1837 Act XVII Sections 33 and 35 1833 Regulation AII Section 2 Clause 6 No private engagement san absolve a Lundholder from the performance of such acts as by law he is bound to perform Mode of proceeding in the case of a decret founded on a Lollusive a tion, Instituted with a view to evade exccution of a Just decree 1831 Regulation V Section o Clause 4 ( ১ ২৬ ) IIeld on a reference from the Session Judge of Azumghur, that Sections 38 and 35, Act XVII 1837, are not applicable to European British subjects residents in the Mofussil, as those persons have not by any act of the Legislature been made amenable to the local authorities in the administration of the penal enactments of the Government of India Western Court, 21st May, Calcutta Court, 18th June Φmamm-aj On a reference from the Judge of Jessore as to whether the provisions of Clause 6, Section 2 Regulation XII 1833, extended to pauper suits, it was held that the rule was applicable to all suits in which private engagements exist between parties and pleaders Calcutta Court, 28th May, Western Court, 18th June mâmnemuste It was held on the following reference from the Magistrate of Tirhoot, that no private engagement between a landholder and another person, can release the former from the due performance of such acts as he is bound by the Regulations of Government to perform Para 2 “ The Court are aware that a great portion of the land in this District is leased to Indigo Planters, who are, with few exceptions, British-born subjects In the Pottahs and Kuboeleuts containing the terms of these leases, there is invariably a clause inserted to the effect, that the Theekadar or lessee shall be responsible for the due performance of all those duties and obligations connected with the Police, which by the Regulations are imposed upon the landholder Now this engigement, so far as the Indigo Plunter is concerned, is a mere mockery, Inasmuch as there exists no law under which I can punish a Britishborn subject for a breach of the Regulations referred to The question therefore arises, whether an agreement of this sort is in any way binding upon the Magistrate Whether the unauthorized substitution by the landholder of a Deputy who is not amenable to particular laws, can be held to relieve the landholder from the responsibility which those laws impose upon him. It seems clear to me th it it c innot, and that in such a case the M gistrate must continue to look to the landholder as the responsible party I should be glad however to have the Court's opinion upon the subject' Calcutta Court, 28th May 3 Western Court, 22d June இ. The Judge of West Burdwan having asked the opinion of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, in regard to the courst, to be pursued under the circumstances stated in the following Cxtract from his reforence — Part 2 “It appeared from the enquiry held by me in consequence of a petition presented to me by Doehooram Shaha, that, on the 6th June 1840, he instituted a sunt in the Moonsiff's Court at Somamookhy, agaumst Gunness Gurrain, for Rupees 190—0–0, and that the latter, with a view to evade the evecution of any decree that might be passed against him, got a relation of his own named Gopaul Gurrain, to file a fictitious suit against him before the Moonsiff of Burjorah on the 5th of the same month in which, on the 8th idem, he put 1m a collusive *' Iqbal dawee” admitting the fictitious claim, and pledging the whole of his property in satisfaction of it, on the strength of which a lecree was passed on the same day ııı hıs favour ” Was informed, that under the circumstances stated, the aggrieved decree-holder should be referred to a regular suit against the colluding parties, for all damages that he may have sustained by their fraudulent procet dings, pending the issue of which the whole of the property in question might be attached, and the interest of the decree-holder protected Calcutta Court, 4th June, Western Court, 25th idem mumkamums The inquiry to be made by the Moonsist, under the provisions of Clause 4, Seotion 6, Regulation V 1881, is to be limited to the rights of claimants in the property actually sued for, and cannot extend to the entire Estate of the de ceased Calcutta Court, 18th June, Western Court, 9th July [Government Gazette, 22d March, 1842 |
