Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-26-1905
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal410
..... appealed against the latter decision, whilst the roys have appealed against that part of the decree, which is adverse to them, though, considering the covenant of indemnity by dhanpat singh to the roys in the release of 1894, and having regard to the fact that the estate of dhanpat singh is, as we are ..... the plaintiffs, and that notice to him was, in the circumstances, notice to the company, whose agent he was in the transaction (see section 229 of the contract act). 'we differ, therefore, from the conclusion of the court below upon this question of notice and think that, for the reasons we have given, this ..... the company. it appears from the evidence that he himself wrote out the release by dhanpat singh to the roys, in which occurs the remarkable covenant for indemnity, 'for any act done by him, the said mortgagee, with respect to the said deeds.' it is clear that at this time both dhanpat singh and ..... created in favour of the plaintiffs on the 3rd june 1893, that the object of the letter of the 19th june 1893 was not to constitute the contract between the parties, but was written with the object and for the purpose we have stated, and that, consequently, it did not require registration under section ..... there was no existing debt;(2) that in point of fact, there was no concluded mortgage by deposit on the 3rd june 1893, that the real contract of mortgage was entered into by the letter of the 19th june 1893, and that, as this was not registered under section 17 of the registration act .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-13-1905
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal219
..... , which laid down, for the guidance of the agency courts in kathiawar, the rule that: 'no suit shall lie against a tributary chief or talukdar... in respect of any debt contracted by the predecessor of such chief or talukdar or sub-sharer, unless(1) the claim has been admitted by the tributary chief or talukdar or sub-sharer; or(2) the ..... . it lays down that 'no suit shall lie against a tributary chief or talukdar, or against any sub-sharer of a tributary chief or talukdar, in respect of any debt contracted by the predecessor of such chief, or talukdar, or sub-sharer unless one or other of two conditions is complied with, one of which conditions is the approval of the .....Tag this Judgment!