The Weekly Reporter Appellate High Court Containing Decisions of the Appellate High Court in all its Branches Viz. in Civil Revenue and Criminal Cases as well as in Cases Referred by the Mofussil Small Cause Courts and the Recorder’s Courts; Together with Letters in criminal cases and the Civil and Criminal Circular Orders issued by the High Court; Also Decisions of H.M.’s Privy Council in cases heard in appeal from Courts of British India

too where the ryot and the intervenors deny the title of plaintiff and his vendor, and the ryot denies that he gave the kubooleut upon which plaintiff sues (2) The words “ the actual receipt and enjoyment of the rent ” in the second part of section 77 cannot mean the actual receipt irrespectively of the question Of bona fides alluded to in the first part of the section 85 (3) With reference to the [...] from the time of the Perman entSet- tlement, are not liable to have their rents enhanced, even at the suit of a purchaser at a sale for arrears of revenue under ACt I. of 1845 . *176 When the tenure of a tenant admit- tedly in possession is sold under section 1o5, Act X. of 1859, he has no right to sue for the reversal of the sale ; but, when a party alleges that he is the tenant, -and that the p [...] The suits to which the Privy Council intended to refer in the Shiva- gunga case (2 W. R. 31, P. C. )are suits in which the title of the settler or the validity of the estate-tail has been in issue, and not to suits against the tenant-in-tail in which a question has incidentally arisen, and been determined as to who was the remainderman entitled to suc- ceed upon the termination of the estate-tail ( [...] (1) When a plaintiff has asked for a sum which is in excess of what the Court holds him entitled to, and to which a lower rate of pleaders' fee or of stamp-duty applies than to the rest of the claim, the de- fendant who succeeds in that part of the case is entitled to recover the costs applicable to that parti- cular part of the subject-matter (Bayley, J. , dissenting) . [...] of 1799 in 185 against the father of the petitioner and another, the petitioner was arrested and lodged in jail in Janu- ary 1867—HELD by the majority of the Court (Norman, J. , dissent- ing) that the High Court could not, under the general powers of super- intendence vested in it by section 15 of the High Court's A61 or section 16 of the Letters Patent, interfere to order the release of the petiti