HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0597 and id is 1 raw text is: BABOO K. P. NARAIN V. MUSSUMAT K. KOGER [1851] V MOORE IND. APP., 140
[146] BABOO KASI PERSAD NARAIN,-Appellant; MUSSUMAT KAWALBASI
KOOER, BABOO GOOR PERSAD NARAIN, and KALLI PERSAD NARAIN,
-Respondents* [Feb. 19, 21, and 22, 1851].
On appeal fronm the Sudder Dewanny Court at Bengal.
A claim to real and personal estate under a tumleeknamah (deed of gift), against
a party to whom possession had been given by the Foujdarry Court, rejected,
under the circumstances, the deed not being sufficiently proved.
Pending the appeal to England, the sole Appellant died, and the Sudder Court
made an order substituting one of the Respondents in his stead as Appel-
lant. Senible: It is not competent to the other Respondents to object
to such order at the hearing of the appeal, the proper course being to move
the Sudder Court to discharge such order.
In a case of great delay by the officers of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, at
Calcutta, in not forwarding certain depositions filed in the cause, which
had been omitted in the transcript forwarded to England, the Judicial
Committee peremptorily ordered the Sudder Dewanny Court forthwith to
transmit the omitted evidence to England.
This appeal arose out of a suit instituted in the Provincial Court of Patna, by
Sheo Das Narain, since deceased, against the Respondent, Mussumat Kawalbasi
Kooer, the party in possession, Baboo Urremurdun Narain, also since deceased,
and the present Appellant, Baboo Kasi Persad Narain. The object of the suit was
to obtain possession of the real and personal estate of one Bahore Narain, deceased.
The parties were members of a tribe or family called Chowdhyas, and their relation-
ship appears front the following statement. Bahore Narain, Bal Narain, and Ootum
Narain were full brothers. Bahore Narain, the eldest [147] brother, had no male
issue, but a daughter, Kawalbasi Kooer. Bal Narain had two sons, Sheo Das
Narain and Kasi Persad Narain. Ootum Narain had one son, named Urremurdun
Narain. It was not in question in the suit that the brothers constituted a divided
Hindoo family, or that the brothers constituted a divided Hindoo family, or that
the property in dispute was not the sole and exclusive property of Bahore Narain,
in which his brothers had no right to participate.
Bahore Narain died in October, 1816, leaving a daughter, Kawalbasi Kooer.
She lived with him, and was in possession at the time of his decease, when disputes
as to her right and possession of the property arose between Bahore Narain's
nephews, Kasi Persad and Urremurdun Narain. These disputes led to the inter-
ference of the local authorities, and on the 6th of November, 1815, the magistrate
of the Zillah of Sarun ordered that she should continue in possession of the effects
and property left by Bahore Narain, as it appeared that after his death the whole
of it came into her possession. Sheo Das Narain then came forward and presented
a petition to the Circuit Court, in which lie rested his title to the disputed property
on a tumleeknamah, or deed of gift, which he alleged had been executd in his
favour by Bahore Narain, on the 27th of December, 1809. The Court refused to
interfere, and referred him to a Civil Court.
The plaint was filed in the Provincial Court of Patna, on the 21st of February,
1817, by Sheo Das Narain, against Mussumat Kawalbasi Kooer, Baboo Urremurdun
Narain, and Baboo Kasi Persad Narain, to recover possession of the khiraj and
lakhiraj lands, and the personal estate of the late Bahore Narain, [148] then
in the possession of his daughter, the Defendant, Mussumat Kawalbasi Kooer. It
alleged, that Bahore Narain, the paternal uncle of the Plaintiff, having no sons
living to succeed him, on the 27th of December, 1809, executed in the Plaintiff's
favour a tumleeknanah (an instrument in the nature of a deed of gift), whereby
he constituted him, the Plaintiff, proprietor of the whole of his property, real and
personal, with the exception of kismut Umnour and Madhapore, appertaining to
* Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-Lord Langdale, the Right
Hon. Dr. Lushington, the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, and the Right Hon. Sir
Sir Edward Ryan.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0597&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)