The Calcutta Law Journal Short Notes of Cases Articles & Other Matters February 1 1913

In an appeal under section io of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court (correspondivg in terms to section is of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court) heard by two Judges the Judges were equally divided in opinion and as provided in the Letters Patent the opinion of the senior Judge prevailed. [...] The head of the family for whose defence the money was borrowed here was ultimately convicted and sentenced to several years' rigorous imprisonment but their Lordships were of opinion that the question whether in such a case legal necessity existed for the loan did not depend upon the result of the trial. [...] The dismissal of the claim for a declaration that the adoption was invalid precludes the plaintiff from questioning the validity of the adoption and without establishing that the adoption is invalid he cannot establish his title to possession. [...] It is a new rule introduced for the first time in the Code of 19c8 and is for the most part taken from Order 58 Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England. [...] So where in a suit part of the plaintiff's claim was decreed and part dismissed and the plaintiff appealed against the part of the decree dismissing his claim but the defendant preferred no appeal or cross-appeal nor filed objections under Rule 22 of Order 41 in so far as the decree went against him it was held in the absence of any sufficient reason for the defendant respondent neglecting