( ; 8 - ) CONSTRUCTIONS 1829 A, having obtained a decree, points out certain lands for sale in satisfaction Regulation X thereof, the property, as he alleges, of the Defendant B, a claimant, however, Schedule B interposes his claim, which is allowed, and the sale stopped, when A is recohArticle 8 mended, if he has still any claim, to file a regular suit He accordingly brings a suit to obtain the sale of certain lands in realization of his decree The question arises, how is A to estimate the value of his suit, according to the note on Article 6 8, Schedule B Regulation X of 1829? It was held that as the suit in question was brought, not for possession, but to obtain leave to sell the interests of the original Defendant in the Estate, and to appropriate the proceeds of sale in liquidation of A's claim, or, in other words, as the suit was for the amount that the Estate would sell for, the value should have been computed at the estimated selling price, (or the amount of plaintiff's claim under the decree, supposing the selling price to have been in excess of that claim) according to the 4th Clause of the Note on Article 8, Schedule B Regulation • X 1829, the suit being viewed rather as for an interest in Malgozaree land, not capable of valuation under the 1st Clause of the Note Western Court, 25th June, Calcutta Court, 16th July 1834 Held that it is not competent to a Session Judge, to award stripes under SecRegulation II tion 6 Regulation II 1834, the law not contemplating such award by any other Section 6 authority than the Magistrate, the officer directly responsible for the mainte nance of the discipline of the Jail Western Court, 2d July, Calcutta Court, 30th July 1831 The provisions of Section 6, Regulation VIII 1831, are held to be applicable Regulation VIII to the summary decrees of the Judicial authorities passed prior to the enactment Section 6 of that law, that is, all regular suits to contest the summary awards of the Judiclal authorities should have been instituted within one year of the promulgation of that regulation Calcutta Court, 16th July, Western Court, 6th August 1831 Held that an undefended suit for an instalment below 300 Rs on a bond for Regulation V an aggregate sum above that amount, is cognizable by the Moonsiff — Section 5, The same principle is applicable to an undefended action for an arrear of rent Clause 2 below 300 Rs due on a farming engagement, or lease of higher value Calcutta Court, 16th July, Western Court, 13th August 1819 A contravention of the rule laid down in Clause, 1, Section 6, Regulation VI Regulation VI 1819, by parties, contrary to order plying their boats in the vicinity of a GovernSection 6, ment Ferry, held to be a misdemeanor punishable by the Magistrate under the Clause 1 general powers vested ın hıIn by the provısıons of Section 19, Regulation IX 1807 Calcutta Court, 16th July, Western Court, 20th August 1829 A Memorandum of agreement for the time of the services of a Mookhtar, speRegulation X cifying a fixed sum as his monthly stipend in money, and guaranteeing to him ನಿ! his daily food, must be written on a stamp under the rule in Clause 2, Schedule A Regulation X 1829 Western Court, 20th July, Calcutta Court, 20th August 1817 Held on a reference from the Session Judge of Jessore, that appeals from the Regulation \X. orders of a Magistrate enforcing penalties under Clause 5, Section 10, Regula [Government Gazette, 29th March, 1842 I
