The Oudh cases. Containing cases decided by the Court of the judicial commissioner of Oudh .. online

expenses of a ward and of his family and dependants, is not a debt
within the meaning of the first paragraph of s. 266 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, and cannot be attached in execution of a decree
obtained against them.

Lala Bansidhar t;. Chaudhrain Zeb-un-nissa and another, 174

CRIMINAL PROCE DURE CODE, S. 106. See security to keep the peace

after conviction on a summary trial ... 838



Digitized by VjOOQIC



xviii Si»3^Ai< INDli-

Page.

CRIMpt \L EUO0e;pqRH: COP^ ^. IIQ ANp 117. ai3e Sar^ty, rejec-
tion of, UDoii Police Uepoi't ••• 11'

■^ : S. 146 CLAUSES [I] AND [»]—

Criminal P.roc^4*^re Code, ss. 4^9 nnd 439 — Criiuinal lievinion —
Irr^^nlaritie* in proceeiingn — JHrlisdivtion of Magiitrate.'] lu a
pn'ipiual case it wvs cmteiHletl ibat the MnirUimte »HTestetJ him-
â– elf of juriHtliciioii by not having in bis ortler, mmle under section
]45 p), Criminal Froce«iure Co«le, srarcni rbe giwnnis for bis belief
t^at there was likely to be a breach of the peace, ami by not having
Qnder clause (B) of that section nerved a copy on the applicant.
Hei^d, that the matters referre<1 to were mere irregularities in the
proceedings and did not ia the least aff jct the question of juris-
diction.

IMahph 1. JS^ra\n (I. L. B. 27 Calc 9S1) diaf^oted froml.

Bidya Dhar r. Jagdish Pershad ... 334
r SS. 164 AND 364— SfotewKwi^ of ae-



cusedf recording of, before erldenee for proMcution^Aceuted, exa*
mination of \fi ths nature of croxs-examiHotion.] To record the
statement of an accused ^>er«ion under s. 164, Criminal Proce«lure
Co<l6, before any sort of eviileuce for prosecution has been takea
ia ountmry to law.

It is opposed to the principles of English justice to commence
proce^lingR by subjecting an accused per8«>n, who lias not offered
to make a confessicm, to a searching crofl8-examiiiati«»ii ; and in
examining an a<cused nnders. 864, Criminal Procedure Code, it
would not be fair to put him such a question as " If you did not
Cpm.mit the raunler who «Hd ?"

phe<lant>. King-Emperor ... 191

_ . '. , S. 423 CI. CD) AND S. 522. See



Appellate Court, jiower of, to set aside order of L jwer Court pot-
ting complainant in possewion of laml ... 208
'. '- SS. 4H5 AND 439. See Criminal Pro-



cedure Code, 8. 45 els. [I] and [H] ... 834
, 8, 43^. See Cantonment Code, 1899,



as. 83 and 85. ... 51

. -. See Cf^ntonment Code ss. 83, 85



and 28.3 ... C8

CRlBillNAL UEVISION. S/*e Cantonment Colo, 1899, ss. 83 nn I 85 ... 61

. . See Cantonment Co<le ss, 83 85 and 283 ... 6$

: See Criminal Procedure Ootle s. 145 els. [I]

and[:0 - ^34

W*SQ;^A^iX MiWia^,9« ?W-^9X- *f.^\WJIi ^^Jtjao^n^^liUi^

^ — lift



Digitized by VjOOQIC



P«gt.

P.

DAM AORS. Sg^ Mertgafp, mft for recorerj of mnnej doe on ... 11

DAMAGK CAUSED BY RRASON OF CONTUACT. S^tt Suit for valne
of crops (listraiiieil for arrears of rent due to land-lonl, bjr sub-
lenaiit agniiiflt. tenant ... 351

DEATH OF PLAINTIFF RES PON DE5JT PENDINQ APPEAL, gss

Coile of Civil Pmce-lnre, as. 27 and 3»>8 ... 78

DECLAUATION THAT DEFENDANT IS AN ORDINARY TENANT,
SUIT FOE. 3t^ IJiniration for declaratory suit by landlord against
tenant after onler of Bevenne Conrt cancelling notice of ejeotment 187

DECLARATORY SUIT BY LANDLORD AGAINST TENANT SETT-
ING UP UNDBB-PBOPEIBTART TlTLl. 8se Adrerse title bj tenant,
asficrtion of ... 373

DECLARATORY DECREE. Sf^e Act 1 of 1877 s. 49 ... 239

DECREE. 5ff<* Partition, suit; for *.. 161

DECUBB, AMENDMENT OF. S^flmd^Bf^^ hQW to b« eftlcnlated

iu a suit for pre-emption ..• 48

DECREE FOR FORBCLOSURB, ALTERlNa BEFORB MAKINa

ABSOLUTS. Sm Foreclosure, suit for. ... 137

DECREE FOR FORECLOSURE IN RESPECT OF FART OF MORT-
GAOBD PbOPBBTT SUBSBQUBUT TO OBDBB ABSOLUTE IB BBSPBOT

OF THB BBMAiNina PABT. Sf^ Foreclosure, suit for ... 137

DECREE FOR JOINT PciSSESSION WHEN NO SUCH RELIEF IS

PRATED FOB, UITBBFBBBNOB OF COUBT IN SBGONO AP?B4^ WITB.
5/w PosseSi^ion of sbamilat land and demolition of puuHi ruction
thereon bloking a raa4l, suit ag Must co-sbarers for ... 382

DECREE FOR PRE-KMPnON, OUTAINKD BY A PERSON IN A
SUIT TO WaiCB PLAINTIFF IN TUB SBQONO SI^IT 18 VQT A PAl^TT.
See Pre-emption, suit for ... 1

DECREE OF SETTLEMENT COURT. Sm Arrears of rent, snit for 108

DECREE OF SETTLEMENT COURT aiYINCJ PWJRlSrAftY ?0^

SSKSSION. S^tf Re«lerapt ion unit for ... 259

DWORETfON OF COURT. S-»f Act I of 1877 s. 49 ... 139,

DISCRETION OF MAGISTRATE IN RESPECT. OF WR^TI^

5^ Surety, rejection of,,u|ion PoUfc Rejwrt ... 113

PISMISS\LOFOBIECTION INVOLVING Q(WS%U>NQfnTUL Sm

Partition, ^i|i fui: ^. IftL

WSFQSAL 9,7 WlbMB WWB^yiMD BT:QQQBT, 4^i)to^pU«

fied proprietor, suit ft|g)$Ml9 Iiii^own Jtfox^ ••• 176



Digitized by VjOOQIC



^x GENERAL INDEX.

DISQUALIFIED PROPRIETOR, SUIT AGAINST, IN HIS OWN NAME

— Collectifr^ BHiry in record of the name o/, ajter limitation— Act
XIX of 1873 — Heritable watiha to he taken into account in aieer^
taining husband's propniy for firing dincer — Oudh Lata Act, $,
S— Disposal by will of dower fieed by Court— Ma horn edan Law,]
The defendant at his marriage agreeti to pay his wife U Rs. 1,25^000
as dower. Of this sum H by her will bequeated Rs. 30,000 to the
plaintiff and TFin eqnal shares. 11 dieil in November 1896 leaving
no property except her dower debt. The plaintiff sued the defen-
dant for his share of the legacy. The defendant was at the dat«
of the suit a disqualified proprietor whose estate was in the charge
of the Court of Wards, and the suit (which was filed on the last day
of limitation) was brought against him in his own name instead
of in the name of the Collector of District in which the suit was
instituted. The name of the Collector waa not entered on the
record till after the periott of limitation ha^l expired. The Court
reduced the amount of dower to Rs. 7,600.

Held, that having regaril to the provisions of Act XIX of 187S
(N.-W.-P. Iiand- Revenue Act) the disqiialifie<l proprietor was the
real defendant, that no new party was a*i<le<l when the name of
the Collector was entered on the recon.1, and chat therefore the suit
was not barred by limitation.

Held, that a heritable wasiha shonld be taken into aoconnt in
ascertaining the means of the husband nailer s. 5 of the Oudh Lawi
Act.

/r<jW, that under the Mahometan Law //could not dispose
by will of more than one third of the amount of dower fixetl by
the Court.

Ahmad Raza Khan n Mirza Ali Hnssain and others ... 171
DOCUMENT MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS OLD, PROOF OF. See

Act I— 1872, M. 4 and 90 ... 290

E.

ENTRIES IN GOVERNMENT RECORD NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF
OP TITLV. See Suit for rent of land occupied without consent of
lnn<llor«l ... 340

ENTRY OF TAI.UQDAR'8 NAME IN LISTS PREPARED UNDER
OUDH ESTATBS ACT AFTSS HIS DEATH. See Oudh Estates Act
(I of 1859) 88. 8 and 10 ... Si

ESTATE FOR LIFE. Sse Gusara land, suit for possessioti of — 90

BVlDBJiCE ACT, SS. 4 AND 00. See Act-1872 -I, t^ 4 and 90 ... 290
^ 8. 13. See Possession, suit for ... 191



Digitized by VjOOQIC



GENERAL INDEX. xxi

Page.
EVIDENCE ACT, S. 82. See Lunatics Estotes Act (XXXV of 1858) 8. 6, 364

, S. 66, cl. [e]— Certified copy of a regUtered deed,

admiMihilUy of to prove ettittenee, eonditum, and contents of the
original — Public document — Registration Aotj s. 57.] Held that
a mortgage-deed registered according to law is under section 74
clause (2) of the Indian Evidence Act a public document and its
existence and condition op contents may under section 65 (e) of
the said Act read with section 57 of the Registration Act be
proved by a certified copy.

Beni Pershad v, Sahai Lai and others ••• 327

.. SS. 65 («) and (^ tnd 74 (2). See Act III of 1877,



B. 57



365



EXECUTION OF DECREE. See Forecloeure, suit for ... 1^7

EXECUTION OF DECREE— iVo^wrfy not comprised in the decree,
decree-holder taking possession of by independent action and not
through eouH ewecuHng decree— Jurisdiction qf court— Code of
aviX Procedure, s,ZU.\ Where the decree-holder has obtained
possession of land through the court executing the decree and not
by his own act, the question whether sttch lands are covered by
the decree raises a question as to the execution of the decree, and
the court can under section 244 of Civil Procedure Code determine
that question and if it determines it in fayour of the judgment-
debtor, can restore possession of the lands to him. But if the decree-
holder has obtained possession of the lands by his own act and not
through the court executing the decree the question as to whether
the lands are covered by the decree is not one relating to the exe-
cution of the decree, and the court executing the decree has no
jurisdiction under section 244 to determine such question.

In an appUcation purporting to be made under section 244,
Civil Procedure Code, the judgment-debtcwr alleged that the decree-
holder who had obtained a decree for possession of a certain share
in some houses and shops, in the course of execution proceedings
taken for the delivery of possession, dispossessed him of some pro-
perty not comprised in the decree and prayed that that property
should be restored to him. The Subordinate Judge found that the
decree-holder obtained possession of that property by his own act
and not through the court executing the decree and that the pro.
perty was not comprised in the decree, and directed that it should
be restored to the judgment-debtor.

HeU, that possesmon of the property in dispute having been
obtained simply and solely through the acts of the decree-holder
the court executing the decree bad no jurisdiction to determine



Digitized by VjOOQIC



xxii GENERAL INDEX.

Page.

whether the property was comprised in the decree or not, and that
consequently it had no jurisdiction under section 2i4 to entertain
the judgment-debtor's application.

Abdul Wahid Khan v. Mirza Muhammad Bakar All Ehan... 213

EXECUTION OF DECREE — Application for execution, by benamldar of
purcka$er of rights of decree-holder — Right of judgment-dehtor.l
The appellant claiming to have purchased the rights of the original
decree-holder applied to the Court for recognition of the assign-
ment of the decree and stated that he would present a separate
application for execution. The judgment-debtors objected that
the appellant was the benamldar of the purchaser of the decree
and was therefore not entitled to take out execution. The lower
Courts decided this question against the appellant.

Held^ that there was evidence to support the finding of fact
and that the judgment-debtors were entitled to insist upon the
name of the real purchaser being entered on the record.

Mohammed Akbar Khan ir. Nawab Shah Ara fiegam and

others ... 239

^— — . See Purchase of mortgagor's rights by

mortgagee at sale in execution of decree of third party ... 307

AGAINST MINOR WHEN NO GDAUDIAN



AD LITEM APPOINTED IN THE 9>T5Vi—OhjectxonM by minor to
ralidity of decree in execution proceedings — Code of Ciril ProoB"
dure^ s, 244.'] The respondent obtained a decree against the ap-
pellant who was described as a minor under the guardianship of one
F, The respondent applied for execution of the decree, and the
appellant through her next friend lodged an objection to the
execution upon the ground that no guardian ad litem had been
appointed fer her in the suit and therefore the decree was not bind-
ing upon her.

Held^ that the appellant was not entitled in the execution
department to challenge the validity of the decree upon the ground
that no guardian ad litem had been appointed for her in the suit.

Qamar Jahan Begam v. Abadi Begam and others .. 199

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT OF PRICE BY COURT OP

APPEAL, See Pre-emption, suit for ... 359



FICTITIOUS SALE-DEED, SUIT TO SET ASIDE— 5^i^ for possesion of
property transferred to defendard under fictitious sale-deed — Indian
Limitation Act^ sch^ ii^ art, 91.'] ti'sold certain properties to his
grandson, the defendant. The plaintiff who was also bis grandson
sned for his one- third share in the property. It was fonnd that the
family was not joint at the time of the execution of the sale-deed
and the sale-deed was a fictitious transaction entered into to 4efeat



Digitized by VjOOQIC



GENERAL INDEX. xxiii

Page,
ereditora. Bat the District Jadge dismissed the sait on the ground
that the plain tift could not get the property without setting aside
the sale-deed.

Eeld^ that as the sale-deed was not intended to be operative
but was a mere fictitious transaction no suit to set ic aside was
necessary under article 91 sch. ii of the Indian Limitation Act.

[5Aam Loll MUtra v. Amarendro Nath Bose (I. L. B., 23 Calc;
460) and Banku Behari Shaha v, Krishto OoHndo Joardar (I. L. B.,
30 Cat. 432) referred to.\

Kokhey LiU o. Naud Lai and others ... 319

FO^ECLOSUBE, SUIT YOB,-^Decree for forclosure, alter ing before mak-
ing absolute — Decree for foreclosure in respect of part of mortgaged
property subsequent to order absolute in respect of tJie remaining
part — Transfer of Property Act^ s. 87 — JExecuti4)n of decree — Code
ef Civil Procedure, s, 244 — Mortgage.] The defendant and his
father who were living in union owned between them a 6 p. share
which the father in 1892 mortgaged to the plaintiff by way of con-
ditional sale. The plaintiff sued for foreclosure and obtained adecree
nisi in February 1897. To that suit the defendant was not made
It party. Before the decree could be made absolute his father died
. and the plaintiff's application for an order absolute was made
against the defendant who objected that his interest in the pro-
perty should be excluded from the operation of the decree and the
objection was allowed by the Munsif and an order was passed
making the foreclosure absolute in respect of the father's share
only. The plaintiff then sued for a declaration that the defendant
was bound by the foreclosure decree passed against his father and
that that decree should be made absolute as regards the defendant's
interest That suit was finally dismissed. The plaintiff brought
the present suit for half the amount due npon the mortgage at the
date of the previous decree and in default o£ payment foreclosure
of the defendant's right to redeem his interest iu the property.

JEfeld, that the suit was not barred by section 244, Civil Pro-
cedure Code, so far as regarded the questions whether the mortgage
made by his father was binding upon the defendant and whether
the defendant was bound to pay his father's debt out of any family
property which had passed to him by survivorship ; but that hav-
ing regard to the provisions of section 87 of the Transfer of Property
Act, the foreclosure of the father's interest having been made
absolute on account of the non-payment of the whole debt, the suit
was not maintainable.

Baja Bam v, Sheopal Singh ... 137



Digitized by VjOOQIC



xxiv GENERAL INDEX,

Page.
FBAUD. See Insanity, weakness^ helpleesnesa ... 287

G.

GANG ASSOCIATED FOR THE PURPO&E OF HABITUALLY COM-

MITTIKO THBFT BBLOHGINO TO, BVIDBNCB NBCES8ARY TO PBOVB

OFFENOB OF. See Indian Penal Code, 8. 401 ••' ^^^

GRANT FOR MAINTENANCE IN PERPETUITY, HOW TO BE CONS-

TBtTBD. See Gaiara land, suit for poflBCSsion of ... ^^

SrZABA LAND, SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF—Httate for lif^-Orant
for maintenance in perpetuity, how to be eonstrusd^Award by
BrUUh Indian Auooiation—Oudh JEstatef Act of 1869, i. 33.] The
plaintiff^ great-grand-father granted a village as guzara to tiifr
defendant's fatber. Snbseqnentlj in oomseqiaenee of certain dis-
putes the plaintiJOTs giand-father agreed to giye the defendant's
father a further cash allowance which was changed for land. The
plaintifi brought a suit against the defendants to recorer possessioa
, of this land on the ground that the grant was only for the life of
the defendant's father*

Held, that the grant was for life only and that the plaintiff
was entitled to possession. When the purpose of the grant is-
^guzara' or the maintenance of the grantee, it is immaterial whether
the words * in perpetuity ' or words to that effect appear, and the
grant must be taken to be for life only.

Upon the facts found, the Court held that there had been no
award by the British Indian Association and that the rules of
that body did not apply.

Raja Rameshar Bakhsh Singh tr» Babu Bhagwan Bakhsh Singh
and another ... 90

E.

•HERITABLE WASIKA TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ASCER-
TAININO HUSBAND'S PBOPEBTT FOB FixiKO DOWEB. See Dis-
qualified proprietor, suit against, in his own name ... 176^

HINDU LAW. See Separate property of father, suit between sons for

possession of ... 9S

HINDU WIDOW'S RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION IN RESPECT OF PRO-

PBBTT HELD AS WIDOW'S ESTATE AS WELL AS UKDEE A WILL

EXECUTED BY HEB HUSBAND. See Pre-emption, suit for ... 158

I.

IMPLIED CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CHOWKIDAR. See
Rural Police Rate, suit by proprietor against under-proprietors for
recovery of ••• 35



Digitized by VjOOQIC



GENERAL INDEX. xxv

Page.

IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT OF FURNISHING SECURITY NOT
A PABT OP A substantivb SENTENCE. See Security to keep the
peace after conviction on a summary trial. ... 338

INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT. See

Patent, infringement of ... 103

"INSANITARY STATE" AND "DEFECTS," MEANING OF. See

Cantonment Code 1899, ss. 83 and 85. ... 61

INSANITY, WE*AKNESS, l^ELVLESSliU ESS— Commutation of insiiffi-
eierd ea$e of insanity into a case of '.weaTtnesa — Fraud,"] In
two suits for the cancellation of two mortgage-deeds granted to
the respondent by JP, the plaintiffs father, the ground of action
was that J* was insane and that the deeds were obtained by fraud.
The evidence produced by the plaintiff went to prove insanity In
its crudest and most palpable form. The Court of first instance,
held that ^ was not Insane, but that he was helpless and weak-
minded and that the respondent had defrauded him. The Court of
the Judical Commissioner dismissed both siuts.

Held^ that it is not legitimate to commute an insufficient case
of insanity into a complete case of weakness, when the type of in-
sanity connoted in the evidence is something quite different.

Durga Bakhsh Singh v. Mirza Muhammad All Beg ... 287

INTEREST ACT. S«« Interest on arrears of rent ... 116
ON ARREARS OF RENT— ^rr^r* of rent, suit by pro-
prietor against under-projtrietor for— Interest Act (XXXII of
iS39)— Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872 *. 75.] In a previous
litigation between the respondent's father and the appellant's
predecessor-in-title a compromise was effected by an agreement on
the basis of the latter taking one-fourth of the estate and paying
to the former half of the Government revenue with the addition of
ten per cent, talukdari dnes on the Government revenue. The
Settlement Officer made a decree according to the terms of the
agreement. Subsequently the respondent brought the present suit
against the appellant for payment of rent. The Lower Courts
decreed the claim and held that the respondent was entitled to
interest.

Held^ that interest was not payable on the arrears of the rent
found due from the appellant, and that neither the provisions of s. 73
of the Indian Contract Act nor those of the Interest Act of 1839
were applicable.

Thaknr Qanesh fiakhsh v. Thakur Harihar Bakhsh ... 116

INTEREST, CLAIM EOR RECOVERY OF, BY SALE OF MOBTOAG-

KD PEOPEBTY. See Mortgage, suit for recovery of money due on ... 11
INTERPRETATION. See Pre-emption suit for. ... 7i



Digitized by VjOOQIC



xxvi GENERAL INDEX.

Page.
INTERPRETATION OF REVENUE COURT'S DECREE BY CIVIL

COUBT. Sec Adverse title by tenant, assertion of ... 372

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE. See Oudh Estates Act, 1869, ss. 8

and 10 ... 254

IRREGULAR PROCEDURE IN HEARING CASE IN REVIEW,

POWER OP APPELI^TE COUET IN DEALING WITH. Sre Review ... 345
IRREGULARITIES IN PROCEEDINGS. See Criminal Procedure Co<Ie,

s. 145 els. [1] and [3] ... 334

J

JOINT PROPERTY, SUIT FOR DIVISION OF. See AwAvd not filetl in

Court within six months of enforcement ... 36^
JURISDICTION. /S^« Representative of deceased appellant, juristiction

of Court to which a case has been remanded, to bring on record ... 17

JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT. S^^c Arrears of rent, suit for ... 108

. See Partition, suit for ... 161

JURISDICTION OF COURT. 5^^ Execution of decree ... 213

JURISDICTION OF COURT OF JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER. See

Act III of 1901,68. 191 and 192 ... 142

JURISDICTION OF REVENUE COURT. See Act III of 1901, ss. 191

and 192 ... 142

JURISDICTION OF REVENUE COURT AS TO QUESTION OF TITLE
RAISED IN A KENT SUIT. See Suit for rent of land occupied with-
out consent of landlord ... 340

JURISDICTION OF A SUBORDINATE JUDGE EMPOWERED TO

TRY APPEALS, AS REGARDS APPEALS PREFERRED TO HIS PREDE-
CESSOR UNDER GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION ISSUED IN HIS TIMKi
See Oudh Civil Courts Act, Section 18 clause (3) ... 321

JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE. See Criminal Procedure Code, s. 145

clauses (1) and (3) ... 334

JUDGMENT Ayr^i2P^i2r^5 IN A PREVIOUS SUIT, ADMISSIBLITY

OP. See Possession, suit for ... 122

JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. See Act IX of 1872

8s. 69 and 70 ... H^



K



KABULIAT EXECUTED ON STAMP PAYABLE FOR LEASE AND

REGISTERED. iS^c Arrears of rent, Eult for ... 1C9



LAND-REVENUE ACT (N.-W.-P.), XIX OF 1873. See Disqualified pro-
prietor, suit against, in his own name ... 176



Digitized by VjOQQIC



GENERAL INDEX.



XXVll



Page.



LAND REVENUE ACT
Partition suit for



OP 1901 SECTIONS 111 AND 112. See



161



(N.-W.-P. AND OCDn) SS. 191 AND 192.

See Act III of 1901 88. 1901 and 192

LEAVE OF COURT TO BID AT AUCTION SALE. See Purchase of
mortgagor's rights by mortgagee at sale in execution of decree of
third party

LEASE FOR QUARRYING OA^^STO^l^— Registration. Act (III of
lb77 ) jectlon 17 clauses (h) and (d) and section 49 — Admissibility
of nni'eglstered lease for quarrying limestone.'] In a suit for posses-
sion of certain land from which the plaintiflE alleged that he had
been dispossessed by the defendant, the question was whether two
deeds under which the plaintiflE and the person through whom he
claimed were authorize<l to quarry limestone from the said land
for a certain period required registration.

Held that, the deeds were leases and as such required registra-
tion under section 17 clause (d) of the Registration Act (111 of
1877); that they were inadmissible in evidence; and that under
section 49 of the Act they could not legally be held to " aflfect any
immoveable property comprised" in them, nor could other evidence
be given of their contents.

Shaikh Karam Husain tr. Ram Gopal

LIMITATION. See Compensation for revenue paid by lambardar on
account of joint lambardar, suit for

. See Minor, promise to pay money made by guardian on

behalf of

LIMITATION FOR DECLARATORY SUIT BY LANDLORD AGAINST
TENANT AFTEE ORDEE OP EBVBNUE COUET CANCELLING NOTICE
OP EJECTMENT — Declaration that defendant is an ordinary tenant^
suit for — Indian Limitation Acty Schedule ii, aH, 120. \ The plain-
tiflE sued to have it declared that the "defendant was an ordinary
tenant of the land in suit. The plaintiflE had served the defendant
with a notice of ejectment which he resisted, claiming an under-
proprietary right, and the notice was cancelled on the ground that
be was something more than a tenant.

Heldy that the period of limitation should run from the date
of the order of the Revenue Court cancelling the notice and not
from the date of the petition of objections in which the defendant
alleged that he had certain rights.

ThakuT Chhatardhari Singh r. Bhagwan Din
LIMITATION ACT, SCH. II ART. 10. See Pre-emption suit for



142



307



231



14



46



187
98



Digitized by VjOOQIC



xxviii GENERAL INDEX.

Page.
LIMITATION ACT, SCH. II ARTS. 10 AND 120. See Pre-emption suit

for ... 8

64. ^ jS^« Account stated ... 166

— 66, 120 AND 132. See Arrears of rent,

enit for ... 103

â–  91. See Fictitious sale-deed, suit to

set aside .,. 319
113. See Award not filed in Court

witbfn six months, enforcement of ... 869

— — 1 16. See Mortgage, suit for recovery

of money due on ... 1 1

— ^^— — — — 120. See Pre-emption, suit for ... 1

I See Limitation for declar-



atory suit by landlord against tenant after order of Revenue
Court cancelling notice of ejectment ... ] 87

142. See Redemption, suit for ... 259



LORD CANNING*S PROCLAMATION OF 15TH MARCH, 1858, EFFECT