act (XV of 1877.)

(1) See APPEAL, 13 A. 73,

(2) See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 14 A. 223.

(3) Sa. 2 & 5, Arts. 177, 173 See APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL, 15 A. 14.

(4) 8. 15 See EXECUTION OF DECREE, 13 A. 76.

(5) 8. 15, Arts. 66, 116 Saa MORTGAGE (GENERAL), 14 A. 162.

(6) 19 See EVIDENCE, 15 A. 56.

(7) S. 22839 PARTIES TO SUITS, 14 A. 524.

(8) 8. 23, Ar:a. 34, 33, 120 3ee HUSB\ND AND WIPE, 13 A. 126,

(9) Art 64 3aa ACCOUNT STATED, 15 A. 1.

(10) Arts. 95 & 96 See HINDU LAW (PARTITION/, 14 A. 498.

(11) Arts. 113, 116 Limitation Suitby inor gagor to recover money due ona regis-

tered unrtgage deed. A suit by a mortgagor to recover money due on a
registered mortgage-deed, together with damages for non-payment, is not
a suit to which the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act
(Act XV of 1877), scb. ii, No. 113 (for specific performance of a contract)
is applicable. The perriod of limitation applicable to such a suit is that
prescribed by No. 116 cf sob. ii of the eaid Act (for compensation for
the breach of a contract in writing registered) ; and the time from which
limitation will run against the mortgagor is, in the absence of any specific
provision to the contrary, the date of the execution, of the mortgage-deed.
NAUBAT SINGH v. INDAR SINGH, 13 A. 200=11 A.W.N. (1891) 5 ... 125

(12) Art. 120 -Suit by purckser of decree to recover money of deceased judgment-

debtor in the hanch of his agent Limitation. One A P, having certain
moneys lying at his credit in Calcutta, empowered A L to receive the same
and hold them on bis behalf. A P died at Moradabad, and subsequently
to his death, the said moneys, which remained in the hands of A L, were
attached by one of the creditors of A P in execution of a decree. The
decree-bolder sold bis rights under the decree in respect of the moneys in
the bands of A L to the plaintiffs, who sued to obtain the same from A L.
Held that the period of limitation applicable to such suit was that pre-
scribed by art. 120 of the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act

(Act XV of 1877). CHAND MAL v. ANGAN LAL, 13 A. 368 = 11 A.W.N.

(1891) 130 ^ 234

(13) Art. 120 See PRE-EMPTION, 14 A. 405.

(14) Art. 127 Suit by Muhammadan for possession by right of inheritance of shares

in the property of iheir deciased ancestor. The words "joint family pro-
perty " in No. 127 of sob. ii of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877) mean
" the property of a joint family."

Hence, the period of limitation prescribed by No. 127 of sob. ii of the Limi-
tation Act, will not apply to a case in which members of a Muhammadan
family are suing for possession by right of inheritance of shares in
immoveable property alleged to have been that of the deceased common
ancestor of themselves and some of the defendants, and of which they allege
they had been dispossessed by the defendants. AMME RAHAM v. ZlA
AHMAD, 13 A. 282 (F.B.) = 11 A.W.N. (1891) 88 ... 177

(15) Art. 141 Limitation Suit by daughter entitled to possession of immoveable

psoperty on death of Hindu widoiv. The daughter of a separated Hindu,
who was entitled to succeed to her father's immovable property upon bis
widow's death, instituted, after the widow's death, a suit for possession
of euoh property against certain persons who, upon the Hindu's death,
bad obtained possession and held it adversely to the widow.
Held, by the Pull Bench that art. 141 of son. ii of the Limitation Act (XV of
1877) was applicable, and that limitation ran from the date of the widow's
death. RAM KALI v. KEDAR NATH, 14 A, 156 (P.B.) = 12 A.W.N.

(1892) 22 ... 470

(16) Art. 14S See MORTGAGE (REDEMPTION), 14 A. 1.

(17) Art. 179 Sao COMPROMISE DECREE, 14 A. 350.

(18) Art. 179 (2) See EXECUTION OF DECREE, 13 A. 1.

(19) Art. 179 (4) See STEP-IN-AID OF EXECUTION, 13 A. 89 I 13 A. 124.

1025
A VII129



GENERAL INDEX.

Limitation Act XV of 1877 (Concluded). PAGE

(20) Art. 179, ol, (4) See STEP-IN-AID OF EXECUTION, 13 A. 211.

(21) Art. 179 (5) Civil Procedure Cole, Chapters VII and XIII, and s. 647

Act VI of 1892, s. 4 Execution of decreeProcedure applicable to exe-
cution proceedings. The issuing of a notice under s. 248 of the Code of
Civil Procedure gives a fresh starting point for limitation under art. 179,
ol. 5 of sob. ii, of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, whether such notice
is issued on a valid or au invalid application for execution.

Chapters VII and XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot, in view of s. 5
of Act No. VI of 1892, be applied to proceedings in execution of decrees.

But a Court has power inherent, if not conferred by statute, to dismiss an
application for execution when the applicant fails through his own laches
to put the Court in a position to proceed with fan application.

Similarly, a Court has inherent power, if such power is not conferred upon
it by statute, to proceed forthwith to decide an application for execution
of a decree on the materials before it, when time has been granted to a
party to perform any act necessary for the further progress of the appli-
cation and that aot has not been done.

When an order is made striking an execution c ise ofi tho file of pending oases
or dismissing it on grounds other than a distinct finding that the decree is
incapable of execution, that the decree-holder 'd right to get the decree
executed is barred by limitation, or by any other rule of law, or on some
similar ground on which the application has clearly been dismissed on the
merits, whether the word " dismissed " for the words " struck of the file, "
or any other similar words have been used in the order, the decree-holder
is not barred by the force of any such order from presenting and prosecut-
ing a fresh application for the execution of his decree. DRONKAL SINGH
v. PHAKKAR SINGH, 15 A. 84 tF.B.) = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 6 ... 770

Us pendens.

Bee CONTRIBUTION, 13 A. 371

Loan.

See EVIDENCE, 14 A. 169.

Lunacy Act (XXXV of 1858).

Ss. a, 7, 9, 10. 23 See MAHOMEDAN LAW (MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP).
15 A. 29.

Lunatic.

See MAHOMEDAN LAW (MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP), 15 A. 29.

Magistrate, Jurisdiction of.

(1) Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 145, 146" Tangible immoveable property

Standing crops Attachment Civil and Eevtnue Courts Jurisdiction.
Standing crops are " tangible immoveable property" within the mean-
ing of s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

S. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not give jurisdiction to pass
an order of attachment in a dispute between parties whose rights regard-
ing such dispute would have to be determined by a Revenue Court
GANGA PRASAD v. NARAIN. 15 A. 394 = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 145 ... 971

(2) See SECURITY TO KEEP THE PEACE, 14 A. 49.

Mahals, Partition of.

BeeWAJIB-UL-ARZ, 15 A. 410.
Mahant.

Hindu Law Succession to the " galdi " of temple Nature of evidence required
to prove title to succeed Explanation of terms " nihang " and '' grihast "
Per EDGE, C. J., and MAHMOOD j. The question who is entitled to
succeed to the office of a deceased Mahant must be decided in each case
upon the evidence as to the customs relating to succession observed by the
particular sect to which the deceased Mahant belonged. It is necessary
for the person claiming a right to succeed as Mahant to establish that
right by satisfactory evidence. He cannot derive any advantage from the
weakness of his opponent's title,

1026



GENERAL INDEX.

Mahant (concluded). PAGE

Per MAHMOOD, J. It was necessary for the plaintiff in this case to prove
that he was " Nihang," as distinguished from " Qrihast " which he failed
to do. Meaning of the terms "Nihang" and "Grihasl" explained. BASDEO
v. GHARIBDAS, 13 A. 256=11 A.W.N (1891) 59 ... igo

Mahomedan Law.

1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND 80NSHIP,

2, ENDOWMENT.

3. GIFT.

4. INHERITANCE.

5. LEGITIMACY.

6. MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP,

7. MOSQUE.

8. PRE-EMPTION.

9. WAKP.
1. Acknowledgment and sonship.

Muhammadan Law Legitimacy Acknowledgment. Held that a Muhammadan
could not by acknowledging him as his son render legitimate a child
whose mother at the time of his birth he could not have married by rea-
son of her being the wife of another man. LIAQAT ALI v. KARIM-UN-
NISSA, 15 A. 396 = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 167 .., 973

2. Endowment,

Bee REVISION, 11 A. 413.

3. Gift.

Bee CONSTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT, 13 A. 409.

4. Inheritance.

See LIMITATION ACT, art, 127, 13 A. 282.
5. Legitimacy

See MAHOMEDAN LAW (ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SONSHIP), 15 A. 396.
6. Minority and Guardianship.

Muhammadan law Bhia sect Act XXXV of 1858, ss. 2, 7, 9, 10, 23 Guardian
of lunatic " The legal heir" Wife of lunatic. Qae M. 8. a Shin
Muhammadan, was formally adjudged a lunatic under the provisions of
Act No. XXXV of 1858. At the time of this adjudication M.B. had a
wife, Z, who had had one child by him, but that child had died previously
to Mi S. being adjudged a lunatic ; it did not however appear that there
was any reason precluding the possibility of further issue of the marriage.

Held by Mabmood, J., that under the law applicable to the Shia sect of
Muhammadans Z Swas one of the "legal heirs " of M. 8. within the
meaning of s. 10 of Act; No. XXXV of 1858, and as such was excluded by
the terms of the proviso to that section from being appointed guardian
the person cf her lunatic husband.

In oases under the Lunacy Act (Act No. XXXV of 1858) the High Court as a
Court of appeal will not take upon itself the duty of deciding who may be
the fittest person to appoint as guardian of the person or property of a
person adjudged a lunatic thereunder. That duty should rest with the
Courts to which it is entrusted by the Act.

Held by Knox, J,, that upon the general circumstances of the case the wife
was not a fit person to be appointed as guardian of the lunatic : sed quczre,
whether she was within the meaning of s. 10 of Act No. XXXV of 1858
" the legal heir " of the lunatic and therefore statutorily disqualified.
FAZL RAB v. KHATUN BIBI, 15 A. 29 = 12 A.W.N. (1892) 225

7. Mosque,

Muhammadan Law Public mosque Right of all Muhammadans without distinc-
tion of sect to use such mosque for the purposes of worship Right to say
" amin " louily during worship. Where a mosque is a public mosque
upon to the use of all Muhammadans without distinction of sect, a Muh-
ammadan who, in the bona fide exercise of his religious duties in such
mosque, pronounces the word '' amin " in a loud tone of voice, according

1027



GENERAL INDEX.

Mahomedan Law 7. Mosque (Concluded), PAGE

to the tenets of his sect, does nothing which is contrary to the Muham-
madan ecclesiastical law or which is either an offence or civil wrong,
though he may by such conduct cause annoyance to his fellow-worship-
pers in the mosque. But any person, Muhammadan or otherwise, who
goes into a mosque not bona fide for religious purposes, but mala fide to
create a disturbance there anrt interferes with the devotion of the ordinary*
frequenters of the mosque, will render himself criminally liable. JANGU
v. AHMAD ULLAH, 13 A. 419 (F.B.) ... 268

8. Pre-emption.

(1) See BAI BIL WAPA, 14 A. 195,

(2) Bee PRE EMPTION, 13 A. 373 ; 15 A. 104,

(3) See WAJIB-UL-ABZ, 13 A. 407.
9. Wakf.

(1) Muhammadan law Wakf Construction of document. Where a Muham-

madan of the 8 hi a sect executed a document purporting to come into
operation after his death, which document provided in a most complete
manner of the devolution of his property, with the intention apparently
of preserving the estate in perpetuity intact under the headship of some
male member of the family, with provision by way of allowances for the
other members, and of maintaining the dignity of the raisat, and in
which no express mention of any sort) of dedication of the property to
charitable purposes was made, though there was some incidental reference
to certain religious duties.

Ecld, that such a document could not be construed as creating a wakf.
Though it was not impossible that a document creating a wakf might
contain provision also for the family of the settlor, the dedication to
charitable uses being postponed, yet here there was not even an ultimate
dedication of the property to charitable uses, but the object of the
executant was evidently merely the maintenance of the family estates
and of the dignity of the raisat. MURTAZAI BlBI v. JUMNA BlBI, 13
A. 261 = 11 A.W.N. (1891) 13 ... 163

(2) Muhammadan Law Vtaql Waqf- namah containing provision for descen-

dants cf grantor, The fact that the grantor of a wagf has in the deed
constituting the same made some provision for the maintenance of his
kindred and descendants will not render the waqf invalid. DEOKI PRA-
SAD v. INAIT-ULLAH. 14 A. 375 = 12 A.W.N. (1892) 48 ... 608

(3) Muhammadan Law Sbia sect Waqf. According to the law applicable to

the Shla sect of Muhammadans a ivaqf-bil-wasiyat, or testamentary
waqf, is not valid unless actual delivery of possession of the appropriated
property is made by the u/aqif (or appropriator) himself to the muttawalli
(or superintendent appointed by the ivaqifi.

According to the same law the death of the waqif before actual delivery of
possession of the appropriated property by him to the muttawalli or the
beneficiaries of the trust renders the wnqf null and void ab inilio.

Consequently, where the waqif dies, as mentioned above, before actual deli-
very of possession of the appropriated property, the consent of his heirs to
the testamentary waqf cannot validate such waqf.

Distinction between waqf-bil-wasi%at and wasiyat-bil-waqf explained.
AGHA ALI KHAN v. ALTAF HASAN KHAN, 14 A, 429 (F B.) = 12 A.W.N.
(1892) 187 ... 643

(4) Sunnis Relinquishment of possession on the part of the waqif essential.
According to the law of Sunni Muhammadans it is essential to the
validity of a waqf that the waqif should actually divest himself of posses-
sion of the waqf property.

Hence where a Sunni Muhammadan executed and registered what purport-
ed to be a deed of waqf, but never acted upon it and retained possession
until his death of the property dealt with by the deed, which property
subsequently passed to his two sons by inheritance.

Held that no valid waqf of the property mentioned in the said deed was
constituted. MUHAMMAD |AZIZ-UD DIN AHMAD KHAN V. THE LEGAL

REMEMBRANCER TO GOVERNMENT, N.W.P. AND OUDH, 15 A. 321 =

13 A.W.N. (1893) 109 ... 923

1028



GENERAL INDEX.

Maintenance. PAGE

(1) Criminal Procedure Code, ch. XV, s. 433 Order for maintenance of wife

Wife living apart from her husband for good cause Jurisdiction. Where a
wife, after a temporary absence from her husband on a visit, f Duad on her
return that he was living with another woman and thereupon left him
and wont to live in a different district and in that district applied for an
order for maintenance against her husband,

Held that, the wife being justified in refusing to live with her husband and
in choosing her own plaoa of residence, the neglect of her husband to
maintain her was an offence within the jurisdiction of the appropriate
Court at the place where the wife resided. In the matter of tlie petition
of MALCOLM DECASTBO, 13 A. 348=11 A.W.N. (1891) 115 ... 221

(2) Criminal Procedure Cod?, ss. 488, 490 Order for maintenance of ivife

Application by wife to enforce order Plea that applicant had been disvorced
Duty of Court to which application for enforcement is made. Where a
person in whose favour an order under s. 488 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure has been made takes that order before a Magistrate, and the Magis-
trate finds that he has jurisdiction owing to the residence of the person
affected by the order, and is satisfied as to the identity of the parties and
the non-payment of the allowance due, it is his duty to enforce the
order for maintenance. It is no part of the duty of a Magistrate on such
an application as above mentioned, viz., an application under s. 490 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to entertain a plea by the party against whom
the order is sought to be enforced to the effect that he has divorced the
applicant and is therefore no longer liable to pay maintenance. MAHBU-
BANv. FAKIR BAKHSH, 15 A. 143 = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 63 ... 810

MaHikana dues,

Bee SET- OFF, 15 A. 404.

Mandatory Injunction.
See TRESPASS, 13 A. 98.

Material Irregularity.

Criminal Procedure Code, . 268, 428, 537 Material irregularity Assssirs,
statement of deceased person nat proved in their presence. Where in a trial
for murder held with assessors the Court relied on a statement made by
the deceased, and the evidence necessary to prove such statement was
not recorded until after the close of the trial and the discharge of the
assessors. Held that this amounted to a material irregularity which
. was not covered by s. 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. QUEEN-
EMPRESS v. RAM LAL, 15 A. 136 = 13 A.W.N. (1893) 50

Mesne Profits.

(1) Bae RES JUDICATA, 13 A. 53.

(2) See TRANSFER OF SUIT, 14 A. 531.
Minor and Guardian.

(1) See APPEAL, 13 A. 78.

(2) Bee GUARDIAN AND WARD.

(3) See HINDU LAW (PARTITION), 14 A. 498.

(4) See MAHOMEDAN LAW (MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP).

Misdirection of Jury,

(1) Jury, misdirection of Wliit amounts to misdirection Act XLV of 1850,
ss. 361, 366. In a trial with a jury under s.366 of the Indian Pena! Code,
the Judge on the question of intent charged the jury in the following
words : " It remains only to consider the questions of intent. The charge
was that tlie girl was kidnapped in order that she might ba forced or



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 150 of 155)