THE BOOK WAS

DRENCHED

TEXT PROBLEM WITHIN THE

BOOK ONLYDamage Book

^< OU ^LL

164799

II >XJ x^

5

-SJ

^g

TO

THE LEGAL PROFESSIONIN

GRATEFUL EECOGNITION OP

THEI3

WARM

APPRECIATION AND SUPPORT

PATNA HIGH COURT1926

Chief Justice*

:

The Hon'ble

Sir

Thomas Dawson

Miller, Kt., K. C.

Sir Jwala Prasad, Kt., B. A.,

LL.

B.,

Rai Bahadur

(Offg).

Puisne Judges:The Hon'bleSir B. K. Mullick, Kt.,"I.

C. S.

Jwala Prasad,

Kt., B. A.,

LL.

B.,

Rai Bahadur.

Mr. P. R. Das, Barat-Law.L. C. Adami,SirI.

C. S.Kt.,

John Alexander Sfcrachey Bucknill,A., I, C. S.I.

K.

0.,

Bar-at-Law.

Mr. R. L. Ross, M."

H. F. E. B. Poster,

C. S.

Knlwant Sahay, B. L.T. S. Macpherson,

M.

A., I. C. S.,

Bar-at-Law (Acting).(Acting).

"

P. K. Sen,

M.

A.,

LL. M., (Cantab), Bar-at-Law

EDITORIAL COMMITTEEBAHADUR G. S, RAO, Ex* Judge, High Court, Bombay. SUDISH CHANDEA*BOY, M.A.* LL.B., Ph, D., Bar-aHawM. V.SFOSHI,Kfc.'f

l.

t

Calcutta.

Suit

K.c.I.E.,

Ex-Law Member,B.L., Vakil,

C. P. Government.

V. B.

PANDIT, EAO, B.A.,,

Bar-at-law, Nagpur.

B.A., I&.B.,

High Court, Madras, Editor, Journal [Section High Court Vakil, Nagpur

EDITORIAL STAFFMB. S. G. GADGIL, B.A., LL.B., High Court Vakil, Bombay MB. G.13. JOSHI, B.A., LL.B., Pleader, Nagpur. MB. D. D, DATAB, B. so., LL.B., Plaader, Nagpur.

REPORTERSPrivy Council(1)

Dr. A. Majid,

LL.l).,

Barat-Law, London.

Allahabad(2)

Mr. Saila Nafch Maker ji,

B.A., B.L., Vakil,

High Court, Allahabad.

Bombay(3)(4^;

Mr. B. K. Dosai, M.A.,

LL.B., Advocate, High, Court,

Mr.

S. 0. Joshi, M.A., LL.B.,B.A., LL.B.,

(6)

Mr. B. D. Mehta,

Bombay. High Court, Bombay. Vakil, High Court, Bombay.Advocate,

Calcutta(6)(7)

Mr. Pramatha Nafch Banerjee, M.A., B.L., Vakil, High Court, Calcutta. Mr. Narain Chandra Ear, B.L., Vakil, High Court, Calcutta.

Lahore(8)(9)

Mr. Atflolak

(10)

Bam Kapur, B.A. (Hons.), 'LL.B., Advocate, High Court, Lahore. Mr. Anant Earn Khosla, B.A., (Hotts.), LL.B., Advocate, High Court, Lahore. Mr. Kedar Nath Chopra, B.s.c., LL.B., Advocate, High Court, Lahore.

Madras(11)

Mr. P. E. Srinivasa lyengar, M.A., B.L., Vakil, High Court, Madras. (12) Mr. N. Srinivasa lyengar, M.A., B.L., Vakil, High Court, Madras.

Nagpur(13)

Mr. M. Bhawani Shankar Niyogi,

M.A.,

LL.M.,

Advocate,

High Court.

(14)

Nagpur. Mr. K. V. Deoskar,

B.A., B.L.,

High Court Pleader, Nagpur.

Oudh(J5)

Mr. Surendra Nafch Eoy,

M.A., LL.B.,

Vakil, Lucltnow.

Patna(16)(17)

Mr. Subal Chandra Muzumdar, M.A.,

B.L.,

Vakil,

High Court,

Patfta.

Mr. Laxfnidhar Mahanfcy,

B.A., B.D., M.L.C.,

Vakil, Circuit Court, Guttack.

(18) A. J. Eoberfcson,

Bar*at-Law, Rangoon.

SlndMr. P. K. Vaswani, ]?L.B M Barat-Law, Karachi. (10) Mr, Kishiochand Wadhumal, B.A., LL.B., Pleader, Karachi.^(19)

THE ALL

INDIA REPORTER.1926

PATNA HIGH COUrt NOMINAL INDEX[241 OASES]

Absence

of Star denotes

Cases of Small or Provincial Important % Indicates Cases of Great Importance Indicate cases of Very Great Importance

Abdul Ghaffar:

v. F.

B.

Abdul Gaffar v. F. B. Achutanand Jha v. Surjanarain 427 Jhat

Dowin Downing

246 465

v. Mangla Prasad Narayan Baiju Lai Marwari v. Thakur Prasad Marwari Balak Singh Bhumij v. Srikanta

.Baijnath Eai

J

:U'>

*Achutta

BamKooriv.

v.

Jainandan474:

TowaryAghoriv.

Kishundeo16

Manji Bal Gobind Thakur v. Emperor Barhamdeo Kai v. EmperorBashitt

524

39^ 36 537 359 192

Narayan Ajodhya Prasad

Eamkhelawan421

Singh Aklu v. Emperor "Ambika Prasad Singhsionerfor

446v.

Commis256 368

:;

^arayan Singh v. Jjitideshwary Prasad Singh Blmsucleo Bhagat v. Sh. Kadir *B atisa Kuer v. Eaja Eam Pandey B. & N. W. By. Co. v. Tupun Dan

Income-tax, Biharv,

and Orissa

Ambika Shig,Thakur *Anant Potdar

Emperorv.

Amril Lai Seal

Jagafc

Chandra27:192

S84 400 Bengali Gopo v. Emperor Bhairo Math Eoy v. Shanke Pahan 605 Bhatu Earn Modi v. Fogal Eam 141 "Bhnpendra Karain Mander v. Janeswar Mander 53^

v. Mangal Potdar Anmole Kuer v. Kamla Dutt *Anwar All v. Dooghar Munici-

Bigna Knmhar

v.

Bihari Lai Mitter

440 Emperor v. Tannk Lai397

Mander449

pality Asharfi

9

Dhimar-

v.

Mahommad125

37Chakauri

C01

Dindalal 'Ashloke Sin&h

v.

Bodba Ganderi

15

B

Lai v. Deo Chand Mahton Chandra Mouleshvvar Prasad v

20 Badri Chaudhry v. Emperor 237 v. *Badri Gope Emperor *Badri Narmn Singh v. Kailash 239 Gir , 140 *Badri Sahu v. Peare Lil Misra.

Hemnalini Debi Chandra Prasad v. Emperor Chhakauri Lall v, Isher SinghChofce Lai

410 299% I9r>

Kand Kishorov.

v,

Tula561

Singh Chotolal Sahu

Gumani Cbau432

v. A. H. 478 Forces *Baidyanath Jiu v. Har Dutt Dwari 205 Baijnath Prasad Singh v, Firm of Hand Bam Das 353

*Bahadur Singh Maharaj

dhuryof 'Commissioner Income*tax, Bhihar d Orisa v. Shiva Prasad

Singh

l

109

44

NOMINAL

INDIX, 1926

PATNAv.

*Hari Sankar Bai

364 *Dangal Bam v. Jaimangal Saran Debi Dayal Singh v. Mt. Gan a Kuer 68 288 *Debi Prasad v. Jaldhar Mahton Deonara^an Singh v. Bam Prasad 143 *Deshi Sugar Mill v. Tupsi Kahar 606 363 Dhuplal Sahu v. Bhtkha Mahto 512 Dinanath Bai v. Rama Bai 472 *Dinda>al Bai v. Indra^an Bai Dindayal Singh v. Baj Keshwar 495 Narayan ^District Board, Monghyr v. Sheo* dutt Singh 438 503 Durga Singh v. Bam Dai Kuer 464 *Dwarika Singh v. Emperorfc

Harnandand DasPrasad

v.

Tapai Kuer Atul Kumarv.

3J5*

Hemchandra Mahto

Mahto

Prem'154

Hira Lai v. Sarabjit Kamkar *Hitendra Singh v. Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga *Hit Narayan Singh v. Emperor 91 I ^Ibrahim Hussain Khan v. Sheopratap Narain**Iltaf

498

147 517

129

56*E.I.

EBy. Go.v.v.

362 Emperor ^Ishwardas Marwari v. Biseswar Lai Marwari 94 J Jagannath Lahu v. Sbbogobindv.

Khan

BhimrajSanyal

SriJal

413

Chinmay

Charan295 165 5^5v

Prasad Jagat Narain'

128

Singh

v.

Tulsi

Chamar

51337

*:;

v Goharrjhan Das

**

Emperor.

V.

Kishun Chand Govind Singh v phagunia Bhuianv.

Singh v. Harku Singh Jageshwar Jha v. Mahtap SinghJai^dip

51623S 244 335:

Jagwa Dhannk

v.

*Jang Bahadur

Singh

Emperor v. Emperor

v Zahir Hauler.

566l? 46

63Fagu Tanti*Fairduddinv.

FChotolal Tanti

Ahmodv.

v.

Abdul277 433:,47

Wahab Ttfarman KhanFarzand Ali Faujdar Baiv.

v.

Emperor Emperor Emperorv. Mfc.

*Janki Sahay v. Lalbehari Lai ^Jawahirlal v. Fateh Mahton Jeoharan Singh v. Bamkishun Lai Jhaldhari Sinph v. Pershad Bharti Jhapsi Sao v. Bibi Aliman JHondra Nath Chatterji v. Jasoda'

33,.

2631

L

Sahun

1^

25

*Falul Rahman*j?irangi Singli v.

Kokila

Durga Singh

320 29249

70 G a noshDasi

GLall v Bisosarv.

Jodhi Singh v. Chhofcu Mahto 3S*c Mogendra Prasad Narayan Sinha v. Mangal Prasad Sahu 160 Jngal Kishore v. Sonabati Kumari 51f Mugal Sarkar v. Baj Mangal Prasad18?v.

Pandey

Gangadhar Misra

Dobendrabala249291

Jung Singh111*Kali Baiv.

Dnlarchand Mahto

53!i

KTulsi Bai

*Gobardhan Das v. lagat Narain Gobinda Bauri v. Kristo Sardar Gokul Tafcwa v. Emperor v Goswami Laloo Lai Sharmn Badhoy Lai Goswami^G.1.

64 58v,

20?

17]

P. Uy. v. Datti Kara,

148

Kamakhya Narain Singh v. Jawahir Khan 369 Kamla Prasad v. Murli Manohar 'Kanhaiya Lai Sahu v. Suga Kuar"Karu SinghKeshabjiv.

v

Kameshwar Prasad 190

Emperovy.

78

H

Pitamhar

Shashi

"Habibur Balimau, M(i. v. Qasin Hussain 404 *|Iafsa, Bibi y. Kaniz Fatina 111 Hajo, Bibi v. liar Sahay Laf 62 "Hamir, P. & P., Co. 'v. Suresh Chandra Sarkar 348

Harbans Naminruecj

Bhusan Kesho Prasad Singh v. Kirtarath Kesho Prasad Bam v. Singh Swarup Ahir Kesho Prasad Singh ^v. Shamnandan Bai Keshub Pra^ttd Singh v. ^arihar::i

385 577

175504*

Singliv.

\.

Maho51

Sayeerl

Prasad Singh Khiid Chand Mahton

54v,'

Mt.46LV

Hargobind Singh

Kiuhundeyal436 182

MeghniKhodoijatnl Misser

GopoHarihur Singhv.

Kobra

v.

Harihar209

Emperor

NOMINAL INDEX, 1926 PATNA259 *Kkndi Rai v. Lalo Eai **Khursaidi Begum v. Secy, of State 321 Kirtya Nand Sinha v. Ram Lai 580 Dube 32 Kishore Ahir v. Emperor 424 Kishun Mandar v. Emperor Kokil Ghand Ram v. Banbahadur 539 Singh *Krishnaballabh Sahay v. Governor of Bihar 305 Krishna Chandra v. Raja Mahakur 251 Kuldip Saran Singh v. Raghunan461 dan Singh Kttldip Singh v. Kamakhya Narain 241 Singh**Pereira, H. G. v. E.I. Ry. Co. 109 *Permanand Kumar v. Bhon Lohar 457 *Pershad Tiwari v. Emperor 5 *Pheku Pande v. Gena Lai 481

Prasanna Kumar Banerji v. Kal80 yan Charan Mandai Pratap Udainath Sah Deo v. Lai 537 Gobind Nath

168 R Lai v. 40 E. I. Ry. *Radhey Raghunandan Prasad v. JIahabir Mahton 545 Raghunandan Thakur v. Kishun* deo Narain Mahta 257"Rajdulari Bibiv. Krishna Bibi 269 Raj Gopal Acharjya v. Upendra 528 Acharjya "Raj Kishore Lai Nand Keolyar v. Alam Ara Bo^am 28

Kosunda

Nayadi Collieries Bholanath Sarkar

v.

430

134 L Lachman Sahay v. Gouri Charan Mahton 423 111 Laureotins Ekka v, Diikhi Koeri 'Lekraj Mahton v. Jang BahadurSingh

**Ram An tar PandoDayalRarnbilakh

v.

Shanker

137

Mv.

23

Madhab Poddar

Lall

Singh403 358 606273

525 409 *Mahomed Ibrahim v. Chhafcto Lai 274 Mahomed Sadiq v. Ba^git Sah 150 *Mahomed Yasin v. Emperor 302 Makhru Dusadh v. Emperor 367 380 ^Manisty, P. H. v. J. V. Jameson Mathura Prasad Singh v. Jageswar Prasad Singh 260 Midnapore Zamindari Co., Ltd. v. Muktakeshi Pat rani 340

Bhumji Madhu Sudan Dev v. Panu Parhi MaJhusudan Singh v. Jeolal M. &8. M. By. Co. v.Gopal Rai !Ram Chunder Mahari Dhangar v. Baldeo Narain *Mahomed Afzal v. Lachman Singh

87 Singh v. Dinajpure Mixamat Municipality 462(1) 569 Rambirich Ahir v. Emperor Ramchandra Modak v. Emperor 214 x Ramchandra Singh v. Jang Bahadur Singh 17 Ram Charan Singh v. Emporor 29 (1; ^Ramdhani Sin^h v. Kewal Mani ~ Bibi 156 'Rameshwar v. Durga Singh 14 Mandar Rameshwar Singh v. Kitab All 487 Rameshwar Singh v. Puran Chandra 213 'Rameshwar Singh v. Rajo Ghoudhrain 210 Rameswar Narayan Hingh v. Mahabir Prasad 47:

*Rara

489 Ramgobind Singh v. Sital Singli Golam Sahu v. ChintamanSinghF. B. 218Sin,i*h v.

*Midnapur Zamindary Co. Kanai ingh Deo

v.

RamISO 56467 493

Ramishwar Narainbir Prasad

Maha401

Mina Mahto v. Doman Mahto 152 N Nandau Singh v. Siaram Singh Nanhak Sao v. EmperorKaresh Chandra v. Charles Joseph Smith *Nathan Prasad Shah v. Kali Prasa^ Nazir Hussain v. Anlad Haider *Nilmacfhab v. Empefor *Nimi Narayan Sinha v. Emperor

194 Ramjee Prasad v. Bishun Dtitt Nath "Ramjbari Koer v. KashiSabai

337

Ram40877

Karan

MahtoSahuv.

v.

Dahur450

Mahton RamkhelawanSahay

v.

KulcUp15af

460 279 499316 289 184

.

Mary Coffin 572 Ramlakhan Pande v. DharamdeoSinghMisir

Ram Lagan

158^Parmeshwar x

P"

Dayal v. Emperor Parehan Sahi v. Richardson ri Dai v. Naimish Chandra

Ramlai Singh v. Mt. Septi Ram Lochandas v. Nandi Jha *RampritlAhir v. Emperor Ramsakal Rai v. Emperor

575 295 485 560 139

8

NOMINAL INDEX, 1926 PATNA

Saran Singh v. Mahomed Jan Khan **Bam Sumran Prasad v. Govind

Bam

34

582 Das 253 Bamsunder Isser r. Emperor 211 Bamyad Dusadh v. Emperor **Banjit Narain Singh v. Bambahadur Singh *Bazia Begumv.

176 **Siban Bai v. Bbagwant Dass Sib Sahai Lai v. Bijai Chand 197 Mahtab 173 *Sitaram Das v. Emperor *Sita Bam Singh v.Khul Lai Singh 255

Mahammad DaudSecy, of State

*Bukmin Das

v.

Deva Singhv.

Bup 207

Lai Singhv.

81 508 351 258

70 Mallah v. Emperor *8one Kuar v. Baidyanath Sabay 462(2) 29s **8ubda Santal v. Emperor 162 Subedar Bai v. Bambilas Bai*Sobhifc:|f

Sudha Krishna MukerjiBy. Co.

v.

E.

I.

,

137

Sadhn SaoSingh

S Awadh Bihar Saran71

230

T

*8adhu

Saran Pande v. Nanda Kumar Singh Sagar Mull v. Hira Maharaj Sarda Devi v. Bam Lonchan Bhagat Satyadeva Sahay v. Jlmmel Kuer Satya Niranjan Chakravarty v. Sushila^BalaDasi Shama Kant Lai v. Kashi Nath Singh

276 164 444 519103

;:c

Tarkeshwav Prasad Tewari v. 180 Devendra Prasad Tlwari * Tarni Singh v. Satnarain 170 Thakur Sao v. Abdul Aziz Thirathman Jha v. Gnnjeswari 529 Kuor Tikari Municipality v. Alain Ara 547 Begum Tilakdhari Lai v. Abdul Wahab

KhanTulshi Prasad'

112

549v.

Shamahor Narain Singh

Maho-

':,

dian

Amendment

to substitute

should be allowed 564 Re8. 151 and O. 41, K. 23 mand on the ground that suit No was not properly triedfor

B

A

appeal

lies

under B. 23*

8. 151

where remand and not O.orderis

is

41,

R. 2 Causes of action different but substantial evidence common to both Reliefs be arising from both should claimed in the same suit O. I ,R. 1 Advocate can be verbally appointed O. 6, R. 17 Amendment prayed for after evidence Question of fact to be raised by amendment already raised and eviSi,

-O.

516

S.

151

Remand

pealc^le only if it amounts Order reversing trial decree Court's decree is not a decree unless order itself decides any*f 457 point for determira .ion 8. 151 Application challenging validity of a compromise decree under S. 151 dismissed Subsequent suit for the same 289 purpose is not barred S. 151 Wrong dismissal of:

apto

*

dence adduced Amendment should be allowed O. 7, R. 2 -Valuation will refer to profits before and after suit where both are claimed F. B. 218