Excerpt from Judgments of the Privy Council on Appeals From India, Vol. 3 The decisions of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, in cases heard on appeal from the Courts of British India, are at present in a great measure unknown to and beyond the reach of a great majority of the Judges of our Courts. From the year 1836 regular reports of the decisions on Indian Appeals have been published by Mr. Moore. But the earlier volumes of this series are not to be procured without great difficulty (the first volume alone, I believe, not being procurable for even Rs. While the high price of all of them is an obstacle to their wide circulation. In 1855 the Privy Council first began to print their Indian. Judgments, and I have been furnished with the whole series of these printed judgments from that time to the presents I have also been furnished with the earlier judgments commencing from 1831 to 1834, as published in what is known as the Folio Edition of the Privy Council Cases, a still more inaccessible work than Moore's Reports. From these materials I propose to reprint the whole of the judgments in a single volume, with carefully prepared marginal notes, and a copious Index, so that, in a convenient form for reference, the judgments of the highest tribunal will be brought within reach of every local Court. By the Folio Edition of the Privy Council Cases above referred to, were meant the printed cases in appeals which were bound up together with the judgments. A complete set of these was kept up in the Library of the late Sudder Court at Calcutta. I may also here mention that previous to Mr. Mofl's Reports, the earlier judgments of the Privy Council from 1829 to 1836 were reported by Mr. Knapp. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

Excerpt from Judgments of the Privy Council on Appeals From India, Vol. 2 Si) A suit having been referred by the District J u go to the arbitrators made their award and the Jud e passed a decree in conformity there with. T decree pn appeal was set aside for irregularity, the award havmg been signed by the arbitrators separately, and ten days not having been allowed for objections; and the case was remanded with a view to these defects being cured. On remand one of the arbitrators in a letter to the Judge tendered his resignation, but was induced to withdraw it. The award was then pro rlv signed, and, after objections heard, duly judi osted upon under Act VIII of 1869 as. 824 and 826. A decree was then passed: reld that no ap lay from this decisron to the Hi h Court, an d fortiori none lay to the Privy unoil 146. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

Excerpt from The Indian Decisions (New Series), Vol. 11 On the 5th July 1892, the High Court declared the admission of an appeal under s. 603. An order was then made in the Court of first instance for execution of the decree of 20th April 1892, whereupon the defendant applied under s. 608, sub-s. (c)of the Civil Procedure Code, to the High Court for an order staying execution, and obtained, on the 12th December 1893, an order for cause to be shown why an order to that effect should not be made upon security being given. The grounds were these: first, that the land might deteriorate, if mismanaged; secondly, that landmarks and boundaries might be caused to disappear, thus giving rise to disputes with proprietors of adjoining land; thirdly, that as the decree-holders were executors of one who was the shebait of the institution to which the property had been awarded, difficulties might arise with any successor in office as to a refund of mesne profits, accounts, and other matters. The decree-holders having been heard on the 27th April 1894, Norris, J., the senior Judge of the Bench, was of opinion that there were no special circumstances in the case to warrant a stay of execution. In this his colleague. Banerjee, J., did not concur, holding that, in regard to the position of the decree-holders applying for execution and to the kind of land, a chur, which was in dispute, this was a fit case for an order staying execution upon security being given. The adverse judgment of tho senior Judge prevailed, and the order was refused. The petition was for special leave to appeal from the order of the 27th April 1894, as well as fora stay of execution of the decree of the 20th April 1892. The application was ex parte. Mr. J. H. A. Branson, in support of the petition, stated that it was made in its present form for leave to appeal from the order of the 27th April 1892 as well as for a stay of execution, because it had been understood that hitherto no stay of execution had [3] been granted here when tho Court in India, admitting the appeal, bad refused to stay execution; hut a stay had been granted only when special leave to appeal had been obtained from their Lordships. A note on Indur Kunwar v. Jaipal Kunwar (1), in Wheeler's Privy Council Law, 446, related to this. He referred to the difference of opinion between the Judges below, contending that on the grounds taken before them they should have granted a stay in the discretion given them by s. 608, sub-s. (c). Their Lordships were of opinion that, as the two Judges of the Court below had differed in opinion, their discretion had not been exercised, as they were empowered to exercise it, under s. 608 of the Civil Procedure Code, without there being occasion to grant special leave to appeal from the order of the 27th April 1894. The case was one in which a stay of execution should be ordered on this petition. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.