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

Bbaiya Rrij Raj Singh v. Ram Parghat and others ... 84

PROPERTY NOT COMPRISED IN THE DECRE% DECREE-HOLDER
TAKING POSSESSION OP, BY INDEPENDEKT ACTION AND NOT

THROUGH COURT EXECUTING DECREE. See Execution of decree, 213
PROPRIETOR IN ONE MAHAL TO PRE-EMPT LAND IN ANOTHER
MAHAL WHEN THERE HAS BEEN PERFECT PARTITION, BIGHT OF
See Pre-emption, suit for ... 206

PUBLIC DOCUMENT. S«J Act III of 1877 s. 67 ... 366

See Evidence Act s. 65 cl. (e) ... 327

PURCHASER IN EXECUTION OF DECREE ON PRIOR MORTGAGE
WHEN SALE TAKES PLACE AFTER SALE ON SUBSEQUENT MORT-
GAGE — Mortgaged property told twice in execution of decree on
^ prior and subsequent mortgages — Prior and subsequent mortgages —

Transfer of Property Acts, 85 — Possession, suit for,] A purchaser
at a sale held in execution of a decree for sale on a first mortgage
made by a person in possession of the property, the decree haying
been obtained in a suit brought in strict accordance with section
85 of Act IV of 1882, is entitled to possession as against a purchaser
at an earlier sale held in execution of a decree for sale obtained in
a suit brought on a second mortgage in defiance of the rule laid
down In that section.

Fayaz Hossein Khan v. M. Prag Narain and another ..• 243



Digitized by VjOOQIC



xlviii GENERAL INDEX.

Page
PURCHASE OF MORTGAGOR'S RIGHTS BY MORTGAGEE AT SALE
IN EXECUTION OFDEOBEE OP THIRD VKVLTY— Mortgagor's rights^
purchase by mortgagee of^forfairprire — Tran*fero1 Property Act,
s, 99 — Leave of Court to bid at avction sale — Code of Civil Procedure,
#. 294^Trusts AH, ss, 88 and 90— Execution of decree,] The
apppellant and three other person obtained a money-decree against
the owner of a Tillage in execution (»f which they attached the
Tillage on May 6th 1899. J9 and another who ha<J likewise obtain-
ed a money-decree against the owner of the Tillage attached it on
May 26th 1899 and had it pat up for sale on October 20th 1900
when it was knocked down to the respondent for Rs. 14,633. The
respondent was at the time mortgagee of the Tillage and his mort-
gage was entered in the proclamation of sale as an encumbrance
on the property. It was not saggeste<l that the price paid was less
than the market Talueof the Tillage, or that the respondent was
guilty of any misconduct.

S'eld, that the purchase of the mortgagor's rights by bis
mortgagee, the respondent, extinguished the martgagor's right to
redeem, and that therefore the mortgagor, had no rights which
could be put up for sale in execution of the decree held by the
appellant.

Within the meaning of ss. 88 and 90 of the Trusts Act a mort-
gagee does not aTail himself of his position as such merely by bid-
ding at an auction for his mortgagor's property, nor does he gain
an ad Tan t age for faftnself within the meauiug of those sections
when he pays a fair price for the property ; such a purchase ha»
the same effect as a purchase made by a stranger ; and neither
8. 294 of the Civil Procedure Co<le nor s. 99 of the Transfer of Pro-
perty Act applies.

Thakur Durga Singh i;. Seth Jai Dayal ... BQT



Q



QUESTION OF TITLE. S*-* Partition, suit for ... let
See Suit for rent of land occupied without con-
sent of landlord ... 34^

E

RECEIPT OF MONEY NOT PURPORTING TO EXTINGUISH MORTGAGE-
DEBT, BEGISTBATION OP. See Oudh Civil Courts Act, s. 18 cL [3] 321
RECOGNITION OF CLAIM. See Possession, suit for ... 12*

REDEMPTION OF FIRST MORTGAGE WHEN FIRST MORTGAGEE

HAS PUE0HA8ED EQUITY OP BBDEMPTION. See Mortgage ... 330

REDEMPTION, SUIT FOR. See Court Fees Act (VIl of 1877) s. 7, cL 9

and 8.. n "^ 16*



Digitized by VjOOQIC



GENERAL INDEX. xlix

Page.

REDEMPTION SUIT FOU—Moi'tfaffehy conditional sale^ Indian Limi-
tation Act, Schedule it, aH. 142— Decree of Settlement CouH giving
proprietary posseJtfion-^ Re rival of claim for redemption — Act XlUy
jSOd—Adverfe possession.] In a suit for redemption the plain-
tiffs alleged that on July 31, 1846, their predecessors had mort-
gagetl the village for ten years to the predecessor-in-title of the
tlefendantfi, and they claimed to redeem the mortgage on the
ground that the time fixed for redemption had not expired on the
13th February 1856. The defendants admitted that there had
^een a mortgage but they alleged that it was a mortgage by con-
ditional sale for four years only and by it they had acquired an
absolute title as the money was not paid within that term. At
the regular settlement in Oudh, iV, the predecessor of the defend-
ants, applied for settlement. The plaintiffs' predecessors set up
a counterclaim. A's claim was ultimately decreed by the Chief
Commissioner on October 25th 1863 and formal possession of the
village was given to her by the Revenue authorities on May 22nd,
1864, and in the khmoat which was prepared she was entered as
proprietor. Subsequently the deCendant's predeiiessors accepted
jthe situation and obtained decrees for Sir on March 8th 1866.

Held^ that the suit was barred by article 142, Schedule li of
the Indian Limitation Act.

On the contention of the plaintiffs that the Chief Commig-
fifoner dismissed their predecessors' appeal in view of the rules of
limitation then in force and that by Act XIII of 1866 their claim
was revived and must be heard on its merits, it was k^ld that the
plaintiffs' predecessors did not sue then for redemption of the
mortgage so they could not say that such a suit of theirs was dis-
missed on the ground that it was barred by the rules of limitation
then in force ; and not having, while Act XIII of 1866 was in force,
taken any steps to revive their former claim to settlement and
have it heard on its merits, the plaintiffs could not now plead that
that enactment had made the decisions of the Settlement Courts
against them wholly inoperative.

Basawnn Singh and others v, Kawab Badshah Bahu Begam

and others ... 259

PELINQDISIIMENT OF HOLDING BY TENANT AFTER TRANSFER

OP IT TO A THIRD PARTY, LANDLORD'S RIGHT AS AGAINST

TRANSFEREE IN CASE OF. See Mortgagee of tenants holding under
decree of Court, suit by landlord for possession against ,,, 265

r— , RIGHTS OF TENANT HOLDING

FOR A TERM UNDER A DEED, A TE2JANT HOLDING UNDER
DECREE OP COURT, AN OCCUPANCY TENANT, OR A STATUTORY

TENANT AS REGARDS. See Mortgagee of tenants holding under
decree of Court, suit by landlord for possession against ... 265



Digitized by VjOOQIC



1 GEKERAL INDEX.

KEVIVAL OF CLAIM FOR REDEMPTION. See Redemption, suit for... 251>
REGISTRATION ACT (111 OF 1877) SECTION 17 CLAUSES (B) AND

(2>) AND SECTION 49. See Lease for quan^iog limestone ... 231

S. 50 — Priority of mortgage executed subsequent f^^

oeer deed of gift executed prior to^ passing of Registration Act. \
Section 50 of the Registration Act onght not to be construed with
retrospective effect so as to disturb titles acquired at a time when
there was no law of registration in force in the Province. It was
held, therefore, that a mortgage-deed executed and registered in
1892 could not be allowed to prevail against an unregistered deed
of gift executed in 1865 before the passing of the Registration Act.

Mnsammat Nazir Sahiba v. Sitara Khanam ... 342f

â–  S.57. iSf^ Act III of 1877 ... 365

â–  . See Evidence Act s. 65, cl. [0] ... 327



REIMBURSEMENT OP PERSON PAYING MONEY DUE BY AN-
OTHER. See Act IX of 1872 ss. 69 and 70 ... 14^

RELATIONSHIP OF VENDEE AND VENDOR, PLEA OF. S^ Pre-
emption, suit for ... 6

WITH VENDOR. See Oudh Laws Act s. 9 els. (1)

and (2) ... 12Sr

RELIEF. See Arrears of rent, suit for ... 10*

REMAND. See Representative of deceased appellant, jurisdiction of

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

REMEDY OF NON-CONSENTING CO-SHARER AGAINST THE

PEESON BUILDING WITH THE CONSENT OP OTHER CO-SHABEBS.

See Suit by a co-sharer for demolition of well constructed by a

third person with the consent of other co-sharers. ... 33^

RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, SUIT FOR. See Profits, suit for a share of 84

RENT ACT (OUDH), 1886, S, 108 cl. (15). See Profits, suit for a share of 84
RENT ACT SS. 108 CL. 16, 129 AND 132. See Compensation for revenue

paid by lambardar on account of joint lamdardar, suit for ... 14

RENT ACT (OUDH), S. 127. -See Suit for rent of land occupied without

consent of landlord ... 340

REPORT OR CERTIFICATE BY MEDICAL E:iPERT AS TO THE

MENTAL CAPACITY OF AN ALLEGED LUNATIC, ADMISSIBILITY IK
EVIDENCE OP, IN A CONTENTIOUS PROCEEDING. See LunaticS

Estates Act (XXXV of 1858) s. 5 ... 354

REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED APPELLANT, JURISDICTION
OP Court to which a case has been remanded, to bring on
RECORD — Code of Civil Procedure ss, 305 and 666 — Jurisdiction —
Bemand.^ Held, that a Court to which a case has been remanded
under s« 566, Civil Procedure Code, has jorisdiction to act under



Digitized by VjOOQIC



GENERAL INDEX. U

Page.

B. 365 of the Code and to do any act which may be necessary to

carry out the order of remand.

Salabat Singh r. Ham Kishan and others ... 17

llESIDENCE IN VILLAGE. &c Pre-emption, suit for ... 275

IlES JUDICA'TA. 5<?e Possession, suit for ... 123

/Sctf Arrears of rent, saitfot ... 169

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

and 102 ... 142

KEVERSIONER, SUIT BY, AGAINST TALUQDAR'S WIDOW. See

Act I of 1877 6» 42 ... 239

KEVERSIONARY INTEREST, SALE OF. S(>e Pre-emption, suit for ... 98
KEVIEW — Admmion of application for redew^ objection taken to^ in appeal
'—Ter nut of the order admitting the review^ discretion of Court as
to— Irregular procedure in hearing case in review^ power of appeU
late Court in dealing with — Code of Civil Procedure^ ss, 623 and
626 — Ci)urt-fee^ how calculated ichen appellant seeks to escape pay'
ment of a sum decreed against him and to recover a sum from respond*
ent.\ When the admission of an application for review of judg-
ment is not challenged on any oE the grounds stated in s. 626 of
the Coile of Civil 'Procedure, it cannot be challenged in appeal at all,
A Judge who hears the case in review is not bound by the
terms of the order admitting the review whether the order was
passed by himself or by another Judge, and if the procedure adopt-
ed by him in hearing the case in review is irregular it is the duty
of the appellate Court on appeal to decide the case upon its meriti,
[Bhagwandeen Doohey v. Myna Baee (1) Sainal Itanchhod v,
Dullahh Drarka (2) ; Tliacoor Prosad v. Baluck Ram (3) and
Hurhans Sahye v. Thakoor Purs)uid (4) followed.]

When an appellant in his memorandum of appeal seeks to
escape payment of a sum decreed against him and also to recover
from the respondent a sum named therein the court-fee .should be
calculated on the sum decreed against him plus the sum sought to
be recovered.

Musammat Basanti r. Badri ••• 345

KEVIEW OF JUDGMENT— ^/?j;ZtVfl^k>» /or review fUed hefore filing of
appealy jurisdiction of Court regarding— Procedure as regards
application for review — Code of Civil Procedure^ s, C25.] Section
623 of the Code of Civil Procedure means that a person considering
himself aggrieved by a decree or order cannot apply for a review of
m judgment if either he himself has appealed or any other person

[IJ 11 Moo. 1. A., 487. [2] 10 Bom. H. C. Rep., 360.

[3] 12 C. L. R., 64. [4] I. L. R., 9 Cal. 209.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



m GENERAL INDEX.

Page,
ho? appealed on a gronnd common to the appellant and himself or
anj other person has filed an appeal to which he has been made a
respondent and in which he can under s. 661 of the Code or other-
wise present to the appellate Court the case on which he wishes to
apply for review.

The respondents sued for possession o! property detailed in a
list attached to their plaint which consisted of two parts. The
Subordinate Judge overlooked the second part of the list and passed
a decree for possession of the property in the first part only. The
title to all the property in the list was the same. On June 15th
1900, the respondents applied for a review of judgment. On July
3rd the appellant filed an appeal in the Court of the Judicial Com-
missioner. On April 25th 1902 the appellant's appeal was dis?
missed, and on April 30th 1903 his application for leave to appeal
to His Majesty's Council was dismissed. The Subordinate Judge
then took up the application for review and modified the decree
80 as to make it include the property in the second part of the
respondent's list.

JSeld^ that the order of the Subordinate Judge was made with
jnrisdiction and was right. As a matter of practice however if
after an application for review has been filed an appeal is filed on
a ground common to the appellant and the applicant or an appeal
is filed in which the applicant can file objections under s. 561,
Civil Procedure Code, the Court to which the application is made
ahoidd decline to proceed with the application until the appeal hag
been heard and when the applicant has been made a respondent
and can obtain the relief which be requires by means of objections
under s. 561 should require him to file such objection.

Sarju Pershad v. Sheo Charan Lai and others ... 299

BIGHT OP DEFENDANT TO DISMISSAL OF SUIT BROCJGHT BY
ui^AUTHOBlZED PEBSOK. See Code of Civil Procedure bs. 27
and 368 ... 78

RIGHT OF JUDGMENT-DEBTOR. See Execution of decree ... 229

BIGHT OF OWNER OF ONE MAHAL TO PRE-EMPT AS AGAINST

VENDEE OP ANOTHER MAHAL. See Pre-emption, suit for ... 275

BIGHT OF OCCUPANCY IN LAND SOLD IN EXECUTION OF

DEOBEE, HOBTGAOE OF. See Oudh Laws Act, 8. 25 ... 312

BIGHT TO SUE FOR ARREARS OF MONEY DUE UNDER SETTLE-
MENT DEGREE WITHOUT PROVING RECEIPT OF THE MONEY BINGE

THE DBGBEE. See Arrears of rent, suit for ... 108

JIULB BEGARDING CASE IN WHICH PARDANASHIN WOMEN ARE
SUED UPON DEEDS ALLEGED TO BE EXEGUTED BY THEM. See

Pardanasbin woman, denial of execution of deed by. ... 292



Digitized by VjOOQIC



GENERAL INDEX. im

Page.
BUnAL POLTCB BATE, SUIT BY PROPRIETOR AGAINST UNDER-
PBOPBIETOSS FOR RECOVERY OF— Implied contract for viainf-enancA
of clunck'idar—N, W.-P, and Oudh Act Vofl 894, tectums 13 and
i4—Wajib-fil-arZt adm i^sibi lit p in evidence of] The respondent
was the superior proprietor of a Tillage and the appellants were
the under- proprietors. The respondent sued the appellants for a
certain sum which he had paid to Government on account of the
Ruml Police Rate imposed upon the village under section 13 of
K.-W.P.andOudhAcfc Vof 1894. He contended that the appellants
were, within the meaning of s. 14 of that Act, "bound by contract"
to provide for the maintenance of the chowkidar. It was con-
ceded that if the wajib-ul-arz of the village was admissible in
evidence there was evidence upon the record of facts from which
the existence of a contract between the talukdar and the under-
proprietors shoul<l be inferred whereby the latter were bound to
provide for the maintenance of the chowkidar but it was contended
that the word "contract" in section 14 of Act Vof 1894 means
an express contract and not an implied contract.

Held, that the Legislature did not intend that the word " con-
tract" in section 14 of N.-W. P. and Oudh Act V of 1894 should
be confineil to an express contract between the superior and
inferior proprietore ; that the wajib-ul-arz was admissible as evi-
dence of the arrangements made for the maintenance of the chowki-
dar.

Kushari Din and others tr. Rani Chandar Euar ... 35

S

SALE-DEED RELINQUISHING CLAIM TO PROPERTY IN RETURN

FOR BENEFITS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED FROM TRANSFEREE. See

Pre-emption, suit for ... 31

OFPROPEUTYMORETHANTHATENTEREDINTHENOTICE.

• S^tf Pre-emption, suit for ... 237

TO CO-SHAUEll AND STRANGER WITH SPECIFICATION IN

THE DEED OF EACH VENDEE'S SHARE IN PROPERTY SOLD. Sea

Pre-em[)tion, suit for ... 22

SECOND APPEAL IN A SUIT FOR LESS THAN RS. mO-Cieil Pro-
cedure Code, s. 5S6 — Suit for projitx of i minor able property belong-
ing to plaintiff andforprojifst wrongfully received by defendant —
Act IX, 1SS7. sch. ?'/, art. 31—Smiill Ctnt.^e Court, jurisdiction of]
The plaintiff stated in hor plaint that under a foroclosure decree
she was the proprietress of a 6 annas 2 pies share in a hamlet
named Pnra-Kharagman ; that she sue 1 the defendants for po^ses-
' sion of the aforesaid hamlet and a decree was passed in her favour



Digitized by VjOOQIC



liv GENERAL INDEX.

Page.
Bobject to her paying some mortgage-money ; bat on appeal a
decree was passed in her favour whereby she became entitled to
obtain possession of the hamlet withont paying any snm of money
and thns the plaintiffs right to get the above-named 'hamlet be-
came confirmed ; that the defendants held nnlawful possession of
the aforesaid share of the plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit
and they were benefited by the profits thereof which, in fact, the
plaintiff should have got ; and that the mesne profits of the ^are in
suit for 3 year8~1306 to 1308— amounted to Bs. 202-5-6 to which
the plaintiff was entitled.

The value of the subject-matter of the suit was less than Rs.
600. The point for decision was whether the second appeal in the
suit fell within the purviev^ of s. 686, Code of Civil Procedure.

Beld^ that the suit fell within the latter portion of art. 31,
sch. ii, Act IX of 1887 ; that that the jurisdiction of the Small
Cause Court was barred and that s. 586 of the Code of the Civil
Procedure did not apply.

Musammat Kusum Koer r. Mukhdoom Chan and another 203

SECOND MORTGAGEE BRINGING PROPERTY TO SALE WITHOUT

QFFEBIKO TO REDEEM FIB8T MOBTOAOB. Bee Mortgage ... 330

SECURITY FOR DUE PERFORMANCE OF APPELLATE DECREE,
SUIT FOB ENFORCEMEKT OF. See Civil Procedure Code ss. 253
and 545 ... 210

SECURITY FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR. See Surety, rejection of, upon

Police report ... 113

SECURITY TO KEEP THE PEACE AFTER CONVICTION ON A
SUHMABY TBIAL — Imprisonment in default of furnishing security
not a part of a substantive sentence — Xon-appealaHe sentence —
Criminal Procedure Code, s. 106— Assault — Indian Penal Code, #.
323,] There is nothing in the law which prohibits the making of
an order under s. 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after ^
conviction under s. 323, Indian Penal Code, on a summary trial,
and the imprisonment to be undergone in default of furnishing
security is not a part of a substantive sentence. The sentence not
being in itself appealable does not become so because the person
convicted has been ordered to find security to l^eep the peace.

Meghuv. King-Emperor ,„ 333

SEPARATE PROPERTY OF FATHER, SUIT BETWEEN SONS FOR
POSSESSION OF— Ifindu Law.} p subsequent to his separation
from his sons, obtained a money decree against a certain person^
but died before the decree was executed, and the name of the
fkppellant was brought on the record as his father P'b representat^vQ



Digitized by VjOOQIC



GENERAL INDEX. Iv

Page,
and at an anction ^le in execntion of the decree he purchased the
property in suit. T^e respondents, being the sone and grandson
of P sued the appellant for possession of their share in the property.
Beld that the property not being the joint family property
of the parties, the respondents were entitled to sue for their share
of it whether there was or was not joint family property which
remained to be partitioned.

Mahtab Chand t, Rup Chand and others ... 96

SMALL CAUSE COURT, JURISDICTION OF. fifee Second appeal in a

suit for less than Rs. 500 ... 202

SMALL CAUSE COURT SUIT, TRIAL OF, AS REGULAR SUIT WITH-
OUT RETUBNING OF PLAINT FOR PRESENTATION TO PROPER
COURT. See Act IX of 1887, s. 27 ... 144

SONS OF TALUQDAR BY BIFFERENT MOTHERS. See Oudh Estates

Act (I of 1869) ss. 8, 13, 14, 15 and 22 cl. (6) construction ... 248

SONS NOT SEPARATELY RECORDED AS CO-SHARERS CLAIMING

PRE-EMPTION IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BOLD BY THEIR FATHER.

See Pre-emption, suit for ... 61

ePECIFIC PERFORMANCE. See Award not filed in Court within six

months, enforcement of ... 369

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, [I OF 1877] s. 42. See Act I of 1877 s. 42 ... 239

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED, RECORDING OF, BEFORE EVIDENCE
FOR PROSECUTION. See Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 164
and 364 ... 191

SUCCESSION TO TALUQDAR'S ESTATE NOT HELD UNDER SANAD

PY QOYER^MB^T. See Oudh Estates Act (I of 1869) ss. 8 and 10 254

SUIT BY A CO-SHARER FOR DEMOLITION OF WELL CONSTRUCT-
ED BY A THIRD PERSON WITH THE CONSENT OF OTHER CO-

3HARBRS — Retfiedy of non-consenting co-sharer against the person
Jmilding with the consent of other co-sharers.'} When a co-sharer
has constructed ^ building or a weU on land jointly belonging to
him and other co-sharers without their consent, they are not
entitled to have the building or the well ren^oTed unless they can
show material damage, or unless they have taken measures in time
to prevent construction of the building or the well ; but their
remedy is by partition. And the same principle applies to the
case of a person constructing a well on land jointly belonging to
seyeral co-sharers some of whom do not assent to its construction,

Maha Singh v, Bhoga and others ,.. 336

gUlT BY MORTGAGEE FOR SALE OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION

QF MORTGAGED PROPERTY FOR AMOUNT DUE UNDER A SIMPI|B

MONEY DECREE. See Act lY of 1882 as. 67 and 99 ... 314



Digitized by VjOOQIC



Ivi GENERAL INDEX. ^

Page.
SUIT BY NEXT PRIEKD WHEN PLAINTIFF NOT A MINOR, AN
IBBBGULARITT. See Suit in the name of an alleged minor by
• next friend ... 234

FOR POSSESSION OF PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO

DEFENDANT UNDEB PICTITIOlTS SALE-DE£D. See Fictitious sale-

deed, suit to set aside ... 31^

; PROFITS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BELONGING TO

PLAINTIFF AND FOB PBOFITS WRONGFULLY BECEIVED BY DEFEND*

ANT. See Second appeal in a sait for less than Rs. 500 ... 202
^—^ RENT OF LAND OCCUPIED WITHOUT CONSENT OF



LANDLOBD — Question of title — Jurisdiction of Revenue Court as to
question of title raised in a rent suit — Oudk Rent Act^ s, 127 ^^
JEntriesin Oovernment recoj'd not conclusive proof of title,'} It is
the duty of a Revenue Court in Oudh to 'decide every question
raised in a rent suit an adjudication on which is necessary for the
decision of the suit, although its decision^may not be binding upon
the parties in the Civil Court.

Sheikh Talib All r. Basant Rae and another ... 340



VALUE OP CROPS DISTRAINED FOR ARREARS OF



BENT DUB TO LANDLOBD, BY SUB-TENANT AGAINST TENANT—
Damage caused by reason of contract — Transfer of P ropery Act
(IVof 1882), s, 108 ol. (o)— Cause of action,] The respondent
was a sub-tenant of the appellant. The lamilord distrained the
crops of the respondent for arrears of rent due by the appellant for
1307 F. on the 1st April 1900. The respondent brought the present
suit for value of the crops distrained. Held, that as there was no
damage caused to the respondent by reason of some contract express
or implied under s. 108 cl. (c) of the Transfer of Property Act nor
the respondent had at the time of the distmint paid the rentreserv-
ed by the sub-lease for the period for which the arrears realizeil
by the distraint were due nor the landlord who hatl interfered
was a representative of the lessor, the respondent bad no cause
of action.

SuKijman tr. Bbagwan Singh ... 351

SUIT IN THE NAME OF AN ALLEGED MINOR BY NEXT FRIEND
— Minority disproved — Amendment of plaint— Suit hy next friend
when plaintiff twt a mino7% an irregularity J] In a suit institutetl
in the name of the plaintiff as a minor by his mother and next
friend the defendants proved that lie was not a minor when the
suit was instituted and urj^ed that the suit should on thi^ account
be dismii^sed. It was proved that the plaintiff was cof^nizant of
and approved of the institution of the suit and went with the next
fiieud to instruct the pleader who drew up the plaint. Held that.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



GENERAL INDEX* ^Ivu

Page,
trnder the oiicumstaiices there had been tnerely an irregularity
whioh could be cured bj amendment of the plaint and remoral of
the name of the next friend.

Gajraj Singh Vi Raghubar and others ... 234

SURETY, REJECTION OF, UPON POLICE HEPOUT—SecurUy for
good heJuiviour — Procedure to Jte followed where Police report twi-
favov/rahle to surety-^DUcretion of Magistrate in respect of sureties
— Code of Criminal Procedure^ ss, 110 and in,"] The accused was
called upon to give security for his good behaviour m., his own
bond for Rs. 400 and one surety in the same sum. R offered him«
self as surety and thereupon the Magistrate ordered the Sub-
Inspector of the Thana within whose limits It resided to report