Contract Act, section 25. See EXPIRED
DECREE
554

100

Contract Act (IX of 1872), section 44
Release of one of several partners.] Under sec-
tion 44 of the Contract Act, a release of one of
several partners, jointly liable upon a contract,
does not discharge from liability the other part-
ners who are not parties to the agreement by
which such release is granted. KIRTEE CHUNDER
MITTER VS. G. M. STRUTHERS
546
Contract Act, section 178-Possession of
Goods-Servant in charge of House-Trover—
Pawnbroker-Pledge of Goods.] The owner of
a house, on leaving Calcutta, left a jemadar in
charge of her house and property there, as her
servant. During her absence, the jemadar re-
moved some valuables from the house and pawn-
ed them. Held, that the owner could recover in
trover against the pawnbrokers, as the goods had
not been in the "possession" of the pledgor,
within the meaning of section 178 of the Con-
tract Act. Held, also, that, even supposing the
articles were in "possession" of the jemadar
within the meaning of section 178 of the Con.
tract Act, yet the case came clearly within the
proviso to that section. GREENWOOD VS. HOL-
QUETTE, 12 B. L. R, 42, cited and followed.
BIDDOMOYE DABEE CHOWDHRANEE VS. SITTARAM
AGURWALLAH and TOOBUL DASS MULLICK 398
Construction of Contract. See APPROPRI.
ATION OF PAYMENTS
361

of Appeal. See DIVORCE...
-paid under reversed Decree.

RESTITUTION

Court.

509

Cases exclusively triable by Sessions Court-
Indian Penal Code, section 193.] It is only in
cases exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions,
that such Court has power to commit, or hold to
bail and try an accused person charged with the
offences mentioned in sections 467, 468 and 469
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The words
"commit the case itself," occurring in section 471,
do not empower a Court of Sessions to commit
to itself a person charged with giving false evi-
dence before it, under section 193 of the Indian
Penal Code. In re FATU IYAH KHAN

See NOTICE

... 599
530.
551

358

Debts of deceased-Party to Suit.]__If the sole
legal representative of a deceased Hindu know-
ingly permits a stranger to continue in possession
of the deceased's property as his widow, and suf-
fers a creditor of the deceased to sue the woman
and get a decree against her under the belief that
she is the representative of the deceased, he will
not, as against the decree-holder, be allowed to
say that the property of the deceased, which
had been in the stranger's possession, is not liable
to be taken in execution of the decree. MIR
ASHRUF ALI VS. ROY LUCHMIPUT SINGH, 2 C. L.
R., 223, cited. PROSUNNO CHUNDER BHUTTA-
CHARJEE VS. KRISTO CHURN PAL
154
2
Notice-Mortgage of Jote-Under-
tenure-Sale of Tenure-Foreclosure-Registra
tion-Execution of Decree-Possession-Trans-
fer of names-Act VIII (B.C.) of 1869, section
26] When the mortgagee of a jote obtains a
foreclosure decree, it is his duty, under section
26, Act VIII (B.C.) of 1869, to have his name
registered in the lessor's sherishta. A, the holder
of a transferable jote, mortgaged his interest to
B. Subsequently A's landlord having obtained
rent decrees against A for the rent of two suc-
cessive years, sold and purchased A's right, title
and interest in the jote in execution of one of the
decrees, and entered into possession. Thereupon
B, who had previously foreclosed his mortgage,
brought a suit for possession against A and his
landlord, and obtained a decree, in execution of
which he got into possession. Subsequently, the
landlord, in execution of the second rent decree,
obtained against A, sold and purchased the tenure
itself, of which B was then in possession. Held,
that the landlord was entitled to possession of
the tenure as against B; and that, under the
circumstances, he was not bound to give B formal
notice of the second decree. NOBIN KISHEN
MOOKERJEE VS. SHIB PERSHAD PATTUCK, 8 W.
R., 96, considered. ROBERT WATSON & Co. vs.
GONESH CHUNDER SHAOO and KHETTER MOHUN

See LIMITATION 166
See SMALL CAUSE

-

GAN-
30

Transferable Tenure

246-4ct VIII (B.C.) of 1869, section 63.] A,
-Arrears of Rent-Act VIII of 1859, section
the lessee of a transferable tenure, transferred
his interest to B, but after the transfer, the name
of A remained as registered tenant. Subsequent-
ly the zemindar brought a suit against A for
and partly after the purchase, and obtained a
arrears of rent which accrued due partly before
decree for the sale of the tenure. Held, that that
decree might be executed against the tenure,
though the latter was in B's possession before it
had knowledge of the transfer before the date of
was passed, it not appearing that the zemindar
the decree. A suit will lie to set aside an order
passed under section 63 of Act VIII (B C.)
of 1869. Where property has been released
a decree,
from attachment in execution of
and in a subsequent suit brought for the purpose,
a decree is obtained, declaring it liable to be
attached and sold in execution of the former

decree, the effect of the decree in the latter suit
is to set aside the order which released the pro-
perty from attachment, thus leaving matters as
they were before that order was passed. SHEIK
AFZUL ALI VS. LALLA GURNARAIN, 6 W R., Act
X, 59; URJOON SAHOY VS. NILMONEY SINGH, 20
W. R., 90; NOBIN CHUNDER SEN VS. NOBIN
CHUNDER CHUCKERBUTTY, 22 W. R., 46; cited.
WOOMA CHURN CHATTERJEA VS. KADAMBINI
DEBEE...
146
·Defendant dying before
decree-Representatives-Decree against a dead
man-Act VIII of 1859, section 119.] Where
the sole defendant to a suit dies before decree,
a decree passed against him on the supposition
of his being still alive, is incapable of being exe-
cuted. Cases falling under Act VIII of 1859,
section 119, stated. ROOP NARAIN SINGH VS.
192
RAMAYEE SINGH

3

4

...

...

Co-sharer of Judgment-

Vol. III.

77

Fraud-continued.

2 -Sale-Decree-Setting aside decree-
Minor-Personal decree Frame of suit-Form
of decree-Party to suit-Execution of decree
Part payment.] A, "for self and as guardian of
C, a minor," brought a suit for debt against B.
In that suit, a part payment of the debt by B to
A on account of O was suppressed, a personal
decree was given against the minor, and, in exe-
cution of that decree, certain property belonging
to the minor was sold. Held, in a subsequent suit
by the minor, that the latter was entitled to have
the decree and the subsequent sale set aside,
as against a purchaser with notice, on the ground
of fraud. Semble, that the fact of a suit being
brought by A," for self and as guardian of O,
a minor," is not conclusive evidence that C is not
so far a party to the suit as to be bound by the
decree. SREENARAIN MITTER VS. KRISTO SOON.
DAREE DASSEE, 11 B. L. R., 171, and MONGOLA
DASSEE VS. SHOSHEE BHOOSUN KAB, 12 B. L. R.,
Appendix 2, cited. GRISH CHUNDER MOOKER-
JEE and TARINEE CHURN CHATTERJEE VO. MIL-

LER

...

...

...

17
Full Bench-Confession of an accomplice-
Accomplice-Evidence Act, section 30-Court-
Jury-Joint trial-Corroborative Evidence.]
Under section 30 of the Evidence Act, the con-
fession of a prisoner, which affects himself and
some other prisoner tried for the same offence
at the same time, becomes, when duly proved,
admissible in evidence as against both prisoners,
and must be dealt with by the Court. Where
A and B are being jointly tried for the same
offence, and the only evidence against B is the
confession of A, B should be acquitted, as his
conviction upon such evidence would be illegal
The word "Court" in section 30 of the Evidence
Act means the Court before which the trial of

the prisoner is to be had, and in a Jury trial,
means the Judge and Jury. Per JACKSON,
MARKBY, AINSLIE, and McDONELL, J.J.-The
corroborative evidence which, coupled with the
confession of an alleged accomplice, would be
sufficient to sustain the conviction of a prisoner,
must be such as would itself, if believed, be
sufficient for conviction. Per GARTH, C.J
How far any corroborative evidence would be
sufficient, coupled with the confession of an
accomplice, to convict a prisoner, must depend
upon the circumstances of each particular case,
and is a question for the Judge who tries it. In
the matter of ASHUTOSH CHUCKERBUTTY

270

Gift not followed by Possession-Loco pa-
rentis-Hindu Law-Absolute Gift-Immedi
ate Gift-Possession.] A Hindu merchant
made an absolute and immediate gift of all his
property to the widow of his daughter's grand-
son who lived with him, and in regard to whom
he stood in loco parentis. It did not appear that
the gift had been followed by possession, and
the donor continued to carry on the business
in his own name, until his death, which happened
some two years afterwards. Held, that the gift
was valid. ANUNCHUND RAI VS. KISHEN MOHUN
BUNOJA, 1 Select Reports, p. 152, cited and fol-
lowed. TARO BEBEE vs. GHASIRAM
Good Faith. See DEFAMATION

247

122

-Daughter's Estate-Stridhan-
Mitakshara-Jain Law.] Under Mitakshara
Law a daughter takes only a qualified and res-
tricted estate in property inherited from her
father, and upon her death the heirs of her
father, and not her own heirs are entitled to
succeed to such property. Where a custom of
the Jains is relied upon, it must be proved like
any other custom varying the ordinary law.
CHOTAY LALL VS. CHUNNO LALL
Hindu Widow. See RES JUDICATA

...

...

465

265

Gift by Hindu Widow-Widow-Next heir,
Concurrence of-Title-Reversioner.] A gift by
a childless Hindu widow of the estate left by her
deceased husband, made with the concurrence of
the next heir then living, passes a valid title to