GENERAL INDEX 1& 15. FOR

Transcription

1 GENERAL INDEX FOR 1& 15. ACTS PAaK 1802 X X V -. See Madras Regulations X K X I I : -S e e I isterkst Act X L y See^(lNDiAN) Penal Codk X X isee Ebu&ious E ndowments Act. 1S 'II: See (M ad ras) R evenue Recovery A ct V ; See Phobats and A dministration Act, '*'1865 V II : S e e (Madras), Irrigation Cess Act V II j See (M adras) W atrk-c ebs A ct V III : Ses (Madeas) Eent Recoveey Act. ~ X -."-See Indian Soccessian A ct I V i 3ee Indian Divorce A ct V II :~See Court Pees A ct, See (I k dian) Evidence A ct X X : See (Indian) CoNTSACT A ct. L873. I I I S e e (M adeas) CiYit Ooi7RTS A ct I I S e e A dministratok-g eneral s A ct I X : See I ndian Majority A ct ^ S ^ e (M adras) A ssessment A ct '. Sea SPEcmc R e lie f Act I I I ; Ses (I ndian) R esisteation A ct. IS77 IV,-S ee (Indian) Limitation A ct X V : V ; See I ndian SticcEssioN A ct TXXYI -. See Wegotiaelk instraments A ct ^11 : See (Indian) TausTa Act I V S e e T eansfeb of Property A ct V See (I ndian) JIaseme.mts A ct XIV : 8eB C iv il Peocsddek Code X V : See Preside ISCY Sma.il OACaB CoURTa Act, 1833 V '. See Easements Act, 1884i I V S e e (M adras) D istrict MtrNrciPAT.iTins A ct V : See (M adras) Fobest Act V S e e L ocai; E oabds A ct VIZ : 8ee Suits VALtfATioN Act I X S e e P rovinci.\l Small Cause Courts Act I I S e e I ndian Stamp Act V III '. See Guardians and Ward3 Act I I I : --See (M adras) Hebeditaby Village Offiobs Act V S e e C riminal P bocedure C ode, See Malabar Compensation for Tenants I jipkovbiients A ct (Madras) X I S e e (I ndian) L imitation A ct (A mbindinq A ct) I I I : See M adras C ity Municipal A ct. ' 1905 I I I : See (Madbas) Land E ncroachment A ct I I I S e e P rovincial Insoltency Act See (Mabbas) Estates Land A ct Y : See Civ il P rocedtjric Code I X '. See (Indian) Limiitation A ct. XVISee Reg-isteation A ct I I I S e ^ PKEsiDEKor Towns I nsoltency Acs'. : AND 25 VICT., CAP., 104 See Ohaeteb A ct (Indian) H igh Courts Aot.

2 xlvi GTlWTilEAL IHBTIX. a b a t e m e n t : Sec Civil Peocp.durk Corn? (AfT V np 1908), am!)2 ant>98. jlbafement FSUIT -. See Crm PaocEncsia Oodv, (A(,:t X IT or 1882),seo, 373, ACCEPTANCE BY C K E B IT d l, re/«.s'ai of, no default'. Bee L im itation. ACCOUNT/sw it/or PnncipZe d i f f e r e n t isae IliNim L aw. ACOTlTTAli, an, Eigh Cmrt will not interfere with, in revidun, lohen afi appeal might have been preferred by G o v ern m en t8 ee CuiminA-T, Peooebure OoDffi (AOT V 01? ),?EC. 4S8. ABJOURNMENT, oral application for: See Limitation A ct ( IX o]i' 190S),akt ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL S ACT (II o f ), br. 20, 52 and ra Qrmt of Lstters of Administration to the Adnmustrator-Genernl~-Vc8ti'>ig of i?,e estate in him Sale by him of lands for kin commiftsion witlioat sanation of Qonrt,^ '.validity o/.] A grant of Lettp>rs of Administi ahon nndcr Rocriion 20 oj' Adminisfcrator-GeBeral's Act to the Administrator-Gcneval in respect of Ibe estate of a deceased Hindu, vests the estate in the AdminiKti fttor-genoi'iil and enables him to dispose of immoveable property vvimmut f/fee coii^eiifc of the Ootirt. The adminisfcrafcioii cannot; be fcreatod as closed iinhil tivery net necessavy for its completion has been done, llenoo, a aah> liy the Admivds. trator-g-eneral of some immoveable property of the decciabod, for the ptirposo of realising the commisaion due to him under the Act, is a valid sale in the course of adminiefcratiou and it takes procedonee over a prior sale effecitfid by the heir of the deceased. i'agi? Alwar Chetty Y. Ghidamhara Mudali... (191G ) I.L.R.j 38 M ad., S0, 28, 34 AND 35 0 m l Procedure Oode (Act Y of 1908), 0. XX, r. iz Suit to recover assets improperly paid ly the Administrator-Qeneral Not a Buii for administration by Court Priority of creditors Oonstruction of instrument of agreemfint Creditor to he paid out of cheques or monies v&ceived fforn a third party for worh done by th.0 creditor Charge on mch cliecptes or monie.s received after Jctte.rs of a&minis - tration granted Specific fund, meaning of- )Equitahh assignment Po-i/ment out of a fund and PayrAent lohen a fund ia receiwfld, difference beiimen,'] Seetioi 28 of the Admi-nistra,tor-Gencral 9 Act (IT of 187'1-) direota the Adminiatratoi'-General to disti'ibute the assots and contains a protiaion that Ttothina contained in. tb section Bhall prejudice the right of any credir.or or other claimaiifc to follow the assets or any part thereof in. the hands of the persons who may have received tho same rehpeotivqly. WKni probate or letters of administration have been granted to the Administratcrr- General there is no machinery for the admiuistration of the insolvent estate of a deceaged debtor under the law of ineolvency. The praotio in, Bombay and Calcutta is the same as in Madras. Order X X, rule 13 of the Civil Proeednre Code (Act Y of 1908), does not apply to a suit brought foy a creditor of a deceased debtor asj-ainst the Adminiatrator-Gcmoral (to whom letters of adminisfcratioa had been granted) and.some othor creditors to reoover assets alleged to have been improperly paid by the Adminiatratoic- General to eucli creditors in priority to the plaintiff. When an agreement contained a claase, viz., It is agreed that you should have a lien or charge over cheques or monies received for works done with your capital,* the instrumeati operated to create a charge on cheques or monies payable for work done after the instrument, although the cheque was not given or payment made until after letters of administration bad been granted to the Admimstrator-Qeneral, Gollyar v. Isaacs (1881) 19 Gh.D., 342 and Tailby V. Oiicial Receiver (188S) 13 A.0., 523, followed. Bansidhar Y. Samt Lai (1888) 10 All., 133, referred to. JBx farte Nichols ", In re James (1883) 22 Ch.. D,, 782 and lute parte Moss-, In re Toward (1884) 14 Q.B.D., SIO, explained. When an instrument refers to speoiso funds oxit of 'which the claims of a oreditior are to be safciafled, the creditor has a charge on sucb fund. When a creditor i.s to be paid out of the fu n d as distinguished from when the assignor gets the fund, a valid equitable ussignment is created provided the tranaaction. is for value. Fisher on Mortg'ages, page 126; White and Tudor s Leading Oases, 8th Edition, Tolume I, page 117, m m V. Megauj (1869) L.U. 4 O.P., 660, distingniabed. Ramsidh Pande v, (1887) I.L.H,, 9 All., 158, refeitsd to. J^avajeev. The Administrator-Qeneral ofmaara^... (1915) I,L,R. 38 Mad., SQQ

3 OENBEAL IMBSK x l v i l.- M!SSIB 1L 1T E, «s«niisic ev-idence:~see Hindu Law,......, hofoscope, time of s See H in d u Law. ^racital In a father ^ MU of a sou s age : iseg Hindu L a w , register of births under Hvidencc Act (J of 1872), ss, 35 and See HiNnc Law. 'i»9pti0n s -See H in d u L a w, divesting of property hy : See H in d u L a w *, rule as to last male holdei Applicability of, to ordinary co-'parcenary nd to impartible zami'iidarii See H in d u L \ w. BY WIDOW, suit to set aside, as inva.lid and as effecting reversionary interest of plaintiff'. See Appeal t o P airr Council. AD VALOREM, Gourt fee, whether payable :~~See DeoTjARatiow, etc, ADVERSE ENJOYMENT in a-'seriioti of ownership, can create ot, right of easement: See Easb^ients A ct (V of 1883) POSSESSION, against Qovernme^it: See M unicipal OonwciD j against Municipal Oouncil: See M ukicipai CoXJNOli, , nature of ; isee M unicipal Codncil , to prove inaimissihility of evidence ; See Transfer o f Propebty A ct (IY of 1882), as. 4 and 54. AGENT, negligence of, damages/or; See TaAKsi E. of Property Aut (IV ob 1882), SEG. 6 (e). AGREEMENT AGAINST OB WAIVER OF THE PLEA, validity ofi See L im it a tio n, instrument of construction o f: See ADMiNlSTBATOE-GENERAr, s3a c t (II oif 1874), ss. 28, 34 a n d , oral, as to higher >prioe in discharge of a mortgage EviS,ence inadmissihle See Inihan Evidencs A ct (I oie' 1872), skc AGREEMENT, registered, suit for rent under, more than three years but less than nix nears of the Madras Estates Laiid Act ( / of 1908) coming into force ; See Lim itation , _ i OR ^MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, rilea,ning o f ; See (ind.nn) S tamp A ct (II of ls9i>). ALIENATION BY de faoto yuardian : See Hindu Law A GUARDIAN of property of two wards, memlers of an uniiviied Hindu ftiniily :- 8ee LuriTATioiT A ct (X X OB' 1877), ss. 7 and 8, art. 4 i WIDOW, suit to set aside'. See Paivr CotrNCit OF MUTT PROPERTIES -.-See M dtt, head of restraint om See TaANsFEB of Propisbty Act (TV of 1882), sec. 30, ALIENEE, for considertdion but not in good faith or luithoxit notice : See C ivil PaocsnunE Oodts (Ago? V of 1908), ss. 92 and 93, , joined as party after one year from the date of order, not a necessary party No har of Limitation '. See Civil Pboceduee Code (Aos V of 1908), 0. XLI, s. 63. FBOM I ftuhtffie, declaration against Appeal hi/ alienee i See Civ il Proojiddee Cobs (A ct V of 1908), ss. 92 and , 'not a tenant in common t See Hindu Law^ ALTERATION, material Destruction of right o( suits See Deed, AMEND, Gowr* s potoer io ;--isee DrcreK'Hoi.dee. AMENDSNG ACT (XI OF ) See MtFNioiPAL OoTrNciTi, APPEAL : See Award. gee Mo^sgage,, ; PAG?:

4 x l r i i i OBNERAI. INDEX PAW 'from Offlcial Rsceiver''s order (dismissing insolvency peiiiioik dttect to H*(ih Court, no :~ 8 e e P botin&ia i. insoiivbnoy A ct ( I I I of 1007) revisionnf -. See AppRAt, t o PR ivy ColTNCir-. T P1I COUNCIL of plaintif-appeuanir Suit to sot asidr adoption by ividmu as invalid and as affecting reversionary interest ofyphitniilf Rigni of contmgent reversioners to he Joined as plantiffs in presumpiivs reversiorter^s suit Givil Procedure Code (Act V of J908), 0, I, t*. 1-^ 8uit ta sei aside alienation hi undow lievim r o f appeal Sul»iitittion of parties on record Survival of right to sue.] Tho appellant. a srtifc against tlie respondents to S6t a>side tlio adoption ot tha second rehpoiidonfp by tlie first respotident a,s boing illegal and invalid imdcu' tho Hindu Law, a,nd for a tleolarafcion tbat ib did nob afl'cct hia ititerest m tho ancesti-al (:8t-.ai.o of one F of whom he claimed to be the neaveat. reversionary heir. Tltti anit gt'anribon as ttue sole aarviving on his death the next revei'sionarj' heir i o the t'state o f T for an crdei' thiiti his name he substituted on the record for that of the appellant, and that tho appeal be revived ; Eeld, that the petitioner was ontitlod to the ordei* afiked for under Order I, rule 1 of the Oiyil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908) which declares the persons who liiay bo joined in one suit as phiintilts. A suit to Rfit aside an adoption is brought by fcho presuini:>tivb reverrioner in a repro- Bentative capacity and on behalf of all the reversioners. The act coxnplained of is feo their common deti-imeut, just as tho relief soug-hfc for is fo r their common benefit. XTndor the above rule the contingent roverhionor m ay be joined as plaintiff in the presumptivg reversioner s suit, and, if ho, it follows that on his death the next presumable reversioner is entitled to continue the Suit beo-nn by him, The two kinds oe suits -which tl e Indian Jaw pei'mits to be brought in the life-time o f a female owner by re^iersionei S for a declaration that an adoption made by her is invalid, or an alienation effected by her is nob binding ag ailist the lahorit,anco [see arfciole.y 118 and 125 of schedule I o f the Limitation Act (IX of 190S)], although they dilfov in character, will be found to be the same in both instances a,a reg'ards tho position of the plaintiofa so far as the point for decisioti is concerned ; acd th.0 teat of res judiaata ia irrelevant to the inquiry whethei* the contingent reversioner is entitled to continue the suit commeiiced by thb pi*esumpwve reversioner. It is the common injury to the reversioiiera 'which entiiiles, them to.sue, and the question ia whether the right to sue snrvivea ain-rfc froax any consideration whetlier or not the n ext pre.<iinmable heir is tho legal reprssentative of the deceased presumptive reversioner. Venlfatanirayana Pillai V. 8 wb'bavimul (1915) I.Ej.B,,, S8 Mad., (P.(?.), 406 o the District Gourf incompetent: See. C iv il Prooedijiik CoitK ( A ct V OF 1908), sec. 24. APPEAHANCE, bond for i See Obiminal PsocncDiTJRE Con (A c t V ov 1898), ss, 90, fiol ANB 507. APPELLATE COURT, poivers of the : See Oivii. Peocedur]!! Cobe (Aor V oh' 1908), 0. XLI, B. 27, ot. 6. APPELLATE-PECEEE : See Madras E states Land A ct (I ok 1908), smo, 193. APPLICABILITY OF -. Limitation Act {IX of 1908), art. 44 or IM -. See Hindu L/vw. APPLICATION by executor to set aside ex parte decrees made more than thirty days after p a ssin g-.s ee LiMnATioN A ct (IX OB' 1908), aetb. 164 and 181, ok S C H. II, -,fo rn ew trial: fi'ee Pbesidenct SmaI/X, OAtJSE OoUBTS Ac3? ( X 7 0}t 1882).*' oral, for adjournment. See Lim itation A ot (IX o f 1908), ART 179, V----- ^, APPORTIONMENT, as between lessor and lessee s assignee s See Lh^isor anis lieasikk , assignees right to ; See Ltcbbob awd i.es8ee, 2>fi E n glish Law under the S ia iu ti Law : See Les.sob anp lbsske;,

5 OBNEEAL IMDES s J i x *' Common Law : See L e s s o e a n d le s s e e. A 8 C H A K A, office of, alienation o f : See CiYstL P eocedurb C od e (A ct T o f (1908), 0. x x n i, R. 3. (M A D I A S ) A S S E S S M E N T OF LAM ME ENI/E A CT (I F ), sec. 2 Otvjier midei', meaning of Perma nejit leisee, not an owner Non-liability to separate registration and assessment Proprietor or on-ncr und^r ffegnlation {XXV of IBOi) Madras Hi-rBchtarij Villaue Officer Act (III of 18D5).] Q-ranteea, holding nnrtor perpesual grants Bntjeot to paymaafc to chsi zamiadar (the grantor) of ti auiall rent nuder tiie name of jodi, kattubaii or poruppii, are, not liable to have tlieir lands separafcoly registered and toliave sepamte as^esbmeiit imposed upon, them, itadoi-the pi'orisions o the Madraa Act I of A permanent lessee is not iuoladt^d ia the term owt;er ae used in section '2 of the Madras Absessoient of Land Hereuue Act (I of 187f>). A permanent lessee is not a proprietor or owner uuder Regnliition X X V of 18u2 or the Madras Hereditary Tillagn Oflicps Acc (T il of 1895). Vanhaieswara Y/ittiappah Naicker v Alagoo Mooltoo Servagaren (1861) 8 M.I.A., i^s7 j Hari Narayan Singh -j.'sriravi Ghaknrmarti (1010) 37 I.A.., ItiO ; Durga Prasad Singh v. Braja Nath Bofie (1911) 39 I.A., 133 and KfihPtraharo Biesoyi v. Sab/iafiapuram Harilcristna Naidti (191')) I.L.Ii., 33 Mad., 310, followed. Robert Fischer v. The Bccretary of State for India in Council (1899) I.L.R.. 22 Mad., 270 (P.O.), distingaished. KcLmalammal v. Rajti, Naicker (1896) I LE.., 10 Mad,, 308, dist^ng-oiahed. PAG Maharaja of Vizianagram V. The Gollector of Vizagapatam (1915) I.L.B.., 38 Mad, 1128 ASSETS, improperly paid hij the Aditiimstraior-Qeneral, s.,,u to recover'. See ADMINISTEATOE-GENItEA. a ACT ( II OF 1874), ASSIGNEE, money received hy in execution : See A ssign ee o f a MONBY-DECanE Oi? THE ObIGINA), C OUIlT of a inoncy-decreb of the Original Gourt Decree reversed in appeal Assignee not a^a7'ty to the appeal Money realised by assignee in execution Application by jti,dg ment-debtor fa?- restitution Objection bij assi^^nee to apjplication S'uii by judgment-dehtoi' a.gainst assignee Fraud and collusion htitween judament-dehtor and original das^ss-holder, effect o f Civil Procedure Code {Act XIV of 1882), see. 583 ]is pendens.] A jadgm eat-debtor, from wbom the aasiguee of a money-dec^r'ee haa realized the decree iimoanc ia execution, is entitled to recover it bs.glc from him when tht; decree is ivfter» wai(? reversed in appeal even if the asaignee of the original decree was not brou!,-ht on the recor4 in the appeal. Iseither the fact that the asaignment. was m ade before the appeal was filed nor the fact that the iudgm em - debcor had know ledge of the -dssignment before he lodg-ed his appeal makes any difference. W here the decree of the Appellate Conrt was the result of fraud and collneion between the iudgm ent-debtor aiid the original decree-bolder, ic is possible that such a plea if m ade and proved would be a siiflioient answer to a suit by the iadgrnent-debtor against the assignee of the decree. M oney obtained under an invalid process of Court mnet be ti'eated as m oney had and received to the nse of the jerson from whom it ^ a a realized. A suit for restitution by the judgraent-debtor was niaintairtahle, where he had soug-h<-. his remedy for restitution by an application m ade to the ourt whioh esee;uted the decree and it was on the obj<"ction of the defendant (assignee o f the decree) tbat he was cji-iven to institute the s u i t ; the defendant canuot now be heard to say that the procedure to whioh he him self euccpsafully objected was the prc-yjei' procedure. Setiappa Qowndan V, Muthia Goundan (1903) l.l.li., SI Mad., 2G8 and Borasami Ayyar v~ Anna)^am,i Aijyar (1900) I.L.U., 23 Mad., 306, followed, iangi Jpghi v. EaU (1900) I.L.R., 23 Mad., 203, referred to. LaLta Prasad v, Sadiq H%hen (1002) I. Cj.E,, 24 All., 288, didsented from,, «Qovindap;pa r. Uannmaviitha^ipii (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad., 36 A S S IG N E E S right and liahility to svis on the prominsary note i~se& lea&'sfsa os' ' PboPhrty A ct, (IV OS 1882), ss. 130 Aii!i),134, \ ASSIGNEE S EIG H T TO, LSSaOli ANO. 4 ' ^ AG A IN ST '3LESS0E

6 GHNEBAL 1N.DBA ASSIGNMENT BY LESSEE See Lkssor and lfssee. ASSIGNMENT, e g u jia b le 'oe Atoiinibtrator-Geneeal s A ct (II of 1874s), ES. 28, 3-t A.ND 35. ASSIGNMENT OF claim for damanea for ncgligenco of agent. See 'rbansj"kii OF P roperty Act (IV oi? 1882), SEC. 6 (e) founded on tort-, validuy of-. See TKANsI.i HR of peorebty A.CT (IV OF 1 8 S 2 ), SEC. 6 ( e )...'... PAGE A T T A C IM E N T 0/ dehti See Lim itation A ct ( I X o f 1908), son. I I, A R m 29, 62 AND 120. of flainiiff's property in consequence of breach of contract to pay for plaintiff: See Contract to pat fo r pr.aintiff, breach of. ATTESTATION AND RATIFICATION by next preswiptivc 7-eversioner<^ tn a female s alienation, effect of: See Limitation A ct (X V OB' 1877), auts. liio AND 125. ATTESTATION by mortgagor. See Mortgage by minor. ATTORNEY, potver of consifwtiov. of General poiner nf attorney, lohat is a Ciml Procedurii Oode (Act XIV of ISS2), sec. 37 (a)~(tndian) Sta.mp Act [II of 1889), sch. I, art. 4S Single trnnsaciion, meaning of.] A powei- of attorney wliioh authorizes a person to do all tilings and tako nil tho siii'p.s aecesbary to complefca the ekecut.ioii of a decree.is a Eronoral powor ol' attorney within tvie ineariing of section 37 (ti) of the Civil Pi'ocoflnro Code ( A c tx IV o 1882). Seinhle : The expression, a single tranaaotioxi, in tho Stamp A ct -(TI of 1889), schedule I, article 48, applies to a single A ct or Acts 80 related to each other as to form one judicial traneaotion. Venhataramana Iyer V, N'arasinga Bao (1915; I.L.R., 38 Mad., 134 AUCTION PURCHASER AND DECREE HOLDER, fraud of-. See Civil Pbo- CE.DURE CoD-E (AcT V OF 1908). SS. 47 AND 50. AUCTION-PURCHASER, Hght.9 of, before and after confirmation of sale: See Procedure Code (A ct V of 1908), 0. XXI, a. 6(i, AUTHORITY Co?? trac«to sell another's goods mthout, breach of-. See Liivri* tatiow A ct (XV oi? 1877), a e ts. 36, 115 and of a Hindu father entrusting sons for cilstody and educa.tion. in England to amother person lelio defrays eapenpe of their maintenance a.nd education, revocatio-n of, and demand for their redoratioyi to his cu stod y Sae Guardian. A >itrefois acquit Gliarcje framed Further inquiry ordered> ~Criminal Procedure Code (Act Y of 1^?9R;, 2i53 (2), Sf-O and 437.] Where a Magistratio framed charg-es against an accnsed person and. wmh aiioceeded by another Magistrate who recommenced the cfiae under section 8S0, Crinniuil Procedure Code, and upon examining the complainant* diaohargod the accuaed xmder section 353 (2), Criminal Procodtire Oode j Held, that tho tboouaed was autrefois acquit and that no further inquiry could be lield into the case. Per Aym ng, J. Where the proceedings reoomnieiided uudor section 350, are only an. inquiry, they are rccommencod au inquiry; where they have developc d into the trial Btago iihey are I'ecoinmonoed as a trial, i.e., proceeding's in which a clmrgo has b#en Framfd. The second Magistrate oaiinol; ignore the charge framed by his loredeooawor ; his order iqusti he viewed as one of acquittal. Sriramulu y. Veermalingam (1915) I.L.Il., :'J8 Mad., GSfi AW ARD Judgment and decree accordaiics with award, -Ax>pett,l~~Givil P't'ocediire Oode (Act V of 1908), sch. II, els. 15 «7icZ 16 Eoviaion, nonmamainaulitu of -Civil Procedure Code (Act. F o/1908), aec, 115, no form&l petition neceasary. for revision under.] No appeal lies frora a doorco which is in accordance with an award except irpon ^rotjnds menfcionod in clauho 16 (2) of the BBcond schedule to the Civil Procedure Code (Aoc V of 1908) Thig was also the law under tho old Oi-vil Procedure Oode (Act X IV of 3883) and it is afarticri under the new Civil Procedura Code according to which an application could he raade tinder ciauso 15 (^c) to sot aside an award oti

7 GfUNEEAI- INDEX j PAG the new gronncjfj vis., the award being otherwise invalid. Sun/avaraya.na Rao T. Sarahhaiah (1911) , followed, Kanaklcu NagaUnga Naik V. Wagaliriga Nailc (1909) 32 Mad., 510, referred to. Whcii an applicaiion is made to set aside an award bat refused, and a judg-ment is proaounced according to the award, the ju-dgment so proncanced is Jinal tiiidor c^jause 16 (2). A revision petition to set aside an award is more objeciionabl than an appeal, Gh%lam Khan "v. Muhammad Hass^an (1902) I.L.R., 29 Calc., 167 (P.C.), followed. Yelu Fillai v- Appasami Fandaram ( l u l l ) 1 M.W.W-, 141, distinguished. Ohiter : I f an application is made to set -aside an award but refused, it would be open to the Court to pronouce judgment even thouah the ten. days allowed for such an appligatioa. had not expired. The words after the time for making such application had expired, apply only where there has heen no application made to set aside the award. If the application is made.after the period, of limitation, viz., ten. days, the Conrt oata refuse to sot aaide the award. A formal application for revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is not necessary. BatcVa ScLhit y. Ahdul Gnnny (1915) I.L E., 38 Mad., 256 BANDSMAN, <n.ot an artificerlabourer or ivorhma<tit See W oroian s BEEiGR oe CoNTBACT A ct ( X III of 1859). RANK, advance of loan by.' See ( I n ij ia n ) S t a m p A c t (TI op 1899), seo promissory-note executed to : See (In d ia n ) Stamf A^t (II of 1899), STBO. 57, BENCH OF MAGISTRATES, some only of oonvtciion : See Judgment, i.egalit'? OB, BENGAL TENANCY ACT (V lll OF 1885 ), ss. 52 awt> 188; See M a d b a b E sta tes Land A ct (I OB' ls-108), se c. 42, ci. 1 (a) and (b) and 2. BILL OF LADING- Clause of exemption from liability after goods are free of ship's tacme, validity of- Gommon carriers by sea, go^iierned hy lenglxsh Zaiis and not by Indian Contract Act (JZ of 1872) Indian Gontract Act (IX of 1872), sec. 23 MtcempHon clause not void under Seaworthine'is, definiiion of Warranty of seaworthiness not emtending to lighters oi~ ioats Binding fores o f Privy Council decision on India, though not in an Indian ca.<ie,] Carriers by eea for hire are common carriers, to whom the Carriers Act (III of ISfiS) does not apply. Hajee Ismail Sait v. The Company of the Mes^ageries Ma.ritimes of France (190S) I.L.I',, 28 Mad., 400, followed. The duties and liabilities o f a common carrier ere goverr.ed in India, by the priitciples of the English Common Law on that snhject; (escept where they have been departed frorn, in the cases of some classes of common carriers, by the Carriers A ct of 1865 or by the Bailway Acts of 1878 and 1890). and that notwithbtanding soine general ekpressione in the chapter on Bailments, a common carrier s reaponbit3ility is not within the Irdiar) Contract Act of The Irrawaddy Flotilla Company v. Btigioamdas (1S91) I.L.R., 18 Calc., 620 (P.C.), followed. A provision in a,charter-party to the effect' that " in all cases and under all tiii'cumstanceb the liability of the company (of shipowners) shall absolutely cease when the goods are free of the ship s tackle and thereupon the goods shall be at thetriftk for all purposes and in every respect o f the shipper or consigi-ee, * aifords complete protection to the shipownexs againiat all losses in respect of goods aribing from atiy oa'ase af: any time after the goods are free of the ship s tackle, whether the cause of. the loss be (a) as in this case, the sinking of the boats, which conveyed the goods from the ship to the shore, a sinking' occabioned by the negligent o'serloading of th boats by the shipowner s landing agents or (b) by the misfeasance and fraud o f their landing agents. Sheijc Mahawad Ramther y. The "British India Steam Navigation Go., Ltd, (1909) I.l/.R., 33 Mad., 95 (-Ii\B.) and Chariered Banli of India, Aiiislralia and China y, British India Steam NavigatioTi Comjpany, Limiied (H909) A.G., S69, followed. Such a clatibe as the above is, mcoording' to English Law, not opposed to public policy and is valid ; and section 23 of the Ipdian Contract Act has no applioatipu. A d&sision of the Pi ivy Council thouprh not in. a case arising from India is binding, on the Courts in Ipdia., Obifen Tho warraxlty o f aeaworthinefis which is implied as to the ship does not. xtejpd: i o thei liglit^rs or hoatb employed to land the oargoi ; Evfen this ship is ' 'the 'Bhip 'be G3?igin.a.lly^ se!a'?rorthyj';i.e.,;";y?kbii'she;,a3;^t/s M,lS''^i^

8 Hi GEWEKAL INDEX pariu insnred ; Klie need not continue bo th,roiir hont tlio voya^p. 5 e v. (18G6) 1 C.P., 4il2, followed. Sparrow v: Garrutherf^ (1745) 2 Sr.raiige, USb, doubted. Kurnher v. The British India Steam Navigation Go., Ltd. (.1.91t)) I. Ij-H*. isa Mad., Olil BIRTH of a son stoiseqiicnt to the e'xecution of tha w ill: -Sog liindn Law j rigjii by, doctrine of Mitalcshara as to -.--See Hindu Law. BIRTHS, REGISTER OF, aimissibility of, under Evidence Act (I o/1872), s.^i. :,i5 and 82: Sye riindvi Lav^. BOATS OR LIGHTERS, wcivrcinty of seaworthiness not extctiding to ; Si'e BilIj OF r ADING. BOND for a'p'pearance. See OxiiminaTj Peockddki3 Code (Aor V o f 1898), tis, 90, 501 AND 537. BREACH OF TRUST See Trustee. CARE AND PRUDENCE, degree o f: -S ee Trtjstke. CASES Aldul Aziz V. Kanthu Mallilc ( I 9 ll) I.L.R., 38 Oale-. 512, rof<m'od lia Aiduil Sahim v. Goncsh Dutt (1886) I.L.H., 12 Calc., 823, folluv^'i'd !) Adhul Kader Aishamma (1893) I.L.R., 16 Mad., (il, dibtin^'uished... IlOO Ahdul Wahid Khan v Shaluica Bihi (1894) I.L.H., 21 Cu.Io., 4iUC5 (l*.0.), dibtinguished Aihayachandra Roy Chowdhry v. Ptiari Mohan Guho (1870) 5 B.L.Jl., 861, referred to and explained Alhiram Goswami. Shyama Charan Nandi (1909) I.L.R., 30 Calo., loos (i".c.), followed Alinaah Ghandra, Mazumdar v. Sarinath Shalta (1905) I.L.ll,, 33 Oalo., (>2, followed Ahu BacJcer SahVi V. Secretary of Staie for India (1911) I.L.R., Mad., 505 (F.B.), distinguished "?- Ahu Mahomed t. S. C. Chunder (990 )) I.L.R., 36 Oalc., 345, applied ISS Acchanna V. Venhamma (IS95) 5 24', distingiiiahod jictimtumtoarajtt y. Sii^<6araju (lfi02) I.L.B., 25 Mad., 7, followed Administratcr-General of Bengal V. Premlal MuUick (ISQo) I.L.R., 22 Oalc., 788 (P.C.),reia!vedt'>... 99B Alagirisami Nnidv, v. Balalcrishnasami M-udaLiar (1903) I.L.E,., 26 IVtad., 41, refurred to Amarchand, v. Kila Marar (1003) I.L.R., 27 Bom., GOO, disbouted from... G67 Amsrchand ' Co. t, Ramdas (1913) 15 Boiu., L.K., 890, followed ! Amar Singh V. Tika {IBSQ} I.L.II., y All., 139, followed Ambahlcagari Nagi Reddy v, Basappa oj Mcdimo.'kulapalU (1910) I.L.R., 8S Mad., St>, follow ed AmirihathamTnal v. Petiasami Pillai (1009) I.L.B., 32 Mad-, 325, dlstiiig- Tiished ,,, Ammanna v- Gwumurthi (1898) I.L.R., 16 Mad., 61', disseufced from Ammoiti Raji v. Kunhayen Kutti (18iJ2) I.L.R., 15 Mad., 480, commented on, 68 jitoszaj: Ram V. C/iawdan ASingi/i (1902) I.L,K., 24 AIL, 4S3, approved... 0^4 Ananta v, Ramahai (1877) I.L.K., 1 Bora., Gol', dlstinguihhed...,,,,, 251 Ananthi L'tJcshmi Ammall t. KunnanchanJcarath Sanlcaran (1913) M.W.F., 101, referred to <776 ^Andiappa Pillai v. M%thuhumara Thevan (1913) I.L.R., 36 Mad,, s,c., (1912; M.W.N., 450, I'ollowed Anifejned'K V. (1912) I.L.R., S5 Mad., 744, followed A^j^arau v, Narasanna (1892) I.L.E., 15 Mo-d., 47, disting-uislied... 15^

9 OENEEAL IKDES H H CASfiS cont. PAGE Arunachellam v*?. ArunQ.chellam (1839) I.L.R,, 12 Mod., 19 (P.O.), referred to. S87.-Is.saw V. Fiilhumma (1899) I.L.R., 22 Mad., 49i, rel'erred to 1052 Assi.ita'nt Sessions Judge of Korth Arcoi v. Bamasiva77ii A sari (1914) 26 M,L. J,, 235, disting iiiaiied Attorne-ijf'Gfeneral v. Sillen (186-i) 1.1 E.R., 1200; s.c., 10 H.L.C., 704, referred to B<3c/imcE,«V. 33ac/(/ma«. (1884) I.L.K-., 6 All-, 583, followed ! Bai Amrit V, Bai Manik 12 B.H.ij.'R., BrA 6ul(ih V. Thakorelal (1912) I.L.R., 36 Bom., 622, followecl... 1B6 Baij Nath Das v. Sulig Ram (^1912) IB I.C., 33, dissented from Baij Nath Ram Qoenka v. Hem Chunder Bose (1906) io C.W.K., 959, distinguished Balam'(n<(- v. PuUayya (1895) I.L.It., 18 Mad., 168, referred to BalUslien D asv. Legge (1900) I.L.B,, 23 All., I i9 (P.C.), followed referred to Ban.sidhar v. Sant Lai (1888) I.L.E., 10 All., 133, referred to Ba'pu bin Muhadaji t. Maha&aji Vasudeo (1884) I.L.U., 18 Eom., 348, referred fo Basaivesivara Sivami v. BeLlary Council (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 6 j B.C., 23 M.L.J., 478, distiriguiblied I-ieliari Singh v. MuTcat Singh (1906) 28 All., 273, referred to Beni Madhui Karmi v. Kuviud Kumar Biaioas (190;<) I.L.E.., 30 Calc., 123, referred t o Bhagirathi Bai v. YisJiwanath (1905) 7 Bom. L.B/,, 72, followed Bha-ishankar v. The Municipal Gorporation of Bomhay (1907) I.L.R., 31 Bom., 604, referred to Bharrita Pisharcdi v, Yasndevav: Namludri (1904) I.L.R., 27 Mad., 1 (F.B.), distiuguished Bholoram. Choivdhry v. Oorporatio'Tt, of Galcutta (190!)) I.L.R., 36 alc., 671, fvistirigaislied Gopal Mulcerji v. Krialina Mahishi Behi (1907) I.L.E., 31 Calc., 329 (P.O.), referred to Bodda Goddeppa y. The Maharajah of Viisia.nagaram (1907) I.L.R., 30 Mad., 155, distinguished Bolai Ghand Ghosal r. Samiruddin Mandal (1892) I.L.E., 19 Oalo., 646, distinguished Brnndavanackandra EoriscTiandro. Raja v. Ramayya (1914) 26 M.L.J., SCO, followed Oarlill V. The CarloUo BmoTce Ball Company (1892) 2 Q.B., 484, followed Ghairman, Ongole Municipality v, Mounaoy (1894) I,L.B 17 Mad., 453, distinguished , Ohalasawmy Ramiah v. Ohalasawmy Rainasioami (1891) 11 M.L.J., 155, distinguished Challa Tenlcaia Reddy v, DevahhaTituni Mruth7injaya,du {IQ12) M.W.N., 164, follow ed Chand Kour v, Partab Singh (1889) I.L.l^.., 16 Calc., 98 (P.O.), followed Ghandulal v. Awad bin Umar Sultan (1896) I.L.B., 21 Boirij, 351,referred to, 635 Chaplin y. O'arfce (1849) 4 Ex..Rep., 403, followed Chattered Bank of India, Australia^ and China y',b titiah India Bieam Ifaiii- gation Company, liimiied {1909) A,G., S69, Xollo'wed ;942 Chaudhri Mehdi Hasan v, Muhammad Hasa'n (190G) I.L.K., 28 AU.^ 439 (P.O.), diatinguiblied

10 l i y dtsneral. tmbks; CASES~ccmi. ^ Ohaudhry Mohammad MeMi Hman Khan v. Sri Mandir (1012) 17 O.W.N., 49 (P.O.), followed... ** Cheria Krishnan v. Vishnu (1S82) l.l.r.j 5 Mad., 198, conutioiitt d on. > Chichester v. M we (1 63) 32 L.J, Prob. Matr. and Adrn., 146, referred to... Ohidambara Roiu v. The Secretary of State for India in OouncU (1903) A.L.lii. 26 Mad., 66, referred to Ghitinapfo. Fillai v. Mnthuraman Chettiar (1911) 9 M.L.'P., 281, approved. 4.C>H 90S Ghitinasanii Mudali v. Tirumalai Fillai and the Secretary of Siatu for India (1903), 25 Mad., 572, referred to ^.'57 Ohiruvolu Pil'n'namma v. CMruvolu Peirasu (1906) I.L.Ei., 29 Mad., 35)0 (P.B.), explained and diatinguislied Chunder Goomar M ookerjik oyla sh Ohunder Sett (1881) l.xi.h. 7 Calo,, 665, followed Ohzmilal Fulchand V. Mangaldas Ooverdhandas (1S92) I.L.il., 16, B om.,-592, oommented on CZaj/T. Oro/fs (1851) 20 L.J., Com. Law, 361, followed OollyarY. Isaacs (1881) 19 Oh.D., 342, followed ^ Colonial Sugar Refining Oom-pany v. Irving (1905) L.H., A.C., ;^69, applied... lol referred to 823 Cowasji Ruttonji Limhoowalla v. Burjorji Rustomji Limboowalla ( l 888) I.L.ll,, 12 Bom., 335, loilowed Damodara Mudaliar v. Bicretary of 8taie for India (1895) l.ij.r., 18 Mad,, 88, followed ii,36 Da^ioo V. Ramc?ian(Jm (1906) I.L.E., 30 Bom., 119, followed Daiuson v. Qreat Northern and City Raihvay (1905) 1 K.B,, 260, explained llts referred to Peinarain v. Ramsadhan (1913) 17 O.W.KT., 1143; h.c 16 LL.J., 669, di&tinguished ft3- Decroix, TerUy et Cie, v. Meyer Oo. (1890) 25 Q.B.p., 343, dismtiguishfid Deendyal Lai v. Jugdeep Natain Singh (1877) 4 I.A., 247, followod De/?'»e.9 V. JSTii-tte (1913) 1 Ch., 98, referred to Daheram Bulleya v. Somanchi Seetharamayya (1911) 2M.W.N., 883, followed, Di«aZ)a«oiAit T. i>3fas?iw.da. (liiia) 16 G.L. J 318, referred to (578 hiniatini Dasi v, L. P. D, Broughton (1890) 3 O. W.N., 32 6, followed Doe V, Guiy (1802) 3 East 120 ; s.c., E., 643, followed Dofasami Ayyar v. Annaaami Ayyar (1900) I.L.E., 23 Mad., 306, followed ,,,...jjiy Dorasamy Fillai v, Muthiiaamy M'ooppan (3904) I.L.R., 27 Mad., 94, referred ^ VuTee ofbrumioich, v. The King of Eanovar (1848) 2 H.L.O., 1, explained... 6S5 jdurga Prasad Bingh v. Braja Nath Bose (1911) 39 I,A.j 133, followed DwarTca Ifath Boy y. Sarat Chandra Singh Roy (1912) I.L.E., 39 Gale., 319, followed ,,,... _ 45 Ellappa V. Annamalai (1884) I.L.Bi., 7 Mad., 76, djstinguislied Emperor v. Bindesri Prasad (1904) 26 All., 512, referred to ' V. Kaaaim Isuh (1912) 14 Bom., L.E., 365, dissented fr o m V. Mahadeo (19jO) I.Jj.R., 32 AIL, 397, commented upon V. Palaniaj-favelan (1906) I.L.E.., 29 Mad., 187, approved 1091 I^iyae Husain Khan v. Prag Narain (1907) I.L.R., 29 All., 339 (P.O.), referred to Fi$l^ y, Wegaw (1869) L.R., 4 C.P., 660, distinguished CO 16B

11 Ge n e r a l m oe X Iv* C a s e s cont. page Forhes v. AmeerfMnisacb Begum (1865) , rtiferrod to Qajjala Veerayya v. Oajjala Qangamma (1912) M.W.N., 912, followed Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri Vedavyasa''Alaainga B hattar (1906) T.L.R., 29 Mad., 534, distinguished Ganeshi Lai v. Nand Kishore (1912) I.L.R., 34 All., 4S7, approved Gangadaram Aiyar v. Sankarappa Naid-u (1891) 9 M'.L.T., 91, followed Qanoda Frosad Roy v. 8 Mb Warain Mujisrjee (1902) I.L.E., 29 Calo., S3, referred to (reort/e V. Davies (1911) 2 K.B., 415, referred to (J}iulatn Khan v. Mnhammad ffassan (1902) I.L.E., 29 Gale., 167 (P.O.), followed Goda. Goopooramier v. Soondaratnmall (1910) I.L.R., 33 Mad., 167, distingufj^licd..r Oopala Ayyar y. Arunachallam Ghfity (1903) I.L.K., 26 Mad., 85, referred to. 594 Gopalasami v. Arunachella (1892) I.L.R., 15 Mad., 304, referred to Gopal Ram Mohuri v. Tihakesi^ar Pershad Narai'n (190S) I.L.R., S&5 Calo., au7, dissented fi-om, SinffTi V. LixZoo iaji (1909) 10 O.L.J., 27, explained Qour Chandra Dass v. Prasanna Kumar Chandra (1906) I.L.R.; 33 Calc,, 812, followed Qouse Mohideen Sahib v. Muthialu GhetUar (1914) M.W.N., 55, followed Govinda V. Krishnan (^1892) I.L.It., 15 Mad., 333, followed Govindan Nair v, Sankafan I^air (1809) J.L.E., 33 Mad., S51 (B\B.), distinguished Qovinda Pillai v. Thayammal (1905) I.L.E.,, 28 Mad., 57, followed Qridhari Singh r. Hurdeo Narain Singh (1876) 3 I.A., 230, referred to 387 Ouriiswami Naicken v. Tmimwthi Ghetty (1915) , explained.1091 Gutta Saramma v. Maganti Raminedu, (IQOS) I.L.B., 31 Mad., 405, followed Hajep Ismail Sait v. The Company of the Messagaries Mar itim.es of France (lg05) I.L.E., 38 Mad., 400, fo llo w e d Han'umanthaiya.n v. Meenatchi Naidu (1912) I.L. R,, 35 Mad., 18S, referred to Hardi Narain SahuY. Ruder Perlcaah Misser (1884) 10 Gale., 626 (P.O.), followed Hardwari Lai t. Qomi (1911) I.L.E,, 33 AIL, 523^ followed Haridas Nanahhai v. Vithaldas Kisandas (1912) I.L.H., 36 Bom,, 638, referred to Mar^ Narayan Singh V, Sriram Ghakravarti (1910) 37 I.A., 1S6, followed Barishaftikar Jebhai y. Is^avaa Karsan (1804) I.L.R., 18 Bom.., 260, referred to Helan Dusi v. JDurga Das Mo,ndal (1908) 4 O.Ii.J., 328, distinguislied 251 Uemangini Dasi r. Kedarnaih Kundu OTioiucJTiry (1889) I.L.K,., 16 Oalo.^ 758 (P.O.), distinguislied , Hem Ohandra Kar X, Mathura Banthal {IQ12) 16 O.W.lSr,, 1031, followed S em Ghunder Qhoss v, ThaTco Moni Vehi (1803) I.Ij.R., 20 Calo,, 533,. apijroved '... JDeajjfe?-(1902) A.O., 474, referred to... ' Hirhae v, Sonabae {Kojahs and Mamon$ Gase) (1847) Perr- O.C., 110 j s.o., S : MorJey s Digest, 431, referred to...v... ; 2:083 M olev. Ghard Union (1894) 1 Oh., 293, relexred to.... Poieley JPrelae, In ir'e.y,-oazwo% (l;886)''32'cli'^s,408,

12 Iv i GJEJTESAL JNDEI CASES--cont I AOK Hotoe V. Smith (1884) L.B., 27 Ch.D., 89, applied Hvi'k'ii'mchand v. Hiralal (1879) I.L.E-, 3 Bom., 159, explained S14 "Euihasanan Narnhudri v. PciTumefiwaran Kamhu-dri (ls91t) 22 Mad., 209, dissented fx-om SIO Iburamsa Roiothan v. Tliemvenkata-aami Nailc (1911) I.L.ll., 34. Mad., 269, dissented from applied <*85 Imdad, Ali v. Jagan Lai (1895) I.L.B.., 17 Al)., 478, fo llo w e d Imperaior TrihJiun (1912) 13 Cr. L.J., 530, disbentod from ) Imperatnx v. Sadanhiv (1898) I.Li.li., 2 J, Eom., 540, revoti-ed to Indarpt v. Lai Chand (1S96) I.L.E., 18 All., 168, referred to... T>14 Jw r0 Pe«c?)wZ JietZiii (189D) 9 M.L.T., 2LG, followed... ^ In the matter of Teacotta SheJcdar (IS82) I.L.R., 8 Calo,, 393, rol'orred to In the matter of the petition ofumrao Singh-v, FaMr C hand (1881) I.L.U., 3 All., 749, referred to Q91 Ishar Das v. Asaf AU Khan (1912) I.L.U., 34 All., 1S6, followed Ismai Fani Eowihan Nazarali Sahib (1904) I.L.R., 27 Mad,, 211, rofai red to ibwaram Pillai t. Taregan (1915) I.L.ll., 38 Mad., 7m ; s.a., 26 M.L.J,, 127. distiaguislied Iswara Pafictr V. S'ar'Wj'^am (1893) 3 M.L.J., 255, followed f>2 Jacksoti V. Jaclcson (1912) I.L.It., 34 All., 203, followed Janunandan Prosud Singh V. Koor Kallyan Singh (1Q12) 15 O.L.J., Gl, not followed C6 Jagadiandhu SaJia v.radhalcriahna Pal (1909) I.L.B,, 3(i Oalo.j 920, referred t o JiiTO«2f/a T. (1901) I.L.Eu, 23 AH., 20, referred to (153 Jamna v. Jaga Bhana (1904) I.L.E., 28 Bom., 262, followed Janardhan Ramachandra (1902) I.L.E., 20 Bom., 317, followed Janardhan Vanduramg v. Oopal Pandura7ig ct al (1868) B B.H.O.E. (A.O.J.), lis, dietingni&lied JangZubai V. Jet/iu (1008) T.L.B.,. il2 Eom., 409, followed JanU Kmiiuar v. A jit Singh JlBSS) I.L.3^., 15 Calc., 58 (P.O.), 6ii)lained and applied.....p X Jihun Nissa v. Aagar Ali (1890) I.L.E., 17 Calo,, 937 (P.O.), referred to Jihimti F'ath Khan -v. Shih Nath Ghucherhuity (1S83) I.L.R., 8 Calo., 819, folio-wed Jogendra Chwrider Ghose y. Fuikvmari Dassi (1900) I.L.Ti., 27 Calc., 77, followed ,...,,, Jbfi'Tiarain Y..Badi-i Das (1912) 16 O.L.J., 156, followed... ; 236 Joshi Bhaishmilia') v. Bai Parvati (1902) I L.B., 2B Bom., 246, followed Juggomohun Ghose v. Ilanichchand (1859) 7 M.I.A., 263, referred to 464 Kadir BaWish v. Bhavani Pra$ad (1892) I.L.R., 14 AIL, 148, referred to 998 Kailamm Pillai yr. ISfataraja Thamhiran ( 1910) I.L.B.,, 33 Madi, 265 (U.B.). followed Kaharla Ahhayya y. Eaja VemiTcata Pa/payya Rao (1906) I.L.E., 29 Mad,, distinguished Kali Sunker Dass v. Koijlash Chunder Dass (1888) I.L.R., 15 Calo., 833, followed ^ Kamalammal v. Baju Naicker (1896) I.L.R., 19 Mad,, 308, distingtiislied 1128

13 GENERAL INDEX I v i l C A S E S cont. page Kaniefiwara Sas^/i v, Veeracliarlv^ (1911) I.L.Tl,, 34 T^Iad., 422 (F.B.), referred to ggg Kanagayya Gurv.'kal v. Kalimuihu Amiavi (1901) I.Ij.R., 27 Mad., 526, disfcing-uislied Kanalckit, ^Vagalinga Nailc Nagalinga N'aik (1909) 32 Mad,, 510, referred to Kavdujcuri Maha.lalfsh/mctmma Garu t. The Sacretary of State for India (1911) I.L.R., 3 i Mad., 295, referred to Karalia I^anuhhai v. MansicMiram (1900) I.L.E,, 24 Bom., 400, dieting-aislienl Karuvpo-na N'adan ^r. Chairman, Madura, Mimici-paliiy (189S) I.L.E., 21 Mad., 246, followeci Kesari VenJcatasuhhiah v. The Secretary of 8tate for India (1913) 14 M.L.T., 131, i;6ferred to Kessmiiji L-sur v. Q.I.P. Railway Company (190/) I.L.E,., SI Bom., 381 (P.C.), csplaiaed and distiueuielied Xhetro MoJ.an Chatter^ee v. Moliim Chandr<i Dos (1913) 17 O.W.IT., 518, referi ed to Khu'aja IluJ.amwad Khan v. Husaini JBegam (1910) I.L.P.,, 32 All., 410 (P.O.), di.stitiuuifjhed '753 Kwcj V. Victoria hisw ance Company (1S&6) A.C., 260, distinguished Kingston 3 Case, The Duchess of (1'776) 2 Sni. L.O., '?51, lltli Bdn., refeired to Kiahori Mohun Rai v. HursooTc Dass (1886) I.L.E., 12 Calc., 696, referred to. 536 Kondapa, Rajavn Naidu V. Devorultonda Suryunarayana (1911) 34 Mad., 173, distinguished Kosuri JHamaraju v. Ivalury Ramalingam (1903) I.L.U., 26 Mad., 74, referred to Kozhilcoi Sreemana Tilcraman v. Mcdathil Ananta Patter (1911) I.L.B., 34 Mad,, 61, apprnyed o f S9 Krishtia v. Subhanna (1884) I.L.E.., 7 Mad., 504,.I eferred fco and explained Krishna Behari Roy t. Bro<}es%vari Chowdramee (1875) 2 X.A.^ 283, followed... 1 >8 Krishnaji v. Rajmal (1900) I.L.R., 24 Bom., S60, dissented from KrishtuL Kamini Dehi v, Deno. Many Ghowdhurani (1904) 31 Oalo.^ 658, dieaenbed from Krislmama Chariar v, Narasimha Chariar ^XJ-SOS) I.L,It., 31 Mad., 114, referred to Xrisi-'nammi Konan r. R.amasami Ayyar (1899) I.L.E.,, 22 Mad., 519, followed Kshetrabaro Bissoyi v. Sobhaitapuram Harilcrishna Naidu (1910) S3 M ad.^340, followed " 1128 Kumara-v. Srinivasa (1888) I.L.R., II Mad., 213, explaiaed Kumuravelu v. Virana Goundan (1882) I.L.K., 8 Mad., 5i9, i-efei red to and followed..., M* ^57 V. Ses/iagiVi (1882) I.L.R,.5 5 Mad,, 141, referred to KunhicheJckan V. I,ydia Arucanden (191*<;) M.W.N.j SSG, considered Kunhimbi Umvia v. Kandy Maithin (1904) I.L.R., 27 Mad,, 77, referred to Kuray Mal.-v. Puran Mai (1879) I L.n 2 A ll, BG5y followed K-urri Veerareddi t. Surri JBa;^ire&di (1906) I.L.E., 29 Miad.f 336 (F.B.), jdisting-uislied >* - '/f o llo w e d... ' Laltshmamma y. (1&15) I, M a d., 474^ followed, -i,. S'S9.

14 Iv ili IKTDE^ CASES cont. LaksTimi Doss v. Boop Laul (1907) I.L.R.., 30 Mad,, 169, roferr^jd t o... Lcilessor IBabwi "V. Jannhi Sibi (1892) I.L.K., 19 Oalo., (j15, followed.... Lalta Prasad M. Sadiq JIusen (1902) T.L.B., 24 All,, 288, disbenied fmiu... ia «e V. isri on (1866) I O.P 412, followed V. JkTelrose (1SS7) 27 L.J., Ex., Little V, IKinaswood- GolliBi ics Company (1882) 20 Oli. I?., 783) referred to... LutcTimee Doss v. Secretarij of State for India (1909) I.L.R., 32 Mad., 456, referred to Z y o n s y. BlenJci-n (1831) J a c., 24.'5, followed... Madho Das v. Bamji Fatah (1894) I.L.lt., 16 All., 28«, diatingnishod Mahamahopadyaya Rangachariar v. The Mitnicipal Gouncil o f Kumhalc.on.am (1906) I.L.E., 29 Mad., 539, distinguialied Maharajah Jugutendur Bv,nwaree v. Din Dyal Ohaiterjee (18G-i^ 1 W.11^, 301>, followed Maharajah' of Bohhili V. VenTcataratnanJulu Naidu (I91 l) 16 M. L. T., 181, refevred to Mahomed Athar v. Bawjan Khati (1907) I.L.'R., 34 Oalo., 587, oxplained Malkarjun V. Narhari (1901) I.L. tl., 25 Bom., 337 (P.O.), roi eri od to Mallaya v. Ramayya (1911) , a p p r o v e d... ManeTdal Jagjivan y. Nasia Eaddha (1891) I.L.R., 15 Bom., 405, followed... Manja Pillai v. SivaihagiatJiachi (1911) 21 M.L.J.j 851, applied... Manti Kamop v. Ghodimaila Ramaniurthy (1908) 3 M.L.T., 93.'j, followed Mfxritt Susai Mudaliar v. The Secretani of State for India in Gotmcil (1894) 14 M.L.J., 350, followed referred to M e en a h s h i v. S tib ra m a m ja ( ) I. L. R., l i M a d., 3 6 ( P. O. ), d i s t i n g u i s h e d,,, M id.iand R a ilw a y v. W r ig h t ( ) I C b.., 7 3 8, r e f e r r e d t o.....,,, M ig h ell v. S u lta n o f J o lio re ( ) 1 Q.B., 1 4 9, r e f e r r e d t o M ille r v. M a dh o D a s ( ) I. L. R., 1 9 A l l., 7 6 ( P. C, ), f o l l o w e d... M oh a n L a i v. B ila so (],8 8 2 ) I. L. B., 1 4 A I L, 5 1 2, f o llo 'w o d Mohummud Zahoor Ali Khan y, Mus$umat.Thakooranee Eutta Koer ( ) 11 M. I. A,, 4 6 8, e x p l a i n e d M on oh u r L a tl v. Q o u r i SuT ihw ( ) I. L. R., 9 O a lo., 2 8 S, f o l l o w e d... M o s s, E x p a r t e : I n ^ r e T oioa rd ( ) 14 Q. B. D., 3 1 0, e x p l a i n e d Moult V. EaUiday ( 1S 9 B ) 1 Q.B., 1 2 5, f o l l o w e d M v,ham m ad I s m a il K h a n v. L a la S h eom u k h R a i ( ) 17 O. W. N., 9 7, r e f e r r e d t o M u n icip a l G ou n cil o f S y d n e y y. Y o u n g ( ) A. C., 4 5 7, r e f e r r e d t o... M ulchi B a j i B ahm uttuh a, v. O o v e r ji B h iija ( ) I. L. R., 2 3 O a lo., S 4 6, fo O o -w e d. M u lr a f K h a ia w v. V is w a n a th P r a lh u r a m ( ) I. L. E., 3 7 B o m., ( P. O. ) j f o llo w e d Mung-niram Marwari-V. Qursahai Nand ( ) I. L. B., d is t ir ig :T iis lie d... M'li'nshi V. D m l a t ( ) I. L. R,, 29 A l l., 2 6 2, f o llo w e d 17 C a l c., (P.O.), Muthe Venkaiachellapaihy v. Pyinda Ven'katachella'paihy (i.q12) 03 K.LJ., 6 5 2, r e f e r r e d t o M u th u k u m a ra sa n ii R o w th e r M in d a N a y in a r v. K u p p -u $ a m i A i y a n g a r ( )- ^ l. L. H., 3 3 M a d., 7 4, d is s e n t e d f r o m b y S a d a s i v a A x y a e, J.... -j distinguislied by Spencbb, J.

15 G-DNBBAL tltdbjt l i x CASES cont. PAGE Muthu Narayana Reddi v. B^ayalu Beddi (1896) 6 M.L.J., 5l, not followed ? Mutiayan v. Zamindar of Sivagiri (1S83) I.L.R., GMad., 1 (P.O.), disfcinguislied. S27 Nagiah v.venkaiarama Sastndu (1914) I.L.R., 37 Mad., 387, dissented fronj JVaTtjaya Mudali v. Shnnmu^a Mudali (1914) 15 M.L.T,, 186, followed Narasimha v. Ramasami (1913) 24 TVT.L.J., 91., applied.., Ji arasimha liao t. Qangaraju (1908) I.Ij.R,, 81 Mad., 431, disfcinguisied Narayan V. 2Hagap^a (1910) 12 Bom., L.H., 8S1, fligcentbd from Karayana Ayyangar v. Orr (1903) I.L.K., 20 Mad., 252, distingnished 155 Narayana Eavirayan v. Kandasami Ooundan (1899) I.L.K., 23 Mad., 34, disapproved S Narayanasami v. Kanniappa. Second Appeal >To. liis uf 1910, refeited to Warnymhaswrimi Naidu v. Sree Rajah VellanM Sreenivasa Jagannadha Rao (1910) 33 Mad., 189, referred to Narayan bin Babaji v. Naiha^ Dutgaji (1904) I.L.R., 28 Bom., 201, approved Narendra Naih Barari v.awioy Charan Ohattofadhya (1907) I-L.E,,, 34 Oalc., 51 ( i.b.), commented on ISarsaya Upada Fen?ca*aramana (1912) 23 M.ti.J., 260, followed Naihu valad Fandu v. Budhu valad Bhika (1893) l,l.e., 18 Bom,, 537, followed Nawah Aeimut A li Khan y. Jowahir SingK (1870) 13 W.I.A., 404, follcwed Nelayathalci^hi Ammal t. The Taluk Board, Mayavaram (1911) 34 Mad., 3 3 ; S.C., 20 M.L.J.g 885, distinguished Nichols, Ex parte ; In re James (1883) 22 Oli.D,, 782, explained OTcoZso n-t. (1818) 2 Swan, Nila'k.anda n Y, Madhava,n (1887) I L.H., 10 Mad., 9, followed Nobin Chandra Soot y. Nahal AU Sarcar (1900) 5 O.W.N., 34'3, followed 114 Nonoo Singh Monda V. Anaud Sinyh Monda (1886) I.L.R., 12 Calc., 291, follow ed Ockendcn v. Eenly (1858) 27 L.J., Q.B., 361 ; s.c., 1 E.B. & 1., 485, followed. 801 Ol^herts v. Mahabir P&r&had, Singh (1882) 10 LA.., 26, referred to Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Gonpany, Limited- v. Narasi-^ha Chari (3902) I.L.ii., 25.Mad., ISS, followed ^ Padmanahhaya v. S-anga (1911) I.L.R., 34 Mad., 161, follotyed Palaniappa Ohettiar v. Arunachella Chattiar (191S) , distinguished, Palamkonan v. Masakotum (1897) I.L.R,, 20 Mad,, 243> referred to Pamu 8anyasi '<j. Zamindar of Ja-yapur (1902) I.L.E., 25 Mad., S40, followad. 655 Pandurang v. BhasTsar (1874) 11 Bom. 72, approved Paru Amma v. Moothoran (1912) 22 M.L. J., 221, approved o f Peary Mohun Mu^erjee y. Nar&ndra Nath MuJcerjee (1910) I.L.R., 37 Oalo., 329 (P.O.), follow ed Perayya T. Venhata (1888) I.Li.R.j 11 JViad., 408, followed Perumai Y. icar«33a?i. (1911) 21 M.Ij.J., 574, dissented from...,,,.., 643 Phul Kum.an i v. Qhanshyam Misra (1908) I.L.R., 35 Oalo., 202 (P.O.), followed. 536 Pifam B inghy.tota Singh (1907) 29 AH., 301, referred to PoraJca, Subbarami jreddy v. Vadlamudi Seshachalavn OhHt^ \ 3S.Mad,, S&9, leferreft to Ppihi Bed,di v, VeZayudasivan (1887) 10 Mad,, ij4, f^llowred^.... ^ Frohat Ghandfa Qangaj^ddhyd, y. 36 OaJo,, 607^ / referred to *...

16 Ij, g e n e r a l i n p e Jc CASES t cont. Queeii jbmprt as v. Bal (?awgac2ifuxr TitoA (l^qs) I.L.U., 22.Uo«>\.j 112, I'oCoi tod to V, Lalcshmayya Pandaram (1890) 22 Mac!,, '.IfUj dissented from V. Maru (1S88) I.L.U., 10 All., 207, dii-aonted from « P-. O'Brien (18Q7) I.L.R., 19 All., I l l, commontod oh V. Puliuji (1805) I.L.E., 19 Bom., 195, distingnibhftd Pio'hlm (1895) I.L.It., 17 All., 52-1., d.!.stin"nlrlio<l... '"'O V. Sheik Beuri (1S87) 10 M ad,, 2;{a (F.B.), rot'ened lol'h ---- ^ V. Vcera'peruma.l (1893) I.Ij.H., 1G Mad., lollowcd ;i5l^ V Viravva Ghvtti fls97) I.L.I!.,, 20 Mad., 433, o.:mmeiitod on _- Badlia, Prasad Sitiyh v. La.l Sahab Bai (1891) I.L.R., 1,'5 A.H.,<G3, ou< wi.m1... (5B- Raja of Kalahasti v. VaradaclMriar (^1911) 21 loiis, iollowcd Raja of X ^iziavagaram V. Bajnh Seirucherla SomasMiararas (1903) I.L.R., 26 Mad., (j86, rel en-ed to Ramachandta "v. FitcTiaikdymi (1884*) l.ij.il., 7 Mad., 434, reftu'red to... 3o7 Ramazhandra Padayachi v. Kondayycv Chetii (1901) I.L.R., 24 Mad,, Grig, followed l i y i Hamalin(!a Mudali v Ayyadorai Wainar (1906) I.L.li., 28 Mad., 124, disfm - guished Bamanvja lyevgor v. Anantaraman Jyar (189t)JG 1, dissented from 504 Bamasami Pattar v. Ghinii.an Asari (1901) 24i Mud., 449, di.sfcingiiislied iS Bamaswami Ayyar v. Vythinatlia Aijyar (190H) I.Ii.B., 26 JMad., 700, followed Bamasiuarny Pantulv, x. Narayanamoorlhy (3 904) 14 M.L J., -li'so, applied Bamaivati Koer v. Manjhari itoer (190B) 4 O.L.J., 74, dis.sent(jd from Bavi, BahTish v. Uwjan (1887) I.L.R., 9 AIL, 392, referred uo Ram Bakhsh v. Mughlani Khanam (1904) l.l.b--, 226 All,, 66, dissetitod ft'om Bam Chandra Dutt t. Jogesivar Narain Deo (1893) 20 Calc., 7SB, followed Bam Ghundeo- Gh^ikrahutiy v. Oiridhicr D%htt (1892) I.Tj.R., 19 Oalo., 755, followed......, ,,, 024) Bamlctshore Eedar'nath v. Jainarayan Bamrochh^al (1913) 14 M.L.l., Ida, referred to , ()g4 Bamsidh Fande v. Balgohind (IBS'?) IX.R., 9 All., 158, referred to 501 Ram Singhs. Mathvra (1913) 34 All., 354, dcmbted... i091 Bam Tuhul Singh t. JBiseswar Loll Sahoa (1875) 2 I.A., 131, distinguished Ba«c?tO(3 V, JjjooZiOT (1907) 9 Botn. L.R,, 1149, referred to &1 'Randupurayil Kunhisore v. Neroth K^mhi Kannan (1909) I.L.R.. 32 Mad 1 (P.B.), referred to j; 089 Bangasatni Fillai Krishna Pillai (1899) I.L.E., 22 Mad., 259, not followed. 2 0 llangayyct. Appa Bai<> t, Kadiyala Batnafn (1890) I.L.tl., IS Mad. 249 distiiignislied , Eangayya Af^aBau, v. Ndrasimha Ap^pa Batt, (1896) I.L.B,, 19 Mad. 416 je fe ir e d t o * ' ** * * ««876 BaTtyayya Ohetti v. ThanilcacTialla Mudali ( 1896) I.L.B,., 19 Mad. " *74 disimguished * 251 Bangayya Goundan y. Nanjappa Rao (1901) I.L.E., 24 ila d., 491 fp.n V S9B 99S f;4 0

17 g e k e ra.l in d e x I x i CASES cowt. paqe Reference under Stuimp Act, sec. 46 (1888) T.L.E.,, 11 Ma.d., 31G, referred to, Robert Fischer v. Th Secret(try of State for India in CounciC (1S99) T.L.E., 22 Mad,, 270 (P.O.), distiutr'aished ' RoUii V. Vestry of St. George the Martyr, Southwarlc (18S0) 14 Cli.D., 785, referred to Rosario v. Imjles ( 1894) I.L.E.., IS Bom., 4G8, referrad to Ru'pnbai v. Audimulam (1888) I.L.R., ]1 Mad., 845, followed Safdar Ali v. Kishar>. Lai (1910) 12G O.L.J., 6, not follo\\ t'd Saiyid Muzhar Ilossein v. Mvssamut Bodha Eibi (1895) I.L.E,., 17 All., 112, applis'd Sangana Reddiar v. Perumal Reddiar (1910,' M.W.N'., 545, dibseuted froni 149 Saii l^ath Silcdar v. Ratanmani Natiluir (1913) 15 C.L.J., ;*S5, followed Sayad Ah^ula Edrup-v. S<iyad Zain Siiyad Easar^ Edrus (18S9) I.li.R, 13 Bum., 5 o5, refei red to Sayad Hussein Miijan v. Collector of Kaira (1897) I.L.K., 21 Bona., 257, referred Co...., Becretary of State v. Eannapallee 7e'n'katarat}]amma}i (1912) , referred to Secretary of State for India \. Amhalavana I'andarasannadhi (1911) I.L.R., 34-Mad.5 B665 referred to,,,,, , Secretary oj StaiP for India V. Simmi Mirnihesivarar {19) 1) I.L.S, 34 Mad,, 21, distiiig'uish.ed Seeni Chettiar v. Banihavathan, Qh elti'ir (1897) I L.R., 20 Mad., 58 (F.B.), explained and diatirig'uihlied Belamba Goundan v Palani Qoundan (1913) JI.W.N., 650, referri d to 5I4i Sesha V. Seih'iya (1884) I.L.E., 7 Mad., 55, disling'nished Seslia Aiyar v. Mangal Do.ss Jee(1910) , distinguished... G80 Seshachala I^^nicTcar Y. Varada Gnariar (1902) I.L.R., 2S Mad., 55, dist.iaguished , Sesi'ions Judge, Tanjore y. Stmdara ( 1010) M.W.N"., 143, diaaented from. 779 Settappa Ootindan v, Muthia Goundan (190S) I.L.R.,.SI Mad, 268, ruferred to, " 5SS , followed. 37 SheiTc Davii'd Saiha, v. Ilussain Raiha (1894) I.L.K., 17 Mad, 212, refervedto, 1176 Sheih Mahamud Ravuther v. Thf. British India Steam N~avi<jation Co., Ltd., (1909) 33 Mad., 95 (F.B.), followed Sheahdascaliar ua v. Bhimacha<rya (1912) 14 Bom. L.R.,120l!, referred to.895 Sht}) Sabifri Prasad v- The Collector of Meer-ut (1907) I.L.It., 29 All., 88, follow ed , hyam Cfiand Koondoo r. The Land Mortgage Banlc of India (1SS3) 9 Calc., 695, referred to Shyam Kumari v. Remvshw r Bingh (1905) I.L.R., 32 Oalo., 27 (P.O.), follow ed Sibendrapada v. Baner^ee r. SecTeiary of State for India in Conn-pil (1W7) _ I.I j.b,., 34 Gale., 207, not followed......,..., Sivagnanam Servaigar v. Rarnasiva nij ChBttiar (1912) 2S M.L.0., 85, refefved to , jsmea Y. Swee (1879) 5 P,D., 84, fallowed Soohul Chundcr Lavs y. Riissic-'k Lall MiHer (1888) I.L.R., 3 5 Calo.j 202, fallow ed v. 221 Sfarroio v, Garra'hers (1745) 2 Strange, 1236, doubted, ', -9^2 Srinivasa Ueddi v, Sivarama Reddi (1909) I.L.E.) Mad.,. 320, referred lis S Sri Rajo. Simhadri A ^ a Rao y, SeiTaoyi/a (1906) LL,35., 29, g9, follow-ed;' ' 'V..

18 Ix ii GENERAL IWDEX CASES coni, PACSE SH Faja Venkata Hangnyya r. The Secretary of State jor India (1913; M,W.I."?., 417, referreri to B Statham v. Statham and thp- GaeTcwar of Barcda (1912) Ij.H., Pr., 93, rcjori'fitl to Subha Naidit, y, Hthirajam'mal (1912) 22 14, cliasetited from'" S Subiaraya ReSdiar V. Eajaffopala Rfiddiar (1914) M.W.N., SV6, approved... 11/2 Subiu Iteddi v. Doraisami 'Bathen (1907) I.L.B.., 80 Mad.j 369, followed... ^60 SubharayalM Oheiti v, KamalavaUi TJxayaramma (1912) I.L.E.., 35 Mad., 14V, referred to and followeti , referred to 685 Buhha Row V. AnanihanaTaya.na Aiyar (1912) 23 64, dieeeiited from. 684 Su&6ayt a v..s'o'ji.cilayi/a (1906) 16 1B5, followed Subramcinian Ghetty v. Voraisinga (1904) 24 49, follo ived... ICO SU'bramanii'o. Ayyai' v. Ramacliandra Uau (1877) I.L.R., 1 Mad., S'Sf), fo l lowed < ' Su(Ji'«dira T. (1886) I.L.B,, 9 Mad., 80, followed MZl Suhry Kurdeppa r, OoonShahull Nagireddi (1B71) C M.H.O.R., 71) oxplaint'd and distieguifilied Sundaram v. Siihamma.l (1893) I.L.E., 16 Mad., 311, dissented from Sundaram Ai/yar v. The Munici'pal Council of Jfadura (1902) 25 Mad., 635, followed SuraJ Sunni Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh (1880) I.L.B., 5 Calc., 148 (P.O.) 5 S.O., 6 LA., 88, followed SMn/anorai/a»a Bao T. Somb/ictictfi. (1911) 21 M.L.J., 263, followed ailb-y V. Ogicia.1 Recfwer (ISSB) 13 A,0., SS3, followed...,,, Tawgii JogTii V. Hall (1900) T.L.Tt., 23 Mad., 203, referred to ThaJcur Prasad t. FaUr-ullah (1895) I.L.E., 17 A ll, log (P.O.) ; s.o., 22 I.A., 44, followed I 99 Thayammal v. Amamalai Mvdali'(189G) LL.K., 19 Mad,, 35, referred to ^ The Duchess of Kingstone's Case (1776) 2 B.MJj G. (1 1 Edn.), 731, foho%h d. 203 The Queen v, Khader Moidin (1882) I L.R., 4 Mad., 2Sf>, not followed... 30S The Ir^'aivarldy Flotilla Qompany v. Bugwandas (1891) I.L.T},., 18 Oalo., 630 (P.O.), followed The Maharaja 0/ Jaipur v. Lal^i Sahai (1907) I.L.E., 29 All., 379, referred to. 635 The Secretary of Stale for India iti Gouncil Y. Perumal Pillai (1901) I.L.R., 25 Mad., 279, referred to j)93 ThriJeaiTcat MadaiMl Raman v. ThiruiMyil Krishnan N air (1906) I.L.R. 29 Mad., 153, followed Tirunarayana v. Qopalasami (1890) I.L.B., IS Mad,, 349,f o llo w e d Tirnpathi Qoundan v. Eama Eeddi (1898) I.L.E., 21 Mad., 49, doubted r. (1888) L L.R., 11 Mad,, 210, followed Tufcaram V. Hari (1904) I.L.B., 28 Bom., 603 (F.B.), referred to TuJcaramr. Narayan Bamehandra (1912) I.L.E., 36 Bom., 339, followed 45 Wdaram v. Eamt, (1874) 11 Bom., 76, a p p ro v e d JTmmanga Appadorai PatUr (1911) I.L.E,, 34 Mad., ^^87, overruled 48 TI^Bndra Ghat ^dra Shiffh y. Mohri Lai M anw n (1904) I,L,R., SI Oalc,, 745, dissented frauj Vagliano V. The Bank of Englavid (189T) A.O., Sfi yaradiahv. Raja Ferumal Baja Bahadur, -AppeB,!. Against Qvderliia. 2^*7 of 1909, followed....,...,,,, Varahaswami V. Bamachandra Rajn (1918) 34 M.L.J., 298, followed Tasudevo V. ^JarasawjTia (1882) I.L.E., 5 Mad., 6, esplained...

19 GENERAL INDEX ^I x i i i C A S E S cowe. PAGE Fasz<o?ez/o» V. S'es7ia:i;a«(1884) I.L.R., 7 Mad., 309, digtinguished Yeera Pannadi v. Karruppa Pannadi (1909) 6 M.L.T., 154, referred to VeUi. Pillai v. A^^a.sami Vmdaram (1931) 1 M.W.N'.j 141, disting'tiisbed Venlcata v, Ghengadu (1889) I.L.R., 12 Ma<3., 168 (F.B.), followed VenJcatachala Pillai v. The Taluh Board, 8aicla.pet (1911) I.L.R.j 34 Mad., 375, diestingtlished Venkata,ram.a v. Meera Lahai (1890) I.L.R., 13 Mad., 275, referred to Yenliataravnana Bhatta v. Gundaraya (1908) I.L.U., 31 Mad., 403, distingaislied Yetikata Rangayya Appa Rao v. Secretary of State Jar India (1913) 24 M.L.J., 686, referred to Venlcay^a v. Narasamma (1888) I.L.Pi,., 11 Mad., 204, folio-wed Yenhataswara, Yettiappah NaicTcer v. Alagoo Moottoo Servagaren (1861) 8 327, followed Venlcatesimra, In re (1887} I.L.K., 10 Mad., 98, referred fco Yidyapurna, ThirtJias'ivam'i v. Vidyanidhi Tirthaswami (1904) 27 Mad., 435, followed , referred to ,,, TFarter v. Wartvr (1890) L.B^., 16 Pr.D., If52, referred to ,52 ^Fise V. Amieriinnissd KTiatoon (1879) 7 I.A., 73, referred to Yo-gambal Boyee Ammani Ammal v. Naina Pillai Karkayar (1910) I.L.R., 33 Mad., 15, refeired to dissented from Zamindar of Ocrcaud, v. MeenahtsM Ammal (1870) 5 377, referred to and followed Zemindar of Ettayapuram v. Sanlcarappa Reddiaf (1904) 27 Mad., 483, referred to CAUSE,~0F A C T I N See (M ad eas) E states L akh A ct (I ok 1968), sec. 1S for mesne profits different from, that for possession of land: : See CiYix. P rocehuke Codk (A ct V of 1908), 0. II, i;is. 2 akd 4. -for reccvery of assessment on ench levying : Bee (M adras) L and EKeKOACHMKNT A ct (III o,f 1905), sa. 3, 5.ah:) 14. -for recovery of possession on eviction, different : See MadbaS Land EjicEOjioHMBNT A ct (III oi 1905), -/or >ettirn of purchase money on dispossession: See Lim itat i o n AOT (IX OF 1008), ARTS. 62 AND 97. C H A R G E :' See E a i t,w a y R e o is ip t for the value or 'price of the latids o f the date of the transactions: ~8ee Th.anss'be OS' Peopbkty Act (VI of 1882), bs. 118 to 120j 54 and 55, civ.. 6 (5). CHAKTEIS ACT (24 and 25 viot). Oaf. 104, sec. 16 : See Ti-m JSIadras Oitv Municipai, Act (III oir 1904). ^ClVIL COURTS ACT (MADRAS ACT III OF I8!?3), beo. 14 Juki8Dict:on. (MAPEAS) Civil, COURTS ACT (III OF 1887), seo, 16 '. See MAPBitiAs op N orth Mat-abab. CMADRAS) CIVIL COURTS ACT (III; OF 1873), b^g. n ^ O r ig i^ a l mh trted partly by a DiBirict Munsif Suhseg^ueitf 6ppointme^i 0'S Buhcrdinate^ Judge Decree passed iy ( uccessor in tfie ]Miinsif'a, Ocwrtrr-Appeal frptn the decree Oon'peiency of the Svhordi'note pisqualificaiicn %Lnd^r ih» con^'/no'ri Ig/ic ixks

20 Jxiv (ienbkal INBMX Objection when to be ta7cen~waiver Mere Mas or prejv^ico, (/munrl o f disqdcilificatiotij 'ivheii Appropriate tevisdy.'] WIibvo h Disfjriot MiinHif tried an oi'iginal suifc in pai-b and, wm promoted to bti a Suhordiniito Judge and his HnccBS.sor in office us a.distriofc Miinsij' coiiipuftf'd (.ho fcriai of the suit) and passed a decree fchiireiu, atul an apjji-al pri'foi'i'cul ag'ainsb the decree -was heard and disposed ol! without, ohject.iov', by tho Suoordinnt.e Judgo who had triad tha original auib in part, thai; the disposal of tho appeal ty the Subordinate Judge w;ib not legally invalid and onghfc not to be sal; asido by the Ai3])ellate Cont't. Section IV of the Madras Civil Courts A,iit inti'oducgs a stafcutnry disqu tuiiication as regiu'dti District and Subordiiia.to Jndfjps but is confined to the case where tho :ippt al to be heard in t-he Appellate Court is against the decroo or ordtn- parsed hy the District or Snbordinnte Jndg'e himself in finotber oiipaoity. Section 17 of tho Mfulrns Civil Courts Act does not make any diatinotiori Lotwoen the Judge baing a, nominal party or a retilly iiiterosted jiavty. Tho intor^'sfc %vhich discpinlihes a Judgti nuiat be pecuniary intorcafc or ono which involves souie individual right or privilege or it must he au interest aryalr.g on> of the nt'ar relatiourihip ol the J udgb to a party to thu cauhie. Moro bias or prejudice on the part of a Judge dows not clisqualipy hiui in tho abaonce of a Btatntovy provision. Even as regards relationship to a party to the c'jnae, a Judge Avas not nnder the cotmnon Ittw dibquniiflod by Buch r<»tu.tionhhip and it is only by statute law such a disqualification could he imposed on a judg'c. Under t-be coirunon law, thex ti is no disqiialifioation imposed on a Jud^e to sit in his own Court in review of h i s own decisiou (it is b o under tho statute law also) or oven to review it, (jn ajjpeal in the ApptiUatc Court, if he 'become an Appellate Judgu having appidlate jurisdiction over the tribunal in which ho decided the cause as Original Jud^e. Whore there i.s no fcitatntory or oomnion law di«qna[itication in the Judgo of the Court holow, an Appellate Coart should not sat aside the judgment of the lower Oonrt ou the mere j;-round that it might have been hvsrayed by biaw or pi'ejadice. Even in such a case unless objection was taken boforc tho Judge of tho lowpr Conrfc iteeu' at or during tho trial of tho cause to his hoaring' tho suit (jr appeal, the Appollato Court should not inturforo oxcept in a Htt on,^' or clear caho of failure of justice in the lower Court thrimgh hias or preiudice. Tho appropriate remedy in such cases was for tho pai r.y bo have applied to the proper superior Courti to have tho case transferred to another Court. PA (SB Veniatapatld Mayunivaru v. Mahomed Suhih... (1915) I.L.K,, S8 Mad., 531 C I I L C O U B T S p ju r is d ic iio w of] ca.^a.s in v o lv in g ([uesti-on oj' ' A 'o dit;tiinctio7i, a s to presit,mj>unn in su ch cafies : ~ 8 es (M a d riv s ) E s t a t e s L a n d A c t ( I o i' lo O S j, s s AND CIVIL PROCEfflUBE CODE (ACT XIV OF 1882), sk c. 37 (ft) :~ 8 m Amoknuy, ETC. SEC. B7 A L etjal rejtt escniaim a - Ahatement of suh Withdraitml o f finit with per'inissioh to bring afresh one - Its pffect on the,tspresentatii:e nut on record.'] When a suit has abated ag-fiinst a defendant by rea,«on of his lejiial repi'ostnrtative not having boon brought on the record within the time allowed by law and when tha piainliff thereupon withdraws liia suit with permission to tarin,^' a frosh ono, such a permiaesion can only empower hun to bring a freah sxlit aguinst those defendants who were on the record on tho date of the withdrawal and noii against the legal rfipresentativos of a defendant who was dead ab the tim e of the withdrawal and whnsa said r.-*preb< nfcatives had o th o r iioc boeu brought on the I ecord or had been removed from the record by an appellate order which set awide the ordor of the First Court hringinfr them on the recoi-d. Pernmal v. Karu'][/an (1911) , disae.iited from. Seshavima v. S urijanarayana...(iyi5) L L.R,, 38 Mad., 043 -^ A s 8I«NEB OB' a MONBl-Y-DECEEE, ETC. Hin d u L a w SB. 33, 583 Awn 610 : -Sfsa CODKCH. (ACT V OF 1908), 0, I, B, 1 ; See APPEAii to P e i v y

21 general ITS DEX Ix v ^ ^ ^Q_ 2 and 3 iprcvioiis $^dt Tor declaration, chsmissal of, for of 'prayer for poss^ession Later suit far declaration and possession, maintunahility o/.] The dismissal of a previous snit for a deolaration of tit.le to certain properties on the ground that the plaiiitifi; was found entitled to possession is BO bar,to a suit for possession bakecl on ihe sa.me title as the causes of action, for which the allfgations in the plaints must be looked to, are different in the two cases. Chand Kour v. Pariah Sinr/li (1889) I.L,H.j Calc., 98 (P.O.); Thrilcaikat Madathil Ra^naoi t. ThiruiM yil Erisknm Nair (190G) I.L.K., 29 Mad,, 153; Bamaswami Ayyar r, Vythinatha Ayyar (1903) I.L.E., 26 Mad., ^760 ; Nonoo Singh Monda v. Ana,nA Singh Monda. (1S86) I.L.R,, 12 Calc., 291; Jibunti Nath Khan v. Shib Nath Ghuclceriutti! (1SS2) I.L.R., 8 Onlc., 819, and Mohan Lai r. Bilaso (1882) I.L.R., 14 All., 512, followed. Muihu Naraxjana, Eeddi v. Euyalu Heddi (1896) 6 M.L, J., 51, and jrfmic/fl.sa'mi Fillai v. Krishna Tillai (1899) I.L.Jl., 22 Mad., 259, not followgd. PAGE S ilim ^ Saih Rasson (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad., ^ 0. II, B, 2 Previous suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell Decree jor specific perforraance Deed of conveyance ohtained in execvtion Bnhsequent suit for recovery of potfsession against the vendors Suit not barred.'} Where the piaintiff,whohad obtained in a previous suit a decree against the clefendaiits for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain inamoveable property to the plaintiff and had got a sale deed in his favour In execution of the decree, instituted the present suit for the recovery of poeseasion of the lands fi-om the defendants, Held, that the suit was not barred by Order II, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act Y of 1908). At the time the plaintlfe brought the previous suit, the right to poaeession of the lands was not vested in him, as he acc[nired that right only on the execution of the deed of conveyance. Earaymia Kavirayan v. Kandasami Ooundan (1899) , 22 Mad,, 24i> disapproved. Banffayya Qaundan v. Nanj<ippa Rao (1901) I,L,R., 2-t Mad., 491 (P.O.), explained. Nathu valad Pand-u r. Budhu oalad B/iii-4-a (1893) I L.E,., IS Bom., 537, followed. Krinhnammal V. Soundararajii Aiyar (1915) I.L.E., 38 Alad., 698 -, 0. II, R. 2 Specific Belief Act (1 oj IS7V), sec. 4s2~-Snit for declaration Freviow decree befwee'n third pa,rties Pla,intiffs not parties Suit to declare that the decreo is collusive and not binding on plaintiffs, if maintainable.} The plaintiffs sued for a declaration (I) that they were the otvnera of the suit properties as 'th e reversioners of one W., who was the last male owner and. (2) that a decree obtained by the fii st defendant aguinst the second in resj)eot of the properties in another suit to which the plaintiifs w^ere not parties, waa colhiajve and w as not binding on the plaintifff?. The plaintiffs had already brought a.'<nit in the same Oout't s.gainat the present defendants to recover possession of sotxie other prop'-rties as the reversionery iiei.vs of ST. but did not include therein the properties claimed in the present suit, though the defendants were in possession of them at the time of their previous suit. The plaintih's alleged that they o!inie,in.to possssaion of the properties subsequently to the previous suit, l^he defendants contended that the suit was barred under Order 11, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that the suit for a declaration, that the decree passed in the suit between the first and the second delgndante was collusivie and not binding on the plaintiffs, was not ma.in.tainal>le. Held, that the present suit was not barred uuder Oirder II, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Held further, that a suit for a declaration that a decree obtained by the first defendant against the Becond defendant was collusive and not binding on the plaintifis was jnaintainable under section 42 of the Specifio Eelief Act.. Naganna y, Biva'iiOifgi'pd... ^ (1911)} I.Ij-R., 38 Mad,7 1162' ^ a., '0. ian(l 4.Preuiotf-* suit for poss«.8sion of landft included^ Suhgeg/v/ent suit fo r the noi h(if red^dfiiti8^ o f action'^ foy meave profits different from that for possession of latid-] Chum fo r poajjestiion a,ud olaira ' S': '

22 Ixvi GENERAL INDEX for mesne profita are separate causes of action axifl havo boeti always so treated under the Code of Civil Procediire. Whoro a plfiintife BWcd fur posspssion of lands only Vvheii he mig ht have joined in tho same :i,oiiiuti claims for mesne prrilits ar.d dnmagps, it is open to him to briti«- ;i HultHequent suit against the same defendants for tho profits whioh ^x'ca.nio payable before the iiibtitutioii of the former ariit and which Hiifj, ht havo htion included in such suit. Monohur LrM v. Gouri Sunhiir (1883) I.L.S., JJalo., 283, Tirv,'pa,ti V. WaraRimho. (1888) I.L.R., 1 1 Mad, 210, l,cleminr Bahui Janki Bibi (1H93) I.L.R., 19 Calc., (il5 and Guttw Sarammn v. Maganti Raminedu (1 JOS) I.L.R., 31 Mad., 405, followed. Ponnaiiimal'V. Ramamirda Aiyar (1915) I.L.lv., 38 Mtid. (W.H.), 829 (). X X, H. 7 : See Limitai'Ion,, 0. X X I, R. 52, enquiry under See RxVTAB f,k DISTB.IBU:riO N. 0. X X I, K. -Order in Javour iho elaimani---alimatin iy the claimant mbsequentlp Suit by de.cree~holder subsequent to the alienation to set aside the order JAb pc.adens, doctrine of, if applicable Ft'ndenoy of proceedings Suit, a form of apjpeal -A lienee, Joined as party >fter one year from the date of order, not a necessary party No bar of JAmitation Limitation Act (IX of 1908), sec. 22, cll. 1 and ^.] A purchaser of property from a claimant, after an order has been, passed in his (claim ant s) favour but bt?.fore a suit under Order X X I, rule 63. was instituted, is an alienee pendente lite and is therefore not a necessary party to thti suit ; and if the necesaax-y parties had been brought within one year, tbo alionoe could not advance the plea of limitation as section 22, olaiiee ( 2) of the Indian Limitation Act expressly excludes the operation of clauso (1) in kuoil cases. A suit brought under CJrder X X I, rule (53 of the Code of Civil Prooedtire (A ct V of 1908) is a mere continuation of the proceedings in a olaini petition, and all alienations during the condnuance of the prooeedin<^s ori^nuated by the claim petition till the disposal of the suit brought to sot aside the order passed on the claim peciticm are affectod by the doctrine of Ua pendens formulated in st'ctioa 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Suits of tlub class though called original suits, are not in their efssence original actions bat merely forma of appeal allovved by the Civil Procedure Code to be bronght in the ^uibe of orij>-inal suits. Phul Kuttiari v.!^hanshyam Miara (1908) I.li.R., 35 f'alc., 202 (P.O.), followed. Vcera Pannadi v. Karuppa Pannadi (1909) 6 M L.T,, 154; Harit^hankar Jehhai v. Naran Karsan (ls 9 i) I.Li.ll., is Bom., 260 ^Kishori Mohun Bai v. IlursooJc Dass^ (1888) I,L.3i., 12 Oalc., 698 and Settappa Qowndan v. Muthia Ooundan (1908) I.L.R., 31 Mad., 268, referred to. Krishnappa, Chetty v. Abdul Khad&r Sahib (1915) I.L.R., Mad,, j O. X X r, B. (36 Setting aside a sale Material irregularity in pubkcalion.of sale proclamation Understafeniei/t of revejiue due o-ji the Icmds U^idervaluation of property Statement of the same by the decree-hoidf*r~~no objection by iha judgment-dehtar to the amount of Oovmiinent revemie or valuation Mistahe of the judgmentdebtor as to interest in the property sought to be brought to sale-~~~duty of Courts in India in conducting salrs in execution Mifstake of udgmeni-dshior due to action of decree-holder R^de of estoppel of fudgment d'ihtor, no a pplication Right of auciion-purchaser before and aiter canfirmaiion o f sale No abfioltde right for coiifirmaii'on of sale,'] Though it was not incninbeut upon the Court to state the value of the property in a proclamation, for Bale, a matei-iaily incorrect statement of the reveaue or of the value o the pi o p - erfcy where the valno is stated would constitute an irregularity wliioh if it caused subatautiiil iniuvy to the judgement-debtors, would entitle liin:i to liave the sale set aside, Where the judgiuent.debtor s act in not objectinf? to the statement of the peshkaah and in stnting the val\ie on the footing of the peshkash being oorrently stated by the decreo-holder was dua to a, inistake of fact regarding what.the Court intended to sell, the Judgmentdebtor should not be held to be estopped from obieotinf^ to the sal on tha ground o f material irregularity. A ptoty who does not raise an objection to the proclamation which he ought to have raised is estopped from

23 GBNBHAL IHDEX I x v i i coniplaining of an irreg'u.larity resulting' frona nn erroneous statement which he should have, correoted,. GndJiari Singh v. Hurdeo Narahi Singh (1S7G) 3 I.A., &30 and Glpherts v. Mahabir tershad SingJi (1882) l(i I.A., 25, referx'ed to. Arunachellam v. Artiyiac'^ellam (13S9) I.L.Tv., 12 Mad., 19 (F.C.) a.x\.d BeJiari Singh y. Muhat Simigh (1906) 28 All., 273, referred to. In Inclia an eseontion sale is an act of tha Oom't. WLere an act of a Court is induced by tlie mistake of parties, it may be set aside. But the Court will not apply the rule of estoppel to cases where the jud"ment-debtor wiib not aivare o f the fa.cta to which he was bound to object, liaja, oj Kalahasti Maharaja of Venkatagiri (1915) I.L.K., 38 Mad., S87 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (ACT V OF 1908), O. X X I, r. 89 Sa/e of iv^moveable property in Cout t-auction S.ubsequer,.t private.sale hy judijweni-dehtor AppUc^Jtion by judyment-dehtor to get a-fiidc auction Sala ivb locus standi to apply Order rejecting application -Revision petition to High C:)u.ri lender Civil 'Procedure Code {Act V of 1908), sec. 115 Not muiyitmnahls though order ernneons,j Where after a sale in CoTivt-tiiictioii of certain immoveable property, the judgment-debtor sold all his rights in the samo jtroperty to a stranger by a private sale, and Biibaequentiy applied under Order X X l, rule 89, of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V o f 1908) to set aside the sinction-sale, Held, that the judgmeiit-deljtor had no locus standi to apply under Order X X I, rule 89, to have the sale set' a,side. Anantha LakaMni Ammall v, Kunnanchanhar/ith Sankaran Nai.r (19\3) M.W.K., 101, referred to. r>as V. Jsn,/J S T /ia /i (1912) I.L.E., 34j All., 186, follcw ed. P er S a d a s iv a A y y a r, J. A Oivil Revision Petition under section 115 of the Code o f Civil Procedure does not lie against an order of the Lovs-er Court rejecting an application under Order X X I, rule 89, though the order was erroneous in law, as the Lower Court did not act illegally or beyond its jorisdiction or with material irregularity in arriving at the decision. Per Spencer, J. Neither an araendnaent of the petition nor the presentation of a fresh petition by the private purchaser could be allowed by the High Court to be made, as he was not a party to the proceeding's in the Lower Court and more tl'ian one year had expired after the time allowed by article 166 of the Limitation. Aoc (IX of 190R) for filing a petition in the Lower Court. SubbarayiiduY.LaJcshminarasj.mma (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., , O. X X I, rb.90, 91 a n d 93 See L i m i t a t i o x A ct (IX of 1908), s e c, 22, k t c , O.XXIITji'i. 3~Compromi,se Terms cntside the scope of the suit, recorded in the decree TJecres so far as it relates to the anit, effect of Terms forming consideration for those relating to the subject matter of the suit Decree., not ultra vires Objection in sxecuiion maintaindbilhy of 'Central, t Act {IX of 1872), ss. JJS aw(i 51 licciprocal -prontisea N'on-perforniance hy one lyarty ioron(ifutty, Gonsequent non-performance the other, rightfully, effect of Contract at an end Com]jerisation Offer of performance, ess/^i'itials of Conditional offer Offer to release loithout eaediting release deed, insvfjleient,'] The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of tnoney on a simple money-bond executed by the iirst defendant and the father of the second and third defendants. The parties entered into a compromise by which the disijutes between them, including. the claim iu the suit, were adjusted, and a decree was passed in the suit in. accordance with the compromise, bo, far as it related to the suit. tjnder the coraprohiise the defendants agreed to get a release of certain, properties which had fallen to the share of the plaihtifi; in a partition between the plaintiff and the fii'sfc defendant and some other properties purchased by the former from 6he latter, from the claims of a mortgagee (deoree-holder) o the same, on the plaintiff depositing in Court within, a oertaia time a sura of money for payment to the mortgagee towards hie decree. The plavntiffl failed to deposit, the aaioun.t. The defendants gave notice to the plaintiff, by. a postal letter oilering to get a release of the ;properties if the plaintiff paid the amount in one week, but the plaintiff did. not pay the amount, The third defendant took an assignment o f the mostgage-deoree, brongrht the properties to sale ixi esecution and purohased-them in aiuetion. Thti defenda,bts' applied in. execution of the compromiee-decre, tp* Xeooyer ;a' sum o f mqt^0yi a8 dtte to them Huder the compromise, g.lle^ng that they had i^erfpru.fid oi? 5 -a. '

24 ]xv\{i GENERAL TNDTIX offered to perform the conditions laid on them undfir fclie oomproinise. The plaintiff contended tta t the defendants could not i-ocover tlio amount as the claim, for it conld not be deemed to have been included in tho decree, and if it were inclucled the decree was ultra vires, and iurfclicr fcliat fche defendants, having failed to fulfil tlipir part of fche agrpeinent, wffro not entitled to enforce the other terms of the compronn'ko. HeZf!!, that all tlio terms recorded in tbe compromise-deoreo, which formed part oi tho conaideration for the adjiiatment of the S lbjeot-inatter of the suit, niubt he deeined to be part o the decree and can bo enl'orced in oxecution proceedings. A compromise-decree, even if it inohides matters b6.yond tho scope of the suit, is not ultra, virm, and no objoction can he takoii to the enfotcorcent of the same in. execution proceciclinub. W inn iho particir to a contract fail to porform their reciyjrocal promihob, the one wilfully and tho other becatise he was nofc hound to fulfil hia pjirt imloss bhe forrriov had fulfilled his preliminary pnrt, tlie contract itself comes to an end by the acts of both the pai ties except for the purpose of enabling tiic intijtcont party to claim compensation from the other. An offer of performance must be TinconditioTial, if it is to have the same effect as ))erformanco. A mere offer by a posted letter that the party liable was ready to execute a roleaae without having a document of release ready, is not a valid offer under seotion 38 of the Contract Act. Held (on the facts of the case) that thongh the plaintiff failed to pay the money into Court, as the d e f e n d a T i t B failed to fulfil their part of the agreement to make a valid iinconditional offer to perform the same, and as the defendants diwabled themfielves from performing their part by reason of the purchase of the properties by the third defendant, the defendants were not entitled to enforce the other termw in cluded in the coinpromi.se-decree. Sabapathy y. Vanma^alinga (1915) I.L.Ii., 38 Mad., 959, ^ j O, X X III, R. 3 Xjatvjul compromaap,~~~ Ew du Law ~ Office of Archa&a, alienation of Cufitom., validity of I)it<quaU//'~ cation oj females to ferform dv.ties of Right offemalea to inherii--performanc( of duties by prosay Public policy Undiia influence Lmv price, effect of Contract Act (IX of 1873), -sec. 16, cl. (2).] Where the partiek to a suit inatitutod in respect of a, half share in tho archaha mtraa in a Swi^^ito tem ple, entered into a oompromise during the pendency of a Sucond Appeal in the case, by which one of the parties alienated for a, pecuniary benefit a portion of his rip'ht to the office in favoar of tho ofchar party (who w a s a female), and the latter applied by a petition to tho High Oonrt to pass a decree in accordance with the oompromifso, Hsld, that the compromis<^ was not lawful and that no decree could be passed in accortlanco therewith under Order X X III, rule 3, of the Civil Prooodure Code. For Sadabiva Ayyar, J. ^An alienation of a religious office by which the alienor gets a pecuniary benefit cannot be npheld, even if a custom is Bet up sanctioning snch an alienation. It ih the settled onatom tjiat femalea by reason of their rbx' are permanently disqualified from ^lerl'orming- the duties of an archajca in a Saivite temple. A person, who is permanently diaq^ualified to do the duties of an office, cannot inherit the oiiioe whilst ail the same time delegating the duties to others, whether the permanent diaquali. fileation is the result of conversion to axiy other religion or insanity or sex. A trusteeship for secular purposes can bc'held by a female. The fact that a person is obliged to part with, his property for what he oonsidevs im unduly low pricci owing to his prersiiig neceseities, is not a ground for holding that the contract is vitiated by \indue influence. Sundaramlal ^mmal v. logavanagurumcal (1915) I.L.I!,, 38 Mad, 850 ^ O. X X X IV, Bit,, 1 AND 14 : See TEA.N8IfBE OB'PROPEETY A ct (IV OS'1882), t,s. 61, 85 AND » XXXIV, R. 6 ; See Deoreb-h om kr ^-^ X L I, E. 3 See HiNDtr Law _ X I/I, R. 22 Crd8fi-o^yect{ofi!f, memorandum of, by one respondent against another, m m niain alilityof] Under Order XL I, rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, one respondent oan lile a

25 GENERAL INDEX I x i x ineniorftndiitii a# oross-objecfcions against another. Jadunandan. Prosad Singh Y. Koer Kallyan Singh (18G1) 15 G.L..1., 61, not followed. Munisamy Mudaly r. Ahhu Reddy... (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad., 705 0, X L I, K. 37., CL. (b) Additional evidence fin cippecd Poioers of the Appellate Court Test to be applied for admitting State of mind of the Judge, after hearing the appeal Mo external standard- Any other substantial, cause,' meaning of,j Wliexe a Subordinate Jtidg e first he;ird an appeal and then prib.sed an order for the admission of some additional documents in evidence on the ground that it was neceaaai'y to have the doonments before the Oom-t to enable it satisfactorily to prduounce its judgment, Held, that the a'^'mission of the docwments as additional evid«noe was permieaible under Order X L i, rule 27 of the Code of Ci-vil Procedure (A ct V o'f 1908). The test laid down under clause (&) of Order X LI, rule 2?, i«not whether any tribunal vronld be unable to pronounce any judgment without production of the additional evidence in questioll bnt wretlier the mind of the Appellate Judge is in such a condition on the evidence on record that he requires any docuinent.s to be examined to enable him to pronounce ]udu;ment. The expression any other eabstantial cause added in Order X L I, rule 27, confers a wide discretion on the Appellate Court to admit additional evidence wlien the ends of justice require it to be done. Kesscwji lasur v. G.I.P. Railuray Company (1907) IJj.B., 31 Bom., 581 (P.O.), explained and distinguished. Krisknama Ghariar v. Narasimha Ghariar (1908) I.L,K, 31 Biad., 114, referred to. Andiap'pa Fillai v. Mntliukumara T}i,evan (1913) I.L.R., 36 Mad., 477; s.o. (1912) M.W. Jf,, 450, followed. Suhba Waidu v. Ethirajammal ( 1M1 2 ) 22 14, disbented from. PAG E Ambujd Ammal Y. Appadurai Mudali (1915) LL.E,., 38 Mad., 414,0. XLT, ER. 15 ANB16; O.X X l, R, 16; 8S. 37, 38 AND &0~Privy CounrAl, order of, transmitted to the original Court -Execution Ajp^Ucatio7i to the original Oo'tirt Application by transferee of the decree Competency of the original Court to entertain application Power.of Attorney, construction o/.] Where an order of His Majesty in Council was transmitted iinder Order X L V, rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the High Court to the District Court as the Coni't which passed the first decree, the^latter Coiart has jurisdiotion. to entertain an application mad by aa assignee of the decree under Order X X I, riile, 16, of the CiTril Procedure Code, to reoog nize the assignment and to allow him to execute the decree. It is established law that a Power-of-Attorney XDust be congtrned strictly. When an agent has a general Power-of-Attorney to act in some business or aeries of tran.sactions, he may be assumed to have all usual powers, includinf*' the power to transfer decrees. Palaniappa. Oheiiiar V. Ar-unachello, 0?tei«iar (1912) , distinguished. Krishna BhoopatTii Deo v. Baja of Yisia^ia^ram... (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 832 Code (A ct V oi? 1908), src.,24. -, es. 7 AKB 2 4 : See Oiyir. PHooKDtiaE sch. II, ss. 15 ANi> 36:-~-See A wabd. SEC. l l, ; S'ee " R es JUDICATA SEC. 24: See P residenct Towas insoitnnoy A c t (III op 1904), beg. 90, bbo, 24-! Small Cause suit instituted ina Subordinate C ow t Transfer hy the. District Judge io a District» Oouft Order directing iria.1 as an anginal suit Siibsequerit tramfev ly the JDistrict Judge to another District M unsifs Gourt 'Decree by the latter- Appeal against such decree to the District Court TrattsfeT of af peal io the Subordinate Court -Decree on appeal by the Subordinate Court Eemsio'n to the High Court Appeal to the District Cvw% imompeieni Dectee of tm Subordinate Court, set asiae as xuithoihi jurisdiction--^ PTovincial Svnalh Oaws6s Courts Adi (IX of 1887), sa. 88 and Cau-te Oouit Court invested with powers of o, Small Cause (jourf~^oharagtsr of Oottri trying a small suit on traii8fef'*~'c}ivii Procedure Qode (A d V o f 190S),

26 , GESEBAL INBE^: S0. 7 and 24j.] Where a suit;, whiofi wim iiwtiinted as a. siiial (.-aiise suit; in» Subordinate.Taclge s Court was l,rati8fei'i'ed by tbo DiBfci'ii'.t Courti (.<» a District Munwifa Court fov trial as sut original suit, and \va.k again transferred to anotlier Districfc Muusif e Oourt for trial and diaponal: Uel3i, tliui tlie tleci'ee passed by the latter Districfc imxmsif s Court wasu the tlec.froe o! a Court of vsmall Caaaos, and no appeal hiy to tbo District Court mcai decree. A Court, invested with the powers of a Coiii't oi OaiiHo;- is Ji Court of Small Ctuiaws within the nieaiiimg' of section 24 of the Code <tl Civil Procedure (AofcV of 19US), thongh the sviit wus not trami firred to such Coust immediately from a Court of S>nall Clauses. San'kararama'V. Padiiinnahli,a (.1915) l.l.li., 38 M:i.d 25 ss. 47 AND 50, O. XXI, li Tratisjir of decree to anothi^r (Intirt J'lhd&ment-dehtor, death of- A'ppUcaticni to bring in legal representatives^ Jtirisdictifrri. of i<uch Oovrt- Minor legal re%ite6entative- - Guardio.u ad litem, not appointed-- Sale axecuuon - T>ecTeB-^older and auction'ftiircji.ascr, fraud, of Safe, val.idipij oj h'p'plieation under Order XXI, rule 90 Conversion in f o a suit Suit for i<eiting aside, if necessary Limitation Act {IX o/lijos), arts. 12-, i)5 and 16G Suit for other reliefs on the ground of fraud, if onaintainahle.] The first (IcifeudsiTit obtained decrees in two suits, viz., Oi'iginnl Suits Nos. 555 sm'id 5-19 of H)08 ou the file of the District Munnif s Conrt of ViKianaKrain jigainst one >S', the husband of ihe plaintiff and the second defpnclaiit, S died aiibspfjuput to the psssing of the dpcreea, which -vvoro ti'ansfc'erred to the Districfc Minisifw Court o Rajam for execution. The tirst defonclant filed an application in the latter Court for bringing on l,he record tlic {jlaintiff and the seeoihil defendant as the iti 2,-al representatives of the deceased jmdgmont-dobtor nnd for esecutioti of the decrees. The Court piirbed an order aw prayod for. The plaintiff (tbs junior "widow of S) was a minor at the time of tb (3 application and sale, but she vcas placed on the record a.s tlioug'li, sho wure a major without a guardian <xd to act for her, +,hou j:li both tlio firmi defendant (the decree-bolder) and the third defendant (tho anctionpurchaeer) knew at the time that she waa a minor. Thfi second dnfc^ndant (the co-widow) had then ceased to hate any infcorpaf: in her husband s estate. The decree-holfier applied for sale in Original Suit No. 555 of IflOS of properties which were attached in both, the aforuaaid decriieb. Tbe third defendant, -vrho hid for the properties for Rs. 601, oanned tlie sale to lj,o stopped in Original Suit No. 555 o f 1903 ^ the first defendant in colln.sioii with the third defendant brought them to sale in Original Suit. No.,^59 of 1903, the rofecrve price was reduced to Es. 300 and the third dofe^ndani purch.as«d the property for Rs. i501; the executing Court -svafs not iriformod of the sale in Original Suit No. 555 of 1903 and of the third defendant, a bid for Rs, 601 therein. The sale was held on 19th October 1900 and was confiruied on 23rd January Tho plaintiff (who ai;tained majority in July 1907) iiled an application on the IfJfch Martjh If'09 in Ori<at til Suit No, 559 of 1903 lender section 47 of the Code of Ciyil Procodnre for Hetting aside the sale and for a declaration that the sale was invalid and for othor reliefs. The petition was conterted into a suit under the proviaions of Becfcxon 47 of the C'ivnl Procedure Code. The defendants contended that the sale was valid, that in. any event the sale had to be set aside, and that both the application under section 47 of the Ciyil Procedure Code and the suit were barred by limitation under articles 163 and 12 of the Ijimitation A ct respectively. Held, that the plaintiif, who had no guardian ad litem appointed for her in the execution proceedings Wiis not a party to the suit in Tr hioh the sale was made, and was entitled to hring a siiit fo i a dedaration that the sale waa not binding without regard to the provisions of section 47 of the Civil Procedure- Code. That the pleintifl* not having been a party to the suit and not having been sufficiently represented by any one who was a party, the sale was not binding ou the plaintiff and did not requit-6 to be set aside. That the suit which was instituted within three years of the plaintiff s attainment of maqoiity was not barred by liraitationi.r- Bsr S a d a sit a A y y a b, J. When a indgraent-dgljtor hats to set aside a sale of his property for fraud of the decree-holder or of both himself and the anotion-pnrchaser, he can only apply under. Order X X I, rule 90 of the Civil Proceduxe Code, subiect to the limitation prescribed in article 166 of the PAfl-E

27 ain fes A i. INDEX I x x i Li-mitation A c t ; but) lie may be entitled to bi-iiig- a suit fov other appropriate reliefs on the g-roiind o f fraud against the decree-holder and the anclioupiirchaser, aticli as for damages or for injunction, subject to the liniitatiou prescribed in ai-tic-le 95 of the Limitation Act,. PayidanTm r. Lakshminarasamma (1915) LL.R., 38 Mad., 1076 SEC. 48 PravA or force of one judgmentdebtor, not extending the itcelve years as against others.'"'] The fraud or force of one of several judg-ment-dcbtors in preventing exeoation against him of a decree enables the deoree-holder to get an extension of th.-; twelve jeara provided for execution of the decree by section 48, Civil Procedure Code (A ct V of 1908), only a,s against that judgment-debtor but not as against his other co-jndgment-debtora vsrho have not been guilty of such cojidact. Per Otiriam : The policy of the Limitation Act in the mafctev of execution of decrees may be different. Abdul Khadir Y.^Ahaomnad Shahva liavuthar..... (1915) I.L.R,, 3S Mad D istbib u tio n. SEC. 53 : 8ee H in t >d Lj\w, SEC. 73, a pplicahility o f: See R.vtaklr , SEC. 8 6 Sovereign Prince or Railing Chief in British India., suit against Sovereign or pr ivate capacity 8u.it agaiiir^t hi'in as trustee of certain temples Buie of international Laio Jurisdietion of Municipal Courts Waiver. Under sechion 86 of the Civil Procedure Code (A ct V of 1908), no So?rereign Prinee or Uuling Chief can bo sued in a Court of British India without the previous consent of the Governor- Greneral-in-Gouncil, whether the suit is brought against him In hia sovereign capacity or in his private capacity auch as a trustee of a temple in British India, The Maharaja of Jaipur v. Lalji Sahai (1907) I.L.R,, 29.All,, 379, Mighell V. Sultan of Johore (1894) 1 Q.H,, I4s9, Statham v. Statham and the QaeJcwar of Baroda (1912) L.R. Pc,, 92 and Chandulal v. Atvad hin Umar Sultan (1896) I.L.R.., 21 Bom., 351, referred to. JDuke of Brmmuick v, Tits King of Hanover (.1848) 2 H.L.6., 1, explained. N'araya'fian MoothacL v. The Cochin Sircar... (1915) I.L.R., 3$ Mad., 6.^5 s s. 92 ANjj 93, SUIT UNDER AUsneB from trustee, declaration, against Appeal hy alienee Death of tvubtee pending appeal -Abat&ment Bight to me, meaning o f Alienee for aonaideration but not in good faith or without notice Limitation Act (IZ of 1908), see. 10, effect o/,] Where in a suit brought by the Collector of a district under section 92 of the Code against the trustee and the alienee from him, a declaration was granted to the eft'ect that the alienation, ia fa^'our of the latter was not binding: on the trust, and the alienee appealed, matinu: ^he Collector and the trasfcee parties to the appeal, but pending appeal^ the trustee died and his legal representative was not bi'ought on the record, Held, tha,t the ap peil did not abate as the trustee was not a necessary pai:t.y to it. also, that the caase of aotiion agaicist the ulienge (who was an alienee fos? consideration) arose on the date o f the alienafciqa and, as the suit was brought more than six years after that date, it wafl barred by limitation under article 20 of the Lioiitation Act. Time will ran in favour of an alienee fop consideration iihangh he may not be an alienee in good faith. Trust property in the hands of alienees for oonaideration and in good faith and without notice oannot be followed at all. P&t T y a b ji, J. The phrase "rig h t to sue with reference t appeals meane right to obtain relief. VenTcaiachelln B>eddia,rr. The. GoUeotor of T.'ticUnopoly... (191S) I.L.R.,.98 Mad., 1064, SEC. 109 ; See PBiVY^'OdcSJCiii, ApPEAii to. tsvision, under. See AwaRD.. SEC. 105 t See' PBtvY OotiNciLi_ :Aff';ba.t.'' to', sisq., tieceaaary for

28 I x x i i GIONEEAL INDJflX PAQffi, HEO. 115 Gimt liulea of Practice, r. 277 Grimin%l Proceinrs Oode {Aot F of.1898), sec. 14,iy PlM.der engagod iv. Froceedings tmdsr Whether discjuaujled to act for the other side m mhtieqiumt civil salt..] A plcfider who had appeared for a purf.y in proociodii-.oh urnlor section 145 of the Cade of Criminal Prooodm-u, luusb, bcfon', app(variny_ Por the opposite parby in a sabsequeufc civil suit ilowing' out of much ]>rooi>«diit}fm satisfy the Court that in acting in those pi'ooeftdiiigs I10 did not ua a fact obtaittfrom his then client any kaawledge whidv would li«of uko JiO hit! present olieats, or fciiat if he did obbain any snoh knowlod}];*), tiion, B'Uih knowledge is uo^v so to speak, public propoi by avaiilublc to any ploadov who can obtain inspection of the d of the profteediug's it) the.mafifltratti K OoTirfc. If he fails to do so, h 0 bnuf*-s himsolf within riilo 277 of tho RnieH of Practice framed by the Elgh Oourfc and it cannot bo naid thub th«oonrc haw wrongly esoercised its discretion in refiisiiijj him andionc. TAttls v. Kingsioood Gollieries Go'itipaviy (1882) 20 Ch.])., 7iiJ:{, referred to. is'j B'ftWiists Rao V. PicJi^ai Pillai {^191'j) I.Ij.B'., SS Masl., 65 - fssi'ic.lls Eevmion Fedtion to High G o w t u n d er: See O iv itj P eociijd I'H e C o d e (A d V ok 1908), O. X X I, li. 8!> SBC , O. I I, K. 3 K x E c t r r x o N. i 9 J SIDC. 16;i See DE(.!ItKK-Horil)ER. CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE, r See (I\Iadeas) Ksi'ATks Land Act (I OP 1908), ijgc B. 277 See Civil PaoowDuuK Oodk (Aot V oif 1908), SKO CLAIM /or assignment of damages for neglige^ice 0/ agent i -See TRANSFKa os Pko)' 33RTY Act (IV 01 18S2), sjsc. 6 (e) founded on tort, assignment of, validity of : See TftANBKKB oif Puol'E&TS A c t(i Y OB' 1882), SRC, 6 (e), CLAIMANT, suit l>y,tothe dem against the decres'holdet (IX hr? 1^08), sch, II, ABi s, a n d 120. COMMISSION, Administrator-Qemfa.1' a sale of land fort See HindTI Ii.\vv. CONSTRUCTION OF, authority to adopt : 8ee HixDti Law. COMMON CARRIERS BY SEA, governed by Mnglish Law and not- by Indian Con-^ tract Act [IX of 1872) ; See Bilt. ob lading. COMPENSATION :--Sse Oivii- PRcoEntrits: Code (A ct V oj? 1008), 0. X X III, e. 3«amount of, method of jtmng! See MAriAiUB O o m i ENhation jb'or T e n a n t s I m p e o v k m e n t s A ct ( M a d r a s A.ct 1 os' ). COMPANY Directors Appointment of a director an officer mider ihe company--^ Penanal i'lderast of a, director clashi'ng with his duty to sliareholdt^m Meotimif of directors Jso right for such director to vote on hift appointment-^invahdify of appointment if no quorum of directors without counting hint..d%tiss of an Bditof of a newa:pape'j Incapacity to perform Propriety of dimmhsal for incapacity.'^ The directors of a company aie agents of tho (sompany»nd truateeb for^tho Rliareholders of the imwera cotninittod to them,- A direotoi' who has an interest in the snbject of diecassion of a taeetmg- of the directors in wmoh his interescs conflict with his duty 10 t,h Bharoholdors is inoonipo* teut to vote. Hence even when the articles of association of a company may permit a direcnor to hold any other office nnder tho company in conjn.ii'otioni with hia dixecf-orship and on such remonoration as tho directors n«iy fixj yoi the appointment; of a director to any oth.gr office at a meeting of the directors at which the quorum waa mads up only by counting him also aa one present is not a valid appointment aa the company did not have the unbiased and independent advice of at least such a number of the directors as wonld without him have mad a quorum. A person appointed as co-ditor o l ft newspaper should put forth or publish the paper and exeroisa a general supervision over the m&tter which is writtea for the paper or extrnoted a9 news.^ Por this, certain literary and business qualifications a,re neoebbary*. If he IS absolutely incapable of performing tliese duties which the co»ipa,n ; A.G'f

29 GBNERAL INDEX I x x i i i has a right to expect of hinij his dismissal on that aocoiint from c,5-editor8hip ia right. Ram,aswami Iyer v. The Madras Timet< Printing and Publishing Co., Ltd, ^ (1915) l.l.r, 38 Mad., S91 COMPENSATION, order./or Order'without notice io the accused, imfroper, hut not illegal; See Cbsminal phocisnuiik Code (A-CT V o f 189HV bs."250 akd , rate of, for tenants' im^proveo^ients See Ma-labxr Com pensatio n ]?oe T e n a n t s Im prov k m knts a c t (M a d r a s A.ct I of 1900). C O M P L A IM T S, fal$e as 'ivell as frivolous or vexatious CouE (A ct V o f 1898), sh. 250 and 423 S^e C e im in a l P e o c e e u k e COMPROMISE : See CiYtr, Pkocedoreo Code (^ g t V o f 1908), O X X III, r g ^lawful-. (See C i v il P ro ce d u re Oobb (A ct V o ], O. X X III, A. 3. ^ C d M P U T A T W N of thirty days after pasaing of decree under Begintratfoyi Act {XVI of 1908), «ec. 77 : - Sea Limitatio;^\ CONFESSION of co-accused, adm issiile under (Indian) Evidence Act ( I o/1872), sec. 80 ; See Criminal Procjkduke Cobe (a o t V o f 18R8), ss. 255 ano H42. N S B N T, effect of, to treat, evidence taken hy a Gourt 'without jurihdiciio?i ai' evidence, if relevant See E v id e n c e, e t c. CONSIDERATION : See Fko.missory N ote. CONSOLIDATING STATUTE, construction o f: See E xecu tion ; , See Execution. CONSTRUCTION -. See L i m i t a t i o n : OF grant of house ; See Easement, ENGAGEMENTS : See (Madkas) I k b ig a t io n Oesb A ct (V II OF 1865), SEC, 1., rule of, residuary clause in a will made in the touvn of Madras '.--See W ill :! , w ill. gee W ill. G rant, ln.im, grant of land "besides poramhojce ; See power of aitorney : See Attok3SEY CONTEACT, incu'pacity to mahin See Hiniiti ilaw , breach o f Damages, ascertainmeni of Ea^'nest'money, deposit of,, fo'rfeitiire of Credit for forfeited awoupni.j Where a person depositsa certain aiuouut aa earnest-money fo r the due performance by him o f his part of the contract tinder which he agrees to pay the other party a certain.sttua but breaks the conti aot the)?eafter, the otlier party tvho becumes entitled to retain the deposit as forfeited under the termfa of the coritraot iauet, in a- suit by him for damag es for the breauh of coutract, g^ive credit for the amoiiut retained as forfeited and can only recover the difference between the actual loi3a sustained and the amrjnnt of the f rfeited deposit. OcHcenden V. Benly (1858) 1 E.B. & E., 4i85 s s.c., 27 L.J., Q.B., 361, followed. The President, Vellore Tal'uk Board v. (3915) I.L R. c;8 Mad., 801 Stranger to the contract No right ofsuitf an the contract, generally.'] ji moi'tgaged.3 1_ his _ lands 1 J3 ' to J. _ JS/part T>. 1. of the ^ ^ consideration.iix. 4->! +T»w ttei?efor, ATV\f1* boixig BV. i> promise to dieeharge a debt of.4 to G, Jfeld, that G who was SbatrtiiiigBi'to the ooutriaot oanuot bu.o foj: the paynient of his debt ^vithoat juiiung ji as a party. Per Owriam,~The foilowihg are soraa of the fiiyatiiaifltascoa under widob. a stranger to a opntracti oan. sue.proroisor j (a) the creation o f a trust in favour of ^h<i plaiutift ia respect o f the aiaoant Bued f o i '; (but a dirsctiou to p4j> ais in the pi*ee^nt does not of itbelf flrettte an express oi :obnstraotiy to iih,e absence o f the elements

30 } AQ«neoeasary to coustiiiaixj a hi'usfc) ; (h) tjie oraatiof) of n, ohai'g'o o1i iiumovr'awo property by tlio pvomiror or allocation b j M10 promiror of fclm sticcific' money in suit in favour of tvie plaintiff ; (c) tlio cri.mtioii ot a Hottloinent, on marriagp, in -which th«plaintih; may be btnujmoially ontii.lnd, as provifhfd by section 33 of the Specific Relief A c t : and (d) estoppel a«ai^ aiiifil; promisoi, owing to traiisa.ctiona between tlio plaintilt and ihn pruiuiaor. Khwaj'i Muhammad Khan v. Biisaini Begam (1910) l.l.r., AU., 410 (P.O.) and Dehnctrain V. Rama^^adhan (1913) 17 C.W.N",, 114S ; fi.d. 16 I.L,.)., (Ulli, distinguished. lav'aram Tillai v. Sonnivavorir Tarugan (1915) l.l.lfi,, SS Mad,, 75« Stranger's right 0/ m it on Family sbbihmeni TruM Prni;iiuim Jnr nuptials of plaintiff, a daughter of the fdwaly Her right of thatkjh n<>t a- party to the contract A person tliough not a party to a coutnu^i, rati sno to enforce the terms thereof if it he a family aoitili niont by vvhicli some provision. ia made for him or lier as fi membcir of the fsxinily (n.g,) foi' tuuintcmance or marriage, thoug h the aanie is not ma,de a cliar^'o up(i«i lih(^ r»mily pi'opevties. Iswaram Fillai Taregaii (1915) 2li im.l.-l., 127, dihtinf^uihhod. If the contract consfcitutes by its termsi a trust in favonr of f,ho plaititil'f, a atranger to the contract, a suit to enforce,snoh trust ia beyond tb( coytiiaancg of a Oourt Of Small Causes. Sundararaja Aiyangar v. LaJinh}niam.vnol......(1915) (INBIAN) CDNTIACT ACT (IX o f 1 8?2 ), ss. 39, 55, 64, 05,73,74 7r,~Fe»uW and Purchaser Right to ncover deposit, forfnite^ Ly term!-'af a. conhaet to selli A entered into a contract on 24th Febrnarj 190B "witli B tor Mu; purchase of lands belonging to the latter for Ra. 41,Q<H), Of thifl aniount Ea. 4,000 was paid in advance, Rs. 20,000 was agreed to l)c paid by nn^anh uf ffl mortgage and the balance before tjio i24th May 1903, when the conveyance was to be executed. The contract jarovided that the Kh. -I',000 was to be forfeited if there, was any delay on the part of rjie ptochai^er. Ki was also stipulated that the TCndor was to oxoente tbo conveyance either iit favour of the purchaser or thoao nominated by him. In part iierfortuanctt of thi» cotitract a sale of a portion op the lands was ciffected in favour of Af on the 28th. March Just before the day for payment, B H'a.vo notioa io A that if the sale was not cotnpleted on or before the ajjreod date, the contract would bo avoided, JL failed to the o(n>tract before that date. Subsequently S sold the lands to third parties and rfsaliaod Bh, 1,30X) in excess of the price stipulated by ^l. A bronglit a. suit for the spocslic performance of the contract, or, in the alternative to recover the, Ra, 1',000 paid by him. The Subordinate Judge disallowed the claim for specific porfnrm - anoe but decreed the return of the deposit of Hb. 'ijooo t.o A, B appealed. Held, by the Oourt (SAn.-veiv.v A Vvae,.T., diasantingi that 4, tlu* plaintiff, was not entitled to a return of the deposit, Neither section 64 noi- Hoction 74 of the Indian Ooutract Act (IX of 1873) is applicable to Huch a deporit, and a stipulatiuu for its forfeiture in ease of breach ia not one by \vn,y of jjenalty. The law of India on this subject does not differ fropi tho.english law. A stipulation to forcfeifc 10 per cant of the eonsideration in case of breach is neither uufeasonable nor estraordinat:y. A vendor cm be given relief by way of rescission of contract and at the same time, in tho absence of expreob stipulatioii to the contrary, may bo allowed to rotuin the deposit. Mowe t. ^miih (1884) L,R., 27 Ga, D., 89 applied. Per Wh.itr, O.J. (I) The last luxle would apply a fortiori, when, aw in this case, there is an. expresi? agreement to forfeit the deposit. ( 2) Since the Jadioattire Acta, the question whether time is of the e.^nence of the contract, must be governed by rules of equity, and the purchaser is eutitled in such oases, as here, to fulfil his oontriicfi within a reabonable tima, after the agreed date. Fer M ilm b, J. ( 1) Time was o f the ossonce of the cdntraot in this case. (2) The agreement to forfeit i& not wanting ia consideration as the depo.sit is not made as part-payment but aa security for the purpose of binding the bargain. PerSADASiVA. Ay tab. J..4 was entitled to recover the deposit under the Indian Contract Act* which in eshiuxbtiv asregards the law o f vender and purchaser and the KnyHsh law is n o t applicable. A stipulation to forfeit a deposit ia a stipulation t.o pay a penalty. Time was of the essence of the contract in this case. Natasa Aiyar y. Appavic JPada,yacht... (1915) I.L.E..,3fe Ma.d., 178

31 GEHEliAt IJJDBX. 1x x EASE ), CI-. 1 (a) AND (b ), CI. - 2 Enhancement or alteration oj rent Leane-clei d provision as to payme7ii of rent on excess of area of la^nds found cn measv-rement N'o enchancement or alteration of rent Previous order of Collector not required Bengal Tenancy Act ( VIII of 1885), 8,s. 52 and The proviso found in clause 3 of section 42 of the Madras Estates Laud Act. (I of 1908) which requires the order of a, Oolleotor before enhancement of rent can be allowed, does not apply to the claim of a landholder who sues to recover arrears of excess tirva, due under a, lease»deed which contained a provision for pa.ymeat of tirva at a specified rate on the excess lauds found on measurement over the areas specified in tho lease-deed. It is only where the landlord wants to enhance the I'ent;, basing his claitu on the right g-ranted and declared by section 42, clanaea I (a) and (&), that he should obtain under clause 2, the~order of the Collector for such alteration of lent before he ooald claim the altered rent. VinMrni Dasi v. L.P.D. Broughton (1896) 3 O.W.N., 225 and Rama. Chunder Chiiakrahuttij v. Girdhw Dntt (I89a) I.L.R., 19 Calc., 775, followed. The M'anagitr it, the lessee.'^ of the Sitjaqanqa Zamindaryv. 0?iidambaram Ghetti '... (1915) T.L.E., 38 Mad., 026 sec. 53 (2) Distraint for a. higher "rent than legally dne, good for the amoitnt legally dtte.] Feotion 58 (2) of the (Madras) Estates Land Act (I.of 1908) enables a Oolleotor, in a anif, to set aside a distraint to uphold the distraint to the extent of the ainonufc legally due to the landlord by the tenant imder the patta tendered by the landlord. The application ot the clause is not confined to the enforcibility of the proper amount o f rent, in suits for rent, only. Baghwnatha Raw Sahih v. Vellamnonji Qoimdan... (1915) I.L.E,., 38 Mad., 1140 Rs. 54 AND 78, CL. (S) Tender of patta hy a, landlord to his tenant at his house Temmt, refusal ly Suhsequent affixinre of ^afta to the tmani'.^ house, not to his land- Tender, validity of Methods of tender under the A ct-d elivery of patta, meaning of Essentials of a valid tender under the Act. ] Where a patta was offered by a landlord to his tenant at his house but the tenant refused to receive it, and thereupon the patta was affixed to the tenant s house but not to the land in his holding ; Held, that tliere was no valid tender of patta to the tenant as required by sections 54- and,78, clause 2 of the Madras Estates Laud Act (I of 1908). au offer of a patta to the ryot is not delivery to him. VThefl once an offer of patta is made and refuaed., tho tender by deliverf cannot be effiected, and. it then becoinea necessary to aiiix the patta to the land in tho rvot ^s holding. If this is not done, there is no valid tender ot'patba. Meaning of 'tender and deliver, considered. (Jhinnathambiar v. Michael (1915) I.L.B., ^8 Had., 6^ BEO. 70, ajfplicability c>f regardle^.? of English, decisions. Plaintiff s fathei made a gift of a villag'e to the defendant. the condition being, we (the plaintiff s father) should gefc the village stib-divided in your (doneft s) came ; you should pay to the Gfovernment the peahkash fixed thereai^on accordibg to the said sub-division ; Held, that the defendant W'lS boun Jto pay his portion of the peshkash only from the time of the anb-division when alone the exact amout due by defendant was ascertained ; and tbat plaintiff who had paid the whole, peshkaab was entitled to recover from the defendant under aection. 70 of the Indian. Ooptraot Act whatever the defendant was liable to pay after the sub-division. Section 70 of the Indian Contract A ct should be applied in all cases where the requirementia of the section are fulfilled, whether might be the English law on the subject. A person must be said to have enjoyed the benefit o f an act within the meaning of section 70 o f thelndian Oontrsct Act, when he in fact enjoyed the benefit by accepting or adopting itj mthoufc objecting to', it. Section 70 does not require that the defendant muab have an option of declining the benefit if that meauf? that before the bpnest is conferred h nfiuat be given the choice of accepting or declining it. Per Mtr»LEB, J, 'Che: fact that plaintiff s intereist also might have suffered if the a<3t was aofc don will not make the act any the less one done for the defendant, swami Naidu v* SriSaja VeUanki 0re4niva8a Jagart/natha; R<^.(jL$ioy-^%^^

32 ix K vi GENERAL INDEX PA«W iis Mad.j 189 and Yogamhal Boyee Ammani Animal. Nainisi Pillai Markayar (1910) I.L.H,, 33 Mad., 16, rei eitgd to. Per Sao.asiva Ayyar, J. Obiter. I f the benefit conferred is irisopa.rably acoom panied by oncirotis oblif^-ationa that a I easoaable m an woulcl vofuse, to accept it, seotion 70 will not a p p ly. Damodara Mudal^yar v. Secretary of State for India (18P5) I.L.R., 18 Mad,, 8S and Jogwmrraiw V. Badri Das (1912) 1(5 0 L.J., 156, follovvod.' Yoyaiulial Boyse Ammani Amma.1 v- Na,xn<i Fillai Murkaijar (1910; l.l.h,., Mad., IT), (lissent-.pia from. Abiiul Wahid Khan v, Shahika Bihi (1874) I.L.E., 27 Cain. 49f) (P.O.) anil Ram T'it,hid Singh v. Bisesimr Lalt So.lioo (187i> 2 I.A. ]Si, distinguished, Baja of Vizia-yiaijrani v. Raja SeSiucherlaraz Soniasahha.ra (1903) I L.Ti., 'so Mad., 586, referred to. Sri Sri Sri Ghandarci Deo v. Srinivasa Gharlu... (19,15) l.l.r. Mad,, Ka. 19B TO 200 a n ii 3 to 6 : See (MaDE.\s) irrltlatlon GlOSffJ AuT (VII OF 1865), BEG. 1. CONTRACT BY FATHER, to sell family land.<, lot liimling on^son', Sti«Hindu L a w, CONTRACT of pre-emption. See P re-em p tio n. CONTKACT OF SALE, essential term of-, recita.l as to amount of in-ice Indian Evidence. \c;t (I of 1872), sue;. 92. CONTRACT TO PAY PLAINTIFF, breach of Attachment of plainviff's propurtij in conseqxience Niyht of suit withoilt actual dama.ge.'j Tho defendant having agreed wihh Use plaintiff as one of the terms of a ooinpromise op a. suit in forma pa-u'peris to pay part of the Oovirt fee, if Bwbsoqxiently levied, and having failed to do bo in conseqoenco of which the pluintitf s properties were attached ; Meld, that on the defvjndant Bfailure to pay the plainl itt according to his contract, the piaimiffi was? enfitl(.*d to sue at once and to reeoyer subfitaiitial dauiay'cs. Uamalingathudayar v. UnnamaLai Achi... (1915) 8S Mstd., 71H ~See CONTRACT TO SELL, r ight of party to recover deposit forfeit by terms of:~~-see I n d ia n Ocintkact A ct ( I X of 1872), ss. 39, 55, 64, 6S, 73, 74 Awn 7;!. CO-PARCENER, a, purchase from - Its effect on joint family co-parcsnary : See H in d o L a w , Contract by, to sell his share in family property anh contract to sell specific family property, diatinction letween See Hindu Law. S V Civir. Pro- sa. 3K AND 54 cedtibe OoiiK (Act V oi 1908), O. XXIII, k, 3. CONVERSION OUTSIDE BRITISH INDIA :-S e e Criminjit. Pkockudbe Code, (A ci V OF 1898), ss. 179 to 188. CONVEYANCE, deed of, obtained in execution Subsequent aiiii for recovery of podsessioit, against the vendors not barred j is'ee C iv il P uocr» uuii; C ode (ao t V Of 1908), 0. II, R , oj fam ily lands, plaintiff's right to, from father only: Se& HiNDtr L a w ^iqff, a, Vesting of property i See H indtj Law. CORPORATION-SOLE, under the English law, analoc/y o f: See Mutt read of. COURT AUCTION, sale of immoveable property. See O ivii Proc'EBokr Oodk (A ct V OF 1908), O. X XT, B. 89, COURTS, CI IL OR REVENUE, Act (I OF1908), s'k«. 8, EXOBP. COURT FEE, payable whether ad valorem -. See Deci4BAT?on. rt/: See (M aduab) Estatics L and , non-payment of, non-issue of probate, otoing to. See (innxan) Succession A ct (X OF 1865), SEC ', COURT FEES ACT ( 11 o f 1 8? 0 ), sec. 7, cm. (iv) (c) a k» i,r)-~suit for deelaration of the invalidity oj a decree as against, the plaintiff or his properties and for possession of some of those properties sold under the decree Belief for possbssiori. only conseqibential on grant of. declaration No liability to value the declaration as oti the amount of the decree Plantiffs right to givfn a combined,

33 GENERAL INI'KX Is'XvH valuation for both r%uefn.'] In. a saif. for (1) a deolaration that a certain decree was of no legal effect against the plaintiffs or the properties in tlieir haads and ( 2) pofisession of part of those properties, which had been sold in execution of the decree : Held (1) thnt the two reliefs were connected and were to be taken tog ther, the relief for posaosbitjn being' conseqiiential on the grant of lieglaration, (2) that the plantiis was entitled to put in respect of both the roliefs a combined valuati^in for t.he purpose of court fees (3) that the whole suit was not, governed by section 7, clause 4i (c) of the Court Fees Act (V II of 187'^), as there was a prayer for possession also which Tvas to be valued as per aoetion 7, olause 5, notwifcljsitanding that tlte declaration was ashed for, and (4) that the prayer for declaration was not liable to be Trained for purposes of court-fees as upon the amontit of the decree sought to be set aside as im?a,lid. EajagopalaY. Vijayaragliavalu (1915) 38 MaO., ,.SEC. 7. CL. (iv ) (c) See D e c la r a tio n, Ktc , skc. 7, gij, (x i)'(c c ) : See JuEi-snicTioN, COURTS IN INDIA, duty of condh-ctioig sales in execution: See Oivit Peo- CEDD-RE OODB (.ACT V OP 1908), O. XXI, E COU&T NOT CLOSED, if the officer is on im r only hut not on leave; Sec (M a d r a s) E s t a t e s L a n d A ct (I of 1908), sec, 192. COVENANT FOR TITLE, breach o f: See SaTjE VKED. CREDIT for forfeited amount of deposit of arnest~money :~ S ee Contaeot, BERCAH Off. CREDITORS, accejpiance by, refusal nf no default: See Limitatjok, , fraud o f : See M o rtg a & e bv -minoii , -priority oft See A.djiinibtratou-G-enkeal s A c t (II o f 1874) BS 28, 34 AKD 35. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (ACT V OF 1898), sec. is Bericli of Magistrates Judgment and conviction by only some, legalitij of.] The hearing of a case of aasaxilt was coinmented by six niemhers of a Bench of Magistrates whose lojial quorum was only two. On acljourned hearings of the case, sometimes four and sometimes only two took part. These two who took part in the proceechngs of the case thionghont, couclndod the tria.1 and delivered jndgmeht convicting the accused; Held, that the conviction was legal. Kuruppana Nadan y. Chairrnan, Madura Municipality (189S) 3.L.R., 21 Mad., 246, followed. There is no analogy between trial by a Bench of Magistrates and trials by a.rbitrafcors or jurors. Ycnkatarama Y. Saminatlia (191S) I.L.E-, 38 Mad., ^, seg. -io :~-8ee Oiyir^ PbooentTRE C o d e (A ct V o f 1908), s e c. 115, es, 90, 501 AND 537 -Arrsai under suction 90~-Bond fo r aj>peara,'nce Section i^ol, applicahility o/,] A warrant purporting to be issned uiider section 90 o f the Oriniinal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) for' the arrest of an aocn'ted person who has been let out on his own bond is illegal unless the Court records its reasons as required by the section. Thi-i omission to do so is an irregularity not cured by section 587 of tie Code. Section 501 of the Code applies only to cases where there are sureties and where tbrpngh. irdstake, fraud or otherwise ineufibcient sureties have been accepted ; it does not apply to a case where. there are no snoh grounds. Ke Karvihan Ambalam (1915) I.L.H., 88 Mad,, 108fi SB. 109 AND IIQ --'B in d in g over under both sections iuegftl.'] A pereon cannot he bound, ovee under both the seations 109 and 1X0> Criminal Procedure Code (Apt V of.1898), Ee Rangcksawi Piilai (1915) I.L.E.5 38 Mad., 555 m der, Jurisdiction of Magistmte-~Eigh Covrfs power of intsrfrtence tmder

34 Ix x v iii «3BNEBAL INUKX Charter Act, 24s and 25 VicL, c. 104., art. 15.] Where d renewed order passed under section 144, Ci iminal Procedure) Oode, did not wtato that there was again a terriporary emergency and aoontinmng or exi.sting- instrflicieiicy ot the Police Force to protecfc the petitioners in tlieir righiis. Held, that the Magistrate gave himself a more extended jurisdiction than is covered by section 144 and the order was levisable hy the High Oonrt uiider artich 15, Charter Act, 24. and 25 Viet., c Their Lordships deciiued to seli a s id e the order as the two motitha during-which the order would remain in force -was ahuoet expiring on the date of hearing'. Qovi/iida V. Psfuwal (1Q\6) I.L.R., 158 Mad., ^ , SKO. 145, Magistrate, oi'de.r i,'/, v.ndler :~ See: LiMlTA'i VON A.CT (IX 01' 190S), BEC. 28, ART SB. 179 ANH 1S2 : See Inmian Pkn.vi, Coi>ic (Act XLV of I860), skc SH. TO l88-~-enir"/auherit'to't>auve India?i subject in India. Gonversion outnide BritisJi India Lost', in India- Juria<iiction of Indian Courts to charge find try without rertificaia midp.r SBi'tion 188.] A entrnsted three jewi.'ls ai; Yolhire, to the acotisiis'd, a nativi; Indian suhject, for sale, Tlie accused pledged tw o o f thorn in Bangalore ' and misappropriiitpd the third at Mfidras contrary to tho urrangeinoivfc tirat he should return the jewels oj' their price to A at Vellore ; HeifZ, that the British Court at Vellore had jurisdictioti to try the ax;cuke(1 for breach of trust or dishoneet mifa,ppropriation witliout a certificato nndor section 188. Criuxina] Prooedo»e Code. Sessions Juigs, Tanjora v. Swndara &mgh, (19 i0 ) M M.'N.,.143 and Imperator v. Trihhvn (1912) i:^ Ci*. L.J., 530, dissented from. The Assistant Sessio'ns Judge, N'orth Aicot v. B.amd&wam.i Asv.ri... (1915) I.Tj.E., 8S Mad., 7^9 SEC. IDS Saiiciion for false complaimt, appeal againa-^ Foline report baaed on a judgment cf Court, $iif/ic{eni legal basis for grant of sanction."i Though a fionri; should not aooord a, sanction to prosecute under section 105, Criminal Pi-ooedui e Ood(3 (Act V of 1S98), for bringing a false complaint, merely on tho stronj^'th of si, polieo report, yet if the report is based upon a judgment of the Honrtin a coiintereasq brought against the oomplainanfc, in oonnection with the ftarae niatter wherein his defence which was exactly the same as hi.?i complaint wasfociud to be false, such repoi-t is sufficjdnt logal jnaterial for tho Court to accord its sanctiob for falsei complaint, Queen-Iimferor t. Sheih Beari (1887) l.l.e.., 10 Mad., 2H2 (F.B.), referred to. Section lli5, Crianinal Procedure Code, does not prescribe any rule ais to upon -cvhat materiala a Court should accord its sanction no*' does it say that a fresh or prokminai'y enquiry should he held before granting sanction. Per Sadasiva Ayv7,k,.1' Tho complainant s sworn statement, -w'hich was disbelieved by tlie Magisti atc, was another legal material to form tho basib for the grauf; of aaiqoti{'n against him. A sanction given by the lower Court ought noli to be lightly revoked by a Court of Appeal. A third appeal to the High Court to revoke a sanction, though legally -made in the form of a peti'fcion under section 195, (humiaal Procedure Code, ouglitnotto be encouraged in practice. PAGK Narayana Nadan... (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad.»1044, sbt:, awtj What u»7tj are no sufjicieni <S'UiJJlC%(sn^ groimda Jurisdictions of High Gourt under Charter Act, 2 4 ^ 25 ' Viet., c. 104, art. 15.] Where a Magistrate withoat summoning tho aocueod dismissed a oomplaint iinder section 203, Oriminal Procedure Oode, for the reasons that there was gross delay in filing it and that the ehargf»8 seemed to be made for ulterior and improper motives, Held, that such considerfttious were not relevent to the decision of tie question as to whefcher thero wero no sufficient grounds for proceeding. In the absence of a fiiading that the complaiat was false or unsustainable on the evidence likely to be available, the order of disniiasal is irregular and liable to be set aside by the High Court under article 15 of the Charter Act, 2 i & 25 Viet., c Ganga Beddy V. Samaf-apaUy Mudaly... (1915) IX.E i., 38 S12

35 GENK-RAr, indkx 1-x x is, SB, 230, 4 23 Cmnpansation, order for Appeal L^oUce to the. accused, order loithout, improper hu.t not Illegal Complaints, false as ri'ell frivolous or vcscatioua.] In appeals under seocion 250 of tlie Code of Criminal Pi'oceduve, notice should ordinarily bo given to the accused 'ven tliengh iailure to give notice may not I'ender the pi-oceediug's of the Court illegal Emperor v. Palnnia^ppavelan (I!.)OG) I, L.ll., 29 Mad., 187, approved. A mlahhagari Nagi Recldi v. Baaappa of Medimahdapalli (1910) I.L.E., S8 Mad., S9, followed. Guru^tnuini Naiclien v. Tirumurthi Ohetty (1915) 27 G29, explained. Alagirifituni Naid'u, V. Balakrislinasami Mudaliar (1903) I.L R., 36 Mad., 41, Imperatrix v. SadasJdv (189S) I.L.R., 22 Bom., 5-19, In the matter of the petition of Umrao Rinijh V. Fakir Chand{lBSl) l.h.'r., B AIL, 7-IQ and In the mutter <>f Teacotta Shekdar (18S2) 1.L B,., S Calc., SyS, referred to. Section 250 not only refers t.o false coinplaintb but to frivuloiia and T/exatious complaints as well. Emperor V. Bindesri Prasad (1904) I.L.It., 26 All., 512 smd Boni Madhuh Kdvim t.«kum'iid K%Lmar Bisvas (19u3) I.L.E., 30 Calc., 123, referred to. Ram Sl'rujh ir. Mathura (1912) I L.B,., 34 All., ;i54j doulitthi. Per SpENCKE,,.1. Section 250 does not declare what the powers o[ an Appellate (Donrt are in dimposing of appeals under clause (3) of the section, jrt is therefore nc^cesriary to invoke t.he aid of suction 423 for the purpose. Per kseshagiki Atvak, J. Tho powers of the Appellnta < ourt to grant I'edress have to be gaiheied from s^iction 42S. Seetioii 250 is uot selfcoutaiiujd as are Bections relating to grant of sangtion end to convictions for contempt (sections 195 and 486). Chapter X X X I of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to appesils ayainst orders under aeetion 250 of the Code. VenTiatramcL V. Krishna (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad,, _ ss. 253 (2), S50 a n d 4iS7. See A u t r e f o is AcciuiT. -fss. 25n AND 342 Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), sec. 30 Oonfession of co-accuffed. admissible wnder Separate trials 'not necensary where confession niods during trial.] When before a magistiate in a statement nnder section 347, Criminal Procedure Code, certain accused confessed the crime and implicated their eo-acensed and further iind.er section 255 (1), ple'ided guilty to the charges : Eeld, that it was not neoes.sary to try the co-accused separatiely to enable the confessions to ba used against them under section 30, Indian Evidence Act. Queen- -hltnpress Y. Lah^hmayya Fandaram (1899) I.L.R., 22 Mad.- 491, dissented from. Queen-Kmpre.is v. Pirhhtt (1895) LL.U., 17 AIL, 524 and Qmen~ Emp7-e.HS V. Pahu^i (1895) I.L.R., 19 Born., 195, distiugnished. R e B a tir e d d i (1915) I.L.ll.,38 Mad., S02 skc. 3 is Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of I 860), chaps. XII and XVII Froccdure of Magistrate who cannot adequatelir pun.iah,] In this case the accused who had hgen previously oon- picted of an offience under section 3i-)4, Indian Penal Code, -^'as charged before a Snb-Mag'istrate with an offence under isection 411, Indian Penal Code. The Sn'b-Magistrate tried and convicted him of the olfence and oi dered his commitnaenti to the Conrtof Sessions for the purpose of awarding him enliaoced punishment. Held, that the conviction and. commitccent weve illegal. The correct procedure to be followed in anch a case Is for the Magistrate either as a preliminary matter or before framing charge to determine whether he has power to pass a sufhcient sentence. If he thinks he has not sneh. power he should frame a cha.rg and oomrnit the accused. 'B.BSellandi (1915)1,L.K., 38 Mad., , sko. 438 Fig/i- Oowrt ndll m t ititsrfere with an acq'wiital in revision laherb an appeal might havn been preferred hy Government.] In a case in which the ootnplaiiiant feeinj? a,hbent, the Magistrate acquitted the accused tinder ee<?tion 247, Oriminal Probedure Code, it subsequently transpired that the absence of the coraplainaat haci bebn prootifed by the fraud uf the accused who had haid kito avres'ed ar d fcfefit ' in custody on a false ohai'ge. appeal against the acqnififce M as pi ofei ad by Goreriunent hut the DistrJot Magistrate re-ferred, the loaae to ibe H 'h

36 Is XX GENERAL INPKX Coiii't itacier section 438, Critninal Pi'ocediir Code, Held-, thjifc tihe Higli Gourfc as a Court of BieviHion wonld not, «n the Dis<;i ict MfigiRtrate s report, set HBide an order of acqiiir-tal whei'e an a,p]ieal lay by Govenimonb against siarii jin order. 1 AGF. Eb Sinnu Go'itnd<i}>... (1915) 3S Mnfl., I02H , skc. 530:~~S'ee Magihteatks, BmKuii oir. CROSS OBJECTIffiNS, momofandum of, hy one respondent against another- Main~ taivdlility of :-~See Civit. Prol'iodure Godk (Act V ojr loofi), O..s'm, u. 22. CUSTODY AND EBUCATION, m England for Hindu tathcr eutrvsung fiona to another ^srsox who dejtclijs expense oj thaiv mainte'nanco and sdncoition : Si'u: Guardian. CUSTOM, a,valid,re(iuit^itl>sof: See MAPPir.i.Aa o f Nouth M ai,abar j derogating from Mtih'' mviadanlatij: See M atijii-i>a>s nf'.nukth M a h a h a r. validity o f : See OiYil. Prochhuue Cook (A ct V ok 1908), 0. X X I H, R. 3. A DAMAGES, ascertaiiiment of ; See Contract, biieauu ov j internsi on :~ S e e TRtreTRio. ^ ^ inability in : See Tbdstkt? for negligence of agent: See T e a n ste k of Puoi-wkty Aor (IV of 1883), SKC. 6 (s). DAIM5HTEBS, meaning legitimate daughters : S<^n Hindu,IjAW DEATH OF T IE SON, hefor& the testator :-~Sce HiNi'itr Law. DEBT, attachment ofi Ses Limitation a ct (IX ok 1908), ecu. i i, artb, 29,(12 an d lao , <payalle in k in d : See IxTTiitKST A c t (X XK II oif 1839). DEBTS, Ualilitii of sons to pay their fathers, no : See MAr.AHAK, Law. DEBTOR, LITERATE, part payment of principal, dg-npd but not v}rlit&n : PfiRHiriKNGY Smal/j Oaupe Coukts Act (X V op 1883), sec. 69, DECLARATION: SstJ Municit'at, OonNcin. ' ^ given to a hanl: p rior to advance of loa'n< hy the harik, m try in the register o f v'hether fitnmp nccessarij for'. SefJ ( I k t j u n ) S tam p A c t ( I I OP 1S99), SEC. 57., premous for, dis)uiss'tl of, for iva-nt of prayer fo r pomission : See CtviL Prooedube Oodk (.Act V of 1008), O.JI,!tn, 1. 2 and 3. AND POSSESSION, later suit for niai%laihnhiuty of: See C ivil Procedtjri! Cook ( A ct V of IS^OS), 0. II, rb. 1, S and 3. BECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. suit for-~^ Whp.ther a, m it for declamtury doxres unth consaqviential relief Gourt fee pnijahh, 'whether t d valorem Gourt Fees Act (VII of 1870), sea. 7, d. (4V (c>.l A suit for a declaration that a mortgage*deorea is not binding on the plantiff and for an injaafltfcm restrairiiiig the defendant from executing the sattse is a auit- for a declaratory decree, with ( (.mbequential relief witliin tho meiming of seotion 7, ela,u8e (4) (c) of the Oourfc Fees Act and an ad, t)ajore«t fee is payable on tbcs valuatioti fixed in the plaint. Arunachalam Ghetiy r. Rangasctumy Pillai... (1915) l.l.b i., 38 Mad,, 922 DECREE, collusive, and not binding on plaintiffs u:ho were not'pariiea, m ii to declare if maintainaue :- 8e$ Civii. P rooeduek Code (Ac'r V ok 1908). SS. 4 AND ese, parte settimj aside of Defendant dead after decree s See L im it a tio n A ct ( IX OF 1P08), aets, 164 akii 181 op II Sen for joint possession, if, can he gimn See ISlNDV JjA-W. -, invalidity of, ets,, suit for. declaration of \~~See OouET Fkes A,Ct (T I I ' OF 1870), SS. 7, E ic,

37 GENERAL INDEX I x s x i, ohfaining, Imj deuherate porjury lohether liaue to he set aside as fraudulent : See FBAno. 5 ofcnurt, setting aside lease htj, wlieiher necessary : See L i m it a t io n A ct (X\T OF IS?7), art. 91 on appeal by the Suhordinate Court; See C iv ii, Pko ceddee Code (A ct V OP 1908), skc, personal : See D ec k e h - h o l d e e. reversed in appeal: See A ssig n e e of a m o n e t-d e c e e b, etc. :----- j right of one to impeach anothe/s, only in suit hut not in execumon : See E atab le d is t r ib u t io n , sale of properties not mentioned in : See Dscie'ee-holder , so far as it relates to the suit, effect c f : See OiviTi PiiooEnuRE C ode (A ct y OF 1908), O. X X III, K , subsequent 4o death of defendant, validity of legal o-epresentatives not hrought on record : See D e fk n b a n t, d e a th op, the terms of, outside the scope of the suit Deeres not ultra vires : See OlVIL PROCEDtrRE Ooi>E (AcT V OF 1908), O. X X III, R. 3. D^CREE-fiOLDER, against the, smi by claimant to the debt; See Limitation Act (IX Of 1908), sch. II, Akts. 29, 62 anb 120. DECBEE HOLDER AND AUCTION PURCHASER, fraud of: See CiriL Pboce- DUKE OoDE ( A ct V of 1908), ss. 47 a nd , a neoessary party in the proceedings to set aside execution sales: See Limitation A ct,(ix OB' 1908), PEG , transfer off to another Qourt Jurisdictions of such Oourt; See C iv il ProckdxjiU!: Code ( A ct V o f 1908), AND 50, e tc. Petition for esoecution Sale of properties not mentioned in the decree Personal decree Civil Procedu,re Code (A ct V O/190S), O. XXXIV, r. Q AppUaation, if necessary Court s power to amend Code Civil Procedure {Act V of 3908), seo. 153.] A decree-holder cannot ignore the terms of a decree directing him to bring the propd^ties mentioned in it to sale before proceeding againet other properties o the iudgrnent-debtor. Manti Kamoji v. GhodimaUa Ramamurthy (1908) 3 M.L.T., 335 and Varadiah v. Raja Perumal Raja Bahadur, Appeal Against Order No. 257 of 1909, followed. But when the judgment-debtor has no saleable interest in the. properties directed to be sold, the decree-holder need not g:o through tbe farce of piitting them up to sale. A decree directing the defendant to pay a certain Sam, and,in default directing the hypothecated property to be sold is a personal decree. Ra a of Kalahasti V. Varadachariar (1911) , followed. When there is a personal decree, no npplication for another personal decree under Order X XX IV, rule cn,n. be granted. Di^aiandhu v. Mashuda (19l2) 16 O.L.J., 318, referred to. Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), enables the Oourt tinder the above cireumstanoes to order, if necessary, an amenclnieat of the execution-petition. Periyasami Kone v, MutMa Chsttiar (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 67t ECREE-HOLDER., RIVAL Sea aatabt.e D isieibtitloif. DEED Material alieration of 'Destruction of right of suit NegoiiaUe IvtstrUrments Act of 1881), see. 87.] An alteration in a docmneah which, has the effect of enabling the payee to sue on the docuiaeilt in a Oourt where he oonld not have sued on it in its original form is a material altaraiion and as saoh. destroyb the right of action on the dogunaen't. Altering a neffotiable iuatrnment by causing the words or order to disappear and making it non-negotiable is a roatexial alteration, under ordinary Jaw and also under section 87 of the ^Negotiable Instruments Act (X X T I of 1881).' The faots that the payee etentbally filed the suit in another Cbtxrfc different from the one intended at the tima of the alteration and that it was not necessary for him to rely on the altered state of document to enable him to snooeed therein do not make th6 alteratipa aujr lees

38 I s s x i i " a B N E U A l IN D EX PAGS Qaw' Ghand f'o, Das v. Prcisanna Kumar Ghnndra (1900) 33 Calc., 813, followed. Decroix, Verloy Cia. v. Meyet Co. (1890) 25 Q.B.D., 34:-}, disti-nguished. I/aJcshmammal V. Narasimhardghriva Aiyangar... (1915) I.L.E>,j 38 Mad., 746 construction of ' Easemmts, advaniages, appurtenancns, held i^'.nd enjoyed as pari of the house' mean-ing o>/.] Woi dr in ft «;ile-d6i?d (jf ii/ hovise, siich aa tbe following All my right, title and interest, in and to tlie Raid lionao and gromid with all tbe baildinga, fixfures. rift-hta, oasornnn(-s, «dva,nhif?es and appurtenances 'vt'hataoever to tlir said liovif^e and gronnd appm-tiiitrini>' or witli the same held a.nd enjoyed or reputed a«pai t thereof or appurtenant thereto, are wi(le enough to convo y not only,actn!illy existing o.'ihempntr but also (a) a way formerly enjoyed a.f? a,7i erisoiornh, but a.s to which (ho ri»ht had been auspended by nnity of po8sopf!i(ni of the two teneinnnth, nnd (h) a -way, which onrint;' tho -unity of poaao.ssion, had iiover exislod hb an easement Tout was in fact naod for the cotvvenienco of one of tho tenomenla afterwards severed. Chimder Goomar MoolcP-fji v. Koylnsli ChunA^r Sett (1881) I.L.l?.., 7 Oalo., 665, followed, If on a disi)i,fjition of property belonpfingr to the same owner, tgtit>niehtg are Revered and conve^od to diffo?rent prople either BimuhaneouRly or at different times but ab pa,rt of one transaction, quaai-easements^ apparent and continuous and ne<'i!hnary foi' tho, enioyment of the Fjevoral tenements as they were enjoyed a(; tlie time of spvaranoe, will pass to the p;ranteob hereof. In either case the coiivoyano'^'b aro regarded in equity as one transaction, a.nd oaoh gxantee who takes his tenement with the knowledge that the other teikuat'nta are beiri^ conveted at the same time or will be conveyed part of the siimo transaction is deemed, in the ahscnce of express stipulation) to take tho land burdened or benefited, as the case may be, by the qualitic?a which ths previoas owner bad a right to attach 1:0 tho diffcu'enb portions of his property before severance. Venltia'h v. Krishvamoorthy..., (1915) I.L.E., SB Mad., 141 DEFAULT, dismissed, for, effect of t See TEiKSFEE op Puopebty A ct (IV oi!' l!-83). SEO. 10. Ml paymmt of inaialmeni, meanimj oft See L im it a t io n. DEFENDANT, DEATH OF Legal Representative not hrought on record -Decree suhsequent to stich dmih, validity/ of Ohjaction to svbch docrffe in eoiecltuon,'] A decree passed after the death of the defendant and before his legal representative was bron*»-lit on the record is a nullity. Junardhan v. Ramochandra, (1902) I.L.E., 2G Bom., SI7, Eadha Frascbd Singlh v. Lai Sahah Rai (1891) I.L.R., 18 All., 5H and Imdad AU v. Jagan Lai (1895) I.L.R., 17 All., 4'78, followed. Ooda Ooo'pooramier y. Sooiulramriiail (KUO) T.L.R., S3 Mad., 167, disiinguiahed. Objection to that effect can be taken in the execution proceedinga. Suhramarna V. Vaithinatha (1915) I.L, 11., 38 Mad, 682 DEFINITION OF SEAWORTHINESS. See Oo m p a n t. DELIBERATE PEKJ«RY:~S ee FRAun, DEPOSIT OF EARNEST-MONEY,/orfeifure o f : -See Con^'eact, re b ach ov. DEPOSIT, to recover, right of a partu forfeited by iermfi of a ooniract to sell: See Ikman OoNTRiCT A ct (IX ), ss, 39, 5r>, 64, 65, 73, 74 and 75, DIRECTOR, af^ointment of a, as officer under ihe O.mpany InvaUdiit,- of a;ppoint~ ing if no guorum of directors mihout counting time ; See O o m p a n y, ' j interest, iparsonal, of Oy clashing with his duty to shareholders i~ See OnMPAKT, DIRECTORS, o /;- Ss0 BiLf. OF r,a0 rxg.* DISCRETIONARY RELIEF; -See Fa DISMISSAL FOBI DEFAULT, effect of; %e Thansfek oy Pkoi>krty Act ftv (vif lfis2), SRC. 10. * DISMISSAL/or incupacity, of an editor of a newspaper: Se^ Oompanv,

39 GENEEAL IHDBX I x x x i l i m S O E E D IE N C E See I n d ia n P en a x, Cope ( A c t X L V of ISfiO), ss. 168 a n d 2G9. DISPOSSESSION hy 'person entitled to avoid i See L im it a t io n A ct ( I X o f 1908), ARTS. 63 AND 97. cavs0 of action for return of ^pvrchase money, onlij on : See Limi'^ation A ct ( IX op 1908), aets. 62 and 97. DISPOSSESSION OF MOIITGAGEE, hy a stranger, adverse to mortgagor from the time of his Tcnowledge : See UsDE-RtiCTOARY mortgagke. DISTINCTION BETWEEN, CONTRACT <B A CO-PARCENER), fo ^ell Us sha^e itt family property and cordract to sell specific family %iropertij : See H in d u L a w. DISTRAINT CONTINUING WRONG 1908), SEC flea ( M a d ras) E states L a n d A ct (I of DISTRAINT, for a highpr rent than legally due. good for the amount legally due :~ See (M a d r a s) E sta tes L a n d A ct (I oii 1908), seo. 53 (2). DISTRICT JUDGif Court Persona Designata : See R EtiG ious A ct ( X X of 1863), se c. 10. K ndowmewt (MADRAS) DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES ACT (IV OF ): See MtiNici- PAL OoTtJNCIti. PA.QE -, SS. 53 AND 60- Holds office meamng o /.l M a District nnd Sessions Jntlge, whose Tisiial place o f business was within the Municipality of O resided for Hixty days within the MiiTiicipali^y of K, dnring the annual recess and rjuiing that period did some administrative but no judicial work. Seld^ (a) that M held hia oflca dnrinaf that period, within the Manieipality of K, within the meaning of Beotion 53 of the District Mnnicipalitiea Act (ly cf 1884) ; and (6) that a payment by him of profession tax for thp half-year covering the sixty days to the Municipality of E was a la w fu l paytnenfe which -would exempb him nnder section 60 of the Act from liability to pay f'-he tax again for the same half ypar to the Mnnioipalihy of C. Ohairman, Ongole Municipalitxj V. Mounsey (1894) I.L.R., 17 Mad., 453, distinguished. Moherly Y, The Municipal Council of GudcJaloi-e... (1915) I.L,R., 38 Mad., ^ SEC. 103 ; See M oetg-a s e, SEC, 168 Adverse possession ' against Muniaipalify Jjawful encroachment ^ meaning o f Right of Municfpality to remove encroachments, etc., after title barred Lirrbitation Act (XV of 1877) Limitation Amendment Act (XX of 1900).] Adverse possession by a pei'son for twelve years before the Limitation Amendment Act of 1900 camo into force, of some pf^rtion of a Ktreeb vested, in a Mnnioipality is sufficient to?ive the person a ole*ir title as against the. Municipality, tinder section 168 of the District Munipipnlities Act the Municipal Council is not entitled to remove the projections and encroacb^ments made by a person who has acquired full title to them and to the site on which till' encroachmenta stand hy adrer^e po.spession for the statutory period. Baeaiveswara Swami v. Eellary Municipal GounoU (1915) I X.R.j 38 Mad., 6 ; S.O., 23 M.L.J,, 478, distinguished. The Chairman, Municipal Council, Srirangam v. Sulha Pandiihar. (1915) LL.R,, SSXad,, 456 Dll/ESTINS^ OF PROPERTY, hy adoption -. See Hindtt Law. DSVORGE EwcEanca Act ( I o/ 1872), «r. 60, 112, I I 8 and 1 20 Zfon-cMress, competengy of parties to teniijy to Legitimacy nf child ^Expert opinion on legitimacy, relevancy of.i When in a suif. for divorce the petitioner (husband) did not m=<fce any pei'son aa co-respondent simply averred that Ms wife was generally leading the life of a prostitute, a judge would be wton^ in adding a perron as co-respondent suo moiu without calling: on the pefcif-ianeri to amend the petitio-a by roabiug the neeessary alleg\atib)b.,s against him..; Jn the absertoe of the adoption of such a course the proper oyde^ to rnako is to strike out the co-resp(mden,t ^ liaxoe fvoin the proceedings. 'Whatovej be the English oomxabn law oa the stib eot, under sections ;li8 ai>d 120 of th^ V &-A

40 I s x x i v ' GENEPuAL IN D E X PAG 13 Indian Evidence Act both tho parties to procoedinga^ for livorco aro competpnt to ^ire evidence as to non-access and the consoqueat illejjitnnauy of the child. HeZti, on the evidenoe in the ousi? that a child bcivu (--ilweti motitlifi after the cessation of marital intercourse was illog'itini!ii:t> and tliat the petitio n e r was entitled to a divorce. Rosario r. Ingles (1891) I.L.R., 18 Bom., 468, referred to. Under section 60 of the Eviflence Act a^cjourt (5i>u coiiiauler and act upon the opinions of exports contained in traatifioe as rcg'urdrf tho question whether a particular child could or could not have been be{^otlen just before the period of non-access. JoJm Hov:e-V Gharlotte Hoive (1915) I.L.R., <^8 Mad,, 46G (INDIAN) DIVORCE ACT <I F 1H69), sico. ll~~marria(jo soumnizocl hfifore the expiry of six months as required by^ validity o/,] Section 57 oi the D iv o r c e Act ( I V o f ) expressly p ro lu b ita remarriao-o within ^ix nionths of the mnkinir of the decree ahsolute ; the Indiau jiooh not; coinpleuuy dissolve the tie of marriage until the lapse of a B])6oi(iod tim<! attipr a decree of dissolution and tha marriar e is still in force wilhin tho n»k)aning; of section referred to. BatU& V. Brown (1915) I.Ij.B.j >5S Mad., 452 DOCUMENT, intend.ed to contradict witness, not ^ut to witness, inadimssiulity of.--see Hinbu Law. DHUNKENNESS See I n-dia.n P en al O ode (A ct XLV of 1860), sec. 86. DUTIES of an editor of a neiotfpaper :~B ec G oaipawy of inam authorities.' See I n a m R e g is t e b, EARNEST-MONEY, de^posit of, forfeiture o f i S e e Co n t r a c t, B bkach o f. EASEMENT, an, essentials for the acquisition o f: Bee Easkmknts ^\ot (V ok 1882) , a right of, adverse enjoymunt in assertion of o'wnership can create : See E asem en ts Act (V op 1882). User of easement for lesf^ than the prescriptive period-~"'no fight'to sue for infringement. Incorporeal rights such as eaaonients aro not capable in an exact sense of being- posaesaed; and unlesh an casouitnfc had ripened into a prescriptive one, mere enjoyment of the easement for any longlh of tinu) short of the full period of prescription gives no right for the onjoyor to maintain an actiou against any peraon infrinj^ing auch a mer. Pi-oteotion given in law to tuere possession of corporeal things cannot be oxtcnded to such caaos. Acchunna v. Venhamma (1895) o 24 and Kondapa llnjam Faidti V. Devarakonda Suryanarayava (1911) I.L.R., ^4 Mad., 173, distingaiahed. English authorities reviewed. Narasappayya Y. Ganapathi Bao (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad., 2S0 EASEMENTS ACT <1 OF 1882), s e c. (7), xr.i, (1) -. See WATERb'tow SEC. 15 Essentials far the acqmaition of an easement Adverse enjoyment in ansertion of oumeri^hip, can creata a right of easement.'] If a person walks along the land of another for tho beneflcial enjoyment of other land, and if tho enpyrneat of the other s land does not amount to exclusive posaeiasion, there is no reason why his walking along the land without the permission of the true owner and in tli<? assertion of a right to walk should not create,in favour of the enjoyer a preacriptivo right of easeojent, simply because, ha mistakenly fiiipposss that he ia the owner, of the laud or asaexta that his act of enjoyment is sufficient to give him the ownership by prescription. The mere claim of the higher right of ownorahip would not prevent a pei son from acquiring the Jeaaor right of eaaement provided he could show that he asserted certain I ights o enjoyment over the land in question for the benefit of another land belonging to him. Section 15 of tho Basements Act does not reqaire that the Utl$ shoiild be

41 GENERAL INDEX Ix x X Y claimed as an easement, bnt only req-niros that tlie enjoyjnent slionld posaesr two properties, viz., (i) that it must be as of right without interruption und (ii) that it musti be as an easemeiifc. The first quality is intended to show that enj»,ymont by license or under a cnnttfict which would not anjoiint. to a grant of an easemenf-i, would be iiieffecfcual to create a right by prescription. The other quality is that the edjoyment should be as an easement, and not that it should be in the assertion of a claim of an easement. N'are^idra Nath Barari r. Ahhoy Charan Ghattopadhya (1907) I.L.R., S i alc., 51. referred to. Qlmnilal F^dcha-nd y. Mangaldas Qoverdha.nda3 (1892) I.L.R., 16 Bom., 592, commented on. Konda Y. Ramasami (1915) I.L.U,, 38 Mad,, ] E W T O O F A N E W S P A P E R, duties o f S e e aoiipany. EFFECT OF conspiffueni non-'perjormance hy the ether righijullij Reciprocal promises Non-per forma nee by one fariy wrongfully Contract (it an end-. See C i v i l P r o c is d u e e C o d e ( A c t Y o f 1908), O. x x i t j, b. S decree so far as it relates to the au it: See C i v i t P r o c e d u e e C ode (A c t Y op 1908), O. X X III, R. 3. EFFECT OF CONSENT to treat evidence taken hy a Qourt without jwisdiction as evidence, if relevent; See E v id e n c k, h;t c. EJECT, TO, a tenant holding over, suit to : Sea Jurisdiction. EJECTMENT AND RECOVERY OF PASTURE RENT, suit for, cognisable only hy Civil Courts : See (Mabras) Estatks Land Act (I of 190S), ser. 3. EJECTMENT OF, tenant of Old Waste' grounds : See (M adras) E states Land A ct (I OF 1908), ss. 3 (7), 153 and 157. EJECTMENT, suit in ; See (M adras) E states Land A ct (I of 1908), sec, 8. ESOEP from ' Old Waste : See (M adras) E stateb L and A ct (I off 1908), Ba. 3 (7), 6, 23, 153 and j suit in '.-' See (M a d r a s ) E sta te s L a n d (I o f 1908), seci. 8, etc j suit in,: See H in d u L a w. E N C R O * A C H M E N T, Lawful meaning of: See ( M a d b a s ) D is T B ic r M u n i c i p a l i t i e s A ct (IV OF 1884,), sec ENCHOACHMENT, or obstruction, an, pfal, to drain street, etc,: See MtiKiciPAL C o u n c il. etc., right of Muniatpality to remove after title barred: See (M a d r a s) D istr ic t M -0NiciPALmEs A ct ( I T of 1884), s e c ^ riijfit of M ynieipality to remove :~ S e e M d n ic ip a l O o 0 n c il. ENDORSEMENTS of payments bij mortgagor : See M o rtg a g e by minoe, E N G A G E M E N T S, construction of See ( M a d h a s ) I e h i q a t i o n Cesb A o t (V II o f 1868), BKC. 1. E N J O Y M E N T, adverse, in assertion of ownership can create a right of eaaementi See E a s e m e n t s A c t (V o f 1882). E P I D E M I C D I S E A S E S ACT ( I I I O F 1897), S3. 2 and 3 : See I ndian P sn al Code (A ot X L V o f ISiiO), ss. 188 and 2G9. EOUITIES ON PARTITION :~See T r a n b f e b o f P b opeb,i!y A c t (IV OB',1883), ss. 60 a n d 91, ESSENTIALS O F offer of <performance :~ 8 e e OiYih P b oo K d u jid Off 1908), O. X X I I I, K. 3. E S T A T E : See (M a d r a s) E states L a n d A ct (I oi? 1908) husbands' right to get mainienancp. ftom -.-r-sei'eiy^'dv Lkyr, C o d k ( A c t T grantees :~-See T bansptsb OB' P rof B K ty A c t (IV oj? 1882), SEC. 10. (M AD R AS) E S T A T E S LAND A C T ( I OF I )t and ryof Suii for rent in a Reverme 6 om t~ B even u e Gowrt, ^urisdictioti of Landholder under section 3, clause {B)-~^E3tate~-Se('ti6'n :S, clausea (*i) (d) and (e) Section 189 and setedwze ' jto. wider than owngr of

42 I x x x v i GENBltAL INDUX an eata'te. } A n iiiam dar of a portion o f a village, wb^'re tho mnra ooiibist only of snine of the lands in a village g-x-anted by a Kamimlar after hho permanent selt.l*ment, is a landloldev undcjr seot,ion K, clause (5) o f t(ie Marlras Estatt^s Laud A ct, tliongh the inam raay not, bo an OBt:W'rG txndur section 3, clauses (<Z) and («) o f the said Acfc_. - A suit brought by sucli an ixii-imdar for Hrreuvs of rent against a ryot is cogniaablo by a lioyonue Court under the said A ct. The test w hich if? deciaive on tho qnostion of juri-iditition is -whether the plaiintiffs axo hmdholders under tho A ct. The term la n d h old er is wider than the expression the owner of an estate, axid includes every person entitled to collocb tho reuts o f any j. artion o f a,n estate by virtue o f any tranefer. A^palanarasimTiulu V. Sanyasi (1915;> 38 Mad.,, HKC. 3 Ilyfdi land R y o t Jtent Pasture land not ryoti land Bent for ptibim'ing, not', r en t' under the A ct Sections 77 cmd 1S9 of the A ct Suit fo r ejectmont and recovery of pasture rent, cogmsahle, only by Civil Courts.} Land ns\i!aiy_ (il. only fo r pasturhig- cattle and nob for cultivation, i.e., ploughing and raipiiig asrioultural crops is? not ryoti land, though it may have been old wasto and a tenanc of such land ia not a ryot and any amtmnt agroed c.o be paid for pasturing cattle is not rent within the dofinitiona o f aochon "3 o f the M adras Kstatea Land A ct (I of 1908) : hoiicg a euifc to ojoct such ft tenant from tho land or to recover the am ount due for pastarago ia cognisable only b y a Civil Court and not by a llevenne Court, as tho juriadiotion o f Oivil Courte exists in all oases where it baa not been expressly taken aw ay. Raja of Venfcatagiri Y. Ayyapareddi...,,, (1913) T.L.R,, 38 Mad., BKO. 3;, c ts. 2 (c) AND (d), AND 5 Landholder Qrantee of a portion of melvaram in an estate., a landholder OuHivating tenant under the (jrantee, a ryot.'] An alioneo o f a part of the melvaram due from the lands w bioh form a pat-t of an estato B ryoti lands is a landholder within the meanirig of section 3, olaubo 5 of the Madras Estates Land A ct (1 o f 1908), thoug-h what lio thna owns m ay not be an estate under the A ot 5 and the tenant h olding ryoti land nndof him for purpoaes of agricalturo is a i-yob nnder the Act, j henoo suit to eject auch a tenant can be brought only in a ilevenno Gonrt and Oiyil Courts have no juiifidiction. Brundaranachmidra Horischandra Ka^a v, Ramayya (1914() , follow ed, VenTcanna r. Sri Raja Rama &oio (li)16) I.L.iJ*,, 38 Mad,, ss. 3 (7), 6, 28 AND 103 AND 157 Old waste,' ejectment from Onus of 'proving old waste on landlord.} A. landholder claim ing to eject a tenant Tinder soetiona 153 and 157 of Madras Estates Land A ot (I o f 1908) on the ground th at ho ia a non-occupancy ryot of * old waste is by aeotion 23 of the A c t bound to pi'ove that the land is old waste * within the m.eaning o f section 3, clause (7 ) of the Act. If neifcuer sub-class (1') nor the lafcter part of eub-claxibe (2) of the definition of old waste would apply to the fa cts of tho oase, the first part of snb-clap.se (2) cannot be used to prove that the land ia old waste * as that refers to a state o f facts aubsequbnt to the passing' o f the A ct, and as section 6 of the A ct vested in the tenant in possession ocoixpancy right from the date of th e passing- of the A o t in a ll rjofci lands not being old wasto. Saravarayudit v. Ven'kataraju (1915) 38 Mad., as. 3 (7), 153 ANO 157- Provii>o to sec. 153, effect of Old xoaste,' tenant of JSJectitient from, grounds 0/. ] The com bined effect of section 153 of the M adras Estates Land A ot (I of 1908) even as amended to by section 8 of Madras A ot IV of.1909, and of section 157 o f the Estates Land A ot is tbat a ry ot o old w aste cannot be ejected on the ground ot expiry o f a term of leas contained in a contraqt entered into before tbe A c t oamt' into force. Atchaparaju B aja V. Q. Krishnay.achendrvlava,r%i (1815) I.L.E., 88 Mad., AK See (Madbas) Estates L and A c t (I of 1908), aeo; 3.

43 GteNBRAL INDEX I x x x v i , SF.O. 3, C L. 2 ( d ) ; SEC. 8, JiXCEP. Grant of village as inam Village com^posed, of cvuivaied lands and loaste lands Grant o f melvaram Tenant of -u:af<te. la.^ids, without ocfn* pancy i^ght Village, an estate Surrender' by tenant N'o acquisition of Tcu,di~ varam hy inamdar Suit in ejectment Jurisdiction of Qivil Ooosris,] A village, granted as an inam in A.D. 1748, wa^ comprised at Uie time of the grant partly of lands -under cu ltit a tion and partly of -waste lands. The waate lands were snbaequently ^iven by thp inamdar for eultitation from time to tim e to different sets of tenants without ocenpancy I'iglat. The inamdar brought, the "present suit in the Civil Court to eject the tenant whose period of tenancy had expired prior to the suit. The defendant contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdictioii to entertain the suit. Held, that the village as a w hole must be considered to be an estate within the definition of section 3, clause ( 2 ) (d ) of the Estates Land Act. Surrender by tenant is not one of tlie modes in -which the kudivaram r%h.s can be acquired by an inamdar within the terms of the exception to section 8 of the Estates Land A ct. An inamdar cannot acqaire the kadivaram. right bv surrender from a tenant, who had himself uo ocoapancy rij^ht in the holding-. Held, consequently that the Civil Court had no jurisdiofcion to entertain the suit. PAQE Yenkata SastruLu y. Sitaramudu (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 891 ss. 8 (e x c e p.), 3, GL. 2 (d ) Inam dar Right to Icudivaram No presumption i7i Javour of inamdar iro distinction between samindar and inamdar as to presumption Surrender or abandonment of holding, not an acquisition by landholder of right to Tcudivaram 8uit in ejectment Jurisdiction of Givil or Revenue Court,'} The presumption is that an inamdar like a zaniindar is not the owner of the kudivarain right. F er SaoasiV a A y y a b, J. Surrender or abandonment of the holdinjy by the tenant, is ijob a case o f aoqnisition of the kudivaram right by the laadholder -within the terms of the exception to section 8 of the Estates Land A ct and such land does not therefi're cease to be part of the estate ; con.sequenfcly the Oivil Gn-urts have no ;jarisdiction to entertain suits in ejectm ent brought by inamdars against the dufendanta who wfcre tenants in possession, but the plaints should be returned for presentation to the Eevenue CoxiPts. Pe? S penojee, J. A narrow interpretation should not be placed on the word acquired in the exception to section 8, so as to exclude acquisition by an inam dar by surrender or abandonment of the kudivaram right by a tenant. Suryanarayana V. Patanna (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 608 SISC. 8, E S O E P. ; S E C. 153, PROVISO ; BS. 15V a n d hrotriemdar Right to Icudivaram' Presumption as to ^cquihiion o f Jcudivaram right. Surrender or abandonment^ effect 01 Suit in ejectm ent- Jurisdiction nf Civil or Revenue Gourts Tenant for a term Tenant in possefision ajter expiry of term No suhseguent vecogniiion hy landholder as tenant, effect of Trespasser,] The plaintiff, who was t,he shrotriem dar of a certain village, brought a suit in the Oivil Oonrt to eject the defendant who was a tenant of some lands form ing old waste under a lease fo r a period o f three years w hich had expired before the Madras Estates Land A ct came into fcrce. I t was found that the defendant had no occupancy right in the holding, and that he was not reo<ignised as a tenant b y the landholder after the expiry o f the period o f the lease. The defendfint contended that the Oivil Court bad. no juribdiction to entei'tain the suit. JSeld, that the Civil Court had j-ariedietion to entertain the suit. Per M illk r, J. Surrender or abandonment by the tenant is one o f the modes in which the landholder can. acquire th e kudivaram rig'ht so as to attract the provisions of the exception to sectio-a 8 o f the Estates Land Aoti W hen it is found that a tenant has no dooupanoy right in his hbldiugf ^nd that the land is not private land, the presumption is that the ocoupancy righ t is in the landholder either hy the original grant or by prior or Hubseqnent aoquibition. P er S p en cee/ J, The proylbions o se'otion 163 of the Estates Land A ot are not eshanfitive o f all ppssibze cases o f ev ictio n ; cases of et'iction of tenants under leases fo t ter^b ii,ot; exceeding-flv-e years are iakeh out of the A ct hy the proviso to section 153 and conaequentlji' out o f

44 I x x x v n i QfiNEftAIa INDEX FAOE the jutisdictiob of the E/evenue Courts. A tenant in possosaion after the expiry of his term, who has not been reoof^nised by tho laiihholder ^ tenant subsequent thereto, is a treapaasei within the ruoaninff ot KGOt;ioii,103 of the Act, and ooiiseqnently a saib in ojeotmenb can be inbtituted^^against him ia a Civil Court. PonTiusamy Padayachi V. Ka.ritppudayan (19.15) I. L.ft., i58 Mad., 843 SEC. 4 2, CL. 1, ( a ) A^ D ( 6 ), a n d 2 Enhancement or altera,tio)i of rent Lease-doed Provision a«fo 'payment oj rent on excess of area of lands found on m.easurement No e nha7u:e77u;nt or alteration of rent Frevious ardsr of OoUsctor not required.bengal ^enancij A ct (VJll of 1885), ss. 52 and 188.] The proviso fuutld in claiihe 2 of soctioii 42 of the Mfidras Estates Land Act (I of ]90S), wlu cji ro( iih'ef.) ( lip orjer ol. a Oolleotor before an cnihanceinent of rent oan be allowed, dues not: apply to the claim o a landholder who sues to recover arrears ai tirva d u e under a leaae-deed 'which contained a provision for payment of tirvni at a epecifiad rate on the excess landa found on measuiemenfc over the area spoeilied in the leaae-deed. It is only where the landlord wants to enliance the rent), basin{< his claim on tha jight gratited.^nd declared by Heci:ion 42, olauh(-s 1 («) and ( 6), that ho shoaid obtain, tinder clause 2, the order ol' the Oolleotor lor such alteration of rent before he could claim Lho altered I'ent. Diniarini Dasi y. L. P. D. Broughton (1896) 3 G. W.K-, and Kaiu. Clmndcr Chwlcrabutty V. Qiridlmr Dv.it (1892) I.L.R., 19 Calc., V75, followed. The Manager to the lessees of the Sivaganga Zaminduri v. Chantharam Cheiti (1.915) I.L Jt., 3«-Mad., 524 sjcc. 53 (2 ) IHsiraintfora higher rent than legally due, goad for the amount legally due.] Scction r>3 (2) of the (Madras) Estates Land Act (I of 1U08) enables a Oolleotor, in a snit to.set aside a distraint to nphold the distraint to tve extent of the amount legally due to the landlord by the tenant under the patta tendered by tho landlord. The application, of the clause ia liot conlined to the enforcibility cif tho proper amount of rent, in suits for rent, onl} ^. Raghunatha Bow Sahib v. Vellamoo7iji Ooundan... (1915).I.L.R., 38 Mad., SEC. I l l, et eoq. Bale.of holding under Suit for declaration of its invalidity Cogni.sublo in a Civil Court.2 A &uit for a declaration that the sa.le of a holding under section 111 et seq, of the Madras Eiitates Land A ct was void in couhequenco of th(s landholder s failure to apply for sale within forty-live dajsaa xjreecribed by section 115 of the Act i«maintainable in a Civil Court. Qoune Mohideen Sahib v. Muthialu Chettiar (1H14) M.W.N., 56, followed. Dorasamtj Pillai v. Muihusamy Mooppan (1904) LL.E... 2^ Mad.. 94 and ZcmtnJar «/ MJtia;.a^ura»t, V. Sanharappa, Reddiar (1904) I.L.li., 27 Mad,, -183, referred to, Section.1.8t> of the Act commented on. Chidambaram Pillai v. Muthammal... (1915) I.L.R., 8S Mad., ^ n SEC. i j i w. a. 153, u I*aovi80 jl t v u V A O L> '. " See 0» o (Madbas) E statbs L and A ct (I op 1808), es. 3 (7), 1G3 a n b _g2 Presentation of plaint to Head Olerh not authorised to receive Limitation A ct (IX o/190y), Hec. 4 Court not closed, if the cfficer on tour only and not on leave liule 14 of Gi-oil Rules of Practice.} Plaints under the Madras Estateg Xjand Act (I of li)08) cannot be said to be validly presented, if presented to the Head Clerk of the Collector, unless the Collector has appointed him to receive thaxn. A Court cannot be said to be closed within ihe meaning of seofciou 4 of i;li Limitation A ct (IX of 1908) merely because the presiding otfioer is not in. Lead-qnarters but is in camp on tour, Rule 14 of the Ci\il Hales o f Practice does not apply to proceedings before a Kevenae Court. The Receiver o f the ISidadavole and Medur Estates v. Buraparm'u,... (1916) LL.lt., 38 Mad 295 SEC, 1&2 Sibit under section ^ ld ~ J 3^^ellaie decree Second Appeal limitaiion A ct {IX of 1008), sec. 23

45 GENEEAL INDEX I x s x i x PAG* Distraint, no continuing ivrong Cau.se of action.~] A Beoond appeal lies to the High Court imder tlie proviaions of the Code of Oivil Procecli^re from an appellate decree passed in a suit instituted, utider section 213 of the Estates Land Act. ssection 192 of the Act makes the provisions of Chapter X L II of the Code of 1882, applicible and the protieions that give a ri^ht of appeal cannot be siruclr out and those only which prescribe in what iii:inner an appeal is to be heard and determined, retained. Where the proceedings vvhioh give rise to a cause of action consist in wrongful distraint, that distraint is not a Continuing wrong, and will not therefore give rise to a continuing canae of action under aection ii3 of the Limitation Act. Paviu Sanyasi v. Zamindar of Jayapur (1902) LL.R., 25 Mad., 540, follofyed. Continuing- cause of action, under English law, conaidered. Hole v. Chard Union (189i) 1 Ch., 293, referred to. Venlcataramier v. Vaithilinga TJiambiran... (1915) T.L.E., 38 Mad., fj , S H. 210,211, CL. (2), ABT. 8 oif sch., PAET A : See Lim itation. ESTOPPEL from pleading against an act of legislature ; See L i m it a t i o n. EVIDENCE, additional, on appeal; See C ivil Procsdub a Code (A ct Y oe 1908) O. X L I, K ^admissibility of, where ivitness not sworn: See (in n u w ) O aths A ct (III OF 1873), sa. 5 a n d 13. Evidence tajcen by a Court without jurisdiction Effect of consent to treat it as evidence, if relevant.] Consent or want of objection to the reception of evidence which is irrelevant cannot make the evidence relevant, but consent or want of objection to the wrong manii.er in which relevant evidence should be brought on record of the suit disentitles parties from objecting to such evidence in a Court of Appeal. Miller t. Madho Das (1897) I.L.B., 19 All., 75 at p. 93 (P.O.), follow ed. The fact that it was evidence taken. previotisly by a Court which was held to have had no jurisdictioa to try the case and take the evidence and that it was consented to be treated as evidence does not affect the validity of the consent. Qucere : Whether in a case falling under section 33 of the Evidence Act, evidence reoordij3d by a Court can be regarded as not given in a judicial proceeding on the mere ground that the decree of tha Court was subsequently get aside for defect of jurisdiction P Sri Bafah Pralcasarayanim Garu v. YenJcata Rao... (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., , extrinsic, admissibiuty of: See Hindi; Law. ^------, ina-dmissibility of, to prove ad-cerse possesiio7i z See Teaksfee o f PnopEKTY A ct (IV of 1S82), bs. 4 anb 54., nature, o f : See In d ia n Lim itation A c t (X V o f 1877), art. 91. (INDIAN) EVIDENCE ACT (I OF ), SEC. 30 : See Cbibcikai, Procedubh Code (A ct V o f 18D8), sa. 235 and 342. L a w ^ , ssc. 32 (5) AND ( 6)i~ S e e Hindu , ss. 35 AND 8 2 : Ses Hindu Law. SI5C. Q2 -Registered sale-deed- P rice specified in the sale-deed Recital as to amount of price, eeseniial term o f contract of sale Oral agreement as to higher price in discharge of a mortgage Bvidence inadmissible,'] The amount of the price agreed to be paid is an essential term, of a contract of sale ; and consequently no evidence of an oral agreement at variance with the provisions of. a registered sale-deed as. to the amount of the price fixed for the sale is admissible under section 92 of ihe Indian. Evidence Act.., Cowasji Ruttonji LimhoowaUa vr. Burjorji Bustomji LimhoQwalla (1888) I.L.B., 12 Bom., 835, follotved. 'Vas-udevay, Jffarasamma (1882) I.L.E., 5 Mad., 6, Kumara y. Brinivdsa (1888) I X,R 11 Mad., 213, Huhumchand V. Eirdlal (1879) ItL.Bv.3 Bom., 159 and CJojxi? Singh v. Lalao Latl (1909) 10 i3.l,3., esplainod. Earn Ba'khs?^ v Durban (1887) l.l.k,., 9 All., 39 2,1«<Zcfr;ii v. Xoi (1890) 18 A l l, IbS,

46 xe INDBi B allish m Das v. Legge (J900) T.L.H., 22 All., 149 (P.O.), Selaw la Omtndan V. f^alani Goundan (1913) M.W.N., 650 and Vrohai Ohavdra (rangti!padhya V. Ghirag AH (1906) T,L.R 33 Calc., 607, referred to. ^ T AG]!) Aditijam Y. Ba7na Krishna M au., 51^ I.., j nsh\^, SEC. 9^5 I RoVs, I AKi) 3 SciIbdeed Property^ vesiing o f Oral evidence contrary to its tevor, admisbibility of Document operaiive at ovce Evidence as to vfsiivg of property at a future time, inudmit^sible Rul& of English Laic, tufjerent.} An cxerutunl/ of an instrumenb (wliicli -vvaa riot a sham document Inxt intended to operate at once), cannot be permitted to set np or {)rovo that tuo inrtniinc!n.fc, which according' to its tenor vehtod ihe property in tho grantee :it once, was in reality intended to vest it only ai) a future time or atti-r tlio death of the executant. Section 92, proviso 1 oi^ the Indian Evidence Act, has uo application to a case wbere the insttiiment repi esenta what the parties intended to pnt down in writing, thori<rli it niiuht not be in acoordance with what they intended to do and wit.h tlie ley«l effect that they secretly wanted to bring' about but which foi' «oine reaeon they did not want to put ill writitt". The rule oi: Engliah Conns of Equity periixifctimg evidence to be given ti> show that a dt/ctiiuent was intended to operate in, a. manner diserent from the plaint and apparent meaning of its liinfi,uage cannot bo followed in India, as it is contrary to the provisions of Hecfi<m 953 of the Indian Evidence ^ct. BalMslmn Das v. I/Pjrye (11)00) I.L.U., 22 All., 149 (P.O.), Achutaramarnja v. Suhburaju (1902) I.L.R., 25 IMnd., '7, Dattoo ~v. BcLmcTiandra (1906) T.L,I?., 80 Bom., Ii9 and Challa yenltata Reddy v~ Devahhnlctuni Mruthunjayadn (1912) M.W.N., 164, followed. 3ihun Nin:ia v. Asgar Ali (189?) I.L.E,.,.17 Oalo., 937 (P.O.), referrod to. Ghaudhri Mohdi Hasan v. Mtihoummad Hasan (1906) LL.Il., 28 All,, 439 (P.O.), Llainalinga. M'udifU V. xiyyadorai JSainar ( 1905) I.L.li., 28 Mad., 124 and xlmvrtlmthaimnal V. Periasmii Pillai ( 1909) 32 Mad., 325, dibtinguiahed. Mottayap:pan V. Palni Ooundan ( 1916) I.L.R., 38 Mad,, 22 ss. 106 ANi> 114, live. {g ):-~ S ee Madkas E.BGPi.Aa'ioN- (X XV OB' 1802), sjsg, sko : See H in d u Law. EXCHANGE OF LANDS of the value of one hundred rupees and up^'-'ards No regi>^tered insttum ent: See T s a h s fe r off P kopbety Am' (IV OB 1 882), as. 118, 1J9, 120, 54. AND 66, CL. 6 (&). EXCLUSION, proo/ of, i f necessary : See Mtjhammaj:)AN Law. EXEGUTAl^T, 'personalliahility o f ; See N e g o t i a b l e In s tr u m e n ts A c t (X V I off 1881). EXteCUTION :~ S ee C ivil Peocbduee C o d e (A c t Y o f 290b), 0. X L Y ^ ek. 15 and 16. Civil procedure Code vuww (Act w V, VJ of 1908), AWW WVl>» sec. 141, 0. W»^ II, J. ^ Jj r, 2 Non- ^JLVU ff applicaluiiy. of, io execution applications Consolii^atinff statute, construction 0/.3 The di.-jmissal of a snit on the ground that no suit would lie to recover mesne profits STibseqnent to the date of a previous decree which a,warded gnb«eequenfc mesne profits is no bar to a claim thereto in execution of that decree. The fact that a clecree-l/oidor made a previous application for execution to recover mesne profits only for throe years BubHeriueiit to the pkint and not for a further period also ih not a bar nnder Order II, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, or section 141, Civil Procedure Code, as now enacted, to another execution npplic&tion for recovery of mpsno profits for tha arth.et per;od. Thalcur Prasad y. Fakir-uUah, (1895) I.L.E., 17 AIL, 106 (P,0.)j s C. 22, I.A., ^14, followed. Sadar Ali Kishan Lai (1910) 12 G X.J., 0, not followed. There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent a deoree-holder from presenting aucceesive appucatioks for realizing different portiotig of his decree. When the words of a oonsolidating statute are clear their effect cannot be cut down by a comparison with the language of earlier statutes. Sectira 141, Civil Procedure Code, is intended to apply to proceedingb ia Civil Conrts such as probate, etc. itdlasulrahmania Cheifii v. Swarnammal... (1915) I-L.Ev, 88 Mad., 199

47 GENERAL INDEX x c l of conveyance, obtained i m S ee C iv il PnocK B U B E C o d e TApt V OF 190S), 0. I I, li j o ^ t : See PnoMissoRY No t e, , money realised by assignee in :-~See Absignet!! oy a money-decbeej e tc. objection in Mamtainability of:~ S ee C iv il Peoged0ee Codb (Aot V OF 1908, O, X X I i r, R OP DTscREfi on TOorigar/e, purchaser i n i See M a la b a r T e k a n ts I m p b o v e m e n t s A c t ( M a d k a s ) A c t 1 o-p 1900), bs. S a n d , petition fo r ; 8se D ecebe-ho l d k r, 50, &au in : 8ec CivxL P k o c e d d b e C obe ( A c t Y o f 1908), ss, 47 and fitay of-^-order of, ly Appellate Court No communication to lowar Court, effect of When otder taltes effect.] A n order of an AppelJate Oourfc staying further procec?dirig's iu ttie lower Ooui-fc, such, as holding a sale, etc., takes effect ivom the tim e it is pronounced and not from the time it is,offio.ially commu.mcatrtd to the lower Court and a sale held contrary to Bach an order whether with or without knowledge of ic is liable to be set aside as having been held with oat jurisdiction. Per Spknces, J. The lower Couvt shoald have postponed the sale when having itself had no official inforoiaision of the order of the Appellate Couvt, it waa moved by the party on the ground of such an o r d e r. Per S a d a s iy a A yyik, J. The'^sale under such circumstances is so gravely irregular th at it must be fset aside even withoat proof of injury. Mutlmkiimara»ami Bowther Minda N'ayinar v. Kj.ppunami Aiyangar (1910) I.L -E,, 33 Mad., 74, dissented from b y Sa d a s iv a A y y a e, j., and distinguished by S p e n c e r, J. Ham Qhandra Kar v. Mathura 8a.ni.hal (1912} 16 C.W.N., 1031 and Saii Nath Sihdar v. Ratnamani Naskar (1912) 15 O.L.J., 835, followed. ^ PAQB Ramanathan A rw m chellam (1915) I.L.K., 38 Mad., J step in aid of t See L im ita tio n A c t ( I X of 1908), A e t EXECUTION APPLICATION, non-ap^ilicabiuiy of Civil Procedure Code {Act V of 1 9 js ;, see 1 4 1, O, II, r, 2 : See B sec0tid k. EXECUTION SALE See L im ita tio.v A c t ( I X oji ), se c. 22. EXECUTOR, not brought on the record : ~ 8ee L im ita t io n A ct ( I X or 1908)^ a k ts. 161 a n d IS l OF son. II. * application by, to set aside ex-parte decree more than thirty days after decree : See L im it a t io n A ct ( L X of 1908), a r t s, 164 a n d 181 of s c h, I I assewi o / i See I n d i a n SucoESaioN A ct ( X off ), EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY, clause of, after goods are free of ship's tackle^ validity o fi See SiLe o? lad in g. EX-TRUSTEE, suit by an, for imhursbment:~~see In d ia n L im itation A c t ( X I or 1877), AET FAILURE, of unauthorized sec^ority. S e e T r u s t e e , to invent trusts fands in authorized securitiesi See T b u stek, FALSE COMPLAINT, sanrmon for appeal against: See Obim inal Pbocedobbs OoDE ( A ct V o f ), s e c FAMILY L/iNDS, contract bj/ father to sell, not binding on son i See HjtNDti LAW. FAMILY S E T T L E M E N T See C onteagt. FATHER, HINDU, entrusting sons for custody and education in England to anotjier p$n\on who defrays expense of their maintenance and ed'uication ~Ilev0C0iti0n of such authority mid dema-nd for sons be rbstore& to h is. custodf Se& ' Grtr&iiDiAN. FINAL,»» section, 3 8 / (3), Madras Oity MitvJeipal Aot (III of 191i4i), me^am o f!~ S eem.&.t )n A s C it y M d n i c i p a l A c t ( I I I b» v ) * ^ (MADRAS) FOREST ACT ; ( OF. CoDB (Act X L Y ow 1S60).

48 XCll GENERAL INDEX FOftFEITURE oj deposit of earnest money See O o n tra ci;, BUKAcri oi^ j for non-paijment of rotit: See L e s s o r a n d L u sb e r. F IA U B Stii# to Sit aside a judgment for fraud Discrationary rcuef-y What <icta constitute fraud Obtaining decree ly deliberate porjuriu whelher liable to be set aside as fraudulent.] A judyfmeiit in a prevncras suifc oanriof be hci, aside by a now suit based on an allegat-.ion that the decree-holdei- ohtnined il; by practibing a fraud on tlae Oourt, in tlia absyucn ol' tlia judgmcnt-dulit.or, vi«., by stippreasing certain material evidt'ncb in tho, ca,so ; fopi( wfis tlie duty of the jtidg'm.en.t-debfcor to have g'ofc prodaced all hia (ividenoo in t;ho previous suit. SuppreBsion of mateiia! evidence ia not fraud within fcho mf tiimnfjf of the rule enunciated in The Buchass of Kenaingion s Gnus (1776) 2 Sm. LO., llt li Edn., 731 at p which is to tha fol]owiiifr plteob : In order that fraud m a y b e a ground for vacating a jud,eminent, it mu ah bo a fraud that is estrinsio or collateral to everything Lhat has jioon adjudicai.od upon hub not one that haa been or moht be deemed to havo been dealt w ith b-^ the Court. The pow er ot the Court to apt aside a judj^-nont on the ground of fraud is a discretionary one -whioh will bo escrciaod in favour ol the petitioner only if he had been freo frc.m fraud or any turpitude, or lach.ea> slotiior lack of diligence in protcctinf!: his own intorobts. Qnar.re Wh6tht>r a indgm eiit can be set aside lor fraud on the ground that the aucoesbful party was guilty o f deliberate perjury or Ruborning perjury. Bnglisb. and Indian case law on the Hubject^ diacaasod. Bxiiniplea <>f fra;ud which will vitiate a jadgm ant, given. PAGE Ohmttayya V. Uamanna (I9l5) I.L.U., 38 Mad., 203 f r a u d a n d c o l l u s io n, between ^udgment-dehtar and original decree-hotder, effect o f: See ASS^(Jl^EE of a MONKy-UKCKilR, ETo; FRAUD OF CREDITORS -. See Mohtgagk by minou , suit for other reliefs on the ground of, if maintainahh : Bee Civ il Pbogei)UR,e CoDSi ( A ct V of 1908), as, 47 a n d 50. WRAJiD of deeree-holdera and auction-purchasers :~-See C iv il P r o o e d d k r (A ct V Of 1908), ss. 47 and 50. FUND ^ay»6ie io witior : 5ee T rustek. CoDk io he ap:plied immediately or at an early data, camiruction of'. See TauarGE, GIFT BY HUSBAND TO WIFE '.S e e Mar.AiUR Law ^ deed ofy condition of-, See i\rai,ai!ak Lav^. GOVERNMENT, High Court will not interfera with r.n acquittal in revision, where an appeal might have heen preferred by : See CriminaIj PlioCKDtrEiD Code ( A ct Y of 189S), se c. 4 J nature o f: See M ukicipal OouNaii) j right of '. See Momctpai. CoUNClI.. GO ERNW[ENT ORDERS, how far ratijicationa A ct (V II OF 1895), SBC. 1. (Madras) luumanon Okss GRANT, construction of Water-cess Madras Water-cesa Act {711 of 186*5) Free grant of water before N'o right to impoas waier-cesn ihereafur.'] If for some consideration or other or oven for no consideration a grant -was before the passing of Madras Water-oesa Act (V II of 1805) made by th.e Govei nmont, e f a particulav quantity of water or a certain defmite share o the watoe of Is, tank to a person ii-respeotive of the use ho might make of it,.t.ho gi>nt is in law a free grant and the G-overnmenc ia not entitled to any kind ot' paymout thereafter for the water, under Madras Act V II of ] 8(iE>, Maria Susai Muddliar v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (IDC4) 14 M.hJ,, 350, followed, Secretarij of State for India v. Stmmi N'aratheemarar (1911) I.L.R.» 34 Mad., 2J, distinguished. Venhatasuhbiah V. Secretary of State]... (1915) I.L.E., 88 Had., i ^ deed of, for maintenance and other pur'poses i See THAKsraa oj? PaoPJiRXT A ct (IV Off 1882), SEC. 10.

49 GENERAL INDEX s c i i f by Zamindar to his wife and minor son : See Teansfer o f PeoI EETy Act (TV OF 1SS2), peg of melvarom X See Madras E states L and A ct (I of 1908), sic, 8, of villags composed of cultivated and waste lands, as iyiam: See M adras E states Land A ct (E of 1908), b-ec. 8. GKANTEES, estate of: See T ean sfeb of P roperty A c t (IY op 1882), sicc, 10. GRANT, inam Qrant of land, ieaides pornmmce, construction o / Paclugai landsin Tricliinnipoly and Tanjore talulcs, oumership of Paclugai, meaning of.] A grant of land by tbe Government acknowledging the grantee s title to a whole village consishinw oc certain, specified area besides poramldoke prives the g-rantee a right to all the unassesserl wasio in the village such as -waste or pad.'ugai land, i.e., land between a. rirer-hed and tle high flood bank of the river thongh it may not operate to s-ive communal property such as bnryinggrounds, temjile-sites, etc., to the giantee. Nai-ayannsami v. Kanniappa, Second Appeal No of 1910 andsecreitrri; of Statp, y. Kau-napaltea Venlcataratnammah (191=2) 2S M.L.J., 109, referred to. land in Trichinopoly and Tanpre taluks means land on the lower level bank breadth of the river betweea the edge of the sandy stream bed and the high flood level bank. Sadabiva A yyar, J. The grant of porambohe does not operate to i^ive the grantee the bed of the river. Meaning of the word ForajnboTce, considered. PAGE Secretary of State v. RagTiunatha Tathachariar... (1915) I.L.Il., 38 Mad., 108 GRANT OF HOUSE, constrmction o f : See B asem ent. GROUNDS OF ejectment of tenant o f Old waste See (M adras) E s ta te s Land A ct (I OB- 1908), ss. 3 (7), 153 and 157. GUARDIAN Stindu father entrusting sons for custody and education in England io another person who defrays expense of their -maintenanre and education Revocation of such authority and demand for sana to he restored to his custody Suit io enforce demand in District Court Questions to be determined in such a suit Jurisdiction of the District Court Guardian.^ and, Wards Act ( T ill of 1890), sec. 9 Ordinarily resid&r,t meaning of Suit, not the appropriate procedure Transfer of s^iit from the District Court to the High Court under clause 13 of the Letters PcLtent,!86o Powers of ihe High Court in dealinff with the suits so trasnferred Mandatory order of the kind aslced for, not to he made What a Gourt o f competent jurisdichon in India could do under the circumstances Order declaring a guardian, when io be made Guardians and Wards Act (F lli o/1890), sec. 19 Order declaring n guardian during respondent's life, propriety of.] Arooug Hindus!, as in England, the father is the natural gnardian of his children during their minority j but this guardianship is in the natnre of a.sacred trnst, and he cannot therefoie during his lifetime subsfitutb another person, to be guardian in his place. He may, in the exercise of his discretion as guardian, entrust the custody and edufation of hia children to another ; bub the authority he thus confers is essentially a revocable authority, and if the welfare of bis children, require it, be can. mtwithstanding any contract to the oontrai'y, take such custody and education once more into his own hands. If however the authority has been acted upon in such a way as in the opinion of the <^onrt exercising the jurisdiction of the Crown over infanta to create associations or give rise to expectations on the part of the infants which it would' be andeairable in. their interests to disturb ot dis?appoint, such Court will interfere to prevent its revocation, Lyons v. Blenkin (1821) Jac., 245, followed. The plaintiff (respondent) a Brahniin residing at Madras, and having only a small income, had been for many years a member o f the Theosophioal Society of which the defendant (appellant) was President. He had two eons bora respectively on llt h May lb95 and 30th May In.1910 the appellant offered to take charge of hie sons and defray the expenbq o f their roaintenanee and education in England and at the ttniversity. of Oxford. The,responde:iit accepted that oiser, and by a letter to the appellant, dated 6 r,k March I910, Sbuthorized her to take charge and be guardian o f Hs sons, who were thereafter iisxher oaatody and were eventually in February taken by Her to; England where she le#t them softer mafeing arrangements for giyin:^-th;e33a;ft oonrsb

50 x o ir g:bi?ekal ik d e i: o f tuition snoh aa would enable them to oijtei' the UnivoT;fiity, 15 of reasons to which, it ia unnecessaiy to refor, the respondent, on 11th May 1912, can^ celled hi0 prfivjoua lettei of 6th Jano 1910 and clomrtuctikl that hia sons ahottlii be restored to his custody, and on the app^^lhi-nt (hlieu in Indiii,) refusing? to ootnply with his demand ho institntdcl in tho Di;-itri<;ir Court of Ohingleput the present suit which was tranaperrorl f.o the Ilig h Oonrt sit Madras ivnder clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 18(j5, :u\d in tlio ahsenco ol: the sons a deoree wfis made and affirmed on fippoal declariiiy lyhat thoy wore wards oi Coui t', tha.t the reapondf=nt was ft-nardian of their [)oraonti, n.nd ordei-ing the appellant to make over cti^fcody of rjjem to tho respondent. Held, that the suit was entirely miacsonceived ; that tlk* rohpotidont romaitied guardian of his sons notwithstnndina; that ho had suiistifmficd tho appell'infc in his place, that the letter of 6th Jmio 1910 has a revooahlo unthority and that the real qtieations for decision were whehier in tin* fsvonlis that had happened, the rospondent w'as at liberty to revoke tho authority, and wa» still enticled to exeroi.se the functions of gnjirctian, an^i rckumo th',> cn«ti>dy of his sons, and alter the scheme which had been forrnnlabed for their odneation ; and those questions had to be determined with re^iu'd t;o the intorc'sl'.h and welfare of the infants, and their pareititage and relij^ion, and conld only be decided by a Court, exercisinpc the jurisdiction of the Crown over infants! and in their presence ; that the District Court Viad no jnriadiction over them except such as was conferred by the Guardians and Wards Ac(-, (VITT of 18S/0) which was confined to infiinta ordinarily I'pRidenb in thi' district and as the infanta who had months previously left India with a view to bcinf^ educated in England and going-to the ltnivorsi(-y of Oxford, cmdd not be said to be ordinarily resident in the district of Ghing'lopnfc, tha,t Ooart had no jurisdiction in the maiter ; that a suit inier partes is iiut tho form of procedure prescribed by that Act for proceedings in a District Court, tnnohinf? the guardianship of infants, that the powers ol the High Court in dealing with suits transferred to ifc nnder clause 13 of the Letters Patent, I 86S, would seem to be confined to the powers which but for the transfer, might have been exercised by the District Court, that a, mandatory order directing the deiendanbs to tal?e possession of the infants in 1i]tif.dand and brinp: them to India was one which considering their af?e conld not b(.'. eirlvjrood if they refused to return to India and ought not to have been made, and that that the most which a Ooart of competent im'isdietion could do under the circumstances such as existed in the present case was to order the appellant to concur with the respondent aa the infanl;s g-uardian in taking' proceedings in England to regain the custody and p.ontrol of his sons, field furfher, that with respect to the order declai ing the itf<mts wards of the Court and appointing' tho respondeiit as their gnnrdian whicli th(* Uistrir't Court could n<tt have made in a suit by which it was allejiod that tho High Coiirti oonld in its general jnriadiotion thaa whatever mny have boon the jurisdiotion of the High Court, to declare infants wavda of tho Court, axi order declaring a guardian could only made if tlie iiifcomsts of the infante required it, and that an order made when the infants Wore not before tho Oonrt and withoufe adequately cousidering th<?m their interest oould not bo supported ; that no order declaring a guardian ( oiild by reason of aeotion 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1S90, bo made daring rospondcmt a life unless in the opinion of the Oonrt, he was unfit to be their gaardian. Siudo tho admtfigion of the appeal the iufaxits had been allowed to intervene, and they stated through counbpl that they did nob wish to rotarn to India and abandon the chances of a University education in England. Tho appeal, was allowed, and the suit: dismissed without prejudice to any application tho respondent might think fit to make to the Hifth Court in England touching the guardianship, custody and maintenanos of his children. PA&K Beaant y. Narayaniah, (1915) 88 Mad., 807 CrUAEBIANS, a de facto, alienation hy t -See Hjndtj Law, GUABDIAN, ad litemj not appointed: See OiTir- PBOcaDimK Code (A c t Y o f 1908), AND ^ j alienaiion hy a : See Lim itation A ct (IX o f 1873), ss. 7 and 8, AsrpABT, 4 4 '

51 GENERAL INDEX ^O V , a3 mofliet, lease by :~ S ee Taa-NBFBR o f P r o p e r t y A c t (IV oi 1882), skc , if not alivp, recourse to Court, necessary : See H in d u Ljlw. j natural, as repudiation by father of a lease by mother as guardian : See TRANSXi-EE oi? PROPKaTV a c t (IV op 1882), s e c , paternal aunt not a i See H i n d u L a w. GUARDIANS, natural, tuho are ^Sen Hiivnu Law*. GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT ( 11! OF ft ),isb. 9 a n d 19;~See G u a s - DIAN. PAGE HEIR, PREFERENTIAL See H in d u L a w. HEIR OF LEGATEE, same as legatee : 8ee (I n d ia n ) S u c c e ssio n a c t (X of 1S65), SEC HEIRS OF PROMISOR, alsn, rule of perpetuities, a^ppucct-hle fo :~ 8 e e Pre-em p t io n, CONTRACT OF ^ contract of presemption, not enforcsable against: See P h e s e m p t io n. (MADRAS) HEREDITARY VILLAGE OFFICES ACT (I OF 1876), sue. 2 : Nee H in d d L a w, HEREDITY, principle of, right to succeed iy, proof and validity of j See M u h a m m a d a n L a w. HIGH COURT, jurisdiction of, under Oharter Act 24 ^ 25, Vict> c- 104, art. 15 : See OaiMiNAL P r o c e d u r e C ode ( A ct Y of 1898). (INDIAN HIGH COURTS ACT), 24 & 25 V ic t., c. 104, s e c See T he M a d e a s C i t y M u n i c i p a l A c t (III oi? 1904), HIGH COURT, power of, to matie rules : See P r e s id e n c y S m a lt, C a u s e Coubts A ct (X V o f 1882), s f H a n d will not interfere with an acquittal in revision, where an appeal mig'ht have been preferred hy Qovernment : See Crim inal FR00B',DDBt3 Code ( A ct V 01? 1868), s e c HIGH COURT S power of interference under Charter Act, Tici., c, 104, art. 115 reneioed : dee C r im in al P roobujurb Code (A ct Y of l'^i)8), sec HINDU LAW -. See Civ il P koceduef. Code (A c t V of 1908), O. X X III, e ^ T b a n s f k b of P k o p e r t y A ct (IV o f 1882), seg; ^ Acqvtisition of property hy husbava and tuife Joini-trade Property, joint-^w ife's interest f^tridhanam Power of disposition Death of w ife No survivorship to hushand Bevolution on hsira Suit in ejecinieni Decree for foin t possession, if, can he givon,.^ Where oei'tain properties wera acquired with the proflfcs earned by a hnsband and his wife (who were Hindns) in a trade which was Ofirried oa by both of them : Held, that the propei'tiea were titider the Hindu law the join*-, properties of the husbatjd and the wife, and her ir.tereat therein was har Btridhauam which on her death did not survive to her husband but devolved on the heirs t,o her stridhanam ptopertj. Property acquired by a woman by her own exertfoue during covert are ir'her own. property which s^e is entitled to holdindepfiu' dently of her husband and it devolves on her heirs on her death. Though the suit be one in ejeotment, a decree for joint possession may be passed in favour of the plaintiff. Muthu RamaTirishna NaicTcen v. Marimuthu &oundan. (1915) I.L.R., 3S Mad., 10S ^^ Adoption Authority to ctdopi, construction of Eistrinsic evid.ence, admissiluify of Sucoesisive adoptions Limits for the exercige of the poiver to adopt F irst. ndopted son, death of liia widow alive Seco'nd adoption hy - widow of previous owner, validity of lm]pa.rti^lb]zamindjati, how far 'joint family property Vesting o f property in a co-ptyrcener, meaning of~~pivssting of property by adopiioyi Rule as to -adofuon to last. 'male hdlder~a;ppucaiii~ Uty of rule to ordimary co-patcenaryla-nd to. impartible'

52 XCVl O EN BKALIN D EX holder of a.n impartible zamindari, died in 1868 'witliou.*, isane, leaving a widow ST. Prior to liis death, be executed a document aathoriziag" her to adopt a son. to him. On his death his brother R succeeded to the estate. S-abaequenfcly in 1S70, K adopted B who recovered the zamindari from E by suit and died ii\ 1906 without iflsne loaving a widow R.M. On the death, of B, the son o R succeeded to the zamindari but died fifteen daycf after his accession ; the first and second defendants -were his sons. In 1907, K purporting to act iinder the power given by her husband, adopted the plaintiff as 01 son to her hufiband, while R.M. the widow of B was alive. The plaintiff sued to recover the zamindari from the defendants. The latter pleaded that the power to adopt f^iven to IT by j4 (her ha.sband), did not authorize her to make a second adoption, that the existence H was a bar to the exercise ot the power even if ifc was not exhausted by thfe first adoption and that the adoption, n.ot liavinf? been made to the last male holder, was invalid. Held, that the power to adopt g^ivon by A to K wus wide enongh to enable her to make a Becond adoption, but that the power was not exercisable by reason of thefact that B.M. (B a widow) was alivo when the second adoption was made by K, Per W h i t e, C.J. The rule that an adoption should be mad to the las-t male owner is applicable to a joint Hindu family living? under the Mitakshara law. Sivagnanam Servaigar v. Ramaswamy GheMiar (1912) 22 85, referred to. Per SESHAstBi Ayyat, J. The canon of construction regarding powers to adopt is not different from that of ordinaiy testamentary dispositions. The intention of the testator has to be g-athered from the language employed by him and from the circnmstancea existing at the time of the grant of the power. The a u t h o r i t y given by a Hindu to his wipe should be regarded as being general in its nature unless conditions have been imposed or limitations placed upon it by him. Where the exercise of a power to make a second adoption will not result in creating a new line of succebsion but will only transfer the estate from, one intermediate'owner to another with the prospect of the latter being eventually divested, the limib of the power to adopt should be held to have been reached. An estate taken by survivorship by a member of a joint Hindu family is a conditional estate subject to defeaeauoe on the coming into esistence by adoption or otherwise, o f a new member into the oo-paroenary; the rale of law tha,t, in order that an estate once vested may bo divested, the adoption should be made to the last male holder, is not applicable to co-parcenary property ; and an. impartible zamindari is joint family property subject to an exceution. Madana Mohnna V. Purunhotama (1915) I.L.E., 38 fifad., Contract by father to sell family la. tids SuAt for specific performance against father Son added subsaquentlij as defe.yida.-nt JVi necessity for contract Contract not binding on son Plaintiff's right to cr^nveyance from father of his share only Partial performance, meaning of Spechia Relief Act { I of 1877), sec. 15 Contract by a co-jjarcener to sell his share in family property, and contract to sell spezific fartiily property, distinction hettijeen.] The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain lands and for possession. The contract was entered into by the first defendant, the undivided father of the second defendant who was subsequently added as a party to the suit. The first defendant pleaded that the contract was vitiated by undue influence and was a hard bargain that; ought not to be enforced against him. I be second defendant pleaded that the contract waa entered into by the first without any legal necessity and was not enforceable in la<w. It was foun.d that there was no undue inflaence or hard bargain and that there was no necessity to enter into tho contract. The plaintiff offered to pay the fall consideratio^i for a conveyance of the lands which were the separate property of t.he first defendant and of his intei'f^st in the family lands. Held, that the plaintifs; was not entitled to a deoree for speoifio performance ot tlie contract against the first defendant or the second defendant. Per S/vnkaran Uair, J. A person is entitled to specific performance of a, contract by a member of a Hindu fam ily to sell his sharo of the family property. If a junior member o a Hindu fam ily agrees to sell any Hpeoifio property belonging to his family, a decree cannot be passed against him to sell hia share of that specific property. Kosuri Eamaraju v. Ivaluri Ramalingam (1903) I.L.R., 32 Mad., 74, Srinivasa Reddi v, Sivarama Reddi (1909) I.L.R., 33 imad., 320 and Poraka Sv?>harami Rsddi r. Vadlamudi

53 q e n m a l rai>es ^ o T i i PAGE Beshachalam Ohetfy (1910) I,L E., 33 Mad., 359, referred to. 2\a jiali v. Fsii- Tcatarama Sasiriilu^ (1 914) I.L.K, 37 Had., 387, dissented frornr N anjaija Mudati 7. Shanmugd Mudalv (1914) 15 il.l.t., 1S6, followed. Maltamjah of Bobhiii Y. VenJcaf aramanjidu Naidu, (1914) 16 M.L.T., 181, referred to. Suhba VenJcatarami (1915) I.L.R., 38 ^Jad., IIS^ Guardian of a minor's person and property IfatViTCtl guardians, 7dIio a^e Rights of parents, eld&r brother and direct male and, fenialb ancestors ~ Paternal amit not a, natural gnm-dia.n King's rights paramuum EeCJuri^e to Gojiri nccessary i f no naiurai guardian alive Alieyiation hu de facto gtt-ardian Sftiing a$ide if necessary Suit for possession Limitatio^i Act (U n / ), art. 44 or applicability o/.] Under the Hindu law, nobody else than the father and tlie m ctlierof a minor (witli prohabie exceptions in favour of tlie elder brother find the direct male and female anoestors) is enfcifeied as a mattev of natural right to be aiad to act as a guai-dian of a niiuor s person and p rop erty; caiseqaently a paternal aunt is not a natural guardian of a minor. Where there is no natural gaardian. alive, iccourse mttst be had to the Court, as representing the rights of the King which are p.'iraaiounfc to even the rights of the parents, for ihe appointment of a guardian. AlieQationa 'vvith.oah necessity, made by a de facto guardian, need not be set aside. Article 44 of the Limitation Aofc (IX of 1908) does laot apply to alienations by TinaathoriBed guardians. Thayammal v. Kuppanna Xoundan... (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 1125 Inheritance Illegitimate children, right of, to Prostitution, not desrtoying Jcimhip by blood Milakshara Daitijhterst meaning legitiviate daughters.^ Except in the case of Sudras, among whom illegitimate sons have a Hgh^; of Buecessioii, illegitimate children are not heirs under the Hindu lavs'-, especially under the Mitakshai'a system, to succeed to tlie property of any kind left by either of their parents. Hence, a legititaate son of a sndra woman, born in lawful -wedlock, succeeds to ihe property acquired by his mother by prostitution afteor the death of his father and her ilhjgitinaate dan.yh.ter born in prostitution, is not an h.eir to such property. Prostitution doe.s not sever the tie of kinship by blood and does not bring the prostitute "within the categorv' o f dancing- f?irls "whose children are allowed by custom and precedent in Southern India the right of succession to th*e property acquired by their mothers. The word daughters in the rule of the ilitaktihava vvhich allows duuglitei's to succeed to their parents property in certain cases, means only legitimate daughters. MeenaJcslii y.muman3,i Panilclian (1915) I.L.lil-, 3S Mad., 1144 Inheritance Leprosy, annegthetic. not a ground of exclusion from IncuraM hty, not a safe test Grounds o f 'exclusion in texts, some ohsalete.j Under the Hindu Law a person suffering from the auffisfehetio fortn of leprosy, though considered incurable by medical men, is not diaentitled to inherit. Obiter: Both under the Hindu Law texts and the decided oases it is only the a.?onitiing, sanious or nlcerons type of leprosy that ia a disqualification to disinherit. Defofmity a,nd tinfi.fcnes3 for social intercotirse arising from the virulent and disg-ustintr aatnre of the disease are the testb for fxelusion from inheritance. JanardhanPandurang y. Qfjpal Pandurang et al (1868) 5 B.H.C.E,. (A.O.J.), 145, Ananta v, Ramaiai (1877) 1 Bom., 554, Rangayya ChBtii t. ThanUcachaUa Mudali (1P96) I.L.B., 19 Mad., 74 and ^elan J)asi v. Durga. Da^ Mandal (_IQ08) 4 O.L.J.^ 323, distingniahedt UaucAod T. (1907) 9 Bom. L.E., 1149, referi'ed to. Many of the grounds of exclusion referred to in the tests would not n o w ; be enforced by tlte Oourfcs a,nd are practically obsolete.'. Kayarohana Patha.nr-Su'bbaraya^eva'fi» (1915) LL.E., 38 Mad., 2Sp -Joint family cb~parcenary-~pu i'c'hase from a co parcen»r~~its m family co-parcendty AH nee, not a ten*xnt in "bkiebniing ouh-caste^ excluded from family- jdcfe (JX 10/ 1008)4; a r ti 14 *2.] W h e n a c o - p ^ C e n e r, a l i e n a t e s h ifl s h a r e ' i n c e r t a i n B p s o i f i e f a i n i l y j j r o p e ^ t y, t l i e a.lie i!e e d o e s k o ti a c q n i r e 'a-tty i n t e r e s t i n th a.t p r o p e r t y b v ii.o n l y '«,Q' e q o i t ^ t o e n f o r c e i i s l i g l i t s. w ii'a..' sfei'-t f o r - p ft rfc itio ft a n t i t p fcare-...'" 1

54 - xoyiii g e n e b a i- in d e x - property alienated set apaxt for the alienor H share if possible. Bern Qhunder GJiosev. Thaho Muni Beii (1893) LL.R., 20 Oalc., 533, Amolalc Ram V* Ghandan Singh fl902'i I.L.K,., 24 A.1L, 488, Narayan bin Baba$i v. Naihaiji Durpaji (lyo-ti) I.L.K., 28 Bom., 201, Pandiirang v. Bhasi ar (lh7 i) H Bom. H.O.R., 72 axid Tldaritm v. Banu (1874) 11 B om.'li.c.r.j 76, op p i OTcd. The alienee cannot thereforo sue for partition, and allotment to him of hia sliare of tho property alienated. Tenhafarama v. M^era Labai (1890) I.L.R.,, 13 Mad., 275, Palayii JConan V. Ilasahonayi (181)7) I.L.R., 23 Mad., 243 aad RciTnldshore Keclarnath v. Jainaraija^ llamrachhjial (1913; 14 M.L.T., 163, referred to. Such aa alieneo Uas no rif^ht to porsessinii and no, Htatus as a tenant in nornmon although ho mi,"lit hiive obtained p.asespion o f tho property in exi'cution of the decree against one of t!ie co-parceners. Deendyal ta l v. Jugdi^e'p Naram Singh (1877) 4 I.A., 247, SuraJ Bunsi Koer V. Sheo Persad Singh (1880) 5 Oh1c 148 (P.O.), llardi.narain Salm V. Ruidp.r Perkash Misser (1884) I.L.Pt., 10 Calo., 6'iO, followod. VVhenf Ui co-phrce'ner became an out-oanta and was driven out of ithe family, and did not enjoy family property for over 12 yaars, it amounted to oxclubion and the right to reaover ais shnre is barved. Per BaicewelCi, J. The transferee only arqnires an equity and it ia only a right iw aw, and not a right in rem and the transferor remains a member of the coparcenary until partition iis effected. Tho f ue8tion whether a general or partial partition wilvlie ia not one rclahhig to tho law of procedure but miist be decided according to the principles of Hindu Law. Suhba B.ow v. Ananilm'mruyana Aiyar (1912) 23 M.L.J,, 64.' nt p. 70 and Ihuramsa IBowtlian V. Theruvengadasami NaicJc (1911) I.L.R., 34 Ma,d., at p. 270, dissented from. A purohasei' of the iiitpreet of a co-paro,finer nmst sne ibr a general xjartition of tho eatir«family property. Ihuramna Roiothan V. Theri^vengadasarni Naidc (hdi.l) T.L.B.., 34 Mad., 269 at p. 274, applied. When such parchnser fails to apply for amoudment of his plaino, after an issue is raised qaestionhig the frame of the suit, hia suit is liable to be dismissed. Subba Roio v. dna^nihanarayana jii-ya?* (1912) 2S 64 at p. 70, referred to. PAGB Ma-njaya y, Shmtmuga (1915) I.L.B.,, S8 Mad., 684 -]\T a in ietia n ce laidon), r a te o f Posansaidn b y uh dow o f o th er property yielding incnine Tiight to get maiviicnance from liushand's estatp.,] The fact that a Himlu widow is ahle to maintain herself out of sther property is no ground for not giving her aome maintenance ont of her husband s estate, but it ia a factor to be taton into account in determining the qxiantuvi o maintenance to be decreed her. 'Uhe right of a widow of a co-parcener in a Hiodn fam ily to maintenance is an absolnte riglit due to her metnberbhip in the family and doer not depend on any necessity arising from her want of other means to snpport heiself. Kamawafi Koor v, Mv^ftihari Koer (190G) 4i O.L.J., 74, diaseabed from. Lingayyar, Kanahsam m a... (1915) I.L.E.. 38 Mad,, Minor Will incapoxity to make Contract, inca padty to malce - Majority, age of, for matcing a ivill Indian Majority Act (IX of 1875), sec. 8, effect of ^Onus of proving majority, on, yjropounder of a will Onus of proof, immaterial, where whole evidence recorded Mdian Evide^ice A d (I of 1S72), j3<?c. 32 (5) ojitj (6) Recital in a father's uaill aa to son s ag&, adinissibiuty of Indian Evidence Act {I of 1872), ss.b5and> 82 Itegiaier of births and deaths, admisdhihty of, under Indian Evidence Act (I o/ 1872), sec. 145 Documentf intended to eontradict wtinaas, not yut to witncax, in admissibility of~boroscope, if)hen admissible.'] A Hindu minor tho'igh not governod by the Hindu Wills Act or the Indian Succession Act cannot make a will and the ago of majority for the purposes of making a will is determined by the Indian Majority Act. Subbayyay, Kondayya (1906) 16.VI,I/.,T,, l.-<5, Deheram BuUeya v, Somanchi Seetfiaramayya (1911) 2 M.W.N', dsd, BhagiratM Bai v. rishidanath (1905) 7 Bom Jj.R,, 92, Bai Uulalb v, ThalcQteM (1012) T.L.R-., 86 Bom,, ^22 Bind. Eard7vari Lai V. Garni (1911) I.L.tfc., 33 AU., 325, followed. Per Tyabjx, 3. (WHiTjfl, C.J. omipr). When the defence of mijiwity of the testator is raised to invalidate a nill, the onus is on the party setting U p the will to show that the testator was of full age when, he made it and in the matter of, Qnus, KiinQiity and, testameatarx iaoapaoifcy stanci on the earn

55 GENERAL INDEX X O is a fontmg ; Smee v. Hmse (1879) 5 P.D., 8-i and Bhagirathi Bai v- Viahivanaih (1905) 7 Bom. L.K., 92, followed. A lioi'ohcope is not spoken to either by writer or by one who hadspgofal meaiia of knowledge as to its correctnps'^ is inadnaissiblfl in evidence. Per Whitr. G J. Tho question on whnm T,he» onna of proof lies is not of mnoh intportjinco whpii tlie wliolc evidi^nce has b<?en recorded. Chaudhry Mohamtnad Mehdi Hasan Khan v. Sri Wandir Dan (3912) 17 C.W.N"., (P.O.), followed. A recital in a testator s father s will laeutinninfr the a»:e of thf^ teat)it'<r is admissible to prove tlie age of the testator nnder section F>2, clauses (o) and (6) of the Evid>^nce Act acd illi:iflti-atiun (I) to that noctimi. Orinnial G vernmpni Secwrity Life Assm-ance Comj)(inp, Limited v. Narasimha Ghn.ri (U>02) f L.R., 25 Mad., 183 at p, 2^7, Ra n Chundrcn Butt v, Jogt'sicar Narain Deo (1893) I.L.Er., 20 Calc., 75R, Deheram BuUeya v. Somanchi Ssetkaramayya (1911) 2 M.W.N., 8S3 and Su,lramanian Chetty t. Dorai^imja, (1904) 24; M L.J., 49, followed. A register of births and cteaths kept niicer Madras III of 1899 is a public d»icainent and a certified copy thereof is admissible under seotion.q 35 and 82 of the Evidence Act. A document by which it is intended to contradict a witness will not be admissible in evidence under seotion 145, Evidi't ce A ct, nr.less it is ])nt to the witri'^se or aiilt ss it is otherwise admissil le under the Act. Per G ^riam : Unfler t.he Hindu common. law a minor cannot make any disposition of propertjp during- his lifetime, e.«'., a g ift; and consequeiimy he cannot make any disposition of his property to take effect after his detith. PAGS KriaJinamachariar r, Krifihnamachanar... (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad., 166 -Succession Maiden's 'property Proferential heir.'] One Sit'ibai who became eiititled to Ks. 3,000, under sn insurance policy on the death of her f Aiher, died uumarried ; and t.he plaintiff, the sister of her mother, sued for a declaration thiit the defendant who whs the step-mother of the deceased Sitabai was not her heir nnder the Hindu Law and that sheas the maternal aunt, of the deceased was her lawfu] heir and entitled to the amount that was held in deposit in Court; Held, that the plaintiff w'aa not entitled to succeed in pl-eference to the defendant. Tlio swpindas, both of the father and the mother in the text oi utitak^haia, mubt refer to the same persons as rlie mother becomes a m'-mber of the father.^ familv on her marriage. Tukaram v. Narayan Raw cliondra, (1912) I L E.., 36 Bom,, 339, Jartgluhai v. Jctha A^pap (IPOS) I.L R., 32 Bom, 4o9 and JjwarTio, Nath. Hoy t. arat Chandra Singh Bay (1912) I.L.K., S9 Oalc., 319^ followed. The rule that feixaje gotraja s'ipmdas rio not inherit as a«nate relations taking the rank which they woukl be entitled to if their claims were based on sapinda relajionsbip has been eeforcfd with regard to succession to m ale s property, Balamma r. PiLllrtyya (ib95) I.L.K., 58 Mad,, 16H and Thayanitnal r. Annamalai h'ludali (lisofi) I,L.R., 19 Mad., 3S, referred to. ^ be nile that in the case uf suoceasion to sfcridhanam property, a danghter inherits a>s sapinda whtn^e the succession has to be traced through the father or the husband applies also to the case of a wife or widow, Manja J'tllai v. Sivabhagiathachi (1911) 21 M.L.J,, 851, applied. Kamala V, Bhagirathi (1915) I.L.B., 38 Mad.> 4>5 Suit for pariiuon hy a minor co-parcener~~ Right to mesne ^rojiis -No ex< lusion-~separate living nf minor co-^arcenp,r 8ame rula as in the cane of major ro-parceners-r~sv.it for accomd Principle diffjrerd ProvisiQH for expenses o f Upanayai am and marriage of co~parceners in a partition suit- Setting ap<%rt of funds- W hether Up an ay a^a and marriage- of n ale co^parceners are ohligaiory csremonies Provision for m arnage of uv-married ststers whether oiligo'tory-'- Mlteiher expenses of ca rria g e of a male co-parcpner 7S a reasonable exp ense Right to mainfenanae of m other Whether soh^a share only or share oi step-s^ons also liahle^t>octri»e of JMiialcshara as io right hy birth, encamined~ Givil Procedure Code {Aci^V of 19o8), 0. 'XLl, r. S.] In a 8uit for partition by a m inor oo-parcener against hia step-brother w ljo was a mttjorj t]!8 plsiiintiff is not entitled to recover past Bsesue profica in^fche HbseT e of J j r o o f o f e x c l u s io n b y t h e m a.iia g e r. T h e q n e fs t io n o f t k e : r i g h t a t n * o O sp a rc e T t e r t o a n a c c o u n t. f3?om tw e m a ia a ^ e r.: s t i o n ' a d H e e n t p r i n c i p l e a n d h a s n o b e a r i n g i3(i db f^irtih g^ wheilhe ::;,a to i s e n t i d e d to o la -ih i r h e s» s p r o f i t f, v. : ' M a d 6 b i a nd

56 GENERAL INDEX Ahatjachandra B,oy Choudhry v. Pyan Mohan Guho (1870) 5 B.L.R.j 3fl4, refei'i-ed to and explained. Where tlje mother of tlie plaintiff was joined aa a defendant in the suit. ov pniti(ion, bnfc a separate provision for inaiii" tenanoe was recuaed by the Oonrt of Firsl Instance on. the g-round thii,t her maintenance tjhmild coma out of tho plaintilf s own share only, and she ha,d appealed to the lower Appellate Court but preferred no Second Appeal to the Hig-h Court but was mude a respondent in the Second Appeal preferred by the first defendant, it waa held that the plaintiff who was a respondent in the Secnnd Appeal was competent to prefer a mem o randum of objections in. the Hif^h. Oourt objeotiiig to the lower Court s refusal to oiake a provision for her maintenance, as he is jiffected by tlie jud^'meat and interested in disnucine: its otu'reotneba. The TTig'h Court hna power imder Order X iil, rnle 33, of the Civil Procodrire Oode bo I'aas Buch decree as it thinks proppr dealinjrf with the rit^-hfrs of all the parties before it. Per S d n d a e a A y y a r, J, In a anit f o r partition, provision must be made in the decree for expenses of the Dpanoyanam and marriage of coparceners as well as for the expenhes ot' the mat-riage of the unmarried aipters out of the family property whether ii; is anoestral or separate or selfacqnired property of the father of the pmttios. Marriage ia a proper o e T e r a o n y for a Brahnniu and an obliji'atorv ceremony for all HiudviB with extremely few exceptions. Mol^ ru custom is undoubtedly in favour of allowing the provision. In decidinp; what ceremonies are regarded ub proi:)er and neoessary, regard shonld bo had to the sentiments of the com munity, es-paoially when there is a difference of opinion araona,' the text wi'itera. A brother who has had his own marriage jjerformod at the family expense, is not entitled to object to a similar proviaion being made for the other brotherb. The moiher of a co-parcener is entitled to have a provibion made for her maintenance out of the entire family property including' the share of her atep-son as well as the share of her own aoii, Zamindar of Oorraud V. Meenakshi Animal (1870) 5 M.H.O.E, 377, Kuvnaraveliu v. yirana Goundan (1882) I.L R., 5 Mad., 29, f-u'b'barayalu Qhetli v. Kamala~ valu TTiayaramma (1912) I.L. R., 35 Mad., 147, referred to and followed. B.em.a'yigini I'^aai v. Kedarnaih Jlvndu- Choudhry (18S9) IB Calc., 768 (P.O.), distir.g;uished. Per Sadasiva A y y AR., J. Initiated brothers raosthet apart fiom the paternal estate the oxpenses of the initiation of the uninitiated brothers and sisters before dividing' the pat=ernal property whether it is itncestral or self acqairo 1 propnrty of the father. Upanayana or the ceremony of investiture of thread, in the case of a male member of a oopnropnary, and marri.i^e in the case of a famalo are ovjligalory sams karan which the initiated brothers are botincl to perform for their uninitiated brothers and sisnera, and the initiated brothers are bounrl to m ate a provision for the expenses of performing the same out of the paternal estate before it is divided. Marriage iu the case of a male member of a oo-parcenary ia not an obligatory samslcara for the performs,nee of which the iiiifciated brother is bonnd to make'a provision out of the paternal property at the partition. Kamesvjara. Sasiri v. Veeracliarlu (1911) l.l.b,, 34! Mad., 423 (F.B.), referred to. Per S p e k c e e, J., (on referenoe) Marriage is an obligatory ceremony for Hindus who do not desii'o to adopt the life of a Sanyasi; an.d a fund for the expenscr of the marriag'e of unmarried ca-sharerfi should be set apart at the partition of the paternal estate. PAOffi Srinivasa Iyengar v. Thiruvsngadathaiyangar... (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad., Surety delt of father So7i s liability for Order in exiecution against father as surety Subsequent partitton hetween father and son Attach,mf-nt of property allotted to son s share Non-liahildy of such property ^ Olaim phition hy son, dismissal oj Subsequent i^uit hy son -Liability of surety, if enforceable, in f-xecution Civil Procedure Code (Act X IV of 1882), ss. 253, 583 arw3 610 Oi-wiZ Procedure Code {Act V of 1D08), sec. 53, inappu^ cable luhsrc father is living. The second defendant obtained a decree for snaintenanoe against the third defendant. Pending an appeal againat the decree, the ft»riner recovered the amount iu execution, on the first defendant standing surety for the second defendant. The decree was reversed on. appeal; the third defendant applied in execution pi'oceediuga for restitation against the first defendant as aui etyj an. order 'vvas passed in execution fur reooverj of the amount against the firat defendtiat certain. }and,8

57 GENERAL INDEX <jj PAGE. attached. The plaintiff, wtno w aatte son of the first defendant, filed a claim petition objecting' to the attachment on the ground that under a partition between h.is father and himself made sabsequent to the order against the first defendant bat b -*for3 the attachuibnt, the properties in question had fallen to his8(plaintiffi a) share and consequpntly -n^ere n.jt liable to att=ichment. The petition, was diemissed. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit for a declaration that the suit properties were not li;ible to be attached under the order passed «gairlstthe h'rst defendatit. that under sections 253 and 583 of the Civil Procedure God*i (A ct X IV of J8S2), an order can be passed against a surety for recovering in esecution proceedings the amount due from him. Held further, that a Hindu son is liable, for the surety-debt of his father, to the estent of the j Intiam ily property which came to hia hands at partition. Ramachandru Fadayachi v. Kondayija Chetti (1901) I.L.R., 24i Mad., 555, followed, But a decree for auch a debt obtained against the father before partition is not executable after partition against; the son and the joint family property allotted to him. Srishnasami Konan v. Raviasami Ayyar (1S99) i.l.e,., 22 Mad., 519, fohcv^^ed. Section 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), which provides that property, in the hands of a. son. which under the Hindu laiw ia liable for the payment of ^ debt of bis deceased father in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed to be assets in the hands the legal representative, only applies to the case of a deceased father j the principle of tha section cannot be extended to a case where the father is livmg. Kam.eswcL7'amma Venkata Subha Row (1915) I.L.U., SS Mad., 1120 Will Birf/i of a son subsequent to the execution of the will, effect of, Death of the son before the testator No revocation of the will u^der the Indian law ' Revocation under the old Unglish laiu prior to Wills Act Statidory law in India Indian Succession Act (X of 1865), sec. 67 Probate and Administration Act {V of 1831), sec. 4.]. A will, executed by a Hindu testator disposing of hie ancestral property, is not revoked in law by reason of the birth, subsequent to thrt execution of the will of a son wjio died before the testator. The rule of English lavv that it was essential to the validity of a devise of freehold lands that the testator should be seized thei eof >ii the making of the will, and that he should continxie so seized without interruption until his decease, is no longer ftt force ia England in conseqaence o f the enactment of the Wills Act, The principle applicabie in India is that; adopted in the English Willfi Act that a will has the same eiject as if it were executed at the time o f the testator s death. The statutory law o f willf^ in India has not adopted the principle that a will should be deemed to be revoked in consequence of a change in the circumstaneeb of the testa» tor or a change with respect to his rights to the property dieposed of by the will. (See section 57 of the Indian Snccession Act.) Buvvivorehip has the effect of rendering a will invalid only w th re&paet to the property which the testator could not dispose of at the time of his death. A ll other dispositions made by liim are valid. Skid Sahitri Fraatzd v. The Collector of Meerut (1907) I.L.R., 29 All., 82 and isubba Reddi v. Doraisami Bathen (19U7) I.L.R., 30 Mad., 369, followed. Bodi Y. Ymlcatasimmi Naidu (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad., 369 HOLDING, swrrender or abandonment of, not an acquisition, hy landholder of right. to Tcudivarami See i^mabrab) Esta'I'ES Land A ct (I o f 1908), 6ec. 8. HOLDING UNDER, Sale of-. Bee Estates Land A ct (Madk.as A ct I o f 1908), SEC, l l l,,ei seg. HOEOSCOPE, admissifeze: 5«e Hinptj L aw. HUNDIS : See Indian Pektl Code (A ct X LV OF 1880), SKO ESTATE, right io get maintenance from t iee HtNDiD Law. HYPOTHECATION, ieiier of, accompanying a bill of eascjianget 8se (inmaff) Stamp A ct (LI 0 189y), SEO. 2 (17), ETo. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, right o/s 5ee HiNDtr Law. impso EMENTSi DCIING TENANCY, no^evaovctl o/s' Se«Landi^okp IW} : t e n a n t. '

58 dti GEHl'iRAL IN D B l IM F1I0 EM ENTS, non-removal of, durinj tenancy ;-~gee L.VNDr.oRD AND tknant , right to, afier determination of tenancy or their value ; Sea L andlord an d t e \ a k t ririht to against purcji.aser in execuiion of decree on aiortgage ' (See MAtARAit. T jekantb Jmpkovkments A ct (M adras A ct I oir 1000), BS. 3 AND &, ric/ht of tenant to, not confined agaiwt lessor : See MaTjABAR Tenants imp&ovtaments A ct (M abe4s Act 1 oii' 1000), sa. X and 5. INAB>MISS1BILIT of document intended to contradict u-itneas hut not ^vit'^eas: See H i n d u Laiv. INALIENABILITY in a zar>iindcl')'i, eustorn of onun of proof as to : See Limitation Act (X V Off 1877), art. 91. INAM AUTHOKITIES dv.tiea of i Sen Inam Begistku. INAM.3lkE., no acquisition of Imdivaram hy i--see (^Madkas) JCbtateb Laxd A ct ( I OF 190S ), SEC. Sj EXCEP no presumption in favour of: See (Mabkab) Estates Land A ct (I o f 190B), sitii.ft, K'i'C. INAMPAE A N» RYOT-. See (IHaduam) Ebtates Lawd A ct (I ok 1908). INAMDAR AND ZAM INBAS, no distinction hetu-een as to presumption : See (MAt)UAR) E ntates L and A ct (J op 1908), hec. S, etc. INAMS, yrmsttl&ment; See MAuaAs Rkgut,at(on (X X V o f 11*02), rec.'i, INAM REIilSTESS See L a n d l o k d a n d t e n a n t. INAM SETTLEMENT, at the which were topes right of Melwaramdar to trees in case of lands See ljmibi,or'd and tenant. INCAPACITY to makft a will, Minor'a : See H i n d u Law. 1NCU1A8ILIT, not a safe test s See H indu Law, INDIA, Courts in jri,rif>diction of, in absence of infants : See Guabdiaw. INFRINGEMENT 01? EASEMENT, no right to sue for s See BAsTiiMENT. S N H E ffilt, right of woman to: Bee C i v i l P r o o k d u k k C o d e ( A c t V op ), 0. X X III, K. 3. INHERITANCE See Hir'du Law. INJUNCTION against Mimicipal Council against right to remove obstruction : Sef< MI'NICIPAI, Oo CTKCir,. INJI]N TI N AND BECLAEATION, suit fo r : Bee I)KcnARATioN, ktc. INSTALMENT B N» -. See L i m i t a t i o n. INTENT, MN0WLEIISE AN D : See U dian P knal Code (A ct XLV of I860). INTESEST, liability of irubtee f. r : - See Tebbtek ^ j Qfi, damages : See Tkcstee. INTEREST ACT (XXXII OF ) JDe6i payable in kind lnteresi allowable.] A debt wbich is speciocally expressed as paj abje in Corwin fixed itieasures of grain and at a spt'fified tiine is a debt corfahi wit'hin the ineapirifr of Acb X X X II of 1839 and interest is allowable on tho Baino, Juggomohun (jjliaxe V' Mani. Jcchand (1859) 7 263, referred to- Narayan, v. J>/agappa (191C) 12 Bom. L.E., 831, dissented from, G'ovindan Nair y. Cheral (1915) I. INTERNATIONAL LAW, rules of : See Civil peookdtjbifi Code (Act Y of 1908), SEC. 86. CMAPRAS) IREIGATION CESS ACT ( V l l O P l S i S ), s m 1 construction of- UndertaMng by Government to snpphj voater for %oet lands free of charge Engagements at the time of the Perma^teni Setfhmenf Subsequent engagements, eto-press or implied, if included wnder the section, XJnauthorisedL acts of subcfdinate officert^, how far binding on Governmgni--^ Ratification, essentials of~~oommimicaiim of, to the other party, if

59 S e i j e r a l i n d e x - m i l PAG necessary Whe'^ compzete Oovernnient Orders,how fa r ratifi.catio'ns In-iiian- Contract A ct (7X o f 1872), ss 19li to 200 and 3 to G], In all cases of periuanentily settled estates, wliere the inctomee derivable from wet lands have bepn ta k fn in to considei atioii in settling- the peshkash payable to Govemn-^nfc, thpre is an im plied uudertakibg of the natm-g of an enforceable con tra ct on the part o f the GoveriLmenfcto a llcw th e ase of G-ovemment w ater to such v/et-la u d s without ch a rg e: and this im plied undertaking adqonuts to an engagem ent within tho meaning o f the A ct. There ia a similar im plied engagem ent as regrards inam s. The w ord engagenienta in section 1 of A ct V II of 1865 ia not qualified in any w ay and is not limited.,to the cases of engagem ents deducim e fro m the circum stanoea under w hich the peahkaah (or quit-rent in the case of an inain) was dhtermiaed at the tim e o f the Perm anent Settlem ent, but includes all engagenaentr between the G ow rn m en t and the landholder th at m ight have been made or be deduoible from the circumsfcanfias, at any f.ime after tbe PerrnanenlT Settlement. Per J. H eld (on a consti'uction o f the Government Orders and other p roceed jn gs), that no im plied engagetnent o f the latter kind or a ratifleation thereof by the Governm ent was eetablisheil, An express ratification by one p a rty, w ithin the m eaning o f section 197 o f the Indian (Jontraot A ct, ca cn ot become conipleto until it ia corauiunioated to the other party. T ill then it is liable to ffevocation. T his is in accordance w ith the principles em hodted in tho provisions o f seotiona 8 to 6 o f the A ct, w hich deal with proposals, acceptances and revocations. A n ord er o f G overnm ent w hich stated that an nnanthorised act o f a subordinate officer should n ot be repudiated must be treated as an incom plete ratifioation before Qonimunication to the landholders ouncerned, and the same, having been revoked by a later G overnm ent Ordpi-, is not binding upon the Governm ent. It is not advis^ible to interpret the plain w ords of an A ct in the lighc of espre3sion.a o f i he views o f G ovpranient before its enactment, A d m mistrator-oenefcil of Bengal v, Pre-nilal M ullick (1895) I.L.R., i t Calc., 788 {^,G.),K a dir a,kh8h V. Blmvani Prasad (lb 9 2 ) I.L.R., 14 A ll,, 148, QtueeTi-Hmpress v. Bal Gfangadhar Tilak (1898J I.L.R., 22 Bom,, 112 and Hilder v. Denter (19 0 i) A.O., 474, referred to. Per Sadasiva A^yak, J. A deliberate and coiiaidored ratifioatiou by GovernQient reduced into a formal Government Order is conclusive just as a person s dtjolarafcion in a registered document would stand even if not directly comraunioated to third persons. Ratification by a long course of conduct ia not less effective than a ratification by a form al dectarabion. Congfcruction of ordera of Government and acts of public officers and ratifioations of such acta as well as the mode of thoir oornmunicationa considered. Chidamdara Baiv y. The Secretary o f State fo r In dia m OoimciHlQOS) I.L.E., 26 Mad., 66, Lutchmee Doss v. Secretary o f State for India, (1909) i.l.u,, 33 Mad,, 4i56, Kanilukuri Mahalakshniumma Cram y. The SecrePiry o f State fo r India (191L) 34 Mad., 295, Sri Raja fenh ita R angayya v. The S ect'etity o f State for India (1913) 417, Ke^ari Fenkatasubbiah v. The Secretary of State for India (19,13) 14 ivi.ii.t,, 131, Becreta-fy of d a te for India v. Amhalavaaa Panda asannadhi (19LI) I.Ii.lL, Mud., 366, M aria Susai M udaliar y. The Secretary of State fo r India in Gouncil 14 M.L J., 33i), The Sectetary of State for India in Oomiail V. Perumal t'iuai (1901) LL.K., 34 Mad,, and VenkataM ungayyfiappaeaa V. Secretary of State for India- (1913) 24 M.L.J., 680, referred to. Rajago^alacharyiilv/ Y. BecretariJ of State... (1913)' T.I*,R., SS Mad,, 997 JOINT BUSINESS by tioa brothers :^ 8 e e Muhammadan L a w ^ rofita c f, ^ ro 'p eriies p u r c h a s e d o iti o f : S e e Mu h a k m a d aw L aw, JOINT F A M IliY PKOPEKTY, if, exists in M'U-hammadcm L aw ' DAIS L a w, JOINT POSSESSIONt dsecree/or, if, can be ghan ;~isee H is cctl a R JOINT P R O P E S T T :-^ 8 es Sxn;>u, Law. JOINT T R A D E :~~S'es M m nn Law. J1JB6E Sidie-'o/ mind of the, c^ter Maaring M e. uppeai:t---s0ey: Opi>B (A ct V 6» i9 0 a ), O X L I, a. 27, o p ; (6)v MirHAiaMiA"

60 e iy C4Eiri3RAli SN fiei PAOit; JUDGMENT, «ot pronounce<?, Record lost Procedmv.] Where in a cviminal case tlie aooiised was oonvicfced and sentenced, the reeords in the caso V)Ging at th.0 tim lost. ReM, that it was unnecessary for the Hig h Oouvfc to ordt'r fi retrial especially hi the absence of an appeal by tho accused peison, Thfro is no provision of law wiiioli enacts tliat nulees all the records of anoase are in the Court-housse at the time of conviction and sentence the conviction and sentence are void and should be quaslied or that the Session0 Judpiv s trial has been held or the sentence paeeed without jnriadiofion. Where a Judgment has been lost the appropriate course is for the Sessions Judge to rewrite it frona memory, and from, the materials before him and place it oa record. JRe Kamakshammn (1915), I.L.E., 38 Mad., 498 JV06MENT OR FINDINGS on two issues, one irhich alone 'ivas sufficient: Sf'c Rks judicata. JUDGMENT, setting aside a, for fravd : See FBAtrn. JUDGMENT-DEBTOR, death oj :~ S e e C iv il Pkocedctee C o d e ( A c t V of ), BB. 47 an d 50, ETC ^ suit by, against assignee: See A ssignee of a m o k k t- DECREE, ETC. AND ORIGINATi DECREE-HotDEa, fraud and collusion betioeen effect o f: See A s s ig n b b o f a MONicY-nKGFiisiii JUBISDICTWN : Sce th e Madras C ity MuNiciPArxTiKs A ct ov 1904) t (See Indian penati Code (A c tx L V o f 1860), skg ;------TJjg Suits Valuation Act {V ll 0/ ), sec. 8 Suit to cject a tenant holding over Court Fees Act ( F li o/ls 7 0 ), sec. 7, cl. (ivi) (cc) Madras Civil Gowts Act (III of 1873), sen. 14«.] The effect, of amendment of section 7 of the Court Peeis Act (V ll of 1870) by adding to it clan bo (ai) (<-c) is that a suit to recover immoveable property from a tenant is governed for purposes of iuriediction by section 8 of the Suits Valuation A ct (V ll of 1887), and not liy section 14 of ihe Madras Civil Courhs Act (III of 1873) ; so that in the case of such suits the valuation for purpofies of jurisdiction is the same as for Court fees, Chalasawmy Eamiah r, Chalasawmy Ramasioami (1891) , distinguished. Beshagiri Roio v. Narayanaau-anii 2Saidu (lol.'i) T.L.R., 36' Mad-., 795 0/ Civil Courts, cases involving question of-. See (lycaiibaa) E states L and A ct (I of 1908), amo. 8, OF I ndian Cotjrts to chargc and try mthout ceriificaie under sec. 188: See O r i m i n a i:. PnooEDuaE Coijis (act V o f 1898), s.s. 179 t o 18S. JURISDICTION OF CIVIL OR REVENUE COURTS A ct (I OF 1908), sec, 8, excep. r 5ee (M adras) E sta tes Land JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN INDIA in absence of infants See G uardian. of Civil or Revenue or Court :^ 8 e c (M a d eas) Estates L and A c t (I OF ), SEC, 8. JURISDICTION OF M A G ISTR A T E ; See O rim in a i, P r o c e d dkb C ode ( A c t V oi' ), SEO of Municipal Courts : See C iv it Pkocedithe C ode ( A ct V off ), aeo. 56. JURISDICTION of Revenue C o u r t ;~~8ee M a d r a s E s t a t e s L a n d A c t (I os (190S) ^plea of, notoff availallet See ( I n d i a n ) P u s A t C o d e (A ct X L 7 o r ), S AND , without evidence tafcen ly a Ccnirtt See Evipi5>'0E, k n o w l e d g e a n d INTENT : See I ndian P enal Code (A ct X L V ov 1800), SEO, 86. KNOWLElDGE o f sale when essential for the article 120 to apply t-~~8ee Limitation A ct (IX OF X9U8), Abt. 120.

61 GENI3EAL INDKX OV K T I D l V A K A M, r i g h t i o : «9es ( M a d r a b ) E s t a t e s L a x i> A ct ( I o p ), s e c. 8, EXCEP-, ETC See (M a b ra!= i) E s t a t e s L a n d A c t ( I op ), s e c. 8, e t c. KUDIVARAM JMGHT. acquisition, o j: S ee (M adras) Estates Lanb A ct (T oi? itws), SEC,'8, EXCEP , sale of I See L i m i t a t i o n A c t ( I X o f ), sisc, 22> e t c : See LiiMiTATioN A c t (IX oi' 1908), s e c. 88, e x c e p, PA8E (M AD RAS) LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT (111 OF ), SS. 3, 5 AND 1 4 Peiial assesi)7nent, levy of Suit far declaration of tule and recovery of pe'tml askbbsment Su,it bj-ought after siw months from date of 'notice and levy cf pinal assessment 6uit larred Liviitcition.[\ Where the plaintifu brought a suit agaiust the Secretary of State for a declaration of his title to certain immoveable property ami for recovery of penal assessment levied from. him. by Government under section 5 ot the Madi'as Act 1X1 of 1905, more than sis. months after the issue of notice and levy of the assessment from Mm, Heid, that the suit for declaration o f title as well as for xeoovexy of penal aseossmen.t Tras barred tinder section 14 of the Madras Act IJI of EhasTcaradu v. Suhlarayudu ( ) SS M a d., LAND HOLDER -. See ( M a d r a s ) E s t a t e s L a n d A c t ( I o f ). LAND'HOLDERS toider iham Owner of an estate : ee (Madras) Estates Land A c t (.1 o f 19u8). LAND-HOLDER, a grantee of a portion of melvaram : See (Madbas) Estates Lanu A ct (I o f 1908), ss. 3, etc* LANDLORD AND TENANT Tenancy, deterndnation of Improvements, non-removal of during tenancy Right io them, or their va^libe ajter determination of tenancy Transfer of troverty Act {IV of 1882), sec. 10y(ft.).] The plaintifi s husband took a house-siie on lease from the predecessor in title of the first defendant in After 1883 and before 1st May is^^s the plaintiff built a house thereon to the knowledge of the landlord and the lease was renewed by the first detendaut on 1st May ISyS in plaintiff s favour who thureby agreed to vacate the land on a month s itottce. While the plaintis was m potssession tinder that lease, the fust defendant filed a suit iu ejectxuent in the fcsmaili Cause Uourt, Madras, and thougli the present plaintiff tln'n sec up the claim now advanced, vizi.» 9p right to the superstructiire built by her or its value, she was ordered without the determination, of the right set up by her, to deliver possession of the land on or before the 26th February 1907, and on her failui'e to do so the first defendant was put in possession on that dale. O aths 1st August tollowing, the first defendant gave the plaintiff notice to remove the superstructure within a fortnight. She did not do so but in 1908 iustituted the present suit for (a) a declaration, that she wais the otvner of the house built by her and for its possesbion or (b) in the alternatite to be paid compeasation for it or (c) if that was not gi'anted, to be allowed to remove the superstructnx'e. W a M ii s, J., holding that tue plttiutiiii vjfas not entitled to any of the reliefs dismissed the suit. Held, on appeal, coniirming the judgmexit of W allis, J. (Sajskaran Naib, J., dissenting), that the piaiutifc was not entitled to any of the reliefs aeked fur. Held, by the Court, that the landlord wab not estopped from dispnting the plainiitt's right, if au j, by the more fact tlial; the house was erected with his kriowiedge and without any protest by hiuii.meld(wm's:ie,c,s,, djsseating), that the tenant was, for the purpose of removing the Bupersfcructuro, entitl«d to a reasonable time after the determination of the tenan-cy whether it is by act of parties or by the order of Court. Meld by ililleb,j., that the tenant having been given ample time to remote the building after giving tip posses-. Bion through Court she was not entitled to any further time. JPer W hite, C.J. -Seouoa 108, clause (A) of the Tranei'er of Property Act, goyerned the case anu the tenant was not entitled to remove the bnildings a^t0r the termi-' nation, of the tenancy. i^e/sankauan NAiBf J. Seotioxi lu8 of the ^Rmasfer of prqp$rtj' A ct is only an eiiablingf section: and it di4 mot ftw&y th

62 GTl GBN'BEAt, IN D B i pre-pxistiriff right of the tenant to compensation or to retuove the building even after the fcarraination of the tenancy if he is not given compensation. The new leased having recognised the tenant s ownership in the houbo, the pla, ntiffi a o%vn -rahip thereto cannot be defeated by har failnre to remove the honse within a reasonahle time and aa sucb ffdluve oannot effect a transfer of ownership ; all that the landlord was entitle-d to was an option to retain the bailding and pay compensation for it or to restore the land to its old condition by removing the b uldinf^ and claim dama.g'es. Per M ille r, J. The recognition by the landlord for the period of the new tenancy, of the tenant s property in the bnilniaqr haa no other neoessnry effect than to prevent the landlord from treating the building as having been surrendered to him at the end of the previous term and it. was only apiece of evidence of a contract to allow the removeahle fixture to remain a/t such upon the land for the new term. Ittmai Kan\ Rowl'han. Nazaruli Sahid (1904) I.L.R., 27 Mad., 211, referred to, English and Indian Oaae Law on the subject considered. PAGE Anga.inma,l v, ^slami Sahib (1915) I.L.ll., S8 Mad.'FIO LA.NDLORD AND TENANTS Inam Rpgister Object of mentioning the tax payible for tlib land--inam authoriiies, duties of'^right of -inelvaramdar to trses in case of lands which were topes at the. Inam Settlement, In caeeh where the holding of a tenant wa.s at the time of the Inam Settlernent and has aubseqnently been a topo consisting ot trees t,]ie mclvaramdar has a rig'ht to a portion of the valae of the trees and the ryot is not entitled to out them, down for his sole appropriation, the portion dae to melvavamdar being" determinable according' to tjie evidence. The incidents of tho tp.nare of a tenant under an inanndar areg-overned by thehiw applicable to landlord and tenant and not by tha I nam patta or the Inam Ecfpater whos'a object in mentioning* the tajc payable by the tenant was only to enable the Inam authorities to fix the quit-rent pajable to (Jovemment by the Tnamdar. Bodda Ooddeppa y. The Maharaja of Vizianngram (1907) i.l.r., 30 Mad., 155, Rangayya Appa Hao,v. Kadiyala Uatnam (1890) I.L.E.., 13 Mad., 5J49, Ajpparau v. Narasanna (1893) I.L.li,, 15 Mad., 47, Naraymta Ayyangar v. Orr (1903) I.L.Fi,., 26 ilad., 2>2, and Kalcarla Abbayya v. Raja yenjcatci Papayija Rao (L906) I.L.ll., 29 Mad., 24, distingtiished. Sri liajago^alaawami v. Jagannadha Pandiajtar. (1915) 39 Mad., 155 LANDS, AGRICULTURAL, upper and loioer owners of ; See W a t b e h IjOW LANDS, possibston o f, suit to recover ; See ' L im it a tio n A c t ( I X op 1908), SEO, 28> ART. 47. LEASE in perpetuity, validity o f : See M utt, Head or , repudiation of, bij the plaint, sufficient : See L i m it a t i o n A c t (X V o i 1877;,AaT91. suit to set aside, cn ths ground of undue influen>ce " See LtM rcation A c t (X V OF 1877), AB.T: , if barred, suit for possession also tarred: See TjIMitaitiok A o t (X T oi!- 1877), ART , of palmyra juice, luhether lease of immoveable property : See In dian lleglstbation ACT (III Oli' 1877), 8E0. 17 (1), KTC ) for fifteen years by mother as guardian Repudiation fjiereof ly father as natural guardian ; See T s a n s fe r o f Pkopbuty A ct (IV o f ), SEO. 10. >, validity of, ohjeciion by tenants ae to : See Tbansfke o V PiioPEETY A ct (IV OF 1882), 9EC. 10. LEGACY, vesting o f: See I k d ia w S u c c e s s io n A c t (X o f 1863), s e c. 187, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: See Civxr. Paoo^iDURis Oo d b ( A c t X IV of Xy82^, sffic , not hrought on record t See D e f e n d a n t, d eath oi', LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, application to bring in :~ S ee C iv il PeocedtJhe Code (Aox V or 1908), sa, 47 and 50,

63 g 'e n e h a l i n h e X f j v i i IPOS), ss. 47 AND 50. mijiorsee CiYit. P ro c e d u r e Code (A c t V o f LEGATEE, acce^itance by necessity o f : See INDIAN Succession A ct (X o f i 860). disclaimer by : See Itsdian StjuCession A c t (X op 1865) jjeir of, some as legatee See ( I n d i a n ) S u c c e s s io n A c t (X of 1865), SEC LEGITIMACY of child, ex'^ert opinion on, relevancy of i 5?ee D i\ 'o r c k. L a w. anassthetic, not a g7'0^md of exclusion from inheritance: See Eikdd LESSEE, 'permanent, not an owner, not liable to separate registration and assessment: See Hinuti Law, LESSEE OF KENT, smt by : See Tranbfeb o f PnoPERTy A c t (IV ok 1882), SEC. 10. LESSOR, rif/ht of*tanant to im'provements not conjinea against: See M alabar Trna-NTs IjfPROTEMEiVTs A.cr (M adras A c t I or 1910, sa. and 5. PAGE LESSOR AND LESSE E Assignment by letisee Assignee's right to appori^omneni, as against lessor Transfer of Property Act (IV* o/1882), s.s. 36 and 108 Afpnrtionment in English Lnw under Statute Law in Eitgland under the English Common Law Reyvt hiterest accrue!^ de die in diem Mnglish Statute Law, 'principle of, to he fallotoed in. India N o Statute Laiv intndia Afportionment as between lessor and lessee's assignee.] An assignee from a lessee ia entitled to olaitn as against tlie Igssoi' apportioiiment of rent accitilbs due after tlio date of assigiiinent to iiini up to the time of a transfer (if any) of hie interest as assignee to a third person. There is privity of estate between the lessor and the assignee, and the latter is hound to perfornx the coveriants of the lease after the assignment. Posseasiou is not the ground of the assignee s liability but the pri%'ity of estate which is created by the aesii^nmont itself, It is settled law that the j.ivivity o estate between the lessor and the leasee s assignee is tei'minated by an assignment by the asbiguee of his in terest to a tkiid person. On principle there seems to be no reason wiiy an assij^nee &hoald not be entitled to apportionment as between hiniself and the lessor, and why rent should jiot be d< eined to acorae due from day t o d iy as between them. In England the Law of apportioiimeet has Jong be^en regulated by atatutes, and all rents, etc., are, like interest 011 ajonej lent, considered as accruing froiti day to day and apportionable inre'^pect of time accordingly. In India there is no reason for not applying to rent the principle adopted in England i-n the case of interest. Kunhi Sou Y. MulloU Chathu (1915) I.L.H., 38 Mad., 86 LESSOR AND LESSEE Forfeiture for non-payment of rent Joint lessors-^ Se<paration of their ownership in the lands B,eccipt by one of the join t lessors of his shaio of rent from the lessee Right of the t ther joi'rd lessor to enforce the farfeitnre No act done by the lessor previous to the i?istitiitiovt. of the suit to detprinine the tease Election previous to suit, not necessary Waivei Transfer of Property Act (IF of 1882), sec. Hi, cl- (g) Right of re-entry wider the old English Common law.'] One of peveral joifit lessors who had become separately entitled to his share of the lands leased, is entitled to enforce the forfeiture danse in the lease deed separately as regards his share of the lands. Sri Raja Si/nkadri Appa J'ao t. Prattipati Hamoyya (1906) l.l.fi., 29 Mad., 29, followed. Gopal i^am Mohuri Dhakeewar Pershad t^arain (1908) I.L.R., So bale., 807, dissented from. JMere breach b y th e lessee of a coyenant involving forfeiture contained in a lease of lands esecated for at rioxilixiral purposes, gives a s^ifficiont cause of action to the lessor to hying the suit in eiectment,;a:nd it is not necessary that the lessor should do some act showiiog his intention to deterinine the lease before he bring-e his suit in ejectment. Tenkaiaraniana Bhattay. Ou-ndaraya (19 '8) I.It.B., 81 Mad., 408, distinguished, Pad'manabhayya Y, 2ianga 0911 y I 84 Mad., 161, follofred. Pef Sadasiva A yyar, J. As the breach of the condition gives irise to a (sause of achoii at onee, there is strictly.no question o f eleodob beti'rteen tvii'o different right,8 but there is only an eleobion whether the lessor is to;!;e^taiia :feli0 rjgl^^ crea,ted by the breach or to give up the sigfafe Tiie ret«jstiott^'r^ definit** physioat aofe vvhi^ the waiter doebi.' K^afaJ.uv,Nof:a y)m(t v

64 ^ v iii GTCNBltAt indtix LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION, grant of, to the Administratof-Qeneral t See A dm in istratoe-g bn eeal s a c t ( i l of 1874). L IA B ILITY, clause of exemption from, after goods are free of ship's iaclde, validity of : See B i l l o f Lading in damages : See Thustee ^of sons to pay thsir fclther*s debts ; See M alabae Law ^of trustee for interest: See Trust-ek Origiiicbt, Suit on, not maiiitainable : See VarThamava. LIGHTERS OS BOATS, warranty of seavjorthiness, not extending to :~~'Sea B i l l OF LADING. LIMITATION Adrnission in a previous smt of liability fo ra debt Debt barred (it the date of admission No estoppel from- pleading, in a m'b- ieqnent Buit Plea of limitation, agreement against or waiver of Estoppel apaitist an act of the legislature Difference between the English and the Indian law- Limitation {Act IX of 19U8), sec. 3, arts. 74, 75j 80 and 120 Instalment bond Default in paijment of instalments, meaning of Tender by debtoi B,efusal of acceptance by C7'editor, ')W default Waiver.1 The plniiifjiit released his interest in a certain busiaess in favonr of the dofendants for a consiclerafcion of Jis. 30,000, for which the defendants executed to tbe plavntift: on tbe Bame date (12th. December 190-i) a promissory note pajable by monfclily instalments of fis. 1,000, the whole sum being recoverable in the event of three Biiccessive defaults. After sixteen instahjionts were paid, the ptaisitilf refused to receive farther instalmenta tendered by the defendants but brought a suit in August ltj06 to set aside the release deed on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud. The suit was distnissed and, on appeal, the dismissal was confirmed on 19th.lanuary Jn the Appellate Oonrt an oral application was made on behalf of the plaintxfl that a decree might be passed in that suit for the amonnt of the balance of the instalments. The defendants seated in the Appellate Oonrt that they were always ready and willing to pay the amonnt but pleaded that no decree could bo passed in that suit for the amount and the Appellate Court refused to paas a decree for the same. The plaintiff then made a demand on the defeudantg on 25th January 1910 for the balance of the instalments due on the promissory note and on refuaal hy the defendants brought the present, sint. The defendants pleaded the bar of limitation. The Trial Judge held that the defendants who had admitted their liability for the amount in resisting the plaiiitis s application in tbe previous suit were estopped (though not under sectioq 115 of the Indian Evidence A ct) on general principles of law and equity from pleading that the suit for the amount of the instalments was barred by iim.itation. The defendants appealed: Held (on appeal), that the defendants were not estopped from pleading that the suit was barred by limitation. Ra7igayya Appa. Rau v, Narasimba Appa Rau (18H6) I.L.li.; ly Mad., 416, Khetro Mohan Chatterfeo v, Mohim Ghandra Dos (1913) 17 C.W.N., 518, referred to. Seshachala Naichar v. Varada Ohariar (1802) 25 Mad,, 55 and JBaij Nath Ram Goenha v. Hem Ghunder Bose (1906) 10 C.W.N., 959, distinguished. Mohummud Zahoor Ali Khan r. Mueswmat Thotkooranee Bucta Koer (1867) 11 M.I.A., 468, explaiaed. There can be no estoppel against an act of the legialabure. Jagadbandhu Saha v. Radha~ kri&hna Fal (1909) LL.K.., 36 Gale., 920, and Abdul Aeis v. Kanth^ MalUck ( l y i l ) l.l.k,., 88 Calc., 512, referred to. Under the Indian law parties oannoc waive or contract themselves out o f the law of limitation. Article 75 of the second eohedule of tbe Limitation Act (IX of 1908) is not applicable to the case becaxise there was no default within the meaning of the article on the part of the defendants in the payment o the instalmentb but there was only a refuaal on the part of the plaintifi! to receive the instalments tendered by the defendants. Article o the Xiimitation Act, and not article 120 was applicable to the case and accordingly the suit &s to nine out of the fourteen in.titalmeh.t8 was barred by limitation. Difference between the English and the Indian law as to the plea of limitation pointed OQt. Per "Whitjc, O.J. Assuming there waa default, the plaintiff waived the benefit o f the provision when he repudiated the agreement which gave him the benefit of the provision. Per Olditxsld, J. Mere abbenco of completed payments for "whioh the debtora hate BOtt been respombi^)!, PAGE

65 GBNEEAL INDEX a i x PAGE cannot be treated as equivalent to the default refereed to ia the first column of article 75. Wbexa tliere is no default in payment the qnestion o f waiver of the benefit of the provision for immediabe payir.ent doea not arise. Article 75 m o st be held jspplicable only to the class of BuitH in which a default hils occnrred and in wbicli the provision as to w aiver m ay be material. Article 74 or th e more general article 80 is applicable to this case. Sitharamav. Krishnaswami (1915) IX.Tv., 38 Mad., 374i (^Madras) Estates Land Act (I o / 1908), ss. 210, 211, cz, (2), art. S oj scti.> Part A Suit f07^ rent under registered agreemfnt, Viore thait three years but less than six years of the Act coming into force Statutes Construction of Eetrospective cperation^^ohen JAmiiation Act {XV of art. 116, applicability of suits for rent in a Revenue Court.] A suit to enforce an iuamdar s right to rent nnder a registered agreement, which accrued due more than three years but Jfess than six years before the Estates Lnnd Aot came into force ia not barred by the limitation of three years enacted by its provisions bnt is S'overned by article 116 of the Limitation A ct. Siection 210 and article S of Part A to the schedule of the Madras Estates Land A ct (I of 190S) have no application to cases where the period of three yeai s thereby provided bad expired before the 1st July 1908 when the Act came into force and where to apply them would be to deprive the plaintiff of a right of action which waa then vested in him. The rule regarding' vested rights ib not confined to substantive rights but extends equally to remedial rights or vightb of action including'rights of appeal. Ketrospective operation of statutes coasidered. Colonial Sugar Refining Company y. Irving (1905) A.C.j 369j applied. Uamahrishna Chetty v. Snbbaraya Iyer...,..(1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad,, 101 LIM ITA TIO N : See ( M a d r a s ) Lakd E n c e o a c h m e n t A c i (III o f 1906) See ( I n d i a n ) L im i t a t io n A ct ( I X o s 1908) lim itation Act (IX of 1903), sec. 15 (3), applicability of, 8uUa under Acts, special (^Madras) Revenue Recovery Act (II 0/1864-)^ sec- 59, suits u n d e r Section 15, olanse (2) of the Limitation Aot (IX of 190S) which excludes from the computation of the period of limitation, the time occupied by tue Txotice legally nect ssary to be issued before instituting certain actions, is applicable to suits brought under section 59 of the (Madras) Revenue Kecovery Act (II of 1861<). VenTcata v. Qhengadu fl8s9) I.L.R,, 12 Mad., 168 (F,B.) and Iswara Pattar v. Karuppan (1893) 3 55, followed. Ahn Backer Sahib v. Secretary of State for India (1911) I.L.R., Mad,, 505 (!F.B.), distinguifihed. The qnestion whether the general provisions of the Limitation A ct should be applfed to cases -where a special period o f limitation is prescribed by a special or local Act depends on whether the provisions of such Act should be regarded ae enacting a complete body of provisions with regard to limitations of suits coming within the purview of the A ct. In other words the question is whether the special or local Act should be construed as excluding the applicability of the general provisions of the Liaiitation Act. Srinivasa Ayyangarv^ Secretary of State....,.(1915) I.L.B.j 38 Mad., 92 -Begistratian Act (XVI of 1908), sec. 77 Thirty days after jpfissing of decreet under Computation of, for the purpose of that section Oivil Procedure Code (Act P of 1908), O. XX, r. 7.] For the purposes of section 77 of the Registration A ct (X Y I of 190P) the period of thiity days within which a document has to be p r e sw e d for registration after the passing nf a decree of Court directing its registration, ia to be reckoned not from the date the decree bears but from the time it was actually drawn up and signed by the Judge. Per Curiaon. l t is desirable that ia decrees of this nature the J udg should put the date on which they are signed by him xrnder Order X X, rule 7, Oivil Procedure Code (A ct V of 1908). Muthiah Ohetti Y. Suppan Sevai^......,,.(1916) I.L 3., S8 l i m i t a t i o n a c t (XV OF ) :~Se Madkas pi^trjgt Mumeii'AT.i'CiJSg APT -{IT op 1894), Sec'. 168,

66 m g e n e e a l i s t i j e s : , ART. 1 2 : See M u t t, h e a d o f , a b ts. 12, 9 5 AND z See O m r. P r o c e d u r e C o d e ( A ct V of S ), s s. 4 7 aw d 50,, AUTS. 3 6, ANT> Contract to sell another's goods ivithout autlwritrj, Ireach of Gau$t'. of action only in contract and not in tort cib on minrepresenfat^on Indian Contract Act {^IK o f 1872),»ec ] A. Brtit ag'ainsfc a person fo r b reach o f contracfc to se ll bo th e p la in tiff certain gfoocls o f atiotlier on tlie im plied representation, th a t h e h a d a u th o rity from his principal to s?ell th e m, w hen in fa c t hiicl nono, ia n o t one arisin g in tni't or one indepeniient o f con tract but one arisinpr out o f and in cid «n t to a contraof and is arovortied b y article! 115 of th o L u n ita tio n A c t ( X V of ) and n o t b y a rticle 3 6 o r 120. Section of the Tndian C o n tr a c t A c t, diacassed. PAOT Vairavanv, Avicha ,.( ) I.L.E..) SB M ad,, 2^5 H i n d u L a tv , AHT. 44i OR 141, appuca^ilit'j of-. See , AiiT. 9 1 Undue i'»j!uence Lease, suit to set aside, an the ground of A'pplicaldiity of the article Suit for possession Whether setting atfide leajie by decree of Court necenfiiiry --Bepudiation of lease by the plaintiff, ij sufficient Suit for setting aside lease i f tarred, suit for 'possession also barred Indian Trvfits J et { I I o / 1 f '8 3 ), ss. 8 6, J'P, 9 0, 91 and 9 6 Transfer of Property A c t {I V of ), sec Indian Contract A ct {I X of 187'?), sa. 6 4 and 6H CTixtom of inalienahtlity in a zaniindari, 071'us of proof asto Evidence, nahire of.] W h<tt the p la in tiff sued iu 19-t4 to reiiover possession o f certain lauds w hich had be<'ti loatsed by his deceased fa rlie r under tw o re g iste re d le a se -d e e d s, dated Stli N oven ih er I88l> and 2n d June 1S93, re sp e c tiv e.lj, to tlio deceah fd father of th e dt'fefidantb, on tb e gronnd th a t th «leasee w ere (ibta.ined hy iinduo inflnence Picei-clsed by th e fa th e r of th e d efen d an ts on the p la in t f f s fath er, and the fa th e r of th e defendantb had died in 18!)9 ; Held, th a t the suit w as bavred by Ixmitafcion nnder article 91 of th e L im itation A c t ( X V ol 1SV7). A tra tisfer w idch is vo id able and w hich can be effected OTily b y a. regiafcerfvl in stru m en t ca}i be avoided only by a form al re -tran sfe r or by a decree of C o u rt. JanM Kunwar A )it Sinyh (1883) l.l.b,., 15 C a lc., f>r (P 0.), explain ed an d applied. Section 86 o f tlie In d ian Ti-usta A c t, oven if it w ore applicab le fo th e cafie, is not available to the pl.-iint.ifi' b e ca a se there was no alleg'atjon in th e p la in t th a t a notice of reacission waa g iv e n to the defr n d a n ts o r th e ir fa th e r b efo re th e suit, and th e piiifc itself can operate as a n o tice to th e defem janta only -when a copy o f th e plaiiit w as served on them a fte r the su it w as duly in stitu ted. The d efen d an ts tiierefore wtire not tra stoes a t the d a te o f the anifc and th e jig h t to im m ed ia te pohsesbion had not then vested in th e iphiintife b y virtue o f the &aid Eection. S ection s 8'-! and S9 of th e In d ia n Trusts A c t are not a;pph'cftble baoause section 96 o f the said iic t Trill operate to p rev en t their application ae it enacts tb a t no ob ligations n n der C h ap te r,ix o f the T rusts A c t (whiob. contaicib spction.s 8rt and BO) can be created in evasion o f the provisions o t a n y la w. P er Sadahtva A y v a e, c5.- A unilatera,! expression of a rescission o f a contiract by one of tlie p a rtie s to th e coritraot dooa n o t re lie v e h im from his obligation to hjive th e convract rescin ded b y Cuurt u n der tho su bstan tive law of the la n d and winhin the tiraa alb 'w e d b y th e efcatntory law, if he w a n ts, aa p la in tiff, th e assistan ce of th e <^oart in ob ta in in g certain reliefs oq tho basia -Ihat th e o ^ntmcfc has c e a se d to exifit. T h e w ide phrases hold th e pro p erty (section 86 T rusts A c t), or hold to the ad v an ta ge (section 8\i, T ru sts A ot) fo r the benefit of th ^ tra n sfe r o r do not creat/0 at once an enforceab le as distingu ished fro m an estab H sh ab lo tru st in favour o f the transfei'or. Prop»'rty in th o hands of a m ere constrn otive tru ste e does not becorne th e property o f the beneficiary under the o o n strn ctive trust so as to ermblh him to trea t it as such 'without a judicial declaration o f tru st, A d e fe n d a n t, th o u g h his i-ight to bring a su it for rescission of a contract ov lease ma.y be b a ir e d, n i gfafc be perm itted to d e fe n d bis p ossession of propertips b y show ing tlifit th e conti'aot or lease so T oidable a t his in stan ce h a sb e ^ n repudiated b y h im. Ltthshmi Doss v. Roop L aul{w Q 7) I.L.R., 3 0 M a d., 108, referred to. T h e onua of proving in alien ab ility Ju the pase of & zaniindiixi lies on. the person w ho alleges i t. ' i^uhndaram y. Sitammal

67 genbkal in dex c-xi (1893) I.L.R., 10 Mad., 311, dissented from. A, perpetual Jease, reaerring no rent to the zainindar except a aiim which was payable wholly to the Government towards the revt^une due on the leased lands, is really aa absolute coriveyanoe of the pi opavciea. The case law on the subjects reviewed, PAGB Baja Rajesicara Dorai v. Artinachelian Chettiar... (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad., :-, ART. 116 : See Sai.e-beed AiiT S u it i y an e x -in i3 fe e f o r reimhwssme'nt, governed hp Eights of bonii fide de fficto trustees^ for boiaa fide expenses.] A trustee of a public trust has a first cha.rge on the trust propertlea for tha purpose of rmmbuibiiig himself advancea properly cnade for the trust and article 120 and nor. artiole 1S2 of the Lirnitatioa Aefc (X V of 1877) is the cue applieuble to a snit for recovery of monies so spent ; and his right to sae for such monies does not accrue before the date on which he is judicially daclared to be no longer a lawful fcrasfcee (thoui^h it may well he that it does nob accrue till be is dispossi^ssed of the triist estatij in pursuance of the judicial declaration). Pearij Mohv,n Mulierjeev.Narendr. Isath Mukerjee (1910) I.LJl,, 37 Calo,, 229 (P.O.), followed. T h eespeuses of a suit in which a person posing himself to be a truefcoe unsuccessfully resists another s right to be the trustee cannot be allowed as a pioper charge on the trust property. Ohiter : The time occnpied in defending sach a suit a.g the rightful tnistee, when no counter-chiim is made therein for reimbursement o f the expenses made hy him bat only a claim to remain in possession for such espenses oannot be dedaofced in his (the trn.stee s) favour under section 14 of the Limitation A c t; Maharajah Jngutendur Bumivaree v. DinDyal Vhaitet'jee {1864) 1 W.R,, 309, followed, Per Sad&sjva A yxab, J. A-rtiole 61 is applicable only to an ordinary salt for a simple decree for money but not fo r a suit where the prayer of the plaint is for recovery of the plaint amount out of the incoine of and on the liability of certain properties. Article 120 and not article 132 ia the proper article'applicable, and the right of suit doea not begin until the ti'utttee is dispossessed, A trustee has not only got right to reimburse himself oiit of the rents and profits of the trust property, but has also a charge thereon, inc mding its corpus, which can he enforced only by an order prohibiting any disposition of the trust property, without previous payment of expenses properly incurred by him. He is not entitled to enforce his right by ti sale of the tru'^it property. A person, who ia a de/acfo trustee, but who botia /Jde thinks hiroself to be de jure trustee, ia entitled to reimburaeinetit of all espensea properly encumbered by him, just like a Jure trustee. Even Sh d& Jacto trustee o i'a trnstfte de son tort is entitled to be reimbursed for all the necessary expeiibes in respect of the trust estate. Obiter', A trustee ia entitled to remain in ppssession until he is reimbursed in respect of all proper charges incurred by him. Abka'tt Sahib v. Soran Bivi Saiba Ammal... (1915) 38 Mad,, 260 ^ j ARTa AND 125, applicability of SuHly one adopted later to set aside liismainrnal grandmother'^s alie.natian after her death-^atteataiion and ratification by next prem m ftive reversioners to afemaw's alienation, effect of.] A Hindu w idow sold the suit j/roperties in 1881 and 1889 and died in Her daughter adopted the plaintiff ia 1903 and he sued in 1907 to set aside the sitles during- the lifetim e of h.is adoptive mother : Held that (a) the suit was not ban ed, (b) thafc article 120 and not 125 of the Limitation A ct was applicable and (c) that the cause of action for the plaintilf to question sales arose only from tl. e dnto of his adoption -when, alone he became a reversionei^. Of tua two sales in this case, the iirst was assented to by the daughters and attested jby; the next fna-le reverbioner; tbe second was acquiesced in by the dati(>hterb and in. 18&4 ratified by the then, presumptive male revi*xsioner : Meldt ^>hat -fche plaiutiif was estopped, under the eirourastanoes from qnestiojsing the sales a sa teveraioner, IPor th.^ applicaitipn of ariacle 126 of f,he Limitation - Act, (c^) the suit must be one broughb duliiuff the lifetiffte o f,.the ;^i^na female ^nd ( 6). the plaintife niust be the persab,.oatiisled. fed of the: land if the femalig d,ied. a.t the date of th^'ihsfiifcutrion

68 0X11 QISNEEAL INDEX. ( P.B.\ f*xplamed and disting'mslied. Gnjjalz V eerayyav. Qajjala Oangamona (1912) M.W.N., 912, AVinash Chandra Mazumdar V. Harinath Shaha (If)05) 32 Ga^o., 62 at p, 71 and Oovinda Pillai v. Thayammal (1905) I.L.K.., 28 Mad., 57. followed. Per SaDzIsiv -x A ytab, J. Oon.aent to fin alienation "by the next revei sinner and a vatifiqati<.)n of past alienatlona on the same footing. Eti'eofc of atceslation by a reveraioaer to a female s alienation considered. Narayana V. Rama......,,, (1916) 38 Mad,, , AETs. 142 AND 144 : See M u t t, he'a'd q , AiiT. 14i0-A : See M u n ic ip a l C o u n c il ^ a rt 179 Execution, step %}i aid of Application, oral, for adjournment.'] An appheauou to take a step in aid oe execution -under article 179 of the Limitution Aob need not I'e in writing. A.mar Singh y. Tilca (1880) I.L.R., 3 A ll, 3S9 and Manelclal Jagjivan v. Nasia Raddha (1891) I.L.B.j 15 Bom., 105, followed. An application by tlie deoree-holclor for an adjonrnmonfc to enable him to produce recox'ds or evidence neoesaary to efieotivelf o^^^daot the fxecutioii proceedings further is an application to get au order in aid of execution. Sheshdasachartja. V, Bhimaoharya (1912) 14 Bom, L.R., 1204>, Uaridai; Nanahhai v. Vithald-ns Eisandas (1912) I.L.R., 36 Bom., 63S, Pitam Singh v, Tata Singh (1817) I.L.R., 29 All., 301 and KunM r. Seshagiri (1SS2) I.L.E., 5 Mad., 141, referred to. PA0E Aldul Kadher RowtMr v. Krishnan Malaval Nair... (1916) 3S Mad., 695 ss. 7 and 8 cl7id art. 4A--~Alie'natio'H iy guardian of property of tioo wards, memhers of an undivided Hindu, fam ily Suit hy iotjimors than three years after elder's majority hut nvithin three' years of the younger attaining majority I/imiiation.] according' to sections 7 and 8 and artiole 44 of the Limitation Act (X V of 1877), a &(uit bi. oup;ht by two bifotliera of au undivided Hindu family to set aside an alienation by their guardian, more than three yuare after the elder attained majority is barred by limitation not only as I'egards the elder brother s share but algo in respect of the younger brother s though, the lauer attained kis majority withm three years prior to the institufcion of the suit. Voraisami Semmadan r. Nandisami Saluvan... (1915) 38 Mad., 118 (IX OF ), ABTH. 48 ANB 49 Suit for giood.s- misappro- <priated Indian Contract Act (IX o/1872), ss. 108 and 178.] One K took a jew el of the plaintiff in May 1907, to find a purchaser for it, stating that ho would settle the pvioe in. the prebeiice r>f -j,lain tiff ; but inatpad oi cloinjj BO, ETiu Jims 1907 pledged it with the third defendant who l>gmajide lent, on ita security Rs Plaintiff eame to know of E s couvei'sion in 1900 and sued ia 1911 for the jewel or its Taiue, the third dufoadjinfc and the widow and son of K wlio died at the pnd of MHd, that article 48 and not 49 of the Limitation A ct (IX op 1908), was applicable and that the suit was not barred by limitation. Held, also that the Z)0«ctjftde?s of the third defendant does not preclude the plaintiff from recovering the jeavel without paying the thii d detendai t the amount of loan. Effect of sections 108 and 178 of the Indian Oontract A ct, considered. Btisha;p]pier r, Suiramania Cheitiar (1915) I.L.S., 38 Mad., ^ARTS. 63 ANT) Q7 Sale of land hy one having a voidable title and 'putting purchaser in possession thereunder Dispossession hy person entitled to avoid Cause of action for return of purchase ynoney, only on dispossession,] A who had a title to certain immoveable property voidable at the option of G sold it to B and put B iu possession thereof, Q then brought a.suit against A and B, got a decree and obtained possfiaeion, thereof in execution. Beld, that B a eai^ss of action for the return o f the purchase money arose not on the date of the sale but on the date of Ms dispossession wiien alone there was a failure of consideration and that tlje article applicable was artiolc 97 of the Limitation Act. CaseB on. the S^ubject jrajago^au (191S) l.ii.e., 3$ Mad,, 897

69 ri EIN'ERAL rwtsbx CXlll,ABT. 120 Pr^-em'ption., right of Knowledge of sale, essential for the article to apply.'] In a suit by aa ntiidar to enforce hia rip'bt of pre-emptioiij the to sue cannot be said to arise iniless the* plaintiff La.R Wie nfogssary knowledg-e of tiie sale. Siieh a right eau only be esercise^ when the ottidar knows first of all that the property is sold or attempted to be Bold to another person and %vlafc tbe terms cn which it ig propoped to be solil are. W ithout such keowledg-e he is not in a pe-sition to elect, Uaonaaami Pattar y. Chinnan Anari {IQOI) l.h M., 24 Mad., 449 and Kiirri Veerareddi v. Ktirri Bapireddi (1906) I.ti.B., 29 Alad., S36 (P.B.), distinguished. Cheria Krishnan y. Vishnu (18S2) 5 ad., 198, Vasudevan v. KesJiavan (1884) I.L.B, 7 Mad., 3C9 and Ammotii E aji v. Kimhayen Zutti (1892) I.L.ll., 15 Ma,d., 480, commented cn. Mcmrnali y. Kunhifakhi-Haji (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 67 AET. 1 42: See ITixMBU L a w., arts. 164 and 181 of th e 8&cnnd Schedule "Ex parte d ecree, setting aside of Defendant dead after decree Exec \hior not hr ought on the record Hxecuior, ajpplication ly, to set aside ex parte decree-^application made, mare tha^i iliiriy days after decree Civil Proesdure Code (^Act of 1908), see. 146,] Where a dooree was passed parts against a defendant who died tteven days after the decree, and an, application to.set it aside wa,'? made by tlifi executoi o f the decpased defendant more ttiaii thirty davn after the passing of the decree. Held, that articte 164 and not ar(-icle 18L of the Limitation Act (I X of 1908) applied to the case and that the application was barred. On the true construction of article 164 o f the Limitation A ct read with section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure (A ct V of 1908), the word defen dan t in article 164 is wide enongh to indicate the esecut or o? the original defendant, though the executor may not have been brought on the record when the application was made. Ganoda Prasad Hoy v. Shib Navai^L Muherjee (1902) I.L. S., 29 Calc., H3,,ref erred to. VenTcatasubhaiyer Y. KHshnawurihij..... (191S) J.L.E,, 38 Mad., , ART. 18S~Revivar o f decree o f Original Side of the High Court Revival of decree on notice to one only of two ^'iidgment- (Jebto g not o^eratnig as revival ogainsi tli,e other.'} A reviser of a decree of the Original Side o f the High Court made on an application for execution against only one of two judgmenl-debtorfe in the esise does not keep the decree alive b o as to enable the decree-holder to esecute it against the other jndgment-debtor after twelve years from the date of the decree. PAffE Me Laren v. Yseriah (1915) I.L.E., S8 Slad., , sch. If, ARTS. 29, AifTJ 120 Attachment of di'ht Wrongful seizure of moveome pro:perty~~-8%h hy claitnant to the debt against the decree-holdei Article, a pplicable."] Neither attachment of a debt nor roluntary payment of it into Conrt, constitutes Beiaure of moveable propety nader legal procesb within the meaning of article 39 of the Limitation A ct, h. suit by a claimant to the debt attached against the deoree-holder to whom the amount of the debt was paid is f^o-perned by either article 62 or 120. J^arasimha Bao v. Qamgarajn (1908) til Mad., 431, distinguished. Yellam'mal V. Ayyanp^cb Naich (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad., 973 'SCH. II, AH.T. 131 to recomr swns due under periodically recurring right, g&verned fjy.] Article 181 of sohedule I I of the Limitation Ao*i (IX of 1908) applies to a suit to recover enms due under a periodically t'eourritig right whether there is a prayer iov a deelarafcion of plaintiis s right or not. Beld, therefore, that a si^it to recover arrear.? of adima allowance fm* a period of eight years was not barred, ae to any. portion of it* Zamori'^ of Oa'icvtv. Achutha,.M/inon.. (LP15) I.L.K., S8 Mad., 916 L im it a t io n, SBC. 4. ARTS* 74, TSy 80 ANIH, ligo

70 O x iv GBlSIEEAL INDEX , Ptrc. 13, effect of \ Sss Civil. PrgCf.durtc C o d e ( i c T V ob l.s^us), ss. 92 a x d 93. PAGI j SEC. 1 5 (2 ), aj[ijplica-hiliiy o f : S ee L im it a t io n , SEC. 20 P roviso :~ S e i3 PKEsiDBNcy S m a l l Oadhe OoUKTa Aci (X V of 1H82), see E0. 22, ART. 12, or,. (b)-mndras Rent Recovery Act (7IIT of ]8H5), ^s. 35, 39 and 40~SaJ^ for arrears of rent ~.<aleof kudivarani right S>tit to set asi'ie scde P irties to the Pu chaser, neces^ sutij party R^^ceiver oj melvuramaars,arided ust suppu^ive^ital dofetidiii<i~~t (ipse of One ysat' Suit not barrei Execution sales Froc. edinaa fo aside^ Decree-Tiolder, necesitar\i par~ Civil Prucedure Onde ( A c t V of 1DOH), 0. JCXf, 4-r. 90, 91 and 93. J In a suit instituted utuil r the Aludra-y Rent, Kecuvery Act, by the owners of t.he kinuvai ain r^^kfc in cevtnin lands co stt aside a rent-sale of the kudivtiratn right iko purchaser at thq, and the melvaramdars wore originally joint'd as d^'ftindiinba j hnh on objocfinn t,alien by the defendants a receivor appo inted on behall' of the molvaa-anidars was added as a auppleineutal defendant aiore tb ia one year aftex' the date rf the Btole. The defendants thereupon pleadud that the snih was laried by limitation. Eeld, that in a sait noder the Act iieither the receiver nor any of* the melvaramdaie was a necessary pi^^ ty to the suit but only tlio pnrcliaaex* at the r 6nt-f?ale; and that consoquently tho suit was tint liarrel by liniitatiou under section 23, artioie 13, cl.-iuge (Z>) of the Liniitatit>n Actj. lu ptoce«dinga under the Civil Procedure ' 'ode to set aside a sale in e.xecation of a decree, the decree-bolder is u necesbary party. Annamalai v, Muruga^pa (1915) I.L.T3.., 38 Mad., I , SEC. 22, Cl,s. 1 AND 2 ; See C lv ll PltOCEBUBE Co DM (Act V OF 1908), O. X X I, r. C8., SEC. 23; See(M ADRAs) E s t a t e s L a n d A ct (I off 1908), HEC, 192. SRC. 28, ART. 4,7 Suit to recover poanession of lands Magistrate, order of, vnder Criynmal Procedure Code {Act F o/189s), S0C. 14& O r d er p n e s e d w ith o u t p r o p e r in q u ir y N o tic e n o t le g a lly K ervfd o n th e plaintiff^ P la in tiff a iva re o f p rocf> ed in gs O r d er n o t iv ith o u t fitriiiru cti-m A p p lic a b i lity o f a r tic le 4 7 T en a n t f o r a ter7ji L a n d lo r d tr e a tm g te n a n t a s «trespaaser a fter the ex p iry o f the te rm S ubsequ ent reg istered 7ioiiae to q'uit Cause of action, ivhen.j Article 47 of the Limitation Act (IX of li-ob) is applicablfi to a sait for recovery of possession ofl&tida iu respect of whicli an order had bren papsed by a M.Mg-i.strata actiing- under section 145 of the Code of Criaainal Procedure, although the Ma^fist.rate mig-lit. not have made the proper inquiries which he ought to have made before ho passed the order, if the plaintiff had notice of tlie procoediug's ihougli notice waa not served on the plaintiff in accordance with law. Qa,n<jadaravi Aiyar v. Sanjcarappa ivafdm. (1891) 9 M.L.T., 91, followed, Whei.-'the defendants were tenanta for a term URder the plaititiffi ^nd oortttnned in pohseasion of the lands after tihe expiry ot the term but the plaintiff did not treac the doi'endanfcs as tenants holding over btit aa tveapasherb after the date of the expiry cif the term, and the magisterial order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Pnieedure was passed in the defeadanta favoiir eubsoqupnt to th«said dnte. Held, that the suit for recovery of possession of the landi brrrag ht by the plaintiff more than three years i.fter the said order Wi^s barred nnder article 47 of the Limitation Act. Tukaram. v. Han ( i JG4) LL.lt., 28 Bom., (K'l (P.H.), Mapu bin Muhadoji v. Mahadaji Fasudeo ( 1884) LL.H., 8 Bom., ^^48 and TF'i.se V. Ameerunniss a Ehatoon (187-^) 7 LA., 7iJ, rplerred to. Boiai Ghand Ghosal V, FamsrwcJdw JfandttZ (Jh^S) 1,L.R., 19 Calc., 616, ttistingnidhed. Parasuramayya Bamachandrudu... (1915) I.L.R., 38 Tkfad., 432 LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT (XI OF ): See MArtaAs, DiBmiCT M u n i c i p a l i t y A c t (17 of 1884), s^c. ItiS, LIS PENDENS " See Assjgnjbk o f a m oney-decrek, etc. d o c tr w e of^ i f apj^ucable : See CsviL PiioCKDUHE CoDffi (A«T T oi- 1901), O. X X I, B. 63.

71 GEKEKA.I. INDEX page plea of nnt tdlcp.n <in Hip written,.^taiewrni hut perm iited after remand: See Thansfkr. of Pbopertt Act (IV of 18821, sec. 52. LOCAL BOARDS ACT (V OF 1884),?s. 63,6d akd 73 i See Mdtt, Head oj. LOCAL CUSTOM : See Railway Receipt. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, delegation oj po^oers to : See Indian Pekal Oodb (Aot X L V OP isgo ;, ss. IS S a n d 2P9., Bulea 104 o f the Regulations ultra P k n a l ConTs ( A ct X L V o p i ), ss. 1R8 a \ d 2G9. vires - See indiaif MADEAS CITY MUNICIPAL ACT (III OF 1904) F inal," meaning of, in section 287 (8 ) S 'andinj Committee, whefher spf'cial or in-^eyendent har!y~ af>'^iiio»f! io huildinii Whether m an -tarn us or in/'unctiin, appropriate rem^'jy to rem ove ihem,'- The plaintiff, as tb «ownei' cif house and pn mises No. 36 in?inoan;i C h e ttj street iu the City o f.madras, obtained prem ie-ion from thr Miipicipt'ility o f Ma-dras City to execn te oeita.in lepaii s thermn. The PrPBi<5pTi' bpino-of opinion that under coper of the ppritiirsiou erantedi sho had mftde congidpi'jihle arldifcioiis and alteratious, mide a provisionnl ord'-r undpr spctinn 287, olnusr (1) of the ^Tfldra.s City Mnn cipal Ant (111 of 1904), dn PCting hhpir removtvl and subseiiiietitl confirinpd that ordef under clauh0 (2) of sociion 287. Any npppal b / the jilainhff to tho Sfcanding- Oommitteo liavin" proved ineffpctun.1. she filed a snit in theciiy Civil Court for the issue of n pprpetn- l injunrtion re.gti-;ninn,q; the C nrporiition from demolishing the allr^ed additions: IL'ld that wlion a ri^ht and an infrini^ementtheraof arp alleged, a oausp of Hotion is dischjsnd, and niifpss th^rp ii a bfir to the entertainmeni) of a Ruit, the ordinary (jivil Courts are bound to entertain the el-iim ; and that a suit for injur otion will t'ei efcrp lip j fiiit'hpr that the Sfan'^ing Cornmit*-pP osmnot beheld to be tj.n indpppndent body or a speciul tribnna] aulli^rizpd to eettlo finally rlisputpb as bftwecu the tox-payers ov bou8p-own-t\rs and the Corporation of winch th^y are tha mftmbera. Instancp of pppcial tti'nnal, pointed out. Bkaishatikar v.t h e M unicipal Corporation of Bombay (1007) IJj.H., 31 Bom., (304, referred Io. fjeiialso, that tbp w ord m seoticu 2^7 refers to pi'oeppdins s before tbe C'Ti-.oration and iwintended lo bar sn appeal from the Standlnpr Oftnniittee to the ftpneihl body of Cnminissi uppn, bur not to shut oi;t rbf? jnrhdiction of Courts. The suit-, was propprly bi OHD-ht. ajrainpt th<^ Prpsident as h#* Waa artino'beh-ilf of the Corporatimi. Bholaram Choiidhry y. Gorp:)ration of Calcutta (1909) 3(1 Calc., 671, distinsjuished. ralli Ammal y. The Corporation of Madras... (1915) I.L.Pi.., 38 Mad., Presidency It'agistraie holding an inquiry under rules fram ed un-^er, not a Covrt U7}'lpr Charter Act (2-i and 25 Viet.,cap, 104), sec. 15 Ju )sdicti')<n~the Indian High Courts J ci i24,cmd So Fici., cap. 134), sec be nifrb Court has un _p nerhctio to revise an order pasked Ijy a Prefiidency Massistr ite in na inquiry b<'ld by virt>ie of the rules fra'< ed by Qovernnient under tbe Madras City Municipal Act (III uf D04), 'wherp'by a Maiiistvat'i rnay di'cide as to the competency or otherwise of a, candidate for a \ imioipal eb^eticp. The Magistrale is not a Cour- Bubjpctto the yppelinte jnri-<dio*ion of tho High Ooiirfc within the nierming' of that word in spl-tion 15 of the Charter A t't(2 l& 2 n Vict^, cap. 104). Hoihin the positi'in of a referee between the President of ibe Municipal Corpovation and the candidate, V'lparaghavulu Fillai v. Theagaroya Chetii... (1915) I.L.E., S8 Mad,, 581 MADRAS REGULATION (XXV OF 1802), sro. ^-'Prs-ssttlem&'iit inams la n d s held on ae vice tenure in add tion to paym ent of quit-rent Seri'ice to Zam indar--service quasi-puhhc h->fore sem am snt--its di»coniinu(incs tji&reafter Reswmption ly Go ernment, right o f tresum ption Onus of proof, as to exclu)iion prior to Seiilevien*. Ilvidence A ct { I of 1^72), ss , t72. t^). I Where lands in a zamindari -were pr^vsettlement iuamg sjranted on condition of rendering ppreonal service to the aamindar arid paying- a. favourable quit-rent, and the Government resumed such, in am s on the ground of discontinuance of such services : Held^ that as th& grant vis for Bervioes purely personal to th» Baraincinr, privna fa cie the iiis'ims lo mej part of the assei^ta of tb aamindari and the zarnindur, and wottixe Govera-, meut wa 9 entitled to resame, Meld; also tb^t wbete sueb service >va,e ' S-A

72 c x v i GENERAL IN D EX PACT rendered in addition to quifc-rent, tlie proviso to section 4, B,egnlation X X V of 1802, bas no appuoation. The onus of pro-viur that Etioh lands were eschided from tlio assots of the aamindari, and tliat the Government had the riyhb to resume lay on them. Per Tyabji, J. - The Government having special means of knowledge as to exclnsfcm or other-wise, of th ^ o landi«, at the settlement, from the zamindnri, the burden was upon them according to Beotiion 106 of the Evidence Aot and the necebsary presuniption arising from the non-produotioa of the records ia their possesbion shoald be drawn against them. Sri Raja Parthasaraihy A p fa Rao BnhaHur V. SncrBtary of State (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 620 M AGISTRATE, order of under Criminal Procedure Code (J et V of 1898), see. 145 : See L i m it a t io n A c t (IX of 1008), sue. 2S, a r t jurisdiction of : 89e Oh(MINAI. Peockdure Cobe (A ct 'V o» 1893), SKO MAGISTRATES, bench cf MagiHraie, convicfing ivjw has not heard all the evidence Criminal Procedure Code (Act V o/ ISl^iS), sec. 5f!0.] Where the ti'ial of the accnaed was commenced before a Eench of four Magistrates who heard part of the evidence and oontinufld bel nre the same four Magistrates^ and another who had jnined as tho fifth, and all the five Magistratea deliver judgment convicting- the accnsod : Held, that the conviction was vitiated and that there, must be a re-trial. He Sub^amawitt (1915) I.L.li., 38 Mad., 304 MAIDEN S PROPERTY -.-See Hindu Law. MAINTAWABILIT'S' OF objecfion in execution i See Civil. P s o o e u u e e Hode (A ct y OF li'08), 0. X X III, r , suit to declare that decree is collusive and not bintling nn plaintiffs who were 7wt parties : Ses C i v i l PRooism jite OonE ( A o t \ os IWS), 0. II, B. 2. MAINTENANCE and other purfoses, deed of grant f o r : See T r a n. s f k r ok P ro - pbbty Act ( [ Y o f 1883), sec nf mother, riijht to Whether non's share only or share of stepsons also liahle : See H in d d L a w of widow, rate o ft See H in d ^ L a w. _ , right to get, from huxland s estate : See H i n»0 L a w. twi'ioad property insufficient f or: See MaTjABAR L a w, , out of iavo'zhi property : See M AiiABAR L a w. MAJ KIT, after, settlement of all property by mortgagof : Bee Moetgaq-k by MiNOK j age of, fo r making a w ill: See H i n d u L a w. (INDIAN) MAJORITY ACT (IX OF 1875), SEO. 3, effect ofi See Eindu Law, ^BEc. 3 :--S ee H in d u Law. MALABAR COMPENSATION FOR TENANTS* IMPROVEMENTS ACT (Madbas Act (I OB 1900), sa, 5 ano 19 Compensation, rate of, fo r tenant s improvement Gom^enuation, a'rnonnt of ineihods of fixin g Oontract made before 1st Jan~ uary 1886 No empress reference to tenants right to malce improvem ents Oontraat less favourable to tenant than sections 5 and 6 of the A c t Contract not binding Seotinus 5 and 6, applicahle.'l Where a confcraed, entered into botwoen a land lord and a tenant in Malabar, before the 1 st Ja-nnary 1886, regnlatod the rates of compensation claimable hy the tenant for improvsmenta, or pro vidod for the niethoda of fixin*? the amount of compensation due to him but did not expressly refer to the tenant s right to mai^e iiivprovementa s H eld (by the Full Bench), that the oonti'act is not binding on the tenaatif it iis less fatourab/e to him than sections 5 and 0 of the Mahihat' Oompensafcion for Tenants Improvements Act (I of 1900), and that tihe tenant ia entitled to claim compon..'jatipn according to the provisions of the Aot. Seld& lso, that ifaere is no ineonsibtency botwaen the judgment iu Bandwpurayil KuvM sore r. '^^roth ^ u n U Kannan (1909) I.L.K., 32 Mad., 1 and the Judgtttentfji %

73 GBWBB&Li IND15X CXt II,,, _ l'aot Kos hihot Sreemana. Vikramaii v. Modathil Anania Fatter (1911) I.L.R., 84 Mad., 61 and Parv, Amma v. MootJioran (1912) , and thai; tie two!a,sfc*meut)ioned cases were viglifcly decided. K o ch ii R a i i a. A h d u r a h r a a n ( ) I. L. R., 3 8 Mad. ( F. 8.), 589 M AIjABAE l a w Marnmakkaattctyam tanvad Females^ self-acqitisition, de^^cent of, to heroivn heirs and not to farwad Tavazhi, meaning o/. J The self acqiiisitioiis of a lomale tnember of a JMarumakkattajam tarwad do not lapss on her death to her fcarwadj but descend to her tavazhi, -wliiol) w ill bfi lier issiie if she has any, and in the absence of the. issue will be her mother and b fr desoendanta. Tavaahi defined, Sovindan Kair y. 8a,n'kardn Nair l.h.'r., 33 iviad., 351 (F.B-), distinguished. Ummanga v. Appadoi'ai Patter (1911) I.L.E., 34< Mad., 387, overruled. Krishna ft.-v. Damodaran (1.915) I.L, R., S8 Mad., 4^ -Nal'i^budri Illom No of sons to pay their fathers A ISrambndri Illom. differs in many respects from an ordinii.ry joint Hindu family on account of the iin j avtibility of its ]>roperty ai d its close resemblfinoe to a Nair tarwad. Tht^ rule of Hindu Law which impospg tho duty on a son to pay his father s personal debts, neither illegal nor immorai, is not applicable to Nambudrie ; and the mere fact that there are no (jtbec members in the *Illom besides the eons and yraiidsons of the Nambudvi debtor, csannot affect the principle. NUakandan v* Madhavan (1SS7) T.L.R., 10 Mad., 9 and f?oui7ida V. Xris/iiioTO (LS92) I.L.R., 15 3Iad., 333, followed. KunhicJieklcan v. Lydia Arucanden (191 i ) &I.W.N., 386, consirleiod, Muttayan V. Zamindar of Sivagiri (1883) f.l.e,., 6 Mad., 1 (P.O.), diatiugaislied. KunJiu Kutti Ammahv. Mallapratu (1915) I.L.R.j S8 ilad., 527 Hight to viainienavee M'em'bers of a tvt'cizlxi MaiiitsnancB out of tavazhi property Suit agaiiint managing member of iavaahi Tarwad property-i insutficieni for maintenance Gijt by lizis'band to unfe Mentiofi o/ children Interest taken by ivife, whether absolute Fdght of ta'tsaz'd Con~ siriiction of deed of gift.'j A. member of & tarazhi has a right to sue the managing member of the fcavaahi for hia maintenance if maintenance is refused by such managing member, where the kaj-navan of the tarwad unable to maiatain the member out of tarvvad propei'ty. It is immaterial whether the member of the tavaahi peeking maintenance, hass private means Bufficieiit 10 provide for him an adequate maintenance without necessity of recourse to the tavazbi pi'operty. PutravaJiasam property is held by the members of the tavazhi to which it belonp;8 with the ordinary incidents of tarwad property. Per A bddr Kahim, J.-E v e n aprart from tlie ffict whether there is sufiiciwnt property of the tarwad to which a member of a tavazui can look for maintenance, he has a right to demand an allowance in the nature of maintenauco from the ta^azhi property itself. Maintenance is not a mere subsigtence allowance. It.should be based on the value of the tarwad proi^erty, the position of the members and not confined to whav. is jnst sufficient to satisfy the needs of the memher.s. A membei* of a fcavazhi is entitled to an allowance for maintenance both from the tavazhi and tarwad properties. Where a deed of gift in favour of a woman is clearly expressed to be to her and her children, there is no warrant for constraing it as conferring on the donee an abeolnte title to the property given where* the donee is the wife of the donor and a mexxiher of a Slarumiikkattayam tarwad. It mnkes no difference that the ka-rnavau of tha tarwad joined in the g ift.' In estimating the amount of the income of the tavazhi property Cnt of which maintenance is payable, the inf-eresfe payable upon debts binding' on the tavazhi should be deducted but not interest on debts, contracted after the period for which maintenance is claimed. Nahu Amma Y. Raghava Menon (1916) iie Mad., 79 MALABAK t e n a n t s * IMPE0 EMENTS' a c t (M adras A ct, I os: 1000), ss. 3 ANt> 5 Tenant introduced hy mortgagor after moriqage- ~;Purch^eT'yi% execution of decree on, mortgage Right to.improvements: to im^rmem^nts not confined agatnsi Zessor,]' The, word " tett^nt Beoijion 3, of the Malabar Teaaiiits laiprotomenfes A<Jt (Madras Ap;fe;I of inoludea alao a leasee from a mortg^agor a,fter ejrea'liion a a la;

74 C SV U i GENEKAL ijtdex fswotir of a strangor. Hence, sneh a tenatih is entitled nndor sert.ion 5 of the Act to bho v'ilue of iujpcovement.h effocted by tiim even as a»ainafc a piii'ohijlrer in exooution of the decroi^ -aahor n niorrgag-e. Soction 5 of the Act: does not ounliiie tho tenant s rigbfc to itnprovemeuta oaly as a^ainist hia lessor. Kanara^i V. Ghiruiha (1915) I.L.B., 38 Mad., Ool MANDAMUS INJUNCTION - JVhether an afpropriaie remedy to remove new additions to a i.uiuung ;~See. M a d r a s C i t y M d k i c i p a l A c t i'lh o f 1 J04). M APPILLAS NORTH M A LLE A R Law applicable Question of fa ct Cuiitom, Tpquisitea of a valid Judicial iintica lleasoricihleness ur le.gality~ (question uj law Qu.stovi derogating from thi Muhavmiadan la'u) Madras Civil Courts Act {_I1I of 1.873;, sec 16.] The law applicable to ihc paiti'ss to a suit ia tho Jaw vvtucli tliu paflie.'i as a mathcn- t>f lact by their customs iind usages have a-ioijted, noc the law wliich tlie Oourt.s b j n, cori^idoration o f the hislor.cal circuratj>aiices relating to tlie pariies or of l.hcii' religious books or obberwise coiihidor to bo tlio law t}iat they ouf^bt to have adopted. If that law be.dy; sufficiently certain and uol; 0]jj.)0^ed l:o public policy ia of sxi'di a nature chat the Courts can jiive cffccti to"it, then the y)rincjpleti underlying SLCtion 111 of the Madras C.ivil Courts Act require that they should fiive effect to it. Jammya v. Diioan (U)01) I.L.11., 'Z'A A IL, 10, Muhammad Ist)>ad Khan v. Lala Site.jwu.kh nai (19U:i) 17 (J.W.JST., 97 ar.-j llirbcn> v. Sonabae (ls i7 j Porr. O.c;., IIU, r..^f(->rrgd to. Iho que.stioii is whether the paiticnlar pai ties arc govriued by t*io MaruiualcUattaya.m or tho jruhammndaii law, is one of tact. George v. Davies (IHII) '2 K.U., 4'-15, jissan v. t'aihiimo tt (ib99) I.L.R., 22 v(ad., 4y4j and Kuntumbi Umniu v. Kandy M(nthin{^ \DUi) 1 L.K., 27 Mad., 77, rcferi-ed to. A cu-toui to hold fjood in la^v^ uniat be not nnreasonablc and niuat t'pply to miittou-.y which the written law has left nndoter- Tuiued, aud the majority at 1 aab ot a,uy given class of persoob ninst look upon it as bindiu}' and it nnisfc be established by a serieti of well-known, concordant, and, on tne wliole, continuous inritancea. The qusfition whether an alleged rule uf oonduci can be enforced at all or whether it i.s uncertain or op, osod to public policy oi- uiirei'sonablo is one of law and may be considered in ebiiuo'-ive of the (iui Btiou wliecher tho cast nn actually exinta. Moult Y. UiilLiday ^_ls98) 1 <^.li., 125, followed. Section 16 of tlib Madras Civil Courts A c l, discusiaed. Kunhambi v. Kalanthar... (1915) I.L.K., 38 Mad,, 1052 M ARRIAGE, soiem?h!i(jfz before the ex^pify of six months, etc.-. See D iv o r c e A c t (V OF iy 6y ;, BF.CJ. 57. Ikdian MEANING OF agreefnent or memorandum of agreement meaning' o f : See I n d i a n BvaMP Act I.U os 1899), sue. 57. Eaaermnts, advantages, appurtenances held and enjoyt>d a a a 7 'i of the house " i~~sae D h k d, C o n m e u c t io n o f ,. < Holds cffice See ( M a m a s ) D i s x e i c t M u n i c i p a l i t i e s A c t (IV OI' 1884), 8S. 5(5 AJSD bo. ^oioner under (Madras) Assessment of Land Revenue Act ( I of IS76), sec. 2 : See I I ikdu L a w. - j Padugui " : See P «E * E M P r io N, contbacx of j tpartial performance i See hinijir Law ^rights to sue i See CiviL P k o c e d d e h O o d b (A ct V OB' 1908), SB, S^2 AKD ;, sin.gu transaction :-~See A ttork et.,-~ ^ T a v a zh i: See Ma^Abab Law. ;. -, Vtating of property in a co-parcener: See H in d u L aw. M S L ^ A S A M, grant o f : - See (M a d ra s) Estatbs Land A c t (I o f 1 908), seo. 8, MELVARAMDAK, right o/, to trees in case o f lands which were topes at the inom aettlement :~ S ee AMB egisteb. M E L V A R A M D A K S, receiver of-. See LrMJTATiOK A c t ( I X o f 1908), 8E MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMEMT, AGREEMENT OR. mecming o f (See J.KDUN S XAMF ACX ( i i Oi" 1899), SJlC, 67.

75 OENBRAt in D E i o i l i : MINOH, payable to, if payable to guardian See TutfsrEE, incapacity to make a w ill'. See H in d u L a w , morttjfige hy : See M o r t g a g e b y m in o r. MINOK SON, u'ife and, grant by zamindar to : See T r a n s fe r o f Pro p ert t A ct (IV (jf 188-4), abc. io, M IS A P P R O P R IA T IO N OF GOODS, suit for i See L i m it a t io n A c t ( I X of 1908), A kts 48 AND i9. M IT A K S H A R A, doctrine of, as to right by birth ; See H in d u L aw. M ORTGAGE, a, oral agreement as to hiyher price in discharge o f -. See Indian E v id e n c e ^ gt ( I o f 187:^), s k c. 92. FAOa , Prior wnd puisno mortgages Sale to prior mortgagee after creation o f a puisae m o r tg a g e P r i o r moi tg a ge k e p t a liv e to w h a t e x t e n t P r io r m o r t g a g e s 'W hether e n U tle i. io c h i r g e in t e r e s t a fte r d a te o f s a le R i s c la im f o r necessary r e p a ir s a n d m u n ic ip a l taees, w k etlier a llo w a b le P r a c t ic e Api>eal Transfer o f F r c p e r tij J e t (11/ o f I88:i), ks. 65, 7i! a n d 101 M a d r a s B in tr ic t M itn icip a ltiea A ct (IV of 1884), sec. Iu 3 D oors a n d toin d oivs n o t moveable j/properiy.] When, afetr the creation of a p u is n e mortgage, the mort.gagor sells t-hts property to Lhe prior laorlgagee wiih posaes^iion, the prior morggage is l;.epfc alive as (ijiainbt, a pitisjte incuinbraneei'iu the circumstances mentioned in section 101 of the 'i'ranal'ev of Property Act but uot ag-.unsb the owiipr, whoso equisy of redempliuu has bean pia-ohased b y th e piior incambraiicer. The prior mortgagee is nut entitled to claim iirteresfc on his mortgafje af<"er tha diite of his sale, againsc the puisne mortgagee ; the effect of the sale is this : that wh:it v^.xs enjoyed by the prior iiiorij;^ragee till e.ile, as compensatioa for the amount of the aaafruotuury mortgage, he agreed subs>^qaeiitly to enjoy in considei atiun of the whole price, and he caxihot therefore claim any f.u'ther ooiripeudatijii from the date of sale, foi any portion of tho price. Where by th«t«rins of the mortgage deed, the raortgagov pbraonally covenaf.ted to pay the rauuicipal tases himself, the- mortgagee who pays M.e same, camiot add it to tlie rnortga,^ fim.ou.at and recover it from the puisne martgagee either under section 65, clause (c) or under section 72, Triinafor of Property Act, as money spent for prt-servation of the property as the doors and windows o a houae aro nub moveablo property and could not have been seized under secdon 103 of the District Muaicipalities Act befoie its amendmeut in lb.99. '1he cost noarred bythe prior mortg^agee after the sale, tor neoesaar/ repairs to the property, via., for reatoi ing a room that had fallen aru recoverable, as all righth incidental to tne murtj^ag'e mast subsist with the murcgiige rl>ht itself, and tlie p/ior mortgagee i.«consequentiy entinlod to add all moneys to the pdncipal amouut, which he would be entitled to do under sectioa 72 of the Transfer oi Property Act, if the sale hau not takeu place. There is nothing to prevent die appellant from af-taukiay only a portioti of tlie decree by payiag" court-.fee only Chereon, although the reason for the attack mig'ht cover tae whole decree. Syed Ibrahim Sahib v. Arumtigaihayee... (1915) 88 Mad,,. 18 MORTGAGE Subrogation Third mortgagee advani'ing mo'n^y for discharge of Jirsf mortgage Application of part only toil'ards discharge Priority over mesne mortgagee to that ejitent.j A Inort.giig-ee who advau.ces money cowards the diiic*hartr«of a ti.*dt m *rtu;-ag-j on a propocf.y is esihtcied to priority over an interniediate raorcg'ajjee t,o the r-xceut to which the momiy advanced by him weuc towards diseh^trging the first mortija^o, Rup^ibai v. Audimulam (1888) I.L. 11 Mad.> 3i5, followed. Sanmnanthaiyan v. Meenatahi Naidu (1913V I.L.R., 35 Mad,, 1«3, referred to. Saminatha Pillai V. Krishna Iyer (191S) LL*B-, 38 Mad.* 54i8 : j by conditional sale, U'hethen See Thansm r o3j' Pkopsbxy A c t ( IV oirl8s2), BS.60^KDys. ^ M O H TG A G S b y MINOR Betclemeni of all property ly mortgagor appr '\major~\ ity Frai^d of creditors No fraudulent miarf^>reitetiiation as to age I/idbiltig to refund 'Vlortgagee, if a c r e i tor Transf^y by mortgage mortgagor -Sndorsemmt of payments by «jor*5rajf6r^st^i# agoiwrf

76 Cxx ab-weba,! iwpliix FAGfe and his son Bstiop^el of mortgagor Suit not mainiamable against the son Transfer of Property 4ct {IV of 1882), fisc. 53 Siihseqiient creditors, if included.'] The plaintiffi aned on a inortsjasfd bond executed by the first defeaoaiifc during his m iaority in favoui of the fchird deiendanj; who trangferred ib to the fourth defendant who again transfei'red it to the plaintis. After attainiag majority the fii st defendant executed a Befctlemeinfc transferrinjo; all his property to his mother and his wife on behalf ot hia minor SOD, the second deftsndant, stipniating only for maintenance for himself. Ths firrt defendant after attaining niajority, had endorsed payments on the moi'tgage-deed and attested the tran.sfei' of tho same b j tho third dofendixtit to the fourth defendant. It was found by the lowor AppelL'ijto Court that the settlement was intended to be operatire but t hat it was executed by the first defendant "with intent to defeat and delay his creditors. It was also found tliat there was no fraud or misiepresentation by the minov as to hia agfi when he burrowed on the mortgage. The plaintiff contended that the JirKt defendant was bound to refund th"e ainonnt advanced on the mortgage to the third defendant, and that he was const'cjnently a creditor entitled to set aside the settlc-ment. The first defendant adniitl'ed tho plaintiff s chiina. The second defendsmt, who contested tiie suit, preferred the Second Appeal. Held., where a minor has obtainod money by misrepresenting his age, that amounts to fraud, and he moiy be made to refiind it, but, in tho absence of fraud, a refund cannot bo ordered. As theie was no fraiid or misrepreaentation by the luinor as to his age when lie burrowed money on the mostgage, he could not have been ordered to refund ajacl the third dei endant was not one of hia creditors at the date of the set tie tne u t; consequently the plaintiff was not competent to sue under section 53 of the Tranisfer of Properliy Act to set it asicie. The admission of the first defendant during the suit, Iria endorsement of payments on the mortgag-e and his attestation of the transfer-deed could not givo the idlaintife the I'iyht t(,i set ab ide the aettiemeiifc as againat the second defendant. Q,uaere. Whether subsequent creditors are included nndor seetiou 5:^ of the Transfer of Property Act. Per Sadasiva Ayyab, J. A person does not aotnally become a subsequent or prior creditor by reasoa of tlie estoppel of the debtor. An eatoppal cannot overrule a plain provisioii of law. The statutory proyikion thafc a minor is iacompetent; to incur a ooiitractual debt cannot be overrnled by an OBtoppel. Yaikuntarania Pillai v. Authimonlavi Gheitiar... (1915) I.L.K., 38 Mad., 1071 MORTGAGE iti ivriting of a promissory noh : See Tkanskeb, op Pin>PKiiTY A ct (IT oir 1883), ks. 130 akb J34. ^ on, purchaser in execution of decrse ; Sre Malaeab, T enants Improvkments A ct ( M a d r a s A c t I OB' 1900) DSTirKucTTJATiY: 6'ee UsOTRUca'TJARy Mortgagic. MORTGAGE DEED. See Inihan Stamj? A ct (II o f 1899), sm. 2 (J7), u tc. (iimple and usufrv-ctuary combined, afid anomalous mort~ See T r a n s i h b oi? PR0PKS.'iy A c t ( I v oi? 1882), ss. 60 a k d 03..MORTGAGEE. DISPOSSESSION OF. hy a stnmyer, adverse to mortgagor from the time of his hnouiledge : See UsuFHL CI'uart mortgage!. holding two.mortgages P r o p e r t y A c t (IV o f 182), s s. 61, 85 a n d 9i). MORTGAGEE, if a creditor ; See M obt g a g e b y M in o r. -See TliANBKER oh' , in possession! See T r a n.s f e r oi? P r o p e r t y A ct (IV oi? 1882), BS. 60 AND , mesne, p?iority over : See MoitT<3x\GE. " , to be vendee on mortgagor's fa ilu re to pay ai the stipulated tim e :~ See Tuaks:fer oe- FEoPiSRTv A c t (IV or 1882), aa, 60 and , transfer bij : See Moijtgagb:: b y MiwoE. MORTGAGES, two, mortgagee holding : See T r a n b F k b o f P r o p e ie t y A c t ( I V o# 1882), y s-85 AKD 99. MORTGAGOR, attestation by ; See M o e tg a q e by MXDfolt.

77 INDHX S i x! ^ dispossession of mortgagee hy a strangf^r-, ndveme to. from ths time of his knoivlcdye : 8ee U s d f r t jc t u a r y m o e x g a g e ^ endorsement of payjvents h y : See M otjtqage b s: m in o b. right of, to remote encroaclimenis, etc., after title hatred : See M a d r a s D i s t r i c i M u k i c i p a I ii t i e s A ct f 17 oi? 1884), s e c. IG S settlement of all projoerty hy, after majoji-ity : Bee M o r t g a g e b y PAGE, tenant introduced hy, after mortgage : See Btlx; o f LA ijin ff. MOSQUE, MutaivalUship of a : See MtriiAMMADAN- Law, MUHAMMADAN LAW Joint business hy tico hr others-^ Death of one of them Subsequent husinesscs by survivor and sons of the dt-oea^ed Propertien purchased out of profits o f joint business Moneys collected hy mrrrivor Buit hy heirs of the deceased for their share Nature of suit Limitation Act (IX of 19CS)j arts. 123 a,7i(i 127 Joint, family property, if, exi.nts in Mii7iar,>'- niada}]. law Sxclusicn^ proof of,'if nece.-^sa.ry.'l Two Muhammadan brothers carried on a joint businers, and qks of them died nineteen years before suit; Ipavin^^ t.bree sons and tliree daiio-htei's. Some properties 'were purdiased out of the profits of tl'ie joint business in tlie name of the surviting: brother; the Jattor Bubseqnently carried on several other btisinesses along with two of the sons of the deceased brother and with a stranger wlio died more thati three years before suit. The heirs of the cleoeased brother brought the present suit against the surviving brother and otliers to recover their share of the properties ac^quiredout of the profits derived from the several bnsinetisea and their share of the moneys collected in the same. Heldf that the suit was one fur an acconnt and a share of the profits of a dissolved pa^vtdership a,nd was barred tmder article log of t,he Limifcntion Act (IX o f I9li8). Under the Mnhammfidan law there is no snch thing- as joiiit family property. I f the members of a Muh-immadan family sncceed to property on tiie death of a relation, eaoh of them takes a sbare of each item of the property ; and a suit by such a member for a share is governed bv article 123 a,nd not article 127 of the Limitation Act, Abd'iil Kader y. Aisliawma (189^) I.L.E., J6 Mad,, 61, distinguished. MoMdeen Bee v. 8yed Meer ^aheb (191o) I.L.E., 38 Mad., j Muta,wallisMp of property annexed to a mosque - Eight to succeed hy principle of heredity Proof and validify of such right.] Beld, on the facts of the case, that the plaintiff who claimed to he the mutawalli of on the plaint mosqne by right of heredity, had not estabiiebed by clear proof that that was the method o f snccersion to the office and that he was therefore the lawful mntawalli. Eeld also, hs a valid appointment of a ran.ta'walli could be made only in one of three inodes, v iz.: (o) by the orig inal author of the -vvaqf or by some person expressly anthorized by hitn, or (bj by the executor of the author, or (c) lastly, by the Courtj any.per.son claiming to be a mutavralli by heredity, mnet Bhow by strict proof of precedents that that mode of appointment was one whicli munt be necessarily deemed to have been sanction! d bj' the author of the trust. It ia frequently provided thai each mutawalli yhould have the power to ftpi oiut hia suceeesor : where there has been a long established practice for the mutawalli to nominate hie Buccessorj it is assumed (unless the contrary is proved) that power to do ecr was given by the founder o f the waqf. Bat "vvhere from past practice, it is sought to be established that the mutawalliship is to devolve hereditarily, there must be something- from which a rnle o hereditary sncoesbion sufficiently precis or definite may be deduced ; and the mere f.iet that for some time prior to 1874 three persona from the family of the plaintiff were succefisively mutawallis doeg not show that mutawallibhip dew ived by here" dity in the abaence of proof that they were not appointed or nominated by somebody. Sayad Aldula Edrus v. Say ad Zain Saya-d Masan JBdrna (1889) I.L.R., IS Bom., 5S5 at p. SG2, referred to» Per Sadasita Aytak, J,--~ Heredity as a principle of s'uccesbion to any office is highly objeqtionable, P h a t m a l i E i i ji Musa Bahih ' ^,(101&) I,l4,Bf 8Sila5.y481y MBWCJFAL C#I3WIL- -A d verse possemion <>f;'&^0rss poi- e sion Mght to a fial-^ P ial ov0r a drain o / *6 «Sfee?*;

78 C S :xii GENERAX IKDSX PAQB draitts, etc. Nature of ihe right Eight of Q overnvisni A dverse possession agatnst G-ov/ -rnment Le^igih of posae.^ainn h ial, an encrouchment o r ohsfr7ic- Hon to drain^ stret't, etc. Riyld- of 'municipality to re>riore encroachm ent, even when right to site of piat barred W> injunction against M unicipal Council against righ.t to remove ob.-itruction The Madras D istrict Mu^iicipalities Act [IV o/1884i> Indian Limitation Art of 1877), art, A Amending Act {XI of I'SOO) Declaration. 1 A perao n ca n s.c q u ire a t it le to th e s it e oi' a jn a l o ve i' m d r a in in a s tre e t v e s te d in a il ii n ic ip i il in y b y a d v e rse p o s s e s s io n a ja in a t il ie n ir in ic ip a lit y f o r t lie p re a o riy jtiv e p e rio d, w h ic h w a s 12 yeeirs b e fo re th e a i-ticlo 14o A o f th e h u lia n L im it u t io n A c t ( X V of ) waa p a s s e d in l^ol/ n ndei- A c t X I (jf 1 JC'0, T h e r ii ib t of a M u n ic ip a l C o u n c il to th e s tre e t a n d th e d ra.in s ia n o t a m ere riy;b t o f o a s e m e n t b u t is a s p e c ia l r i i i k t ot- p n o p e rty in th e sice p r e F io n s ly n n k n o w n to (aw b u t c r e a t e d b y fltiitu te. A lt h o u g h i t is n o t o pen to th e n ir n ic ip a l it y to g iv e u p th e r ig h t s of th e p u b lic b y im y a c t of t h s ir o w n, th a t w o u ld n o t a ffe c t t h e ca p a c ity of a perstrii in advi-rse possession to sifq a ire t if^lita w h ich w o u ld aft'icl th e p u b lic. T h e qn e atio n w lie t ln T jio sscsai^ m h a s b e e n a d v e rs e o r n o t d o es n o t d e p e n d u p o n the n eeds o r re q u ire m e n ts o f th e o w n e r b u t on t h e cli!i.ra o te r o f th e tjc c n p a tio n of th e p e rs o n in possoh sion. F u j j it iv e o r a n im p o rta n t a cts of p o sse n sio n w o u ld n o t be s u llil 'ie iilly e if e c t iv e to m a k e th e poaeebsion a d v e rse. E v e n i f the M urncipfi,! C o u n c il h ad no r ig h t to th e p o s'-e ssio n o f t.ho s jja e e a b o v e the drn.in b u t o n ly a r ig h t o f u s e r f o r th e d is o h a rk o ol' its f'a n c tio n s w it h re p p c ct to the (ira in a, s t i l l th e p la in tife a s t lie p e rs o n in posfiesaiou o f th e ])ia l w o u ld h a v e a r ig h t to i t ag-ain st a ll b u t th e t r u e o w n e r w h ic h w ae th e G o v e r n m e n t iu t h is caae, b a t a s a jr a in s t th e G o v e rru a e n t the p h iin tiip h a il n ot e s t a b lis h e d a t it le as lie lia d n o t been in a d v e rse p o sse ssio n fo r s ix t y y e a rs. A lt h o u g h th e p lain tifl ' h :d a c q u ir d a t it le to the, site of th e p ia l b.v a d v e rs n p o ssesaio n as ag-ainat tlio M u n ic ip a l O o n n c il, th e rig 'h t o f th e la t te r to d ie d r a in u n d e r t iie p ia l iia d n o t been a ffecte d, a n d th e e o u n c il w as e n t it le d to re m o v e th e p ia l a-s a n e n e ro a e h m e a t o r o b s t ru c tio n -ander s ro t i(;n 168 o f th e M a d ra s D is t r ic t AJ iin ic ip a lit ie s A c t. 'I h e p r a y e r of th e p la in t 'lf f o r a n in ju n c t io n a g a in s t th ^ iv in n ic ip a l L 'o n ric il c o u ld n o t th e re fo re b e g ra n te d, n o r c o u ia th e p m y e r fo r d e ch ira t.io n ol t it le b e g ra n te d, as it w a s o n ly in c id e n tix l t.o the R n b sta n l.ia l r e lie f asuod fo r, n a m e ly, a n in j- in c t io n w lu o h waw rt f u ^ e d. Suuda7-am Aijyar v. The M unicipal Council of Madura 25 M ud., filjo, fo llo w e d. Holts v. Vestry of St. b'eorge the Martyr, Southui,irlc (18-0) 14 G 'ti.d., 78 5 at pp a n d 79t5 3 Municipal Council of SydKey v. Yuung ( i ) A,G., a n d Midland Eaikvay v. W'fight (L ')O l) 1 (Jh., 738, ret erred to, Basawe-m^araswami V. Jhe Bellary Muvicipal Council... ( ) I.L.E,., 38 M ad., 6 MUNICIPAL C 1JETS, jurisdiction o f : Bee CiTiij P k o c e o t jk e C o d e CAct V o f 1 908J, SEC. 8f). MUNICIPALITY. advorsp possession against: See (M'^idbas) DiSTnrcr Mowicipa- XITXES A c t i^lv o f 18S4J, se c. HmS j right of, to street, drains, e tc.: See MnNiciPAL O o u N cirj, MUTAWALLISHIP of a mosque :~ S e e M u h a m m ad a n L a w. MUTT, hand of lease in perpetuity of mult properties, validity of Bight of eucct'ssors to dispute^ trhether void or voidable Otmjirrnation by immediate successor Right of the Latter s svcccssor to repudiate the samn Suit to set aside, if neces.--ary Limitation Act (XV o / 1877), arts. 242 a.nd IM Nature of the estate ojt a mataihipathi (head of a muti), i f an ahsulute estate or estate for life Local Boards Act (I' o f 1SS4), ss. C>:i, 66 arid 7S-~The Madras Revenue Uecoiery Act (^J of as, a7id 42 Sale far arrears of road-cess No notice to inamdar lut to tenant Sale irregular not toithout jurisdiction -Suit to set aside sale Limitation Act (JfF of 1877), a?t. 22 The M a d ia s lie v e v u e E e co re ry A c t { I I of 1864'), sec. T h e h e a d 'n f a m a t t m a d e a n a lie n a tio n b y w a y o f a leaae in p e rp e tu it y in o f flotne la n d s w b ie h h a d been g r a n te d an in a m f o r t h e s u p u o rt o f th e mutt, a n d d ie d i n j h is iu im e d ia t e s u c c e s s o r in th e office v e c c iv e d th e r e n t r e s e r v e d b y th e o ld le a se fro m t h e le s s e e s t ra t ig fe re i S from a n d t r i a t e d th e oo«u p a tb n n d e r th e old lease ns tl»e te n a n ts u n t il h is d e a t h in ISJOG j ^he la tte r a auoceksor in o ilice brovig-ht the present s u it in 1908 to set a sid e

79 GENERAL IN D E X C x x i i! PAG the lease and recover possps'iou of the inam lands from the defendants who mn-e sxiu-leasefs or as^igiieer! from tlie orighral lessee and fso'n tho fifcli dei endant, who was a pui'chasei' in a revenue sale of some of tti iiiam Ifiitcis which wei e sold in May lij02 fur arreara of roaii-cehs duo und»-t the LoeaP Boards Act (,V -of ia s4). that thn suit was nob barred b j limifcatiim, escp(it as reyarris the lam is 'vvhicli wese sold in. revt-'nue sale. A periiiauont lease is in excess of tfie poweriq of tiie head o f a rnutt. Aa aliimatioii by the head of a mutt is n.ot iiecessai'ily void and of no eqect but is good for the liti^-time of rhe alie^ior. A niatathipathi (head of a mutt) is not a tenai'ifc for life bat is in thn posirion of one who, though in a certain sense owner in fee siinpl*, yet in many respects has only the po'vers of a tenant for life. An alienation by the head of a mutt is voiflable by the ahenor s Huccessor.-? in very much the ssime vi'ay that an alienation by a Hiudii widow in exceaa of her jiowers is voidable by her successors. The sacci-ssqi:' of a matatliipathi oannufc validate a lease of his ijredeceeaor so as to bind his sucose^sor.si ; ho can valiilate tae lease onjy for the fierind during which he holds the office- or avoid it altugetlier. Abhi-iam Qoswami v. Sliyama Ohai'iin Nindi (IPOU) I.L.R., 3t3 Calc., 1003 (P.C.), Narsayi Upada, Y. Venkataram ana B hatta 2d 260, T idiiaptbrnu Tirthaswnvii V. Vidyaidhi Tirthaswami {.iio-l) I.L.il., 27 Mad and Kailaaani Pillai Y. Nataraja T/iambiran. {IB^Oy 33 Mad., 265 (F.B), followed. The corpns of the mu:t property is inaiienalde except in special ciicum* stiuioi's, but the income sub]e<;t to the upknep of the mutt, is at tae absdjare dispo-'al of tiie >t a ^a.tbip iihi [see Vidyapiirma Tirthaswami v. Vidyanidhi Tirtha.^uhrmi (IDO-J.) I.L.R., 27 M td., l3 5]. Where owing to the fi.ilnro of the holders of a pnrt-ioa of the inam lanrja to pay the local-cess daw nn >or the Locfil Lloard-^ Act {V of ^ he Revenue officers sold some of tho inam lands without giiiu;^ notice of the pi'oceedin^s to thi) he-uj of the mn!t. as the defaulter but notice was given to the tenant in ofcupatioti of the lanfls, the was irraguhir bvifc not (me held without jurisdiction, and was consequently liable to be s^t aside, but the suit to set aside the aanae vvaa barred as not bi'ouy-ht within the time iillovved by section 5y of the Madras Ke-venne Recovery Act (II of ]8li4) or article 12 of the second sohedul<i of the Limitation Act. (X V of 1S77). Ramachandra v. Pitchailca nni (IS84) 7 i^lad, L'kinnasanii Mudati v. 2'irumalai FUlai and the SecreMry of Slate for India (IW02) I L.H., 26 Mnd,, 572> Malkarj.'Ti v. Narkari (lijol) I.L.R., irsb ira. (;^37, P.C.)^ atid Bijoy Oopal Mukerp v. Krislmd Mahiahi Dsbi {IU07) IJj.Ji., 34 Oalo., aisy (P.O.), referx*ed to. Fer ts-.das VA Avyaji, J. Thii positiim of a matatbipat-lii is not analogons to that of a Corporation sole under the English Law, because there ir this lundamental distim-tion, namely, whereas the propei'ties belonging f-o an English Bishop (a Corporatioa boig undit the English bav?), including-hirt savitig-5froai the revenues of the benefice devolve upon, his legal representatives or heirs, the tiavings of niatathipathi devolve upon the succeeding rnafcaihi. athi. The proeeuure laid d Wn by the Revenue Recovery A ct (11 of ia64) has been incoi'porated into the Local Boards Act by section 76 of the lancer A c t; but the sul;etantive proriaions in the Eeveiiua Recovery Act (sfctions 32 snd 33) that the sale for the recovery of arrears of land j-evenue frees the land from all incumhratuseo and from all favourably rented leases, do not apply to a sale under the Local Boards Act. See Ea^nuchandra v- J^itchutkamd (1834) I.L.Ii,, 7 Mad., 434 aud Chinnafami M U'la-li v. Tirumalai Pillai and the Sucntary of State for India (19(.-2) I.L.R., 25 Wad., 572. Mutliusamier V. 8ree Sreemeihanithi Bwamiyaj' (1916) 38 Maa;^, 356- NEGLIGENCE of agent) damages fo r ; See T r a k b s k s ok P k o p k r t y A ci (IV o» 1882), SEU. 6 (fj). NEGOTIABLE IKSTMUMENTS ACT <XVI OF 1881>, beg. 28 note by ag^nt, ^mthout any tndication of execution as agent-^ Fersoniilliahiliti/ of p.xec'u^ta'nt,] Unless on executant of a promissory note clearly indicates therein either by an addition to hia signature or otherwise^ that he executes it as ayenfc of another or tha-t he does not joteud ibweby ip. incur personal responsibility, he is liable personally oti tlj px oinis^ory uotci according to section 3B o f the Negotiably ib&ta'ummts'act, Mer&ly dev eoribing^ oneself in the note aa the h >lder o f aipovyet'fiot-afctiora^^^^^

80 i r GlsirEIRAl TNbilX another doe? not sliow tliat the power included a power to Bigu prouaissovy notps or tliaf, the note was si'rned hi pnrsuanoe of the po-vver. Applicability of English Law on the anbjecb eoiisideved. Koneti Naicker V. G-opala Ayyar (1915) SKC. 87 See Dkkd. NUTICE, JUDICIAL ;~S^e<3 M a p p il t jas of F o rth MAi.ABAti. NOTICE not legally served on ihe ^laintijf: See L im itation A c t (I X o f 1908),. 28, AET of sale f or arrears o / 7'ond-ces.s, not to inawdar hut io tenants: 8ae M u tt, &kad of. (INDIAN ) OATHS ACT (III OF ), ss. 5 AND Evidmce, adw.i.'i-^ aibihiy of ichere 'U'itness not suiorw,] The evidence of "two cia'idren ap:ed eight and six years wa.b admitted iig'ninsfc an accused persoti without the children havin^' been sworn or adivraed : Ileld, that in view of section 18, [adiun Oiitbs Act, the failare to udmimister oath or alflrn ai.ioii did iu>t render the evidence inadmissible. Queen-Em'press v. Viraperumat (is'i's) I L.R., 16 Mad., 105 (P a b k k r, J.), t'ollowed. Qmen-JSvTpre-'^i:: v. Mara (1!''88) l.l.'e., 10 All., 207, dissfiited fi om. Far Curiavn : Section 5 of tho Oaths A<-t is imperative aikl if a Court liulds that a person may lawfully giv e evidence, it is the duty of the Oouit to admiiiiator oath or affirmation to tlia.fc witness. PA«1C He China Venkakada (1915) I.u.11., 38 ]\l:i.d., 55<.l OBSTKUCTION, causing o f: Sse innian P ek al Code (A (;t X L V o f I860), S3EC j no injuncfwn against Municipal Qouncil againat rigjit to remove See M u n i c i p a l C o v n c id, OFFER QF P E IF D H M A N C E, condiiionnl: See G 'it ii, P r o c r d u r t s C uo iu ( A c t V OF 1908), 0. X X lli, R e,<!.'^e?itials oft See C i v i l P so o ic D rr E C o d e ( A i 't V OF 190S), O. X X I I I, r. 3, OFFICEIS, SOBOKDINATE, unauihorised acts of, hov- far Unding ov Oornr)i~ m e n t: See (M a d r a s ) I r r ig a t io n Oeb.s A c t ( V I I oi^ ), se c. 1. OFFICIAL IIE EI EE S OSDES ^ibrnissing insolvency p etition : See VINCIAL I k so l v e n c y A<JT ( l i l OF 1907). P eio- *' OLD WASTE, ejectment from : See Madsam EstaTKS La^d A ct (I OF 19US), S8, 8 (7), 6, 2 3,1 5 3 and ^onus of proving, on landlord See E r t a t e s Land A ct ( I OF ), SP. 3 (7 ), G, 2 3, 153 a n d 157. grounds of ejectment of tenant of'.- 8ee (M a i»tias) EHfATios Land A ct (IV of 1908), sa. 3 (7), and 157. ONUS OP PROOF, immaterial where whole eviience recorded : See HiNim L a w, ^ provi Tig mitioritii, on ^rofomider of a will : See H i n d u L a w. OPERATION, retros^pect.ivs^ when ;.S ee LiMiTATroN. ORAL SALE, in cases of, change of ^oanession, how io he effected : Bee Thak8» PER OF P r o p e r t y A c t ( t V oir ), ss. 4 a x d oj-, ORDEH, condilional^ of Judge for grant of Prohate i See (In d ia n ) S tjccbsmon A ct ( X of 18C55), se c passed without proper inquiry:»ses L im it a t io n A c t (TX o f 1908), s e c. 28, AKT J lawful. See I n d ia n Pbnai, Cobb ( A c t XLV ob- 1860), 269, fsa. 188 a n d OHPEES, remanding, not Jinal orders, eo as to be applicable to. Privy OouncH 8 e«p filv T OODNOIL, A ppeat, to,

81 RENBRAL ISrDliK OXXV O IIG IN AL COUBT, compeiency of, to entertain application". Sm C ivil PeocejiufiK CnrjE ( A ct V of ISOii), 0. XLV, r e. 15 jikb 16, etc to itie application 'by the transferee of decree i ^See CiViL P ro o i'idue-b C o d e ( A c t o p 1908), O. is L V, e e. 15 a n d 1(1, e t c, dutcaste, "one niem'ber becoming excluded fro7n family : See Hindu L a w. OWNEK, permanent leasee, not an : See H indu L aw proprietor or, under 'Regulation X X F o / : See HlNDtJ L a w, under (Madras) Assessment of land Rev emie Act (X of 18'76), see* 2 : See H indu L a w, PA I; E PADUGAI, meaning o f: See Pre-em ptio n, conteact of. PALMYRA JUICE, leane w'hetjier lease of the moveaue property i-~8ee Indian E kgistration Aqt ( IV o f 18S4), sec. 17 (I) (c) and {A). P AK O L A C C E P T A N C E S e e I n d ia n S tamp A ct (II of 1899), sec, 57. PARTIAL PERFOHMANCE, meaning o f: See H i n d u Law. PAKT-PAYMEWT OF PRINCIPAL, hy a literate debtor, signed hm not written by hijii, <ii'hether sufficient compliance toithin Limitation Act (IX of 1908), sec, 20, proviso : See Pr esipkncy Smai. l Causk Oofrts A ct (X V of 1882), sec, 89. PASTURE LAND and, ryoti land : See (MAnnAb) Esta'j'ks Land A ct (I of 190S), SEC. 3. PASTURE RENT -Recovery of, and ejectment suit *or, cognizable only by Civil Courtii; See (M ad ras) E stateb Land A ct (I of 1908), aso, 3, P A T T A, TENDER OF, by a landlord to his tenant at his house Tenant, refusal hii Suise.iiuent fixtw e of patta to the tenant s house not to Ms land: See M adras E states Land A ct (I of J90S), ss. 54 and 72, c l. (3 ). PENAL ASSESSMENT, levy o f: See Maubas L and Encroachment A ct ( II I of 1905) j recovery of and declaration of title, s^iit for : Bet IV'adras L and ENCROAi iiwhina* A ct (IH op 1905), ss. 3, 5 and 14. (INDIAN) PENAL CODE (ACT XLV OF ), Chaps. X II and -i- ee Ob im in a l PaocEDURS (A ct Y of 1898), sue X V II ^ Madras Forest Act ( F of 1882), offence tinder Justification, plea of, not a ' v a i l a l U The plea of justification provided by seotion 79 of the Indian Penal Code (X L V of I860) is available only for an offetiob punisbable by tlie Penal Code and not foi' offences pnnisliable by any special or local law and lienee t,lie belief of the aoonsed bbnt he was justified in big act does not exculpate him frooi piiiii.-ihraent for his guilt under section 21 of the Madras Foi est Act;. Emperor V. Xassim (lol-j;') 14 L-R,, 365, dissented from. Xnre Pt!7ichKl Beddi (1899) 9 216, followed. Be Lewis (1915) I.L.R., 38 M ad., j interpretaiion of Drunkenness Knoidedge and in ten t] Per A y lin g, J. Ordinary drankennsss makes no difference to tbe kaowledge with which, a raau is credited and if an aconped knew what the natural consequences of Kis act were,ha must, be presumed to have' intended to cause fliem.' Per TyABJi, J,- Seotion 86, Indian Penal Code, must be construed striotly, ItproTidoH tib.at the intoxicated person shall be dealt with as if he had tlie same hmwledge as ho would hare had if he had not been intoxicated, but it does not provide that he shall be dealt with as if he had the earn intent, -SiB Man^ru Gadaha (1915) I.L.E, 38 Mad.. * ^ ^ ,;,,ss.' 188, and 2W -^^pid0mig Diseases Act (IIT of 189*7), «?. 2 3^ L0cal Qovernmefitt delegation powers to Regulations under ihe Act Buie 10'^ of the Regtilations v i r e s of the Local <3^i)er«TO e»it.l \ A d e le g a t ^ q a u ix d e r r u l e >1 p o lie o t o i* t o a P i v i s i o n a l Officer o f t h e p o w e r i f c s ill npoi^. p e ^ ip le

82 O X XTl GENEEAt, INDEX Inou8«a is illegal and an omihsion to comply with the order of snoh officer acting' nnder such delegated authority is not an illegal omission. PAGE Ee Naguppa Thevan... (1913) I.L.R.j 38 Mad., j SEC. 283 Ohstniction^ causing o f W h e t h e r necesf>ar)/ to p^-ove m y ipavtu ula r in d iv id u a l o b s tr u c te d.] W htm 'e the evidence ahowod that an obstrui-ticn jtlaced on a road must ns'ces'ta.rily prevent vehicles from passing at all and ioot-pa^^senuora from passing* without, inconvcnirnce, Held, that it is a necessary inferencp that jiersons wei obstructed and that it la not neoessaiy to expfessly prot-e that any specififi individual w a s actually ohstvuoi.ed. Thp, Q ueeii y. K h a d e r M o in in (18R2) 4< Mad., 235, not followpd. Queen-Uinprena v, Virappa Ohetti (1^97) I.L.U., 20 Mad., 433, eomiueated ou. He VenlcappcL (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., , sifc. 405 Criminal Prcce.dn.rs Code (Act V of 1S98), sh, 179 and 132 Cnviina! breach o7 Ilundia sent from Dharapui'.'tm Cushed in Bomhoy--Junsdiction.] The cffei ce of criminal breach ol trust ia conipleied by the misappvopriaiiou or the oonvei'- sion of the* property di^honc'^tly. Jt is oiily the iniention which is cssenfitil, whether wvoagt'vl fj;idn ov loss actually rrsults is iininatim ijil ; it is a consequenec*, hut DO ('ssential ptiri of ijie tiffeucf, rind a p(=^i snn is not nccused of the offence by reason of it.. Where, thereforr', tlie aei-ubed brokers in B' mbay, w e r e cburged in the Court of the Snbi-Divisional Magistra'e of flrodf. with, the offen.ce of havinu'committed Cl iuiinii) broiich of trunt in respect of tbe proceeds of certain huiidis, entiustcd t.:i tlieni by tiie coniplainants, merchanra at!'liarapuram, for enc. slnuen t nt Boruljav, Held, that the h nndis having' been cashed and ihe ])rucceils uiis ipi.n opi iated by the ai'cus' d iu Bombay tlie Krod'' C'our!-. hadn(.' jiinadiciiou to try t^sic case. flani:t hi Lai v. Nand Eishore ( 912) I.L.i!., AH., 4K7, apnrcerl. A.'fuifitant Sc~^i>ion3 of i''ortk Arcot v. Ra-nm^^irami Apnri (19H') 26 M.Ij..!., 23f). disfinguished. Quean-Fni'pres^: v. O'hrien (1897) I. L.K., 19 AIL, 111 and Emperor MahaHeo (I9l0) 32 All., ^;97, foinrneiited on. Held, al.so ihat, where, as in this cfipe, the oompluiut olc.'irly charged disboik'fit iiiibttppropfia*ion to accu<^gd R owji nso und not use or disttosal in. violation of law or contiact, the <ffen< 6 fell uuher the first p'wt of s(-ction 4U.3 of tlie Indian Peaal Code and not under the seuond. A.nd sei'on:llv, it' it wjra other'vvj. --6, ihe opretice «ould be cotiiniitti d where the di^ihoiiebt u;.;e or dispossil took place, not where the eontmct wais made, or ahould have been performed. R eram iilas... (1915) l.l.il., 3S Mad., , e k c. 424 G nvioiion of a ryot under Madras Kstaiea Land Act (I of 190y) far difthone.'^t roticralnienc and removal of cropn, legality of Madras h's/atf's Land ^~tcl (J of 1903), 73 and 212, 110 bar to convir.tioyk] '1 he acoused who was a I'yot iinder the Madi'.as Eetates Land Act and who was bound under tliu conditions of his tenurt* to share the pi oducb of hia land wi'li t he laiidho'der in a certiiin proportion dishonestly concealed and removed the produce thus pro\entin<f tho laiidholder from taking his dae aluire. Held, that ihe provisiona of soctionm 73 and 212 of the Madras Et<tatv S Laud Act were no b ir to a conviction of a r y o t under.section 421, Indian Penal Code, for the dishonest conceauneut Sind removal. Ee Sivayiupandia. Thevari v. (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 793 FEKFOIIMANCE, offer of, esseniiau o f: See Givit, I'RocEDujan; Code (A ct Y os' 1908), 0, x x m, R. 3, FEEJBKY, deliberate, obtaining decree hy, etc, ; See H kaxtd. PERMANENT SETTLEMENT, engayernents at the time of the \ See (Madras) Irrigation Cess A - t (V''ii op 1865), bfo. 1, PERPETUITIES. rule of, applicahl&'io Hindu Law also i-~see PttE-EMPTlorr. PIAL. a, over a drain, right io See MvtiictFAi, CovviciL,, an encroachment or ohstr'uction to drain, street, etc.^-. Bee MukicipaIi OoPNCIi,.

83 GEXEEAL INDEX C X X V ii PGLICE REPORT hasp.d on a jndgmmt of Coicri, sufficient legal h(tsis for ^ratit of scm ction: Hee CKiiUKAt. I ROCEDDiiE C ove ( A c t "V o f 1 8 ts ), sec. li-5.?aos POSSESSION, adverse SeflAcvBRFE possession , change of, in cartes of oral sale is le efecied-. See T k,a k b ier OF P ropkrty act ( V of 1S82), ss. 4: a n d hy ivid'iw of other 'propertij yieldavg incom e- See H indu Law. j length o / j See M u n ici P al CoUNCir^. P C S S E 8 S I N CF L A K E S, cqvkr of action for, deferent from that for mesne promts i Sue C iv il Putci iiutie C ode (A c t Y of 1908), O. II, rr. 2 and , relief for, only confi^'qupntial on grant of declaration: See CcrXJRT Fees A ct (V II o f 1870), ss. 7, etc, ^ auit fo r : See II ikdtj Law. suitfm-'. Fee Lim itation A ct ( X V o f 1877). art. 91. POWEH-OF-ATTOHNEY, constrv.ciion o f: Ste C iv ii P kocedurk Code (A ct 'V OP 19(S), O. X h V, RB. 15 AM) 16, ETC. PRACTICE; See M ortbare S'=e F rovinciai, iksor.vengy A c t (III of 1907). PEACTICE, CR PICCEDCEE, mntiers ol riaht of a party to apply for a new trial, n u t: See P residkkcy S m a ll C a tsk C ou rts A ct; ( X T op 1882), gs. 9 AND 3S. PRE-EMPTION, contract o f Promisor, heirs of, not enforceahle against Perpetuirule of, op]'licahe to Tlimlv La'll' alw.] A eonti act of pre'empfcit r.i (with reference to sale of lanflp), wliich no time wiiliin which the agreempnt to convey is to he fipj'f<iraied cannot be enfoiced ag-aiiist the heirs of Ihe pptbon who Ptit( re(t into the contiaet a=< it infringes tht> rule ajiaii-sfc per. petuittps. The rule of j erpet-uities iss apilirable to Hindim also. Aobi% Chandra Soot v. Nahab Ali Sarkar (1900) 5 C.W.N., 343, followed. Kolathu Ayyar Y. ha'i'iga Vadhynr (1915) I.L.E.., 38 Mad., 114s rirjht o f Ses LiJiiTATiOK A c t (IX ok 1908), ae'j PREFERENTIAL HEIR -. See H i n d u L a w, PRESENTATION OF PLAINT to Head Cleric not authorized to receive: See (M a d r a s) E sta te s Land A c t (I r.f 1908). PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE CCCETS ACT (XV OF 1882), ss. 9 a n d 38 Neill trial, application for liight of a pari'/ to apply Presiifmcy Small Cautie Cnuii Rule.^, 0. XLI. r. 2, nltra^ Iligh Gaurt, power of, to make rules Matters of practica or prncednre Riffht of a party to apphi,^iota matter of pt actice or procedure.'] The ri.ics of the Presidency Small CauFse Court are made by the Eiijh Court nnrler the pows-rs cr nfri red hy section 9 of the P residcnrj Small 0^-nse Coxirts Act t'f 1882, as ampndpd by the Apt of That sectinn only empo'wers tho High Court to n abe rules -wi+h rpfi'rence to matters of practice or prooe^ddre and rjot matters of snbstiintive right. On a irno constrnction of section 3Mof tl & Ai t, the pn-vvfir given to the (-onrtib real'y a right given to a parly to apply for a new Irin l: such risrht like the right of apj.e >1 is not a matter of pructiee or pr(icednre. Order X L I, rule 3 ol the Presidtjj ry t^roall Cause Court Eules wi ich requirea at the time of prespnting an apilication for new trial, tither the dpposit in Court of the docreca anacunt or ihe giving of seeuricy for ihe due performaiice of the decree is iiiconsistr-nt vii'h tlie statutory rijrht g'iren by section 3F of the Piesii^pncy i^mall (,'auso CoTirts Act PiXid ultra virt^s, Aitorriey^Qeveral'nr^ SiUen (1864) II E.R., 1200; s c., 10 H.L.O. 70i, referred, fo- Coiortial Sugar Refining Go^ pavy V, ItvingX IQOB) A.0^,369, r tf ex fpd to, Madurai Pillai V. Muthu Clietiy... {1015) I.L.R., 38 3 ad,.8:23' (B.B.) ;se(%' 69-- m ifa«'' tion Act ( I X of 190S), sec. 20, j rovtso-^ Pat f-paymerit of s>rinc^pal-^lttiirata debtor Fart-paymefit (tiffued, but f/ot vh tien by him -~W^hether\;S''''M''^' i comjjkajjce Kithim the pro't^^o.] Wbeiv IwQ or -inor^ JBd EeK ;pf t! t fcinall Cause Court are eittiiig: t<5^ethei\ fcfr tfce ptirjjos of exeycieing; ^ jutjb-

84 O x x v n i ee?{ebal TND1SX I*A0«diction oonferred by aeotion 38 of the Preeidenoy Snaall Cause Courts Act (X V of 1882), tliey ave sitbiiig in ti soili within the meaning of those words in sect,ion G9, and if a I'effironiie i-? made to tlie High Count under its provisions, such rcferencn is -valid. Si'ci.ion 20 of tlio Limitation Act roqnires that, in the civso t>f a pavt-paynient, of the principal. o a, debt, the entry xeoording tbo payment,should be written by the person who makeb the payment, when such jievson knows bow to write ; bis mer» sig:natnre to tbe entry written by another is not a snfficienfc complianco with the srction. Joshi Bhaisa-nlcar v. Bai Parvaii (1502) I.L.R., 26 iiom., 2-tn, Jamnav. Jaga Shana, (19U4) I.Ii.B.,, 28 Bom,, 2G2 and Muklii Haji RuJimuttiUla v. Goverp Bhuja (1896) I.L.R;, 23 Calo., 5i6, followed. SeaJia y. Seshaya (I8 8 i) l.l.e;., 7 Mad., S3 and Ella^'pa v. A-nnamalai (188'i) i.l.il., 7 Mad., 76, distinguikhed. Lodd Govindoss KrifihnadosN v. llulcmani Bai... (1 9 L5) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 438 PRESIDENCY SM ALL CAUSE COUET lules.. 0. XLT, r. 2, ultra vire/,: See Phesidkkcy S m all CAUfiic CIotjrts Act (,XF o f 1882), 9 and 38. PRESIDENCY TOWNS INSOLVENCY ACT (III of 1909), s e c, Oivil Procedure Code {Jet V of JLOS), sec. 34 Transfer of petitioyi for insolvency to tmifassal Dii^trict Court for disposal--no juris^dicfion."] As the juri.ydlctiiona confei-red by the Pi-esideney Towna InsoJrr;ncy A ct on hhc ITin'h Gonrt^ and by the Provincial Iinsolvpncy Act on the imifaasal oourtb aro disfcinot, and tbe provieions of the two Actti ditt'ev in anch imikirtant respeotr, it ia not competent for the Hioh Oonrt to trauht ev nndcu' section 90 of tho Presidency Towns In8olvt>n.C3^A ct and nndor section 24', Oivil Procedure Code, an Insolvenoy petition pending before it, nudor tluj Presidoncy Tow n s Insolvt3nGy A ct for dispoaal by a nnifassal Difitriet Court, undej tho Provincial Insoivelicy Act. Srinivasa Atyantjar V. The 0 icial Assignee of Madras, (1915) I.L.H,, B8 Mad., 473 PKESUMPTION t See Madra.s EiiiGULATioN (X X 7 o f 1802), sec. 4*. PRICE, amount of., recital aa to, essential temi of contract of saui See ikmak EyiDESrcK A ct (I oj? 1S72), sec. 92., Sipecified in sals-a&e^ i See Indian Eviprncio A ot (I ok 1872), akc ,oral agreement as to, in disctiarije of a viortijage : See Indian E vldence A o t (1 OP 1872), s e c. 92. or value of the lands at the date of t'iie transactions, no charge : Ses TRAKBFm 01? PsopEBTi 'A c t (IV OS' 1 8 f 2 ), K s.l l S t o j.5 4 AND 5 5, v.h. (i (i>). PRINCIPAL, P art-pay meat o f : Sea P besidknct Small Oaitbk Codkts A ct (X V OF ), SEC PRIOR AND PUISNE MORTGAGES -. See IVIoktgaqk. PRIOR MORTGAGEE, whstfier entitfea to charge interest after daie o f.s'a2«i See M o r t g a g e. PRIVY COUNCIL, Appeal to i S e e A p p e a l 'to Paiv^y OounoiIi j maintainability of- Givil Procedure (lode {A ct y of 1908), sec. 109 Orders remanding, mi final orderh so as to he appcalaf)h to Privy Cou,ncil~Oivil Procedure (^ode {Act V of 1908), sec, 105.] Orders of th<3 High Oourt reversia,*' oa ajjpoal two decisions of the lower CourD, and remanding the oasea for trial, one of them oa tlio j^'i'ound. that the lower Oourfc was wrong' in dismissing' the suit for insufficiency of the pleadings, and tb.9 other on the ground that the lower Court was wrong iaa. disbiisaing the auit on the plea of bar oonlained in aeotion 4S of tho old. Givil Proosdure Oodo, sre puraly preliiuinary or interlocutory orders, which do not deeide the r t!peotiro rights of the pavciea, and are not final ordexb within the meaning; of section 109, Civil Pi'ooedura Code, ao as to be capable of being appealed against to the Privy Council. Tirunarayaria Gopalasami (1890) l.l.r,, 13 Miid.,349, followed, Baiyiil Muzhar Hossein v. Mushamat Bodha Bihi (1895) I.L.R., 17 All., 112-, applied. Forbes v. Ameeroonissa Begum (1865) at p. 359, rf^feitad, to. Seotion 103, Civil Pri.oadiiro Code, does not apply to appeals to Pia Majesty,^in CoiinoiL, Y^iiTcataranga Row Y. Narqaimha Rao (1915) I. L. li. j SS Mftd.j 5Q9

85 OEXEKAL IN BEX (SXS.1X.order of, tranamitied io th& Original O o w r tis e e OiriL Pkocedctbe C ode ( A c t V OK loo.s), (). XL,V, r r. 15 and 10. PRIVY COUNCIL DECISION, Inn ding force of, on Indian though nut in an Initan ca^ : See BlLr, ok r,ai)ix. PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION ACT < OF ) :-S ee Htnbu Law. PfiOBATE, grant of, conditional order of Judge for A ct (X OF 1S65), shc See ( I n d i a n ) S u c c e s s io n non-i.^sita nf, owing to non-vayment of Court fe e s -. See (txdiax) S d c c e s s io x A ct (X o f lb!35), se e. [ h7. OR LETTBRa oif AninVISTRvfio\ alone, evidence of righ t: See (1n!.i\n) Succkssio\ A c t (X op LS135), sec. 1S7. FRUFirS, M3 3NS, can.^e of action for, dijfi^rent from that f>rlin d : S^e Oivii:,^lJRocEDtJRK Code ( A c t V o;. 15)03;, 0. II, Rn. 2 and t. PRDCEEDIVGS, peniency of : See C tvir, Pr o c b d u r e C o d e ( A ct V of 1908V O.XXL, B. G3. PROMISES, reciproc'il, non-p^rformanc^ by one parfyioroniyfuuift See C iv il Pho- ^ CKDUKE Code (A c t V op 190S), O. JC X ill, &. 3, ' PROMISOR, heirs of, contract of pre-emption, K m p t i o v. of not enforceable against ; See PROMISSORY NOTE. inad nisaible in evidence'. See VAHTnAT.rAN AM, Joint execution Con side ration Snysty.] 'Jhfs consmpratio 1 paid to any on.e of several joint pr imirofs is legally sufrcienh to siqjpovfc the promise of all the joint proin'arjrs. N'ara-iimha v. tl(imnmm,i (IPL3) 24s 91, fipplied. Se.'iha, Aiijar v. Jln igul Doss 7ee (191U) 20 ]4-4 disfciiiguislirtd Per Otiriimi Section 02 of the IivJ a.n EviilfnoG Act prttclud -s an execiifcanf-. fr im np a ooateniporatieous oral agn'enieul; that lie should tt'^fc be initdo H a b ie on the pi oiuiss"ry n ito. Ph^ tipiisvcku,>f. Seocion 127 of the Indian Oont.raob Aoti.'liows thaf-. tho value by thepriiicipil debtor is a s'llficient-, consideratioa ti> Ibiad the surety aad section 128 makc.-s hi'a liability co-cjxtonsive, raqe Sornalinga Mxiduli V. Pacliai Naickan (19L5) Lb.R,, 38 Mad., 680 PROSECUTION, duty o f : See Indian Pknad C o d e ( A ct SLV o f 1869), ss. 188 AND Iit39. (INQUIRY), PROPER, order passed without-, See LiiriTAxioN A ct (IX OB' 1908)* SRC. 28, AST. 47. PROPERTY, acqidsiiion of, hy hushand and ivife: See Eixdu IjAW , allsetttem sntof, by in^rtijagor afi&r majoriii/ : See J1oETGA.qs BT m in o r divesting of by adoption. See Hindu Law, , J oin t: See H in du La w j------, immoveable, sale of, Oourt-auction ; See OiTiii PaocEDUBB CoDM (A ct V of 1908), O. X X I, a ^ mooeable. See M or tgaqk. -y %vrongfv,l seizw e of i See LiMiTKiioir A c t (tx o f 1908), scit. II, ARTS, 29/ 6 i A.\D li?0., vesting of, at a iima, evidence 0,3 to, ina,dmissiole: Se» (Indian) Kvidejxck A ct (I off 1872), skc. 92, p«ova. J and 3. ve-itmg of, in a co~parcener, meaning of s See IJiNDtr L a w, PSOSTlTUnO M, noi def^troying kinship kij bl'iod : See Hi.vdu LaW. pgpvincial INSOLVENCY ACT (III OF ), «s. 15, 16, 18; 19,^ 20, 22,: AXD 52~~Oii cial Rsceiuer s orde.r 4ismiH>iinij m^olvenoi yetitton So u/.yie I direct tb Higk Court Practice Ko i'tstytfiirance in revision- v:liere oihfr No appt'al iips nndpr f-ectim 4^, e auso (2) td' I lovineial JneoivVeiicj A ct -io the l igh Court fru ^ the order ci an Official ilpcei%ei' dii-mis- ;SiTii''au insoivency pftitjiofi j Luc ati uppeint against pufseil by tj;e Official Receiver lipti, nnder section 22, only to ihe J3i«t]irt Ccurt.. ^he Jlajiguago of eectiojq; 22 read' willi fiegtioni'ss^ tliows ri^liir Xi"'

86 C X X X GENERAL INDEX PAftE ofappeaylis not confined to orders made antler sections 18, 19.-infl 20, but esteiids to all orders of the Beceiver. Oliter : An Official Kecoiver investecl wifcli the powers mentioned in. cla,use (a) of seotiimi 52 (1) lias the power to dismiss an. insolvency p(:itition iind<>r eoctioii 15. The Coui t will not intertere-utider section 115, Civil Procediire Godo, in a caso where otlior adequate remedy was open. Ghi3>(i'm'bara.m y. Naijappa (1915) I.L.ll.j 38 Mad., 15 W A T R e c e i p t ^ guo. 16. CL. S : 8ee E a i l- PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE CDOSTS ACT (IS F_1H87>, son. II. a m. 85 (y) Gontract to mc(vfy,hreach of Provisions and articles, loss of.j A. suit by a father of a Maliaminadan girl ai^'iiinat the I'ather of fi minor boy for braaeli of onntraot to marry the boy to the plaintiff s dangliter and foi' cornpetisatioii foi' the loss snatained by the wawte of articles and pvovfsiont! in const=>queiice in siioh breach if?,e;ov'crnod by :M t:iole 35, clanso (t;) of the sciciond schedulo to the Provincial Small Oanse Courts Act (IX ol 1887) and is therefore not cognizable by a Provincial Small Cause Oourt. Kali SunJcer Dass V. Ectylash Ghunder Bass (IS^S) I.L.B,,, 15 Calc., H8S, followed, M oidink uttiv. Polce?... (1915) 38 Marl, '374 sen. II, ART. 38 Suit for money for maintenance under an agreement, cogniznhls by a Small Oause Court.'] A suit to recover from the drfondant paddy expended by the plaintiff for the rnavntenance of their grandmother, for which nndi;r the agreenaeut of partition between them the defendant was hourid to gi^ro the paddy is a suit of a small ca,use natui'e ; tho ba,sii5 of the suit being the agreement. Bamaawamy Pantulu y. NarayanamonrUiy (1904) 14 M.L.J,, 480, applied. A'ttnasami V. Eamasa»ii (191S) I.L.It., 38 Mad., 553 AND 35 : See Civil P rocrduee Code ( act V of 1903). S.S. 27, B2, 33 PK XY performance of duties hy : See Giviij Procbdueb Cook (A.ot V op 1908), O. X X ilt, a. 3. PUBLIC POLICF : See C ivil Proceduue Code (A ct V oi-' 1908), 0. X X III',r. S. PUKCHASER, a 'aece.'jsary 'party in a io set aside sale of Jtudivaram Tight: - isee Limitation (A ct IX of 1908), skg. 23, etc. RAILWAY RECEIPT JWercdTi^iZe dor.ummt o/ title^ <pledge oj Local ciistcm Charge Holder thereof ~ Provincial Insolvency Act {III of H)07), see. lu, cl. S.] A railway reoeij^t Is a meroaut-.ile document of title to goods and lawful possession as pledgee of such receipt enables the holder by virtue of local cubtom to get possession o the jjoods from, the carril-r, and thcj insolvents right to get poesesbiou under eeciion 10, claiiso (3) of the Ptovincial Insolvency Act (III of 1907) coasea -with the pledge. Jma.rchan(Z ^ Co. v. Bamdas (1913) 15 Bom. L.K., 890, followed. FaJceer&ppa v. Thippamia... (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 664 RATABLE DISTRIBUTION Rival decree-hoiderg Jtighi of one to impeach (mother^s decree only in suit a»d not in expcuuon Oiznl PrccBdure Code (Act V of 1908), sec. 73, apph'cahiliiy of Order XXI, rule 52, enquiry imder.] Where eeveral decree-holderb against the same judgment-debtor apply for satisfaction of their decieews out of the same fur;d, any one of them is entitled to show that hia riva,l*b decree is a fi'audaleivti ox sham ouo but it la not oppn fop him to do so in execution proceedijigr. 8udindra>, V. Sudan (3886) I-L.ft., 9 Mad., SO, foliovveri. Section 73, Civil Procediii-a Code, is applicable only if an. application for execution of the decree in the prescrib-* ed form had alroady been made, before the reccipt of the absets and the fund out of which ratable distribution is ablced for is one realised in. esecnbiou. _ Where holders of decrees of several Courts apply for Batisfaction of theix decreesj out of a. fund iu tlie cuetodj of a t'ovirt, the proper order gc\exi.iig their i-espectiye titles or iriorities is Order X X I, rule 53, C ivil I rocedure Code ; and they are entitled to share it ratably os in the, Cise ol ac mim streition of the etlate of a deceased person or of api inaolyfiptj

87 GENERAL INDEX G x x x i pags ae attaohiiient does not under tlie preaent law g'ive any priority to the first, attaching creditor, but ouly prevents alienation. Soobul Chunder Zaw v. Bu3sick Lull Mitter (1S8S) I.L.R., 15 Calc., 202 at p. 209, followed. The shares dne to jiold ers of decre«s of other Oourts than the one which has the custody of th.e fund are to be disferibnted only according to the oxders of those Oonrta. KatvAn Scbliibav. Eajee Badsha Sahih... (1915) I.L.Il., 38 Mad., 231 RATIFICATION, communication of, to the other 'party, if necessary : See (ivladbas) I beigatio.m C es.^ A ct (V II of 1865), sec , essentials o f : See (M adras) I k rigation Oess A c t (V I I of 1865), ssc. 1., -ivhen co7nflete :~ S ee (M adras) 1reigatio?s' C ess A ct (V II ou 18f55), SEC. 1. RATIFICATIONS, Gove^r^ivievit Orders, hoto fa r : See (M ad ras) IrbiqatIon G k s b A c t ( V I I o f 1865), sec. 1, RECORD LOST Procedure : Bee Judgment. REDI^MPTION, suit for, by the owner of a portion of the equ,-ity of redemption % See Tbansfeb Of Puof>EBT-s A c t (IV oir 18S2), ss. 60 and 91. RE-ENTRY, right of, under the old English Common Law : Sea Lebsou and L e s s e e. REGISTER OF l&ibths, admissibility S and S 3 See H i n d u L a w. of, under Evidence Act {T of 1 872', (INDIAN) REGISTRATION ACT (III OF 1877), bec. 17 (1) (h) ako { d ) ~ Leaae of Pahnyia juice Whether lease of immovable property.] Where a docament stated that the lessee had taken for lease for tw o yeara, the palmyra trees in a certain garden and... that h.e would not cut the leaves of any of the treea on. which he climbed except those whose leaves had to be cut, Held, that it -waanot a lease of ininaovable property and that the interest conveyed by it, was not, for tlie purposes of the Registration Act, an interest in immovable property. Sulcry Kurdeppa V. OoondahuU Nagireddi (1871) 6 M.H.O.R., 71, and 8eeni Ghettiar r. Santhanathan Ghettiar (1897) I.L.R,, 20 Mad., 58 (F.B.), explained and distinguished. Natesa V. Tangavelu: (1915) I.L.E., 38 Mad,, S8S REGISTRATION ACT (XVI OF 1908 ), SEC. 77 : See L im itation. REGULATION (XXV OF ), proprietor or owner wider : See Hindh La w. RELEASE DEED, offer to release without executing, insufficient: See Ctvir. Pkockduri? CoDfi (A ct V or 1908), 0. X X IIT, b. 3. BELIEF, discretionary: See F raud. RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT (XX OF ), sec;, Z TemyU falling under Power of Temple Committee to appoint additional trustees in good faith and in the interests o f the temple Onus of proving had faith, on pf.raon challenginy the appointment.] For the better naanag-ement of a certain Hindu temple which had no settled scheme o managemen.t and which Tvas governed by section 3 of the Religious Endowments Act (X X of 1863) a Temple Oominittee appointed two trustees in addition to the three then existing. Held: {a) that the committee had power to appoint the additional trustees in virtue of their general power of superintendence over temples committed to their care as successors to the Board of Bevenne, who had such power -under seotion 2 of Regulation VII of (6) that this power must be exercised reasonably and in good faith, in the interests of the temple, (c) that the onus of proving that he did not exercire this power reasonably and in good faith lay rot on the eommitfcee bat on. the person challenging the appointment of additional trtisteesj e.g., on the already existing ti ustep, as in this caee, who sued to set aeicle th additior.a,! appoini;meiits, and (d) that the power of appoim ing»ew; txiieie eb confined to filling np vacanoiee alone, but extended to creating addition a 1 trustees. Sheih V avvd 'Saif a r. Evsssin Saita (3S<^4) I.L.E., 17 Mad., 212, referred to. Ven'kaiachala Tillal v. ITie lalulc Beard, Said'apei (1911) LL-B.j S4 Mad,, 37% HUayaiTiaTcshi Avnmal-^, The SalttJe' JBoaid, Mayai-draTn

88 C K X x ii EN ERAL INDEX PAGE (1911) T.L.TJ., 34 Mud., 333 ; s.c., 20 M.L.T., RR5 anrl GanapaiU Aijyar v. Sri Jed'ivya.'ia Alashiga Bhattar (190B) I.L.R., 20 Mucl., 5 Ji, (lusiin^uirht'd. Thirlive)}gadaihaipavgar Pon'nappienyar... (1915) 1.L.R., 3S Mad., 1176 REG. 10 Te^npte Com~ miitee Va'^anry District J\i.rlgs CounS Prrsoria d(*s*g'riat.a Cnnl Pr&cs" cewre C^ct r 0/ 1 )08), s-'c. 115.] An order midei hy a Di.striot O'-nvt under Kf ction JO oi the Hel'g'ons EndowtnenfcsJ Act ia an rp'visalile by the High Court untlei' serhion 115, Oivnl Pr Cc*diivo Oode (A it V o f ItiOft). MaenaJt.fhi V. Siibramantja (I88f5) I.L.lt., 11 ISTiid., (P.O.), rlisting idshecl. Qopala, AiJiiar v. ArnnachaUam Chetiy (1903) I.L.lt., 26 Mud., 85, reft'i ved to. Wiieti bi t('mpu ccmriiitiee rloea not do ifcf) diitv, and ai'ranere for an elq('tion. tlio Court can make tho appointrrn'nfc wifclionb relerence to the ciotitnittec or diroct the remairun" nipmberr of the oommittt;g t >till lip a vuciitify, I'ho p'wtu- of tliii cominitti>e in Bueli a caso briii^ di'rivfd f'-oiti tho Court, an api-»ointtnt»nt. l\v e potion ^thproafti-r is bad. Ra7na7n4ja Iiiencjar /UmniaraviaTi hjpr (1896) (? W.l-i.J., i di'sonted from.. Tasiideva A iy a rv. The JS'egapatam Devuathanam ComviittPS (IH]5)T.L,K.,?8 Mad., , PS. 1-1' ' ND ] S Sanciion to t l'o pers m.^i jointly U'he/her suit b,// one^ covipetent.l W luti'aaiictii)n to sue i«givyii to two p. rsons muha-arntion IS <1' the Rtdigious Endowments Act, Olio of thpn> cann-'t sn'o alono, Ma' omed Atl'ar v. Ramja>i. Khmi (1907) l L.l v., 34 Ciilc. 5S7, explfiincd. Sanction { ranted under section 18 of tha A i;t is a oonditi n prrcodenl to the <^X('rcisHi of the vir^-hfc of sait. T'ew^aipsivara, Ih r«^1^-87) l.l.ll., 10 Mad., 9S, leferird to. It hna to he conptiui-d strictly without t'lilar^'ni; i s scopo. Sayad Ilufiseiyi Ihyan a'. Collector of ]{)iira iwj7) I.L.U., 21. Bom., 257, rtd'ejrod to. yotliou 14 of the Act Cum in-nted on. Venhiiesha M'dia sr. Ravnnyya, I'egade,c<... (1915) I.L.U., 38 Ifad., 1192 R E N T ; Sf-e LE'Sor ano L essee, , a hiijher than, leaally. di-^fraiki for, good for ihe amount legally du6 : See ( M ad ra s ) L-.sta tes Land Acjl' ( I uf ). sk c. 52 (2 ) , /t rr ears of sale for : Lim itation A c t (IX ok lijos) SKC. 22, e t c. RENT FOR PASTURING, not '"rent' under {Madrn>i') Estates La ttd A d i S&e ( M a d e.i s ) E s t a i k s L a n d A c t ( I of ).s k c j le s s e e s u it hy : S ee T r a m s k e r o f F b o p e k t v A c t ( I V OP ), SEC. 1 0, RENT, non-paijment o^, forfeiture for : See Lks.'sor a k d Leseke , rerovery of,auilfnr,ohly by Civil Courts t See M a d r a s E s t a t e s Latv'D A c t (1 olf S ), SKC , suit /or, in a Revenue Court t Sfe \fai)ras E s t a t e s L v x i ) A c t (T o f 1908). avit f'-r, vnder rpgistrrrd agreement, more than three ycors hut less than sir yenr.'i of the {Madraa) S.itote.^ Lajid.dci ( / o/190s), comirig in'o fo r cj: See LIMlTAV[o^^ (MADRAS) RENT RECOVERY ACT (VII QF 1865>..sb. 33, 85, 39 a x d 4 0 : See.LiM itatiok A c t (IX o f 190-^1, sec. 2 2, k tc. REPAIRS AND MUNICIPAL TAXES, necessary, M o i i t g a g b. whether alloicable : See REPUDIATION by znmi^dir a.<t rinivral gnardir,n, of lertfin hy hif) ivife as guardian-. See ruanrketl OF I 'ropiir tt A ct (IV OF 1882), SKC. 10. RESIDUARY CLAUSE, ride of comtruction of, in a will made in the town o f M idrfi.s ;~ S ee Wilu, RES JUDICATA Cii'il Vrrcf'dvre de {Act V of 190'^), fee. or Jindingji on t%or> isnuei^, 0'n>>of til uh alone %ias $vfi!ci<n.-^ Beth Jtvdt'iii,!), tea jumifjita,]»vi rri> a. jndf.nu nt i.s hak d oc the fit oinub on two inpiji s, the Jinditi s on both (ho ism es will opirsiloas res thoii^h the fit ding oil only one would bo snff'ciont tci Ktjslain the jnd^n ent. Kviahyta. Sehat'i Boy V. JJi cjeai'ari Chcvdrar-ce { J A., 283 aud Tenlayya v, JHurasantma (IStS) 1 11 Alad, 2U«, foljowed, VenkfLlaraju Ti. liamanamma (1915) I.Ii.R., 83 Macl., 138

89 flexeral INDEX C S S x iii R E ST IT U T I9N, afsiignnfini hy Jadjment-debtor for : Sss A ssignes of a money- JlKClEli:, 1TO. RESUMPTION SY G0 E1NME,^T, Right of t ~~^es Madras E egola tion (X X 7 OP LSU2), ski;, 4. REVENUE COURT,' JurisS^iction o f: See (Madras) Estates Lakd Act (I ov iytjfs). (MADRAS) REVENUE RECOVERY ACT (i l OF 1864), ss. 32 a n d 42 See M ui't, Heao of , SEC. 53 : Set Limitation. AiuTT, H kad o f. of partu io recover deposit forfeited ly tso-ms of a contract to 3*tll: (LnDIax) CoXTaACT ^ c t (IX of lb72), sa. 3H, &5, (i-i, 6'?, 73, 74 and 75. of pre-emption :~ S ee L im ita t io n A c t (IX o f U'08), a r t ^io a pial t See Muxicipae. Coon( il io maintf-nancei See RIalabvr Law. ' iijjjnss nib)ineprojht>, trar.i^fer of, illegality o f ; See T ra k sfeb of PBoPERTir A ct (IV OF. 1882), seo, 6, CL- (g). RIGHT OF SUIT. destruction o f : Sc«Deed , u;pper omiei' to drain his water naturally <yn lower land; 3es WATKRFr.OVir. RIGHT TO ^ 59: See REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF THE PLAINTIFF, as affecting, suit to set a^de adoptiun t.y widoiv as inv Aid and : A f f k a l t o r k i w CuUNCirj. REVERSIONERS CONTINGENT, ti,h t of, to he juined as ^laint!_ffs in prssutnptive reiefstoner's suit : /^.ee Api'Kat. to P k jw Cou^cll.. REVERSIONER S PRESUMPTIVE SUIT, in, riyht of contingen-t reversioners to be jcined as See A p fe.v l t o I aivy CoU NCit*. REVISION, no interjerance in, where other remedy open ; Se Pe-Otikcial lnsolveis!c-s A ft ( I ji OF J007> , non-maint ^inability of ; See Rew ard , to the Iliijh Court s- See C i v i l PKorjEorRB C o d e ( A c t Y os 1908), SEC. 24, in. High Court icill not inferfpre with an pcquittal nvhe'^e an appeal might have been prefetred by Lfoiern/tien^ : See CLiimxAL PiiociSDUiiE Couja ( A c t V OB I8y H ), skg REVIVAL OF DECREE, on riotic9 to one Q-^dy of two ju^gment-(iel>tor$, operating as revical against the other ; tee Limitatio.s' A c t (. X oi? 1918), ART. 1&3. REVIVOR OF DECREE of Original Side o f the High C ourt: See L im ita tio n A c t (IX I F 1W 3), ART REVOCATION OF AUTH03ITY of n. TIindu fith er entru^tinq nons for cvst'>dy and' edincution in bngu^n-d to and their pe'-sm U'ho defrays e c^ense of their maintena-f.c: and education See UUARiiAN. REVOCATION OF THE WILL under ih ->Indian Law, no : See IT ixdu Law y,fidar ihe old jengli&h prior io Act : Ses IIIXDU L a w. RIGHT of Oovetmneni to streets, drains, etc- : See MuxicipAli CodIv'cil. of illegitimate children : See IIikdo Law of, m-elvarao'dar to t>-ees in case of lands tohich tuere topes at the inam seiilement : See Inam llfgi-ter. SUE, See Teansfeb oi? PEOPEOTy A ct (IT or 1F83), sec. 0 (e) survival of s See AJ PEai. t o I k iv? CoCKCH. SAOB EOAB-CEiSS, sale for arrears ofi~- 8ee MtiaTj ailjad of.

90 e x x x iv «eneraij in dex RYOT, a cultivating tenant under the g ra n tee See M abbas E s ta te s Land A c t ( I OF ), BBC. 3. RYDT, INA.M PAR A H B : See (M adras) E states Land A c t ( I of 1908). RYOTI LAND See M adras E states L and A ct (I or 1008), se c, 3. PAOfe KYCITI KENT. See Madras Estates Land A ot (I o 1908), sec, 3. SALE-DEEO Covenant for title, breach of Limitation Act (IX of 190S), art. 116 Transfer of Fropcrty Act {IV of 1882),.sec. 55 (2 ).] A suit for coxupenaation for breach of an express or implied covenant for title and quiet enjoyment in. respect of a aaie-deed executed after coming into force of the Transfer of Property Act is governed by article 116 of the Limitation Act. Case lav\" reviewed. Subbaraya Beddiar v, Ilajagopula Reddiar (1914) M.W.N., 376, approved. Co-venant for titl(3 under section 55 (.2) of tho TranHfer of Froperfcy A ot is annexed to the contract of sale as well as to the oouveyance. Ai'unachala V, Bamasaini (JOlti) I.L.U., HS 31ad., , registered', See Indian Ev idenck A ct (I oi;' 1872), sicc, , price speoified m '. Bee Indian Evujunck A c t (I op 1«^72), sec. 92. SALE OF LAND hy one having a voidable title, etc,: See L i m i t a t i o n A ct (JX of* 1908), a b t s. 62 AND /or arrears of rent t See L imitation A ct (IX ok 19u8)j s k g. 2, etc.., j kno'wledge o/ :- See L i m i t a t i o n A c t (IX ok 190H), a r t , to prior mortgagee after creation of a puisne mortgage i~...see M O E T G i(ie. 47 AND 0., validity o f : See C i v i l P k o c k d o r k C o d e ( A c t V o f 1908), ss. SALES IN EXECUTION, duty of Courts in India in conducimg : See CiVih PRoCEDxriiifl OoDB (A ot V 01' ), O. X X I, r. 66, SANCTION to two per non s jointly Whether suit hy one compeleni i See RltLi- GioL 0 ENCowaiENTS ACT ( X X OF 1668), es. 14 an d 18. SANCTION FOR FALSE COMPLAINT, appeal against: See Criminal Procf,- DOBE Code ^^Act V os 1898), sk c SEAWOKTHINESS, definition of'. See o f r.adiwfi , %varra%ty of, not extending ia lighters or boats : See Bili', oir L ading. SECOND APPEALS : See M adbas Estates) Land Ai.!t (I off 190B), seo. 193, SECURITIES, authorised, failure to hivest trust funds in.: See T kustkk. SEIZURE OF MOVEABLE PROPERTY, wrongful; -S e e Lim itation A c t (IX ov 1908), BOH. II, ABTS. 29, 62 AND 120. SELF-ACQUISITION, females', descent of, to her oivn heirs and not io itirwad See IUijABAk Law, SERVICE t e n u r e, lands held on, in addition to payment of quit-rent. Sec MADBAfi EEGULATION (X X V OF 1802), SEC. 4. SH ROTRIEM BAil: See (M adrab) E states L and A ct (1 of 190S )j secj, 8, exckp. SINGLE TRANSACTION, meaning oft See A ttohney. SMALL CAUSE COURT t See Oivii, Puochddbe Ooob (A c t Y off 1908), (jir,c;, 24. SON, birth of, subbe^u>ent to the execution of the w ill: See H inbd Law. *, death of, heforfi the testator : See H indu Law. SONS, Hindu father entrusting, for custody and education in England, G u a b d ia n. SOVEREIGN PRINCE OR RULING CHIEF) suit against as trustee of certain temples : See i iv il Pbocbdubb Code ( A c t Y OB' 1 08), sec, SO. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL or independent body, Standing Committee, whether-. See Madsab City MuNioiPAt. AOT (III OB 1904), SPHC!F!C PERFORMANCE, decree aft See Oivii. PBocjEDtTBE Ool»m (A ct V or 19CT8), 0, II, R. 2,

91 QBh b b a l i k d Es Q s x r v, of an agreement to sell ^previous suit for :~-See Oivir. Frocedubtd Code ( A ct V o f 1908>, O. l l, r , suit for : See Hin-du Law. SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT (I OF 1 8 7? ), sec See Hindu Law j SEC. 4 2 ; See CiVJh Pboceduse Code (A ct V OF 1908), 0. II, a. 2. TAGS <INDIAN) STAM P ACT (II W 18 & ), sch. I, ART. 48 See A ttobney SEC. 2 (17) AjSD a e t s fortgage-deed Eypoi7iecation, letter of, accompanying a bill of nxahange.} Where a document ran as follows : Tlie executant being desirous of can-ying on her deceased husband s business of which she ia now the owner declares a trust in favour of the Bank of Madras in respect of machinery, phxnt, fijct-ure and furniture and stioek in trada in consideration of advances of money to be mude by the Bank from time to time not esfieediug ia all Jf!s. 4,50,000 for the purpose of liuanciiig the bnsiness. All such adtancea.carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The trustee hast got full povvei to use, employ, sell^or exchange or otherwise deal with the trust property iu the ordinary course of business hub should make good the property that may be sold with other goodti of^a similar natm-e and value ; any goods so substituted shall be included in the security. Ths trustee may retain in his hands the sum of B,s. 20,000 annaally iu trust to pay and apply the snaae in payment of sums advanced by the Bank, Eeld, that the document created a trust iu express language in respect of the machinexyj etc,, in or UL'on the business premises of the firm and that the object of the instrument was to give the Bank some rights by way oi: security and it was a mortgage deed for the purpose of the StamiD Act. Reference under Stump Act, i^ec. ic> (,18SS) l.l.ll., 11 Mad,, 21(j, referred to. Sembie : -The document is not a letter of hypothecation within the tueaning of the exemption in article 40, Obiter : A fiscal enactment ebould be construed strictly and in favour of the subject. The Secretary to the Commissioner of Salt, Abltdri and Sepafate Revenue, Revenue Board, Madras v, Mrs. Orr (1915) I.L.R., 3S Mad., 64> , a r t. r>, B C ii.i, SEC. 57 See Inoiak Stamp A ct (II oi' 1899) sec:, 57, reference under Article 5, schedule I Agreement or memorandum of agreement Meaning of Proposal or o^'erin wriiinrj Parol acceptance W/iether pro^^osal or ojfer in writing requires to ie slampsd Advance of loan or written declaration by a party as to Ms ^ro^ertij Entry in register oj the declaration Whethsr stam^ necessarij.j Where it appeared on the evidence as to the coarse of hasiness of a bank, that the bank advanced loans on promissory notes payable on. demand or otherwise, but before advancing money it reqaired the boi-rower to make a declaration in the ooufidential register iu the form thereto annexed as to the property in his possession and to sign the same,.held, tliat the entry of the declaration in the register was not an, agreement or a niemorandum of an ag'reement which is required to be stamped under article S of the schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act ( l of 1899). Assaming that on the signing of the declaration, there was a proposal or aa offer/ a written proposal or a writtou offer does not become subject, to stamp duty by reason of subsequent acceptance w hich is not in writing. GarUll v. Tfte Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 0-892) 2 Q.E,, 4S4!, Qharplin v, Olar]ce (1849) 4 Ex. Hep., ^103 and d a y v. Crofts (1851) SO L.J., Com. Law., 361, followed,] Quaere: Whether the entry in fihe register amoxiuted to a proposal or offer in writing. The Secretary to the Commissioner of Salt, Ahkari and Separate.BevenuB, V. The South Indian BanlCf Ltd., Tinnevelly... (1915) I.L.R., 36 Mad,, STANDING COMMITTEE, whether a sfecial tribunal or independent hody i See Madeab O irr M unioipal A c t ( I n OB'1904). STATUTE L A W IN ENGLAND, apportionment nmder :T-rSee. LiifflsbB AJfo iw India, #o :-~Bee Lbssok Am ibssbk. STATU T E S: See Lmtnktion,

92 C XXXVl GEi?EEAL ijfdek STHE7IT B S \INS, ETC., right of Municipality io.' See M dnicxpal O ookciii. STRI HANAM See Ilixn u Law. SUCCESSION;-'7efl H isntr Law. (INDIAN) SUCCESSION ACT (V OF ) i - S e e HrxDu Law ^ SEC, 91 : ;Se5 I n d ia n S ccckssion A ct (X or 1865), snc. 1S7, scope of. vm n SEC Conditional order of Judqe f.r grant of Probate Non-ifisue of Proh'jfe cil'inij to non-payment of Court fees -'-H eir of legatee 'same as legatf e l^rohate o> Lettera of.1 dmi/fistrcxiion nlone, evidpnce of right under section Hindu executing' a will in the town of Mirlras rtiacln a hf.niest ia fn poiic of l.is 8r>n.. Aiher the death nf tho fathor, th.(? son diod leavinij liik mnthpr, the plaintiff, as his lieir. On the applicatinn of thft executor defenrlaitt) for a prnhnte the./'wi of the Judge was ovjtained but there wns no acfcnal ordf.r for the issue of the Proh.ifce and fchj Probato was not issued owing to the failure of the sixfioiitoi' to pay the rb'iinaicr foart foes for the same. Li a snir. b f the testator s widow ns mother of his deeoi.red son for an ov<ler of the Coart ditectinvc the defendant to apply for pr Aisvte of tlio vvill und for an adminirm'ation of the estrtte t lu'ld. (a) for the puvp >ses of stctioa 187 of tlio Indian Sficr-ossioa Ao", which, erovfriied the case, tho pl iintitt, thoii"h only an heir of a Ippfritee, was in tiie posifion of a legatee, ih) that the of tjie Judge for yrant of Probate was only conditional and was not equivalent to an actu-il grant of the Pri-bate witjain rh«mfvartinyf <f section 1^7, (c) that in the iil senoe of a fir of I ro'-'ate or Letters of Admi nistrau m which was the only proof ox rif^ht ail'wt'd by the B''Cit on the phiintill was debairod froin claiming' any righta (lou iii<; from th'i will and (tj) that the mito prodnetioti, proof nnd rxliibition of the will as an orilinary nxhxliiii in the ca^^e, woi o Ti.it cquivalenb to proof of the I'i^lit hv the production of the Probrue or the Letreis of Adraiuiafration a=; roqnirf d by tlie st'ction. T.alcshmawma v. Ifatnamma ( 19!5 I l.l.u.., 33 M id., 4-74, followod. Mumgni'am Marwari v. Oursahai Nand (1889) LL.R., 17 Gale., 31:7 Cl C.)* diaiiiiguished. Ala.inelammal t. S'uryapralcasaroya Mudaliar... (1915) T.L E., 38 Mad., 088, SEC. 1F7, scope of - Entuhlishment without prohtitp (if lerintee'a a-f jus tertii -Scction 91. tegricy, vesting of Executor's a, ^ife'ni Acceptance In/ Ipg.tee nerefisitii of - Disc'aimer by legau C,] Wf>ere. on appeid in a pmrtiiioa huic it wa.s oniitt;n''iod l>y ihe first deffn-ianb that, the /irs*-i iilaintifl iiad no title to fsue iu enjecttj'ionf; i>a undt'ra will of her mother which wa«n it proved np to hlie d le of tlie tri-il, 3uct» propi>rtv vopfced in the sefood and tliird {djiiitiifs. Held, tliat 8(>ctiou!87 not only ulfects the Ps'-abUslriinenh of the right to a lou' tcy by lejratco liiniself oraorae pi-rson cl;iimin^>' under him, but also dobafs a neraou who d. sires to es'ablisli the legatee s ri^ht mert-iy as a ju s t'^rtii for tho purpose of his defence. Tho esbafco veat.ed in a le^^^ntee imder section 91 of tho Act ia not full or abfii/lnfce; tlie Sf'ctioii ryfeis only to an iiiter'esfc in hho logacy and not th e ' legacy itself. Until the e.':eoutor has ^:iven his assent to tho lesacy, the le^'iireo ha» only an injlioate ri.:hti to it. Bachman v. Bachman (J8RI) I.1..11, 6 A ll., 533 and Doe v. (7i*y (1802) 3 Ea^t 120 ; 103 U.K., S-K?, followed. A I p:icy vested ia tlie legatee aiuitn' section 91 of tlm A e t ia divested by his di-ic.liumor. The rule of Kai?liah law that no lefjtacy can vest in the legatee apainat hls will, may legi'imatidv be aijopted in d s'id in g qut'stjona uiidi'rthe Indian law. In re lloteley Freke v, Calmadij (188(5) 32 Ch., 408, rt^feri-ed to. Lak$Utmamma X. Itatnamma (1915) l.l.u., 33 Mad., 474 SUBORDINATE JUDGE, the, compntency of, to hear the appeal from the derres ^)a.^'gpfi by Hitt succi-smr in an original auit tried paitly bij a District M unsifi Sea Mai>rab Livir, Joui.ts A ct (1 il oy 1873), sec. 17. SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES on record See Appeati t o Piu vy CoUKCid. SUIT, a form of ojjpea s 5'ee Csvir, PReCEDaRE Code (A ct V os' 1003), O. X X I, r. 63. ~,for rent under regi.^tered agreement, etc, :~ S ee L im itatio n. tbf! terms outside thn of, recorded in ike decreet Ses Oivii, P» ocedi:b b Code ( a m V o f 190&), O. X X L li, k. 3.

93 GENEKAL IJIDEX (SXXXVIL -----, confsntioua, meaning of-. Soe T r a n sfe e o f 'Pkopebtt- A c t ( I Y of 1882), SEC , fricnily, no contest: See T r a n s ie e o f PfioPGaTY A c t (IV o f 1882"), sec fo r declaration nf titla and recovery of penal a?^ei--8mant, hrought after si m.ot/ths from date of notice and lev>/ of j-enal asf^essment, iurred: Ss3 Land ENr.BOACiiMBN'i' A(;t (III o f 1905). SUITS VALUATION ACT (VII OF 1887), se c. R SURETY! See P r o m i s s o r y N othi. See JtmisDicTios Hahilitij of, if enforceable in execution : See Hin Dd Law. SURETY-DEBT of father Son's liability for : See Hindu Law. SURRENDER OR ABANDONMENT OF HOLDING, ntt an acqnifition hy landholder of right to kuaivaram : See (Maduas) Es<xates Laxd A c t (I ob iooisj, SEO. 80, ETC.,?AQE TAVAZHI, meaning of : See MalabAR Law , members o f : See M-ALAbar Law. TAXES, Mu-nicipal, necessary repairs and, claim for ichether alloiuahle ; See M OR- 6AGR, TEMPLE : See R eligiou s Endcwmkkts Act (X X op 1RG3), sec. 3. TEMPLE COMMITTEE, 'poirer of, to appornf additiotiaf trustees i'lt good faiih and in ihs inteiei^ts oj the temple : See K e lig io c s EKDowAiENTs A c t ^_XX o f ISOa), SKG YacaTicy :~ S ee E e l i g i o u s S k t j o w m i k t s A ct (X X ow 1863), TENANT, Of holding over, suh to eject -. -See JuRisnicTiox, introduced by mortgagor after morti^age ; See Ma IjABAR Ta -xakts impaovemexts A c t (M adras A ct I of 1900), sb. 3 and j (Jetej-jmnaiion o/: See L an d lord AND Tk> a>.'t , of waste lan'is, without nccup.mcy ri(jht~sihrrender hy tenant : See (JJadrah) E state.s L ard A ct (I or IDO-'i), sec. S for a ferm Tenant in possession of I lnd after expiry of term {M adras) EsT.^tes Land A c t ( I of WOS), sko. 8, kxckp. rifjht of. to imjprovements not coniined agai'^-^t lessor: See M alabab V ejcantk I iu Ro v b m k n t s A ct (M a d h a s A ct I of i90c ), bs. y a n d 5. TENANT FOR TERM t 8ee LiMrcAiiuN Act (fx oi? I9CS), skc, 8, aet , objection hy, as to validittj of lease-. See TaA^ SFER oi P r o p e r t v A ct ( ( 7 Ob' 1W 82), sk c. 10. TENANT AS A TRESPASSER AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TERM, LANDL0BP TEEATING -. See liijiitaticn A c t (IX o^ 1908), sec. 2», abt. 47. TENANT IS COMMON, n-oi a Alienee : See H indu Law, TENDER i>,v deb or See Lim itai ion , meihoda of -. See (M adeas) E states IjVNQ A c t (I OB' 1908), ss. 54 akd 78, CL. 2. Refusal by tenant '. See (M a b els ) E states L axd a c t (I op 190S), sa. 54j and 7B, cl. 2. ralidiiy of t See (M adras) E s t a t e s Land A c t ( I ok 1908), ss, 54 AND 78, Ch , a, vulid, fsseniial ofi Eee (M adras) E stati,sl an» a ct (I or 1906), as. S i AND 8, c u TENEMENTS, severance o f : See Eabewejit. TESTATOR, money belonging to, but -not known to Mm i See WiLh. TITLE, covenant for hre >ch iif:-~~ See Sale-dkkD*, declarntion fiuit for and recgvery ofpenal ass^s9m0nt t~~see iladbis ; EJN ickoachmkn'xb A ct ( i l l OB' 19U5). See

94 GXXXVlii" GBNEBAL. INDEX TO RT: Sea "Teanbs'eb, ok PhopKRTy Ac-r (IV of 18B2), bec, 6 (e), TRANSACTIONS, A T THE PATE OF THE, wo charge for the value or price of lands : See ^IiA^'S[o^^ of.' P h o p b e ty A ct (.17 o i 'l S S i ), ks. 5 8 ( 1 s t ) (2ktj) 54- AND 56 f3. (h) , MEO, 108 {h) i~~see LANDiiOun and Tenant, , SEO. m, CL. (gf) : See L e s r u r akd L tessi5k, T R A N S F E lby mortgagee :~ S ee M ok T Q A rie b y m u n o r. of a Swall Qa use suit, instituted in a Subordinate Oourt, ss. 65, 72, cmd ; S e e M o r i 'g a g e s. 1)1/the District Judge tn a Dif:iiict MunniJ'a Court. - -See C ivil Tro- CKfUjRE Code (A ct V op 190S), sj;u. TRANSFER QF DECREE to another Court i See C iv il Prockdubic Code (A ct V OF 1008), ss. 4? ANO 50. TRANSFER OF PETITION FOE I.NSOL ENC 1o vmffasal D istrict C'nurl for disposal No jurisdiction \ See Presidency In solven cy A ct (III <JF lljotl), SKO. 90. TRANSFER oral, invalid ; Trakskur ov P ropekti' A ct (]'V o f 188ii), ss. 118 TO liio, 54 AND 55, ci,. 6 (b). FA»K TIIANSFES F PS PE1ITY a c t (I F 1883), as. 4 ani> U - Unregi^^eteg aale-deecl for land of lea.'t thayi /?s. lou m fa/,uej invaliditii of, when no pre- TioKS oral sale Hvidnnce, in'xdmis-'^ibiiit'i of, to ^rove adverse pos^es.-rion Pos-ses,sioM, change of, in cas''*" of ornl i^ale, Iiotr to be effect ad. \ fale {.if tangible immoveable propertj oi' the value oi' loea ti)at> lifs. li)0 eti'ect-od by an unregistered iustnanienfc ('vit\iuut any prior oral Hale) followed by delivery ov possession is inviiiid and inopurafcive to pas.s tlio tihle to the {.iroperty luider Bcction 54, TtaitiHt'er of Property Acti (IV o f ISSi). A doc.ument which affects imiaovoabhs proiicr-ty, and wiiioh i,s required by law t,o be regi'^tered is, if it is noi rogibt.i!ri. d, inadiiii&sibk; in ovidonco to prove the rtattire of poesessioji. of the person oiaiming under it, such as, the udvt'rso character of the posses,sion. l er Ouriavi..-~If an oi'al fialu is inade of immoveable property of cho value td' les-c) than Rs, 100 to a pei'soii already in. possession oil the property it is svitfloient to pass title if the vendor converts by appropriafcu declaraiiioiib or aofc.s tlio proyioue posgession into a possiession as vendee and ir. is not necessary tiiat to aa.tisfy tho.scution 51- of the Transfer of Froporfcy Aofc, the person in. i30ftse8si n ahould s>ivu it up formally and take it afterwavds as vnridor. Sihendrnpada.Ba)ti>rjeo v. Secretary of State for India in Oowicil (lyo J) LL.j,*., c!4 Calc,, 207, not followed. Mnthukaruppan v. Muthii'... (1915) I.L.B,., H8 Mad,, 115s HEG. It (a). Itight to sue, assiipikient of T ort- Assignment of claim founded on, validity of --Damages for negligence ofaijent Atfsignment of claim for.\ A more right to recovor damages for ia foimded on tort, it ia not a.qsiguablo, Dawson v. Oreat Northern and City Baiht-ay (I9u3) 1 JS.B., 260 and Defriee v. Milne (191H) 1 Ch., 98, referred to. Held, alsd) tliat the olaita if fouailed oa contruot was uua«bignablo iu iav\^ being- tra,tisferred after breach. Ahu Mahomed v. S. (J. Chimder (LOOU) IjL.R., 36 Calc., S45, Eipplied. Shyam Chand Koondoo v. The Zand Mortqaqe Bank of India (1883) I.L.ll.j 9 Calc.j uyg, referred to. Uadhxidiis'^, iu nji Fatak (1894) I.L.R., 16 All., iiso, dite.tiugaihhed. Dawson v. Great Northern and Oisy Raihvay (1905) 1 IC.E,, 2(i0, explained. Varahaswami -v. JRamachandra Raju (i915) l.l.t-;,, 88 iilad 148, me, 6, CL. U)~~^ran»fi;r of right to fast profits, illegality o/.j A transfer of a olainai for past iuohoo p rofl.ts is invalid under olausb (e) of aeotion 6 of the 'IraiiHfer of Property Act (IV of 1882). Varafiaswami v, llamachtindra Bajw (19JJ?) 24 M.L J. 298 followed. King v. Victoria Insurance Company (1896) A.O., 260, d is tin I guished. Seethamma Y, Venkataramanayya... (1916) LL,E., 38 Mad,,. 308

95 OBNEEAL W B B X C x x s i x page _f se'j, 10 Hindu Law Grant, deed of, for niainienance and other expenses-- Gramt hy samindar to toije and minor son JSsiaie of gra^itees Restraint on alienation Lease Jot fifteent years by mother as guardian, if void, or roidahlo by minor Repwliation by s^mindar as viatural guardian, mere act of, if sv ffid m f- S'liit to.?af aside Decree in such suit necessary Suit by gua'rdian Dismissal for default, effect of Suit hy leasee for Tent Objection hy tena?iit! as to validity of lease 2 A aaiuindar made a gtaat of certain lands to his iviie and liis minor son for their mairtteuance, clothing and Either expeiis is. The deed of graut contained a provision that the grantees were not to alienate the properties by sale, mortgage, etc. '1liR mother of the minor son granted a lease of the lands fo r fifteen years in favour of the plaintih, and died a if^sv montlib thereaftor. The zamindar, \be father and natural guardian of the minor, sued-to set aside iho lease but the suit was dismissed in consequgnce of the zamindar is default in ob eyin g an order of the Convt to appear in person. Th6 plaintifej as^the k sse of the lands, s..ed to recover melvaram dae to hioa from the defendants who i\ere the ryots but did not join the minor grantee as a party to the snifc. 'i he defendants contended that the lease to the plaintiff was not valid and that the plaintiff was not (2iifcitled to recover rent from, thent. Held (on a construction of the detid), thai both the mother and the minor son obtained under tho grant an es^ate^ in the property and were tenaiits-in-common duiing the lifetinie of the mother after 'wliich the eon was to hold the whole property. The provisions againtt the alienation contained in the deed of grant Wbre absolute restraints on alienation and were \oid under aeoiion lu of the Tranal er of Property Act and under the Hindu Law. The lease lor fifteen years granted to the plaintiff by the mother acting as guardian of her minor -aon, even if it was beyond the powerb of a- guardian, was not Toid.igainat the minor but only voidable by Hm. The party who is entitled tc avoid atransacdon may do so lay an nnequivooal act repudiating the transactiun oi' bjf getting- a decree of Court setting it aside. When a guardian (natt.ralor appointed) of am inorhae giren. a lease, a.nother guardian, cannot set it aside by a mere act of repudiation ; he can do b o only by obtaining a decree of Court a suit which may be instituted oii behalf of the minor during- hia minority, but his action in instituting a suit to set it aside (which was dismissed for his default) has no greater effect than his mere act of repudiation. Held coasequently, that the plaiatife was entitled to recover rent from the defendants under the lease. Muihukumara Chetty v. Anthony XJdayar... (1915) I.L.K^ 38 Mad., Sf> , 8 :c Lis pendene - 7o«- tentiovs suit, meaning of Friendly suii, no contest Flea o /lis peudona not tahen in the written. itntement Foitii of Law Flea ft-rmitted, after remand J The words contentious suit in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (XT of 1882) are used in. contradistinction to a friendly suit'in which there is no contest. Eyei-y suit other than such a friendly suit, by its origin and nature, falls within the definition of a contentious suit. Jog&ndra. Olmnder Qhose v. Fulkumari Dasei (1,900) I.Ij E.., 27 Calc., 77, followed, Krishna Kamini Dehi v. Bino Mony Chowdhurani (1W 4) I.L.R., 31. Calc., 658 and Upendra Chandra, Singh v. Mohri Lai Marwari (1904) I.L.K., 31 Calc., 7 io, dissented from. Faiym Husain Khan r. Frag Naram {1^^07) I.L.R., 29 All., 339 (P.G)., referred to. A point of law such as Us pendens which was argued before the first court and whioli required no further facts than those already oil recoi d miisfc be considered by the Appellate Oouj t though the defendants did not plead it in the written statement. K a t h i r ' V, M a r G m a d i s s a * I,, L b SSOH A N I» X.'SSSEE.... f,,, in.,»... by MiNoa. (1915) I.L.Ii. 88 Mad.,.450 sa. 86 AND los t See, See MoRtagjes, SEC. 5 5 ( 2 ) I Stfe S a c b a- ^, Bs, 6 0 AKD 91 liedemp-^ fim,»u$i fori by ihe a /o of raczem^fion^-mifrt^tlffse

96 e s l aesrekil int>s3t PAGB in posaef^sion Yendee from olji- r co-owners of ihg equity of redemption Payn 67it by remlfe of hia ahare of mortgaqe-amount to the mortgagee - Po.^^' usion, Surrender of. hy nwrtijagep io vendee of aliquot portion of lands Objection by mortga fpe and vendee to rp.-lemption of the >i-hole mortgage and tiurreyider of the u'hole murtgaged pfvpe^ttj P^edpw'pti n t'f plaintiff s i<hare only crt jrj.yn/p7ii of his f^harp of debt Fo'^sessiiin of lands, right, to, hu jair pariition in a suit for rf'deiiipmon Equities! on 'pariition Tronitfer of t^'ioperty Act {IV <<f l8^i2), sec. 9 1, conntruct on o/".] Wheri' the pl-uiiti!i' (an owner of a half-ehurp in the eqm'ty of rnde.t ption) sued the niortcairee and the owner of the otlier half of the «'quity of recl^'tnptiob, who h;id re'leemed one-h*lf of thn mnrtgan:o, for redemption of the M liole niort.gage aud lor the recovery of possesbion of the whole of the mortgaged yroperty. tho Uiffh Court on Seccmd Apt)eal passed a decree foi'r(?d«inpti<m of the iihiiiitiff s liali'-aharo ou payment of half the movt^age-amou-nt and fur pai tition and delivery of pnasepsion of half the mortgatri'd lands in r-'sprct of aach share. Tlie owner of a portion of the equity of rederr-i'tion is not erilitled an a matter of ri<;h to to redeem tho wholf tif tho m.ortgage arid recover pnasf spion of t'ne whole o f tiie niort'^a^'ed property, on payment of the whole of the mortgage amount against the will of the moftwhgee in pos«etision and of the vendee of tin tlier portinn of the equity of redemption whd wap put in pcsfef-fion cf sem e of the lands by the inortgn^ee on pavment of an Hliqnot portion of the mortpag»-a;imint. The question whetl^er the Court will al.ow redemption of the whole c f the niorttrafre at the instance of a person entitled to a part 071 ly of the equity of redemption must depend on tho circumstances of ench <ase and the rights Jicqiiired by the mortgnp-eo or by third persons tiihsequent to the mortignprp. huray 'Mai v. Puirm Mul (1S7^>) I.LJ?.. 2 AIL. 5b5, ]\lunshi v, Davlat (1007) l.l.il, 29 ^IL, 2H2 and A'a'ti'nh Azimut Ali Khan v. Jairahir Singh (U M.I A., 404, followed, rinthafianun Aauibudri v. Parumestiaran HamhuAri (189y)I.L i l, '12 Mad., 209, aissented fiom. Sec tion 91 of the Transfer of Property AcC psplaiued. Bathna Mudali v. lerumal Reddy... ( 1015) I-L.E., 38 M &d., sg. 60 AND 1)8 Mortgage d&pd, pimple and lamfruciiifiry combined A ^o avomnloun mortgage h'edeema tl0 Jlortyagre, to be Vfndee on )»ort a'lor s fiilnre to pag ut the.stipulated time Whether mortgage hy conditional gaie.] W here a n su frn ctiifiry morl,";ip:e deed p 'I viilod th it if th e niortuage am oun t was nob paid on the stipu lated dato. th e moi-rg-af.'je was to w ork i^.self ou t aa a sal«fo r tho principal am ount Jind fu rth er co n ta in "d a coven an t thfit the inorttrag^or w ou ld piiy to ih o moffcgau-oe the costa o f the conh truotion o f e a rth w ork, e tc., on bh dute Rxed for relleniphti.n aa per the a< count'^ ot the tr-oi tgat-ee. Held, ti^at it was not, an anomhloii'* morfcl'ao'e aa defined in sectioti OS of the Transfer of Pfopprty Act ; the word * not in section 98 iroverninf ( qnally the worils n combination nf the firs*- ancj third, or tho s> cotid and third uf Ettch form s in the >;ect.ion ; and that therefore in -ly is le'eetnahle, Ainarchand v. Kiln Marar (1H03) I.L.ll., 27 Botn., 600 and A»m arm av. (ivitumurthi (1893J I.L.U., 16 Mad., fij-, dipsoixted from. Perayija y. Venkata (1868) X L.R., 31 Mad and Axkinedti. v S>ibbiah (1912) l.l ' Mad., 7 i-i, followed. Per S^hasiva A yyar,.1. It 'is a coinl.ination of a simple mortgiigp a usufrnctusiry niortg-a^e clogging the equity of redenip'ion. A inort^a'.'e d. ed which heg'in^i as a mortiiage traifsaction, cannot be called a mortgage hy o nditional sale, though it i.4 a mortgage g iv ntr the inorts'agee, after a certain ti'ine atid on breach of c»i'taiu conditions, a right to claint titlci aa vendee. Per Spkscer, J. It, is either a usufnictiiary morfc;ra"q deed with a <'iog on tho eqitity of rodeniptii^n or a nsufrixctuary mortgaue <?oml)ined with a mortgage by conditiona* sale and in eitiior cnse re leemable under section (,0 of the Transi er of Property Act. Qnpalusami v. ^funachella. (1892) I.L.lt., 15 Mad, 304, ref* rred to. Kitngagga Ourukal v. Kalimuthu Annavi (10U4) J.L.R-, 27 Mad., 1^26 distingiiiahed. Srinivasa Ayijangar r. BadhaJciishnaw PiUai... (1913) I.L.R., 38 Mad., !SS. 61, 86 AN-n 90 C? riz Prccedme Code (Act V of 1^08), 0. XA'X/F, rr. 1 and H Mortgag' e holding two martgagea Suit on the second mortgage snbjeci to hif> interest in a prior mortgage Maintainability.] It is open to a mortgagee to brmg a buit for tlife.recyvery-.

97 QEXEKAE* IXD EX CxlS c f M!s flebt by gale o? ili3 propei'ties naorfgnged to hiai subject to his interest ii! a- fij-ioi- nuji-iti'ng'e. PAQS S/ibramarn'a r. B^ lasuhrr'tmaytia (s,915) T.L.R., 3S M a ]., s , ss. l'!8, H 'j, I2it, 54 AKi'j 55, cr,. 6 (b') ErcJui'^ge of 'a><d-! of th.i^vzlne of one h-» ifiro4 r> pse< cti ujnviirrl.-i j^ o rp.jisietei lu.^truinent Otai trajtsfi r, i7n-i!!id Partie.-i plared in O'the Ian s 'ale bn one of the ptiriies of lan-^'s oliuine-ion exr}isiu:e ~ Ko emirppil agaiiii-t the tnjiisffror or his <red>tor No e.^tcppfl ngmiist statute Ko ch i.''g" for 111. value or fricf of the land.-! on the dxte of ike ra;i.-.-ac^ oas.] An cschanjri^ I f iiv.toovejihio luopeitt oi tim valat* iif tine hiindret! rim'l upwiirds c ;m b-'* n:ade only hy a rs^r^is-terud inf^trntrenr. uji ier BPO.i"ns 118 and '4 <)i ihii Transfer of Pi-(»pfvi,y Ac^. Xo estosipi'l c;tti ho f agft r sr- tu 'direccioi\s nml ttie i ri)hib'tiun.«enri(.uei.l bv the stntsite law anil afj-ains'" tlits riulits a-erimitg r.o :my purty by of.sni^h diracfciutia and pfo}iibiti <E'^. A pai-iy 'o nn e. ic'liauge winch ik tot vyiid in )a»,v Is J2u& t>ntiiieii toachiis^o on the prop-n-ty obtained hr him hi ex. haiiijo f<r the piic»' of such prupr-rry t.ii tlie liatf of tlu- eschnb^e ^ind r S"cti ijir , c'laiipo () (li) fit thi* I'raiiafor of Pruperty Act. Kurri Ve^rareddi v. Knrri f!apt'r^>ddi 1 L.R., I..-* (F B,), fuij. u-e«l Jcani Bol-htth X', Ihi^hlam Khi.nam ilooj) I L.fl., 26 Ail., :i6g, djsapnted froro. Kurvlip, N.inuhh'ii V. Manmkhram (I'JOU) I. L.ll, 2 i- Uuni, 400 liipt' itpnislio.l. Mmke Ydftl-eiiacheilapailuj v. Fytnda YenKatd.chellapa'.h^ (19L2J 23 M L.J., 052, rt'ferrfrf to. Ohtdanibara, Cheitiar y. Vaidilinga Padayaclii (1RT.5) I.L,R., 3S Mad., SI SEC. los ; See L.4 M) lor u a x» tenant, P kop 'Bxy A ct iv of ISS^), aet. lil , Sec. 3 2 i : See TraxsfES o f, Bs. l^ n A>rt) Mortgage in ivrtthig of a promittsor^ tii te ^fisiijmees' right and UaiU-tn to sve on th0 j j j v j i j B y vij»uo c f secn'ons 130 Jaid ls 4of Tr,ajafer of Propei ty Acf (i V «if 18rs-'), a inoitgase in -writiii" f fi prfniussory nfite exeenteis in favour of the r by a thiid pai ty for a d<?bt, create!^ an ii.siiig'nineufc of ti.e promissory note in fav ur of the \unv e\eq witjjont an endorsement, nnil a*- t.lio right of the proruiese^j to sue on the note lit'coiiier Tn&if'd i'l t!»e moi tgngee, the silime iy, t^ntifch*rj i,o 8u<= on the note siiid in taking- accounts of the ntuitiriipie the rtiorrpayee is lialilo t'l be debited with th<- amount of the note if lie wiihout any jnptifi- Cation allows the recovery or debt barred by linntaritm. Mulraj Khutaw v. Tisii'anaih Fralhnta-m (l'933) l.l.r, 37 Bom, 3.8 (P.O.), icllowi d. Ku7tiari y. Bameshiiar Sini'h (I9u5) i.l 11., 33 C alc, 27 (P C.), ft»!lowed. Muthv kr^'shnier v. Teeraraghava Iyer '(19i5) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 207 TRESPASSER : See (Madbab) EbXATEs Laxd A ct (I ok 1K 8\ fec. 8, exiei*. TR IA L, fleio application. fort~ S ee PKE8inE*\ CT S.wall C ause A ct (X l o f 3882), ES. y AKJj 38, TRIA LS, sp- cra*.p, not necesfary whsre con^'esaon made dming trial t Se6 CttlMINAL PSiCKL'UliH 0 UE (ACT V UF lh98j, SS. 255 ASD ai*i. fjrust, Sec CuNTR.iCT. Cifiminal ireach oft See INDIAN PiSNAi. CoBE (A ct X IV o f i860). SFC TRUSTEE - Brpach o.^ trusf LiahiHty in damages Failure to invest iruh funds in nuih r scd stcuritien Imdian Trnst^ Act {II oj s'cr. 20 Failtire: bf wiati'hqrt.\?d> aecvrity Di^grep of care and pi-ndenre 1'ndian T^u^ig Act {II of 18^2), Ss and 20 Fu nd*toh8 trpj)tied immedmteiy or nt tm earty da'e* conf<tructionof- Fund p«yaue to mnn/r, it pamhlb to gu<irdian. Li tbiti'^^ of iruste for interest - Interests' on ddnmge^s Indian Trui^tsi. Ac.{Il of 18S2) s.?r41 and z3.j A tp&tator appointed cet'tasn pf»ib'118 «s tms'-ei it ;nd d irw t- ed them to rea ise an amonnfc, jayabl6 J»y the (h-lenta'l I t i f y ' : Company and to p^y a svin of B s.' 200,to his-, hwlv^-'r, -atjqther Ks. 4i0() to hfs d!ii,g.hter for her brfdp*f, ewel9:.a»d''fih«/reto»:ja4i*r minor son.-, 'I'fce ' teaatees r e a l i s e d, ' due, Compaay, and, ttfter' ps^^mg Mb* SM 'M fa re ^ r,' tlid,:

98 C s lii fe-ejsteeai, IXDEX balance on. oae year s fixed deposit with Messrs. Arbntbnou & Co., who were tlieii Ijelieved to be in veiy good credit. After the deposit had been renewed several times, Messrs. Arburhnot & Co., became insolvent and the trust Cund waa lost. The plaintiff, ^yho was sippoiiited by the Court as trustee in the place of the defendants (who were the previous trustees appointed under the will) brought this snib against the latter for dama^fee for loss of the trust funds by reason of their breach of trust. The District Judge decreed rlaniag-es against the defendants, who preferred a Second Appoa?! to the High Court: Held, that the defendants wei'e liable in dnmages for breach of trust. As regards the amoun^t payable to the minor SOH, it could not he applied for the purposes of the trust immediately or at an early date, as the trustees could not pny the money to the minor until the attainment, of bis majority, nor couk'l it be paid to the guardian o f the minor during minority. Section 4>1 of the Trusts Aet jiermits payment to the j/narrjiail only of the inoomo of the property. The speciifio provisions contaiued in the other sections of the Indian Trusts Act are as obligatory as the general provisions of section 15 of the said Act. T!ie defendants were bonriri to invest the trust inonevs in the securities specified in section 20 of the Indian Trusts Act, and having? failed to do so, they mnst be held U) have committed a breach of trust, although they had acte<3 honestly ajtij with the prudence which an ordinary man would exercise in the oondncfc of liib own uft airs. A trustee guijty of broach of trust by not investing- trust -fimda as required by section 20 of the Indian Trusts A ct is not exempted by section 15 thereof from liability in damages. The Indian Conrfcs have not been given the power (conferred by statutes in England) to protect ti'nsiees in any case where a clear breach of trust has been committed. Where a trasteo investa money in an unauthorised security, this must be treated as tan.tamottnfc to faihu'e to invest within the terms of section 23, clause (c) of the Trusts Act, and he is liable to pay interest under that section. It may be doubted whether the rule disentitling the beneficiary to interest except in the oases euumevated in section 23, could be applied where the trust money has beeji lost in an unauthorised investment. The Court should have power in such cases to award interest as damag'es. Tinipatirayuchi, H'aicl'U v. LalisliminaTasCLmmcL... (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad,, -,deafji of, spending appedl'. See Civ il Proceddke Oode (A ct V OB' 19Q8), S8. 92 AXD , declaraiion against alie7iee from :~ S ee OiviL Pkocedctrk Co»b (A ct V OF 1908), ss. 92 and 93, liahilitij of, for intirest: See T rustee, TEUSTEESj a'^ditional, poii-er of Temple Committee to appoi >it, in good fnith and in the interests o/ the tsm^le -. See R isltgiocs E ntiowmentb A ct (X x oir 1863), SEC. 3. Iona fi.de de facto, rights of for bona f.&e expenses: See In b u k Limitation (A ct X I or 1877), abt TEIJST FUNDS, failure to invest, in authorised securities: See TnusTEiii. (INDIAN) TRUSTS ACT (II OF ), ss. 15 and See Trustee gg^ gfgg Tht7.?tee. 91 and96: fifee T rans ss. 86, 89j 90, fer OF Properts' Act (IV of 1882) aht. 91. Pags UNDERTAKING, unconditional to pay See V autham anam. BNBUE INFLUENCE -. See Civ il PitocBnuKE Code (A c r X of lt-08), O. X X II, b : 5ee L imitation A ct (X V of 1877), art 91. USUFRUCTUARY MORTGAGE Dtspossesi^ion of mortgagee by a stranger, adverse to mortgagor jrom the time of his Tcnowledge.l Where a trespasser dispo?sesees a mortgagee in possession and continues in possession aseertirg a title adverse to the n.ojigagoj- also, such clispcssession will be adverse to the mortgagor from the trnie the mortgagor h?.s knowledge of the assertion (though he mpy not be then entitled acfordingto the terir.s of the mortgage to recover possession from the»iortgagee). The cnns is on th s tregparser