A Treatlse C It Hindu Law and UsageHINDULAWANDUSAGE.
JOHN I) . MAYNE ,
o r THE mm-za TEMPLE , qq BARR ISTE R - AT - LAW, FORMER LY ovmcurmc ADVOCATE - GENERAL 0? “Ann“ ,
I
" Tm : C R IMINAL m w or mum , E TC .
- v v v v v v s fxf l v J g p s o 1 “
SEVENTH EDIT ION.
R E V ISE D A ND E NLA R GE D .
~W ~UWM
MADRAS : HIGGINBOTHAM (30 .
By l poiamem to D. G. t he Governor at madras.
1906 .
PR EFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION.
Two impo rtant de cismns ofthe Judic ia l Comm itte e , which have alre ady furnishe d m ate rial for much discussion in India ,
will be foun d in 56 3 A and In othe r re spe cts the large
numbe r ofn e w case s , which are include d in this e dition , have bee n ofm ore inte re st to the indiv idua l suitors than to the stude nts oflaw .
GOODR BST ,
May 1906 .
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.
THE incre ase d bulk of this volum e is chie fly owing to the
conside rable am ount ofnew mate rial which I have found at my disposal . Both the Privy Council and th e Indian Courts have
be e n rich in de cisions ofunusual importance , particularly in regard
to the law ofadoption and wills . My frie nd R ajah Dharm a Pravina Thumboo Che tty , of the Mysore Council ofR e ge ncy , has be e n good e nough to furn ish m e with a comple te se rie s of the re ports
ofth e Chie f Court ofMysore . The re ce nt works of M . Le on
Sorg , Chie f Justice ofth e Court ofFirst Instance in Pondiche rry , have for the first tim e supplie d uswith a conne cte d view ofthe m ode in which que stions ofH induLaw are de alt with by Fre nch jurists . The se are ofe spe cial value , asthe y are base d , not m e re ly
upon the writings ofthe H indu lawye rs , but upon formal e nquiry as to the usage at pre se nt pre vailing upon e ach dispute d point
among the native s subje ct to the Pondiche rry Courts .
The inve stigations of theMalabarMarriage Comm ission have thrown a flood oflight upon th e existe n ce ofpolyandry on the
We st Coast ofIndia , and upon the characte r ofthe unions contracte d unde r its influe n ce . The se are furthe r suppleme nte d
by th e Ce nsus R e ports for 1891ofthe State s of Cochin and
Travancore , and by Mr . Logan ’
s m ost valuable Manual ofthe Malabar District . I have util ise d the se source s for th e purpose ofgiv ing a brie f, and I hope fairly accurate view ofa rathe r obscure subje ct . I have a lso take n advantage ofthis opportunity to gle an from the invaluable re ports ofth e Ce nsus ofIndia for 1891, and from the singularly le arne d work by Dr .Maclean on th e adm in istration ofMadras , m any curious and inte re sting instance s oflocal usage on matte rs ofdom e stic law . The District Manuals of South Canara and North Arcot abound in sim i lar inform ation
to which I am inde bte d .
PR E FACE . vii
Dr . Jol ly hasagain place d Indian e nquire rs he avily in his
de bt by h isnew work , R echt und Sitte , itse lf only a se gm e nt of
an E ncyclop e dia of Indo - Aryan re se arch , which is be ing e dite d by Dr . Biih le r . Th e first chapte r , in which the com bine d re sul ts
of Ge rm an and British re se arch in re fe re nce to Sanskrit law books are focuse d into one v iew , is of imm e nse value .
Afte r I had comfle te d this e dition I re ce ive d , through the courte sy ofMr . S. Sitaram a Sastri , a le arne d scholar ofMadras , a proof she e t of a translation of a portion of the comm e ntary of
Visva rupa. o n Yajnava lkyn , ofwhich eve n Dr . Jol ly only kn ew
from citations that it existe d , and was e arl ie r than th e Mitakshara .
It is ve ry curious , e spe cial ly asshow ing the gradual de ve lopm e nt
ofhe irship am ong wom e n . Asto daughte rs , he expre ssly state s , what I have long sugge ste d was probable , that only appointe d daughte rs took by inhe ritance afte r a widow while h e se em s to l im it the te rm widow , as me an ing a pre gnant widow
, who
would appare ntly take on ly as guardian for he r possible son .
Th e d iscove ry at so late a pe riod ofa copy of this work is ve ry
rem a rkable .
Th e de lay in th e appe arance of this e dit ion which has be e n so long prom ise d
, arise s from my having , in conse que nce of th e large
am ount of new matte r , re que ste d m y publishe rs to a llow al l th e she e ts to pass through my own hands . Th e cross - re fe re nce s in
th e body ofthe work , and in th e con te n ts , are sti l l to th e para
graphs , but those in the index and table ofcase s are , for the
first tim e , to th e page s—a change which , I hope ,Wi l l be found a
con ve nience to the re ade r .
INNER TEMPLE , JOHN D .MAYNE .
August 1900.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
SINCE the publication of the last e dition of th is work , many n ew
mate rial s for the study of Hindu Law have be e n place d within the reach of those ,
who , like myse lf, are unable to exam ine the
authoritie s in the ir original San skrit . Profe ssorMaxMfille r’
s
Se rie s of the Sacred Books of the E ast has give n us translations of the e ntire texts ofApastamba , Gautam a , and V ishnu, by Dr . Buh le r and Dr . Jolly . Mr. Narayan Mandlik hassupplie d uswith a translation of the whole ofYajnavalkya , and a new
re nde ring of the Mayuk ha ; while the Sarasvati Vilasa and the
V iram itrodaya have be e n re nde re d acce ssible by the labours of
Mr . Foulke s and of Golapchandra Sarkar .
Judging from an exam ination of the se works , I doubt whe the r
we ne e d expe ct to re ce ive much more l ight upon the existing Hindu Law from the works ofthe pure ly le gal write rs . The y se em to m e m e re ly to re produce with slav ish fide l ity the sam e
textsof the ancie nt write rs , and the n to criticise them , as if the y we re algebraic formulas , without any attempt to show what re la tion , if any , they have to th e actual facts of life . Whe n , for instance , so mode rn a work as the V iram itrodaya grave ly discusses marriage s be twe e n pe rsons of diffe rent caste s , or the twe lve spe cie s of sons , it is impossible to imagine that the author is talking of anything which re ally existe d in his tim e . Ye t h e di late s upon all these distinctions with as much appare nt faith in the ir value ,
as would be exhibited by an E nglish lawye r in expounding th e peculiaritie s of a bill of exchange . From the extracts give n by Mr . Narayan Mandl ik , I im agin e that th e m ode rn write rs of Weste rn India are more willing to re cogn ise re al itie s than those of Be ngal and Benare s . Probably , much that is use ful and inte resting m ight be found (am id an infinity ofrubbish) in th e workson ce remon ial law . But what we re ally want isthat we l l
PREFACE . ix
inform e d native s of India should take a law book in the ir hands, and te l l usfrankly , unde r e ach he ad , how much ofthe writte n text is actua l ly re cognised and practise d as th e rule of e ve ry - day life . Th e gre at value ofMr. NarayanMandlik ’
swork consists in th e exte nt to which he has adopte d this course . His forth com ing work wil l be looke d for with the gre ate st inte re st by e ve ry studen t ofHinduLaw .
I fe e l a natura l tim idity in e n te ringupon the region ofvolcanic controve rsy which has sprung uparound the works of Mr . J . H .
Ne lson . It se em s a pity that am i d so much with which e ve ryone must agre e , the re should be so much m ore with which no one can agre e .Whe n h e de n ie s thatManu, Yajnavalkya , and th e Mitak shara form th e re cogniz e d guidesofD ravidian , or e ve n ofSudra l ife , on e isWi l l ing to accept t h e sta tem e n t . But whe n h e goeson to asse rt th atMann , Yajn ava lkya , and th e Mi takshara are them se lve sWi th out auth ori ty am on g S ansk r i t lawye rs, or have authority on ly am ongobscure and l im i te d se c ts, one istempte d to ask what
poseuble am oun t ofe n dem i
c h e woul d con side r sufficie nt to e stab l i sh th e con trary ? Can Mr . Ne l son put h is finge r upon any Single law book subseque n t to th e probable date s ofManuand
Yajnava lkya i n wh ich th ose sages are not refe rre d to, not onlyWi th respe ct and re ve re nc e , butWi th abso lute subm i ssion ‘1Ifth e Mi taksh ara isa work ofn o auth ori ty , h ow doe s i t happe n that e ve ry pund i t i n e ve ry part ofIndia , exce pt Be ngal , invar iably C i te s Vi jnan esvara i n support ofh isopin i on Mr. Ne lson
’s grote sque
”
H is proposal that eve ry law sui t should comm ence with an e xhaustive e nquiry as to the legal usage s, if any, by which the re spe ctive partie s conside re d the y we re borm d, is a sly stroke of
Re vue Cri tique .1882, p. 165 the a rtic l e contains a thorough exam ination ofMr. N e lson
' sviews, and seemsto me to be a mode l ofacute , candid, and courteouscriticism .
x ‘
PREFACE .
humour which cannot be too much adm ire d . Com ing from an
oppone n t it m ight have be e n conside re d malicious . I fancy that Mr . Ne lson , as a Judge ,
would be the first to re sist the application
of hisownproposa l .
An unusual numbe r ofimportan t de cisions have be e n re corde d sin ce th e publication of the last edition , and it wil l be se e n that seve ral portions of this work have be e n re - writte n in couse
quence . The law , as to the liabil ity ofa sonfor his fathe r ’s de bts, and asto th e fathe r
’s powe r ofde aling with fam ily prope rty to l iquidate such de bts , se em s at last to be se tt ling down in to an inte l l igible , if n ot a ve ry satisfactory , shape . The con trove rsie s arising out ofthe text ofth e Mitakshara defin ing stridhanum appe ar also to be quie te d by dire ct de cision , and the conflicting v iew ofwom an
,
that succe ssion unde r the Mitakshara law is base d upon pro pinquity, and not upon degre e s ofre ligious m e rit .
JOHN D . MAYNE .
INNE R TEMPLE ,
PR E FACE
’
smanual .
HinduLaw has the olde st pe digre e ofany known syste m of jurisprude n ce , and e ve n now it shows no signs ofde crepitude .
At this day it gove rn s race s ofm e n , exte nding from Cashm e re to Cape Com orin , who agre e in nothing e l se except the ir subm ission to it . No tim e or trouble can be waste d , which is spent in in v estigatingthe origin and de ve lopm e n t ofsuch a system ,
and the cause s ofits influe nce . I can not but indulge a hope that th e ve ry parts ofthis work , which se em ofle ast va lue to a practising lawye r , m ay be re ad with in te re st by som e who n e ve r in te nd to e n te r a Court . I also hope that th e sam e discussions , which appe ar to h ave only an antiquarian and the ore tical in te re st , m ay be found of re al se rvice , if not to the counse l who has toWin a case , at
al l e ve n ts to th e judge who h asto de cide it .
Th e great diffi cul ty wh ich m e e ts a judge is to choose be twe e n th e conflicting texts which can be pre se n te d to h im on a lm ost e ve ry que stion . Th is difficulty i s con stan tly in cre ase d by th e
labours ofthose scholars wh o are ye a rly ope n ing upfre sh source s ofinform ation . Th e workswhich the y have m ade acce ssible are , natura l ly , the works of th e v e ry early wr i te rs , who had passe d in to obliv ion , be cause th e substan ce ofthe ir te aching wasembodie d in more m ode rn tre atises. Many ofthe se e arlv texts are in conflict with each othe r , and st il l more are in conflict with the
ge ne ral body oflaw as it hasbe e n adm iniste re d in our Courts .
An Opinion se em s to be growingupthat w e have be en going al l wrong ; that we have be e n m istak en in takingth e law from its
xii PR EFACE .
more re cent inte rpre te rs, and that our only safe course isto reve rt to antiquity , and , whe reve r it may be ne ce ssary , to corre ct th e
Mitakshara or th e Days. Bhaga by Manu, Gautam a , or Vasishtha .
Such a view om its to notice that som e of these authorsare pe rhaps
two thousand ye ars old , and that ev en the E ast doe s change ,
though slowly . The re al task of th e lawye r is not to re concile the se contradictions which is im possible , but to account for them .
He wil l be st he lpa judge who ispre sse d ,for in stance , by a text which forbids a partition , or which m ake s a fathe r th e absolute de spot of his fam ily ,
by showingh im that the se textswe re on ce l ite ra l ly true , but that the state of socie ty , in which the y we re true ,
has longsince passed away . This hasbe e n done to a conside rable
extent by Dr .Mayr in h e m ost va luabl e work , Das Ind ische
E rbrecht . He se ems, howe v e r , not to have be e n acqua in te d w ith the write rs ofthe Be ngal school , and ofcourse had no knowle dge ofthe de ve lopm e n tswhich th e law hasre ce ive d through n e arly a
ce ntury of jud icial de cisions. I have tried tofo l low in the course m arke d out by h im , and by Sir H . 8 .Maine in h is we l l - known writings . It would be pre sumption to hope that I have don e so with comple te . or e ven with any conside rable , success. But I hope the attempt m ay le ad the way to criticism , wh ich w il l e nd in th e discove ry oftruth .
Anothe r and comple te ly diffe re n t curre nt ofopin ion , isthat of those who th ink that HinduLaw , asreprese nte d in th e Sanskrit writings , has little application to any but Brah i i ians, or those who
accept th e m in istrationsofBrahm ans, and that it hasno be aring upon the l ife ofthe infe rior castes, and ofthe non - Aryan race s . This v iew has be e nput forward byMr. Ne lson in h is V ie w of
th e HinduLaw as adm in iste re d by theMadrasHigh Court .” In much that he says I thoroughly agre e with h im . Iquite agre e with h im in thinkingthat rules, founde d on th e re l igiousdoctrine s of Brahm an ism ,
,
which are of any practical importance , are mainly base d upon usage
PRE FACE . xiii
which , in substance ,
though not in de tail , is common , both to
Aryan and non - Aryan tribes. Much ofthe prese nt work is de vote d to th e e lucidation of this view . I also think that h e has unde r
est im ate d th e influe nce which th e San skrit law hasexe rcised , in
mouldingto its own m ode l th e som ewhat sim ilar usage s eve n of non - Aryan race s . This influe n ce hasbe e n exe rcise d throughout
th e who le ofSouth e rn India duringthe prese n t cen tury by m e ans
ofour Courts and Pundits , by Vakils , and officia ls, both judicial and re ve nue , almost a ll of whom , til l ve ry late ly , we re Brahman s .
That th e Drav idian race s hav e any consciousbe l ie f that the y
are fol lowingtheMitakshara . I do not at al l suppose . Nor has an
Engl i shm an any con scious be l iefthat h is life is guide d by
Lord Coke and LordMansfie ld . But it isquite possible that these race s m ay be tryingunconsciously to fol low th e course ofl ife which isadopte d by th e m ost respe ctable , th e m ost in te l le ctual , and the best e ducate d am ong the ir n e ighbours. The result w ould be exac t ly the sam e asifthe y stud ie d th eMitaksharafor themse lves.
That th isre al ly isth e case isan opin ion wh ich I arrive d at , afte r fifte e n ye ars
’ acquain tan ce w ith the l i tigation ofe ve ry part oftheMadrasPreside ncy . E ve n inMa labar I h ave w itne sse d con tinue d e fforts on the part ofthe native s to cast offth e ir ow n custom s
and to de al with the ir prope rty by partition , a l ie n ation , and
'
up. The re vol t would have be e n a re vo lution .
A third class of opinion is that ofthe common - se nse E ngl ish man , whose views are ve ry ably re prese n te d by Mr . Cunn ingham
-now a Judge ofthe Be ngal High Court in the pre face
xiv PREFACE .
to his re cent Dige st of HinduLaw . He appe arsto look upon the e ntire law with a m ixture ofwonde r and pity . He is amuse d at the absurdity ofthe rule which forbids an orphan to be adopte d .
He is shocke d at finding that a man ’s gre at - grandson is his imm e diate he ir , while the son ofthat gre at - grandson is a ve ry remote he ir , and h isown siste r is hardly an he ir at a l l . He thinks e ve rythingwould be se t right by a short and simple code ,
which would ple ase e ve rybody , and upon th e m e an ing ofwhich th e judge s are not expe cte d to diffe r . The se ofcourse are que stions for the legislator . no tfor the lawye r . I have attempte d to offe r m ate rialsfor the discussion by showinghow the rule s in que stion originate d , and how much would have to be remove d if the y we re al te re d . Th e age ofm irac le s haspasse d , and I hardly expe ct to se e a code ofH induLaw which sha l l satisfy the trade r and the
agriculturist , the Pun jabi and th e Be ngal i , the pundits of Be nare s and R am aiswaram , ofUmritsur and ofPoona . But I can e asily imagine a ve ry be autiful and spe cious code , which should product much m ore dissatisfaction and expe nse than the law asat pre sent adm iniste re d .
I cannot conclude without expre ssing my pa in ful con scious ne ss ofth e disadvan tage unde r which I have laboure d from my ignorance ofSansk rit . This has m ade m e comple te ly de pe nd e n t on tran slate d works . A re a l ly satisfactory tre ati se on H indu Law would require its author to be equa lly le arne d as a lawye r and an Orie ntal ist . Such a work could have be e n produce d byMr. Cole brook e , or by the e ditors ofthe Bombay Dige st , if the Gove rnm e n t had not restricte d the scope ofthe ir labours .
Hithe rto , un fortunate ly , those who have possesse d the ne ce ssary
qua lifications have wan te d e ithe r the inclination or the tim e .
The lawye rs have not be e n Orie n tal ists. and the Orie n tal ists have not be e n lawye rs . For th e corre ction ofth e m any m istake s into which my ignorance has le t m e , I can only m ost cordial ly say ?Exoriare a liquisnostr'isea: ossibusultor.
JOHN D . MAYNE .
INNE R TEMPLE ,
B. and Ald .
B. L. R .
a . c . j . o . c . j .
North -We st Province H igh Court, 3 vols . [1866 Indian Law R eports, Al lahabad Se ries [from 1876] Amble r’s R eports, Chance ry .
Apastamba , MaxMul le r ’s Sacred Books ofthe E ast ,
Vol . IL, by Buh le r . E nglish Law R eports, Appe a l Cases.
Atkyn ’
s R eports, Chance ry , te mpe ra Lord Hardw icke [173 6 -175 4]
Quo te d in Suthe rland ’
sDattakaMimamsa.
The Indian Vi l lage Commun ity, by B. H . Bade n Powe ll,1896 . Not to be confounded with a sma lle r work by the same author on the sam e subje ct,1899 .
Barnewal l and A lde rson [King ’
sBench , 1817-1822] Bengal Law R eports, H igh Court [1868 Be nga l Law R eports, Suppleme ntal Volume , Ful l Be nch Rul ings , in 2parts [1862
Appe l late Civil Jurisdiction .
Appendix.
Origina l Civil Jurisdiction .
'
Beavau ’
s R eports, Ro lls Court, tempe rs Lord Lang da le and Sir John R om il ly [183 8
Bombay Sudde r Dewany Adaw lut R eports . Bombay Series ofthe Indian Law R eports [from
Bombay High Court R eports [186 3 -1875] Appe llate Civi l Jurisdiction .
Original Born . Se l . R ep. Bombay Se le ct R eports, Sudde r Dewany Adaw lut. Bor. Borrodaile
' sReports(Bombay Sudde r Adawlut) , Folio ,
1825 . [The re fe re nce s in bracke ts are to the paging ofthe edition of1862]
xvi ABBR EV IATIONS AND R E FE R ENCE S .
Boulnois , Calcutta Suprem e Court [1856
Calcutta H igh Court, Origina l side , 1vol . [1865] Prim itive Tribes ofthe Nilagh iris, by J. w . Bre eks,
Esq. Cal . Indian Law R eports, Calcutta Se ries [from 1876] CensusR eports. R eportsform ingpart ofthe Ce nsusofthe Indian Em
pire for1891. Unde r th is he ad are cite d sim ilar reportsofthe Native StatesofCoch in ,Mysore , and
Travancore .
Ch . I) . E nglish Law R eports, Chance ry D ivision .
Cole . Pref. Col e brooke ’
sPrefacesto the Daya Bhaga and th e Dige st. Essays. Co le brooke
' sEssays.
Coop . Ge o . COOpe r’
s (Ge orge ) R eports, Chance ry, tempe ra Lord E ldon
Coryton . Ca lcutta R eports, H igh Court , Origina l side , 1vo l .
’
sDigest , (Co le brooke .) 3 vols . Daya Kram a Sangraba . (Wynch .) DattakaMim amsa . (Suth e rland) Domat ’sCiv il Law .
E n larged edition (1897) ofHinduManners , Customs, and Ce remonies, by the Abbe Dubois.
E lbe rlingon Inhe ritance , e tc .
Sir F. MacNaghten ’
Fulton ’
s R eports, Surpreme Court, Calcutta [1842
Gaut. Gautam a , MaxMuller ’s Sacre d Books ofthe E ast , Vo l . IL, by Buh le r.
Gibe lin . E tudes sur ls Droit civil des Hindous
Goldst. Goldstiicke r ’
Calcutta High Court, Appe l late side , 2 vols. [1862
Calcutta R eports, High Court, Origina l side , 2 vols.
[1864
ABBREVIATIONS AND R EFE RENCE S. xvii
I. A. E nglish Law R eports. Indian Appeals [from1873 ] I. A. , Sup. Vol . E nglish Law R eports . Indian Appe als . Supplemental
Volume [1872 The same re fe re nce asthe one immediate ly preceding.
Mon ie rWill iams’ IndianWisdom [1875] Jacob andWalke r’
s R eports, Chance ry, tempore Lord E ldon [1819
Johnson ’
s R eports, Chance ry, before Sir PageWood [1858-1860]
Jolly, Le ct. Dr. Jol ly ’s Tagore Le ctures, 1883 .
Jo lly, R e e ht Thiswork , wh ich hasbe e n publ ishe d separate ly, forms 11. Sitte . part ofthe E ncyclopaidia ofIndo - Aryan R esearch ,
edited by Dr. Bi ’
ihle r.
Kn . Knapp’sPrivy Council Cases [1831 Lewin . Lew in on Trusts, 6th cd . , 1875 .
L. R . (R andD .) E nglish Law R eports, Probate and Divorce .
Mad . MadrasSe riesofthe Indian Law R eports [from 1876]Mad . Ce nsus. MadrasCe nsusR eport, by Dr. Corn ish , 1871.
Med . De c . Dec isions ofthe Madras Sudde r Court . The se le cted de cisionsfrom 1805 -1847 are cited by volum es: the
subsequent reports, by ye ars .Mad . H . C . MadrasHigh Court R eports [1862 -1876]Madhav . Madhava ’
sDaya Vibhaga . (Burne ll)Mad . Jur. MadrasJurist,11vols. [1866Ma d. Law R ep. TheMadrasLaw R eporte r, one Volum e ; High Court
Mad .Man . Manual OftheMadura District, J. H . Ne lson , 1868.
R eg. Madras R e venue R egiste r [1867Maine . The variousWorks ofSir Henry Sumne rMaine are
cited from the l st e dition ofeach.
Mal .Man . MalabarManua l , byW. Logan , 3 vols. [1887Mal .Mar. R epR eport OftheMalabarMarriage Comm ission ,1894 .
Man .Mad .Adm .Manual ofthe Adm in istration OfMadras, Vol . I 1885 , by Dr.Macle an .
Mandl ik The VyavaharaMayukha and Yajnava lkya , w ith In
troduction and Appendice s, Bombay by R ao Sabeb V. N.Mandlik.
Me nu. Cited from translation , by SirWil liam Jones, also by Buhler, MaxMi’i l ler’sSacredBooksofthe East, Vol , XXV.
xviii ABBREVIATIONS AND REFE RENCE S.
Marsh. Marshal l ’s Cases on Appeal to the High Court of Bengal
Ancie nt Sanskrit Lite rature .
DasIndische E rbrecht Studies in Ancien t History The Patriarchal Theory. A posthumous work by J. F.McLe nnan ,
edi ted by Dona ldMcLe nnanMitakshara . (Colebrooke .)Morley ’sDigest , 2 vols. , CalcuttaMoore ’
sIndian Appe als [183 6 -1872] Decisions oflate Supreme Court, Calcutta, 1vol .
[1774 -1848]Montr. Montrion ’
[1780-1801] Morris. Bombay Sudde r Adaw lut R eports.
Mysore . Mysore Law R eports [1878Mys. Ch . Ct. Mysore Ch ie f Court R eports [from1896] Nar. Narada , citedfrom translation , by Biih le r, or by Jol ly
[London 1876] N. 0. Sir ThomasStrange
’s NotesofCases,Madras Ne lson
' sView . View Ofthe HinduLaw as adm in iste red by High Court
ofMadras, Ne lson ,Madras [1877] Scientific A Prospe ctusofthe Scie n tific Study ofthe HinduLaw ,
Study . Ne lson ,Madras [1881] N.
-W. P. De cisions ofthe High Court ofthe N . -W. Provinces,
Al lahabad [1869 N. ArcotMan .Manual ofNorth Arcot, by A. F. Cox, n ew edition by
H . A. Stuart Privy Council .
Sir E rskine Pe rry ’s Orienta l Cases, Bombay Supreme
Court . [1853 ]
Punjab Note s on Customary Law asadm in iste red in the Courts Customs. j ofthe Punjab Boulnoisand R attigan , 1876 .
Punjab Cus sThre e Volumes, edited by C . L. Tuppe r, O.S. , Calcutta tomaryLaw . [1881] P.Williams. Pe ersWil liams’ R eports, Chance ry [1695 Raghunan Th e Daya Tattwa ofRaghunandana , translated by
dana , Golab Chandra Barker Sastry, Calcutta,1874 .
Varadrajah ’
sVyavahara Nirnaya (Burne ll) , 1872 .
Vasishtha , by Biihle r. MaxMul le r’s Sacred Booksof the E ast, Vol . XIV.
V '
Vesey ' s(Jun ior) R eports , Chance ry [1789
Vesey ’
Hardwicke [1746Maine ’
sVil lage Commun ities [1871] The Law ofInhe ritance as in the Viram itrodaya
ofMitra , by Gopalcbandra Misra Sarkar Sastri , Calcutta ,1879 .
Comme ntary on Yajnava lkya by ; translated by S. Sitarama Sastri,Madras,1900.
Vishnu, cited from tran slation by Buh le r, or by Jol ly,MaxMfil ler’
sSacred Books ofthe E ast, Vol . VII.
Vivada Chintaman i, by VachespatiMisra . (Prosonno CoomarTagore .) 1865 .
VyavaharaMayukha . (Borrodaile .) The Vyavabara Mayukha and Yajnaval kya , w ith In troduction and Appe ndix, by Rao Sabeb Vishvanath NarayanMand l ik , Bombay, 1880.West and Biih ler’
sDigest, Bombay, 3 rd cd., 1884 .
Suthe rland ’sWe ek ly R eporter. [A few cases have be en accide ntal ly cite d from these reportsunde r this designation inste ad ofSuth .W.MacNaghte n'sHinduLaw ,1829 .
AComme ntaryonMalabar Law and Custom , by He rbertWigram , 1882.Wyman
’s Civil and Crim inal R eports, Calcutta .
Yajnavalkya, cited from translation , by Dr. Roe r , or
Professor Stenz le r.
Hm ON THE NATUR E AND OR IGIN OF HINDULAW.
Conflicting views as to the authority ofthe Sanskrit wri te rs, 1- 3 . Law is
based on imm emoria l usage , 5 . Late r growth ofBrahman ical influence , 7.Unconne cte d with system ofjoint fam i ly, 8 . Subseque n tly introduced in to
law ofinhe ri tance , 9 , and law ofadaption , 10. Mode in wh ich i t hasexercised an indirect influence ,12. Practical conclusions, 13 .
SOUR CE S OF HINDU LAW. CHAPTER II .
TEXTS AND DE CISIONS .
The Sm ri tis, 15 . Sutras, 17.Worksin ve rse more re cent ,19 . Me nu, 20. Yajna
val lrya , 22. Narada , 23 . Se condary works, 24 . Th e comme ntators , 25 . Visvarupa ,Mitaksha ra ,
Apararka , 26 . Smri ti Chandrika and worksofauthority in South ern India , 27 . Mayukha and Viram itrodaya , 28. Mi th ila and i ts authorities, 29 .
Treatises on adoption , 3 0. Daya Bhaga , 31. Halhed ’
s Code and Jagannatha ’s Digest , 3 2 . Mimamsa. ofJaim in i , 3 3 . His rule ofinte rpre ta tion , 3 4 . Diffe re n t schoo lsofl aw , 3 5 . Characte ristic doctrin esofJimuta Vahana , 3 7. Difieren cesas
tofema le rights, 3 8, and law ofadoption , 3 9 . Judicial decisions, 40. Force of usage , 41.
CHAPTER III.
CUSTOMARY LAW: Val id ity ofcustoms, 42, 4 3 . R e corded instances, 44 . Raceswh ich do not accept
re ligionsprin c iples, 46 . Lawfol lowstheperson , 48 ; til l abandoned , 49. Origin and
evidence ofb indingcustom , 50. Onusofproof, Must be ancient, 52, and
mutinuous, 5 3 . Family custom va l id , 5 4 . Must not be opposed to mora lity or
publicpol icy , 55 . Change offamily usage , 56 . R esul t ofconve rsion toMuham
medanism , 57, orChristiani ty, 69 . Ill egitimate ofispringofEuropean , 60.
coNTBNTS.
MARR IAGE AND SONSHIP.
Anomal ies in early fam ily law , 61. Polyandry am ongnon - Aryan races, 62 ;
am ongAryans, 63—65 . Explanation ofanom a l i es, 66 . Diffe rent sortsofsons, 67.
Necessity for sons, 68. Hindu not ion ofpate rn ity, 69 . Th eory and practice of niyoga , 70 ; not a surv iva l ofpo lyandry, 72 . Marriage w ith broth er
’ swidow , 73 .
Appl ication ofprinciple to othe r sons , 74—76 . Adopted sons, 77. Al l but two now
obsol e te , 78. E ight forms ofmarriage , 79 . The ir re lat ive an tiquity, 80. Modi fica tionsofmarriage bypurchase , 81. Th e approvedforms, 82. On ly two survive , 83 .Who may dispose ofbride , 84 . Exogamy and e ndogamy, 86 . Mixed marriagef’. 83 Now obsole te , 89 . Capacity for marriage , 90. Infant m arriage , 91. Poly
gamy, 92 . Se cond marriages ofwom e n and divorce , 93 , 94 . Be trotha l and mar
riage ceremon ies, 95 . R esul tsofmarriage , 96 . Ma labar marriages, 97—102 .
CHAPTER V .
ADOPTION.
Its importance , ofrecent growth , 103 . Dim inution in numbe rofadopted sons, 105 . Notfounded exclusive l yon re l igiousmotives, nor l im ited to Aryan tribes, 106 .
E arly texts, 107.Who may adopt . Pe rsonswithout issue , 108 . Bache lors and
widowers, 109 . Disqua l ifie d h e irs, 110. Minors, 111.Wife or widow , 112 .
Nature ofauthority to widow,113 must be strictlyfo l lowed ,114 . Powe r incapable of be ingexercised , 115—116 . Adoption by m inor or unchaste widow , 117 ; se ve ra l w idows, 118 .Widow’
s discre tion , 119 . Asse n t ofsapindusin Southern Indi a , 120 —126 . R e l igiousmotive for adoption ,
127. Powe r ofwidow inWeste rn India ,13 0 amongJains, and in Pun jab, 131. On lypare n tscan give away son , 13 2 . Powe r to
impose condi tions ,13 3 . Conse n t ofgove rnm e n t ,13 4 . R estrictionson se le ction ofson ,
13 5 ; ofBrahman ica l origin , 13 6 . Caste ,
13 8. Age , 13 9 . Pre viouspe rformance Of
ceremonies, 142 . Only or e ldest son , 144 . Privy Counci l de cision ,14 7 twope rsons cannot adopt same boy, 149 . Ne cessary ce rem on ies,150 ; in ten tiona l om ission ,
154 .
.
Effec t oflapse oftime ase vide nce , 159 . E stoppe l ,160. Sta tutory ba r,161. R esul ts ofadoption , 164 . Lin ea l and col late ral succession , 165 . Succession ea: pa rte "MW, 166 . To stridha num ofadoptive moth e r, ib. R igh t ofsuccession be tween Wivesofadopter and adapted son ,167 dwyamushyayan a and h isnatural
11101511013 IG7A ; wh ere legitimate son afte rwards born , 168 .Whe re adopted son compe teswith col late rals, 169 . Survivorsh ipbe twe en adopted and legi timate son ,
171. R emovalfrom naturalfam ily,172 case ofdwyamushyayana , 173 in Punjab and Pondicherry,
175 .Where adoption is inva l id , 176 ; va l idity ofgift to pe rson false ly supposed to be adopted,180. Casesin wh ich an estate isde veste d by w idow
’ s
adoption , 184 . Effe ct ofassent in renderingeffe ctual an in valid adoption , 192 .
Postponement ofson ’ srights,196 howfar bound by actsofwidow, 197, orpre vious
male holder,198.Woman cannot adopt to herse lf,unl essin case ofd ancinggirls, or
CONTENTS xxiii
in Kritr imaform ,199 . Kritrima adoption , 200 ; pecul iarities, 202 ; resul ts, 204 woman m ay adopt to herse lf, 205 no ce remon ies, 206 ; practised by Buddh ists in Burma ; resem bl esusage OfJaffna , ib. Il latom adoption , 207. Malabar adaptions, 208.
CHAPTER VI .
MINOR ITY AND GUAR DIANSHIP.
Pe riod ofm inority, 210.Who may be guardian , 211. Effe ct Ofconversion on
righ t to custody Ofm inor, 212 . Pate rn al righ ts ove r m inors, 214 . Case ofi l l egiti mate ch i ld ,
217. Minor when bound by contracts, and actsOfguardian , 218 ; effe ct offalse statem ent as to age by m inor, 220 ; wh e n bound by decrees, 221. Suits
against guardian , ib.
CHAPTER VII .
Pecul iaritiesOfH induLaw , 222 . Thre eformsOfcorporate property, ib. Vil lage Commun itiesin th e Punjab, 224 in Southe rn Ind ia , 225 . Fiction ofcomm on des
cen t , 226 . Nai rs, Kandhs, 227. Th e Patriarchal Fam ily, 23 0. The Joint Fam ily, 231. Mr. McLe nnan on th e Fam ily, 23 2 . E volution Ofprivate property, 23 4 .
Traces ofvi l lage righ ts in Sanskrit law , 23 6 ; righ t Ofpre - emption , 23 7. Se lf acquisition itsorigin . 23 9 ; restrictions, 240, and righ ts, 241. Partition , 242 its
rise , 24 3 ; growth ofson ’srigh t, 244 de cay Ofparen ts’ righ ts, 245—247 Be ngal law ,
248. Al ienation , 251. R igh t Ofsonsby birth ,
253 . Powe r Offath e r ove rmoveabl e ,
255 . a nd se lf- acquired land , 257. Contrary doctrines ofthe Daya Bhaga , 259 .
Brahma n ica l influe nce , 261. Unequa l partition , 264 . Inte rest ofOOparcene ra in the i r sh ares, 265 . R igh tsOfwom e n , 266 .
CHAPTE R VIII .
THE JOINT FAMILY.
Presumption Ofunion, 268. Survivorsh ip, 270. Th e coparcenary, 271. Obstruct ed and un obstructe d prope rty, 274 . Ancestral prope rty, 275 ; affect ofpart ition ,
gift ofde v ise , 276 . Jointly acquiredprope rty, 277. Prope rty thrown into common
stock , 278 . Impartible prope rty, 279 ; separate property h e ld by coparcen ers, 280.
Se lf- acquisition , 281. GainsOfscie nce , 282 efie ct ofpossession ofjoin tfunds, 285. Gove rnm e n t grants, 286. SavingsOfimpart ibleprope rty, ib. R e cove ry ofancestral prope rty , 287. Acquisitionsa ided by fam i ly funds, 288. Burth e n Ofproofas to charac te r ofprope rty, 289 . Mode Ofenjoym en t Ofjointprope rty, 292. Position of manager, 29 3 . R ight to an accoun t, 294 to an al lotm e n t ofa portion Ofth e incom e , 297 . Membe rsmust un ite in transactions affectingthe prope rty, 298.
Righ tsofcoparcenersinte r so, 299 . Fami ly tradingpartnersh ips, 3 00.
CONTENTS.
DE BTS.
Th re e sourcesOfliabil ity, 3 01. Sonsbound topayfathe r’sdebtswithout asse ts, 3 02 . Exceptionsto l iabi l ity, 3 03 . Obl igation now l im ite d to exte nt ofasse ts, 3 04 .
E vidence ofasse ts, 3 05 .Whatprope rty isincluded in term , 3 06 , 3 08 .Wh e n Obl i
gation arises, 3 07. No bene fit ne cessary , 3 08. Fam i ly prope rty may be a l ienated or
,
3 27. Debts not a charge upon estate , 3 29 ; nor upon share wh ich haspassed bysurvivorsh ip, 3 3 0. Casesofage ncy, 3 3 3 .
CHAPTE R X .
ALIENATION.
MITAKSHAR A LAw . —Fathe r’spowe r over ancestral moveabl es, 3 3 5 ash ead Ofthe
fam ily, 3 3 6 .When on ly tenan t for l ife , 3 3 7. Impartible Zem indary, 3 88—3 41.Who have a righ t by birth , 3 42 . Case Ofadopted son , 3 4 3 . Fath er ’ spowe r ove r
se lf- acquired land , 3 4 4 . Consen t OfCOparcene rS , 3 45 . Ne cessity, 3 46 . Fath e r ’
s
righ t to se l l topay h isown debt , 3 48. Burthen Ofproofofne cessity, 3 49 in case Of de cre es, 3 50. Powe rsOfmanage r , 3 52 . R igh t Ofcoparcene r to se l l h isShare , 3 53 3 58 ; Ofcreditor to se i z e it , 3 55 . Powe r Ofgift or de vise , 3 58, 3 59 . Sa le enforced bypartition , 3 58 . Practice in Bombay , 3 60 ; exte n t Ofsh are how asce rtained ,
3 62 . Benga l rul ing, 3 63 . R emedies against i l lega l a l ie nation , 3 65 . Equities on
se ttingit aside , 3 64 , 3 66— 3 70. BE NGAL Law , 3 71. Powe r Offathe r, 3 72 OfCOparce n e r, 3 73 agre emen t aga inst a l ienat ion , 3 74 . Law Ofgifts, 3 75 . Ne cessity forpos session
, 3 76 .What constitutespossession , 3 78 . Gift to a classOfwhom som e
cannot take , 3 79— 3 84 . Comple ted gift , 3 85 . Possession in case Ofsa le , 3 86 , or
m ortgage , 3 90. Priorities arisingfrom registration , 3 91.Writingor te ch nical
wordsunn ecessary, estatesOfinhe ritan ce and l e ases, 3 94 . Main tenancegran ts, 3 95 grantstofemales, 3 96 . Beneficia l te nures, 3 98. Se rvice te nures, 3 99 . Provisions
ofTransfer OfProperty Act, 402.
CHAPTER XI .WILLS» .
Origin oftestame ntary powe r, 404 . H istory Ofits growth in Be ngal , 406 in Southe rn India , 408 ; in Bombay,
416 .Wi l ls ofm inors and married wome n ,
407. First Privy Counci l rul ing, 412 . Powe r Ofdevise wh e re prope rty separate or join t , 417, or impartible , 418 . Sh iftingestate , 419 ; ope ration OfHinduWil ls Act , 421. Tagore case , 422. Devise in trust , 423 . On ly for an estate re cogn iz ed by law , 424 , and to a dev ise e actual ly in existe nce , 425 . Accumulations and
restrictions, 426 . Power ofappoin tm e nt by w il l , 428 . Form and construction Of wi l l , 429. Idiot , infan t , and disqua lified h e irm ay take as de vise e , 4 3 0. Exte nsion
to H induWil lsOfIndian Succession Act , 4 3 1. Probate and Admin istration Act , 43 2. PositionofExecutorsand Administrators, 4 3 3 .
CONTENTS XXV
R ELIGIOUS AND CHAR ITABLE E NDOWME NTS .
’
BE NAMI TR ANSACTIONS .
Origin , 441, andprinciplesofBenam i , 442 . E fiect gi ven to rea l t itl e , 44 3 unl ess
th ird part ies defrauded , 444 . Frauds on credi tors , 4 45 . E fi ect Ofdecrees, 4 48 .
Righ t Ofbenami dar to sue on h isown ti tl e , 4 49 .
CHAPTE R XIV .
M-\INTENANCE .Who are e n titled , 450. Exten t ofthe righ t in case ofpare nts and widow , 45 l
ch ildre n , 4 54 ; wife , 455 .Who are l iable , 458. Amount , 459 . Not a l ien on the
estate aga inst purchase r without notice , 460 ; un ti l notice Ofcharge ac tua l ly
created , 4 61. Priority Ofdebts, 464 . R igh ts Ofwi dow to reside infam ily house ,
465 . Liabil ity Ofvolun te e r, 466 .
CHAPTE R XV .
PAR TITION .Wh at prope rty is d ivisibl e , 467, and ind ivisible , 468. Impartibl e R aj, 469.
Mode Oftak ingaccount , 470. R igh t Ofissue to sue ancestor, 471. Passesto the ir
issue , 473 . R igh t Ofson born afte r division , 472. Benga l law d ifie rs, 474 . R igh tsOf
i l legitima te sons, 475 ; ofm inors or abse n t CO-parce ne rs, 476 ; Ofwom e n , 477 ;
unde rMitakshara , 478 ; Ofw idow in Be nga l , 479 Ofmothe r and grandm o the r, 480 ;
daugh te r, 482 ; strangers, 483 ; disqual ified he irsand the ir issue , 484 ; how far barred by fraud , 485 , or agre emen t , 486 . Spec ial and unequal shares Obsole te ,
488 . Un equal distribution Ofse lf- acquisition , 489 , or byfath er in Be nga l , 490.
Parti tion by som e m emberson ly, 492 , or Ofon lypart , 49 3 .Whe n strange r isin
possession , 494 . E vide nce Ofpartition actua l ly effe cted or agreed upon , 495 .
Reunion , 496 .
CHAPTER XVI.
PR INCIPLE S OF SUCCE SSION IN CASE OF MALE S.
Succession appl ies to separate prope rty on ly, 498 ; ne ve r in abeyance , 499 .
Be ngal system based on re l igious Offe rings, 500. How appl ied to sapindas, 501to
femal e ancestors, 503 to bandbus, exparte pa toura, 505 ; ea:parte ma tem d ,
506 . Rulesforprecedence amongh e irs, 508 .Mitakshara based on afiin i ty only, 509 .
D
xxvi CONTENTS .
Meaning Ofterm sapinda , 510. Postpones cognates, 512 . R e l igiousprinciple inapplicable to bandbus, 513 . Exam ination Ofearl ie r law , 514 based on survnvor
sh ip, 515 howfar con ne cted w ith system OfOffe rings, 516 .
CHAPTER XVII.
PR INCIPLE S OF SUCCE SSION IN CSAE OF FEMALE S .
Position ofwom e n dependson fam ily system , 517. The ir righ tsat first only
to ma in te nance , 518 . He ritabl e rights ofdaugh te r, 519 , mothe r, 521; widow ,
522 on ly exte nd to Separateprope rty, 526 ; except in Be ngal , 527 ; only inh e rits
to h e r own husband , except in Bombay, 529 ; and Pond iche rry, 53 0. Siste r
not an h e ir, 531. except in Bombay, 53 2, and by rece n t decisions in Mad ras, 5 3 6 - 53 9 .
CHAPTER XVIII .
ORDE R OF SUCCFSSION .
Issue , 540. Primoge n iture , 541. Ill egi timate sons, 547 ; the ir Share , 550
\V2dOW, 55 3 ; Obl igation to chastity , 555 ; efie ct Ofh e r m arrying again , 556 .
Daugh te rs, 557 ;precede nce be twe en , 558 . Exclusion Offema lesin Northe rn India .
561. Daughte r ’
sson , 562 ; seve ra l takeper capita , 56 3 . Nature Ofestate take n by
descendan tsecrparts ma te rna , 56 3 A ; take asful l owne rs, 564 . Paren ts: th e ir
precedence , 565 ; step-moth e r not an h e ir, 566 . Broth e rs, 567. Nephews, 569 Grandnephews, 571. Ascendants, 572. Sakulyasand Samanodalras, 574 . Bandhus
siste r ’
s daugh ter ’ sson , 578. Pre ced e nce amongbandhua
byMi takshara , 579 ; Bengal law , 580 ; the ir priority as regards sapindas, 581, or sakulyas, 583 . Bandhu, ea:pa rtsnurtermi , 584 . Laxity asto fema le succession
in Bombay, 585 , R eun ion , 586 . Succession ofstrange rs, 588 . Esch e a t , 589 .
He rm it ’
sprope rty, 590.
E XCLUSION FR OMINHER ITANCE .
Principle Ofexclusion , 591; m itigated by expia tion , 592 . Outcasts, 593 . Me n ta l and bod ily defects, 594 . Vicious conduct, 597. Disabi l ity ispe rsona l , and does
not de vest estate , 598 ; le ts in n ext h e irs a t once , 599 . Effect Ofremova l Of disabil ity, or birth Ofqual ified son , 600. E n trance in to re l igious o rde r, 603 .Whe the r rulesappl icable to non - Aryan races, ib.WOMAN ’
S ESTATE .
CHAPTER XX .
PR OPE RTY INHE R ITE D FR OMMALE S .
Mean ingOfstridhanum , 604 . Pe cul iarities ofprope rty inh e rite d from a ma l e
605 . Th e ir reason and origin , 606 . Text Ofthe Mitakshara as to stridhanum
d iscusse d , and h e ld to be e rroneous, 610. R estrictions on estate Ofw idow , 610
TABLE OF CASES.
—Ia the cita tion ofcases, prefixes, such as Strt , R ajah , R an i ,Maharaja h ,Maha ra n i , and Ba boo a re om i tted , and whe re the name
islong, the la tter part is left out. The spe l l ingofthe Reportfrom which the case isquoted has a lways been fol lowed , so tha t the same
name is often spe l t in difieren t ways. The refere nces are to pages.
PAGE
Abad i v . Asa 622
Aba j i v .Muk tu 499
ba lady v .Mt . Lukhymoue e 619 Abasi v . Dunn e 274
Abhu r . Kuppamm a l . 23 7
Abdul A z i z v . Appayasam i 409, 414 ,
Cadur v . Turne r 68
Kare em v . Badrude e n 668
Abh achari v . R am ache ndrayya 23 7,
509
Abbassi
l .
Abh oy Churn v . Ka l ly Prasad 874
Ab i l akh v. Bh e kh i 284 812 Ah i lah R oy v. Rubbi R oy 464
Abinash v . Harina th 861872 Abool Hossien v . R aghunath 519 Abraham v . Abrah am
, 59 , 60, 66 , 69 ,
27
Ach al Ram v .Udai Pe rtab , 73 3 , 741 Achut v .Manjun ath 865
Achutan Nair v. Che riotti 55 3
Ada ika lam v .Marimuttu 3 81 Ad h im nce v . ShonaMa l es, 621, 622
623 , 625
Adi ba i n. Cursandas 617 Adi De o v. Dukharan 672
Adm in istra tor-Gen e ra l ofMadras v . Ananda Cha ri
Adm in istrator Ge ne ral ofBe nga l v . Apcar 576
Ad rishappa v. Gurush idappa 63 4
Ad nrm on i v. Chowdhry 3 46 , 3 99
Advocate - General r . Fa tim a 587
Ad voca te cGe ne ral o. Karrna l i 508
Ad vyapa v .
PAGE
Aga Haje e v . Juggut 3 91 Agar E l l is, i n re 276
Aga rchand v . Lukhma 516 Aghore na th v . Grish chunde r 4 3 2
Agin v .Mohan 523
Aiyyagari v . Aiyyagari 480
Ajit Singh v . Bi
Ajudh ia Baksh v . Mt . Rukm in
Kuar 496 , 577
Akam a v . Putta iya 274
Akhoy Chunde r v . KalaparHap. 13 7 Akkan na v . Ve nkayya 846
Akk ine ri v .Ma l lapud i 860
Akoba Dada v. Sakharam 865
Ako ra v . Borcan i 756 , 771 A labi Koya v .Mussa Koya Alagappa v . R am asamy 296
v . Ve l l ian 3 79
A lam aluv. Rupgasamn 654
Alam e la v . R e ngasami 480
Alam i v . Komu 553
Alangam onjori v . Sonamon i, 503 , 577
AlankMan jari v. Fakir Ch and . . 169 ,
198 A lhadm oni v . Gokulm on i 770
Al im e lammal v. Arunache l lam 273 , 274 , 64 3
Al i Hasan v . Dh irja 4 94 , 496
Al im Buksh t . Jha lo Bibi 291 Al iadinee v . Sreena t-h 3 83
Al oksoondry v . How 594
Alukmonee v . BaneeMadhub 865
Alum v . Aabad 3 80
Alwar v . R am asamy 197 Alyma lummaul v . Venca toovien . 63 3
Amanch i v .Munch iraz 425
Aman Singh v . Nara in 290
XXX TABLE OF CASE S.
PAGE
Amava v .Mahad Gauda 13 4 , 251 Am baba i r . Govind 52 55 , 750
Ambawow v . Button 715 Ambika v . Sukhman i 672
Am e e na v . R adhabinode 801 Am ir Singh a .Mouz z im 3 80
Am irth ayyan v . Ke tharamayyan . 144 Am iruddaul a v . Nate ri 4 95
Am jad Al i v .Mon iram 85 4
Amm akannu v . Appu 605 , 609
Ammur v .Mardun 871 Amolak v. Ch audan 472
Am rita v . Lakh inarayan 678 , 688
690, 694 , 782
Am rita La l v.Manic-k 616 , 625 Amrito La l v . Surnom oyee ,145 ,152 ,
570
Am rut v . Trimhuck 3 94
Amulya v . Kal idas 575 , 578
Anand v . Court ofWards 871, 875 v. Prank isto 654 , 657
R ao v. Adm . - Gen l . ,Bombay 574
Anandaba i v . R ajaram 841 Anand iba i v . Kash ibai , 152, 255 Ananda Bibi v . Nown it La l , 697, 715 Anandayyan v . De varajuyy an 296
Anandrav v . Ganesh 206
R am v . Channu 3 85
R am rav v . Kopa l 3 80
Anan ta v . R am aba i . 806 , 808
Anan ta iya v . Savitramma 615 Anan tha v . Nagamuthu 495 , 582
Anan tha iya v . Vishnu 603
A ' nath v .Mack in tosh 657
Andre wsv . Joak im “ 581 Angamm a l v . Venkata Roddy .
Angamuthuv . Kolanda 3 79
An nam ah v . HabbuBa l i R oddy. 246
An napagauda v. K e ru 285
Annapurn i v . Forbes 221, 771 Annasam i v . R am akrishna 586
An noda v . Ka l ly Coom ar 3 80
AnnundoMohun v . Lam b 3 66
Anoorage e v . Bhugobutty 45 3
Anpurnabai v. Durgapa An taji v. Dattaji 257, 260
An tamm a v . Kave ri 311 Anundo R a i v . Kal ipe rsad 441 Aunud Chandra v . Nilmon i 84 5
Anundchund v . Kish e n 49 3
Anund Chunde r v . Tce toram 721 v . Court ofWards 871, 875 v . Dh e raj 61, 44 4 , 524Moyoe v.Mohendro 85 3
Anunde e v . Kh edoo 672 , 712 Anundm oye e v. Boykan tnath 585
PAGE
Anundmoye e v . She ebchunde r 140 Anw ar v . Se cre tary ofState 573
Anwari v . Niz am - ud - din 500 Anyahsv . Daj i 875 Apaj i v . Gangaba i 602 , 609
Bapuji v . Kesh av Sbum rav , 441, 5 3 3
Na rhav v . R amachandra 641 Appapi l lay v. Rungapi l lay 673 Appasam i v . Nagappa 585 Appovie r v . R am a Subba iyan 3 3 5 ,
3 70, 3 82 , 669 , 672
AppuR ow v. Ve nkanna 456
Ardasir v . H irabai 578 Ariyaputri v . Alam e lu 75 3 Armugam v . Sabapathy 464
Arnach e l lum v. Iyasamy 170, 54 3 Arumuga v . Viraraghava 119
v. R amasam i 453 Arumugam v . Amm i Amma l
Arunachcl la v .Mun iswam i 400
r . Vyth ia linga , 3 79 , 3 81 Arunagh iri v . Ranganayaki 75 ]
Arundad i v . Kuppamma l 158 Arruth v . Jugge rnath 585
Ash abai v . Haj i Tve b 68, 589 , 672 ,
894 , 899
Ashgar v . De l roos 583
Ash imul lah v. Ka l i Kin kur 63 2
Ashutosh v . Doorga Churn 567 v . Lukh im on i 619
Assar Purushotam v . R atanbai 153 Aswa tia v . Subbaroya 4 57 A ttorne y- Ge n e ral v . Brodie 587
Audh Kumari 0 . Chandra 761 Aunjona De al 0. Prah lad Chandra ,103 Aul im c . Bejai 677 Aulock v . Aulock 513 Aum irtn la l l v . Rajon ee kan t ,
877 Avabuttne v R ajk isscn 715 Aym a R am v .Madharao 199 Ayyadorai v . Solai 212 Ayyappa v . Ve nka ta 3 81 Ayyavuv . Ni lada tch i 223
, 23 2
A z iz -un -N issa v . Tasadduk 522
BABAJI v. Bhagirthiba i v . Kash ibai
v . Krishna
v . Krishnaji
v . Timms Bachha Jha v . Jugmon
Bachchi v.Makhan Bachco v.Mankorebai
TABLE OF CASE S.
Bada v . Hnsst ai . . 63 3
Ba dri Prasad v .Madan La ] , 3 95 401 Ba dul v . Chutte rdharee 3 69
Bae e Gunga v . Baee Sheo koovur.174 ,
175 Button 0 . La l l aMunn ohar. 114 R ulyat v . Jeychund , 101, 103 ,
118 v . Lukm eed ass 608
Sh e o v . Buttonje e , 114 , 273 , 274Um tut v . Bae e Koosul 716
Bagad e v . Chowdh ia 840, 848
Ba hadur Singh 0 .Moh ar 3 4 3 , 858
Ba hur Al i 12. Sooke e a Ba i Am rit v . Ba iMan ik 715
Ba i j i v . San to lr 68
Bapi v . Jamnadas 574
De v kore v . Am ri tram , 554
, 679 ,
778
v . Ssnmukhram 626
D iw a l i v .Mo ti 103 Jam na v . Ba i Shanke r 869
v . 3 111Jadav 609
K e sa r Gangs . 287
Kusha l v . Lakshma Hana . 501Mamuba i v . DossaMoraji . . 508Manga l v R ukhmon i 604Man igav r i Ne rond es 509Ma nch h a v . Narotamdas 3 54Mo tivahoo vMamubai , v . Purshotam 590
N an i v . Chun ila l 177 Narm ada v . Bhagwan tra i 8 3 5 .
Pa rvat i r . Tarwad i
R amba i Ba iMan i 53 6
Suraj v . Dulpa tram 16Ugri v . Pnrshottam 118 Ba ijn a t h r . Lachm an Das 520
v .Mahabir 765
Ba ijun v. Bri j Bhookun Ba il nr Kn shna v . Lakshm an a . 4 31 Ba isn i v. RupSingh 617 Ba je e v . Pandurang 477
E shubai v .Manchhaba i 759
Ba la v . Ba laji 440
Ba labuxv . R ukhm aba i 666
Ba la ji r . Da tta R amch andra 172 v . Gopa l 3 80
v . Nan a 285
v . R am achandra 518 BaLamm a v . Pul layva 714 Ba laram r . Appa 521
v . R am chanci ra
8111818 11110. Pe t a 228 , 269
xxxi
PAGE
Ba l bhadda r v . Sh e o Narain 573
Balde o v . Jum na 99
v.Moba ra k 4 3 2
Ba lgobind r . Nara in 181 v . R am kumar 871
Ba lgo y ind v . Pe t tah
v La l Bahadoor 812 Ba lk ish e n R am Na za in
Ba l knshna v.Morokrishna v. Sav itriba i , 673 678 751
Ba l labh v . Sunde r 471 Ba l loje e v . Ve nkapa 477
Ba lmakund v . Bhagwan 500
Ba lmakundasv .Mo ti 519 Ba lusam i v . Narayana 785 786
Balvan trav Bayaba i 171 Ba lwan t S ingh v . R an ik ishori , 4 l ,450
Bamasoondre e v . l tajkrisb to ,
Bam asoondurcc r . snund 677
v . Bam a
Bamundossv .Mt . Ta rin e e ,
541 Ba narsi Dasv .Maha ram Kua r 3 79
Bandhuv Dh i raji 274
Bane e Pe rshad v .Moonsh e Syud ,
Bank ofH industan v . Prem ch and 500
Banka Be hari v . R ajkum ar 596
Ba nnoo v . Kash e c R am 3 69
Banym adhob v Juggodum ba 775
Bappan v.Makk i BapuAnaji v . Ra tnop
La l v Nankuram 697
Ilapuji v . Pandurang 814 v . Sa tyr.bham aba i 517
Barahi v. D e hkam in i 64 9
Ba rgaru v . Vijyam ach i 618 Ba roda Kan ta v . Chunde r 598
v. Ja tindra 866
Baroda Sunde ri v . D inobundhu. 600
Basa l ingappah v . Gurusan thappa 456 Basamsl v .Maharaj Singh 401 Basappa v. R aya va 756
Basava v . Lingangauda , 192 23 0 256 Basde o v. Gopa l 212 Bash e t iappa v Sh ivl ingappa , 131171 8113 00 v . Basso 187
v . K ish e n 584
Kooe r v . Hurry Dass 400
Basva n trav v .Man tappa 61 BatsKrishna v Ch intaman i 3 69
xxxi i
Be 0Muttra , re 53 8
Becha v .Moth ini BeobuLa l v . Ol iul lah 3 80
Bochur v . Ba ee Lukmos 869
Be e be e Nyamut v Fuz l Hosse i n 591 Sowlutoon lssa v Robt .
Savi
Be e r Pe t tah v . Maha rajah Rajende r,
Behari La l v . Indraman i 197 v. Sh ib La l ,185 , 222, 229
v .Madho La l 856 , 860
La lj i v . Rajbai 624
Behary v .Madho 876
Be naresr. R amkum ar 3 89
Be ngal Govt . v. Jafir Hosse in 523
Be n iMahdo v . Basde o 421 Pe rshad v . Dudna th 524
Parba ti 4 3 0
v. Puran Chand . 3 46 ,
Prasad r. Hardai Bibi
BepiuBehari v . Brojonath 256
Subba 447
Be rhampore case 159 , 241 Be rjessory v . Ramconnv 752
Be rogah v . Nubok isse n 677
Bhaba Pe rsh ad v . Se cre tary of State
Bhadri v . Bhugwa t 652
Bhagabati v . Kauai lal 621627 Bhagavatamma r. Pampanua 852
Bhagbut Forsh ed v. Girja Koe r 3 89 , 3 90, 405 , 409 , 420, 4 63
Bhagbutti v Chowdhry Bho la
nath 574 , 845 848
Bhagira th i v . Ananthacharia 622
v . Sheobh ik 4 31 Bhagirth i Bha i v. Kah nuji rav ,29 ,831
v . R adhaba i 174 v. Baya 720
Bhagvandasv . Rajmal 52
Bhagwan t Singh v . Ka l lu
Bhairabnath v.Makishchandra . 196 Bhaiya Ardawan v .Ude yPe rtab 524
Rud ibat v. Indar 258
Bhairo v. Parmeshri
TABLE OF CASE S.
'
74 3 Bharmaugavda v . Rudrapgavda , 826 ,
83 0
624Bhartpur v . Gopal De i Bhaske r Bhachaje e v Narro
Ragona th 154 ,172 Purushottam v . Saras
vatiba i 500, 521 Vijala l 285 , 456
Trim bak v .Mahade v R am j i , 825
, 831, Bh auBabaji v . Gopala 851
Nanaj i v . Sundarabai , 61, 709 , 758
Bhavanamma R amasam i 524 Bhawan i Mah tab 754
Baksh v. Ramdai 421 Pe rsh ad 1 Ka l lu 402
Bh ikham 1. Pure 627 Bh im aji 11. G iriappa 5 3 0 Bh imana 1. Tayappa 23 7 Bh imaapa iya v . R amchandra ,5 3 2, 53 3 Bh imappa v . Basawa 858 Bhaimawa v . Sangawa 165 Bh ima l Dossv. Choone o Lal l 3 3 3 Bh ivrav v . Si taram 63 6 Bhoba Tarin i v. Pe ary La l ] . 505 , 526 Bhobosoondre e v . Issurchunde r. . 511 Bho lai v. Kah 874 Bholanath v. Ajoodln a 3 64
, 3 67 v .Mt . Sa bitra 803 , 811 v . R akhul Dass 782
Bhola Pe rsh ad v. l tam La l l 599 Bhowabul v . Raje ndro 598 Bhowane e l v .Mt . Taramunee 493 Bhowanny Churn v . Ramkaun t 49 3 ,
66 3 v . Purem 594
Bhow na v . Roopk ishorc 463 BhobumMoye e c . R am Kishore ,144 , 148,149 , 182 , 244 , 255 261, 548,
558 , 564 , 573 , 813 Bhoobunessuree v. GouresDoss, 803 Bhoobunmoye e v . R amk issore 629 Bhubaucswari v . N ilcomul 250 Bhuggobutty v. Gooroo Prosonno 582 Bhugwan v .Upooc h 593
v . Bindoc 617 Bhugwande e n Myna Baee ,
825 , 83 7, 868. 870 Bhujanga v . R ama ) amma 528 , 890 F-hujangrav v .Mo lojirav 57, 73 3 Bhujjun v . Gya 804 BhupSingh v . Lachm an 614 Bhupa l R am 11. Lschma Kuar 860
TABLE OF CASE S.
Bhuwani v. Solukhna 857
Bhyrobe e v. Nubkissen , 715 , 770, 825
Bhyrochund v . Russomunee 659
BhyrupChun de r v . Gogaram 3 80
Bibe e So lomon v. Abdul Az e e z . 290
Bibi Sah odra v . Rai Jang 852Wal ian v . BanksBe h ari 291 Bidhoom ookh i v. E chamoe e 775
Bijaya v . Shams 153 Bijia De bia v .Mt .Unnapoorna . 763 ,
825
BuoyGopa l v. Ni l ra tan , 853 , 868 , 876
Bikan r . Parbutt 513 Bilasm on i v . She o Forshe d 523
Bilaso v . D ina Nath 648, 649
Bimola v . Dangoo 761 Bindsv. Kaunsi lia 119 Bindoo v. Bol ie 873
v . Pe arce 590
E ire jua Kooe rv . Lachm i Nam in . 869
Bit eswar v . Ardachunde r 23 6
Birch v . Balgrave 596
La l v. Rudra Pe i-hash , 273
Bim v. Khandu 720
Bish e n Chand v. Syed Nadir 584
Pe rkash v . Bawa 452
Bish e npirea v. Soogunda 11, 770 Bise hswar v . Sh itul .
Bishonath v . Chunde r Bisnath Singh v . Ramchurn
Bistobchari r . La la Biajnath Bistoo v . Badh a Soonde r
Biswanath v . Co l l e ctorofMym en
sing v . Kb a ntomaui
Bissessur 11. Se e tul
v. Luchmessur 3 68 , 415 , 465 , 589 866
v . Joy Kishore 513 v . R am Joy 845
Bisaonath v. Bamasoondery, 558, 569
Bieaonauth v . Doorgapersad 273
Boddington , in re 23 9
Bodh Si ngh r . Gunesh , 3 64 , 3 69 , 592
Bodhnara in v . Omrao , 655 , 807 812 Bodh rao 0 . NursingR110 63 4
Boga ra z v . Tan '
ore Venkatarav . 551 Boionnt v . Kis e n Soonder 245
xxxii i
PAGE
Boiddonath v. Ramk ishore Bolshoe 11. Court ofWards Bolye Chund v . Khe tterpaul 83 8 Boodhun v .Mt. Lateofan 514 Boo lchand v. Janokee 118 Boo logum v . Swornum 3 53 0010118. v. Comarasawmy 63 4 Boyse v . Russborough 542
Bracke nbury v. Bra ckenbury 596
rahmappa v . Papanna 895
rahmavarapuv. Ve nkamma 605
Braja Bhukan v . Bichan 807 Brajakishor v . Radh a Gobind 686
Braja Kishoro v. Kundana 525
La l v . Jiban 407, 686 , 689 , 789 , 863
Bramamayl v. Jagos, 502, 566 , 568, 575
Brijbhookunjee v Gokooloot sacies 154 ,183
Bri j Indar v. Janki Koe r 3 58 889Mohun v. Ram Nursingh 595 Brimbo v . Ram Dolub 594 Brinda v. Pearce 876 Brindabun v . Chandra Kurmokar,103 ,
118 Brindavana v. Radhaman i , 100, 746 Brohmo v. Anund 5 , 877 Brojo v . Goure e 775
v . Sre e nath Boss, 775 , 787, 875 , 877
rojokishoree v. Sre enath Boss 871 rojomohun v. Hurrolo l l 587 rojonath v. Koylash 593 rojosoonde ry v. Luchm e e Koon wares 582 , 583
Brough ton v . Fogoes 574 uch i R am aya v. Jagapatl n 869 udankaya la v . Vinayaka 519
EndresLal l v. Kantee 3 89 463 Bahuna v . Lana Buhoore e 592 Bukh tawar,Will of 579
Bukshun v. Doolhin 287, 457
Bulakhidasv. Keshavlal ,752 4 3 9Buldeo v . Sham Lal
Bul labakan t v . Kishenprea ,
Bul lnore v.Wynte r Bulwan t Singh v. R oshan
Bungsee v. Soodist .
Bunwaree v.Mudden Bura ik v. Greedharee
Burham v . Punchoo Burtoo v . R am Purmessur Bussunt v. Kummul Buz rungv.Mt.Mautora Byari v. Puttanna Byjnath v. Kopilmon
23 9
Bykunt v. Goboolah v . Grieb Chunde r
CALLYCHURN v. Bhuggobutty 272
v. Jonava 651 Cal lynauth v . Chundern ath , 568 570
Canacumma v. Narasimm ah 657
Canaka v . Cottavappah 287
Oaspe rsz v. Kade rnath 523
Cassum bhoy v . Ahmedbhoy 63 8
Caum inany v . Pe rumma 284
Cava ly Venosta v. Col le ctor ofMasul ipatam 467 800, 862
Ce ci l v . Butcher 596
Chain Sukh v . Parbati 176 Chalak onda v . R atnachalam 62, 3 53
Cha lamayya v. Varadayya 455
'
arabai 246 251 Chandrabhaga ai v . Kash inath 608 ,
618 Chandramala v .Muk tamala 197 Chandrika v.Muna 774
Chandraeekhara v. Siddal ingappa ,400 Chandrase kh aruduv Bramhanna 13 8 Ch andu0. R aman 602
Chapl in v . Chapl in 596
Chara Chunder v. Nobo Sunderi , 761,
Chatradari v. Kunj Behari 3 51 Chatte rbhooj v. Datamsi 3 46 , 3 49 ,
4 3 9
Chekkutti v . Paklri
v. Suran en i , 678 , 722, 724 , 782
v. Venkataramanayamm a ,
66 , 828
Che l lamamma v. Subamma 501 Ch e l la Papi v . Che l la Kati 269
Ch e l laperoomal l v Vee rape roo mal l 3 55
Che l layamal v.Mutt i alamal 3 50
Ch emmantha tti v .Meyene 583 Chutte rsal v Gove rn Chem nautha v . Palakuahu, 91 men t
Chinapa v . Basangavda 23 0 Ganesh v.Mt . Jswach ,64 3 ,
Chench amma v . Subbaya 269 64 7. 672
Chendrabhan v . Chingooram 745 Pudum v . Koe rOodey, Ch e ngal R eddi v. Venkata Re ddi , 289 142.113 .144 . 963 Chengamma v.Munisami 63 9 Sslar v Vobamma 627
PAGn
Chenvirapa v. Danava 64 3
v . Puttappa 596 , 598
he tt Colum Prusunna v
C e tty ColumMoodoo 182 Cheyt Narain v . Bunwarce 3 79
Chhabila Jadavbai 672
1 6 , 7 5
Ch idambaram v . Gouri 673
Chidduv . Durga Singh 878
v . Naubat 83 8
Chinnaji v. Dinkar 851 Ch inna Gaundan v . Kum ara 186
Kim edy case 11, 13 4 , 159 , 03 . 241, 256 , 263 , 815
Nagayya r . PeddaNagayya ,175 Obaya v Sura R e dd i 268
R amalm stna v .Minatch i , 218 Sunnyasi v . Surya 484 , 670Ummayi v. Tegarai 63
Ch innamma l v . Varadarajulu, 57, 750
v . Venkatach e l la 686 , 719 , 73 0, 786
Ch innapie l v. Chocke n 474
Ch innappa v .Man ickavasagam 519 Ch innasam ien v . Koottnor 723
Ch innaya v . Gurunath an , 285 , 4 56 ,
851 v . Pe rumal 440
Ch intamanrav v . Kashinath 3 89
v .Moro Lakshman 573 v . Sh ivram 518
Ch itko R aghunath v . Janaki ,169 , 257 Chockal ingam v .Mayand i 585
Choondoor v . Narasimmah 810 Choone e v . Prosunno 3 72
Lal l v. Jussoo 541850 Chotala l v .Manoh ar 587
ChotayLal l v . Chunno Lal l , 46 , 729 , 828
v Chunnoo Lal 887
Chotiram v Narayandas 455
Chowdhram v . Tariney 590
Bholanath v. Mt Bhagabutt .
Ch intamun v . Mt .
Forsh ed v . Lujoo 828
Bae kosv. Sookhde o 759 , 771 De okish en v . Budh Prakash , 807, 812 Deokuar v .Mankuar 509
Deotare e v . Damoodhur 455
Deowan ti v. Dwarkanath 64 3
De va v RamManohar 465
Devaraja v . Devaraja 669
v . Venayaga 568
Devi Persad v. Gum vanti 607 617 De vji v . Sambhu 415 Devuv . Daj i 702
Dewakur v . Narco 3 79
Dewcoove rbae e ’
scase 825 , 869
Deyanath v .Muthoor 686 , 792
Dhadpal e v . Gurav 587
Dhaji Hima t v. Dhirajram 291 Dh anmul l v. Ramchunde r 288
Dharam Chand v . Bhawani 854
v . Janki 625
Dharan i Knat v . Kristo Kum ari , 590
Dharma Daguv. R amakrishna , 184 , 203
Dharmadasv. Nistarin i
Dharn idhur v. Chi nto 246 , 253
DharupNath v . Gobind Saran 768
Dh ira '
Dhonduv. Gangaba i 720 826
Gure v v . Gangabai 29
Dhoolubh v . Je eves. 541 Dhunookdare e v. Gunput 3 55
Dhunput v . Goeman 524
Soondri 240, 3 65 648
Dhuron idhur Ghose , 1111re 119 Dialchund v. Kissory 540
D iggave l ly v . Coon tam oo 53 3
Digumbe r v.Moti Lal l 683 , 792
Dina v . Na thu 515 Dinanath v. Aulockmone e 513 Dinesh Chunde r v. GolamMost
appa Dinkar v . Appaji
Dinomonee v . Gyrutoolah Dinobundhoo v. Dinonath
Divi Virasalingam v . Al atturi Diwan R auv. 1n de rpal
Singh v . Jadh o Doe v . Ganpat
TABLE OF CASES.
E shan Chunder v. Nundan oni . 289
v . Nund Coome r,
PAGE
Doe 11. Roberts 596 Dondoe v . Sun tram 517 Don z e l le 11. Kedarnath 589
Doobomoyee v .8 hama Churn 246
Doolar Oh an d v . La l la Chabe e l 464
Doorasawmy v . Ramam aul 761 Doorga v. Jamps 3 81
11.Mt . Tejoo v . Poorun 869 Bibe e v . 18119111 683
Pe rsad v . Kesh o Pe rsad , 284 , 422
Pe rshad v.Mt . Kundun , 52
67
pe rsad Sundari v Surendra Keshav 13 7, 23 7
Doorgope rshad v. Kesho Pe rshad , 291 Doorputte e v. Haradhun 3 62
Dorasam i v. Al irutra 464
Dorasinga v . Ka tama 484
Dosibai v. Ishwardas 529
Douglas Col l e ctor ofBe nares 85 3 Dowlut Ke est v . Burma De o 762
DeboMisse r v . Srin ivas 53 2 , 586
Duke ofBedford v . Coke 596
Dukh aram v . Luchmun 801 Dukh ina v. R ash Be hare e 154 Dulab v . Dwarkana th
Dul i Singh v . Sundar Dundaya 0. Ch en basappa Baneshwar v . Doeshunke r Durbhunga v . Coomar
Dugdal e , re Durga v. Chanchal
Nath v. Chin tamoni 868
Pram v . Nawa z ish 489
Durgapa l v . Roopun 264 , 267
Durm a v . Coome ra 450 550
Duttnaraen v . Ajee t 698
Dwarkanath v. Gopee nath 3 83
v . De nobundoo ,
v . Tara Prosunno 3 80
Dyam onso v . Brindabun 3 91 Dyamoyee v. R asbeh are e 15 3 , 197 Dyaram 11. Base Umba 114
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Fai z Muhammad v .Muham mad Saved 522Ud din v. Tincowrie . 250
Fak ir Chand v .Moti Chand , 399, 4 3 0 Gauda v GanjiMuhammad v Tim me ls
Chariar 296
v. Yel lappa 73 2
Fanendra De b v . Ra je swar, 59 , 13 5 ,
23 7
Fan indro v. Jugudishwari 4 3 3
Fannayamm a v.Manjaya 212 Fardn n ji v .Mithiba i 522
Fatesangji v . Hurisangji 68
Fauna Bibi v. Advoca te - Genera l
ofBom bay Faz lude e n v . FakirMahomed .
Pegredo v.Mahomed Forbesv .Mee rMahomed Futtuv. Bhurrut Fuz e e lun v. Omdah
Ganm un v. Chandra . 541, 554 , 870
Gadgeppa v. Apaj i Gajapa thy v . Gajapathy, 641, 672 ,713
v. Pusapa ti 758
Gajendar v. Sirdar 672
Ganapati v . Savi tri 256
Gandi Maganl al v. Ba i Jadub , 826 , Ganesh v . Bapu 289
v . N ilkomul 784
c. Baroda 3 81 v. H ira
Gangabai v . Anant 263
Ganga Baksh v. Jagat Bish eshar v. Pirthi
Gangadaraiya v. Parm eswar
885 890
GangsSahai v . Hira v. 11e kh raj, 14 , 3 9 ,180,
181, 201202 Gangaya v.Mahalakshm i 874
Gangopadhya v.Maheschandra . 875
Ganguluv . Ancha
Venkateeh v. Gopa l 63 9
XXXVI)
PAGE Ganraj v. Sheozore 471, 481 Gan Savant v . Narayan Dhond . 291 Guntapa l l i v . Ye l lamma 611 Garikapati Sudam 672
Garurudhwaja v. Saparandhwaja , 61 Gama R am v .Mooh ita Kochin 118,
119 Gauri v. Chandraman i 626
v. Gur Sahai 871 v . Rukko 703 715
Gavdappa v G irim a l lappah 149 Gaya 0. Ba ) Bansi 465
Genda v. Ch ate r 585
Ghansham v. Bad iya 854
v . Govind 3 45
GharibUl lah v . Khalak , 274 , 284 , 4 3 2 455
Ghasiti v .Umrao Jan 64
Gha z i v . Sukru 103 Gh irdhare e v. Koo lahul 61 Girdhar La l v . Bal Sh iv
Girdhare e Lal ] v. Kan too Lall 3 90, 3 96 , 3 99 , 415 , 449 , 458 487
Girdwurdhare e v. Kulahul 3 41 Giriannuv . Houamma 615 Giriappa v . Ningapa 223
Girijanand v . Sa ilajanand 584
Giriowa v . Bh imaji Girish Chunde r v . Abdul Se lam 273
Girraj Bakah v Kasi Ham ed 284
Gnanabhai v . Srin ivasa 509 , 598
Gnan a Sambandh a v . Ve lu, 5 3 3 , 564 , 585 586
Gobe rdhun v . Sham chand 564
Gobind v . Balde o Singh 878
v. Dulme e r 845
v.Moh esh , 678, 683 , 688 , 689 , 722, 777, 790
Chunde rv . Doorgape rsad , 3 67 v . R am Coomar, 3 80,
3 8
Gobindo v.Woomesh 688 , 789
Goburdhon v. Singessur 3 95 , 423
Gocoolanund v.Wooma Dace , 172 , 185 , 761
Godave ribai v Sagunabai 615 unchunde r v . Joy Durga 871
GOJaba i v . Sh rim ant 895
Goke ba i v . Lakhmidas 614 , 618 Gokool v. E tware e 880
Nath v. Iasur Lochun 494 ,
495 , 667, 574
PAGE Golab Koonwur v Col l ector of
Be nares 616 623 Golak Na th v .Ma thura 494
Gol la v . Ka l i 517 Goluck v . Oh il la 623 626
v .Mahomed R oh im 850
Golukm onee v. Kishenpe read 873
Gonda Kooe r v. Kooe rOodey 844
Goolah v . Phool 55 3 712 Gooroo v. Kyl ash 775
Gooroo Dasv . Saratohunde r 528
Gooroobukeh v . Lutchmaua ,
Gooroodossv . Bejoy 3 83
Goor00pe rsad v .Muddun 284
Gooroope rshad v . R asbe hary 216 v. Se ebchunder 650,
83 8
Goor Pe rshad v . She ode en , 428, 4 3 1, 471
Gooroova v . Narra insawmy 554
Gopal v . Dhungaz e e 756
v . Kenaram 674 797
v . Krishnappa 518 01.Mac Nagh te n v . Anan t. v. Narayan 13 8 Ba l krish na v. Vishnu,
25 3
Chandra v . R am Chandra 894
Chunde r r . Ba t idas 683
Base v . Nurotum 59
Dutt v . GoPal Lal l 3 45
Hari v . Ramakan t 6 3 4
Narhar v . Hanman t , 174 202 Prasad v. R aghuna th 4 47
R ao v . Narasinga 289 290
Singv . Bhe e kun la l 3 45
Gopa lasam i v . Arunae he lam ,
Gopa layyan v . R aghupa tiayyan , 10, 58 ,174 , 175 , 204 , 208
Gopa lrav v . Trim bakrav 63 4
Gopalsam i v . Ch innasam i 3 50
Gopaula v . Narra ina 822 , Gape e v . Rajkristna 540
v . Ryland 3 81 Kish en v . Hemchunde r 3 82
Lal v.Mt . Chundraol e e 14 4 Gope ekrist v. Gungape rsaud , 3 68, 4 3 6 ,
452, 564 , 589
Gopi v .Markande 591 Chand v. Sujan Kuar 876
Gopikabai v, Dattatraya 618 Gunganarain v. Bul t am
PAGE
Gordh andaa v. Ba iMan eoove r 496 ,
499 , 500, 506 , 571, 677 Goe a ie n v .Mt Kish enmun nee 683 ,
722 , 828, 885
Gosavi Sh ivgar v . R ive tt - Caranc , 496 , 568
Gossain v . Bissessur Gossam e e v . Buman Lol ije e Gourahkoe ri v. Gujadhur Gourbullub v . Juggenoth ( l oure e Kanth v . Bhugobutty Goure enath v . Col lectorMonghyr 455
v .Modhoomone e 62
Goure epe rsh ad v.Mt. Jymala 13 7 Gourhurree v .Mt . Rutnasure e 216 Gourmouee v . Bamasoonde ree 274
Gournath v . Arnapoorna 144 Gouri Shunke r v Maharajah of
Bulrampore Gour Parshad v. Sheod in 471 Gove rnm en t ofBom bay v . Ganga ,
114 Govind Krishna v . Sakharam 3 95
Govinda v . Krishnan 3 88
v . La lakiehun 592 596
v . Thayammal 861 Govinddae v .Mahalukshumee 712 Govindarasuluv . De vahobotla 610 Govindayyar v. Dorasam i 198 Govindji v. Lakm idas
Govindnath v. Gul a lchund , 168 183 Gre at Be rl in Steam Boa t Co . 596
Gre edhare e v . Nundkishore , 585 , 586 Gre eman v.Waham. 874
Gree nde r v .Mackin tosh 426
Gregson v. Ad itya De b 284
Gridhari v . Be ngal Gove rnm ent , 686 , 688 , 724 , 781800
Grieb Chunde r v . Brough ton 846
rose v . Am irtamayi , 84 3 , 873 876
udadhur v. Ajoodh earam 3 62
udim e l la v . Venkamma 610 Gujara v . Kandasam i 801 Gulabdasv. Col le ctor ofSurat 3 6
2
8
Gunesh v.Moheshur 61 0. Ni l Komul 683 784
Gunga v . Je e vee 616 Gungadharuduv.Narasammah 3 54
Gungadhur v . Ayimuddin 523
Gungahurry v . hubram 513 Gungam a r . Che n appa 273
GungaMya v. Kishe n Kish ore , 21 3
8 ,
PAGE
Gungape rsad v. Brijesaure e 218 Gungo Prosad v Ajudh ia , 844 , 3 45 ,
401 v . Shumbhoonath 707
Gougaram v . Ka l l ipodo 519 v . Tappe e 553
GungooMul l v. Bunse edhur 3 4 4
Gun i v .Mora n 3 81 Gun Joshe e v . Sugoona 712 Gunnappa v . Sankapa 13 8 Gunput Na ra in Sing re 117 Gunra j v . Ab lakh 273
Guntur Case 144 , 149 , 245 724
Gur Dial v . Kaunsila 626 Gurivi R oddy v. Ch innamm a 554
Gurl ingapa r . Nandapa 654
Guruv . Anand 688 , 698, 703 , 722,
Dassv . Bijaya 3 83 440
Gobind r . Auand Lal 216 v . Nafa r 848
Gurul ingappa v. Na11dappa 480
Gurul ingaswam i v. Lakshmappa . 170 Gurunara in v .Unund 61 Guruna th v . Krishnaji 841 Gurusami v . Ch innaMannar 3 94
v . Ganapathya 4 40, 462
Guruvappa v . Thimma 4 3 4 , 464
Gyan v. Dookhurn 828
Hann aMusmpn a, re 5 3 8
Haidar A l i v . Tassaddulr 573 Haj i Abdul v .Munsh i Am ir 577
Iam a i l ’
sWil l 68
Haigh v . Kaye 597 Baiman v . R oemat Gunsheam 14 3 ,
203 Hait Singh 0. Babe e Singh 3 66 Hake em v . Be ejoy . 593 Hakim Khan r . 0001Khan 67 Hanm ant Lakshman v . Jayarao , 287
R am achandra v. Bh im a
charya . 13 8 , 554 Hanuman v . Ch im i . 187
Kamat v . Dow lutMunde r 400 Hanuman tamma v. R am i R eddy, 224 Harad hun v. Ram Newaz . 3 81 Harbhajv. Guman i” 49 Hardeo Buxv. Jawah ir 3 58 Harendranaray an
' sgoods 84 3
Hare ndra Narain v .Moran 284 Hargobind r . Dharam 603 , 746 Hari v .Mahadaji 518
v . Naravan 290 Haribha t v . Damodarbh at Ba t idasv . Prannath
Bari Gobind v.1111t Kumar 6m
Honapa v. Narsapa Honn iah v . Bhada Se t ty Honooman v . Bh agbut Boogly v. Kishauund Hori Dasi v . Se cre tary ofState . .
Hormusji v . Dhanbaiji
596
803
481
587
579
Hari Gopal v. Gokaldae Harihar v .Uman Pe rshad Hari lal v . Ba i R e wa
v. Pranva labdas
v . Ba iMan i Hari Narayan v . Ganpatrav 668
Hari Saran Moitra v . Bhuba neswari 261, 291, 415 , 465 , 865
Bar! Vi thi l 0. Jairam 4 3 2, 465
Hari Vydiaoa thayan vMinaksh i . 863 Harjivan r . Naran 500
Harjivandasv . Pranva labdas, Harman v . KoomarGunshe am 14 3 ,
Harnabh v .Mandi] , 58, 14 3 ,168, 868 Bar Saran Dasv. Nand i 755
HaroomMahomed , re 68 , 4 53
Harrinath v .MohuntMothoor . 867
Harve y, re 503
HasauJafar v .Muhamm ed 3 50
Hasha or. R agho 515 Human Al i v . Nagamal 175 Hath i Singh v . Kuve rji 520
Haunman v . Baboo Kisheu 481, 485 Hayesv . Hareudra 85 3 , 856
He e ra La l l v .Mt . Kousilah 622
H egadi v. Tonga 127 Hema Kooe re e v . Ajoodhya 606
,
Hemchund v . Taramunne e 857
Hem chunde r v . Sarnomoyi , 856 , 871 v . Tha komm on i 472
Hem luta r. Go luck Chunde r,769 , 825 Hencowe r v . Hanscowe r 263
Hendry v .Mutty Lal l He rianna v . Co jan i 496
H im a laya v Sim la Bank 520
Himmatsingr . Gannatsing, 610, 516 Himnauth Bose , in re 277
H imul ta v .Mt. Pudomone e 715 H irabai v. Lukshm ibai 528
Hira la l v . Parm eswar 402
H iranath v . Baboo R am 58 , 712 758
H ira Singh v . Gunga Saha i 806
Hiraba i v . JanMahom ed
Hol loway v.Mahom ed 3 83
v . She ikhWahed 3 83
Honamma v . Timannabhat , 604 , 612 ,
111 TABLE 0111oasns.
Hushut Bao v . Govindrav, 176 , 187, 199
HujmuChul v . Raue e Bhadoorun ,100 Hulodhur v . Georoo .
Hul lodhur v . R amnauth
Hunoomanpe rsaud v . Mt . Ba
285 ,
460, 852, 85 3 , 862 Hunsapore ,
case ofth e Zem in dary o i 62, 3 58, 4 3 8,
573
Huradhun v .Muthoranath 203
Hurboje e v . Hurgovind 3 91 Hur Dya l Nagv. Roy Kristo 203
Kishore v . Joogul Hurdey Narain v. R oode r Pe r
kash .
Huree Bhae e 11. Nuthoo 114 , 617 Hure ewulubh v . Keshowram 553
Huri DasBandopadhya v . R ama
Churn . . 683 789
Huri Doyal v . Grishchunde r 887
Burish Chunde r v .Mokh oda . 671 Hurkoonwurv. Button Base , Hurla l l v . Jorawan . . 63 3
Hurodoot v . Be er Narain 449
Huromohun v . Auluokmone e 849
Huro Soondre e v . Chunde rmoney170 Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dyal 58, 3 50,
3 58 . 521, 573 Hurronath R oyv . Rundh irSingh ,457
Hurrosoonde ry v . R ajessure e 714 Hurry Churn v . Nimai Chand , 115 ,
118 Hurrydoss v. Rungunmoney, 822 ,
841, 842 , 872 11:Uppoornah 842 , 873
Hurrymohun v . Gonesh Chunder.854
v . Shonatun , 885 900
Hurst v .Mussoorie Bank 885
Huse nbhoy v . Ahmedbhoy 56 3
Hussai n Beebee v. Hussa in Sh e1'11585 Hyde v . Hyde 69
10113 11111111v . Prumanund Il ata v Narayanan
Il ias v. Agund Il l ika Pakram ar v . Kutti Kumha
Jal l idar v . R am lal
Jamesv. LordWyn iord
Inderun 11. Ramasawmy Indromonee v . Suroop Indromoni v. Behari Lal l 197 IndurChunde rv . R adha Kishore ,
287 In tiaz Oonnissa , re
Ishan v . Buksh Al i 865
Ishe n Chandra v . Ganesh 520
Ishri Singh v . Bulde o Singh 73 3
Ishwar Narain v. Jank i 898
Ismail v 61 Isma l v . 53 6
Isre e Pershad v . Nasl b 652
Isri Dut v. Hunsbutti , 84 3 , 845 , 846 , 875
Sinah v. Ganga 49
Issar Chunder v. Gopa l Isse rchunde r v . R asbe hare e
Iesur Chunde r v. R agab v . Rane e Dosses
Iyagaree v . Sashamma
Iyavoo v . Sengen
J1111111111v . AjiJado 11.Mt . R ane e
Jadoo v . Kadumbine e Jadoomone e v . Gungadhur, 3 57, 3 63Jaduv . Suth erland . 3 80
Jad11man1v . KheytraMohan 619 Jagaba1v. Vijbhookundas 420
Jagadamba v. Dakh inaMohun 211 v . Cam achemma 822
Jagannada v . Pa amm a 258
Jagannath v . Bigyanand 801 v.MunnuLal 455
Prasad v . R an jit Singh ,27, 100, 213 , 587, 895
Jaganath Prasad v . Si taram 428
Jaga t Nara in v . Sheodas 703 . 723 Jagdish v . Shoe Prasad 73 3
Jage rnath v. Jamath
Jaggernath v . Pe rshad Surmah 586
Jagindra v. Hemanta
Jai Bansi v . Chattar 587 Ram v.Musan Dham i 142
Jaibhai v. LouisManoe l 70
Ja ipal v. Bhaiya 877
Jairam Luxmon , in re 274
v. Atmaram
Kondia Jala luddaula v . Samsamuddaula
TABLE OF CASE S.
v . Parbhud as, 426 , 427
Jan i na Dasv . Baman tar 528
v .Machul 629
v . Na in Sukh 401 Jam nabai v . Khimji 761
v . Ra ichand ,149 ,185 , 240
Jam oona v .Mudde n 3 91 Jamse tji v . Kash ina th 3 89
Jamuna v . Ganga 482
Jan k i v . Bhairon 890
v .Mahade v 415 Ba i v . Sundra 29 83 1 D ibeh v . Suda Sh e o 14 3 11. Nand ram 3 45 , 607
Jan o lre e v . GoPaul 185 , 585
v . Kisto
753
Jasoda v . Sh e npe rshad 766
Koe r r . Sh oo Pe rshad , 766
Ja tha Na i l: v . Ve n ka tappa Jave raa i v . Kahl iba i 507, 522 , 566 ,
571 Jawah ir v . Guyan 3 44
Jeshua v Romana th 657
Je ewun 1: Mt . Sona 571. 885 . 890
Jeo La l S i ngh v . GangsPe rshad , 465
Je thaba i v . G irdar 520
Je th ee v .Mt . Sheo 716 Jewun v. Shah Kube rood - de en . . 582
Jhabbuv . Ganga Bish e n 274
Jh amm an v . T1loki 867
Jhubboo v . Khoob La l l 654
Jhula 0. R an ts. Prasad 871 Jijoyiam ba v . Kamaksh i
J ivan v . R amGovi nd 481 Jivan das r . Fram ji 518 , 521 Jivan i J ivu 174 Jiwan v .Mist i La l 861 Jodoona th v . Brojoua th 650
Jogdam ba Koe r Secre ta ry of Sta te 715
Joge ndra v . Fulk amari 625
Joge nd ro De b v . Fun indro , 100, 205
Nath v . Jugobundhu. 668 v . N i i tyan and , 3 51, 750,
751 v . Nityanand 73 8 v . Nobinchunder, 3 80
Joge ndronun din i 11. Burn Doss, 119 Joge sh Chandra v . Nritya 170 Jogeswar v . E amcband 3 4 3 , 528
Jogi Singh v . Behari Singh 291 F
111
PAG:
Jogmurut v . Se e tulpe raad 722 Jogul Kishore v . Sh ib Sahai 63 8 641 JoharMal v. E lrnath
Johurra Bibe e v. Strigopal , 4 3 3 , 6515Jones. in re 285 Joogul v Kale e 3 92 Josby Assam ,
in 278 Jote ndro v. Jogul Jo th i v . Timm a Gowda 3 81 Jotindra v Bejoy 673 Jowah ir vMt . Kal lassoo 780
Jowala 11. Dharam 66 , 67 Joy Chundro v. Eh ubChundro ,145 ,
218 De b Surmah v . Huro utty . .
Kishen v . Col l ec tor oi )
E ast
Burdwan 5 3 2 Narain c. Grish Chunde r 673
Joymonee v. Sibosoondry 185 ,
190 Joymooruth v. Buldeo 873 Joytara v. Ramhari 628 Judah v . Judah 581 Judoona th v . Bish onath 647, 649
v. Bussunt Coomar, 100,
884 , 887, 893 , 900 Judub v . Ben odbeh ari 665 . 774
Jugde epv . Dee ndia l 405 , 471 Jugge rnath v. Kishcn Pe rshad . 53 2
v . Pe rshad
Juggodumba 11. Haran
money 582 , 587 Jugje e vun v . Deosunke r 850
Jugmohundasv .Munguldas, 3 48 , 3 60 3 72, 63 5 , 63 8
v. Pal lonje e 578
Jugo l Kishore v . Jotindro , 415 , 863 , 866
Jugomohun v Sa radamoyee 651 Jugul Kishori v . Ananda 284
Jumoona v . Bam asoonde rai ,140, 141 14 4 . 205 , 871, 875 , 877
Junaruddeen 11 Nobin Chunde r, 56 Junge e La l l v. Sham Lal l 289
Jussoda v . Lal lah Ne ttya 273
Juswan t v . Doo lee 266
Juvav v . Jaki 451 Jwala De i v. Pirabhu 273
Jye Koonwur v. Bh ikari 810 Jymune e v. Ramjoy 774
Emm a 11. Bai Entbot e
xiii
PAGE
Kaoh i Kal iyana v . Kaoh i Yuva , 618, 73 9
Kachuv. Kachoba 514 Kachwain v. SarupOh and 524
Kadaresv . Ravish 517 al Ganpaya v .Manjappa 409
andas, in re 591 Kaihav v . BOO
K! i Singh 458
Kailash v . Kas 762
Kaipre ta v .Maltkaiyil 861 Ka ith i v . Kull adasi . . 100 Kal avati v. Chedi La l 289
Kale echuud v.Moore Ka l ee v . Choitun 472
Chunde r v. Sheeb Chunde r,131 Churn v . Bungshe e Pershad v . Bhoirabe e
Sunkurv . Denendro
Kal eenath v. Doyal Kristo Kal ian Ra i v . Ramchunde r Kal ian v . Sanwal
Singh v . Sanwal Singh v. Dhunun
' oy .
Ka l ichandra v . RajKishore . 3 80
Kal idasv . Kanhya Lall , 500, 9 . Krish an , 63 9 , 655 , 656 , 677,
812, 814 v. NathuBhagvan 3 80
Kal ilcharam v . Hungsh i 53 2
Ka l lra v . Budre e 657, 810 Kaliparsh ad v. Ramcharan 63 8 Kal lspa v. Venkatesh 472, 473
Kal lati v . Palat 311 Ka l l iyani v. Narayana 467. 500 862
Kal luv . Kaussil ia Kal ly Churn v . Dukhee 111118
Dossv . Gobind 593
Kalova v. Padapa 875
Kaluv . Barsu 479
v . Kashiba l
Kamakhya v. Harichurn 841 Kama i shi v. Ch idambara 64 3
v. Nagarathnam 62
Kamala v . Pitch acootty 511 Kamalalrshmi v . R amasam i 64
Kama lam v. Sadagopa 62 63
Kamarajuv. Se cre taryofState 289
Kamarazuv. Venkatarathnam . 522
Kan eswar v . Run Bahadoor, 455 , 852, 862
Kamikhaprasad v. Jagadamba . 83 8,
878
Kanah i v. R iddya 108 , 274 Kanakasabhaiya 1
1 . Seshachal a . . 474
Kandasam i v . Ak lrammal 871 v . Doraisami 667, 669
v .Murugamma l 613 Kan hsia La l v . R ajBahadur 402
Kanhaiya v .Munm 579
Kanh ia v .Mah in Lal Kanbya v . R adha Churn Kannamma l v . Virasam i Kaunan v . N ilakande n Kanni v. Amm akannu Kanno Pisharodi v Kombi Achen 494
Kanth Narain v . Prem La l l 484
Kan thuv . Vi ttamma 3 4 3
Kanti v . Bisseshwar 285
Karibassaka v Karibassana 117 Karim He inrichs 524
Kariyaden v. Kaya t Be e ran , 283 , 605
Karma l i v . Rahimbhoy 289
Karnatha lra Hanamantha
Hanum ayya 4 3 0
Karsandasv . Ladkavahu 152, 23 7 Karuna v . Jai Chandra 721, 787 Karunabdh i v . Ratnam aiyar,161, 165 Karuppa v . Kumarasam i 750
Karuppai v . Sankara , 3 44 , 767, 895
Karruppan v . Veriyal 3 91, 3 94 Karupannan v . Bulokam 747
Kasal e v . Pa lan iayi 551 Kase e Dhool lubh v. Button Bass, 114 Kase ram v.Um baram 114 R ashesv . Gour KishoreMohun v . RajGobind 687,
722, 788 . 790
Kashe epe rshad v. Bunseedhur 228
Kash iba i v . Tatia 185 , 188 Kasi v . Buch ireddi 3 91 Kasim v. Sudindhra 584
Kassee v. Go luclrchunde r Kastur v. Apps. Kasturbai v . Sh ivajiram Katam a Natch iar v . R a jah oi
Sh ivagunga 115 , 205 , 3 51, 3 58 , 631. 63 5 , 678 , 712, 714 , 866 , 877
Ka tche lraleyana v. Kach ivijaya . 616 Kate e ran v.Mt . Ge ndhenee 119 Kathape rum al v . Ven lrabai 753
Kattama Nach iar v . Dorasinga Tevar 762 , 765 , 828, 880
Kattush e ri v. Val lotil
Kaveramma v. Soobroyappa
Lakshm an v . V ithal
R avjiMahadev MoroMahade v 3 56
Krishnamm a 11. Papa 746
v . Pe rumal 401722 v . Bursuna 519
Krishana th v. Atmaram 503
Krishnaram v.Mt . Bhe e lre e 83 0
Krishnamman i v . Ananda , 53 8, 563 , 566 582
Krishnarav v. Shankarrav 150,
v . Govin d 3 80
Krishnasam i v . R ajahgopala , 3 46 , 3 48 v . R amasam i 423
v. Sundarappaiyar, 284
v. Pichamma . 768
Krishnayen v.Mut ‘naam i , 746 750
Kristayya v . Narasimhan Kristnappa v. R amasawmy, 3 45 , 3 69 ,
672
Kristn ie ngar v. Vanamamalay . . 175 Kristo Bhabiney v . Ashutosh . 651 Kristo Gobind v . Hem Chunde r, 864 Kristoromoney v . Nore ndro , 558,565 ,
567
Kudom ee v. Jote e ram 116 Kul lammal “ 101
23111 780, 886
Kul lyanessure e v. Dwarkanath. 610 Kuloda 1. Jageshar 622
Kumara v . Srinivasa 591 Asima v . Kumara
Krishn a , 563 , 564 , 570, 574 , 582
Kumaran v . Narayan 91, 93 Kumar Taralreswar v. Shosh i , 502 ,
558, 565 , 567
Kumarasam i 11. Rsmal inga 585
Kumarave luv . Virana 73 0, 770
Kum l a Baboo v.Muuceshun lm r, 102 v . Gooroo 492
Kumulmoney v . Bodhnarain 606 Kumuroodde e n v . Shaikh Bhadho ,
284 513 Kundoo
’
e e v . Bal lajee 517 Kunhac a v . Kut tiMamm i , 311, 3 48 Kunhamma ta 11. Kunb i Kutti 602
Kunhya v. Bukh tawar 3 91 Kun igaratuv . Arrangaden ,
Kunjan v. Sidda 453
Kuppa v . Dorasam i .
TABLE OF CASES.
Kylash 1 Gooroo
Laksbmana v. R angamma
Lakshmandasv. Dasrat 516 , 518 Lakshmappa v. R amappa , 167, 170
184 ,188 , 720 256
Kurcem 11. Oodung“ 776
Kurre cmomssa 11.Mohabut 598
287
502
208
775
LACHAN v. Anan t Singh Lachchanna v. Bapanamma 621 Lachman v . Ah-bar 58
v Debi Prasad 3 56
v . Kbunnu 3 91 v . Sanwa l i 669
v . Patn iram 598
Lachho v . Gopi 542
Lakh i v. Bha irab, 677 807
Lakhm i 11. Tori 494
Lakm i Chand v . Ga tto Ba i, 200
500
567
586
756
Lakshm an v . Dipchand 519 1. Gopa l . 670
v. Jamnaba i
v . Narayau 673
v. R amchandra , 3 47, 4 3 9 , 479 , 554 , 612 , 63 6 , 659
v. Sarasvatibai , 621, 626 v. Satyabhamba i 3 99 ,
621, 622, 624 , 625 Bhauv R adhabai ,260, 854
Ven lratesh v. Kash i
Lakshm i 11. Dada
Lakshm iba i v . Bapuj1 619 11. GanpatMoroba , 3 46 ,
574 , v Hirabai 574 , 848
v. Jayram 715, 794
v. Ramchandra , 13 9 ,194 v . Shridar 274
Lakshm inarayana v. Dasu 849
Lakshm ipa ti v . Kandasam i 61 Lah hmy v . Narasimha 511, 664
v . Hira 58
ParbhuLal v.Mylne ,143 , 209 , 212, 415 , 855
Amarnath v. Achan Rm , 456 ,
852 , 853 , 862Muddun Gopal v. Kh ikh in
da Koe r . 3 50
Narain v. Ramanu 287
Suraj v. Golab Chand 402
Lal Bahadur v. 81spal 64 3
Dasv . Nekunjo 283
Lal i t
o
Agar 11. 811taj 119Mohun v. ChukkanLal , 522, 558 La ljee v . Fakee r
Laljee t v. R ajcoomar, 63 7, 647 668
[ A l la Sh e0 11. Ramuandau [ A llah R awuth 11. Chadee Lal luBhagvan v. TribhuvanMotiram
Bunse edhur v. Koonwur Bindesere e 284 , 462
B i )jua th v. Bisse n 853
C ut tur v.Mt .Wooma . 876
Futteh v.Mt . Pranputtee . 3 76
Gobind v. Dow1ut . 611 Gunput v .Mt . Toorun 851Mohabe er 1.Mt . Kundun , 52
Lallubhai v .Mankuvarba i , 574 , 575 , 576 , 578 , 682. 690, 691, 697, 703 , 708, 715 , 717, 720, 721, 729 , 794 ,
829
La ll Jha v. Shaikh Juma 472 654
La l luv . Jugmohun 523 13 111Kuar 0. Gauge. 4 3 9 , 485 606
Lalubha i v. Bai Amrit 515 Lamb v .Mt . Govindmoney 845
Leaksv . R obinson 502
Lekhraj v. Kunhya 522 523 Lakraj Kuar v .Mahpal Singh 49
v.Mah tab 289 , Le lanund v . Government of
582
119
xiv
PAGE
Luximon R ow v.Mul lar Row
Ll oyd v.Webb Lobo v . Brito 596 Lochun v. Nemdhare e 844 Lodhoomona v . Gunneschunde r. 873 Lokenath v. Shamasoondnre e 216 Lokhoe v. Kalypuddo 592 Lok i v . Aghoree 464 Loodulhuck v. Gopee 3 81 Luchmi v. Asman 3 89 , 468 Luchmun v. Kal l i Churn , 59 3 , 885 ,
v . Kanbya La l ] 228 v. Giridhur 401, 421 v .Mohun 198
Laokhoa v. Taramone e 595 Lnggah v. Trimbuck 426 Lukh e e v. Gokool , 574 , 849 , 857, 862,
871 Lukmee v.Umurohund 278 Lukme e ram v . Khooshalee 849 Lul lee t. v . Sre odhur . 878 Lul loobhoy v . Cassiba i , 697, 703 , 717,
794 , 829 Lutchmana Row v. Te rimul R ow
, 3 59 , 668
885
587
864 ,
Maccunm sv . GanpatraoMacdonald v . Lal la Sh ib 494McDowe ll v . Bagava 889McGrath , in re 276MadanMohun v. PuranMul l 859Madari v .Mal ki 871Madar Sah ib v . Subbarayulu 521Madavarayya v . Tritha Bam i 869Madhavram v. Dave Trimbak 826Madhavrav v . Atmaram 850, 683 v. Bal krishna 61 v . Dave Trimbaklal , 829 v. Gaugabai 617Madho v. Kamta
Pe t-shad v.Mehrban v.Meh rban
SinghMadhowrao v. YuswudaMadh nb Chunder v . Bama
soondree v. GobindMahaba laya v . Timaya 478Mahabee t Pe rsad v. R amyad , 482, 647Mahabir Pomhad v. Adhikary
v. Mohoawar Nath , 405 , 490
Prasad v. Basdeo Sing, 83 9 2 ,
6
111171 TABLE oF cases.
Mahableshvar v. DurgabaiMahadaji v. Vittil Ba l lalMahade v v. Lakshman
Mahad evi v. VikramaMaha lakshmamma v Ve nkata
ratnammaMaha linga v .MariammahMahamed Arifv. Saraswah
Debya .Maha tajulungaruv Rajah R o Pan taluMaharani v. Nanda La lMahashoya Shosinath v. Srimati
Krishna 194 , 198 200Mahatah v.Mirdad 584Mah esha t Baksh v.Batan Singh , 455 , 461Mahesh Partab v. Dirgpal 617Maheshwar v . Kooni Bebaroe . . 462Mahoda v. Kul eani 778Mahomed v. Ganapavh i 5 3 4 , 585
v. Bossew i Bibi , 500, 512 v . Krishnan 871 Sidiok v. HapAhm ed , 68
v. Sakatwat 284
Abba ,Wil l of 573Mabun t Govind v . Sitaram 3 58Ma i lafih i v. Subba t aya 55Majidan v. Ran Na rainMak bul v . SrimatiMa enadMakundi v . Surabsukh 462 485Malapa v. Narasamma 209Mal ika rjuna v . Durga Prasad 61, 619 , 668Malkarjun v. Ne rbat i 211Mal lesam v. Juga la 3 95Maui Roddy v. Padmamma 269Mall ikarjuna v . Durga , 616 , 619, 685 ,
MaMe Gal i v.Ma 8a YiMammali v. PakkiManasingv. AhmedMan Baee v . Krishnee
Bhari v. NauniahManchu- am v . Pransbanke t 585 ,
586Manoharpv. Kongseoo 593Mangala v. Dinanash 826 , 626Mangaldasv. Krishnaba i 566
v . Tribhoovandas 506Man ik Chand v. Jagat Se toan i , 56 , 150, 168Man ickohunder v. Bhuggobutty, 186 , 189Manika v. E l lappa 623Man ikamul la v. Barbuttee 260Manil al v. Ba itara 627
PAGEMani la] v. Bai Rewa 83 6 , 899 , 903Manishankar v. BaiMul iManjamma v. Padmanabhayya 506
v. Shesbgiri 64Manjanatha v. Narayana 640Manji Ram v. Tara SinghMan ’
unadhaya v. TangammMan oonwnrv. Bhugoo 712Manmatha v. ROPi l l i 871Mann ingv. Gil l 596ManoharDesv.Man zar Al i 3 80ManoharGanesh v. Lakhm iram , 5
5
8
8 2. 7Manorama v. Kalicharan 571, 574Marappa v Rangasam i 485Mari v. Ch innamm al 770
v. Jivamma 52,171Marudamnthn v. SrinivasaMaruti v. R ama 670
Narayan v. L1lachand 4 3 2, 464 472
v. Bhabaj1 416Mata v. Bhage e ruthe e 855Ma tangin i v. Jayka li
v. Jogendro Gupta v. R em Button
y 756Mathnra v. Ben 57, 63 , 263 , 653
v. Ramchandra 401Mayne.Ba i v.Uttaram 751Mayor ofLyons v. Advoca te
Ge ne ra l ofBengal 574 , 587Me e na tchee v. Ch e tnmbra , 3 57, 451, 646 , 661Me enakshi Naidoo v Immudika
11111111. 405 , 409 420Mehde e v. Anjud 3 3 3Meheroomssa 0. E ur Churn 599Me laun v. Thanooram 10Me lgirappa v. Sh ivapa 850, 852Me tang1Zam indar v Satrucharla , 62Meyaje e v .Me tha 501Mhalsabai v. Vithoba 187Mihi rwanjee v. PoonjeaMi l ler v. Bunganath 453Minaksh i v. Chinnappa 622
v . Ramanada 173 174 v. Virappa 450Miral i Bah imhhoyv. R ehrnoobhoy
s ,
91MirAzmat v.Mahmood 119Mahomed v. Kishori 593Mirva Johan v. Badshoo Baboo, 3 58
v. Nawab Afsnr Bahn Pana v . Saiad Sad1k, 987Mitta Kunth v. Neemnjnn 585Mittibhayi v. Kottekorati 288
TABLE OF CASE S.
PAGEModhoo Dyal v. Kolbur 454 , 485
R oosty v . Tehait R am . 53 3Modhoosoodhnn v . Jadub Chun de r 103
v . Prithee Ba l lnb 289 v . Books 85 3ModunMohun v. Futtnm nnissa 514Mohabe e r Kooe r v . Joobha , 3 47, 456Mohade ay v. Harnknarain , 649 , 841Mohanand v. Nafur 285Mohanchand v . Isakbhai 3 83Mohandasv . Krishnaba i , 686 , 784
795Mohendra Na th v . Kal i Prosad