Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHIEF COURT
.1963
Containing <:ases determined by th:e Chief
Court of the Union of Burma.
CHAIRMAN
Chief Justice Thado Maha Tb.ray Sithu, Maha Thirf:'
Thudhamma U Bo GYr, B.A., B.k., LL.D. (~an .).
MEMBERS
Justice Maha Thray Sithu U SAN MAUNG, B.Sc .
I.C.S. (Retired),.
Justice DR. MAUNG MAUNG, B.A., B.L., LL.D. (Utrecht),
S.J.D. (Yale), Bar.-at-Law.
c
Attorney-General
u BA SEIN, B.Sc., B.L., Advocate.
Legal Remembrancer
U KYAW THAUNG, Bar.-at-Law.
Assistant Attorney-General
U CHIT, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
Government Advocates
U HLA MAUNG, Advocate.
U BA KYAW, B.A., B.~., Advocaf~.
U ToE MAUNG, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U BA KYINE, B.Sc., B.L., Advocate.
U BA PE, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U BA PE, B.Sc., B.L., Advocat~.
U MrN HAN, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U HLA THIN, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U BA THIN, Bar.-at-Law.
U TIN MAUNG, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U TuN LwiN, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U TuN NYO, B.A., B.l1., Advocate.
U KHIN MAUNG, Advocate.
M~.t. S. K. GHOSH, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U MYo KHIN, M.A., Bar.-at-Law.
DAW MYA THAN Nu, B.A., B.L.! Advocate.
U HNIT, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U KHrN SErN, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U MYA SHEIN, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U BA THAN, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
2
Legal Draftsmen
T) LUN PE, B.A.:., B.L.
DAW AYE KYI, B.A., B.L.
u SEIN WIN HLING, B.A., B.L.
Assistant Legal Draftsmen
U HLA THAUNG, B.Sc., B.L.
u SAN SHIN, B.A., B.L.
CHIEF COURT
PAGE
PACE
-
.Maung Gale and one v. Ma On Nyunt and o:1e
- Kyi Shein v. Ko Soe San and Ma Yin. Yin 672
515
- r-e Ta and ten others \t~ Ma Kaung Mai and five
others : 178
'K.rishn<7.n Lal and four others v. Surajmal Bal Chand ... 683
Ma Hazara Khatu v. Maung Tha Aung 351
-- Kyaing v. Ma Ohn Kyi and four others 184
- Nu v. Ko San Aye 689
Si Si an~ another v. Saya Mya and three others ...
' -:- 692
- Tin May v. U Po Min 201 '
Maung Kyin Maung and one v. Ma W~ng Kyi 358
'- '- .- iviaung'Thaung v. U Hla Gyi and Daw Aye Kyi 208
- -- Mya_Than and _another v. U Tun Tin 708
- - _. - Thaung Nyunt qnd one v. Daw Sein Yin a,nd
one 364
Mhada Mohamed Khan v. Maung Maung Gyi (a) Alfred
Maung Gyi and one ... 355
( LisT ot cJ.sE:s REPoRtE:o iii
P.Aci!
Chandulal .24'
- - - Norwegian, Africa and Australia Line Ltd. v.
The Commissioner of Income-tax, 5urttta' Rangoon 390
- -- Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. The
Commissioner of Income-tax, Burma, Rrngoon . . . 28
. - - - The Bharat Line Ltd. v. The Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal, Burma and one ... 31
- - - The Burmese Economic Bank Ltd. {People's
Bank No. 10) v. Daw Tin May and one 360
........,_ W. W. Wood, Sons and Partners v. The Com-
missioner of Income-tax, Burma 45
Mohamed Ebrahim Salebhoy v. The Controller of
I~igration 51
Mr. D. H. Cozens v. The Commissioner of Income-tax,
Burma . 326
Mrs. Protima Ghosh v. Bimalendu Gho~h . . . 526
Nagibhal v. Chhaganlal and two others ... 714
P; L. A. Adaikkappa Chettiar v. P. Abu Backer Kaka .. . 719
R. D~ Ram v. Kunja Maistry 404
Rain Nath. Singh v .. . Chandrika Prasad and one,
She-:>!::hankar Prasad and one, Bisnath and one,
U. K: Barua and one, Ram Govind and one, Raghu
Nandan Prasad and one, Ram Kishore Singh and
one 370
-$. N. Zaveri and two others v. The Commissioner, Pegu
Divfsion and .three others . . . 5<',..4
State Commercial Bank v. U Ba Thin 375
S-qmm~'lta Ram Dutta v. P. B. Das and two others 59
. .
Taik Gwa.n Company v. Mr. N. B. Sen Gupta and two
others 723
lV LlS':f OF CASES
~. ' '
RERO~T-ED
M I
PA.QE
.
572
- Tun Yin v. Lacheeyar
.
411
.....:... Ye Myint v. The Central Commercial Bank of Burma
. Ltd. and one ... 254
- Yoke San v. U San Maung ... 580
~nion of Burma v. Maung Khin Myine (Deaf mute) ... 549
- - - - - - v. M.. E. Joseph 391
Vijay iuma:r M. Desai and one v. .The Rent Controller
and one 366
V. N. Nadesa Thevar v. A. V. Muthusami ... 414
Vumtual v. The Financial Commissioner (Commerce)
and two
Yin Lot and three others v. Ma Hla Jiin
:Vl LIS':f OF O.SES REPORTED
PACB
753
756
423
765
584
'n3
782
788
427
792
433
590
598
267
271
438
282
_L.IST OF CASES REP.OR'rEQ vii
PAUl
287
800 .
811
435
276
27'f
796
818
831
611
823
295
614-
447
617
826
828
298
621
4-50
Lisf o~ cAsES REPORTED
PAGI!
625
380
303
631
636
131
....oo .; . . c- c- 0 c;- c c- oc. 'l 0 0 .
!j.)f..l):g))T.>3d )d~:; ~) -{G1~11~:1~. I
~~:>~CC
L
"Oim<!OOUO)
C' <; w
~~: o1 j 1-34
. co c- o. c . 9. c oo c- c- c-
m)d-'))~l:T.>'J{~:;G:.T.>~ iO:J ::x>:>:~:>: C\)G:Y.>T.>~~ :0~':>:00)?
~~:: ( C'l(c=::n:~~:o~G9:) 13 7
3t0
lf.7S
~56
641
14-2
ll3
1006
M4
1009
Q (' 0
01 :?,30)1 G;"))l <X>'JO
Jl
464
LIST OF CASES REPORTED IX
PAOI
1020
1012
468"
845
471
834
1015
316
1023
1027
I'
CHIEF COURT
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE.
PAGB
Commissioner of Income-tax BomQ.:ty v. . Currimbhoy
Ebrahim & Sons, Ltd., ~1935) "! I.T.R. 395; at ,PP
40D-4or, referred to .. 39
v. Metro
Goldwyn Mayer (India) Ltd., .{1,939} VII I.T.Ro 176,
referr~d. to . 0 0 r 41
- - - - - - - - - - - - - , v. Nationa1
Mutual Life Association of Australasia" ltd., Ir9331
0
PAGK
Cooper v. Phlbbs, (r867) The _Law Reports, Vol. rr. p.
149 and 170 .. ..~ 778
. (
<0'1
/)>
. . .:,. . 480
LIST OF: CASES CITED XVll
PAGll
PACB
PAOB
PAGE
.I<anhaya Lalsardha Ram v. Baldeo Das and others,
I.L.R. r4 Lah. 656, referrec to 368
Kaniram Maipami v. PM:amanai~da Tewari, A.I.R.
(I94G) Cal. 528, dissented from 15
T\.aQ.tilal Gorhandas Shah v. The 'Assistant Collector of
Custom (1951), B.L~R. 244' (S.C.), referred to 743
Kashiram Bhajan La! v. Commissioner of IncomNax.
U.::'., (r962), XLV, 'r.T.R., p. I, referred to 390
Kassim Hassan v. Hazra Begum, A.I.R. (1920) Cal. Boo,
referred to 7 05
Katheppa Raddi v. Sheshappa and another, 22 Born.,
893, .referred to 718
K. E. Musthan v. Babu Mohendra Nath Sfngh, r
Rangoon. p. soo, referred to 349
Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria and
others, A.I.R. (1953) Supreme Court, 23, referred to 10
Kesheo v. Vithal and others, A.I.R. .(r925) Nag. 427,
referred to . . . 358
Klialifa M. S. A. Ganny and others v. Mohamed EBrahim
and another, 9 Ran., p. 4:;9, referred to and distin-
guished lSl
Khater Mistri v. Sadruddi Khan, I.L.R. (1907) XXXIV
Cai: 922, referred to 416
Khatubai v. Mahomed Haji Abu, (1922) (L.R.) so, I.A.
ro8 at II2, referred to 107
King Emperor v. Ma Tin Saw and one, .6 Ran. 39,
referre<i ~o 105
.- - v ..King. A.I.R. ~1925) All. 327, referred to 541
Ko tan Bah v. Prepulla Chandra Palaka and three, Civil
Misc. Appln. r8 (r962), referred ~o and followed 404
._:._ U Mar and one v. Ma Sayv Myaip.g, (195o) B .L.~. 8o
(H.C.), r~f~rred to. 183
K. 'Raushan Din and others v. H. Mohamed .Sharif and
o~hers, A:I.R. (r936) Lahore 8z at p .. 88, referr~ to 701
., . LIST OF CA~ES CITED XXl
PAOB
PJ.Gl!
at=::x>~ . ~ 453
Lim Chin So v. Lim Geoksoo, 11956) B.L.R., p. 248
(H.C.), referred to and followed 199
Lokman V: Haiku, A.I.R. (1934) Nag. 236, referred to 63
Ma Ba We v. Mi Sa U and others,, II. L.B.R. 174 (EB.),
referred ~o and followed 653
Macl<nell v. Macknell 540
Madan Gopal and others v. Shewal Dass, A.I.K. (1943)
Lah~re, p. 884 844
Ma E Hm.yin and wee v. Ma1,1ng Ba Maung, I.L.R.
2 Ran. 123, referred to ... 496
- Gala.r. .and one v. MaE Myaand others, 8 Ran. 27,
followed 252
Maganlar Pranjuvan Mehta v. Mrs. Champakunvar
Rati~al Mehta . an<i others, .(1952) B.L.R'.. '192 1H.C.),
refel'ted to . .'; 368
. Malradeo-'Singh v. Ha;. BukSh Dube, A.I.R. (z 9 28), Oudh
131, referred to . . .
. .. .. 263
. }'lahamand~~ Shas~a P,rakas~'!~ ~amity Li~ted, Banares,
I.L.R. Vol.' XXX'lX, AIL p. :334 referred to ... . 507
... Maharaj~dhlrafa of 'oarbhanga ~. C~mmissioner of
Income-tax, (1930), 9 Pat. z4o, referred to 325
Mahomed MUssa v. Aghore Kumar Ganguli, I.L.R; 42-
Cal.' 8or (P.C.)~ refel"!'-ed to 577
...
XXlll
PAOB
xi:i
PACB
Mathura Singh v. BhaV?ani Sirigh and others, I.L.R.
~I AU. 248 :(F.B.), referred to 366
Ma "fi:-1 U v. U Shwe Kyu and four others, (r958}. B.LK
"!28 {S.C.~, referred to 364
Mauladin Ay'Ub Firm v. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Born. South, (1959) XXXV, I.T.R. 449, referred
to ~nd follow'!d 383
Maung Aung Thin and one v. Bisnath Singh and 6Iie,
(r958) B.L.R. 314 .(H.C.), referred to and distin-
guished 331
- Ba Pe and another v. Maung Shwe Ba.:, 6 Ran.,
p. 520, referred to 195
~-- Ba Thwin v. Maung Po Hti,. I.L.R. 'v.r Ran. 510,
referred to ... 496
- - Mya Than and another v. U Tun Tin, C. u. A
44/62 Chief Court, referred to 681
- - Naw v. Ma Shwe Hmut and one, 8 L.B.R. i27
{F.B.t referred to 712
- - - Nyi Maung ana others v. T~ Mandalay
Municipal Committee, J2 Ran., p. 335, followed 15(
- - San Myin v. ' King-Emperor, I.L.R. 7 Ran. 771,
referred to 74!
....;.:___ Shwe Phoo arid eight others v. Maung Tun
Shin and three others, I.L.R. 5 Ran. 644, referrel
to and followed 33:
- - Thein Zan and one v. The Union of Burma,
{195:6) B.L.R. 303 tH.C.), followed -21:
- - Tu v. Ma Chi~, 4 Ran., p. 62, referred ~o 25:
_. - -Tun Zan v. Maung Tun Zan Gyi and another;
A.l.R. (1933) Ran; 317, followed 25:
Ma Yi by her Guardian ad_!item Thet .P-on v. Ma Gale,
VI L.)3.R. 167, referred to
- Ywet v. Ma Me and one, 5 L.B.R . .(1909-IO), p. u8,
referred to 19
Mazhar HUssain cmd 'Sara
others v. Rao Bahadur Adiva
Singh, A.I.R. {1948}. {P.C.) 42, referred to 70"
LIST OF CAS::S CITED XXV
PAGB
M. Chowdhury v. Indian Airlin~s C:orporation, A.I.R.
(1962) Cal., p. 554, referred to 220
M.C.T. Chidambaram Chettyar v. y.L.S. Chockalingam
Chettyar and five, (1955) B.L.R. rr6 (H.C.), referred
ro ~6
Md. Fazihzzaman v. Anwar Husain, A.I.R. (1932)
Allahabad, 314, referred to ~-.: .:.: 341
Messrs. A. S. Alladeen and Company v. The Income-
tax Appellate Tribunal, Burma and one, ~ivil Misc.
Appln. No. 22 of 1961, referred to . . . 326
--Rowe & Co. v. The Secretary of State for India,
XI Lower Burll\a Rules 299 at p. 306, referred to 370
- The Bharat Line Ltd. v. The Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal, Rangoon and another, C. M.
Application No. 21 of 1960 of late High Court,
Rangoon, referred to 479
3
XXVI '. LIST ~E:CASES . GITED
PAGE
l'
Mosoue known as Masiid Sh~hid Gani and oth~n v.
Shiromani Gurdw~ra Parbandhak Com:11irtee,
Anu~tsar .and another, referred to and f.;:,llowed 686
.. M?SS V. Moss, (I9I6) (C.A.) I5f? I6I, referred to 541
Moti Ram v. Hans R~j and others, r62, l.C. 303 re-
ferred to and disting-uished 879
M. Paramasfvan Pilfai ..y. A.V.R.M.S.P$. Ramasami
Chettiar and another, (1939) Mad., p. 290, referred
to 5
- .P. R. M. Iru!a.ndi Mudaliar and Sons v. The Com-
missioner of Income-tax, Burma, Civil Misc. Appln.
No. 40 of 1959, referred to 32S
Mrs: Cecilia King and two others v. Arthur Abreu and
two others, (1909) 5 L.B.R. 141, referred to and
followed 3 57
~ Kirkwood (a) Ma Thein and others v. Maung Sin
and others, A.I.R. (r938) Ran. 74, followed 252
- L. Stevenson and one v. Ma Hla Yin and four
others, (1954) B.L.R. r68 (H.C.), referred t& 582 .
- . Niemeyer v. E. M. Mamooji and others, (r938)
R.L.R. 52-I, referred to . . . 379
Mt. Gomtibai v. Kanchhedilal and others, A.I.R. (1949)
P.G. 272, referred to and followed . .. 358
- Moideen Bibi Ammal v. Rathnavelu Mudaki, A.I.R.
(1927) Mad. 69, referred to 706
- Sajjoo and another v. Basdeo Prasad and others,
A.I.R. .( 1937) Oud..h. 505, referred to . . . 577
"
Muhammad Abdul Latif v. Shaikh Habidur Rahman
and others, XLVI. I.C. 64i, .referred to 366
Musa .Yakub Mody v. Manila! Ajitrai, I.L.R. .x:xrX Bom.
368, r eferred to 657
. Naba Kumar Singh Dudhur<!i v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, . Bengal {1944) XII, I.T.R. 327, referred
to and followed 383
Nagindas Sanka~chand v. "Bapalal Purshottam, I.L.R.
(1930~. 45 Born. 487, referred to. :. . s76
LIST OF CASES CITED xxvii
PAC II:
-
1901), referred to .
Tha Zan v. Sunder Singh, III U.B.R. 125, referred to
745
712 -
Nilmadhab Bose and others v. Ananta Ram Bagdi,
(1897-98) II, C.W.N. 755, referred to ... 325
Nisa . Chand Gaita and others v. Kanchiram Bagani,
I.L.R. 26 Cal. 579, referred to 712
Nitya Gopal Samanta v. Pran Krishna Dau and others,
A.I.R. (1952) Cal'. 893, referred to ...
Padam Parshad Rattan Chand v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Delhi, (.1954) 25 I.T.C. 335, referred to 238
Palaniappa Chettiar v. Narayanan Chettiar, I.L.R. 59
.
Mad. 188 (F.B.), referred to
.
Pandistow Total Loss and Collision Assurance Associa-
82
PAGE
-
Partin~on v. Attorney-General, L.R. 4, H.L. 100 at p.
122, referred to 325
:P. B: I. Bava v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore,
Travencore Co~hin, {1955), XXII, l.T.R.. 463,
refelired to and distinguished 390
Pha\:mabi v.
Abdull~'Musa Sait, A.I.R. (1914) Mad. 714,
referred to 706
P.K.N.P.R. Chettiar Firm v. The Commissioner of
Income-tax, Burma, 4 I.T.C. 87, referred to ... 174-175-
177
v. The Commissioner of
Income-tax, Burma, 4 I.T.C. 340, referred to 175
P. L. I. Kasi Chettyar (a) U Kasi and another v. Ko
Maung Sein and another, B.L.R. (r96o) (H.C.),
p. 501, referred to 836
Ponnamal v. Daw Hla Min, (1960) B.L.R. (H.C.) 216,
referred to .. i 11
Porbandar State Bank v. The Commissioner pf Income-
tax, Bombay City, (~950) 18 I.T.R. 134, referred to 35
Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas $. Advani, A.I.R.
(r950) (S.c.) 222, referred to 546
Pun<> Za Chin (a) P. Khup Za Cin v. The Financial Com-
. missioner (Commerce) and the others, (1960) B.L.R.
142 (S.C.), referred to and followed . . . 420
Pusa Mal v. Makdum Bakksh and others, 31 All. 511,
referred to 718
'Queen Empress v. Nga Taw Aung, .(1893- 1900) P.J.L.B.
369, referred to 745
.Ramadhar Keto v. Ratipaf Ahir, (1958) B.L.R. (H.C.) II,
overruled .... 108
:Rama Rao and an0ther v. Th~ Raj"a of Pittapur and
two others, I.L.R. XLI Mad. 219, referred to 494
:Ramji Dass Rikhi ~am v. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Punjab, Pepsu H.P., ~nd Bilaspur, Simla, (r958) 34
I.T.R: 483, referred to
.,
;Ram,ji .Panday v. Alaf Khan, I.L.R. III Pat. 895, referred
to .... ... 495
LIST OF CASES CITED X XIX
PAGE
Ramlal Murlidhar v. The Commissioner. of Income-tax,
Bengal, {1933) 5 I.T.C. 150, referred to and distin-
guished 240-24Z
Ram Sarup v. Emperor, A.I.R. (1935) An. 446, referroo
to ... 63
Ranjit Kumar Roy and another ' v. Kabiraj Kisori
Mohan Gupta and another, I.L!R. (1940) 2 Cal.
362, referred to 379
Ran 1itpaul v. Controller of Immigration, (1~6o) B.L.R.
(S.C.) 249, referred to 57
R. C. Miller and Sons, Calcutta v. Commissioner of
. Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, A.I.f<.. (1959)
Supreme Court, 868, referred to 121
- - Mitter and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-
tax, West Bengal, A.I.R. (1956) Cal., p. 303,
referred to 119-121
Read and Huggonson. (1742) 2 Atk. 292, referred to ... 733
Re Cine Industries Co. Ltd., Patna, A.I.R. :(1942) Born.,
p. 231, referred to 507
Rengasami Nayudu and another v. Krishnasami lyer
and others, A.ItR. (1923) Mad., p. 276, referred to
Report of the Civil Justice Committee (1924-25),
. Appendix I, Calcutta, p. 8I 197
Rex v. Cohen, (1951) I . All. E.R. 203 at 2o5j2o6,
referred to 746
- v. Fitzgerald; (1928) unrep., referred to 747
Ridge y. Baldwlli and others, (1963) 2 W.L.R. 935,
referred to 565
Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. v. Secretary of State for
India, I.L.R. 52 Cal. I, referred to 37-42
R. Ramaprasada Rao v. R. Subbaramaiah and others,
A.I.R.. ~1958) Andhra Pradesh 637, referred to ... 663
. ....;_ v. Fitzgerald, (1948) unrep., referred to 747
- v. Kakelo, .(1923) 2 .(K.B.) 793, r~erred to 74-7
Russell v. Russell, :C1897) {A.C.) 395, referred to 539
XXX LIST OF CASES CITED
PAC&
i'ACE
U Nyi Lay v . The Union of Burma, (1959) BL.R. 6o
"(C C} 0 c: C: !; 0 c: C'
~ .. :CI{9~1?2t:SJC'10'-f~:x>2 29)
- Or!l Mf!Jng v. Daw Ky~ Kyi, Sp!. C. Ap~~! ~- :~
<?f I958, referred to and followed Hl3
- Po Shin and another v. -Edward and others, AJ.R.
(1934) Ran. 139, referred to and di<:>tinguished . . . ~~ s
- Pyinnya Zawta ~nd one v. U Nyanika, C.R. No. I I 5
of i:9.6o (H.C.)_.,,dated 23rd February r963, refe.t-red
to J53
- San v. U Win Htain, Building Engineer, Rangoon
Municipal Ccrporation and 'd1ree others, C.M.A.
roo of .(r96o) (S.C.), referred tc and distinguished 547
-.- Tha Din v. The Secretary, Ministry of Co-operative
.& Commodity Distribution, rr959) BLK 94 .(S.C.\
referred to 561
Tin Eng v. U Ba Yoke, {-1952) B.L.R. 341 (H.C.),
referred to 524
- Tun Hla and one v. Daw Sein, {r959) B.L.R. (H.C.),
p. 95, referred to . ., 34 I
- Wa Gyi v. The Union of Burma, :(1948) ,B.L.R. 625
(H.C.), referred to 299
Valab Das and one v. r..~aung Ba Than, I.L.R. r, Ran.
372, referrea to ... 63
Vas'\,nt Vinayak Bhagwat v. State, A.I.R. (1951),
Madrya Bharat, 104, followed 2-+S
Vaughan v. Vaughan, (1953) r All. .(E.R.) 209, referred
to and followed 522
Venkata Chetty v. Aiyanna Goundan, IL.R. 40 Mad.
561 (F.B.), referred to 578
V. E. RM. N. RM. Kasi ViS\"r'anathan . Chettyar v. The
Official Assignee and one, (1958) B.L:R (S:C.) 74,
distinguished . .. 56
Vertannes and another v. Robinson and another, I.LR.
5 Ran. 427 _(P.C.), referred to 579
Vidya Varuthu Thirtha v. Balusami Ayjr-ar, A.I.R.
(r922) _(P.C.), p. 123, referred _to and followed . . . 125
LIST OF CASES CITED XXXV
PAGE
785
6 ""'
vi
83.3
794
308
587
979
588
XXXVI LrST OF CASES CITEQ
P..w;m;
C" C" '"l C" '"lG OC" C"
GOJI 0)?())~~ Gffil 81fO)Q'XjOI'J O@jj<f@ OOLCI GOOI IO?QJ~?
l 0 0 ("
?jO,?jj mL 9.:cc?:::ne; .... .... .... 2.7S
0<" C" C" C" . <' C" <" ( ) OC" G ~
OL'j~O)QJCq -.,~8100)?~?1 O@jO ~'JIOI 00j ~CIIOI IO?~J9?
. 0 (" (" <'
0 ?J m L92?2lt:::ne; .... - 1$6o
0 C' C" C" G C" <" C'
G G (C") C"
t?l ml 00? 'J I 00<*1 Grldl 108-?~f89Q:;lJIOO)r,~ GQ')C{;lJt2i:'
('~(" f.: (" GC"o \ (" 0
GOO?mtjfQ?t}2? 109ccq: ro03, 01 IO?gJrop 9@'2 cq
(" (" ("
92?21t:::n~ 2,13.
G 00.(' C" OC" 0 C C" C"
~2:~.o~1~ ~]f (1948) B.L.R. l34 c-q 9~t2;>:o:>e; .... 2:85
C" C C" G C C" '"l C" OC" G G
~OJ08d')g(})G~J?ffi8~C. <Xj>OI~J'JfOL'J @I ())')CI)ffi~?:l ()0)(\)
c( ) o c c r:c 761
~0) 10 .I 10? 'f~O ~ "J2?2.i1fg::n~
. PAGE
C" C" C" ~ C" C" ~C" OC"
<:q;;:oo:;1~ t12Gco:>~~ - ~::Jr~:>~cct 19sr B.L. R. , p. 148
(S.C.) referred to
Q C" ~ C" fl C" ~ C" OC' fC')
"39a:Yol0~ '~ u:>0~\rn:IOJ m~ I~@J? ~~~~ GG:li~CIOO? \ CJ I
~G~I ~? ~9J ~eJ?~5)~:tj:x>2:
'r::: (" ~ (" 274
<Q \ (' (' (" Q 0 (" ((") (" ' 0
$'Xl~OG9~fl~ Go:>~?G:JCIGJ.l l Sd,C I 8::1? 9 I ~@rj ~t~l CD?<J.(I
'r::: (" (" ("
("
~?~Jm1? J9@ "1 ~~~p:Sj;:: ::oc::ne:
0
806
c-c- (" (" ( c 0 ) >
-~L'F1-:.~9c ~o jj ~t~l l.Hag Ece 1 ~:: ???'ft:SO c-q
(" (" ('
9~2lt=:ne: 608
e o c- c- c- c- oo c- c- c- c- c- oc-
<G8ro~::l{~C. 'J~tmro*<..O oxp:('jo:>GO))QJ[OI c.:lf:lfO""-tC:I
I"'
c;g(Q J' c ("
~e~? ~f~c-qroe:: ~tPr51::roc:c::;:n2:
0 (" 'r::: (" (" ~ (" 437
"(''0 (" (" Q (" c. (" r.; (" ~ (" Q ("
~:31 ts~=,:. e:oxnt og~ro ~~~~ ~::Jt~Jee: ~c~~~p: oxp:
(" (' (" 0 (' (" ("
C'iO)GO)?~J[O I ~? :) ~ 92?2lf::D2 431
C' C' G:, c- C'G C" <" C" QQ C"Q OC'
13m0JC~89~~U~f?~9m8'~ ::JmOJC~8~ 'f'CJ:D81 G:;.)f 9_C I
/';.C") c (" (" c 0 (" (" ("
Sll?\ 9 1 oe9 ~, ~~1), ~89 o, ~J oJt:S q 9 ~~r~:n2
C" C" C" C' (C") OC' " (C') ('
.;:.o:!l'Prill-J~ ~m ll IGJ?I rolcr ro:> 9 ' O@?J ~1~'
QQ C"Q (" c c 0 (" (" ("
<.XjOG(J)?;::~( ~~Jmit? OISj-0~1 .<-q 'J2:~f::ne: 42-9
C" C" C" Q C" (' OC" ( - (') C"
f?:n\.~"l(f1C. fOJ.>:;QCI GG:li~CIOO? 'J I O@?O ,f~l O~:Jf?% 1
(' 0 (" (" ("
~:>~J:T.>p ?0 ? ml 92~;;::n2 587
("
Q 9 C" C" C" C"(C") OC" (C")
()I~IG'PC:~~ ~lJ?0":80? ~ I GOOimlCI8d? ~ I 0@)@ ~~10 1
lJ
OC" 0 0 C" C' C"
::Tp{c! ~:: J2?-J~? ~~ 9c~r::n~ 595
Q (" Q ("Q (' ("( (") (" Q C"Q (" 00
of CDCDQ~::l'..OS~C OO(.l) CD CDOX~CJWSI 012"1'j :.}~1>1 S'J~{.l)
Jl J J J; C .J LJ 3
C" C"C"QC"o COC"C"
o:>;p:~ 0)GO)?QJL0 ~'JC~:~J?il ~? O@j-jOl'\ ~ CJ2:;~'f:
("
:D~ 145
.....
"' C"c (")
oi:Jd:.D "'
ro to:>IG~I:;.)? c~) 9 ("
Q ~~~~ro:U):>:u~:~c
I ..,. J
" (" 0
G~:>crroc1
C"~OC"
:_jl
00
ro~m
3
Q (" (" (" \ c 0 (" (" ('
<DCJC<J.:?:~p: 'Jf~fl ~ ?I ~? f)IS ~ 'J2:~f::D2 772
'8:x>GCO?::<D
---..J
C' C' C' OC" C' C" ( C C"
.S~?~CC.t>:; G~?CG;.}: 012~0\ Q,:ii~l
L T L Y 4 \;. V'J
cneocn C"
l.- - - ~-
G~?Sm
0 (" (" ("
:n~
.a.
oc;1 ) mQf)Xn.s::n:n
l -1 ...-t::.O T C.:, 616
6S6
18
6t+ @cc:S.(C@b W
J J J 0
crCC<li CCOeJCO'h>
J .)
:cbco :cr~:eo:::oo
o
C2Filc~~b.l
;;, e ;;, ...J ..>:..3
l<li'
;;,
fe uG~c Jflcl;ro
e
~~coWl::>cfleJ
::> .> :::::~b
Z!.L C2cc:4(2(2b
..> J ..> 0
to Cb~;~J CQ 11;1::;,'Cow
.
14to~b
J J
J:crfl:to::>b0
..> 5 0
ro~w
oo
J:flmcso:co<lire
..> e ..>
'(b)cwJese~JcoJ
;;, e
(ro)roa:;Jo
..> ..>
:Sl.&::>,q:::<-fl~
e ..> .,a:J.;;,
9001 C2cc:S.C2C2b
..>
..> ..>
to<li:x.we.::lbo
o e..>
1<lil.&e cG&c
ee ..>
1(b) cro J::>ts le8::>Jococboccu4ct; :S~wocro(ro) :tc (e) Wf'>-
., ;;,o ..> ::> ::> ::> ..> ..> .;;,
C2cc:4C2@b
..> .) ..>
to
0
rcc dcurflCO
..>
l::>ktc
.)0
r(b)ceB
.)
> C2cc:4tt1Ccb
..> ..> ..>
Co
0
b~;~c
J
dcuPe>.c<li
..>
Joe toW
\.
,~(db
;;, .,
r:c.n'>:?xd~~m~es
o .:> e oo
r:~e(Jiocw8~es
.:> ..>
;~:cdlrewflcwb
.:> ..> Q
C2cc:cQe IG:S.C2C2b w
~' ~.) .) 0- J
~;~bo c<li 1i
. . '<f)
C2cc:~C2C2b
.) .) ..>
to cc~J
0
.... cCcc:~teC2b
.:> .:> .:>
to(J)::JCCIJBObo
o e;;, ee
~c :to::>oo
.J e
C2hlcflffia:roro
.J ~ ..:>-...:> _
JCc-cc~c tfll;"efl ~~cooo
' o J .>. <>
PAGE
c or c r;::;::c ccc r.: c o c o \
G~?~~=!~W~ ~e:t~=<l' oorom~;;~')tl~ ~c9:yp: ~~ ~~.
0 (" (" c 0 (" ("
II>? OjO ml 9~~;;:91 roLmpo:>~ 425
c c c oc c c c ~o c o c
G~?CG~?Ct~ '=I<Df~t O@CfC: ~701 9f~f~9c9:1 II>?~Jmp
c 0 (" (" ("
999
j~ J ~ 9~at=o:>e:
C' C' C' (" ("G) (" 0 \ 0
G~?::Gd:.Xf,:T<? <JOXD~ 9?~f11>9CCX{~YJ?8 UJO"{ jl 0? '((')j <If
C' C' C'
92~f:o:>~ .... fl06
C' C" ~ C' 0 OC" C" C C' \
GY:>:GGJ:G<li~C
J
;>Jo:> ~mn~ U.S(I.):D:OGOO:>c:Go;bX.I
-~ lt. t T L.... '" I .. 6)
Or.?~Jo
\;.
c r,:c r,: co c c c c o
~701 t:Jf~?tl2l>9:9:yp; mcpg~o:>GCD:>QJlUI 0? j j 0~
(" C' C'
922lf:o:>~
763
C"
~<;XXY.J']fG~JJ~o:>
C' C' (C)
II>
C"
OJrr.>::D?~C
OC"
rrJ~I O@jj
C'
~~11>1 t:::~fY')
~C'
r,:cG>C' c cc o c c
. tl~ 11>9C<Xl:~p:t <J?'P:~o:>Go:>?~JlU jj'( ~ 2lf:::D~ 309
C' (" (" C' (" ( ) 0 0 C'Q C' c 0
~t>o:>Ct<? ~~~>me oo U'J. t)O:>~t:e:~c:r II>') oc;o-oc;c; cq
(" C' ("
9~tt=::De:
609
r,:c OC ~ c c c c~ c 0 0 '\O C"O
. 1.5f~?~CC Gdl50)GO)?~fY~:~:~c: 0~:1 11>1 GOI~Gdll>"t~J?~I
C' ("
Of?~j Ql.!i~l mro:~
0
"' LJ -r GdG<X>GCO
o o
Gcqp:n:q,?::D~o:> X <"q
(" <. C'
'l221ir=o:>e:
441
C' C'OC' (
qfG'P(OOf G~"'")
I
OC''
qct Od? 9
(C) OC'( "'")
I 11>f G~l
G OC'
2:0;;;~ ~f~ill
C" C' C"
c c c c ~ 'l c cc ... r co c
op;.p:~;;oc:el: ur ?' O@j@ ~~01 Bf~')tl211>9c~:~Jp:r
C' C' ("
II>? ooo 9~at=::n2 1015
o c
q~:>~rm:Gm?~~
'l o '"I o(c)
9~:<.>100()) 9 1 O@jO
c
~~'!lt
kc
1.5f<:.n.~cc
oc
c c o c c ~ o c c
oxr=01o:>Gro? oo ~ 'le:at=9J oro;; ?::D~ '.:171
C" C'C"OC" C'GC \
9<:l<."JOX)O)~<? ::00-fl OOCIJ?())O)O) 09~9:1 ad~ j'(l II>?_ OjO
0 C' C' C'
C'l.{ 92a-r=::ne 988
'l C' 'l C'
'f>OI~-f01~<? 'J(:If9f~~:x>?:~p:t
(" (" C'
GGdf
oc (C') . ("
3tCI ad? 9 f O@jj ~,11>1
C' C' 0 (" C' C'
GdCQ?())O)O)f 11>?-:JJrr.>~? jO'( ~ 92at=::n~ . 587
0 "O C' C" 0 C'O C"
ro~?:;Q')'='~Ii>CD:u:>?~litC Y::D O)U)C\:)Q)?'d Qlll>o:>:u:>?:l Or.?jO <>~it01
-[ 6 tJ J o IL ll il G ll . t;. J
OC" 0 0 C' C" C'
( oo~ ) ate'~=' C!)? J0<>?-09 at 92at=::ne: 784
' c o c o 'l c o co c o ,
~91:lGro:O>J<Do:>=t~ OOCOf0111>?01JII>o:>:t ~B903X):;Di:f cr;)Dl j@l
C' 0 C' C' c;
ii)?'.)J())~? J~9 ~ 92a;;=::n2 .... .... 961
4
LIST OF CASES CITE])
754-
331
760
449
13.3
608
623-
Z09 .... C2cc:~C2@b
.:> .:> .:>
w
o
0 e&>ro
1cn~es:l,
oo o
(cc) :Coc.oec~lec.ftl;
o .:> .:>
(~) :XCIG~Peol;a
.)e .:> l. .) .) e
Z9l C2cc:~C2@b
.) .) .)
1:.o
0
cC,~b
.;:J
c.@ dPec.co~
.) .)
coro:cbco
.)
:c.Pe:ooo~ @hlc.ft~Q
.:> e.:>~
1o~e ~b~c 1'0 co ICC
.)~ .)
toec
'
:c.ftCOe~
cn~ec
oo
(o):~ 1:loesMec.ft~
o o .)
Mxe,GMe~e.e:
.) .) l. .) e
n.)C2ccc.~coh: ig:~t2@b
.) 0 ~ .:> .)
w
o
CCC co lhx.ro
o
IO~e cc~c I(b) c.es l::lro Je;~ :oG~fte.E
.) .:> .)0 .:> .:> e 0
C2cc:~C2@b
.) .) .)
wcob co cc~ec 1'0c~c
0
~(~)c.es 1oro
.)0
1es~ Jc.cnc.cccMc ~~d:d!.cccCl
.) .)0 .)
1d:cc.roc.es
.)0
C2tchl:o~:c.Qe
.J ...J.)
w
:::h. 0 o~ co 1(c)
.)
oce
.:>
;(b)
.)
c.es
d:s
.)0
1ec~ l(l)~e
.)
bb~c ~~es~~w
e
~:ro~~:obo
.)
~~:c.~a.ioces
.) .)
!.08 C2cc:~C2@b
.) .:> .J
1:.o
0
Coc co I(~) we.&~
.)
~r~c
.;:J
l8S C2cc:~C2ccb
.:> .:> .:>
wCC dcoPftc.o
0 .J
IO~dc
.:>O
Jofe
.:>
cctlc l(b)c.eslobes~
.:> .:>O
:cocoSft
e.:>
~bbc.ax:ooces
.:> .:> .:>
ttl C2cc:~C2@b
.J .:> .:>
wo~0 co 1~bcft 1 (b)c.roloh;1es~
0 .:> .J .)0
ob~c JliPecb,c:xcocccckJ
v .:> o :::J .:>M~o:~ro:C2~o
.:> .:>o .:>
rr:~ccaJ
.) e
GIO~~~
v l.
sss
1t
a:>vd
L8L C2cc:~t2C2b
.> .> .>
*- c.a 1cc '&>ro
o ..,, '
w
14~4b
~ .>
1:b:>oba C251
.> e ~ ~j
m~ :c.cnroJGCC~Ift ~~e.mc.cmccc.re ftrolft.eei(G)c.oe.G'~
oo e L. .> e .> ~ e ~ .> .> .> ~ .>
08L
9 C2cc:~taa:b
~ ~ ~
w~cr c.a ,cr tcro
0 ...., \
rccc.ca:a:c.cc
.>
r:c.Pft:to::bacn~es
e oo
l~escccccc~a~
e .> .>~
M~oMro
.> e
t Lt C2cc:~C2C2b
.) .).)0
wcG6 c.~P~col~to~b ~ ~.)
;G~tc 1(b)cro
.)
roes
.)0
leGe I<Obl:oftobec
.) :_j ~ .)
o~P<.:cPoec.cc IOe.G
.) ~.) .)
10m
~
ZlOi C2cc:4t2C2b
.> ~.:>
w~0~ ca ,r kw
o:.J:.J '
:d li:o 1:dft:to::bacc:
.> o
~en 1::rec~a:
oo .>
o~:cc.O!:ncccbr,aPc.xboow
.> e .> .> .>
C2cc:cw:w
.) 0
Co
0
~(;c
::J.
(.() ISC Ab
.) .)
IG~ r eve 1
~
~e::
.,
!~bcce
.>o
~~f!{):CC0Pe 1(~)c.rolecel<:e.GI
,c.cx:oto
.>oo-.>.:>e~ v v
(~)rpm
vv
9? , , C2ccR:x.J:ol;
.) :_j .)' .)
:C~ W e~c
_, o ;;:;
C.<b 1(~)
.>
C.eG 1(ro)'
.>
<:neG
.>
1ee c6 ICO~~hl .> .> :_j
~a:':ht~ :~::ccro
coo.>.>
:c.Pe.chce::::dwe
.:>
b:~a:;
o
C2h):ccn:b:cooottlj
.> ...... e
,
...... .
C2cch!g:;~
.) ::J~
wbe M r llPecnccCll
0 .) ~
d. r; .) : ~ !l :o~:coea:br.cnco:;,ro
.) .) ~ ~ .,
{0c ~ro
\
1ccxca;
;;>
; ':. ;: fr~~;:;:obG::::ro
e .> e .>
c~c ICCC.~
lt:Gelc i(b)c.w
.>
d:c ::ce> ~o
Sl)Vd
OZ8 C2cc:S.~C2b
.) .) .)
wS~Cc olP~c.m~coro:cbco ::>::>ka~~ wf~ o~:~~c
0 ;:; .) .) .) .) 0 .)~ .) ;:;
ZO . C2ccc~cdu
.) .) 0
~=~~~b w:lo~
'5' _, :> o :> e
roc IC.CDOO)C.:>:cbco ::>::>~c.a~bl
.J .J .JO _,:J l(!)f~ uCtb .J
OZ8 cccc:4C2(2b
.) ..) .)
to
0
be .)CCDOO)ro:cbcc
.)
o::>k0~Q
.)0 .,:J IOI~b .) ;:;s:~C~c
lZ8 .... .)C2cc:~(2(2b
.) .)
W
0
OOC ccoecoro:cbco ::>O~C.f7~~ 101~~ i~C
.) .) .)0 .) ...J .)
t9 .... . C2ccc6ro
.) .) 0
!l;:4t22b
'5' .) .) to
0
r or 14ccc.ro
.)
I (b)ce.moecres~ I(!)~~ oC~c .
.) .)0 .) .
lZ8
' ~
C2cc:4cc2b
.) .) .)
to
0
~:~be
;:;
c.m~:cbco
.) .)
::>o~c.t74f;l
.)0
101~~ oC~c
.) ...... .)
t9 6~r 14w4b.) .)
r(b)'crorohl1roe>
.) .)0
101~e
.)
cc~c
Zt9 C2ccc4wk
.) .) 0
566 C2cc:4<226
.) .) . .)
w0
(e)
lJc c.of,e.db::e::>hl~_b
.:> .:> .):J.J
ICb~~ rS~lJC IC.8W IC~ ~~:X.e:eb,:2
.) ::J .J.. .J .;, e
t6l .. sccc
:4<2@6
:J' .)
'9 'd 'uu~.,
H 1h:.~
ev o
(01)mxc.c-xc
.:> .:>
~b&c.c:2
.) e ..)0
:~Pf):bJ::>b01 @hlcfl46l
.:> e _, :J .> :J .:>
ICb~e CCelc rfl<CcoS.:coG>Pe
.:> _, e _,
~~cco~:2e
.:>
.BOYd
PAGE
CHIEF COURT
PAOli
ACTS.
AMNESTY Oru)F.R OF 1963.
EVIDENCE ACT.
LIMITATION ACT.
MOHAMMEDAN LAW.
MuNICI;:L AcT.
p AR'rnERsHIP ACT.
PENAL CODE.
PACE
SuccEsSroN AcT.
PACE
PAQB
PACK
The Income-tax Officer, th..:rebre, proceeded to asso.ss the
applicants on an income of K :.,z8,8s6 under s. 23 (.r) of the
Act, inspit~ of a letter from the applicants' agents to the Income-
tax (lfficer that their principals did not intend to claim any ai.just-
ment under s. 44C of the Act. It was contended t;<a t rhe
assessment under s . 23 (4) of the Act was ultra uire; nnd
invalid,as theapplicancs were rv>t I iable to be assessed u:;d-; r th~
ordinary prov . SO!lS of the l:!unna Income-tax Act. H~UJ: That
the method! of compi.lt .~tion indicated in s. 44B of the lhm1a
Income--tax Act is ordinarily applicab le to 3.SS{;S~meot of c:x on
the Maste'..: of tramp- :teamers and not to those shipping !.rh"s
which have. regular ag~nt w ithin the Un.on of Burma from whom
tax will be recoverable in the follow:ng ye:~.r, under the other
provision of the Burma lncome-tax Act. Htld dso: That t".c,.:
had been no v.1l id l"!sessment under s. 44B of the B .r,;; '
Income-tax Act and that the Income-tax Officer concemeu :l~;;
made a mistake in adopting the method of computation of
advance tax on the bas:s of that section. Held further: That
in the circumstances of the case, the assessment und-~r s. Z3
ofthe Burma Income-tax Act without reference to s. 44C of
the Act is valid.
THB MoGUL Lrm LTD. v. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE
T'RI.BUNAL, BURMA AND ONE 84
BURMA IMMIGRATION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT-S. 7 (2)-
CoNTROLLE.R TO ACT JUDICIALLY-TO . COMPLY ALSO WITH
EsTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ... SI
PAGB
of the first m~rriage of deceased, for the ad-:ninistration oi the
estate of t.l-t~ de::eased. The propc~ty sought to be adminis:crd
was the p:~yi:1 of t:l~ 'd;;:c.~asll'd, to his second marriag,e with the
P!aintiff/.P.~sponde:it. In p:;:.:s'ng the fuial d~cree for &Jn~tn
istration, the trial j udge had held that the Plaintiff was .. u:,. k-l ;.,:,
tth''shar-~ of the estate and the Defendant w s e:1tilled tot::-!
rem'lining {ths. On app-~ ..1, to the D ' strict Judge th~ d::: r,t' w -s
V.lried' and both p3rties wc;c given equ-.:~1 shar-!s. ELfd : T r..c
learned Dist:ict Judge h~d o:<e:looil:.ed cert.,in decision<; oi th~
Chief Co:.trt o~ Lower B:.mna wh~re it has b~en held th ~< tn:
widow is cn .itled as against the children of her h:.:s!:and b; ;he
former marriages to one-fourth sh11re of th~ property whic~ h !r
l:lusband brought tv'l'ds marriage w 'th her. Ma Ba 'We v . .Hi Sa
U andotf!ers, II L.B.R. 174- (F.B.); and MaLay and one\'. Tun
Skw~, X L.B.R. xo, referred to and f.Jllowed. Ma Nt:;~ \'. ;.!a
Sai D!l, VII Ran., p. 578, referred to. Accord ingly, th!
judgment and decr;~e of the trial court was restored.
DAW Pu v. D AW AYE TlN { 5I
CERTIORARI-writof-:zpplicationbynewtenantofpremisesfrom landlord
obtaining ejectment decree but sul;ject to an order of restitution-
decree for ejectment a condtional decree-s. u (I) (a) and s. I4 (1) ,
Urban Rent Control Act-transfer deemed to be during pendency of
the suit-;. 52, Ttamfer of Prop~rty Act-transferee also bound by
o;der of restitution-question of repairs in excess of 40 per C$1lt of
val~te--irreleva~. The Applicant, who was the new tenant of the
suit premises had applied for a writ of cer!iora9i as the Sub-
Divisional Judg~ had refqsed to enquire whether the cost of
r!pairs made by him was i'u c:ccess of 40 per cent of th~ market
value of the suit premises. Pr~vious to the Applic~nt, the
tenant of the suit premises was the first Respondent. The znd
Re3pondent was the landlord and he h'lu obt-l.ined a decree for
e'jectmeqt and arrears of rent agiinst the: rs .: Respondent. Sub-
so~:quently tli~ first Respondent had been forciply ejc"ted from
the premises and the 2nd Respondent had thereafter rented
out the premises to the f!.pplicant, who then made inte(lsive re-
pairs. In the meantime, the 1st Respondent had been succe;sfuJ
in his appeal .a gainst the order for ejectment, and after
payment of instalments due rega;:ding arrears of rent, had
obtained.an order of r !Stitu<ion in h is favour. Ul imately tb.e tst
Respondent app~ied for poss!-ss:on of the suit prem s~ s to the
Sub-Divisional Judge and the appl ication w~s oppc-sed by the
Applicant on the ground that he made exte!lsive rep~irs ref'!rre:l
to above.'a nd accor.iingly the prem'ses Wl!S now exempt from the
provisi6ns of the Urban Rent Control Act. As st~ted abo,e the
objetions put forward by the Ap;>J.icant were not-accer-ti!d by tae
Sub-Divisional Judge and hepce this Appl:catiorr for a wtit of
cettiotal'i. Held: The decree for ' eje'c tment pa,ssed agai.p.st
the rst Respondent was merely a conditional deq~ee under s. 11 ( 1)
{a) of the Urban Rent Control Ac~ read v<'th s. 14 (r) thereof.
Therefore the transf!lr (lf premises oy the znd Respondent to the
Applicant was during the pendency of tP,e saitwithin the meaning
ofs. sz oftP,e Transfer{)fProperty Ar-t. Co~secp.1ently not only
GENERAL INDEX Ivii
PAGE
the father. Cruelty cap .:ake many forms and the bw !:lz ~
nised ~hat some kind of mental cruelty may be m<,-;<:. S!#i<t-
than physical blows. Jamieson v. Jamieson, (1952) A. C. ps.
referred to. Where physical violence is averred and pro''ed ~
test becomes simpler but th~re again, the measure of the p.'-tYical
violence, the circumstances in which it is administered and the
mental susceptibilities of tile party on whom it is adrninis~
and such f:!ctors become relevant to consider whether the ph::--sw
violence proved-amounts to cruelty. Windeatt v. Win<Uat.t,
(x96Z) 2 ,V.L.R. I056; Evans v. Evans, I Hag. Con. 35; Rusull v.
Russill, (I897) A ..e. 395; Gollins v. Gollins, (1962) 3 W.L.R. t8o;
referred to. Stabbing the wife and causing her injuries of a
.g rievous nature including a fracture of her hand was cruelty by
any test. Striking a pregnant wife surely was cruelty. King v.
King, A.I.R. (I.,.'J25) All. 237, referred to. Condonation is not
total forgiveness; it does not wipe the offence clean. It operates
merely as a suspension of the right to divorce or separation, and
this suspension lasts only so long as the guilty party is of
good behaviour. If and when that party misbehaves, the pro-
tection of condonation is withdrawn. Barnes v. Barnes, (1947)
2 All E.R. 326;. Mackrell v. Mackrell, (1948) 2 All. E.R. 8s8;
Graham v. Graham, (I878) 5 R. I093, I095; Moss v. Moss, (1916)
C.A. rss. I6I; referred to.
MRS. PRoTxMA GsosH v. BxMALENDu GHosH .. sz6
CiVIL PROCEDURE CODE-SECTION I x-ResYudicata-WH.F:rHER stJIT
UNDER s. 12 (r) (e) OF THE URBAN RENT CONTROL AcT
BARRED BY THE PREVIOUS SUIT UNDER S. 12 {I) (f) OP THE
ACT 6*
ll-
CIVlL PRocEDURE CoDE, s. 92--whether bar to maintainability of
ejectment suit filed witkout sanction of Advocate-General-order
x, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. The Plaintiffs were committee
members of a Gawshala Society (an unregistered body) and sued
on behalf of themselves the members of the society and of the
Hindu community for ejectment of the defendant from the suit
land. Thesuitbeingundero. I,r.SoftheCode. The defendant
had contended inter alia that the suit was not maintainable in {ne
form it was framed. The learned judge accordingly dis:nissed
it on the grounds that it was constituted without the prior coosent
of the Attomey-Genernl (or the Collector), and sccondf: the suit
land being trust property, oilly a p~ly constituted trustee can
maintain such a l!Uit. On :Appeal!~: Regatding the &eope
of s. 92 of the Civi l Procedure Code .there iS. a clear authority for
the propoSition that where a suitrelating to r~ligious endowment .
doesnotclaim any such relief as i~ ipecifie4 in sub-s. (r) of
. 9'zof the Civil Procedure Code, the section is no bartot he
maintainability of the suit without the sanction of the Advocate-
General,and in the Court of the Subordinate Judge instead of the ~
CoUI:t.of the District Judge. The rel ief asked in the present suit
is certainly 'not one of those specified in sub-s. (1) of s.
gz aforesaid . . Abdur Rahim and others v. Syed Abu Mahamed
Barkat :Ali, A.I.R., (19z8), P.C. 16, referred to. Regarding the
next question whether only a trustee can.file a suit fot possession
in respect of immoveable property belonging to a public trust, a
. lirie of authorities show that such proposition can no longer be.
regarded as good law. Saw Durmay v. Baggah Singh and others,
III Ran., p. Z.I3, eferred to and dis~ented from . Afchami:rzad
lix
PAGE
Abid and another v. Haji Baksha and others, A.l.R. (1936) Oudh,
p . 133 Rengasami Nayudu and a11other v. '. Krislmasami lyer
and other.s, A.l.R. (1923) Mad., p. 276, a!ld il1:osque known [lS
Masjid Shahid Gani and others v. Shiromani Hu.rdwara Par-
bandhak Committee, Amritsar and another, A.l.R. (1940) P.C.
p . 116, referred to and followed. In anx event the learned trial
Judge was wrong in having dismissed the suit without going into
the evidence in order to determine the T,}ature of the trust in
respect of the suit property and the interest which the Hindu
community would have in such a trust property. The suit was
therefore remanded for decision according to law, in the
light of the above remarks.
KRISHNA LAL AND FOUR OTHERS v. SuRAJMAL BAL CKAND 683
ABDUL GAFFR AND FIVE OTHEa$ 17. ABIK.'L RA.H:ol Ml& TWO
OTHERS .~ I
the :nind. of the :ri::l Judge and also to pre_it!liice others. H ! ld:
Regarding the question whether the publication constitutey
contempt of Court, one has to bear in mind that conttmpt
proceedings being summary and a very ar:,itrary metho:\ of
dealmg with an o!fence, should be sparingly instituted and there-
for~ :1 person should not be convicted for contempt unless h ' s
conviction is essential in the interests of j~tice. Accordin~~;ly,
there must be something more than a technical cont.:mpt wn ich
tends in a sa"-'stantial m~nner to interlc~e with th~ cou;-s \ of
justice or to prejudice the public against one of the parties to a
proceeding. The Queen v. Gray, (1900} z Q.B.D'. -:36; In re
Read and Huggonson, (1742) z Atk. 291, 469 ; Rex v. P11rke. (1903)
2. K.B.D. 432; Mohandas Karamclumd Gandhi and Maluzdeo
Haribhai Des:zi, (1920) 58 I. C. 915; In the mauer rf S ..Or.!h-
manyan, Editor and others, I.L.R. 25 Laho. t 11;
Suhrahmanycn case, Civ. Misc. Application No. 11 of 1952 of
the late High Coart, referred to. In examining the circums:ances
o~the case it is to be seen that the Respondent was not only faced
Wtth a civil s:.tit against him, but also found hims :lf t() be the
sui:>ject of severalcriminal proceedings by some of the other parties
to the suit, and others who al so claimed to be partners . News-
papers reports which tended to blemish his character had also
appeared. In these circumstances, he felt impelled to vindicate
himself by publishing the advertisements com.,laiM<! o~ a~ainst
the Appl icant and the Plaintiff, whom he felt were at the bottom
of the suit ag:dnst him, and was instigating others to take ac~ion
against him. The publications complained cannot be cons ide red.
by any stretch of imagination, to have been d~igned to influence
the mind 19 the Judge trying the suit. Nor can it be nid to
tend t:> influence the trial Judge. The publication may, however,
tend _to creat., in the m~ds of the newspaper reading pub! ic, an
impression favourable to the Respondent's version of the story.
In that way it mgy technically amount to ~tempt of Court.
However, as it will not in any way interfere with the course of
justice in the trial of th-: suit which is now pending, the app' ica-
tion fails and is dismissed. Hunt v. Clarke, (1889) 37 W.R.
724 at p. 725, referred to.
Tm~xm Mvo NYUNT v. THAKIN Pu 728
PAC II
3
fJECTMENT-Suit for ejectment~ecree for ejectment pasted for ncn-
payment of rent--no issu on the point- but arrears admitted-
Evidence Act, s. s8-no need to prove admittedfact-dlcree p7operly
passed under Urban Rent Control Act, s. 12 (1) (a) read with Order
xz, r. 6, Civil Procedure Code. The Plaintiff had filed a suit for
ejectment under s. 12. (t) (a ) (c) and (f) of the Urban Rent Control
Act allqing non-j)llyment oi rent, nusance and bone fide require-
ment. Since the arrears of rent was admitted, issues were framed
r~ding th.e que.: i<r.~ of nu i$.8Jlce and bona fide requirement only,
and <n~ both these : ss~ the Plaintiff failed. However a decree
for. ejeament was passed on the admitted fact of non-payment
of rent. On Appe3l it was contended that the trial Court was
wrong in p.1$. il'.g a:-: ejectment decree for non-payment of rent
as therowas no issue on tlte point. Held: Under o.tz, r. t of the
Civil Procedure Code no issue can ar.se on admiss:ons on plead-
ings. Under o.tz 0 r. 5 the Respondent could have applied for
a decree on the admission of non-payment of rent. Uode-r s. s8 of
the Evide.::ce Act no fact need be prov<:<l wbich had been admitted
on. the pleadings. As the non-paymen~ of rent was admitted,
the trial Court could pass a decree for eviction under s. 12 (t) (a)
of the Urban Rent Control Act.
u TuN YIN f). LACHEEYAR ~~I
}AGARU v. U Po NAING ..
EJECTMENT SUIT-suit against partner in indir.:id~ '~ ~
tenant is the part7t~rship-i!O'!I'inlidity of nvlica ~~fill
of deceased partner w stay i.12 stlit premis!s-d.fir..zts.- ~"" ~tr''
in the Urban R~r:t Control Act. The rs: F~-! ;;"-)! ~~t:'~~
had filed a su[t for ejectment against the znd r.:sov ndcnl, ~ cf=
husb;.ndof ;:ile appG!Ja."lt, on the ground that the 2nd ;:.:s~
~ho was her tenant had sub-let tht~ premises to th~ h:!s~aml of
the appd:a:tt. The suit W\15 de;ree::l agai:1st both d .!f..-n~.
One of tb.e issues which arose on the pl!adin~s was wh-,Lhe d.te
t.eal tenant was on'$ Byan Sein Moh and Co., of whic'-1 ?!t ~
time, the znd respo:1.dent was a partner, and t:-:1~ h:1s~an.i oi~
appellant was the senior partner. Held: Th:! le3se c~
mentions that the tenant was Byan Sein Moh & Co .. and ~
the znd respondent executed the document s ~rrender~ ch=:
premise:; h~ also signed as " n,a~1 S}i,! !\1:>h.'' T ;,i; ~
clearly that he was not a tenant in his individual capacity. ~
fact that the firm of Byan S~in Moh was not registered will
only prevent the firm from suing anybod.y to enfo~eri,abt
arising from a."l.y contract entered into by it with a third~
It .,,lln;;.>t invali<h:e tJ.e ~>.m:rtct cf lease. Thus the notice~
by the rst r.cspondent/plaint!ff to the 2nd respondent and w
husband of t;-:te appcliant, was invalid in hw. Held furth.u: 'l'k
appellant as the legal re;>resentative of the deceased p'lr..-. is
entided to remain in possession qf the suit prem!ses ss 4li!t
word "tenant" as defi~ed in the Urban Ren~ Con~rol At;!~'..
int;ludes a k:gal representative of the tenant as ~efi.."led ia me
Civ' I Proc!!:iure Code.
DAw HPOON Soo v. D~w Mx Mr GYr A.'ID ONE 851
EJECTMENT SUIT IBSED ON POSSESSORY TITL.E- TTS M.'\ISTAI:-<.-I.Bn..ITV-
NOT NeCESSARY TO BE IN POSSE~i3!0N OF THE St:lT J..!\:"0 FO?. THJI
STATUTORY PERIOD 0!" 12 Y:;ARS OR MORE 708
and from the frame of the suit filed by the Plaintiffs that it was
a suit against a tenant holding over aft<Jr the terminat;on of the
tenancy, and the znd Defendant was m!r~ly joiaed as a person
in possession of the premises in suit as a licensee of the Ist ~efen
dant. The 1st and znd Defend2nts arc t:1e~cfo:.! :1'>~ joint.
tortfeasors. Goverdhanv.Maru:i,~I.R. (1915) ~ag. 35;
C. Ah Fong a11d one v. Ephraim Solomon and othe,-s, referred to
and distinguished. Tenants hold:ng ov.:r are mer.:: or less in
the sanv~ position as tenants at suffe:ance. Kanth~ppa Raddi
v. Sfleslwppa a1Ui a11other, zz Bom. S;n ; Chandri , .. Daji
Bhau, 24 Bom. 504 ; Pusa Mal v. Makdum Bakr.sh and others,
31 All. 514; Ku11dan Lal v. Deep Chand,, A.I.R. 33All.
756, referred to. Theref.,re in the case no.r. under
consideration both the Defendants an .:I its J ic<.:;;s;;;(! ::r..; Leble
to be ejected because the tenancy had bee:t dct :r:n ned accord-
ing to law under s . Io5 ofthe Transfer of Prope-;tr Ac:. How-
ever, the Pla:ntiffs em oaly ecover rer,t3'a:1d m%ne pro:it; from
their own teMnt. They cannot recover either re:tt or mesne
profits direct from the znd DGf~ndunt who was only a l icensee
of the rst Defendant. Gulam Mohiuddin NaTmavala v. Dayabhai
Chimanlal, A.I.R. (1923) Born. 398, ref.~rred to and followed.
NAGIBHAK t/. CHHAGANLAL AND TWO OTHERS 7 I4
PACB
the appeal was that since the defendant>t had set up an a~;erse
title since 1956, the tenancy must be deemed to have terrnm~ted
by forfeiture and therefore the present sui~ ba~ed on the relatiOn-
ship of landlord and tenant was not mamtamable, and should
have been brought against them as trespassers. Held: By the
amendment to clause (g) of s. 111 oi the Transfer of Property
Act in 1929, to determine a tenancy by forfeiture a notice from
the lessor to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease
because of forfeiture is necessary. Nilmadhab Bose and others v
.4-nanta Ram Bagdi, (1897-98) II C.W.N. 755; Khater Mistri v.
Sadruddi Khan, I.L.R. (1907) XXXIV C:d. {lz.z; Muhan.mad
Abdul Latif v. Shaikh Habidur Rahman and others, XLV, l.C.
642; and Ahamadali Fakruddin Bohri and others v. Mulla Fidasli
Sultanali Bohri, A.I.R. (1938) Nag. 162, referred to and distin-
guished. The only notice sent to t.'le defendant~ subsequent to
1956 was on 9th Aprih959 and this was nota notice contemplated
under s. II 1 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act. Besides, a
"tenant" as defined in the Urban Rent Control Act, 1948,
includes" every person remaining in possession of the premises
let to him after the termination of the tenancy or lease with or
without the assent of the landlord." Accordingly, even if the
tenancy of the defendants has been determined by a notice
under Section xI I (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, the
plaintiffs must necessarily sue the defendants as <r tenants" as
defined in the Urban Rent Control Act, 1948, and not as
trespassers. The plaintiffs' suit is accordingly maintainable
in law.
MAUNG THAUNG NYUNT AND ONB v. DAW SEIN YIN AND ONE 919
,,
FRAUD-Objection in a later suit to set aside a decree in a fOTmer suit
on grour.ds of fravp-fraud intrinsic to the former suit-later suit
not maintoUwble. The respondent had filed a suit in 1951 against
the Appellant, praying among others fo~ a declaration that the
sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of the suit
lands was null and void as the sale was Benami. A decree
was passed ex-parte against the appellant in that suit in I959
Subsequently in 1961, the appellant filed the present suit for
a declaration that the ex-parte decree passed against her in the
px:!vious suit was null and void, as the same was obtained
against her by fraud and by making of false statements. The
learned trial Judge, however dismissed the suit. Held: In the
previous suit, the apj>ellant by her written statement had raised
.the very same points raised by her in the suit under appeal.
The fraud and false statements alleged by her were intrinsic in
nature and not: extraneous to the previou.s trial. Therefore,
the suit under appeal is not maintainable in law. K.E. Musthan
v. Babu Mohendra Nath Singh, I Ran. p. soo, referred to.
Moreover, in .t4e case.now under consideration, the appellant
cannot seek to agitate the issues which she had already tried to
agi~t; in the former suit on the mere allegation that the state-
ments made by the plaintiff in the former suits were.false. M.A.
Maistry v. A~dv.l Aziz Rahmen, V. Ran. 471; and Gopater and
anothar v. Abdul Aziz, IX.Ran.. XJ5, referred to.
DAW N"l(ll~N KHIN f). MEssRS. JAFFER BROS. LTD. 864
.JARDEN. LAND-meaning of-Land Natilmalisation Act, s. 3 (h)-
. "agricultural/and "-excludes house site which is within a town OT
village. When in an ejectm~t suit it was alleged that the Plain-
tiff landlord became the owner of the suit land by virtue of a S11le
lxxii
PACE
which was illegal as the lat;-1 in question was " garden land,"
which was not transferable under s. 4 of the L'~n:l Nationab;ation
Act; and consequently the suit was not m1intainabie. t:uuz:
Un-ic~s. 3 (l1) of the Land Nationalisation Act, the term" agrkcl-
turalland "includes garden land, but does no include a !louses~
wnicb. is wit:tin a town or vii lag.::. Though the suit land is rem:aed
"garden land," there is clear evidence to show that it was De"U
occupi.::d or W.lS o;Ji,larily u'dised or le..tsed for agric-.Jltma.f
purp:>ses or purposes subservient to agriculture. The S\ltt
land is more or less in a town, if not a big vil1age. 1\~.
tiere is iocu::n.ent"Y evidence to show that the Distri-ct t..and
~ommittee had declined to classify the aui t land as agr'.cuhun:l
bid unde~ ~. 39 of the Land Natio::l.alisation Act, ::ts tis ab:mlat
dw~lling place. The suit land is therefore not an ~~
land as defined in,..s. 3 (b) of the Land N:1:ionilisa.tion Act.
A:mglanda:o Ko K'hm Sein and 4 others v. U Maung Chk; Civii
Revision No. 89(196I, referred to and followed.
lMMl!MORIAL USER-ITS PROOF TO 82 AO~IITEO WHEN DI.RECT EVI-
DENCE LACKING-EXISTENCE OF Woqf- woMEN CAN ACT AS
MUTWALLI 69%
PACB
1 1045 to 3 t-IZ45
II-46 to 30-9-46
Tax relief was granted on K I ,368 by Income-tax Officer under
an erroneous belieftb;,t this was the income ofth'! applicant which
was doubly taxed in India, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunar
in confirming the order of the Income-tax Qfficer held that the
same assessment years as labelled in the respective assessment
orders in India and Burma should be considered as the basis for
rel iefand not the identifiable income assessed in both the countries
even though the said income was assessed in one assessment year
i n Burma and in two different assessment years in India. Held:
That the only logical way of construing the phrase-
" if any person who h"is paid Burma Income-tax for
any year on any part of his income proves to the satisfact:on of'
Income-tax Officer that he has paid for the year I ndian
income-tax "
PACB
PAGB
alleged by the plaintiffs that it was agreed that they ~o-~ld ba: Lithe
said building, half of which"' was to be occupied by 'hem. a00 the
other half by the defendants who would pay for d::eir shu'e of
the costs of the building by easy instalments. The de~nts
h~wever contended that building belonged to than. a:ad ~bat
the plaintiffs were merely their tenants. The trtai ~ I!J;'I!e
a decree for the plaintiffs. On Appeal. Held : \l-"B;u ~
t':ltes a! icense ca~ be seen {rQm the English Common. ~~
ctples mvolved m the present case. The ~ L(W~.
England was and still is applied in this country under:&:- $3(S:}V
the Burma Laws Act, as justice, equi~ and good o~~li:'
,The Tajrnahal Stationery Mart v. K.E. Molumwl ~
V.S. Aliar & Co., (195o), B.L.R. 41 (H. C.), The U~4 . , . _
v. U Htoon Pe, (1958), B.L.R. 50 (H. C.), referred ro. f.n~
Common Law, there is a difference between a buoe ~-.l
a contractual licer.'Se which is irrevocable. To ~Ata~
tuallicense, there must be a promise which is i~ Cit &c:
binding and is eith!r supported by consideration or u ~
be acted on and is in fact, acted on. An irrevocabld~~
an equitable title. Winter Garden Thtmre (.l.ooW.'C} Uitilili#l
v. Millenium Productions Limited, L..R. (t~) . A.C. l'1'.J ; ,-...
v. Robinson, (1950), z All. L.R. 3; VmqJr.m .... F'.......
(1953), I All.E.R. 209; Erringtonv.Enm-gumazu:~..~
I All. E.R. 149, referred to and followed. It b.u a&obelllaklli
by the late High Court that where there ia. alic:o::un ~ a _...
~actualright,equitywouldalways i.ntetveueto ~&,itju.
~lon; the licensee's right from any ~ OC' da E 1 ; g
mterpretence in breach of the contract. U Tar~,_,. fJBc r-..
(1957), B.L.R. 341 (H. C.), referred to. lt is ql!P 1iA iD. dla.
case that the Plaintiffs were mere licensees 1liOd fi01t ........._
"PAGE
C:>u:-t; U Chit Ttm v. Daw Ngwe Tlumur:, C& v i , Fi:-s: Appeal No.
9 of IQ5o of the Chief Court, referr.::d to a:ui followed. In thec
presen~ suit the plaintiff never abandoned the suit land. There
was no ..lis,osJession or discontinuance of possession with!n the
meaning of Article 142 of the Limitation Act. Article 144
appLies, :~nd the defendant had not proved ndv:!rse possession for
more :!:!J:i til~ statutory pe;:;od of 12 >~ars.
D .\W ::1.1AI S111N v. U KAI.t AND oNn
PAC I
Although d irect e\idence is lacking, circ,.tm.s.<antial evidence
regarding the ex istence ofthe toaqf its-.:: if was c.on-:e::ned must be
regarded as conc iu::;l \oe ,as imrne;norla! u .;.:.: !-. .;..:! ~.::..:~ ~~~! !sh'!c! .
,This however, canno;; be s:11d of the Holdng ~o. 55 on which
rh e Madrasa (school) stood. As it is n~n a ; a : l n~cess;:..-y fo r such
5chool to be waqfproperty to enable itt:> funct wn , the existence
of waqf so far as the school itself is concernd. , can hardly be
said to have been establisl.ed by the evidence on reco rd. The
.case of Holding No. 30 is more difficult t o decide. There is
evidence to show that part of the holding was used to breed
horset for many years. It is surprising that the Muslim
r Commun;ty would have permitted the m isuse of the mosque land
for such a long period. The fact that they had done so, st rongly
militates aga;nst the truth of the story that the whole of h olding
No. 30 on which the mosque is si tuate was tvaqf property .
Regarding the contention that, as the mother of one of the
desendants assumed the duties of mu.twal/i of the Mosque after
.the death of her first husband (one of the alleged donors and the
ISt mutwalli), she must be assumed to h:tve been acting as
mutwalli in letting out and collecting rents with regard to the
suit lands, there is nothing in the cv!denc.e to show that she w.1s
in fact acting as a mutzoalli of the Mosque because there were
provisions in the alleged deeds of waqf to enable her to act as
:such. There is however not:1.ing in Mahommedan law to
prevent a woman from performing the lay duti..:s of mutwalli
.of a Mosque. Kassim Hassan v. Hazra Begum, A.l.R. (x9zo)
Cal. Boo; and Mt. Moidee1t Bibi Ammal v. Rathnavelu Mudali,
A.I.R. (1927) Mad. 69, referred to. In the absence of any
admissible evidence on record to prove the content of t~e
alleged regi-stered deed or deed of waqf, it cannot be0 said
that she was acting as a mutwalli o th! wa1f property.
Phatmabi v. Abdulla Musa Sait, A .l.R. (1~~1) Mad. 714,
refen:ed to. The probabilities are that after obtaining Letter
of Administration to the estate of her deceased husband, she
had arrogated to herself the duties of the manage.r of
the Mosque known as E-Byaing PJliwhich had been coJJStructed
by her husband. This fact w .ll not prove that the suit lands
belonged to the waqf.
1\11A 81 Sr AND ANOTH!lR v. SAYA MYA AND TKJU!E OTHERS 69 Z
. ....
NEGOTIABLE I NSTRUMENTS Acr- S. 1 r8 (a)-PROMISSORY NoTE-
. .
PRESUMPTION AS TO CON31DERAT10N-MAINTAINABILITY OF 'SUIT 375
No FuRTHER ENQUIRY ro BE DIRECTED UNDER s. ~37 oF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE UNLI!SS ORDER OF DISCHARGE PI!RV'I!RSB OR
prima facie INCORRECT I It
PAOil
PACB
PAGa.
When prJfits and gains arisir.g out of goads supp~ied f on ozmick B:1rma
be d~emed to arise within Burma. \Vhere under a c:>ntnlct signed
in Raugooa th~ ap;>l 'cants shipped. goods from C tlc:1tta to
Rangoon, where a~r inspe::tion o.1ly th' :y w~rff acr.e;>t.)d "and
Pl\Yment for the go:>ds ware ma:ie to th'< ap;>licant's agent in
Ra:igoon. Held: That the .entire profits a.!'1d. ga 'ns under tli.e
said contract arose within the Yn'o!1 of Burma.
T HE iNoi:~ WATERPROOFING A-::io DYEING WoRKS v. THE
Co:\1MIS3IONER oF INCOME-TA-x, BunMA 7 s
cv
PAGB
PAGir.
PAOX
case the Respondent No. 1 had after due enquiry come to the
eonclusion that the Applicant had sub-let the premises, and the
_ pro'ceedings show there are materials on which he could have come
to such a finding of facts. Therefore h!s order cannot be con-
sidered as a "Speaking Order". Held also: Since the owner
is one of tne Applicants for a=mmodation, there is nothing in law
to prevent the Respondenc No. r to allot the prem !ses to him,
if he considers that such a course is warranted by the circum-
stances of the case. The order therefore cannot be said to be
mad-:: without jurisdiction.
PAGE
.,
'oc.oCc@bc.occ:~w:@O>cocw
.)~ .) .) .)
~~-k~:cbc.o J:ol:loc.ce~
.)~0 \
.J::I.)
~l:'orocc:@lio !..Q:be:~rob~ JcC c'bec JG:)o2we.c c.occ:~w:CBO>COC<.c>-
o .:> .:> .J',j 6 .:> .:>O .:> .:> .:> .:>
..
9001 f' 10
L .)
wo:2e.)of f' 10 obO>:d
t... .> o
HVVd
X30NI'1V113N3~
ot
ztx
a:>vd
l lX~
BOYd
utX::>
...
gg
X30NI 'lV)I3N3~ AlX~
!!!>Vd
x::mNI '1V1!3N3!:>
SOVd
S6z
Il8
lWVd
.... r 10 :~hoocoa (G)~fi M r 10 e IC"'
l,; 0 0 .) .) ,) 1.1 . ....., '
.{ f 10 e IC~ 0~ :~:
1.. ' ..1. ~
ce~
e e .>
1(>)
.)
<0eS 16e: cG)%
.) .> .>
11
oo
BOVd
lWVd
XlX~ X30NI'1V113N3~
01
~
, I ,
1~:ca;co
gg6 oe:cooco ' "":'11oro~
o\rcc
0 ~ 0 ::> .) ~
aovd
tgS
zgz
X3GN1 '1~3N3!)
ll!>Vd
X::IGNI 'JVt3N3~
..nxi:a
.
llOYd
6gS <> '
. 1! ~
o UCI'IC.Ooo ' (1')''"1
o>r o u:c..-<:\.."C.ft<C
(I')''
.:> 0 . 0 0 ~ ..> . .) 0 .J
.0
amr&
X3:0NI'1V1I3:N3:!>
GENERAL INDEX cxxv
PAGif
59<>
1017
tg
:ccc:Cbc.c:CO@
0
ilOVd
l.ZOI
lWVd
X3:GNI'lvtl;IN_3:_!>
CJCXX .GEN~RAL INDEX
PAGB
"'~I .C'
CI c; \,lC:: l C'
:~(J)OJ(OOO:JC 6 C'
-:lCl()) OOC' II
~OO.'i;C ~ Cl l:T.l" r C'\ C'
U0000~:D~?
~ J1
(' \ -:lCIOJ(OQl
U0:DlCO(O
OC
(' .A
J L
It
-1
('
:T.lro!:>OOOO:ll.l
G l
('
0::>0 01 ::Pc; CT.l?Clo:>~~c;
_f LL
L ll
... 6 (' J
6 -:>C::O?
(' l.....,J
r,;:c o C' C' o C' 'lr,: C' C' C' r,: 'l C' r.:
tii[J~C(OO:)j~ II ONOI.IOitJ5?f:~m~p:qc II II(Oes =~ (,IG0:<;)'1j~<;Gtj
J:::C' C'\ (' r,: (' (' 0 (' c 0
l
<:j ::T.le0')0<DX2~tJ5"f::;,Jm(,l~ II ll:l:lmc;x~eoc;o'io<a ooe :T.l9~
" 17: c- c- 17: 1:::" ~ " '~" " <' l
9JeG::J~c~q Gr::l9 lt!0G~?Cl CUI ~m1 Cj "l~:l:lc: .OJ<C~Wt:;jltj0
<'r "L'! C<" l r:::c-
~ c o or;; <' <'17: <' <'o <' <' o <' ,.,
G~?C:m, ::P~6l_::>?,m ::l)CDG:l:lOJCtJ')f 00-:lOf>~GO::l:l~ll 9~>rqCO-:>~f>:l1
<: 0\> 9 C' \ c
1-S a;,~~,m-:><r,u ::P~WID'f<Xl=~p= m:>comgp: = <7 1<D-:>1.1Jm1-:> ?::l9
C'J;;~ r,: "" ('
1-c;(' G~-:>c0t::l~t<;
(' r;; (' (' (' ('
G(oi?C<Xlt:J ::>oe2oeoo :T.loom~;;~-:>t::l~<D'f<X?'~,~P:
' c 0 C' C' c
::P~ J' <D?I.IJmp 909 ml 'l~ff>l:l:l211
"
:T.l2(oiitJ ?:Gw?mas
I T
""
:T.l -:>::ni.IJ-:>::n-:>:
11.. \J
cJ :01c QOO-~,iCO~1
.) o)l Jl lL
OjC
J
:m G Olm&.. 1"0 0
' ocr::c f: c c c ' ~ c- C'
;I.IGOl:Y.> CftCt::!Clll U~:ao:>OlJo:>ll IIO~~~~Gt:;j?ClG~I :T.lmeoG:l
. IO>G\Cm
::P"I oo 1:c~o~:~GOJ?
r c 1,;~ c '
o
B cr C' " c <'(.<>
<:IG!~OOC ::PG<X:>-:lm::P:>Ioll?l GOO-:>mCOUJ(.l!l
\J u
B1 '
...l UJI J , 1.....1 6 C L
:T.l -:l!:DI,ll?l::P?I
-il. U C
J
IQI,IIO>OJXI.I?I
-~ [..:, J
<.ICO
IL CJ lei! l ", " G::PlOll~l<D-:>
U
" ~
co
CQffiQOO-:ll
... Jl
OC' C' 0
oc~co~
r.. fl o L J
C'
o.JI
C
-(
o
(' C'
c;~?CQo:>a)Gromo:>:nll OOG
T--- C.:.
0
cJio ,
C
~ OO<: C'
<o~co c;c ::n~1 ~<:ell ::POle
11. -I J C.. b
mx 1 ('
. 0 (' 0 C' 0 0 ~ " ('
S"..GQI O)<DOO<T.'GO:Dm <X:>l "iiOJ C I OO~l<X:> I C 1 IG.S?ml m 1:DCG::O? L J~ 1 T
r;; o
"t:J:xT.i
-,
<o~GOIG<X:>?C:::D Gf~CGO~olell
c ,
L l .!:,
oc c
c:. l Cl
~: 9m
c (S)
:;>d
c
0
:;>Jf>OGp<X:>I.l?l:ll:1c.
"
.., <
<> <'
:Y.>I ::P01 :T.l?ec
c(
G:;> l
'T') e::Y.>mGco:~q
e c <> <' r;-:c
2 1:l:lf1c:JS 977
6
<;; ?CIOOCSJ?IG<D')f .OOQ:JIC<X:>:;>Go:>:l:l:DII 0:00Go:>-:>OOOO':> :T.l?~:m
(" 0 J . (' . - - -r or:l~ c- l.:. 4 l o Jl" ~t~ oo.ncc:. o<"
ocoo:)j ~~9C9_'1r u~:[jo:>:~Jmll u~ootO>~IIO<.Iltmtl:w~~c
r.::::: C' C . C' \ 0 C' 0 C' OC' C f:'C'
<;;~x:a.>c~-:>IG<D');> oxp:~~:l:l21"11 oxp:'Jtrocom;. :T.l~CGO"jf>1oitj0
oc c_s <'. oc c <' " 1 r.:
~G~J II ~9J com~OO~CGOl<:ljJCCO~: I 4>1~ lG'jl rr'..Gt3:uGf~ I
r;; c c- r;; c oc <' <: c
t:;j~GOOX~o:>?l<olJ? I ~G~IoiGt:;jXltC:l:l~ <J~C~~J:'>l CO(Y)().'f7'
c
:ne
"9
0 ." c L." r;; c . c 0 .~ "t'l
. 0:t
m?qu:>:l:l~ OOGf[j<; t!S?f>IOO-:>:G:l:l-:> ::pm~:J<r.t O>dtiG<.Il rot!: I
~ C' o.c o 0 o ..oc C' o
oo:>w:n:n
ll t:.!.
.r.cc
L
-:>::n-:>:<cw::>:m
IJ L
o-n:.;;o:m::ocn
.. ILCJ T o
o:>IGOC'~:DII
(J , C
000
LJ
'l C' 9 r <: " c <' <: <:
o:>OIICV2ll ::1)1:9-:>: ~:l:l~.iq :nmcx-~~!*' 9J OXjl ::l:lm::0-:>~?1
......."'
li!>Vd
X30NI'lV113N3!:>
GENERAL INDEX cxxxiil
U. ..
X3GNI '1V'd3N3!:> AlXXXO .
GENERAL INDEX cxxxv
PACE
L..:.<' - <'
::l.><:CO?C~
" OC"
~t~?:;cc~c
C' C' OC'
GI.I?Cmc l
L. T L J l 433
316
I')C.WO 2cc6wc ~~~ (C) u:o!:l:)~JIJ:.. c.O~ccecto:o!:> ot:lcc
::> o o L .:>::J..:>o~' .l- . o
1 Io. . . ' , 1 ~6 ...,G
..,o .> <> .>~
eoc.ree~ cogec.coooreco cce_ o ec;:o o cc~ coo cccco~:cceo
\.) 0 .> .)O ~ .:> 0 .:J .> . 0 0 .) \ .)
.-, ._ ___ IO~W
IXCCOWC " n
') . lll!:>eiOCCe~coa:>
( ::> ']leo : 0 CCIb~ g
.) e e l,. .)J.) :> O
oCO eofteCCeCOCC :> .;,
corecob ~ IO~G~C.OW(;c.~bcoc e~ tobwo @ccl;cbe.coro
,:, .> .:J ~ & .> . eo.>.;, .> oe o::> o .:>
hc.oJ,
.>
(c\) II :o!:leg~~~)j[.g~ oReci2a:>OO;e
.)~b~ .:> o .>:3. .) ' e2cc:l::oc.ollcoro
.) o .> :>
co:2ee>
e
ccecocc ecb:ro:becc~~~o 0Rec~f>]~~'~ toll~~'~ ecc~cocc (f)
.) .:> 0 ,J .) ' e .), ,;)'.:::J .> 0 0 0 .)
11 ,~!:loccel"..coro r,:_,:~k.'cc ]~~'~ ~~~~]?,g~'~ 1cd.o~'~~~ll~~'~ 2cc ll?,g~
~.) .) ~.J- 0 :5 .:> 0 .) .) 0 .) 0 ,
e'ceeC.cxc (c) - dndfteorewcccehl::lcO ohl:cecw,?ec ecbooe~ec
.) ~ ~.) .>:.'1 0 .) :;)
, .1 -- 11 ,. )0 11 .1 ':":} . I J!.
coro:axoemec
0
ceo 1e:~>:wco
0.) .
uccccroeeewa:>
.:> \.)
0:;) ececcewcc
.)
co:""
11 ':J ,, llc.o 1 .1_ 1~ 1 11 1 llco L - '1.
ro~ :ccrow CJ:){'lOO 1ooe :cco:cec:w:cec:coro co COI'IIJ?t:lWGS'~
::> o ou ' o o o,J e O.)o
~cceco~re co:~:cbco 6wcore2i!oc.ccecc:6cec i:hlEJ':eceh.le-
.) \.) .:> o eJ~J' ~
n 11 1 o 1 1/-:1 r " ~ .1 J!. _l_ J!. co
:c1~ocewcc oco vc v: co~e: ~:roco :"~:o:>co o"e:roe'!:~
.>6 .) .) :;) 8 .)0
i2ccek~_ (e:cbco) h>:cbee>el!nec 2ec:c.PI'I (h>:cbco) e:cbco e}!nec
..) \0 \. 0
"' P , n6 , ' :J ..-. , o 0 J!. 11 ':"'J , ,
;:,co:croe
.:>
11 ~~:>e:ne>J e cooo'!1ec :ocoeccccccee co:.,rof'l 11 ccccro~ere
~ \ e e.>o .)0 ..> o \ .:> \O
<P:cbco ~Qec:cr~e:cbco w~ec~OOc.CJh.l~cor.o~ : ::Jc.h.leokohobce>-
' :J:J .) 0 :::J:::::J .) :_j .J ~ .JO .)0.) ,J;
nr1 ~ r 1 g n ., 111 g
::1'!1eroee1ewco
:J 0 1., :J
l'lftWcocoe
.>0 .) 0 .)
:o1eec
.)
:ceo:cco:ce 6 )
ec o'!1cc0
.) :J ,J,.;
aero .
ob u:~: o!:> oHeeo :cP(')ei,~ro IC.<fteec ~reob IGe C2cc:cr~
,:) .J..,: .) .) ';)~ . 0 .:J """ .) .
~ 1 l ll .. 11 11 1 ,
<."':ooco
o
e:mcoe<:ne$
ua>co:o ec.oro corowce co:~>ecnes-Qc
0 ,:) .) .) :> ;;
I'ICoce-
;:,
o2coeo ~ec.co~oreco ecc~cocc lacc:Reco(Q co:b/; (Gc) Ghec e
.) .) .) . ->o .) .) eJ .) .>o
r
cb
,;)
c~o2coec .)
~ec.coeoreco-
.) .: .)0
cnRcoroo:~ocobcob-:oiJ:beecore
.) J.J ~..... ,;)>, .)::I .)
co~ ~ oew <l>eco co';c.~bcoo GG oeo2:2br...ooco[,-:o!:l~co(') .
..> .l- ..L e .J e o .> .J .:> .:>:::r>
"'~ .-, , r ) , - ':J o [ r )lCD 1.-
ege :ccroc.cce:coco!'lcoa:> QU fiCO oe>oc eccecocc- ews~ ~ 1c
\. .) .J OJ..> :J .:J .l 0~ 0
Goo<!:@~ Cf ;f'lec:h:>orcoe:cbco-~cobwc cocczhlec o.fbcoof'!C.WO
;, . .lO ;, o o e :> OJ .> a e ,
-c.ccecc ->i2cc:co~" o .)
l;:~51Re
;,OJ~
~:c.ccl'l--:>Ol'licbco-zol:le<eco~'~re
o .) .)~' .) ,
bwc ~6ec.oroo~e 'l:o:crfl:@go :hij}:roeJ~:X.oo::JR:l';, corol!core
" " ~ ; .J \. o ~ ,r e ;, ..>:J . , o~J~
cocc 1b:reccea?cce:cbcooco~ec
:J .) .J
(lu:>w:>pl:IS AIIW'8i1)
e:l'l .)O
oo:c.cc~ 0
o6S ~w~b:o~:lec rroe
1 o n , ~ .Jr . o , 1 .:> ,
co6:~ Wc.o-'..c:c.WGio &cccn:l'lcc wcco~f'ICY...O ~~13::Jeo'!1re:occo~
" ,:) .) .J ,:) 0 .) .) 0 0.) .) 00 .> -
:h.l~c.rro~
~ .)
.lbk<P:cbco wcoc.cn~o:2co 1:c.wb:'0ec ook(')~~~oc;.coOO!fil
S'o ' .J t:t o .)0 .:J~ ~ :J ~
etox c\ oo oc.e~oo:2 c
t.; ~o :> L .:> .:> b
&orco.J...c~ .:>o~ o
II n::>wLo~J.O~('I c.~ccchl lrb:itxe:;:,cttileooo2 u2cc~Q cccooreec
.>, r ~:,j .)0 .) ~ .:>,, .>:.1 ,~.'I
c.cce>orewcc
fO J J
o'!1cb:ole:oc.h.l'ero
J J ::=l
Kl'lwreec2cccocroeccoc:ccccl'l
J J JO J
1
COCOC'KOCOO:>ll 11 C2cc:~r2@b 'cote !:>r c~ Jolrec.coeco&>:cbco
o ..> .> e ;, :> .> o o .> .> .)
:d.,:ooob<l>@hlc.e~bl ~fe tli:tlc ,g IO::lel~ec:c oHax.ee:C!
:J 6.) J :J~ ..) L. .) .) 0 .) .) 0
II uCQ C.0olibc.coeco~cbco lldl'l:'cxd:>Ql cr!hlc.I'I~Q IG>ke rCtlc
, :; -> .) .J .J e .:> ~ .)~ .:> o
1 :ccw~ w 1Pu o~errt<~ecl'lu uC2rc<J>hl.@~'~~~
.j 1:> .:> .)0 .)
ICC~ :>~e c.coww~
o e ~ L. .>::1.) :> .J
wcbeoo 1bec Q l'lohooo2 :be>ob<l>:cbw lPo<..cc~@hl 1:oS:.:cce>
.> .> ;; J ..>e .> J:.J JJ
::Jib.:c.cct;orco~ce
..) .) .j
o~obobco
.) .;) .)
l!,:l:oorco
.)
co~ofltc
.) 0
.~ceo2:cbco )::->~c'CeJ
aovd
X3GNI"'V113N3~ !4'Xx:Xo-
1l:>Vd
X3'GNI '1~3'N3'~
CXXXVlll GENERAL INDEX.
PAGE:
~Lt
~~:c~:CGCCOO
c:O~;dec
~ 0\.. ~
<nbM~cooec
~ ~ ;,
wb"~
0
o~~6 :coc::xo:c6:coc
.) 0 ~
BOVd
X3GNI'1V~3N3~
6
g6S
S:OVd
X3GNI'1V'd3N3~
80Vcl
X3GNI'1V\1.3N3~
cxxxxu GEXE:KAL r::D:::X
PAGI
, o .,.
~;;oa.s
~ c 11 IO'JGOI
o:l;:'0 .
~'JU)
c cc:
<:Omo:>u:> r c' C<' I rT.l'JC\:1
c: (olf00?01o:>
ll c. -IT '-' I! c. J o
C' C' C' OC' Oo <'C:C' 0 '\ C' C' 0 C'
IOe:ro~:O)OJ::l:l~J~O:>O(rT.lt:JCI (oi~OIO(.Go:l'J G~j:l:'Y.)CO'Jl~J'1Jro, C\Y.T.)I,;C>
1:::!?
~;)Gfe:Ju,lp:~uc;;:
C' " C'
!)XT.)COO!> ~s~:~
" O? ( <D) I( For any othc r reesonable
~ ) 0 C' c C' (' 0 C' (' C'
. . . cause ~o:>2 IOro'J:Cju l ~Ga>J :<.l?t'P5 10-:lO>J[Om, '1ooqooc9;;
0 c: (' C' (" C'hC' (" (' -S 0 r: c
C\J~OO::xl')(\)2;1 I:IO?()<do::>CijCl f
CJlCJ')<!)O)C OJO? !)XT.)I[lOC I:IOC II
6c ~ . o 4
J c c: L C e ~ c
~'P G~Gte:~'::x>c;r ~tl-:>::lf. O'Jelooc.~ c:~mJ<> j,ooo Ga>J :<.l?t'Pil r
c c- o c c- c c : cr;:c O\ o c
10-:l~J[O O>J[()~Go:l'JC\JC!l l ~?O>J[U'1'J ~COOO')Cl5CI l:l~~GUI ~:l~J{()':f':>
~ C' OC' C" <:" C' C'~ C" 0 C'
OO~ootec:~c~o:>') o~e~~~ OO?OJ())::!JI ;;>J[U~CO'JIG::xl'J 4>-:l~J[U
.,. ,. "II
JOJ~ ' "
G~G~J;Oil,ro O'J'('I~OJe3;1~11
'l o . ~.,.
0010-:l~I[Uc.I'J 1:10:>'->o:>Cl~;
.,.. "C:" r
vg,l
(" (' C' C' c 0 Q t.. \,1 J' J .. ~.
~OJ <; UJm<>JU:>OJ~ <Xf~Gf@3:m <XfO>J11 G~Gft:j:~:~p:
CG C' C' C" 9
( :l)')l) GCJ')')C~<>MO) I (l;)GQIU:>o:>C l:lu:>o:>c IO:)liO')ICOI o:>G:J')')O)o:>~
1.(1 -1 IL U. (,;. -,- llCJl
0 ' (;;.(' C' C' 0 (" ("
~~:l:> [jOOfGroo:l2;11 OJ'PIIj)I~J[U~ GIO'JSCJ')'J1~ O')C~CI't'll 11~:
ctlooa>Jro"
(' (' 1:::!?
nc;~re:~wf': "" 3;1roeu;s
~oc;ss '" C'
~s(,l o? (oo) ~c(' OJ'P:
~~~Jl()CJ')
C'
l! C'
( For any other reasonable caufe) ~~!Cr
0 \ " GSGf
o
z
e o oc J c ~,.
6
~l~oc G~Gfl:lJ?I:J.>?: ~:J.>Oooco, OdG~:ua~cG:Jc: g:>tco:>:
C'
OJ::xl ll
C.:.
0
COG
L
<:
m')C ;_]
g]!T.I'.lO?C Jl 4
C' C' OC'
o:>m:;occ;p GQG-1\
t c)f 1
3lei <:: &.
~' ~c.lo:>o:> l
l II. 1.:..:.
C'
S.t': C' (" C' C' C' (' C' 0 (' C' C'
g)u::JS'JfiO>Jro;~ mmJ(lOC c.IOCI IDeiiO'J:')f ro~uo:>2;11 ~jt9C
'T' " C'
GOI ~ COC~'JIG::xl'J ~O>JCJ')~'J O:JCJ')~C'f' G~Gf[31 O>J[U~G():Go:>?
c " OC' 1-:-o "o
c e r,: e o c c r: c c .S c o
-4>:lO>J(Oo:l2; c.IG~I:lG(j:JCI~CGOJ'J u~e:~s_ UO?o:lrT.lSJ f O>J[U~CX)'Jl
:fJ:<'(O C' C'hC' 0 J f:::!? C' C' C' ( '\)
<>::x>? <D:la>J["{jiOt]: r '1~1:lc:v~1 G~Gfe:~:OJer "?.-'::x>mr . o 1
" "
~O')'J~f . . R " "JO. I
~~Q'j::T.lefti:IJ':>IGOJ'J
'j<;OJfSJ G;)Gfe:J: 1:::!? O')GU)')CJ')"
OOCV::xlo:lll
C' "
<X:GO>IIOXYXnC
tJ -.-c."r -A
0 C'
O')G c C'
OJ'J(oi.SGCGO>flo:>mOJ
')C
1 o
\ 0 ~ IJQ-1\.("
'-' 11. \. ~.r~. -n
C' \
L.:. 6
0 c c
L
I:IO)C::Y.> I o:l')l:l.SGCG~II<.Do:lOJOOO)I DU;<;SO::xl'J
' . ~Go:>'Jo:> ();lG'S~
.. . "
o T o t l lt-fi. ot .:. - C L:.i.-L fl. TJ
C' COO(' 0 ('Or C'OC'
-GO>Jiu:>Go:>':>GC~OJml 4>-:lO>J[()CJ') C\Jrr.l00X\:l ~J[O:iOi)!c.IGUI'jf' roroo
c'L C"4<: oc 9 t. L C'tc Lc~'Lc .r ~ 0
OJ~~ OX:b'COJ2 11 G~f~: O')GU)')CJ'):D2;1 l:lC!::.U2 ~;;:q
0 C' OC" C' ~ C' 0 C7 C' C' 9 J:': C'
~.oo <X>tlme~c G~te:~=e-i oC6)0Jm-:> ~Di::T.ll:l~.c c;ropa-:>
l C'L .("l C' C OJ C'
CC:::
s~g
I OVd
3l>Vd
30'id
X3GNI 'lV'd3N3~
~ZOI
liDY.i
X3GNI'IV)l3N3~
1bcx: (c) rrc t~Gh ~ 0 0
(d:o ICOI(\ ;,&Jccoc:e::;,hl .:J ,)~ .)
~~ 0
~~~&eo
1co&cs
.:J
l 1 L'::l 1 ~ 1 W'~ 1 1
<:011
o
lf{)eQefl
0
cocr;CC::>'tCCICl(OO
.J .)0.> .J
COl
0
flll'flro<:O
.JO 0
ICOIC.<:OIO~ C.CCC.CI)-
., n 1 r . 11 ,_...., rn r n ~L r
t.ec::>eec c;:;cc::>'t:o~1 e coc:eco cocr;cc~t~le t~:c.moco 1~
.) ..) ..>0 .> .) 5-~j- O \..>
n
fet'l 1 '~'I
co:!lt'lll'I':W<:O1 r A~ 'I! ICO:occcc:x:e
t'lll)(\)f'l ~'01 ~ 1
CCCOflCC 1 11
1ecow "'n
lt'lcc
~ 0 0
= 0
t t ( )
0 .)0
c .>0
0
t
ooa:
r t L
.J
o~GI'lCGt::>::> 10 cc:c.~
~ .)O .)
~
.)
.) .)
0
.) 0
c.ccco,.~pew
t
.)
~q .tew
uOT::>:>S
. S''-;ll:>pt:n
II lo cofecot::J:~ II
J:p.!O
ll;:;lCC,JJ
Ull, ::;,(o
.)
(c) rrct'lob:b:J:,rc.ocoo~
.)
COClfl
.J .l .J 0 .JO .J .J .l .>
z6L. I~CCOC.ec~:2
.>o .>
ob~:a:~...,t.;IS~
e.) .'J
H2ccco
.>
ka.:co 0.>
.lO.>
Wcofeecoc.<:O~ .>
~:~&:cbco
y8.j
:;,(;co@
.:>:>
Oc.h:lelb u<C!ccooohl oc.~e.c.cc~ ~6l.'nbk;;cbco c.ccbec :oc.h:l~
.) ~ 0 .) .>::1.) ~ ~~ r, 0 \ .) ~
:t'lCI) t~rcbco 1:c.Gco~hl~::>h JcoJ...JW..lkcco fi::2co~hl:2.~ c.cc~
.> s-~j:.J.> .>o O"""""o.> ~.> .>::1.> .>
tex&>/~coc.cec H2cco~:2coe ,T~~l!o loe2cct;:::;,!;lco~:c:1co
0 .) "'--.J .) .) .,) \ .) 0 .):::1
c.fl:::;,l:l
.>::J
.)nec:r.~ .)2m~hl .>:.1 :2@~~2cc,JJ::>&oh:c.ec:2co
0 0 ].., r~, .)0 0
'CccQf!a;oo:C2&
.>::J\,) ..)
lt~:cc~
e
bcoP:eet'l ~t'l~h! c.~:c.oococ.b~ fi.:r,:cccoo:,h2& ::>b.
,) ::3 :QeOOt'l .) ~ 0 .>:.3 .,) ~ .) .) .) :J
, '::!" , l t t l ~~ :J ,, ( d
co:cco:'l:cccll'~oc:eoooo:= coc.m~:~coco s~(Oi:>U . .l [BI:>lpnr
o .> .> .>o .>o.> .> e
punos uo tnq A(!~l!ll!qlll p~S!:l~:lX~ :>q lOU p[nOt{S UO!l~~OS!P)
2t~b~:h:w c.7Ko~:cbco Wc.ecc.ecoo
.) ~ . 0 0
r2coc.cc~~:brco
.) .) .) .)
c.kcaxec
, ) r 1 , n ~ ~'l 'l ,. , ...., '~ ~ ...., "!LL
roec t co t}C~,o t'lGO: oo~rc.ocoo.o>eo 11 ::>'J'Cet'l lt~CCccft cocr;cc:c.cccno
\ .J .> .> .lOU 0 .> .:J
I! ~~ L" ~,., n ~~'l QQ,." 1 1~1 r
OCOCO I <3C$CCCO COICft CCCCI:x.ot'lCOO.oiCO I:01():J.._ccccoc:eoo:60:1 ~
f.> C' .> C'l .> " n1" e .> o1r ,.)o .)O .:J t.,
0
cotc.co ( o)cccc
\.) .)
@fli:::>rea:
.)...J.)
c.t~cc:c.oococ.Fco~ .)
-:C'la:ecou 11core
.) .)
cotJ:ku
,) ~.
:rc:b:c.@~@ coolre:&:cbco
.)
h.Jcoreecoc.ro~6
0..) .) 0
"2ccco~:o~
.)
w~exco:;~
. ) (..) :::.c.
,) l~~:oe~fJ
.) .>:.l :c.w'Co:::>b 0 .)
ohlccehbl:l:flcc
.) ::J .)~ ,)~ .)0 0
'co:c.co
,:;,roc:C:ob
o .)
~;hl:c.co:Ab:rb
e1 .) l,. :c.ec:c.cco~cc:c.c:ococ.fa:>~
.) .)
ba:olrec.@:lba:
.) "'
~ 1 '::\ t:1 I! l r" L " ~ll cb ~
r:c.:vere
0 0 ~
ccccc~;::>o::>n:c.w C.l'lcc~e:ccow~ICO~ co:
.J _,.) .)0 .) 0
cc: coooCO@ ,) .J
; r. " R ~"'""" J~
lc:.e:c.c:.C!..'c.!ro~ fi::>C::':J co:w;cc:wcoobcoo l3nll'CO~fl COil't'lc:G<:O
r ~ 1 1 , "1. ,
i .> " .> .>,. ~_, ~ .J .) lr.J o :>,O o
cocc:c.c:wc.oo~ c.cc~cc lleero~:oc.ca:c.co~tcl'lec :c.ec:::>b co:c.co
.)
co:bcccc:re~O()t'lCX: 11!ferec:cbco
~., rr .>
.) 0
, ~0 '
:,~ \
l:hl'Q@ccohi.Jf.::;,h bccolfec.G c.t'l:~cc::>c.ec~:2 'ccbe:c.c:owc.fa:>~
e'J~.....r .J:JJ",ro -~ 9
1
t.)
~
e
::>b orb f~flGOCOCC.:>OO IWCC
'
,
,ft"'J ., ->, t
.) 0
,..> 11
be:c.c:;CL;C.ICO~
.)
IC.coc:ecCCCIC.()lT,J
0 .)
sb CCCX:OCX:C.@::>COOCOfl
O,;j .) .) .) .) .)
I.)::;,hl~co
:J.J
t o r r ~~ l ~ ~ r ( ) ::_, r
:ceWC.IO~ C.t'lCO flCL;C00W('(.Cft t:)IC.CO @ COC.C ICOflC.CCu;CCIO~ e:1::>
.) .) .) .) .) :.> .) .) .J l,
il :JVd
~ r ,~o::>~
-og6 ,OGIC:X.~~ 0'!':~::>
~ :J :J .)0
cliOVd
X3GNI'lV'U3N3!> HlAXXXX::>
GENERAL INDEX cxxx.xix
PAGE
~ro
(' o3<J
(' "loo :JdQI
E~ 0 "('
:Jd:>.:>GQcom<,~ crro~ ~::oc;;roo:>p)n
(' , <? c-~::-m
('
OO?lo:>Cl?
l .J
00
I:I~J:JdiJIJ
B
-~
: '0:>1:11
C'G
tdJl'JIOL
('
,_,
'T'
CC!C'J~OI
('
GCIJI?Cl?OO?!~Qio:>:'.:J;::l)
JJ
.;,
('
3)1.-
,
IL
c
<J~o:>co:>
c C'
Jl
C" r;:c c-
G(\)I?Cl?OO?:ro G:J.I?mo:o:>c IJG::r.I?C Co:>l<liC I OX:')!qiO>i[O
-,
C'r: 1!. "-.J Jl
o:>
0
4
('c:x>e<J
(' L
c;;ro=? o:>co:>c:rou
JJ
uro:;~cm;Hmil uc;;co;xnoo?:
(' -l
(' (' ] 0
c (' (' U l ;,.
(' V
roc c
('c: C'C
0 0 0 Lt. C. L l
c-
. :>.:>:>.:>II IIGCIJI?Cl?OO?: ~'J:l:>
c '
lOGo:>? :J.>IJIJ~:m
o O>Cc~ c o c o:>ro:roo
<><J:>.:>OOC\:llC
t:..:. JJ -l-
\ O('
~roc:1
roro:~m
llb
0
mro:ro:Jd?: :JdWC"
Ji.U
('~
l . o TI.t.:..:.LJJ
\ 0 C
:>oo~J, .... (ll~ll
a(' ~ \
m roo:>
0
l
-c c. .:1 o 1 ~
::r.>~:~
JL A
'
1000
l
c:ml
0(' 0
"''~"''ll
('
T
~J<'~:>.:>co:>
('
Jl..O
('(' .. c
roc cwroe~~u
('
li<,~::Do:> ~Joo
c::.,; ot
0
Jl 0 l U \J ii! l IL C.:. lt. l
r:::::: C' 0 \ OOC' C' C' C' C' $, \ 0
:J.>Gi:.:PCI~Cl?l 20G3:T.>'JI 0:>'Pl4l~~C!l:>~lf? 'rfGO)?aJ~; [}J:J'?::J?,
1000
0
c:m
\ O(' 0
l L
::r.>~ s~Jml
~C'
T U
G~?a:>s::n=
oT
C C'
C.::. - l
C'C' C
roc cewn 0
ooc;;
L
6 (' ?C
~c~
4 J
C' C
c
~:~~ I:I'Xl')Cl? o:>?CIJOl')IO
(' ('((')
'l n(' 1c;(' ::ldro('(")
10 1 o:>?a:>?~ 910
('((')
'l t ~(' .... 279
('
.QJC'Co:llolCl?
('('C:J cpeo:>o:>('g: 031:1
0 ('
0~10?
(' 901$c SdQIIOOOo:>:>.:> ::ldl:ll :J.I"o:>!n '0 (' ('
-r
.
JL&.
("
::r.>o:>m c;;o:asc;cm c;;ac;;sO> 3d
(' U
('
<.ooo?:Go:>?GaG,sl ooo3<J 3;1;;- 1
0 (' ~
l -I A l t : . ! .
0 ('
JL Jll..:.
~<J
4 l.T A L -JI T IL <!JJ LL 1 Jl
(' (' (' (" C' <: ('
Cl?Jtl:~t ~t" ::r.~!:n~ G9?moo?:~'lorc:n~ 1 G9?moo?:orc'.:'ll
0 r.:crR r:::- o ("c c (" o
roe:c:JII>c:J:J CjCI:J.I~ GOI'jfG~ot ::ldt::e:orcroe:ml G9?0:>00?!0?c'f
(" 0 (' .. (" (' C' 0 (' 'l (' ('
O:>:x>CGO: a:>mro GCIJI?O:>OO?IO)Cl? CC:::ldo:>Cl? (\)O)OIGOO?CQCl?GO)?
u l
lT
(' oc JJc 0 ('
4
~
L
0 'I
d
('
GQGS<.ll:ltl?:..C ~:,_~:,>as WOO?: CIXJ:)<OCIJo:> . II OO:J.IO>I GCIJI?mOO?:
-.11 T J LJ n Jt. L L lJ
C' 'T' c~ c c ' o
. Ol'j~m 109?roco?:~ ::ldGOI 'f>C'o:>o:>t::1: q2~J 901$ 3d') I o:>'P:4l~'PI
C" \ 0 C' OC' C' C' 0 C"
G::ld?O:>'J!Cl? ~~0)2?3d"tCI :T.>G'j:O;f')f G9?C'f.>CO?I:l[3d?: 'JI~CIJ?'Jf
C' C' C" 0 C" <: C" OC' 0
::DI:I':lSIO? OOO:>OOCCIJCl?c:Jlll GCIJI?O:>OO?!!l:>O) ::ldGC:O:<.oGo:>? 3;11,/SO:>
n.
:::0- T
(" (" ('
1.
l
(' 0 . ('
ll
c:: I
C'
It
('
10 t
C'
<X.OOJ~ oxp:~IO>J[Oo;>, G9?Cl?OO?:cpn ll~lc:JOOOlJCT.>II IIG9?0:>
C' 0 C' 0 C" "\ C' C' C' C' OC'
oo?::n-.-, cc:<.ooo?:Go:>?Gcm cc:romo1 GOO?camo:>:>.:> c;;ac;;s~.,c ~.,<J
11. , a. 4 L '1 L bJ C.:. "' T J lJ
O,$.[,~ r;: c c o c C" cr;:c
~"1:::1~ Gc:J?ro?:cp1 <tCI'j~'Jar"o:>~ OOCI:JC~OCGO)? o:>Go:>?
C(' .WOO?:('('c:(' ('r;: (" ('
. 11.
~O)!n~l
Li. 4
('
('
T -
("
c C06
c;ne~0: O:l<J c !Cal ~~.;ro0
0
t 7 - - ,
0("
Jl c.
((")
::DO)o;> mc:~c:~?c:JC: IDJI[I~o:>~ ~o:>:>GOI ~I ~I :g? ') I
oeJ9 ~r~l ooSrop oe2 -~'l~:~ 'ltf:lt:~ ~?o:>tll ~8
[}J~o:>~
s. (' r - ('
o:>'P:~.>G~?CI:JXjr 9lc:JO:>'Jfo:>? c:JIOGo:>?
r.: (' (' L.<' C::<'.S.
Sdl,i c:J~~I
g)j9t~:~~:~ m'P:~:~ ~:roo:>? ~:~f ~o,tu
. .s.
G3df ~81 :J??(~) 1
C' c r.::::: C' 0 . C' (" 0 (' 0 # ("
oe:;o ~7101 ~~o:>f JOJ :T.>'JI ot ')~f:lf19JI orr.>fOo:>~ll ~G~~q
' o o c .co c c:
~~o:>?.~ot OW~JOA~Cl?o:>~ II
2":c;;tr.>J.S00::~
\1 U.J C
g:::r.~-x-8 641
('~ (' . <: 0 \ . (' (' . '\(' J::<'C::.
~e=t::1: q2~:~ 90?1 o~~:o:)i ~~:o?:~, ~:~~o:>e?::ld~lil t:JIO!j'-:11
(" C' (" 0 ' . c ~('
GCIJI?Cl?o:>,t;C G(\)I?Cl?OO?:=o:>o:>lol? ~G::ldO:> I:IG::ldCl? GI:I?C:IWI?: Ill
JJ . tlJ :.u -;, ll ~ J tl 4 J u
C' C" 00 c ' 0 C' c
Ga:>o:>~ II ~9?0?00?!0>')0[0? 1:11,10)~ ~~'Jf G9?o:>O?c:J.>?: . G~
GENERAL INDEX
PAGE
~
\g ooo mp
~ o
C~J<Ou:ron:x;pr o;l~;>Bc:
c 'r c r.: '
~cr.:n
co o ~
(,l'<~mu.:>m.~I~O?m m~co
11 <: C'
~0000
. ~
c II II ro: C'
;)liD II <:
IIOXI:>~f:IQC<:>:P?
c o<-
(T.Iq)()COO:>: 10:::0= c
. IL ' l cJ IL ' L C. t:,.!.
r~ .
.J!C<- o .- i'! .-
ro _c:;: o
CloD?: "te3cut:::o2 a~c ~:;1 cpcp::l~J?:m mc~<:>::o? ~~oz.
<' c c 0 '1 ooco <' (' ~ (' ".
GUIOOUI;1.; GOO?CIOOG::O?~:ll f:I<,I:::JQG::O? ooD::n:~ l ?l:f<C
t:::~ll ~c u
=~
c.
tl t.
:e:;::f,'!
(" '<:' c0 Sl ~
<'
1 .
0 <' 00<::
OOUIOO~t..:Ge:J?CII G~lt:::~~J?=fq ~~~lie) 'l~'ff ~ u~e~~J?I<Y.(
(' 0
- c C
<-r.;:<' .~ 0 c cr.;:A . <' o<: <'r.;:'5:
-GO:;;ou<,~,efj<I>G.e:J?CI I <;;~I~J?ICD, G()!;;o(Jt::j"'l~ -'JU~f'J~etj!:
C C J:<' f.: Or::. <' ,J;:;:; '\f.:<" c oC ;f.: C c
.Ge~?C: <D::OC3<? ~C:J?OCfcr-:::o,er ~:rou0c;;:"J 'f~:cp Gt:J?ro:~rr
:o:o=
t.
GKl?:P rooc
<" r.
o
o
cm:~?:.:l~~ o
U
'
ll
C?.SI::Q?
1:
C' c
c- c: 'C'
~:~sro.s:p!:Do5
L' (' (' ILA('
<" ~C' T C.:,) JT--1 t:.:.-1.
.l.f.OO'JI:Iell:l?01'lf~ <I?.'IC:>lJfOXD (~) ~fl ll<:>o;ll #t:J'd? (9) I
0 (' c- 0 C' f: Q C'
oe??' ~:I q)?<,IJO)P ?0e ~ f~?~?~:lJoo:>KP?I7<? 1t~~:: .
0 (" 0
~?<,l;lJOC~:o:>?:l oeJO "ltoDI
C' (
ooe . )
~
0(' 0
:J'dl 4l~J<T.>P O?i07
('
t<:c:-
GENERAL INDEX eli
PAGE"
07.01
Ltv
!! OVd
x::raNI '1V1!3"N3"!>
HP.
txg
xgt
.llOVci
.:>
......, woo
11 ecce
~ 0
, 6"
~
n ~coco
oec.cc:!'lle:l'l
..) .JO.)
o:ro
, o cc
.>
g
n ., 1I'C ) n r..,. 51
.) v
OOlUC.OC:C
c.cc~.l.ro:~feo:
. .)
OGO
o!:> .)oc.I::.O ~
t
"eCI'lC.G
\. 0,.
ucorol'l:
\ "-
.>0
IC CoC.<)~I'IC&
., 20 .)
:>eC.~"C!oe!I'IOiCOCI:>
"
,,
ro~ .)~ccG~c.~o~:,.,:ce:a!(J)o
.)
C.I'II'IC&
.)C)Jj- --
itf1 Q
l
.s IJl
.:>
l
0 ..)
.., "
.)
-,
.)
1
.,:)
1 ' ., ,. 1
oowr,oo ICOWI'I:ccrol'lro :c.ro:ccocc ICOWI'I
.>@ r
.) rv .) o
.) 00 .) .)
cccc<P~C.'>'(J)'>'Ct.Jeoo
0 .)
v
c.l'lflro c.cc~~ro:l1rw:o!:> oc.I:Ol~oo uoro 10~1'1 :Ct!roeco
11 1 l Q
: .) rol'lcoccro
..) ..) .) .) ~ 0 .) .J,. .) .)\,
lr lr '""J <><>~11-, 'l II 1 11)
I'ICC 10~:ccrow!e;)oo
.) .) \.)
rocccc::occ
.) .>
:c.cc:c:
0
b ecce:> .>0
ocomw
.) 0
ro::;)co
0
e&ccu uwfecor;Jl~ ll ucbc.cow10~ 10::> wrew C.CC~();,OOfl 00
..) .) :.J .) (.; """ .) .) .)
S::>'<'d
X30NI'1V)I3N3~
6S6
30Vd
3!>Vd
GENERAL INDEX clix
PACE
.971
xp:.
30Vd
X3GNI '1V1I3N3!>
30\'d
Stg
X'a<INI '1V1!3N3!)
~66
6001
3::>Vd
g6
aovd
AXJO
:cl:l~bo
:::h.
:~M..>~o
0
e~cesaicces oo~c~4Q
~ ~o ~:1
gz
:aovci
GENERAL INDEX clxvii
PAGE
O<" '"I "0" r~o<" <" o<: o o.: '"I <: o<: '"I
SdlolCI: 0~C~lc.g<D~C-'..J<D;:l:>t'J::>,Sls:lCIX100?::T.l~C I:C>GO:<>~I~Cs:l~o>CI:~ n~C-
""<"
J L ,.J L o~ i T Jl J i,IJJ J , '-
<: 0(" 0 <: 0<" OC' C' <: <: 0<: OC' (" "" ( .
o.o~:co.s: :J';lroQ-::11 oc;;oc;;>c:~ ~:~:e~1 oc;;oce>c OJ? > c : C1tModra
eC:. 1 T JJ L c. A C "'iJ l L A
legis) .... .... .... .... .... ~34-
CIIGI~I;;l
J I
(' g" C<" - , l t.
:
t-
0
0 C' C' C' 0 \ 0 OC'Q G ,c;t 0 <"f:C' C':
G'JI::P'?~~p:gro:)<jC l Of~:l?, !l4~-e::lm'J~Jl:"1 ;;,J"J<Y.>l:lc: ro:o~IY..
OC" ~ C"
:>CG
L
<:
?C: COCGI?I (' II COG
'J::>::D 0
?C<: C)JI,I())G'J::>?
("
11
OC" 0
0011.Sro 'r LO!>?;;li.S<"
::P:,lGC>I
C.:. t.L
6 o \J J }. l Jl 6JT
(' C' (' c 0 (' ('
G<D? c; OW~JID~m:O~II
<" <" C"O (" L, <" C" r-' r,:c- <" 0 C"
3<1CG00?(\)0CIO f~:eOG::l ::>j::> 3<1l:JO?Go:>?G8II,IJ?I ~GOI'J::>tjc; I O~IOOI(jf
') (' (" (" 0<" ( ) (" c ("
01']~1-m?~W'J::>~::Pt, ProtectiOn Order o:roo;;o:: GO:Cjf
0
<Y.>IOII
:>.l\.lJ;;l())'J)l(l)::l)::DI
34CG00?(1)0CV
0 C'
COI:Ii'J tiiO :000~00 Cl
(' C" ('Q ( ' (") (" ('("
o n l c. C.:. ttil. ;
fj~ r,;:<: c-
r,;:c ' <" r:::.c c r,: c c
C>'Jt:jiO(.tj:DGC\XD~ II <;1'iSdtJO!> Gcqj?IDCO?Il:JC:cr?roc;: Sd tl_:l<DGo:>?
0
L
~IQ'J::>
0
.
co
-,
("
GOIC\SCI'J::>::D G,o;>: loli?ISd<DID ro?mW~.SQ&CO>C ~ao:> ~f\V-1;
L -J .l -~~ Jl c.!, 1......M tJ 6 i) }. -J t: ~
ll
r::: .l) -r
Jl l ll .. _..,.d
B C'
c.
C'OC"
tJ
OC' C' 0
t.
0 C'
G::PI > I m;;,.s: ~c o>::n:co.s:~:~c:
C C' OC' C' @3: 636-
AT J oC.:. T .
dxviii GENERAL INDEX
PAGE
APPENDIX
COURT-MARTIAL APPEAL CASES
APPELLATE CIVIL
Before U San Maung and U Tun Tin, J.
Ci :;-il Micellaneous Appeal No. 29 of Iy6I against the order .of the
Dristrict Court, Bassein, dated the 29th March 1961 in Civil Executio11
Case No. 8 or 1952.
27
2 BURMA LAW REPORTS.
c,c. Held also : that the phrase " as IUay ultimately be bindi>,g upon him ,,
J963"
ABDUL
.
i"n clause (c) of S\lq-r.ule (z) of o.dcr .P' Rule 5 of the Code r:f CiviiProcecbre
nr1H b :.: i .,t~rpret<-d to m:an that th'! sut:ty mu,:t bi,lli hirr> 'i..:lf for the d u~
GAFFER perfr,;ma.occ c.f the decree hy 1. ~1e j~<~g'mcnt-debwr of such decree or order as
AND may ultimately be passed by the first ape! late Court.
...
FIVE OTHERS
. ' ~~OPJ!. . uecr~. of th~ appellate Court and shall pay whatevu may be
RAHIM " payaQl~ by them tHereunder, and if they should fait therein
IANJ? TWO
.. .
,OTHER~. then' ~ny amount so payable shall be realized from the proo-
perties hereby mortgaged, and if the. proceeds of the sale of
~he .said properties . are insufficient to pay the amount due.
We .and oi.ir legal representatives will be personally liable to
p~y the b~lance. To this effect we execute this secur.i.ty
bond this 23rd day of February 1953-"
. n 'is therefbre clear that what the sureties had bound them..
~elves was .. '. tq. . the extent the judgment and decree were
corifiriried by the High Court on appeal againSt the
j~dgmeh!: a nd 9,ecr~e of th~ District Court. The judgment
. and decr~e 6f the District Court were partially confirmed
~nd to that extent only the sureties are liable.
The decisions in the following cases are in support 0f
this view . : .. '
..;;=: In Pannaji Devichaizd.'and others v. Basappa Virappa
B~llary and others (I) it :was held that if the 'terms of
surety bond refer only to a particular. appeal pending in
'. ~h~. Hl.gh Court, the surety's liability cannot be extended
to a4e.cision given by the Privy Council, reversing the
decisimi of the High Court. In Sbri Madho Rao Narayqn
.: R.ao : chata~-'v. Hcirinath Bhikaji Baxi and another (2). it
~as held that' when pending.an appeal, execution is stayed
6~: the appeilant's furnishi:ng security for the dl,l~ per-
.
o.f.
fp:(.mance
..
imy
r
decree
.
or order that
.
might be passed by
' the appelhite 0;H1rt, the bond s~cures the performance of
the: .obligation imposed by the decree passed by the first
aP~lla~ cQurt and cannot make-the surety liable for the
decree pasSedby the second appellate Co~rt. See also
(2) (1939) Nagpur, p. 276.
BURMA LAW REPORTs. 5-
that each bond must be interpreted according to its own FIVE ~~HERS
terms. 11..
Ai3ov.i. c
RAMI~{
The learn_ed Advocate for the respondents has relied AND T ,.VO
upon clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Order XLI, Rule 5 for OTHERS.
his argument that the sureties are liable for the decree-
passed by the Court of fina l appeal. This clause in so far
as it is relevant for the purpose in hand reads:
"No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-
rule (I) or sub-rule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfied
that security has been given by the applicant for the due
performance of such decree or order as may u{timately be'
binding upon him."
APPELLATE CIVIL
c:c.
' il)6'J'
AMANI AMMAL AND ONE (APPELLANTS)
--
jan. 23.
v.
..
CHIT SEIN AND ONE (RESPONDEl\TS).*
of the
.
plaint. these defendants were
.
said to bbe in o.ccupa-
.
Cf
19 3
tion of half of the said land as trespassers
.
y erectmg
.
a AMANI
- AM-
house thereon. The 1st respondent obtamed an ex-parte MAL ANn oNs
decree on 26th May 1960. It was alleged in execution of CHITf)SElN
the said 'decree being Civil Execution No. 54 of 1960, A.~o oNg
vacant possession of the land v1as given to the 1st
respondent. In the meantime, all the three def~ndants
applied separately to the Court to set aside the ex-parte
decree which was eventually set aside on 22nd October
1960, and the Court directed to proceedwith the suit.
On the next date, namely, 5th November 1960, which
was fixed for filing written-statements, the defendants, by
their separate applications under section 144 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, applied for restoration of the land.
The xst resppndenJ (Chit Sein) admitted in his objection
dated 27th December 1960 that the house on the land had
been demolished under the said decree, but he denied that
the land should be restored to the defendants as it belong~d
to him. In the meantime, he himself had also erected a.
house 0n the land. The Trial Court, ~~lying upon Sul~an
Ahmed v. Nasara ]aman.{I) held th~t no application tinder
section 1# of the Code of Civil Procedure iay as the ex-
parte decree was not varied or reversed by any appellate
or revisional Court but by itself, and treating the appiica-
tion as under section I5I of die' Code of Civii Pro'ced~re
disniissed: all of them on 12th May 1961, stating tijaf it
would not exercise its di~cretion under the section in
favour of the defendants as the 1st respondent (pl~iQ.'tiff)
had. a1ready bui'lt a house on the land. It said, the ist
respondent would have to d.fsmantle the ho~seif restitution
was ordered and that would complicate matters.
The ~ef~n~~i1t-~ppella11t;s .tlien p:eferr~d an app~l to
t~e. , ~e~rned A~dition~l District Judg~ o( Ins~iri iii .q~~
Ap~:.~~:. ~ 9f_12_6J .ag~!~t ~h~ .(~t r~spon~ent under
. ......
:
(1) (1950) B.L.R. 372 (H.C.).
8. BURMA LA'vV REPORTS .
:; ..
<s> l.L.R -7 Rangoon,p. 466. (6) (r~6o) B.L.R. p.-2t.6 (H.C.).
12 BURMA LAW REPORTS.
APPELLATE CIVIL
that the firm which took its name from the appellant c.c.
1963
should cease to use that name after a certain date. KHArR DIN"
The promissory note was endorsed by one Rahmat v.
ABSARULLA,
Ul1ah for the firm of Khair Din & Company in favour \:lf
the respondent in this appeal- after that date had passed.
The appellant, therefore, contendedin the original suit in
which he was defendant that the endorsement was bad,
because it infringed the terms of the agreement betweeJJ.
himself and the other partners of the firm, and also that
as the firm was not registered section 69 (2}-of the Partner-
ship Act stood in the way of enforcement of the. right that
might accrue from the promissory note. The .learned
Subdivisional Judge dismissed the suit jn acceptance of the
two contentions.
On appeal the learned District Judge considered these
two arguments in extenso and came to the finding that the
agreement betvveen Khair Din and the firm did not affect
the endorsement by the firm in favour of Absarulla, the
respondent in this ap.Peal. It was also held by the learned
District Judge that section 69 (2) of ,the Partnership Act
would only apply to suits instituted either by or oh behal.f
Of an unregistered firm and as there was no evidence to
show that the suit filed in the original Court ha~l been
instituted either on behalf of or in the inter:est :of Kha.i r
Pi!~ & ~ompany se.c~on ~9 (2) di~ not .raise any obstacle
;<1g4inst its instit_ution.
In the appeal before zrte Mr. Verma, . learned counsel
-for the appellant, strenuously takes up the -same. two
ground,s that had been thoroughly agitated before the first
.appellate Court. The first ground is that the endorsement
of the promissory note.made. by Ral;lmat Ulla in the -name
of Kh;rir Din & Company was invalid .and did not have the
effect of passing title in the promissory note to the
respondent. Mr. Verma does no~ seriously contend ihat
~al:u~at . Ulla dld not have the authority to endorse th~
14 . . BU~MA LAW REPORTS.
Cf3
19
promissory note. What he argues is that as the firm P,ad
. .. agreed to drop the riame ofKhair Din from its own name
KliAlR DIN
-v.
.
after a specified
. . .
date, the endorsement m . h t h e name
. wI1IC .
-ABsARuLLA . ' <if Khair' Din & Company was used offended the terms of
APPELLATE CIVIL
Before U Sarz Maung, U Saw Ba Tlleirz and U Tun Tin,JJ.
MESSRS. ASHOK KUMAR NEMJEE (APPLICANTS)
I c.c.
v. 1963
:ra11 C"M- ~c) where a business or profession has been newly set up
. MISSiONER OF iri :the finar1cial year preceding the year for which
."INCOME-TAX,
BURMA, assessment is to be made the period from the date
RANG60N, ' of the setting up of the business or profession to the
36th day of September next following, or if the
actounts of the assessee are made up to some other
da~ than the 3oth day of September, then at the
option of the assessee, the period from 'the date of the
s~tting up of the business or profession to such other
date : provided that such other date does not fall
between the setting up of the business or profession
and' the next following 3oth day of September, it
shall be deemed that there is no ' previous.' "
APPELLATE CIVIL
Before U San Maung and U Tun T n, JJ.
Union Judiciary Act, s. s-Pendi11g applica ion tmd r-Eflect of repeal on-
Cannot be converted into one under s. 6.
In view of the repeal of section 5 of the Union Judiciary Act with retro-
spective ~ffE;<;t an application filed under this section before the late H !gh-
Court an~,p~ding before the Chief Court must be dismhs~d.
As a.i~~po:>iication unde~ section 5 of the Union Judiciary Act is an
entirely different application in natt.re frcm t hlt under section 6 of the
said Act, an applicat ion under the former s ~ction cannot be convertt'd i. .to
one under thl' latter section.
c.c. the I~t April I962, the d~te on which the Chief Court was
t96J
established, .while section 6 of the Union Judiciary Act
~ESSRS.
'K..\'NNYALAL was. amended: so that special leave could be granted by
KI~~~:a.L the Chief Court from any judgment, decree or final order
"' v ~
. MESsRS':
of any Court, including a Court constituted by one o r two
SHRJlERAM Judges of the Chief C~urt itself.
' CHANDULAL.
In .view of this Union Judiciary Act Amending Law of
i962, : the plaintiffs-have now applied to this Court to
. convert their application into one under section 6 of the
Union Judiciary Act. The question is whether an appli-
cation so to convert, can be granted.
Now, although Civil Miscellaneous Application No. I 6
. of 1962 may be deemed to have been pending before the
Chief Court since its creation, in view of the repeal of
: section 5 .of the Union Judiciary Act, with retrospective
..effect, the plaintiffs' application under section 5 of the
Union Judiciary Act must be dismissed . . Furthermore,
since an application under section 5 of the Union Judiciary
Act is an entirely different application in,nature from that
under. section 6 of fhe. Union Judiciary Act; the plaintiffs'
application under the former section cannot be converted
into one under the. latter section.
The only question which remains to be considered is
whether the plaintiffs.' application dated the I Ith December
I962 can.be regarded as a fresh application under section 6
.of. the .Union Judiciary Act and in. view of the eire-
.urnstances it ~hould be entertained long after the period
.o f limitation. had.:~apsed. We have carefullyconsidered
' this matter ~nd ''!.e ar<not of the opinion that sect;on 5
of . the Limitation Act car( be invoked in the plaintiffs'
favour . . There n why the plaintiffs could not
have filed an c: L . .nq~r section 6 of the Union
.. ]l:ldiciarYAct.before t l;le .late Supreme Court at about the
same .time .as. ,they filed their application under section 5
thereof, before the. late ~igh Court. It . was not a case
BURMA LAW REPORTS; 27
APPELLATE CIVIL
APPELLATE CIVIL
c:c.
x9o3
'Provided that no allowance shall be made under this
. P-- . clause in any case for any interest chargeable unde:
MllSSR$: TH:;: this Act which is payable without t~e Union of
BHAI(~T LIN"Jl
LTD.
Burma e~cept interest on which tax has been paid
... or from which tax has been deducted under section
THe
IJ:<CO.'-IE TAX r8 or in respect of which there is an agent in the
APPELL.~ Til Union of Burma who may be assessed under section
TRIBUNAL,
gURMA AND 43-''
ONE.
The question which tlOW requires consideration is this:
Where the in~rest payments made by the applicants to
persons residing outside the Union of Burma chargeable
under the Burma Income-tax Act? Such payments will
OI1iy be chargeable to tax under the Act if they are of the
nature enumerated in section 42 (r) of the Burma Income-
tax Act which reads:
'' 42. Non-residents.-{r) In the case of any person residing
out of the Union of Burma, all income, profits or gains
accruing or arising to such person, whether directly or in-
d~rectly, through or froni any business conne(;tion in the
TJnion of Burma. or through or 'from any property in the
Union of Burma, ,.or through or from any asset or source c.i'
income in the Union of Burma, or, through or from any
money lent out on interest and brought into the Union of
' Burma in cash or kind, or through or from the sale, exchange,
relinquishment or transfer of a capital asset in the Union of
B~trma. shall be deemed to be income accruing or arLc;ing
within the Union of Burma, and shall be chargeable
to income-tax either in his name or in the name of his agent.
fmd in the latter case such agent shall be deemed -to be. for
ail the purposes of this. Ae.t, the assessee in respect of. such
income-tax."
C,:f
lyv3
This view of Chatterjea ]., was quoted with approval
-
. MESSRS. THE
by a.'Full Bench of the late High Court of judicature at
B'HARAT4.I N Rangoon in the Commissioner of Income-tax, Burma v.
LTD . Messrs. Steel Brothers & Co., Ltd. (3) where it was
THE
INCOME-TAX
observed :
APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL,
" VY.e a.dmit the d~fficulty arising from the vague expression
BURMA AND 'froin. any. business connection.' Taken in its wide sense, it
ON I .
W0uld render liable to Indian income-ta~ any profits made by
a manufacturer in England on a single consignment of goods
to an . importer in India. This is the meaning which the
. Commissionh of Income-tax seems to have attached to the
phrase, and is the meaning which, the learned Government
Advocate contends, is the correct one. It is one, however,
. wh~ch w.e cannot adopt, as sucn a meaning would be repugnant
to the word 'business ' in section 6 as defined by section 2 (4),
and w-e can assign no wider meaning to it then the latter
words of. the definition as ' any adventure or concern in the
nature ,qf trade, commerce or manufacture.' It was probably
use:l, as Mr. Justice Chatterjea conjectures. as ~ compendious
expression. to cover such concerns in the nature of trade.
commerce. or manufacture as arise through a branch, factor-
ship, agency. receivership or management. But be this as its
may its meaning': in our opinion, must be strictly confined
to the meaning of the word ' business in s~tion 6."
Is) (1935) 3 I.T.R. 395 at pp. 400-401. (6) l.L.R. sz Isom. 702,
40. BURMA LAW REPORTS.
From the above it is clear that the expression " busi- ~9~3
ness connection " which
.
has a wide meaning. admits vf no M . T
ESSRS. HE.
.. - .
(s) {1935) 3. I.T.R. 395 at pp. 4oo-4o1.'
: . .. . .. . . . ... . ,'
42 BURMA 'L AW REPORTS.
c.c.
r963
Income-tax Act read with sub-section (3) of s,ection 42 of
MEssRS. ThE the ,Burma Income-tax Act and Rule 33 of the Burma
BHARATLlNE Income-tax Rules.
LTD.
v. Each party must bear its own costs of this reference.
THE
INCOME-TAX
APPEIO.ATE
TRIBUNAL,
BuRMA AND
. 0~~-
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 45
ORIGINAL CIVIL
ORIGINAL CIVIL
c.c.
MOHAMED EBRAHIM SALEBHOY (PLAINTIFF)
v. .--
1963
Jan. 24
c. c.
1963
Vthat I have to consider is whether the plaintiff has the
- legal right to stay permanently in the country. If he has
MOHAMED
EBRAHIM that right or even a colour of that right--e.g. if he claims
SALEBHOY
v. to be a citizen of the Union of Burma-I must entertain
co~o\LBR the suit and try it on_ its merits. If it is dear that he has
oF
I MMlGRA-
no such right then the remedy under section 42 of the
TION. Specific Relief Act is not available to him, and this suit
APPELLATE CIVIL
lJI'jore U Kyaw Zan U ,J.
.P B Dv.ASAND -(8) relied upon by the learned Advocate for the applicant .
:rwo oTHERs. In these two cases the matter was taken up on appeal to
the District Court fi~t. I may note here that these cases
however did not arise out of an order of the Court of Small
.Causes but the law is the same. The point for decision in
these cases is indentical with the one in Daw Saw Khin v.
Ko Shwe Phar (9), where it was held that the combined
effect of sections 195, 476, 476A and 476B of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is that where a Civil Court decides to
institute or withhold a prosecution the appeal is to the
'Civil Court, and the revision, i.f any, then'from to th: High
Court is also on the Civil side under secrion r l 5 d the
Code of Civil Procedure and not under section Bn nf t he
Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned . \ O::m:-.::~ ~or
the applicant has entirely misconcehed t i ~e ;.: w ..: :. i ~' .:<;
come up before this Court before he vcfr~~c~: :::: ::pp:-.:: l
to the Distri.:t Co~rt of Akyab. Tl~e p;-e<::::: :: ;:-~~: : ~ ::~i 0:~
being under section I IS of the Code (/ Cidl ?;- c!~ .:-dure
and not under section 25 of the Burma SmJi! C1use Courts
Act, I need only point out that the 2nd ~nd 3rd respondents
were not parties within the meaning of srnion 195 (r) (c)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution under
section 471 of the Penal Code but were witnesses only.
'They are accused merely as abettors. The~e seems to be
no evidenc-e to show who actually forged the voucher.
The evidence of the Hand-writing expert is merely
Corroborative. Tin Shwe v. The Union of Burma (!o).
For aU these reasons given the application is 'disiPJssed.
As th~re has been a misconception of law and the matter
being of a criminal nature, I make no order as to costs.
APPELLATE CIVIL
I ndia aml Burma ( bzcome-tax Relief) Order, 936. Part Til, para. t-.11emzing
of phrase in-When tn.-.: reli~f can be nllotced.
vear
' '
only three months out of the 12-month period.BTRmuNAL, URMA AND
assessed in Burma fell within the Indian ass~sment period. oNe.
The Income-tax Officer, Burma, therefore. gave relief to
the applicant -o n K 1,368 only and not on K 26,931 as
claimed by the applicant. So the applicant appealed to
the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Western Range.
Rangoon, but its appeal was dismissed and a further appeal
to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rangoon, was again
unsuccessful.
The applicant then made an application to the Income-
tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66 (r) of the Burma
Income-tax Act. The Tribunal, howc:wer, dismissed the
application on the ground that its order ilismissing the
appeal was correct. Relying upon the decision in the cases
of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Calcutta v. The
Burma Oil Co., Ltd. (1) and Assam Railways and Trading
Co., Ud. v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2) the Tribu-
nal held that the applicant was only entitled to relief in
Burma. on an income of K 1,368 for which it was assessed
in India for the accounting year ending 'rst December 1945.
The applicant then made. an application to the late High
Court un~er section 66 (2) of the Burma Income-tax Act
with the result that the Appellate Tribunal was directed to
state the case for decision on the question of law arising
therein. The question of law referred to th.e late High
Court:was that alr~dy mentioned above.
. ' (1) (I949) I7 'r.T.R. 348.
68 BURMA.LAw :REP:ii>RTS.
1-10-45 tO 31-12-45
1-1-46 to 30-9-46
The questiqn is: what does the phrase " if any person
who has paid Burman income-tax for any year on any
part of his income ~oves to the satisfaction of the Income-
tax Officer .t~al he has paid for that year Indian -income-
tax " occurring jn this paragraph really. means? . When
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 71
APPELLATE CIVIL .
~.c.
THE INDIA WATERPROOFING A~D DYEING WORKS 1963
(APPLICANT)
Feb. z6.
v.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. BURMA
(RESPONDE~).*
Wlzea profits mrd l!ains arising out of .f{oods supplied from 011tside B11rnza be
deemed to arise within Burma.
'Where 111:\d~r a C:>'ltract signed in Rangoor.., the applicants shi pped goods
from Calcutta. to Rangoon, where after inspection only they were accepted and
payment for the goods w~r! made to the applicant's agent in Rangoon.
Held: That the entire profits and gains under the said contract arose
within the Union of Burma.
APPELLATE CIVIL
dated the 28th of March 1961 and ~he final decree passed }AGANNATH
itAGARMAL
in pursuance thereof are set aside with costs in . favour of AND ONB
v.
the defendant-appellant Babu Sagarmal Tibrewalla: Th~ MAHAD0
case is remanded to the Original Side of this Court to pro- PRAs.u>
ceed according to law in the light o{ the remarks made TIBREWALLA
~~ . . .
. AND ONE.
.84 BURMA LAW REPORTS.
APPELLATE CIVIL
c.c. first vessel S.S. Alavi arrived on the 23rd February and sailec
1963 on the 22nd March 1950 after having loaded 4.655 tons of rice
THB In this letter they wrote 'We have not paid any advance tax
MoGUL on account of this shipping concern as we cannot give you
LINE ,.
LIMITED an estimate of yearly income, and as we have now earned
'U.
something by the S.S. Alavi we consulted you on the telephon<:
ThE
INCOME-TAX and, as suggestea we will now pay the income-tax and the
APPELLATE
TRTBUNAL,
super-tax as an individual steamer subject to adjustment on
BURMA AND . submission of the final retums for the year '. "
ONE. r
APPELLATE CIVIL
B4ore U San Maung, U Saw Ba Thein and U Tun Tin,JJ.
v.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGOON
{RESPONDENT).*
the rst October 1953 till the 3 rst December 1953 is not RANcooN.
now relevant as it has since been allowed by the Income-
tax Appellate Tribunal. Regarding the claim for deprecia-
, tion allowance. however, the Income-tax Officer, Com-
panies Circle, Rangoon, rejected it on the ground that
under section ro (2) (via) of the Burma Income-tax Act,
it was the Rangoon Electricity Supply Board and not the
applicant which was entitled to depreciation for the pre-
vious year ending the 31st December 1953 . The applicant
appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
After a long discussion of the merits of the appeal. in
course of which the Assistant Commissioner referred to the
relevant passage in the report of the IIfcome-tax Adminis-
trati()n Enquiry Committee as to the reason why clause
(via) o~ section ro (2) had been inserted in the Burma
Incom.e-tax Act, and agreed with the Income-tax Officer
that itwas the Rangoon Electricity Supply Board and not
the applicant which was entitled to depre<::iatiqn allowances
fo~ the ~hoi~ year whi~h included the:period rs t January
. 1953 till the 30th September 1953 for whieh depreciation
~llowance was claimed by the applicant Company. ,
, , The applicant then appealed to the J.ncome-:tax
Appellate Tribuna~ and the Tribunal concurring Wi.th the
views of the Assistant Commissioner, though without any
reference to the report of the Income-tax Administration
1nquiry. q)mmittee, dismissed . the applicant's .app~l .~
so far as ..it related to : the ..depreciation ~llow~!l,<;~
. .
9f.. ...
BURMA LAW REPORTS:
APPELLATE CRIMINAL
Hindu law-Polygamy permitud 11nder Hindu ~rriage Act {Indian Act No. z 5
of r955)-Camrot effect on Hindus in Burma-When may be recognized.
Bigamy in India-Hindu, wl1o is a citizen of Union of Burma and an Indian
citize1t-Camzot be prosemted in Burma for. Contempt of Courts Act,
ss. 2. and 3-What does not amount to c,ffence undn.
Hindu law as recognized by he Courts in Burma is the customary law
relating .to Hindus and the taw as laid down by th.e decisions of the Courts.
According to this law, a Hindu may marry again though he has a wife or wives
living as Hindu law permits polyg~my though~ it does not approve of the
practice. In India an absolute prohibition against polygamy is enact~d by
section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act {fndia Act 25 of 1955). This being
a statute law enacted bv the I ndian L~gislature it cannot per se have any
eff,ct on the Hindus in Burma. It may be recognized, if after generations of
obedience tothis statute taw, new migrants from India come into Burma and
claim that so far as they are con~rned monoe:amy is a c.-ustom ha,ing the fo:-ce
oflaw. . Then, in so fa'l" a$ they are concem("d, monogamy may be enforoed,
the Hindu law relating to marriage having been altered by custom having the
force of law.
Tan Ma. Shwe Zi11 v. Koo Soo Clzo11g, (r939) R.L.R. 54-8, foU~wed
Ramadlzar Keto v. Ratipal Ahir, (r958) B.L.R. (H.C.) u, overruled.
A Hindu who .is a-citizen of the Union of Burma -cannot be prosecuted
. in thi,s , -country, under section 494 of the Penal Code for allege-d bigamous
marriage . which he" had contracted in India and an Indian .::itiun cannot
.. Under any circumstances be tded in Bu-rna for an offence under section 495
of the Penal Code, which was committed in India.
' By saying that the applicant and his wife should be boycotted for encoura-
ging their, son to cont~:act a bigamous marriage in India, the respon~ents
-h ave .not prejudiCed the trial of the applicant for the alleged offences of
cheating. and -criminal breach of trust as to constitute an offence ,punis\l~ble
u~der sections 2. and 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
King Emperor v. Ma Tin Saw and one, 6 Ran. 39, referred to.
c.c. . for: ... The .applicant therefore contends that the action of
19 1
. ~ .. the respondents tended to prejudice the trial of the case
THB U N ION
. oF -BuRMA . agamst " h'IS Wl'fe an~' 'ms
h 1m, . son and tuat
1...
act"10n shouId
,
<s~Ht~~';;- be .taken against them under sections 2 and 3 of the Con-
...ioS?'li~~>. tempt .of Courts Act ; the 3rd respondent being the editor
. - r.J.~V. : _ of. the ~' . Daily Prachi' Prakash" where the handbills bad
Gli.DH!A AND b . d f . l .
TWO_OTHERS. een pnnte Or CITCU atlOn .
. ., ,In_ consequence of the applicant Chhaganlal Lavji
l,(otak's ap.pl:ication, the 5th Additional M~gistrate made
. an e[\q_u iry _in,to the matter for necessary action under the
Contempt of Courts Act ..
: Now; the complaint by Uiavanti against Kishorlal C.
Kotak, h_is. father Chhaganlal Lavji Kotak and his mother
Mrs. Narrn~da Kotak, which was dealt with by the leai'ned
-5 th Additional Magistrate in Criminai Regular Trial
_, No. 409 of .r9-6o was for a<:tion against the accused persons
. u_nqer.sectiOJ:?.S 406 and 420 of the Penal Code and abetment
thereof, though Lilavanti incidentally mentione<l. in
._para-graph 8 of her complaint that the rst a-ccused Kishorlal
C. Kotak, her.husbatld; by contracting a bigamous marriage
inl:n:dia had .committed an offence punishable under section
495.0f tl~e P~nal Code. That Lilavanti was only tak,ing
action .a.g~inst the three af cused persons under sections
. 4o6 an<~ :420 of the Penal Code is dear from parag~aph I 2
of'her complaint. Nevertheless, the learned 5th Additi011al
. Mc:1gistrate, . ~fter the examination of LHavanti on' oath
m:dered n:on:bailable warrants to be ~ssued against accused .
Kisho.rlal C. :~otak tlilder _sectiol1S 406, 420 and 49S or-'th~ .
Pena.l .. Code. an.d: agai~st the ~wo other accused under .
settions.
:466, . '420
. .
and .49
~.
5.r~ad V\'ith section I 09 Of d1e
I
section, the Privy Council has in the case of Tan Ma Shwe c.c.
1961
lin v. Koo Soo Chong (~) observed as follows: THE UNION
Buddhist law ; is like the Hindu and Mohammadan law LAL LAVJI
intended to be applied by the Court <.IS a law known to the Ko:Ax)
Court and administered by the Court of its own skill and M. V.
b f d d "d "fi d
competence. . . . . It cannot e con oun e or 1 erttl e Two oTHERS. GADHIA AND
for the alleged offence under section 495 of the Penal Code, ~9;;
which was committed in India. 'THE UNtoN
Consequently, although Kishorlal C. Kotak may be (~~~~
ostensibly under trial in Criminal Regular Trial No. 409 of , LAL LAVJI
.. l . R f KOTAK)
1960 of the 5th Add1t10na Magistrate, angoon, or an v.
offence under section 495 of the P~nal Code he is not GA~;'~No
properly so . . The publication of the resolution dated the Two <>THERs.
16th March 1960 cannot therefore in any way prej~dice
his trial.
Realizing that this ground is baseless, the learned
Advocate for the applicant Chhaganlal Lavji Kotak has
sought to cqntend that the publishing of the resolution
dated the 16th March 1960 has tended to prejudice the
trial of the case against him, his wife and his son for the
alleged offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Penal
Code. In this connection, he has relied upon the case of
Subrahmanyan (8). There it was held that " it may amount
to contempt of Court by abusing parties who are concerned
in causes there, or in prejudicing mankind a party before
the cause is heard, and that any publication which is
calculated to poison the minds of jurors, intimidate
witnesses or parties or to create an atmosphere in which
the administration of justice would be difficult or
impossible, amounts to contempt."
It is contended on behalf of the applicant that by
advocating social boycott of the applicant and his family,
the respondents had prejudiced mankind against him and
his family sothat they can hardly hope to get a fair trial
for the ~lleged offences under sections 406 and 420 of the
Penal Code. . In our opinion, by saying that the applicant
a~d his wife should be boycotted for encouraging their son
to contracta bigamous marriage in India, the respondents
have not prejudiced the trial of the applicant for the alleged
(8) A.I;R. (t943) Lahore 329 (F.B.)
110 BURMA LAW REPORTS.
APPELLATE CRIMINAL
Criminal R! vision N~. 148 (B) of IQ6z. Review of the order of the Special
] uqge. (II) SlAB & BSIA of Rangoon, dat~:d the 3 xst August 1962, in.Criminal
Regular Trial No. Z4 ofl961.
112 BURMA LAW RE;PORTS.
c.~. teak logs felled from the prohibited area and from areas
~ not cbvered by the permit. The prosecution relied mainly,
THE UNION
oF BuRMA to use a common - l anguage, on t he vanatlons
. . of t h e g1rt
. hs.
u Po CHEIN .of t11e logs from those of the stumps and on the entries
made in the exhibit Girdling Note Book maintained by the
Forest Department. .The identification of the logs as
deposed by B. Emanual, the then Forest Officer of
Thaye.tmyo District, was by the personal hammermarks of
the Contractor and the inspection marks of the Depart-
ment. These Jnarks are not disputed. The girths were
measured at 4' 6" from the ground. The royalties had
been paid on the logs felled by the respondent and no.
report had been made that he had unlawfully removed
logs from the place the trees were .felled. It appears that
some of 'theContractors were allowed to remove though
it was not the practice. To ascertain whether the trees
were felled at the places permitted or covered by the con-
tracts one has to see the departmental marks on the stumps.
The witness admitted that he never checked the exhibit
Girdling Note Book and could not say the entries made
therein were correct or not. He could not even say who
made those entries. U Aung Khin (PW 6) the Forest
Offi-cer, was the man who put the inspection marks on the-
logs and on the stumps after taking the measurements of
the circumference of the stun-ips and the length of the logs.
He said i& a tree produced three logs he had to number
them serially. Th~ logs were then remov:ed and stamp~
again by the .responsible Forest Officer after royalties had
been paid. He said -no Contractor was allowed to remove
the logs before he stamped them. He verified the
r-espo.ndent's c:ohtract and found that the trees felled by
him fell .within his right. U Tun Shin (PW 5) a timber
. -broker on the .o ther hand stated that the logs were stamp~d .
'only ~t the -car-g~te on the road and not at the places. they
:were .felled. .. He said they were .felled according to the .
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 113
APPELLATE CIVIL.
Before U San Maung, U Saw Ba Tlzei" and U Ttm Tin, JJ.
October 1957, and the present Rule 2 (a) of the Burma Income- c.c.
1 6
tax Rules was notified to have come in'to operation with 9 3
effect from 30th September 1956. whether the applica~ts' U THARRA-
WADDY
application filed on the rst June 1955 for registration of th e MAUNG
Firm the partnership deed of which was executed on the "'MAuNG
A o sNCIBS
21st June 1950, for the assessment year 1950-51 could not 0
be granted by reason of the fact that the said deed of part- 'rmrcoM-
. . . d , h f h MISSIONER OF
nersh1p was not m. eXIstence unng t e accomlt year o 't e INCOME-TAx,
firm from the xst April 1949 to the 31st March, 1950." BURMA.
APPELLATE CRUMrnNAL
Before U Kyaw Zan U, J.
c.c. disposal -of the other. These three~cases have been allowed
19{)3
to hang fire for such an abnormal length of time since
.U Tm!IN
AUNG about three years ago. As a matter of fact not a single
(alias)
U TINT ~-witness. even Jor the prosecution. has yet been examined.
LWIN,
MAUNG In all these cases the accused (respondent) is the same
KYAW. AND
U . THIN
person though the complainants are not but they are all
SHIN connected. In Criminal Regular Trials Nos. 3 and 4 the
uM~uNc .accused was prosecuted under section 451 of the Penal
Ko. Code arid in the la-st case he was prosecuted under section
:sso of the sa.id Code for theft. In all these cases the
prosecution merely has to prove house-:trespass in order to
.com'triit theft, and the properties at the time of the theft
were in the premises and in the possession of the Company.
In the civil case I take it that U Thi Mya, in t:he cir-
. cumstances. has to show that it is "just and convenient''
(hat the ~ompany should be wound up. Generally
speaking civil matters, even though they are miscellaneous
matters, un1ike criminal cases, drag on for years, and it
is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should vvait till
the disposal of the civil matter which has, in substance.
no connection whatsoever with the criminal case. In the
High (now Chief) Court Civil Miscellaneous No. 234 of
1960 was instituted over two years ago on 28th November
1960 and it is still in its preliminary stage. It is not known
when it wjll end. The public interests demand that the
guilty should be punished without any delay while the
events arc:; still fresh in the minds of the public and in
particular the witnesses, and the innocent should be
absolved as early as possible. There are, of ca:urse, no
hard andfasr rules as to when a criminal procedings should
be stayed pending the decision of a civi,l suit but in the
present circumstances I am dearly of the opinion that
these threecases should proceed. The civi~ case a~d these
three criminal Ca$es are all in Rangoon and no great
:iriconvenien~ can be caused to those witnesses who are
BURMA LAV!_ REPORTS.
learned
.
Advocates really have their honest desire to .dispose
of the cases as speedily as possible arrangements can always
. SEI-N
v.
U MAuNe
Ko.
be made with their aid. In the instant c~se it cannot be
said that criminal prosecutions arose directly out of the
. proceedings in the civil case. It seems it is just the
reverse. : The winding-up of the Company is on a different
. footing and an independent action taken against the Com-
pany with which the respondent has no connection what-
soever. The fact that the respondent is alleged to have
committed house-trepass and theft in respect of certain
documents of the Company is not and cannot be a ground
for winding-up of the Compa"ny in .t he civil case. The
proof required in the criminal cases is entirely different
from that in the civil case. Certain documents may be
common exhibits but it is no ground for stay of the
criminal cases pending winding-up of the Company. My
views are supported in the latest decision on the point in
Taw Eue Taik v. The Union of Burma (r) of the late High
.Court where the head note runs as follows:
" .Where the civil suit is not between the same parties and
the subject matters are not the same the finding in the civil
suit will. not finally dispose of the criminal case.. The fact
that. there is a possibility of conflicting decisions 'is not quite
a relevant factor to be taken-into consideration in deciding
whether the criminal proceedings should be stayed. The
policy of criminal law is to bring an accused to justice as
speedily as possible so that if found guilty he may pe punished
:~&ecccooec
.) ~:>:&l'l:cbco
:;,- .)ollooc.l'l~
01 .) 1C2cc:&t,:cbco
.) co~'l:O&~n
0
uc.orec.ohl:k
~ .) :I .
u~.:>c.ohxoo
~.)0.)
'c.oellnec
0 .
c.coce~bcoc
.) 0 0
c.l,corecohl:l:e::)b
,) .):J .)
c.o:&
l'l:<haf
:)&e 1cbooeroec
.)0 .)
c.oro:cbcoe~ec
0
'cccorecohl:l:e'co
0 .) .) :J . 0
ue>cob:cohl:k
;) .,) 0 .) :I.
co:&:cbco
. l'l:cbco
ohco.: .)o~:oc.h.l~:c.&cohl
.) 0.) .;, ::::::.1
c.ofo 1.)coc.bihlco:;,rebcoc
.) ~.) e1.) & e
:&co~W&iJ c.~bcocc.cc~co~re
0 e 0 .)
co:&e:d:,co
o&eo~OOC.M 1.)0 :T""".)
.) 0 .) 01 .)
Q.,...COW~CO
.) coe:cbcoe{ir.ec
tt~hlob:bco
.) :J.) 0 ooocb:o&oC'O
.:I .) .)
'0co'b~bc.oc
o e
c.cc~?>ccrc.o
.>
'ec:&:cbco
o
l'l:cbc.oo'c:co~
.>o.>
1 ~o'11ooc.l'l:)
O'J.)O~ .)
c.cc~:ce~c():cbcooo'l,
.>
l@cce:cbcoe&ec
.>
'eco ~()hl:~:cbco
.)~
c.oc.bb::>
.> 0
Ut:>OO:)~b bcoc::?rec cb~QC,:lxx:o
~ 0 0 O.)O .J~'
:cbco 1bec ~C I'!.>Co :'l:oorcc('):cbco
.l
~ IO~ecbcoctO
.> ..L o
e:&<'l:cbco co~l:.o~';.,
o6- .> o
@Qco~CC
.> ~ oo
,)C2cce:<bcoeroec
ICOc.~~:Qco:;,rebc.oc~l'lec
.) 01.> 0 6.) 0
co:&<'~:cbco
1:J&e:J:Qooc.l'l:) c.ccant:J:f>emcc
.) 0 .) 0 1 .) ~~
~6G~:)c.ce~:o~
.) .) .
~cob~cobG
.) .) 0
'co
0
ooo'~ qo~ :c.ece:cbcoel!r.ec
0
coro:cbco
0
e~ec
u:ol:lnhlbcoc
.> :::J!"...lo o .>
r
1bec(l) l'lCo:lx>orcol'l:cbco
.>
I.>~1'\GC
o .>
C~cot:J:l:e IG:2Poor:()
.> :J '.> .> .>
o~:oiJ:3&:o~
.) .>::J.)
qo~bc.oc
0 0
ICOrOI'lbc.oc:&:chco
.) 0 0.
O:)~C.I'l~I:J
.)0
"oc.EO]~: ~jbbcoc
.>:3.,) .........J .)-J 0
OQCC
0 .>:J
b:C,:cbco
o \
~:c.l:loo~
.> ::J .>O 1bee ~c <'>co:l:oora:<"~:c:hco
.> .J
o<.o o:o>c.cbcoc
.> W e o
:&:cbco :)~c.l'l~o
.>O .>!J
r
:>~
.)
Cc fl:D:Cbcoeroa:>)
\o
:ccn:co<bre~CCC
e .) .) ~f:flre
O.)
lfle.G
.)
I(b)
.)
Ca:> I(@) rom I(@)
.) .) .)
com
,
rm~
~ c.oc.:;,~s :'>:f.Olk:2oIre: h.l'Cc:cbc.o
.J.) o.:Jo o .> ~
mm:oo:Qig~~::D')
,_- -11 U J
~rogi3dGoT
-~
roc mm:<:lrol<x5l.:
6. ~; T . .U. o .
' o~~ o~ ~ci1 ~~c!Q"J:
. -1 L t:j
..' .;:b)cl
c
,
roro:moo:0ro
o e e
t
. .,
\
c!G c roc . _<: a
"Jet GG?C\J!Gc ffial:~<t):<:n smo
. C __ Go
A -r .. 6 L srooQI(:l(J)
--- -, u J .
: ... . . . : u~ -- -l~- : : ~ - -~!
11
M:>.co:c.oGfe
. e ..>
"'co~~-
0 .)0
c.cc~Me
.)
oQM~
. .>!h
GSt-V-of:
;;) :Xo
;)' bc :Cl:lf,a;:~
.) &x&:&vlo
0 0 \, ~
r
IO>k~ S1VC
;;;
+'
uCCc ~~wc.~~lb~ 'h>~eo~C13~:dxo ~~~& r~~~-
n2ccw~::x.ooelo~k
.) .) " .)
:~~:2u ~~~~CG (1)
-l-.>0 0.):_j0
ucccccol;:x.c:e~o~
.) .) .) -~.,.)0
:kcc l(b)ce:c
.)
c,co&e,u II a.iWUJoc:c,coax,fcoo
.) .>
-~ -
' '
r
.~\'
asobCf .J
r
::>~
.)
CJ.YJ)t'I(XJ
.> 00
{:c.occ.c)
Cx>bce.cre:xo
> & ..)
ec:>~~-oca:
0 .;:, 0.)
c c c c c c
or .C:J5?f::xl(?!G'iGUIC
occ~
:
'lC"
"{
o O'l
:T.l~U I G'flC:~-rmmeuG::3!:r.<)
~
JY:otUG::O?
C C C C C C C ~ C C OC" 0 C
Gc:pc:~H~=eoo 8 9 ~c :xxn~?:~u ffilcr;w;sxm~G:x>:> O?t2=-
c- ( ) '1 r,: c c c c '1 oc r;::c c
2oGStfS"H1 ::> or t1Pf::;lJ<'-'=~F::x>~' Gm?o::ol::r.~c:eox2ll
"4 (1) The following manufacturers or producers shalT
apply for registration in Form ST. r to the Commercial Tax
Officer concerned : -
(a) every manufacturer or producer of alcoholic liquor
under D- 1 or B- I licence issued under the Burma
Excise Act;
(b) every manufacturer or producer of any olher goods
(except other alcoholic liquor) whose tctal sale in any
one year amounts to Kyat (five) Jakhs or more."
: 4>?:s?:m
lT l
T .~1. ..
l ~ fL
..<,;o;OX:$0:>')
.. C
l lT 4
'
~co::>g1
~ J
.II L
.C
l. r 6 .:t.
C C"
ro.s;:))().)Yo:>"J'=I.sQ:?:IDmooc:
T t t.
OC"
BU~A LAW REPORTS .
. C'O C' 0
tD"J~roolc:g
(' 4 0 ~
CI:>C<.lOO~'jOIJ..
( =:m:tn:)
~o:.-ri
" .... It is a strong thing 'to read into an Act <;>f Parliament
words whi.ch are not there, and; in the absence of dear
necessity, it is a wrong thi~g to do. We ,are not entitled to
read. words into an Act of Parliament unless dear reason for
it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself."
ltl s.u{Od3~ MV1 vw~ng
u~:)Oe&w 'wbc.oc c.cc~fe :hJlbcb~c 11fi~Coif,
~ 0 0 0 ~ e.:J 01.> .>
LO~~~ tJC.fc-cf r'o rrbc ttlfbc tllcbc ~~~~~~:cbc.o ~~~~ - ~Ct>c -t-
IICC toe ttl co~~e&w~5~:cbc.o
~
tof~ o~tlc _.,., :
.) v ~
u.)ooo:lrcow
o~ f bc .)c1-lw:c.cn.:J~5o
.) 0
c~o2cow
.)
c.occ:.)~:@c-
.) . .)
uooo;k~
.)00
1:o2ccecc'fo.
.) \..)
h>lkxo
0 0.)
l:l~oRol'ew @cc:c.f~o\;o"hl:o 1ohlwli?cc ::t:e~1:o@cc"J.[J :ol:l:d~coo : co:dl')'
~ .):r.) .) .) .)00 .>:.l .) .) oo .) J .)~ .)
e:cbc.o :obc.cc~:de&ok o"h ::em u o\;c.cc~k:cbc.o ~ to--'l:>eob~cc~~ :oC-.;kb
, :> :> _o .:lO :>O.:l :> .:l o o ..1.. -~ o .;)..., o .)~
:obc.cc~
.) .)
:c.Pe&oko'o-oecn
.;)0 .)0.)
t:obc.cc~lv:cl:c.o
.) .) 0
'b:okoHm
.)0 .)0
ow rol')c...,.'-1:orew
.) !j ......):J'.>
..J.,
u@cc-
.)
:H{~@b(ob:>
.) .) 0 0
CCSJ:J c.o .~d
.)
t:c.r~:ooobacniw
.) 0 00
I .)O~e cbvc l~eo'G&->
.) .)
:,~~CCCCO~:>
.) .)
e<hee'G-.t:bc:OO::eo
.) 0 \. 0 0
aC2ccGhl@4re
.) .>:3.>
a:cl:co I.):Xcc.ccccc:~:@()
0 \ .) .) .)
OOC.W~CCC.O~CC
.) .) .)
tbec
bx .)0
cha; tcccc&:b::o:chc.o
~ 0 '
olroc.ohmcc:oro
~ .) 0 .)
uccccohlccl'lbeea:chco
.) ~:.:t.> 0 '
:o~a:;o~
.) .)
c r
1-.b~cccoro~el;wro
~ .) ;) 0;)
c.ok~:C:Cc.otc
~ ;) 0
r~:~~ccbe:..J:l:c.l;co"
.) .):::J ;) 1bc.c lbc ;)c'o-c.c:cm~So
0
c~= .;)
cocc:~:C2orocw
-> ~ .;)
~~ret".c~cc~:cbco~lvb
.;)\, .) '- 0
wcb:~wroC:Cro.lhl
.) .) .;) ;)~
r:::>bc.cc~
.) .;)
::>Froc.o:>~
.) .) .)
~ lo kook
0 0.> 0
o'c.oc.cc.cc~cc 00
:.)0 M 1:o!x.ccl')
.) .)
oFro:c.l;ron:
.) .)
oc.ow co:2c.ol!c:c.l:lw
.) 0 :::.1
t2G:c.col;(.(,l<;Q
.) 0.>
bJbl~ohl:oPew
0 ~ .>:J.)
I @c;c~
.) 0
1:e~:cbc.o
'
()hla:;'ro:cl:c.oll
.)~ 0
II cure cohl:k
.) .) :J.
II :o!J:c.~:ct:l to:~c.1:cco~wro fSorco~re :c.eco\; ::h o~:oC:c.coo.l
~a.:ro ~~CCC 'col:!~ .
.>~ :::lo~ o.> ~.) .J .>.>o.>..>~ .> o~
<> TI
0
n
.)
1
rrGcocccco~c:e<" co:
rJ ccros
.)00
a r:o:c.~:~con
<r ~ o
.)
rr
.)
1 , 1 1
wcc::>reoo
.) .) .) 0 .)0 .)0
olre:~:chco
.) 0
s.DI0d3~- M V1 VW)JOH
o~ l:eeJ 1->@cd::c.oo~c.oco 1:obl~eQdeec
u..>OO rg;
.:>' o.> o5.>....J..> ~
orcoh~
.) j
:c.eco!)o"(, Cdcc:ot:l~oob
..) .)0 .) .)~..)0
OCoJ.,10$1J~IOreCC
.) ~ L. 0
ibeccore"!Qoe ~~d.ceooo~~ ::>0Co'
..) :;, :;, \..)0
wro~bl~:obc.ooeco
:.:1 ..) .) ICCCCI'
\ 0 l loC2ccGhl,oC2eJ
0 .) ..>:.:11....)
,&;@eJo\;o'o
..)
ll:>ble>ohl:oreec iCCcce:cbco
..) .)0 :::> :.:1 . ) j . . ) j
.
~
n<2cc:4t2<2b1:u
.) .)jO:J
~:~or ,Ctlc c.o 1:dd:oobo
..)0
olrec.co~K,:cbccco~ec
.> .> .> oo
IG~~
.>
GCtlc rccobeJ~COCO
o.> o .>
I (co)coec o~ccobe~coco 10
.) ;, .> e.> e .> e
uC2eJb:c.o:2o:o(c(!2oo
.) .) .) .:.
c.cc:lPeJ: oQ:c.oo~c.oco
&' .) ::I 0.)
fborco;o:: :c.ectu:cbco
"5.> .) 0
cccceoe
' .)
:1PeJ:~Q:c.oo~c.oco4eJc.cc
\S 3'~ 0.) .)
1.)oeo bbc c'oro :c.co~5o ce>o2c.oro cocc:eJc.o:C2ococ.c.o
.)0 .) .) .) .)
t t 'Sl):l0d3~ M V1 VW'tlfl9
144 ;J3URMA LAW REPORTS..
I44 l<or possession of im- Twelv-e years- When the possession of the--
moveable p_roperty or defendant becomes a lverse
any interest therein to the plaintifl'.
not "hereby otherwi5e
specially provide4_for.
s:tl2
.
---~
~
oonsi.nlc.ti'fe claim (ar~Wil.g from 'l"i1e acts and circumstanCes
attending the appropriation). to hold the land against. him
who was ia posseasion. (Angell, sections 390 and 398). . It
is" the intention to claim adversely accompanied by such .an
invasion of the right of the opposjte party as gives him a
cause of action whkh constitutes adverse possession." .
......
BURMA 'LAW REPORTS. 147
ORIGINAL CIVIL
Before U Maung Maung, J.
Civil Regular Suit No. 55 of 1962 of the Original Side, Chief Court
BURMA LAW REPORTS. [~:9.~3
.
C. C. and KUJ~iu Meethyan and another v. Kunjan Maracher and others, A.I.R. (1954)
1963 Trav.-Cochin, p. 5 I, referred t o and followed.
(3) .~ the Plaintiff is only seeking to enter the office of trustee under the
.Ammo
YJ.COOB
.Deed of Waqf, and does not seek in -t he suit any of the reliefs set out i n clauses
MAMSA (a) to (h) o0f s. 9Z of the Code of Civil Procedure, the.suit is not bad for want of
v. the Attorney-General's consent.
G_qtlM
HusSAIN Kunju Mee.thyan and another v. Ku11,ian Matacker and others; and Khalila
Esool' M . <'. A. Ganny and others v. Mohamed Ebrahim arzd another (supra), referred
MAMBA AND to and distinguished.
ONE.
c.c. on the question "does a suit for bare declaration that the
'19 6 3 plaintiff is a trustee lie without his suing for possession
AHMm
YACOOB
of the trust property ? ". I have h~d the benefit of able
MAMsA assistance from Mr. Banerji for the plaintiff and U Myint
Gu~~\! Soe for the defendap.ts in seeking an answer to that
~~~~~ question. U Myint Soe invites my attention to the ruling
MAMsA .wo in Mohamed ]afar Husain Khan v. Mohammad Taqi Khan
oN. and others (5) in which a Bench had decided that a person
suing' in his personal capacity for a declaration tha.t he is
the m.utawal1i of the Waqf property is not barred from
obtaining a decree by reason of the fact that he does not
in the sari1:e suit ask for possession over the property. It
was held that if the plaintiff "is held to be mutawalli he
Will ipso facto on the pleadings of the defendants-r~spon
dents themselves be entitled :to take over the property
from them. If they refuse to give possession they will
necessarily have to assert a title adverse to the Waqf and
to set up a claim which is not consistent with their present
position." It was also pointed out that the \iVaqf property
is vested in the Almighty and not in the mutawallis who
act merely as representatives and managers. The decision
of. the Privy Council tb.at " neither the sajjadanashin nor
the mutawalli has any right in the property belonging to
the Waqf, the property is not vested in him," was also
referred to by the Bench which came to the conclusion that
the plaintiff "was not suing to recover any property in
his qwn personal right but was suing. merely to obtain a
declaration that he was entitled as mutawalli to control
and manage the property of :the Waqf on behalf of the
true owner.'! Privy Council decision is Vidya Varuthu
Thirtha v. Baliisami Ayyar .(6). In that case th~ decision
of Carr, J. in :the Ganny case was referred to and dissented
from. A l~ter decision by a Bench of the High Court of
Jrayancore-Coa:hin also settles the principl~ that a suit
{s) 'A.t.R. ~~<>33) Oudh, p. sr7: (6) A.:I.R. (19zz) P.c.: p. IZJ.
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 153
wouid hold that section 92 of the .Civil Procedure Code HG~AM USSAlN
does not operate as a bar to this suit and would ansver EsooF
MAMSA AND
Issue .:..ro. 2 m that sense. oNE.
CRIMINAL REVISION
for the offence punishable under the aforesaid section for ~~~j
failure to register her name as a foreigner as required by DAw Kvu
Rule 6 (r) (a) of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, she , K:.R
being an Indian national. \Vhen the applicant was charged THEUNION
OF ~URMA.
by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate. she p leaded not
guilty and not only elected to give evidence on behalf of
her own defence, but adduced two witnesses, V Pu and
U Abdul (DWs 2 and 3). Although these witnesses coulQ
state that they knew the applicant since her childhood.
they did not know the nationality of the applicant's mother.
On the other hand. they knew that her father .was an
Indian national. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the
fact that the applicant was the possessor of National Regis-
tration Card KLA I B4 1. she was convicted and sentenced
as mentioned aboYe.
Now, under section 4 of the Registration of Foreigners
Act, when any question arises with reference to the Act
or any rule made thereun~er whether any person is or is
not a Joreigner, the onus of proving that such a person is
not a foreigner lie upon him or her. Therefore, it cannot
be said that under the circumstances mentioned above.
the conviction of the applicant was bad in law. The
learned Advocate for the applicant, however, has contended
that the applicant cited such witnesses as she could obtain
at Kalewa, as she could not obtain an adjournment for
the purpose o_f citing witnesses from Mingin where she
resided, tO the -effect that her mothe~ was a Burmese
nationa~. However, there is nothing to show that the
applicant diq seek to have such an adjournment and had
been refused, .the proceedings of the learned Subdivisional
Magistrate (Criminal Regular Trial No. 36 of 1961), being
destroyed by fire. Furthe:ri it would seem that ifl the
. applicant did. ask for su<;h an adjournment there seems no
reason . why the Subdivisional Magistrate should have
. refused to give it, on sufficient reason being shown.
158 . BORMA .LAW:. REPORTS.
c.c. Be that as it may, sitting as a Court of revisior. it is
1963
not possible for me to interfere with the conviction and
DAWKYU
KAR sentence on the applicant. It would seem that her only
v.
'THE UNION
hope to avoid a deportation order is to establish in a Civil
. OF B!!lRMA.
Court, the fact that her st~tus is that of a Burmese national.
For these reasons the application for revision is
.,dismissed..
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 1 5~
(APPELLAN11) c.c.
1963
DAW THEIN SHWE (APPLICANT)
Aprrt ro.
v.
S. M. CHOWDHURY (RESPONDENT)
Urban Rent Control Act-bona fide requiretnlnt by landlord for purpose ol
1'e-erection of' major structural 1'epairs-Jimutntling of house still hob.itable
for xo or I! years for re-ereetion-whether requirement bonafide.
-where the owner of a house which was about 30 years old, but was still
habitable for x.o or 1;5 years, had sought to eject the tenant, on the ground that
h e required it lxnt4fld! for re-building.
Held: The owner can be said to require it bonafide for the purpose of
re-building.
~ the means possessed by the owner, on the evidence, she is
Undoubtedly in a position to raise the sum required for re-erection.
Tile fact of strained relationship betwee"n the owner and the tenant, will
not mean that .he .does not require the suit premises rea.sonably and bona fide
for the purpose of re-ft'eCtion.
Daw Daw Thi v. U Thein Maung & Co., Ltd. and one, 1954, B.L.R. 14
(H.C.); and Bhu14n Singh tmd others v. Ganendra Kumar Roy Cluxodhury,
A.I.R. 1950, Calcutt~. p. 74,, followed.
S. B. Tikava1'an v. MmmgPe Than and five others, 1959, B.L.R . 84 (H.C.),
referred to. ' '
c.c. fixed ilt K 5,000 with one surety in the like amount. As.
1963
the new building when erected-will come within the pro-
DAw THEIN
SHwE VISIOn
of M'miStry
of F'
_mance an d R
i evenue notl
l..T 'ficat10n
S~M. No. 35, date'd the r6th February 1951, the question of
CHoWD!f\JRY. reinstatement will n<?t arise. In the result (he appeal
succeeds. The judgment and decree of the High Court
are set aside .and those of the trial Court restored with
~Gndition that the bond to be executed by the plaintiff
should be as mentioned above. The plaintiff is entitled
to costs of this appeal. Advocate fees in this Court being
assesseq. at five gold mohurs.
-~BURMA LAW REPORTS.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Burma, IV I.T.C. 340; A.K. R.PL.A. Chettyar Firm v. The C:mzmis1ioner of C.C.
Income-tax, Burma, 5 I.T.C. 182, referred to. 1962
Abdul Baree Chowdh!tTY v. The Commissioner of l'ncome-ta.--c, S I.T.C. 352; } I~K
Vith,1 lv. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. f!J U.P., ( t<)38), J.T.R. 264, followed, RAMPARTAP
Therefore no question of law arises. The application must be dismissed. ........._ "c
' .. ...., OM-
M JiSIONER
A. C. Rodriguez for the applicant. oP INc;c;iMt;-
TAX, BllitMA.
APPELLATE CIVIL
S~cial Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1-9~0, in the Chief Court sittir>g at Man
~alay aga inl>t the decree of the si:ngle Judg<', Appellate .Side,late High Coux
atMandalay,\nCiviiSecondAppeal No' 5 of 1969,da.t ed xstSeptember 196c
If([R!MA!LAW REPORTS,
. . Howev:.:t, i.rn~e oircurnstllnoes pJ ~he .~~eil ,thC;.~~t ~qu ita~l? . o~~cr :t!:"~.t C.f:.,
.ould be passed i~ thaHhe suit for possess ton should be decreed -on the 1963
aintiff's depositing the or.idnai debt in Court. KoJ5k*'l'A
4
Babu Ram Dass " U .Mawrg Gyi and others, (1959) l3:L.R; 179 (S.~.,; ~
T':N OTHERS
1d Ko U Mar and one v. ]lifa Saw Myaing, (1930) B.L.R. So (H.C.), rcfetred to. 1-' .
M.,. KAQNG
. L. Verma for the appellant. MAIe AND
FIVE. OTHERS.
'Ja Nyvnt for therespondent.
.~s ..: tienc~ ' tlfe' ~~cessitY ~or fi\ihg 'd~e . kuit :how=under
5
the alleged mortgage of the suit larids for a sum of Rs. 650 ~9f3
was by an instrument signed by the mortgagors and attested Ko p 2 TA
by two witne.sses. namely, Ko Tha Nwe and Ko Yan Baing. 1'BN~Hims
Accordingly, the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer MAKAUNC t'J.
Daw Thet from U Lu Tha. In this connection the decision TE~ ~~RS
in the case of Ko uMar and one . Ma Saw Myaing (2) M~~K:OG
relied upon by the appellants that the plaintiffs were not Ftv.e .oTHERS.
entitled to 's6.e for possession without pa)rin:g the money ~o
the defendants and getting from them - ~ refusal to deliver
the land on such -payment, has been pro tanto overruled by
the Supr~me ~purt in Babu Ram pass v. V Mauna Gyi and
four others. (3) .
.In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The
judgment and decree appealed against will be varied -in the
sense indicated above. As regards costs, .J;egard being had
to the fact that the plaintiffs' suit was on ;the footing that
the debt owing by U Net and Daw Thet'to U Lu Tha had
been cance}.led and that a mere suit for possession cou~d
be filed hy them againSt the defendants K:e Fe Ta, Ma Hla
Tin arid. Ko Aye Nyu, we consider that ip.e mosn~q'llira:bte
order.- to pass would be for each party ,to. be~r . its a-Wn
c~~ ~hroughmrt.
ORIGINAL CIVIL
B~fore U Maung Maung, J.
c. c. MA I<HYAING (PLAINTIFF)
1963 . v.
.April 30.
MA OHN K.,Yl AND FOUR OTHERS (DEFENDANTS)_.*
first place.
, th t~ake .ou.tthe execution of th~ adoptiondect
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 189
; a hole and corner affair. Daw Kyaing repeats that she ~9~3
id not know before Daw Yin took her to the Registration M A -K YAING
iffice that she was going to be adopted. She repeats that ' o. K
. MAOHN 'II
taw Yin and 'herself left her home, went to the High Coun AND
, , tb d FOUR ~THEllS,
) fetch U Khin Myoe who was working ere an pro-
ceded to the Registration Office where U Tin Maung
raited with the deed ready for execution. The plaintiff,
1ys under cross-examination that her father and Daw Yin
rere related, and therefore she was a niece of the late
taw Yin. The ct~ss.:examination aloo sought to test the
Ate of health of Daw Yin at the relevant time and the
laintiff states that Daw Yin suffered .from high blood
ressure but was:able to move about around the time of
1~ adoption. Daw Yih was receiving medical attention
t that ~e. I>ut . she was -n ot-continuously bed-ridden. It
ras only: in November i955 that Daw Yin had .to go as
1-patient-ia the.Ghandi Memorial Hospital for treatment
f cancer. . 1 as~ed .by prolonged.stay in ?the :hospital Daw
in retUrned : liqme, . received treatment_. for about.,nine-
lonths, and; then, &he ,'died. . .
Twe impOrtant witnesses are iprooiiG:~if by the plaintiff
tho gave-theitevidenee on the,exeQtttion"of the deed 0cf
dbption by. Daw'Yin. u ,kbinMy0e (FW 3), who had
eeil a ;tenant of -Daw Yi:it~ 1-entirtgi'~ms on thergrourid
oor of-'N o. :7'!, Fhong}ri :Streetr where ~ IDaw Yin-and the
laifitiff ha<:t!tbcit,liome,' knew tlte f.amily .wen. tHe--says
1at: -Daw Yin spoke :to him-:rooe day about her wish to
ti*'th'e :plaihtifft~nd'Je~etut-e :a d~ed to-'effect the :adop-
. ~-~' t1 ~m"Myoe saggested that u ,ltin:Maung){PW'i)
oouid be asked:ro take care of theidt~ifting a~d the forin~
ties and asked U Tin Maulig:.to ;goand'see 'Bttw Yih. U
. :hin Myoe; was ;P,Qt pxese~t; at; lt'~e m~pQg)>.~.tween U. Tin
1~WJ:g and Paw: );';in b~t :vy.h~ni u. Tin :M~~.mg..~ame qpWI:J.~
:airs after: the..mee~ing .he s,qjd that J)aw Yill w.ant;ed him
.
~ .'draft ).an aQ.opti.qn d_eed ~:;~ :~h~, ~wa;nte4 ,t o. adopt .;th~-
~tf pl'G1iii.tiff as her keittimi-1 daughter. U Tin Maung brougr
a draft deed ahd kfti i~ ufor ;a- few .days With Daw "tit
3
-
MA KYATNG .
. v . ..... After he had re-ceivi=back the draft deed he. told th
..
. M..(O.tfNKYI
Xl'fo
. Witness t h at .D
. aw 11vut h. a.d..made some ch anges.. Ex h'b'
"FouR _oTHERs. ~- is the di'ia:'ft decl}:.w hkh U Tin Maung s~owecJ.f:li~.
1 :
day ,w-as then appqint.ed , ~qr, the e.xecut~on of..the deeq;- .a,n
. )ts registration anq Paw Yin and Paw Kyaiq.g.came to f~~c
him and .U Khin Myoe . w.ent along with thCl to ~h
Registration Qfike, where U Tin Maung wa~ted with th
deed. Both U Tin Ma.ung and the Registrar of Deeds rea
out the <::Qnt<Ca.ts -of the ~deed and it was quty execute(
atteste<l:$.<:1 r.yg-istered.
U Khi'R Myoe :is also ab1e .,t o say .that Daw Yin spok
~9 several =pebple such asu .& Tun (PW 4); :U :Ba :Kya
(PW 5) and U 'Tun Al!lng:{PW ~to whom sfi.e gave :d.om
tions, e.g. Exhihft m for a '. donation of K so towards bu
. fares in the =feed.iJhg:of:nidi:J.ks -Cl't WcduW.un =mo~stezy:tp-2
.. sh~ ha~l -:adopt6d ithe pl:aidtiff a:5-ker owh daughter and-so
w6uld '~like the elders to .reoogitize the .splailititf-.as sud
U Khin Myoe also remembers tHat w'lme U)aw -Ki.yain
stiffer::ed rom ,_high :.b~ :tn:ess.ure.Jler ~~ WM nc
&sp6J;;~te.il\ 1953.and l954 She was~ treatmen
but'. she w.~s able to .niov.~- ::tbout. ft ~ canter :whic
kiilttd her, the witn~ss s~y~, bur she .was .only tPC(hnd<4e
for ab~Ut ;tWO rn$:>ntbs }>efor~ \her dea.tft, and it W~S
. . . t \
ool:
-moving some
. of her fron t teeth \\hile she was put under C.6C.3 .
19
oaesthesia. Several doctors were n::~med as those
who -
MA KYAINC
ttended her during this time: and those who admm1stered v.
. .
1e operanons . h rna d c .n poss1.b}e to f eed l1er w1t
w}11c . h out MAOHNKn
" VND
er being able to open her mouth. None of the doctors FOUR oTHl!.RS.
owever, is produ ced as .1 witness a!1d while it is possible
1at Da'vV Yin did sink into that desperate and painfui state
1ere is ' no eddencc that this happened in the early part
f 1956 or that it continued till the end.
The lone wimess produced by the defendants is U Tun
c {D\V I) wbo says that he knew Daw Yin for a long time
nd was a frequent visitor in her home. Witness says that
>aw Yinnever confided to him as he would expect her to,
eing on terms of close friendship, that she wished to adopt
daughter, herself being childless. The witness .did not
now that Ma Kyaing was adopted. His wife was a niece
f Daw Yin. The memory of the witness was. a litt~e
mcertain about the events that took place :before .Daw
ms death for he states that Daw Yin was admitted into
tospital j.n 1953 and died ~ithin a .sho~ t~e after ,4~~
dm~~m in hospital.
.!nerous people, rea'd y to take into the home relativ~ far ~~j
nd near, and call them sons or daughters and treat them -
MA KYAINO
indly as such, the courts must ms1st upon strict proof J' v. ,
.
rhen these reIanves come f orward rnaki ng cla1ms
. as h eus
. MAOBNKYI
AND
.y keittima adoption. The requi.r ements of Burmese rouP.-OTHEIII.
ustomary law to establish keittima adoption are 'clear.
'he consent of the natural parents, jf the adoptee is a
ninor, and the consent of the adoptee if he or she is ar1
dult, and the taking of the adoptee by the adoptor, with
he intention that the adoptee shall inherit must be proved .
o establish a keittima adoption . Neither ceremony nor
vritten document is required to constitute a keittima adop-
ion under Burmese customary law. The taking of the
hild in adoption may happen on a distinct and specified
ccasion on which the intention of the adoption parents
o take the child as a keittima son or daughter may be
!early expressed. Or, if there is no such taking, the
:eittima adoption may be inferred .from a course of con-
.uct which is inconsistent with any other supposition.
'here must be some publicity when the intention of the
doptive parents to take the child as an heir is expressed
nd if the intention has to be inferred from conduct there
1ust be more publicity and st~icter proof of facts which
1J1St combine to prove that Jhe r~lation,ship c~nnot be
nything other than that of .l,ceit~ima ~doption~ [See M a
'wet v. Ma lyle and one (~); Ma .Me Gale v. Ma Sa Yi (3);
.faung Ba Pe and- another v, Maung Shwe Ba (4)-] .
In Chan Eu Ghee v. Mrs. Iris Maung Sein and two
thers (1), the learned Advocate for the defendants points
ut, it has been held " that an adoption deed does not by
:self confer the status of an adoption son or create any
)terest in the property of the adoptiv.e father. The deed
; just one piece of evidence to be considered along with
(z) 5 L.B.R. (J909Io), p. u8. (J) 4 L.B.R. (tso7-o8), p. t?z.
(4) 6 Ran., p. szo. 5 (1) (1953)'B.L.R., p. 294 (H.C.).
4
196i
and others. (g), in which E Maung,' J., himself an author Foul oTHERS
-of several classic studies on Burmese Buddhist Law,
observed that once the genuineness of the deed of. adoptiop
in established there is an end of the case. Tbe execution
of a deed of.adoptioa in the presence of se,eral persons
would be sufficient to establish the status of the keittima
child. The R:egi:;rr;nion of Keittima Adoption Act dici not
apply to the fact!> of tllat case, the adoption having been
made by a document before April 1941, but the observation
of tne !earned Judge would have applied even more force-
fully if it did.
The obsenations of San Maung, J., in his concurring
note in Lim Chin So v. Lim Geoksoo (6) also emphasised
the change brought about by the Act:
"According to the Bmmese Buddhist Law as it stood prior
to the coming into force of the Registration of Keittima
Adoptions Act the fact of keittima adoption can either be
proved as having taken place on a distinct and specified
occa.sion, or may be inferred from a course of conduct which
is inconsistent with any other supposition. This rule of
Buddhist .Law is, however, altered by the statutory provisions
contained in section 4 of the Registration of Keittima Adop-
tions Act which enacts that a keittima son or daughter is one
who is adopted with the express intention that he or she
shall inherit according to the Burmese Buddhist Law."
APPELLATE CIVIL
c.c. the de1th of her husband Maung Ba Kyi and that the defend-
1963 ant had failed to return it on demand. According to the
MM.'f~N- plaintiff, Maung Ba Kyi .died on the r..:}th lasan of tVodaw
UP;MtN. I3I4 B.E. (5th December 1957) and the entrustmen7 (if the
car was made a few dq.ys after his death. The defendant-
respondent by his vvritten statement while admitting that
Ma Tin MaTwas the wife of his son Maung Ba :<:.yi con-
tended that there had been a divorce between f'.'!a Ti~ ~vlay
and Maung Ba Kyi sometime before the latter's de2 ~h and
. that Maung Ba Kyi had taken another wife, Ma Tin Kywe
. who alone inherited Maung Ba Kyi's property on his death.
He also contended that Ma Tin Kywe had, after t he death
of Maung Ba .J(yi gi,'en the car to him on his undertaking
to pay the debts incurred on account of Maung Ba Kyi's
, funeral expenses and a1so the debts incurred on account
of the purchase of :the car in dispute.
: On the pleadings the learned trial Judge framed issues
.. as to whether or not the plaintiff Ma Tin May had been
divorced from Maung Ba Kyi sometime before his death
and if not, whether the suit car was a joint property qf
:Maung Ba Kyi and Ma Tin May. He also framed an issue
as .to whether or not the car was given to U Po Min by
Ma Tin Kywe on his undertaking to pay the debts incurred
in connection 'vvith Maung Ba Kyi's funeral and in connec-
tion with the purchase of the car.
After examining witnesses cited by both the parties the
learned :trial Judge accepted the plai_ntiff's story that the
Car was the joint property of Maul?-g Ba Kyi and Ma Tin.
May at thetim~ of Maung Ba Kyi's 'd eath. He also accept- .
.ed. the plaintiff's story regarding :the. entrustment of the
car to :the defendant a few days after .Maung Ba Kyi died.
Theo'learned .trial J.udge, howe~er, holding that the suit
:for possession .of the .car or for the yalue thereof was be- . .
. yond: the period of limitation prescribed by Article 49 of
the Limitation Ac't dismisse9. the plaintiff's suilt-.
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 203
c. c.
Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that the conclusions '1963
1rrhed at by the learned trial Judge on the facts of the MA TtN
~y
:ase are correct. . Whereas the defendant U Po Min al- v.
eged that there had been a divorce between \ fa Tin May U Po M IN.
c.c. . :by the evidence of U Pavv Nyein (DW r), son of U Po r\1ir
1963
cousin Daw Pwa Hlaing and U Po Htay (D\V 2 ) who
MATIN
MA..,.. not related :to either party. However, whereas U Po M
v.
u Po MrN. said that no document whatsoever was executed at tl
time of the divorce and consequent partition of the pr
perty between Ma Ti n May and. Maung Ba Kyi, .t he tv
~other witnesses V Paw Nyein and V Po Htay were em ph
tic in. that a docu ment signed by the parties and attest
by them was in fact executed. Ma Tin Kywe {DvV 4) al
tried to support this part of the story by saying that tl
document remained in the custody of Maung Ba Kyi a1
that she tore it up after Maung Ba Kyi's death. Tht
there is a Conflict of testimony relating to a very irnporta
aspect of the case, as to whether or not there was a diver
between Ma Tin May and Maung Ba Kyi. Furthermoz
the story told by Ma Tin Kywe.that she tore up the doc
: ment a few days after Maung Ba Kyi's death is a me
incredible one, as, if such a document as alleged had exi!
ed, Maung Ba Kyi's death would be an occasion to preser
it in case Ma Tin May might make a further claim <
Maung Ba Kyi's property. Therefore, in my opinion, tl
learned trial Judge was quite justified in rejecting the d
fendant U Po Min's story that there had been a diver
betwec:n Ma Tin May and Maung Ba Kyi before Maung 1
Kyi's death.
In this connection, the evidence of Daw Pu (DW 5) .
Witnes~ Cited by the defendant himself, is most ilhimiric
ing. This witness spoke. of Ma Tin: May being th~ eld .
wife of Mai.Ing Ba Kyi, and of M~ Tin Kywe whd resid
at her house a5 a tenant, as a lesser wife. Another a
parently iridep~ndent witness U Hla Maw (PW 4) a. Pc
., Master of Tabayin, only knew: about Ma Tin Kywe beil
a lesser wife of Maung Ba Ky.i. It would seem from tl
eVidence of this witness~ :t:hat ..a few mQnths ~fore ~am .
Ba Kyi's death Ma Tin . . May. chased
.
ivfa Tin Kyvye with
~BURMA LAW REPORTS.
view to assault her, and Ma Tin Kyv.:e ran into tha Post
c.c.
1963
Jffice for refuge. Then only did U Hla Maw come to MATlN
mow that Maung Ba Kyi had a lesser wife in the person , MAY
~.
="'-H;J,d_:}-!nd~r ~~~!J~E~i<!e~A..;.!~~?_;~~!IJY~J..l'JJ'J'?v~~.r.
~~W .ev;~,f~.;~:!.e,t..\~ th~ ~es21J.rt~~~[.t~~;.at~J..Act;=bu_t
no exc:;nions w:re piead :d by the A?p~llant, and no rc".sons were given for
withholding the original deed.
Without proof of the original Sale D~ed , it is impossible to hold that the
sale in~ lf wa; nlid in law. Und~r s. 62 of th ! ,id~nce Act, ' p rim ary
evid!nC!" rn !a.n th~ docu:l.l!ntits:lf pro:luc!d for the insp~ct ion oftr.~ Court.
'hen the b!st evidtnce rule is not observed and only inf~rior evidence is
produ"C.ed, su::h omis;ion will go against the withholder. A party ought not to
be allow ~d to d !feat his o;>ponent on the strength of a document which he has in
his possession and will not produce.
Maung Thein'sZan and one v. The Unien of Burma; (1956) B.L.R. 303 (H.C.),
followed.
CIVIL REFERENCE
ORIGINAL CIVIL
c.c. several lives and some cargo were lost while " Bay
1963
Naung" suffered only sl~ght ~a.p1~ge to its bull aJ
ThT T oE
Rr:\tAN-o machinery. The plaintiff-firm which owns "Tet. Toe
OIL
v. ILLs now sues the defendant-Board for a sum of Kyats Thr
THE INu.'lo Lakhs, the. value it fixes for "Tet Toe " which was a COl
W:.TER
TR.L"\sPoRT plete loss, and K 72,ooo as estimated loss of earnin
9
:j3 ARD. from the operation of the motor launch for one yec
_Paragraph 12 of the plaint set out in some detail on tl
part of " Bayin Naung " particulars of negligence as
direct result of which the plaintiff alleged the motor launc
"Tet Toe " was sunk. The defendant deny the charg
of negligence and allege that it was because "Tet Toe
turned and crossed its path without notice and against t1
rules of the sea that "Bayin Naung" ran into "Tet Toe
From the pleading the following issues were joined l
consent of the learned Advocates :
r. Was the collision between m.l. "Tet Toe " ar
m.L " Bayin Naung " caused by the nc:gligenc
of the m.l. " Bayin Naung " as stated by tl
plaintiff and more particularly set out :
. paragraph 12 of the plaint?
2. Is it .correct that the collision wa<; caused as
result of the negligence on the part of the m
" Tet Toe " as alleged by the defendant?
3 What is the amoun~ . d:ue and payable to tl
plaintiff, if at all, as a resu~t of the foss ar.
sinking of m.l. " Tet Toe "?
1 Js ,t~.~ RRti.c:::~ gi;v,en by U ;Ky<jt}'V -1\~yi~:J..t de~cti'
. .S.~Ct~qn 8.o. of the Code of Civll Proc;edm
u:m. ier )
lision was of such force that the steering of " Tet Toe BoARD.
ke and, whirling round, struck and injured the witness
the forehead. The witness then found that his launch
s sinking and he jumped into the river, and the water
s so shallow that he touched the ground and waded
ore, wbere he fell down and lost consciousness because
his bleeding- wound. The sukarni also states that the
ayio Na.ung came down midstream and altered its
trSe when it was about 300 yards from " Tet Toe " and
s hit the latter while s.t eaming down at great speed.
~ Bayin Naung .. had gone on midstream without chang-
its course, there would not have been any accident for
istance of about r 50 or 200 yards lay between the path
" Bayin Naung and " Tet Toe ". This statement
ies materially from what is said in the plaint.
In paragraph r 2 of the plaint one of the particulars
negligence attributed to "Bayin Naung " , is that she
not alter her course at any time, though it should and
ld have done so by proceeding towards her right bank
:ead of cpming straight at " Tet Toe " . Abdul Subhan
( r), also differently from Jabal Hussain (PW 2), stated
t_" Bayin Naung" did not swerve its course as expected
him after he had sounded a short blast of warning but
ead of altering its course it headed straight at ." Tet
. : ". The conflicting stories of the two key wjtnesses
also of the allegation made in the plaint cannot be
tly brushed aside as small matters of detail.
Maung Ba Aye (PW 3), is a police constable and he was
the "Ba0n Naung" at the. time of the collision. He
; that at about the time " Bayin Naung " passed Htani
suRMA" LAW~:REPORTS.
Ttm ~Nli.;\ND The witness would nut the time that lapsed between tl
WATER ~
' TMNsPORT collision and the sinking of "Tet Toe " as not more th<
c.c. and the fact that nobody ever saw traces of " Tef Toe "
1963
- after she had sunk would seem to support the maps and
TET~B
- RicE AND also int!l.icate. that the point of collision was some 2oo or
L r:_n.r..s 240 feet away from the right bank.
01
This would then
Tir!~~o disprove the plaintiff's fi>.t ory that "Tet Toe" was keeping
TRANsPoRT close to the right bank and that "Bayin Naung" which
Thongwa side but steering clear off the sands when " Bayin ~6~
Naung " came down the river along a midstream course. TsT-To
Visibility was good and both t.h~ vessels had their light ~~M.~
on. Entering the bend, Saw Tun Lwe says, "Bayin Tss ~LAND
Naung " gave the usual blast, bu.tt he could not hear the ~ RAN<>rORT WA:!;R
other vessel give any blast, short or long. There was in BoARo.
fact no need for a short blast of warning because the two
vessels could see each other under the full moon when
they were about half a mile apart. If each vessel had
taken its own course a good I oo feet would have divided
their courses and they would have steamed past each
other clear \Vithout any risk of collision, but " Tet Toe "
suddenly turned when it was only about 300 feet away
and crossed the path of " Bayin Naung " so that even
though Sa\\. Tun Lwe ordered the engines to be reversed
collision could not be avoided. There was no entangle-
ment of the two vessels, Saw Tun Lwe says under cross-
examination; and "Tet Toe" sank after moving 4 to 10
feet from the point of collision, partly because it _was
-loaded up heavily with cargo. The commander also says
that at the time of the collision he was a~ his po~ and
the sukarni .M;aung Aye Saing (DW 5), was also by his
side. After the collision Saw Tun Lwe and the engineer
~xamined the laun,ch i;o see if it could still go, and later
on, turning the search. lights on to the waters, they .found
,that "Tet Toe", had disappeared. On the Htani side of
the bank there were people and ." Bayin Naung" crossed
.over to .V1at side to find if any assistance .could be rendered
~o people from the sunken vessel. It was from the people
...
that tl-Je name of the .vessel.
\. . was. discovered and ai5o the
j;t~t, the_witn~ alleges, that,Abdul Subhan, ~e serang wap
_n ot in ~!1~ ~ess~l W~en it W,C;lS hit a~<\,SID}}). . . ltjs il)t;esting
.~o not' ,~at in ~e.. ch_ge ,and ~ounter.-cl1arge of neglig~n~
.\)9th " !~t T8e ~ and ~ )3~yi-q .N~~pg " trl..~d t!) n;take o~t
~~~t :~~e ~as.~~! o~..~lte .c;rth~ i'{~~eJ: .~ . n~honJ)O~d,.~
232 BURMA LAW REPORTS.
"Bayin Naung ", U Han Shin (Dv\; 4) who was on duty Tw!~o
in the engine room of "Bayin Naung" at the time the ~.:=~~T
collision took place and states that he received orders from
the commander to reverse the engines, and Maung Aye
Saing (DW 5), who was the sukarni of " Bayin Naung "
on the trip. There is no need however, to examine the
evidence of these witnesses in detail, because on the mater-
ials so far examined I. am answering Issue No. I as to
whether the negligence of " Bayin Naung " had caused
the collision in the negative, and would refrain from deal-
ing with the other issues.
In the result, it must be held that the plaintiff has failed
to establish that the collision between "Tet Toe" and
.. Bayin Naung " was caused by the negligence of the
latter vessel. The suit is therefore dismissed with costs.
BURMA LAW REPORTS
: . . .. . . . ~
CIVIL RE.FERENCE
.M~.~ v.
THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BURMA
AND ONE {RESPONDENTS).*
.
dated the 26th September 1949, in original, which
.
pm
ported to be a partnership between Burma Starch Product
~~!u~- Limited and (a) Mr. Ramniwas Bagla, (b) Mr. Rameshwarlz
vucz;.LTI>. Bagla and , (c) Mr. Kashi Pershad Prahladka all of whor
~
lNCOMf!-TAX were members of a firm known as Messrs. Hardeodas Ru'k
t
'-'~-
:Ig6J
R1filiji Dass Rikhi Ram v. Commissioner ~~ Inco~e-t"tr'
Punjab, Pepsu H.P., and Bilaspur, Simla (2) and those
THB - BURMA
STARCH P.ao- Falshaw, ]; m Padam Parshad Rattan Chand v. Comm.
>rated under the Burma Companies Act and having its s~~u~
. . 1 place of busmess
1nc1pa . at Rangoon, an d t11e fi rm of DUCTS~ LTD.
essrs. Hardeodas Rukmanund of Moulmein which ex- INco~TAx
ession means and includes the partners in the said firm APTRIBUNAL,
PEL:t.ATE
CRIMINAL REVISION
v.
Mar. 26.
MAUNG TUN KYI (RESPONDENT).*
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
B:fore U Kyuw Zan U, :J.
Mar. 30.
v.
THE UNION OF BURMA (RESPONDENT).*
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
u
THIN HNYAR (APPELLANT)
v.
Mar. x6.
MA NGWE SAING (RESPO>iDE:-.JT).*
Burmese Buddhist La~G,ant of Letters of Administration-Competition
hetween elder b1other of deceased and you11ger half-sister.
The appellant, as elder brother of the deceased, had applied for Letters of
Administration to her estate. The respondent, who is the younger half-
sister of the deceased, contested ~he application.
The b~arned District Judge held as settled law under Burmes~ Buddhist
Law that younger brothers and sisters exclude the elders as heirs to a d~ceased.
brother and sister; and as equally settled law that for purposes of inheritance,
.half-blood is equal to the full-blood. The appellant was therefore considered.
as not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased. On appeal:-
Held: (inter alia) the order of the District Judge is unsustainable. Among-
relations of the same degree of relationship to the deceased, the full-blood
relations should be preferred to the half-hood relations. Tne rule that inherit-
ance shquld not a.~cend when it can descend does not operate in a competition
between relations of the full-blood and those of the half-blood of the same
degree of relationship to the deceased.
Marmg Tun Zan v. A1aung Tun Zan Gyi and arzotlter , A.I.R. (1933) Ran.
317; Mrs. Kirkwood (alias) Ma Tlzei11 and others v. Ma;mg Sin and other~
.A.I.R. (1938) Ran. 74; MaGalay and onev. MaE i\lfya and others , 8 Ran. 27,
followed.
APPELLATE CIVIL
The rst Respondent (Plaintiff) Bank had filed a mortgage suit against th
.znd Respondent in respect of the suit property, and had joined in the Appellar
also, as he had bought the suit property from the znd Respondent during th
subsiste~ce of the mortgage.
The main facts briefly were that the suit property had been bought by th
znd Respondent from one M, who purported to "act:on behalf of her mine
daughter, on 7th Decemb(r 1956. Atthattime l\1 had no legal authority to se
on behalf of her minor daughter.
The znd R~spondent then executed a mortgage by r<!gistered deed of tb
suit property in favour of the rst Respondent on rst February 1957-
Then on z8th February 1957, thezndRespondentsoldthesuitpropertyt
the Appellant, during the subsistence of the mortgage.
On zoh December 1957, M, who had in the m~a:1time been appointed b
the Court as guardian of her minor daughter, executed a fresh registered{dee
of sale in favour oft he znd Respondent, in respect of the sui tproperty. ltwf
specifically mentioned in that deed that it was to legalize the former deed date
7th December 1956, which M had execut<>d before in favour of the znd Re~
pondent before she had been appointed guardian by the Court .
. The trial J udgc gave a preliminary mortgage decree in favour of the 11
Respondent as prayed for,giving liberty to theAppdlantto red~em the mortgag.
Held, on Appeal: As poi nted out by the learned trial ] udge, the 2nd Rel
pou'dent had no valid title to thesuitproperty at the time it executed themortga~
iil favour of the xst R'!Spondent (Plaintiff). This was because the sale made b
. M; as mother of her minor daughter who owned the property, was made befo1
she was appointed guardian by the E:ourt. That sale was void ab initio.
C.T.V.E. Vyravan Chett:yar v. Ma Saw Mwe and_. others, I.L.R. I
Ran. 47; Antov. Reoti Kaurandothers (t937)All.r95; and AjU{lhiqPrasa
and another v. Chandan Lal and another, A .I.R. (1937) Ail. 6xo0 followed .
* Civil First Appeal No. 76 of 1961, again~t the decree of the Original Sic
of the late High Court of 'Rangoon in Civil Regular Suit No. xr of 1960.
BURMA LAVv -~PORTS. 255
)a\r Taik. Leong, Aye Maung and Ba Soe for the appellant.
~han .4.ung for the respondents.
APPELLATE CIVIL
u~f
;) rbf l~f.,)00~1:;e6c.c~
.).) IG"f~e~tc
v"""....
II (:~~S~~:hl".n)
e:::J~ o
:~cccc:2u
.J e
II CCCcroe:Cbcoel:ne
.J
" , _,_ 11
Jc.cc:h:":2n
c e
11 wcorox:o::coecne
.) 0
b
~
u: " 1 -.-,
cc:~ro ccfl
<> ~
r
5~
L9Z J~961
<\
BURMA LAw ::iffiPoRTS.
C' C'
C
'fC'OroroJs~: eu::.n qn~ ??<'2 ( Jro) qc1
C'
~ c c~ c r,:: c c c c c
2Ji3d~~2:; 9'C'~o:>e:i: ctSG r~:J 8Xj tjDG~'JC02:;!1 ~')Gf 'f>C'~O)
.<il
G
99ct8G
C'
re:J ro91
00
'J!'J!
"'~OC' C' C'' 0 ('
Ql!tl~ro~~ 3d~GJL: bXJtO):OI ~:'l :l:>CT.)G:l:>
o~TGro'>g) (Approver) o1ogGtG::> nJ~~~~ 'P~J~~: 2oGs
("
:3G rr' ( JW) ro:;jl r,~
GG~!&ll oot~:Om 9'C'O::O ~:~ei:
(' (' ~ ('
3dCOJ2!G
~G00:~6G~')
l
fG<)G<il :i(;~:~G'JI GoTco~ co6e~:>:~ II
Jl ~L o c. , "' Jl
'l C" (" C' (" ' C" ~ C" ( ) G C' C'
o:>?Oltf~00;1:>::: ~c. ~9cc.~c:1:1o:> :> ~9CCX(!~CI
.
II (c) :::>ft~CCG~:211
.) .> e
11 al..oe.co:>:d~c.od!oe
.;) (; : .
u@cchl:~
,) :.:!,)
:c. '\0 ~1
eCOCOUliiC.G 1 -:\ (
G
) I_ 1
:::>ce i OC.CCI0eliCC~I())l:e
bb-:1liCIIflectlllflCOICO~S:OI!c.>O,
lr r1 o <>1 I I ' I
:C
0 . .) .) :J .)0 .) 0 .)\ .)
WI'C.W
.)
O~lrbc IC.() cc~tclbc.cci:JtciCCf>
.) .) .)0
I()~~
.)
rul'wl't;uco :Jo~"o~wbc
crtlc u&c I).) ., .)
.)
o~ (c) 2. ecb.)
c~o2coec
.)
:o e~c:ceco
.) l,. .)0
@hlc.e4bl
.) :.3 .>:.:1 l~~">:ol:ltc.rohl,~f>
0 .>::I 'coa?ccee.c
~..L 0 .)
rcoeccocc
o
lcol.oecFI'>21'>
.> .>
IG21')~f)
':!.> .>
o~:F.COC.()
.)
efiC.W ~coww~w
.> .> o
IO~eclfL
l.
ohlli:J
~ .> !:lo
u2cc:~~2b 'co cu (c.()) ()OC.COf>QbOI be
.) .:J .:> o e.> ett .>
otcU!Cf> I())~~
1.>O .:J
CrlJc .>WCOI'rowgbeflc.u::~&
oe o .>
(c) <i>bcoo~
.> .;:, .)
:c.A:obM:c.fl
.>\O
(c) ob'Q
.> :J
,~ l')fOJg0!
II Ol:
.)0 ,)
:cbco 'i-Jo~:~&?cc@l'>
.) .) .)
11G11JI:l~es
~~~
'co2c.@l1loe~">c.es
0 .) cs . ,cbol:e:oc.n~be.cr.co~<:c.cce>oc
.)0 .) ::::::3 :J .) .)
:lrcocc
.)Ooo:dl'>core:~c.~hl
.) ,) :.:J 110
(., (2.) .)c'bcc
0
Ce>o2a:cc
.)
:o1ee.rceco
.) l, .)0
@hlc.f'l!bl
..) ~ .,:,j
u o~~ ~olrec.())e~">c.cc : ocr:;Jf>
~
~ ~ m
.>
.)0.)
co::..)
o a?cc:]
.,) .,)
:~">coc.o
.)
el'>c.es
c.cc~:c.oo:o~h>
.)
ot::l:c.cc;coecco'l!ec
.> ::J .) ..) 0 J\')("'~19,1')
O.) ....J
olrec.e eP.c.ec
.J
c.o:
.)oo:lrcocc
..)~core::>~
~ .) tJ Zb .)c'occ
0
(c) :..)o ~ca C:>o2wec
.)
:.):>le~r:cecou
{.; .>0-.
ucorecoi:J:k
.) .) :.1
.,:T-,.)ohl.Joli'ec.o
ooQ... .) .el'lc.ec !..)oc.r:;J~
~ ~~ c.cc~::o:d::c.o
.,) u:Fcoc.oeP.c.cc
.) . )~c.Oecw~a:
. .) 0 l.~ _)c'r1
0
( e~cbcoebe.c)
* '
:emcee cco~&1s~cr; x~~6~~cco:x. a~
0 .
y~o
.......... '~-~ . ~ ol, .) .> .) .> -=-~
awb vc~f~<.;;. '~;.i., .... -. r
,)
- .
~ - ~; -:.~7 ~~
"'
~2c t \o~~cbco~~es) e
01
CIDfKD~C..CC ~~CO:C.. fl:CCC
.>
" "' "' ':! C'l'' '
r 1" ..., " _ \_ t: ~ cc:c~ o ]~1e:w,cx::
C'l" cb 1
~~ :X.I'IeOC.P.~:c:w;ccw!a:l o~
,)
c .) .> e e-1 ..> .>
:;co:.)scx::c:
e e
cc:c.oco & o e O-'
< ~
1r 11 1
~eCOWfl~ C.O
0 '
~[;~;
: ~ .,
_.S.l'tl.OcJ3'tl fAV1 Y:v.'I'aflH E_9
. 'St{lUOUI ;:)Al;:)h\l ~U~:>X<>
W!l AU-e ,IOJ ~~UI ~ neqs ~UI!l .IOJ ;:)p'eUI A:>nod-~s ON (z)
hnod-~ ~ ~ p~ldx;:)
! ;:)Uies dlfl SS;:)Iun pneA ~ netiS (Jr6gr 'l:>-V ~U!dd!tiS
ue:t.p~w. <>ql JO 90S uop::>~s w 01 p;:,n;:)p.t S! se ;:):>ue .
m.stq l.pns Uelfl ldl{lOJ dJllelnSU!e;)S lOJ l;)~.I.lUO;) ON (I) .:Z
u@oc~Q:otoec
~ ~~.>0
l()CL)C.We>
l,;~
c.l,:d~core:k
.>
gh) 10 6 ~SbGoo2WeG
~~l, ~ ~
)ree>O<:leco C25lc.ft~~ rc.cce::>Ceax:c ~'f:d~:,J;;l:::;c. ~ero 00>~ ,
>l- ~o .> .J .>::l ,:,o .:> .> 5':::1.:> ~ ~
...., ~ r , t' 1 J. ___ 1' JT flJ , '::1 "
ncccc:roe
.>
roowcorece<P
'\.> o.>
~:><X:oxoororo r::>rro: ewro .wcc(9reero
0'\:5'0 .> e.> O.>
~:::>ro
:J
:obCCcc:&
.;,.;,
e6Jro :::>bC2cc:~roil, u~reeoo
::>
00
~hl:::c~~o~creo ~,~:cb~
.)~.) :::J J
.)..)
l;C2coil,c.e..Lroero :~coc.Cbln
> .> .>
r ~hlcc:<Phl~olrec.G Mew :oc~~be ccce>::;o
. o .> ~ .>:,j .> .:> ~ ~
:bc.o cl,:f>COc<P
..)
eocro
~corocoeroro
..) ..) 0 0
r:C2rocoe:cbcoe&iec
.;)
uC2ccahl:::>Q
..) .:>:.3 :> :::.1
::~:cbro,&e
\
IOe>W
.)..,L
e::bcoemro
rli::'!IJQ....,..,
~~~~ 0
ro:P.COC.aeftc.eG
.)
ccce>:OOO)Cn
~
'l , 1 l ,. 9 1'1 , , p ,
corocoeec
:>0
iOOOC.C cu:)J:axoeroro rax.oe.s:cr~:roacc c.cce;cecccro~ro
l..O 0 o .) ..) .) 0
;l;
, ::>r6>e to:c.PI'l:i:u(J)(C
) .)l,; 0 .>
~::C.OO~~ru4b
0 .> .)-.J,J .>
::>h<.o~~ cccccd~w
.>00 00 .> 0
0:-:cbcceme.s
.o
.~:cr~coree.c::>bro
.) .> 0
rrceC.co~b:l'l
0
<!-bhlr6>e>Mco
.> :JJ.., .)
coo:cc~ecn
.> 0
. :@cc<P6ll
.) ..J .>-
.
~crohlroe
~"""'
:X.o:&emrol'lSo :>~&ro~ 0w:c.PI'lcb:o@
.) .) .:J
0 0
:~<:.~ero
;) :::.:3
~ro. . .
.) JIU:COIIO:
~ oe
'::1 ~ Q :ceec.cc
II a::cc:a.5::>:::1:>o n 1
~~ 1 1: 0 .> .> .> .> CC0_30gt,GJCG
ohl:co.>~eec 1bro 1:\
X>ececn ..>::3 l'lr.:o coo2coec
::J .> ~
:b~:>ba:dxo
.> e
(J):::c~C2hl
.>
ro~~!bc.co
.> :J .> ~
1
>f;)lcc:thcbco
~
r:C2ro:X.o:&emec
.:> .)
rr Pe:~dJ:)c.e.c~l'l
..)~.).
cbetd~:cbco4bt;b
\0 \ .) 0
oesa..:be~a::
. .= f>~
:cl'l:c::c
..> .:>O o .) e . .:>
.
-~CCC (O(p(')
.>
0 ,
0
.1. . - ,,
ro:ax.oeme.c
0 lr r ~
::x:ot'>e.c
.) -
u ~,
u:0 c.c:c n10e:0~11cc:aSc.o
00.>
., 1.
9(}I]
ZLZ
273
(3) No sea-policy shall be valid unless it specifies the
particular risk or adventure. or the time, for which it
is made, the names of 'the subscribers or underwriters, on:~n:
c
oc
and the amount or amounts insured.
..
ox: :r.>?:
('f) lXI)
C' C' .0 C' C' C' .r,:::;:;
<X((:lli?p:;;>J(')')gJ::l:tn')9roAcl o:;ro:.n G9Gp 'JC: Dd'JC:l;;> O?;;>Jioqc
C' C' C' u
c C' C' ~ C' 0 C' "' ~ C' C'
i{
0 c-
q:~:D::o:>:G::o:>t ocro:.nG9Gee:::: tn:>C:l;;> o~~:>2~roo: m~:>:ocrom ::Q~Q'Im ::r.1c
C' C'
~ C' o c .~ c c c- r,:c o c Q')')~~tm
9Gt:j::>:::: m:>:J;;> o~~:>2GJt:::o~ ro'P:Go::: mro~GtJO~j~ mromroc: "~0 C'
c- c C co c c cr,:<"~ O'li,: c c ::r.lf:li'JO'XD?
)OJ'jOJ .:r::n:Gro::O~ II m:;:~ ::DOJ~o:>O:)'J:OJ~ tJO~ Dd901t15?f:OIJffi :r.>?l~?:
C' C' C' C' r,::;:: C' OC' 0 C' 0 r,::: 00 C'
j ?~qc Dd:DJt:ClOCG::O') (.)CC\):J)G')Gt:j?:;: 9C'P Dd?C:lOI 0~~::>2ormG~ CWQ')('f)ll
* * *
* * *
uolJc.<~> (c) :oce
~
lx.ecrotnlcc~ 1<11~~
:) .) .)()"- .)
bbtlc I
(~'A
1
/
>li'ew e~ce.c
:.>:::I
:>ch-l~b~mro:io.) .>
ccc~oo:lrw.
.)
e.G o<.o 0 ~shs::>o2wro
.) .) .>
oreBoceco
.)t; .)0
@hlc~~Q
:.3 .)~ .) .)
.)
,:C2roccc::>occ:ttcroroe>
.) 'G Co:o
'$", M:ococ.<P.(ro)
.) .)
:Of>er;ecce>:occ
)' .)
rw:ecow
0 .)
(e) cof.:ro
.)
ecc~JJcc
. .)
:ch'JB:cr~:~c~eroohl
.) ~ .) ::::::1 l, ~
--
t '>5C.Croes
.)
uC2ccro~(.()(t)t;C2b
'.) .) .) .)
~bhlr">~ Jo!h:>ccc~eeolreo!rec<P
.) :,j.J., .) c .) .) e~cw
JJC2t.:ee~cro rwrowro
.) c 0
coC.Orof~~;::>
.) .)
ec:~m
0 .)
ure5~~ 0
:~:crohlr6}::>
:>.:::! :,j.J.,
nCCC"'.;e~cro
.)
a.XoroiflC2~
.) .)
;:;, r:C2roccc~o:crohlr">5
.) .) l, :,j.J.,
&1F~C2~ .)
~eCC~.)
.) .
::>~cceocro- &:d~ec 1o~:fKOC.<P (e) co~eccea.:cc 11 C2cc
.) .) .) .) .).) .
:cro:~c .) ~~.
.)
~
o@~l;,x:dxo
.) .)
C2ccnire::0
.) .)
e~cec
r::>fcoccc~:crohl,"~;::>
.) ~...L 0
~ccet'lcec
.)
.cc5~lY...c
0
(~) 0 ~~hs::>c:2wes
.) .)
:::>te::><'
.)l,
X l::CO
.)0
C2hb~~Q
.) :,j
r:C2coohleo
_,:_j .> .)~0
11 ~x:d~ro c.0C2ccc.oto~ o!Pecaeocec C2cc:~coc<:Ko ::c8e'
=>- .j :J .) .) j j 0 .) ~
0 :?ccco~:cco8,
~- -~
)~e:~o::ecccw
.) c
tnC2~ro~c:cco
.) ,)
oro::c.cc~a::cf~a.:re
.) .)
"C:~o 100lnecc el'l~cc cboC:e :~c.hJ5bcr.co~o rcccoo~CCf!:C')ecd:o
)' -,..,
.:: ~
" .) 1
-:-:J ,.
.) " .) p :::::1 ~
.) .)1r b .)-J.)
, .)
m
, ~0.' 1 ':CD:~oc <;~ 11~ccco~ 1o:;,:c. ~a: rea::c.cc~~ :ceeoo:~oo ::.vOOJ
:J .:> .:> :5.:> ..L .:> o _, .:> e
0cc r.):::>to:~c.~e0c.ec
.)
~coescd~ec
.) .)0
ro~cd'Z
l, ':)
r :cc ew~ c.ccf&o
0
n~co~
:C6:Ccc
c.coal"cb
~ OC..l
~~bc;.c.o
.) .)
O"'..CW~:Ic.G
.) 0
<11
WftW
"
:ccc::xo
~
:c.a:c.cc
... . . ;I'tl .M
,Sl"WO!i_ . VJ{
VY\l~f19:
. .
BURMA-LAW REPO.R'i..: 21s
::o.,:~?:
('
ooc::.,:
0
~ro .
C' ..
&C '
J
O ~ C"
~C:(,l'}OO~C
m.,Gt'J<ff~
C':').> C'
~f:l"l!C'/)(7.)"
0')":) ~ ") ;
00 ('
~II
.
.*
] ,, )
(~:oxo~cnro
~s~ :h;ll:c:2
~
olre:h.U!..:clxo
o.:lo o .:~ ~...
9l'l
nccc~:2u
e
uweoa:; r e:dxoe&->es
~
2 ,..,. . ..
"l'!':'l , ~--
n~cc: n ,; uCJ.XJ:>es c e:ClX.Oecnc.G
.) 0 ... L.. .)
e ceo~~~~
e e ,10
11 Proo IG
~ OCO
:>
. ,OO:XC::>I'l
~
lin n ,c.o:O'r e
. .. i!f lro<Piro
~ o ~ o '
""If
= ,.
CCC.O
o- '-
.> .;,
~
II ffl':":lCC:I'I,OOO>
" 0:~~ ice.sk:cbc.O
o ' S'J 0
0
afe:c.cco
.L ' .. ,r 'ro:o:x;.O
I:'.)0
:XOGI'ICC
'\ 0
1." .<
.)
rr ' ':":1 ~oe
OICI:>OOCC:~
0 .) :>
" c.o:
'
0
~-~ -
~C.CC~cP-..
\ .
&~eic.coc.ocJro~
_.:; .
n2ccoQj(o t.occt.oo@('jolJJ :::>O:re~oo hl"oaxc~c.occ
.> .J~.> .> .> .>o:.l .>:J .) ~.) .J
&xuak.J .)
~c.ocCcooMlb:
~.) .) .>
c.cce~k~o!:>
0 \..,)
tc.oi'IMQ~~
.>:.l.> .)
c.~:c.r~:c.ec&-
:c.c:Oc.oc.Fcoe~ x~~:..J:lk~ ikuf.-,be~<:eec c.o&be:c.coc.oc.ftoo ~~)J~..J:l:re~oo hl:x.o
.> .) :::::1 .)~o ' .> .> e :,j ~ .> ~.l
CCeiWCC :X.w~:r..~co l:o:c.r(')(.()re~OO~I'lfl ICCcc&:C:coc.oc.Fro~n uwf'ecohl:re
,) .) .,) 0 .) \..) ~- 00 ,) .) .) .) :1
ltcb::Xcoco
.) J
OOxoc.Fco~};oceohl
.)
l.i:;olre:l',:cbco
.) .)~ .o .)
,~hlccoQoc.eoe~l'l
.>::1 .):J.) ok:~c.oc.ece~
.) .)
cb:c.coc.oc.lb:>e~
.)
n:oQ~ccc.oracoo.
J:::IJ .) .)
~c.6oicb
.)
~oo~()hlco(oecc.oc.
.) J:l.) .)
~~ec
l:O~ec.ce:iJre7'
0 0 \
C.OCJJ(t;CO
,)
I~COO~ds
.)
C.cc~:~'&x.(J)~
,)
rc.oe~~~ee&
.) s:
1:"okJc.or6"lCOO
.>::::1.> .)
lo);coo~cb
0 .)
. (&obe:c.cow6 ib:>e1) ~~
... 0 ..) ..)
(t;)c:Dberoctc 1(@) wes
..) ..) . ..) ..)
-
~.p,h ~ (\)~Q
... ..............._
ts~~:t (~:coowtib:>e)
M
4~ (l!}) 0berocccwhuC:('} a,a('}
.)
:X.o~ :bccc.0>~:2
J ~o e :~&:d3co
&':!
*
.11 l
ecoecM~Cd
.:l~E.a:
~lt6'.;.
1 .., 0 b ~:dxo~COt:!
11
H3CC0~0:~ 11 II~
esllc
~;-
uC2ccro~e:coocccJro~
~ '\ ~
~~bto:o~
c ~ l,
>cecoooS.ften:c.cocr:c.co
~ ~o e
1beB c c~o2:@~ ~~~ ~~eB c~o2:C:oorcc~:d:xo'
~ ~o ~
:com
11 1
axoG r [>
:>~ftoo
IX r'co :3
ucccce:o~ceo
1.
lt~e o I~tec.G : ~c. ]~a~
0 ~ ~ 0 ~ \ 0~ ..) . ..) ~
v ,, IV ~ n '_.. v 1r1 ,, IV _':3 1 v 1
2e ~ oeco:c~o
~
otw ooo
0
..)~
cc :>::> le~a:>co:o::x:ccoS'
0
r
:ocoa:;G~gco
..)~..)..)
coo ecru 0
. .~
t-8~.
l":>'H) xt. "W"TS: (xS6I) (z) t&s ''8;''!'8: (gt6I) (I)
* * *
~.I::>~p ~ JO uonn::>~X~ U! PIOS .AunJ~UO.I.M. .10 'l~S ~ql
01 k.r~d .Au~ .Aq p~1eu~n~ .ro ~~~urep p~:lse.M. ~ll!~
JO J~~UI:!p U! S! l!nS e U! ;)lndS!p U! Al,.I~do.ld Aue l'etp (P)
-;)S!.M..I;)tpo 10 l!AEPYJe .Aq. p;)AO.Id S! l! l!nS .Aue ti! a.gqM, .,
11 @cc<>~aR: rn~oa;ccr:;~ c ~
.) .>:::.! .):::h:
0 -~.; .)
c c~<>2:@~.)
r~c ;oo;
.)0
c~ :eo::>ra.:e::cbco
.)
no~o~Ct:<"
.)00
rea:ca<"
0 .)
Cc:cccco~
.)
~~a:: w:dftro:dxoema:;frh:a.:oco
0 0.)
:bea::<i>c.chfr:ro:d<":cc~d:o
.) .) .) 0
ra.:d~
.)
:hl:becc~
e:J ro:ro~J.,IG~ l:cw~:Lt?:e.:o51ro
.) .....J
cl,:oc~eahl(o~Qccb.>
.) ~ .) ::Jo J :_j 0 e:~co
,,
ecnrocncoco o rr
o't.!i'a::ro~ IS~;:e<"
n, J~ __ ,,
~:c.1ftO:
r
:axcecr:ron lrl
1c.e.:c.lftOo:<1 II:
~
0 .) J., .) 0 :) 0 .) .)0 :)
c.cn<"ro o~<"ro
r ~ n
:o1ero , r..-:JI cce.e.cccccereo
Je.l::cc 1 1r , v
7:1 n 1 cb 11
~C.IftO:: ccecr.ro
.)0 .) .)0 .) .) .) 0 .) '-0 " 0
11 Ct!cccc~ccfu
.) .)
~w
.>
:och:'l~:,cc'l.Cit')~~
.> ~ .> :_j .>
1::;Rcccc~t')
.> ;j .> :oblte:xco~
.> ....JO .>
~b~ceccto~e.ro:c.co
.> .> .) .)0
'S.L~Odffil M VT ~0~
;:::;:
~~tl"6'
-rM-v:l :.~
:.7v'.1,.J ;. 9W~:
~~ dX,o
.
.- : Jl y '.:~~~!..
r" .
!g~~- .
"(f)
sc :!!::" ''
.. ... . @
.,
1!
~ ;
"lCl""' ... '.,. .- ~ -~ ~ . , . .
( . .. .
. . :. . ' .... . ~~.;, a;~g.:>~~~ Jf~~~':J ~~~~
"d>~[u~
~
~~ 'nl:l&>oo:~2ociiiD~e
, .:i""~-o~ . o , !:I, o ciCci;~a
.., , ... .:>~b:ficc:~~~OtGb
.. ,a~.. ,<> ., ,. w:OO<:>Co
o '
':':I 'II II: ':':I b 0 "
~CCCCJC_OO~C.IOO':>. IJC~. a;._g.>te~o::iCC~ .l~ccg:>g ~: [fC~':J .Jf~~ ,!I~IO~C')
' -':':! , '6" 1 'co O"
!>o:cbcooceca:
-~
ccc<:>:tc~rcoe~""o*~?tes
.) - Y .lO.)O
ncco@cclffi u@cccoc.oG~\;:C.ro
~ .l
Moei
.> .) .<
,:, '
,
.
11
.cocnocc:ro<:JCO 11'
.J
01rococoacc, , ~ r o_ n '"""lb
.) ,
o>::CiftiOieeccc e&-cco~~G
.:> _
.- , o ,ccl~coocG!
1
o ..:. , ;, o .> .) .J .> :J .. ... .> o .:> .lO .)
1 ,.
CO<.Oacc 110 IC n co beGOICOe:
COIOCO o '"""\ 11 ~ Oel'l I?!1Ce:~1'1CCC.
CC<;cCCG 1 ] 1 . .-,
OC ::100 IICCCCO~
,
y . . 0 .) .) 0 .) . ,.) . :> .) 0 .) .) . .) 0 . .) .)(!
I . '"'"l 1 1 )lJ, 9 19 li.!' 11 ~ If 11 1<1 ':'l Q
:.gff~CG:> ~~ccr~G:J~'~~=~~ ~~c.occg:~re~ lr1ro:cc::~39~'1~o~o g:;cc:ro~. ~::~~
..~~~ 11dcc~S2~'~6:co:~~ ~:Jre~~1o~~-~~~ec ~~~~~~ t~:~go~
~]<:>~ no<:>_?~~~ ~eecccc~g:d~'~ ~~F :gr~~~reec . y~oo?~~
" 11'ccccG
aec """\ oo:~:1c.o<:>:
11!> IDc.oec ~~:>:ro~co
c.acceoG:c.oo
r'"""ltlr . 1 ~b
:ce: : <:>ec 1: ~:cco1c.o.
n ecoo:
:J:>:l ::;, . .) o e e .J .>
c.ccmeccc:c.PI'I~te:~
.) .) . .)
l:o:crl'l:ooobCll
;0 . ..) &
beccboe
.
@cc:&e:lP~"~OO>I(l)u
.) .) .l;!; 0 ~
"eureco.l:k
_.l .) .. .
.
II cb:ccococlbd<:>
.) .
w"roecOCC.OC~~.0c.<);~l20
.) . .>-
.) .) .,:J '
:;<:>:!We~ :ceccno:c.cc
.)
l2cc:cc<:>~
.) 0
ccckccc.ccro (oc)'ccc<:>eGb~Fc.o
.:>
o\1:oPcix.cn<:>'oa:
.;, !l . .;, .
'.;,
1 coc.~::~:hl~<:>~ ccc<:>G~tc.Pc.occn<:>oro
.;, &J , M&be:c.cowc!k<:>
) .;, .) :::1 s .;, ~~
:,- oo la:!cc&:ccoc.oc~
.) .;,
II ISQC<D~
.;,::J.) .;,
~
.)
:.;,~coow c.ooooe~ woel'l uro<:>c.occc.~m*cnScno I ::>(;;]G~I~:fCO<:J:lrc.oc:c ~:roeJCO
o :> .> .;, :> o . . ':> ;> :> :>:1.:>:::1 . . ~ ::>
r n
C.I'ICOieec 1
:ce: ~ , v ,. 'b o ,,
cc:o~ec IC.o:>C.OCIOO~ <:t :o::~oec.oc.o:>::X:.G::>occ
;or-n :cecmocc:ro;x.c
11
.) e :> .) .> :J .> .). . .) ...
~-(&b~gC:ro~cr~~) :t~;>c~.?fp
r
n.;,cob tlc cohle
O'J . ~~ .)
,, . 1 11
~ft:OSC.OOOft
o~g~i_:
'" o c <::. . : .. -:: ~ .~c o. o
c- ro:'"l);;o::D':-nJI
c- o c- .c- c .~
C r3
OC' . .
JC~ma:>::m
C' ~ (' .
..
. ' C'
cc:e.H
IL
-G<P'XJJ ?~ . ::Oro:
Sf.: <'J;'; C' f,;C' C'
L- 6 l c
.l .....
~ C' :
ml G:D?c
c- r-- '<'
cc:~c
l J
..: .('" ...('.. o:>f!~ ~?1 ~'J?ro~ co:~:.D?: o:>q o:JqOo:>t::lm tltCO~ GOIO:':::OC:J:5'J~
oc=at , 6 ?:;:II
.<' o:>GD?::;').).s:ro
o c- ?C' "\C' c- o ?::c- ... Gfu-):DI~I
,..-. C<'
' C:
4C G ');;>:;
L T
~OIC:o:>:;:::oGO:>?~
l l.J ..._,.
o .. J~_p.c ;
. (' . (' '\ C't)~ (' ~- (' (' . ':l 00 .
~?C:l)f:.ll (J)~:U': :l:>~1 G.SQ>011C' ()C\ OOOOCG ':DI OOGU~C Gl\OI())i ma:
:JdG~~::;
T -JI l;-s C C.:. J i t11J
.. . r;;:c- (' (' r,; ....r,;~ .. (' ~ . (' 0 ~
('
ro'J:U)?: [j~o:>::JJGI::j?:::: Gtl "'tj~ mG:U:OO'J: GO)')c:~e:JJC:I <rtGs:l'JC
OC'
:::n.s:ro
T
O C'
0)~:1)')0>0) <i):~~'JI:f G:.>:e>L~a
0 C C'
OOGjO:p: :
L...:.l
"19
Oo:>::D UCC' axn;;:o::n:-n
C' 0 C'
C:.
II
OC~s:l-:5:
(' . ' C'
:.CO.SG:J~Q).s:ro:-nmO?C I
tl \!
C'
,. J
(." C' .
mG::O::J.>1.
l
.0 00 0 . - 091
~~m G~:D'J::O~
t_.6 L
.
GO)'JC:
C'.
-.- T .J T oT t ~- ~ -r ~l ~. t
;..~ c C' C' ') C' 0 C' 0 : c. ' C'
::nt::!go;>o:>l g:T.)C~~~. co::: go:>?:~ OOQ>2o:>co jO GCC~~o:>2<p1
c-. o A\ f}~ . c 9 <' r,:c t:::: c c- c- . o . <" c-.
qc:o:f~ 2":e:::o2i s;-e>dt~ ~vGe:J?::::-n Gpcosc cooco:~ gcr...c21.~
.~
rog?~c;>co1c
..,, c C' c~
oomco:J.> c-,. , c- Of:'<' ~.c.. (. c: r:
GOO?mog.~ -G ?;;::-I~C:x? I<.!~Q>G a:r::c: <.!IC
J Jf. JJ v c--. ._; !.~
GB":Gro::neu : .
C' o 0 (' OC' 0 C' <' C' c 0
. G.~-:>ro:x>?:Q9 ~ <"'~tGs:l':>C::D~:~:T.)(J)())<[I ~~ca~w2 :<J.>GCO:<"'~t
0 C' ~ C' C 0 E C' ' C' o 0 C'
o~g~roGt~p(; :J O@ll j ~I ~O:JJ'JCO j ~())Gf-0:>1 ?COp;'f.)a;rJ:Q~::D _<rtGs:l')C
OC' C' C' ~ 0 C' OC'C' 0 C' <' 0 C' : C: o.
o:>f>:::D~ 9c:c;u o:>'JU>roOOC~ 5jGfQ>21 5jCo:>GCO:ro ~Cc..o<J) Gtpooro-:>1
(' (' 'C' '\I> L C' L O J C: J ~ C' C'~ J ll L .: ; l . 'c-
~el~ O~QJ'?G?:::I CQGt ?ro grocel~o:l2 GoTg::D?GOJ~::nc. J
c: c- o c- A\ ' r;::::: c: c- e- c- _c o o<." o c ~<." ~
qc:::n2 otOJ9J ~':>~Gep::J OS'=~~~ groc~r.c;JJ '=l:JJSJg~uc t:it~
O)GC\J:~C OOOJ
C'
8d<JQ'8:GS')()JI
OC' (' 'GS'JO')OJG.SOJC
. (' T
C' C'
gQJC:11.S!:t C' ~
8dG0!(gq)O)()) r,;:c-
o~bWD?::u:ux:o-:>:UJ
c-
J
iL
, J9 o T
G 'J;Q())'JI
ol: c
s:lV~~~ :D
1; 6
<'CI CA D
COOX\)'JQ>9GICT.:IX:I
10> tL
<." . , . r= c
e>C L U. 6 L L .J J -d ~ . q
ga'~~qJ2 (?) ~-:>:-&:o':>Gr.~ conx::, a?:DQ1 m~'Jo:>o2,
. ....<.;,.,.J\; ~ r,:;:; c . (" C' 0 C' 0 ~ ~ 0 ., {;::;: (' :
~'J:Gp:>e~ "'[j':>Ge:J':>::J OOJC~~ro 00:>~:~ gJJO;i<XfD~'J:Ge:JX:J
) c . 0 (;::;; c ~ ~ . 0 f,;C' A\ . <:: ~ C'
ro~2: ~Gy"tl00J1Gt.:Pc : Gl;:l"9J c:oo:u:nr ~GOJ:>c:GC.:pc:l t1f'Si
C _<;:.
cc:IOIG<.!IICOJ.S('J)O)') ') C' OC' 0
(;:T.)?:::G ?C:O)(J)I
C' C' 0 Cl 0 C' OC
('J)Gs:l'JC::x>S:ro C' 0 . C'
axn:;o::n:-n II
l I \ L L L I l> L L.
~f1~el oo~g ;;xxpo~ GaT~~~~a):,~ mGCOi Gro')6:G:-n') ooc;>11
gro:-n~~gi~~fuoS'I
CA lo 6 oL t.
c1o3G~:~-:>:::8
c. 6
r;;:~::n
. .:fx:n ,...S,:?::nr;;:~
L Cj " C..:, - l "'[:j tJ o 000:: .
~L ~drn~: L..J .
t:::c C' . L-Si .~ C' ~!!:~t::;;:: ,C' ~ . : ~ " 0.
Cj~~ qc:m t.l.._.ooo~'t-'~e:e::u ~oo.:>'): ~0?~ ~~~ t::~ifXJ:x>~
.. .. ._c : . ('. r,::c- :c
" ;. '
0' . c: ' . '~~
, ~coroo:>m~ 1 ::n :ro::n -Gc:pro~
. "' o 0 I ~ '"'\~~ . ' . ~..
c1
. ;.,... g'
'~''
:roeoa: .gmcel~s;,?:
.. .,'(' ~,
~ .. -
>.'.J
.; fo ll e , .. L , c . l~ , . . .,:.~~ ~.,. . . . :.6 :-. ..
it.:
T" ~~~,... . I . ' " t. ' J ll... : ~ .. . -.l ..... . ,,r;..:;. 0
~~:G;;;t<;;:.,~:=
l I.<\ .i~
0
ciid>>6:)~~
l. c. h . c&3:1~805~:m
I. . T
<oo:o:'o:>s~ , : c
t)
;;mQ)~~1
. . L
~ . ;,.. ' ~ ' f;~O .. C:O' ' ~ ' '~ IJ::O ~ .. -~ ., ~ .
t~!d5m~-'mJS:~ho~sroJmo5,:>~1l,cc:eu<J~iiil ~&iJf~!~:-{;:',~j:t~
L.. .I.L: c.... ~. J. T , .... 1..._, . ~1 ~ 1.:- ., ., ~.. J ;,.,,U '" "'~ ....~ . . L ,.~
.~in6~5:>Gt~~-
~ . ~.. ... . ~ .....
ro::o&>=cfl'" aS~
..,,:'y... . ...
-~0.sc~~x&s~o.1~1r
4.f ~ . .... T..~... t;:;. :
-~c::l:\:1~
~C Jl.l . f .: ..
~'oIP~
. , .. ~r,~.a~ - ~<:. ..:.\.,"1*"- "~ . ;a., t-..'"9 '1 ~..... ., ,c-. " . c- -..c!... <>
. ~')gq)(J) 8dt:lvm~.~vJIOl r----q<>O OQGC@.t:>1o:> II ) U)OC' 00)0:-D.S~
" L <>JI . '1:.610J
01
n<.2tc:coo~:hJ::>bo
J \. 0 6j
"C2ccahl::>n:cbccoc.cccc
.) .)~b . c.cc~
~ orwewro
~.) o.)
U!:>::>::>b~es
:fo.)O..)O
t:c.a.;C2cc~
.:1 ~.)
nC2tcCCCOG~~:C.CO
:J 0
ttCO~Cc:C\:OOJ
0;:,
)
;,~
.>
&l&e~
0
:::>QJ..~O
.>~.> ~
~~:c.Pe~:::>rees@bw
.> .> .)o
c.ccoo.:eoat=J
.) 0 .>:.l
ec:scxi~c.a~
.)0.)
C2cc::>~:4cooc.ae>
.:> ~o .>O ~
tCCcc::>~~"JIJ:f,~:fcoe>
.:> .)O ~
IG~ro&ahl~e<'>
~c .>~.> o
1::>fro:cc~cn~~
~ ~
~
~
)
C2cc:a:>e>co ,ohlcc:&es
..> .) ::I
u<2ccaR
~
C2t'lb:c.a:2a
_,:_j .) ~
ISlreh:rolftcc
~. 0 0
.~,
~~~~
....
~"reec ~!.G!d:>
::>- .>
1::>ro:~
.> .>O
~ch"J::)(b uo~::>~ahl~.
~ ~ o .>o.>::l
F~eec
~
:cc~~ca<'>
0 ~
~
.) .)
:..JJ...'"""""""reec
~~
c&coo~ecc~.ec
.>
nC2ccal=:l
.> ~:~
)o:~:rw~:l~wro
) ~
~:roe>co
'5
1chC2~b&:cco
;) 0
:ee:r,Jen:bw
~
1:hl:ec ~Pa.;ea.;ro
(,j ;, .)
:cccn&cc :de~4-~:e~ro w:cr~:tn:)ba ba:;ce>o2 C2cc:& e:lPOO<:olffi
:;, :> .) o .:> e .> .) B' o S
-'22--3'] - BURMA LAW REPORTS. - 2~1.;
~ ~
o c- o c-c- c- c;. '1 c-r r
OO~<KD:::m?: l lol~::: ~KDOJ:l1l GCD?::DG~IO)Jlp:Q) : SJI:::o: Gu:>?m ?:
L Jl 0 tL C ~......o~ 0 C-:)
:>e~J
c;. c- o<" 'IC' c- c c- c- r c- o c- c c-
):~::::Jd::D :OS:O:;G:JI:;::D::::: O)'tg:; I OJ')~~~J.n:;(.!l:::: I 0.)0)? ())ICOJ!OJ:D
c- ('
""' J
0 il. T I. LJ 0 ' - ... ~ I tJ Cl I. u ~~cat
('
0 c-~ <;: C' 0 C' 0 C' l' ~c
1-.> .'D:>.l)>~ J
l l t. _"'j
m~xn=~-3~:::SJ?: mGro:mL GD?:::o oo~:G00J:l)ll
f C 0 J,C 0<"
<Y.tG:r.l?C:lJ1 II
Od~:.>l SJ~~:~p:~:, mG:x>:~p:::D~ (?) \ S) ~ (G) ~~0:n~s
c- c- ' c- or,~
c- c- r,;;c-rm
' o c- r;;_c-rm
zp.)3do:>rc~ G'P:n~t:l: t:l0e1~~J?! t:J08 0J2? 11 sc :~c1J?!OJ:IOC 1
c- c C' c-
-ro:~:~ l ?!m ~.SU:>CU)QU)GOJ? 8JQ(.l)~l?!
oc-
OJGJ:l'X;()) ~ 0):1111
c- C' o?S}
T U U t.T 61 il lJ ); l ~ ,;, C
' (' 0 0 C' OC' c- ~c-c- " C' "
SdC)::r.>cm-:>:1 m:oro:m1 mG::r.~?c:x>.s :m u:>:o?:::l).>'> :::r.;O) .s;:< CT.lGC\::OJ:l)
I .:\. A t t. T .t. G !.. Tu C:.
(' r;;_c- C' 0 C' C' ( )
)) ro:x)'): q;J~U.)~J:D? t:!00J~ 11 U.)~~~c
CT.>GCD:OJ2 ::>o ro:x>?OJ?
o -r~rm C'
c- r,:;> C' c- ,
:n?~G:m:n~u m~::D:~c-J.)Sd'J: ~:G~c GQI SJe3~5J'P' o!Yt.:mJt:~?
0
1;;1::0::011
(' 0 C'
~::Do:>::r.>G ::D:G::D'J
C'
(\.)~<K-0
'Q):l)CJC' 0
ffiG:Jd'.)C::O.S!~
C' OC' .<:. 0
~O)C~C
C' C'
Jl C.:. ll 0 l T Jo
<:: c- c- (' C' C' C' o C' C'O
<~:J.JG X>:eu ro:n::r.>c GUU'J9C0?UC G.s:n::o:n Go:>Q::O:x>
6 ~. 0 I L L A I c 11 c:GQOJCQGOJ?
] ~~ 6 Jl 0
II CC<CO~ IO~;c.l;:xo
,) ,) J,; ,)
c.~cc<ek
;} 0
@<ee~wCb~b
, .)
b:oo:coo
'.) .) 0
:c.es:c.cnt'l rct!<et,:oQlCI~'~o~
.) 0 .>::::.1::1 .) :C2roc.<e~:oc.co~o~
.:> .) .) .)
J
~b~~coko~:ob
.) o .., .>
co:c.COfl wPcoolx>~~
.) .>o
eCbhco:c.l:les
..> :::1 reesc.<e~wcb~~t::~
\.. .., .>~
l:C~
o O'J
:hl:c.~w~fiW
&J .> ..>o
:o&,e:cno:@~e:w6
..> .) .:> .,
:hlococoo:>
Oj.> .)
cc:o~es
, o
hl:c.cnt'l Johlb:,
o ..>~o
~ 0ouc'c ;~~coro
\.>
cc:o~e:;
' o
l::o&eQ:c.cnfl
o .:>~
~ 2a:&..Ooroc
:>oO .> ~
llaletot:l.!-
~ :J : r.;-
r
nwbZ.f
.>
,...,Q~
~veJ
::>~
.:>
(b:nCbcodnes)
0 0
~c.ee>wre:x.ee>
.) .) .)
"' c
GG?C:;xJro CDI o:>!m: e:roc . CD
r;:: G>
ILL:.J
G
6
c ( oB~
l
C
7
) COO:r:nGCO(J)QJI
-r c c CDC oc
m-:>:o:>
0.
c
[ CDC I :::0
g :m GY? ~ l :'\ ll .
Glnc
~ (' (' :- "'"f,~ ~ r;:;: (' r;: (' f,~ (' . c:
<;:0mG0?c::n-:>: OO~GQI tlg 8dm0l:3'JGt_:j?c: GI:>~Eif':tpG.pm -Gbl:>C~\.
c
-Z.:
C c -: r-c Q. o c rc '1 c: o r;: c c ~ <:.
J
Gbl?Cfq blr?3:::G~!-~ 8dQJC:(9Q:l'il::::oemt GtJCD2:?GIU9y SdeJ<,;(.;;c::1l
~!8'G~:n r: (' 3 6('CGX>:(l)
0
oL
('
:::OG:::O') GtUC\):1)1,) Y::IC
~ ~A
06
-I J:
II 0)
:L
cn:c:uc ~
0
l
('('
OO:J.>OO~J(l)8dQ
1
Y
0
00
b)~,)~
OC: 0 C' C' 0 C'~ 0 C: C' OC' 0 ~
3'JY:::O Gbl?::;:;x)O)G0-:>::: CI)O)Cl I,)G:SCDCDjCI GY?C:::O:DGI,l?C 8dbl :X
.,L.
C'
l :1 T l J
C C
-1l
C\.0'l mc.
.)0 ., r;: (' (' (' <: 0 r;:;: (' "!" (' c
blbl Gf'UI9G<1X~ GtJ?'PI GY?C:::OffiGbl')C(J) CI):-;)0QGt_j?C: GUI C~Cc:ll
c o r::::: c r,::;:c oo c o c c oo cr,~ o '
o:>c:~::D? 3'JGE.j~Gyqc Yt_jCG0.1:m Yl:>ell 0CD ::r.?GCD? co;;tmt:J: 0CDG~
o c '1 oc c: c 'r:::::c c ~ c r c: o
mtmu1 tu~m 2-;"'C:ood:::: Q9:::02:tJt mGt_j-:>c:i:f n-:>1 roc~:>m::>: 0~-:>cq
-(
''() <:
mm:vQ:c~n u ~:>ro~:m
6 l IL
0
~
0
coo:>G:::o? 3'JG
L oL
0 6 -:>c:
c: QJm~:C
c :-
tJ J ,;.
~:>CDGCD?mm
L
('
L
mocm:
tl
0 C'OC'C
8di,)(J) ()U):\.'CDC:U II 0Cbl 3'JU)Q:;;:mblffi?!l CO:::OG:::O? GdG
SdG.SO)Cf o o 00 C
li;l,)')
Jtt. L cJ llt! :t l l T6
c c . .c o c o c c oc cr;:::c r;: c -: oo _<: '
:;oo)GI:>?C:::Oe::!l <J.{illCD CI)O)G'Pm ~v"DmE.j:::: I,)IJLG::O?CD2:?:1 ~yt;;ll Cl
~
6 (' CG::D:Sd?:
o
0 ('
oc
-(' '
c
('
~ro:;o::::QGS'd?C
I
c c r::::: c
YW.::DCh
('
l. ll C
c
l
c
U)<;C:J.)')I
1l
r,:::;::: c
0~
CO
L
(' ~
(,}QIO)(,}
r,:~
:o:;t~
ltl U
c
-oo 9 :C
20'Gn::>.l
C'GG
et~:U;,>:[j~:
9 TUQ)O)C'OC'C' bl2:?:::0~~ 3JG~~:f)CgtJ9JI C0C0ill:
ffi?Qcgo.s rom~ II
_ <l, J, -n 8CDQ
----~
:;)fbl(J)
OJ t
:)(.Ml
.)
W<:e:)(.~~
.) .)
.:. (&6e:crococl6~~6oce::>R)
... .:>
0 .:> .:> .:>:.J
( w:;~:tt:2)
o e
::>::>~c~MJ~::>cro~hl
o .:>o .:>:.J .:> .:> ~
r
:::>'!;' rrc.ob
->
f roO:
ol
.:>
( &:ccococltu~
.:>
~b::>ce::>hl)
.:> .) .:>:.J ~occc~oc~~
.:> .:>
..~- -- .-:
)6I) sD:IO~ M.V1~iVmfHI ... 86Z
.- . ..::.:.:...
:-
(os) 09 -urra: (6S6x) (z)
~6Z .
~~. :
* (~b~:crosocFroe
[COb('} I(<b) COeB lf}e.B] ~~Cf}4bl 1 c ~ ":"]..
<b:>Ca>~
.) .) .) .) o.)O .)~ .) .)
r ucob
" de n.JJ
-;,r..
::>~
;)
('
C.:. J
0
e
r,: (" f,C? Q C' C'
Jl
(' ~
.[~~I ::T.l~( ~) I
0
m~Od<)IJ 'P~o:n~_gp:nf' Odor:;q= .tl:<n:GOd:>c, <n<DGoog9r' g}J'i
~9~ u] c~ c- ~ <"~ ,.f,~ r,;:c :<:: o ~ <: oc- o <:
~re:1?:0l?<lp: ~ ~;>e:1:>:~t1: ti<D~lll ~e:1x:, ~c:q9~
o
Cl]_GCD
C' 0 <" <" 0 OC' C' <:" C'
6
o
GO)') OdG :>:: g~roiC c:>C'OO)ClQI?:mJ OOC:C CO?:Q.S o:>CGCDI?
11 JJ -r Jl u 1 L ... -~ T o u
('
<,l(J.)O)G <.> II
(' 'l'[; 0 (' (' (' ('~
Gf?:D~ G:.J I tjCl]_G::D'J Od~Jffi'i'Jt 'l?C'Oo:>~~C I 'f?C'OJo:>t:j:
<:' ') (" C' ~
?l(el 9970 ::r..~l' .Vl:>G<;J:);G::D?!n~ll Od~00GOO:G:::O? 'l?COO)O)'P:~el:~
~ ('~ <' C' 0 C' ('
3d~: :x>o:>eo?:~l ~:x>o:>L:l: <:s'c> ?7~' .(:,<((. ~~ o:>ro~CC9~:> :x>m
(' c 0 0 (" 0~ (" c 0 ("' (" C' 0 c (
ndt>t>;;><;>Jm rom:x>? rom0~ m::n:Q~J~c :x>m;;oc::n:::n ~mG~~Qtmo:
I ~l L 1.- .n.J o l c.!. tJ ~
(' or::;(" ~ ' (" (' r.:: (" <:
rom~l:jC: QDI.O? I OOG00:9<j> e0c:1111
(" 'l'[; ') c:;:::: (' ~ c ~ (" 0 (' ('
Od<XXDG<91 C;j()IJ m:;t:jx:gp;Gt:j:>~l illJGCD_JJm~'JCJ?l U9f 8:
(' 0 (' ("
QJJ~o:> -cqm::n2.11
n&ucoc.occ.G~
.)
to~fle.G c.cc~~re
0 .)0 .)
~c.cc
.) .,)
oc.e>~::>c.t?~:2
.,) .,) e
c.roc.olc~
.)\,.
:h.li!t:dx:o
e,j .
10&>
.)
~cc .)~/kc:h.lt?:dx:o
O,j
IGf~
.)
cs:.~tlc
::J
Jr
_~~~ -,r 1c ~:;,w"&.occ.G~f):dx:o ~~~~ ~stlc *
4~c.co~coblw ObJw1o~'b~od ocoic.cew ~oo C2cc~::::;m HO~O~G;;::r~ ~bcol
.> .J :> ~ :> .> ::> :>. oo " \ :> :J o..>:l .l .>
&co~
.) :c.c.olb:2rrooo
'r .) .) .);~'5w:6~mo::Xb~~:ccoc.oc.c.o~
\ ..) .) & \.) coo~o~
.)
~a;roea:
..l 0 0.)
I! G::IC'l2wfe
.:>
ore.>:.:.1
J
ohl
~w:b~coo:;cb~f:ccoc.occ.o~c.co~oo~
\ .:> .:> e \.) .:> .>o
1Gf~
.>
~1.1tlc
.;; o r::1..>
l~c.o:..J:loo:ll'= 1tlbc
cbc:c (c)
.) 0
:cco.;>c~o2 .)oocc:flW:C2Grocc.o
.) .)
1~w:b::>cno:
\ .)
:xb!l~ccoc.occ.o~
.) 0 \.)
ccoe
.)
.:> lb:>~)
* ( (tc be:cooc.oc cocofKDCIDBW~e.G:ccc:cbcc: co0
.:> oe e
r
.:> e
~IS'
11 c.ob be
.)
.)
11
cocoa.)
( cc:coo
coh::~cowc.ou~
.:> .:>
:cPe (ro)
~ .:>
:cc.o:6oc.oro
e .:>
coco0o
.:> o .:>
.:[~
BURMA LAW
. .~REPO:&.TS.
.......... ,~
.,.;;;....;......~ -..
BURMA LAW REPORTS: 305
.- ""a;,
:>eli? c- c-
G:::O')C:;:I G~:::O~Cl
'
!DJYI'):m c- c- r c-
G:::OX:C:I o..s,
llj:::O:::OQ'),... :::DOOIUJ~
'1 .
1 ro -1 ~ tJ ' L.:.. ~:. L .... 11.
(" ('" C' ' 0~ \ ("' 0 ('". C'
C' 0 C'
:0~ 00t>~:3XJ: Yj':>:O'JG:::O')~C : C\:(v~~ ~:~G~f ~CCGQ)')
(" Q 0 C ') 0~ 0"'' O;' C C ('
!];)CDC?'}: ~~=qg 01300'):~91' <Xf>'!3~~c: :;~~:~~?c~x9~~ ~~
ro?:(aS) .,p:
~o~':lroro
<"
"'
gj d<.lJ')::D.::>?C:ocJ OC' <:' OC' C" C' C" C"
~cce>o:>? o.:>~ro~c.s: l:r.K.?~c
\ ('
::D
?:0:o1:;;;C1: rooc.s:
Q ') (" C"
C' C' IL \1 L 1. l T 'OJ A f \. T
ooc::r.x:r.> ' C:<" r c- c- "!" '1 c' c o <" oc-r.: c- c r:::::
-;_L :;r.)~gJ?: J:jfY?;9~~C GOI GUI:n~9 <p~ro~: 9C:C:j~eJ G~:G~?
1'<: C'f.:C'r::::: _<;, 00 ') (" (" (' 0 (' r.:~~.Jt .........S.::
-eo3:::r.>cp::o':l: ~J')::::O'.t'.l)(jDe1eJ II cqo:~I:Gq: C\:(OCf:YJ?::::O~I o-;_.;e:tJe-""'d"'tjS::Gfl
C'
~~ro
o '1 r <" ' <" c- "!" " ' ~<::.
~(.l)()mc;;ox;:ro:::o::J?~; ~.) I ? -r.> GOI cos: ro')~ mc:v 11 c;;c:m:x;rot ~cc
c o <"
00 c R. 0 L!. J o. T o Jl 1.
C\:)1,10)(7)11 0 ~ (" ~ 0 r,;: (" r.: (" (" f;?' (' r,: (' ("
~:"!.... m?o;;ogs;p:::u:::;s :::r.~-.m~":tl::. t tl~: Dy:~JY:G9:1 t:1~9'i'
(" (" L.:' (" 0 C' 0 <:' r.:~~ 1:::: c c
~f:~fG~j=~:::O?C::J1:>::U~!I ~G;;":T.>I C1:fC:tJe-" ~Gt:j::T.~Gyl moo::.mmt :l
rC'\ C"C o.<:: C" C' r,:
:;r.)u;?roro~j~pc:ro:::oac. :::r.~~1 3;)1{:9e~' m.,o;;ogs;p:Yp:.:o~: Yp:e:p:t
.--. C'!t;C" (' (' 0\ ("
~U)tJ~C'O?G:U:::O~ II 2();.}')1 U)~:;O);.}~~o;t:Go.:>') U)2G:nJ:~I a:;L~G~:'P
(" c- " o o c- (" r,;: (" (" (" r;::::::;r,c::r,;:C'
0::U2t:q:>e;;:dp:~ ro~:95')~ <q:.>C;>:Yp: ~Gft:JS, Gro')C~(J.)Gfe:JtJ~4>
. (" 0 (" Q "'' <:' (' (" (' L.<" It; (' 0 ~<::. C' C'
:::o~ 11 <X?t~=::Jt~"' 0:~1:G9: "iuc;;::::o~ro2: 13;;~')t1~~~:9<:;11 0-1ocr:
c !:'"'... "!" ., (' ' <:' 0 (' f,... (" 0 (" C' c
Q),Oll:lC::J"' G:J I GUIO)CU')~:::0~9 Y~~~ tlc:1CY~Q)G()U
0 r= C' (" t C'L, <:' C' Sl Q (' 0
c:::f~"SOCI
moro~t12 oxp:~:e~p;~~':fmG:::O') oo~dL0bJ"::<X(:<~F ::':'~
r,;c L. C' r,:: c- <:' C" C" C' C'
W<>t (3fY')tj~~Gt:j::T.I;fiiC. ~~UXI~~G~J II :))')gmG~?C '] (.)')OO:.J9f
G:::O')I 00 l'IIOC C~ C())C(T;?" ~Cl (l) O:>Cc I 19:D:::OI:::Oill:.D(.)Gro'):
C" c c c
J
ro o C' o -. c
G9: GO)')~;;
I
C Jl A !.
C'
3..._
C'
C'
' ~<: (' (' C' 0 (' <:' C' (' (' 0 (' (' ~ C'
~-':J
'I)
roucs::::o:nt
L T c ~D:~:uoc.s:Q(})())I
L ~. L T L
m.s:::o:nm
lT c _,
roocr"-::::O')
L
o:>:x:<.:)
~ L
u
oo'P;~e;,:Yp: ~ooo:>e9 :;r.)oo:xx>?:~ll' u:>c:~:x>e? ~:9::-1 Of<..OO');
co 0 ~ (' ' (' 0 c oc
romc g:n~
C' c- C' oS~ ..<:. <:' C' ro C' '1 (
'):; :~c ro: ~ 11~ooou~:~t?:~o:>c:&c.uroGoJ ooc) s::~
J l J L ' U J Jl
c <:' c o c c ocr,; c- C' r;;:c c
~( 2) ~t:n":1 ~9m:..x:~p::::o~1 ~c:tl~ro"~9:1:j0:::o2t mill:90-1oc;;:
c r c c C' ~<::. r,;<" r,: c r.:
oro
<:'
<" o ..<:. o C' C'r;;:c
~:>~~?c'J:DcH 1 :D~:9c:~ 9<..0":~meo:::o~ 9:C::J()')(:J 11 c:~t~"tl~
0 (' Q "l (' (' C' ' c (' (' ('
~ftm":' ~~:9:::0~1 0:~1:;9: "iuc;;:!dp:~c ocG'f>mGro;>c~ Gro.:>~
r,:('~ 0 (' (' <:'' 0 (' (' ' ~<::. c (" (" 0 C' ('.
t::l~l ~CC<;Q)'J G:-r.>'):nu::u:~G'f>C:0<..0<>9: ~ell cqoc;>:o.:>~ ~;9C\fUCf
(' (' 0 C'\ (' ('
0:>9~~ OCfltQU)2:;oy~"
: o ~ c ~ 6 C" c s. G '1
U)Q:D>Q ;melC' " C'
G:D.SGI:C04> Ym:::O');U)~ YC'oc
<D~C l roc: q:nc:u 0:01:
(' 0
G 9:0s0m
T l
L C
A
c
G:DCU')::P:o:>o
L
~1T
<:' c ('
c:oo.:>:::OC:0::Jtlt)'):
c.:, 0 t:.
:Co?
'
J il
e L
mro~:
l
ll
C. A
.190)9G<.:Qo.:>
L
(' C'
c..:.,
II COL0
{,;')~081 o19)l Dr. W. Friedmann o.:>~l Neto York v . U.S.A . (3)
.ro~JI:>:
n.. I.J
6
ro c:u1::n::n
c. u
C'
-1
') ('
L
')C'
:DQll:)
(:), :nromo:>m
o 1t
C'
G <.9t:~c:~ct:~.sromm
Jl t -IT o
J
[
T""
C' 0 C' C'
l OAJ
(' ~
0
t t
C'
rouco:>
6
4>o:>:::r.l'f>::).),?; C' ' OOC' <' OC' C'C' <' C' ~ 0 Q C' ~ ~ <''
c <> :f>::DU:>~~G():l)::DII !DON() ::D~CO).JCI m OJG:l)') !D<DQCQ : OJ()~
OdC~(U)
~oxb
ll
LU
L:. . L L L
C'
l:..:.
0 (' 0
Cc.J
('
~C
JJ
C' B C'
~ L
('
COOC~:I,II?ISOC0
('
1.- GOO?~cc
. 1
0 (' ('
L L
('
G ?C: :l)JG('S)QJ.)J.JO')
. - Jl C.:. L OClc.T.>C
-~ J o
jl)o:>
;,....,o :t ~ l I tJ l Jl
s:
1
~J?: ~oS (<t)u1~rh:>:alJc&p:~ oo&~:>:e)u m~:!D~ ro9?:m
(.') Q Q 0 C' ') 0 C' ~ C' 0 .<::
Gro:>o ( 8 <.9rol:l:ro
L
G8J'J('S)()I8JCDC:
l '
0('S)00ellll
L
(" 0 ("
O)c:()OXT,)
(" Q
mroo9r
m?:(cS) dp:
~'>roo5
C' C'
roc :~
Q
i~ -
>o:>:O?'P:o:>':l:
C' Q
mcroc.~ro
00 LUr:
X>~o~o:>mn
' '
'a:>:>:~ ~~{~~=:9~:u~ 11
~ ~ ~0 ~
~[g:OJOS~~~ (Final Order)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ('
mp;
-'IJ~.)'):l)"J 02:~n:9f~G0~211 CJC:~<:~J~Co OOO~C"09J G~"Jo:>CO"JI
-~ o ~ o o~ r,~ ~ o~rc- r;:;:: ~ o
O[l:ll 02-:>~G~Gf~~ro O{~~f.'P Sdtj:OJOO Sdl,l~!9l>G~-:>c:~
(Waryan Singh and others v. H aranam S ingh and (another) f(l)
'Q ~ o o ~ o c- o ~ 1 r.:~ c-
4>9:;::o::~ m::n-:>:G::oOJ:nn ~G~"J a:pd~<J"J o:>~:Jd~~c r: ~tjiO~Jm
L C" r~ .._. ,:L ~ 0~ ~J 0 ~ 0 JlJ (" ("
s:~?::.9::'P (:}J?:'l-:> ~?a-:>:~:noqcc: <:>~~2ot G9.?')~2" Sd.~w
r::' C' 0
C'
C' C' C'
G(~2p.:;~~:?l CJC:~jf~C
OC" ~ TI
~
0);-p:<J:T.>Jqcq::Jd<J* CjOI
0 0 0 ~
OC'
f2:20~~
0
C'
Jr :D91
;<;>!(:)~~~? ~;,~;;<r :~:;1 ~::r.>:.O~:..OO>;;l::l):l)f S~:.O::Jd:.O<:>V<JI"J:<:>?
UJ r,J o l 1LU C:. l u.~ti.J J
\ 0 ~ 0 C"o (" (" 0 C" ~
:u ;);:n:;~;,p:>~p:~
> ("
0?~1 ro:.>e~n2:1l>-:>:~co<:>~c;;oo? ~:-:> 9~~:
c ~r.:~ ~ ~ ~ _C:: 0 ~ 0
a:>?:G:x>-:>;;e_p~tp:~ll oo;,rG::op:n::o:>:~~ o~?~ G~f~:rq:
ro:>::))t(Arumugam Chctti v. Raja Jagaveera Rama Venkateswara
Ettappa) (2) 1~ (Abdul Qavi Khan and others v. Bholan Khan
and others) (3) ~,~~:;,)p:~-=>o:>ci:r o:>~Sd~ Sd~SdOJ~G-:>~:
~ c- ~ c-
:;:m~l?:~:: ro:oo~;rJ:>:>~
-:>c:c rot~OO?
c-c- _o o ~
GOX\QGO:)):l)ll o
~G:))"J m~
c o o
T 1.1 J L OJ l l i6Jil c ~ -1 l
C" OC" C" C' <:" 0<" ,~ f,'?
~mp;<J:nJ :.CX?:~e~~ c;or r~:2oG~ J? m91 Q)J'f'J:))~Sd<:>t."'ul :~p ~tl:
~::r.>
C' OC' ("
~;J~<J~::r.>~C2)"J::; :~~~
0-JtlGo:>?CQ>
r::::: (" 0 QQ C"Q 0 (" r,;:c-
C!XjCDq:tjiO~~
(" (Abd 1
U
Rahman _v. D. K. Cassim & Sons) ( 4) ~~51c:roc :~-:> Gm-:>~ol
OC" C" C' ~ 0 C" 0 0 C"
~~c: 9~ar=tl~:n"J::))~~ G9.?~9~w:))2 11
c oc (") 0 c
(1) oe:>~ ~4>1 10~1~1~? 'l I ~II 4>~J~? ~JII
(2) I.L.R. 28, Madras, p. 444 (3) A.J.R. (1943) Oudh, p. 274
(4) II Ran . p. sS.
13
320 BURMA LAW -REPORTS. ....J:I96
0 . C' C' C' C' <' ' C' C'
::leG? . ~qmt o:>~wi~c ~ropmro'J:~ mc~c:~x~ Gcqp~'J'i
r .c c G c c c r- 1 c c c c
9
ei~IO?C
(' B2Grox~ .m'P:tD9cG9: Sdm2<>G8 <-(8~ 13~ qc 8?mJ; :o::::x>~3'J~S c
:.6 oc C' o
GO:~CQC Q:D:n;3d!U:::x>O) Sd~.S~
.c rG C' oc ~ rc c
:lUIDG O':l'JC:
C' o
~:l"l~(:l!,m 1 g,_om o:>~Cc
<:-co oc
Jl C.!. , U U C.:. 6 .. ,:..Joe ..); ;,..
Goi~
l 0 o Jo o'. It L
0 . C' c C' 0 C' C' 0 C'
~1)9m?:l Ga:>_JJmCO'J:~eu GCDJ'JffiCil')Cl1 <>COO'Jy:::O':l~G()~~ II
e Ol J ll
G<.9To1 :>c;~I
!3JG
c :>:G "
:>C I
c
())QGOJI')ffiCQ')(J) I!X:90J~COXl:> OC
o o c c
0 C' C'
U o I.
.,,JJ .A I. Jo 6
cqm:::o2u '
0 ~ o c r,;:c c c c c
02':l1jG~Gfe:J: ~0)3'dtJID G~ ~p ffiJ<> :::00)'10):::0~ ''
CIVJL MISCELLANEOUS
. ""
M~~-:E.C; Ba K.yaw (Government Advocate) for Applicant.
ovUUJHA
BROTHERS.
.U Pa.ing for Respondent.
U SAN MAUNe, J.-This application under section 66(2)
of the Burma Income-tax Act is against the order of the
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rangoon, in its Reference
No. 14 of r96r wherein the Tribunal refused to refer to
this Court a question of law said to have arisen out of its
order dated the 3rd May 1961 in Appeal No. 75 of r96o.
The facts giving rise to the present application which
have been .fully set out in the application of the Commis-
sioner of Income-tax, Burma, are briefly these. The res-
pondents Messrs. E. C. Madha Brothers are a firm of well-
known manufacturers of soap and umbrellas. For the pur-
pose of 1957-58 assessment year corresponding to the ac-
counting year ending .the 31st December 1956, the respon-
dents filed the return of income declaring therein a total
income of K 2,28,789.40. Then in response to a notice
under section 22(4} of the Burma Income-tax Act, the res-
pondents produced their books of accounts which did not
however include stock books of raw materials used and
' books relating to the manufacturing ac~ount. The Income-
tax Officer concerned after having the accounts examined
an'd after hearing the Managing ,Partner of the firm rejected
the accountS und~r the proviso t<? section 13 of tlle ;Burma
Jncome-tax Act. He then assessed the respondents under
section 23 (3') of th:e Act on an estimated income
of K 7,ob,312. The reasons given for this assessment
were (a) that the disclosed turnover of K 54,4I,159 and
the disclosed g;oss profit of K 3, 62,212 were low
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 323
.
assessed for the year in question without the production of
stock books when similar assessments had been made in
tbe previous years when no stock books were maintained
by the assessees.
The Commissioner of Income-tax being dissatisfied with
the o:rder of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made an
application under section 66 (r) of the Act for reference to
.this Court of ~he following questions of law said to have
arisen out of the Tribunal Appellate order :
"(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case there
was no material for the finding of tbe Income~
tax Officer that the income, profits and gains
of the assessees cannot properly be deduced
.f rom tile accounts produced ;
(2) Whether in the circumstances of the case there
was sufficient material and evidence for the
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to arrive
at the finding that the accounted trading
results should be accepted for the basis 0f
assessment."
can be demonstrated to be not " judicial " but " capri- Me~s:~. E.C:
cious." See the cases of M.P.R.M. Irulandi Mudalier & M'ADHA
BROTHilllS,
Sons v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Burma (I') and
Messrs. A. S. Alladeen & Company v. The Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal, Burma and one (2). See also the cases
of Chan Low Chwan v. The Commissioner of [ncome-tax
(3), Neki Devi v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Pun.iab (4),
Diwan Chand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab (5),
Maharaiadhiraia of Darbhanga v. Commissioner of lP~come-
tax (6) zmd Ganga Ram Balmokand v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Punjab (7). However, although ~nder the
proviso to section I 3 of the Burma Income-tax Act it is
initially the duty of the Income-tax Officer concerned to
come to a decision, whether or not the method of account-
ing employed by the assessee is such that income, profits
and gains can properly be deduced therefrom, his decision
in this respect is not final. It is open to correction by the
Ap,pellate Assistant Commissioner of lnco.me-tax and hy
the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as the case may be. In
this connection, the following observation of Das, J. who
delivered the majority judgment in the case of Commis-
sioner of Income-tax v. McMilla!J. & Co. (8)1may be usefully
quoted :
"The words ' in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer'
are not to be construed in the sense of a mere discretionary
power; but in the context of the words used in the proviso to
section 13 they impose a statutory duty <:>n the Income-tax
APPELLATE CIVIL
DA w '.YIN PU (APPELLANT)
--
May r6. v.
u OHN KHIN AND ONE (RESPONDENTS).*
Than May, who wete the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the
suit. The plaintiffs' case was that in Civil Regular Suit
DAw Kvm
No 4 of 1956 of the District Court of Amherst they' ob- Pu
tained a decree against U Thi Chat! and Daw Than May u OH:KHm
for a sum of K I4,ooowith costs thereon. In execution A:1D om.
of this decree they attached the properties now in suit
in Civil Execution Case No. 2 of 1957 of the same Court.
Thereafter. the defendant Daw Kyin Pu filed an apf.>lka-
tion for remo,al of attachment of the properties on the
ground that they had been transferred to her by U Thi
Chan and Daw Than May for a consideration of K 5,000
by means of a registered deed of sale dated the sth of
. September .1953 Daw Kyin Pu's application was enquir-
ed into by the Court in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 20
of 1957 and the attachment was removed. Hence the
necessity for filing a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 of
the Chil Procedure Code.
The suit was contested by Daw Kyin Pu alone as the
other defendants U Thi Chan and Daw Than May did
not appear although summonses had been duly served
on them. In the written statement field by her Daw
Than May said that the properties attached by U Ohn
Khin and Daw Khin Gyi as belonging to their judgment-
debtors U Thi Chan and Daw Than May in fact belonged
~o her in view of the registered deed of sale dated the
st~ of September 1953. She also contended that these
defendants had merely a right of repurchase which they
had since forfeited.
The defendant U Thi Chan, however, died during the
pendency of the suit and his wife Daw Than May and
his son Mg Moon Saing were added in an amended plaint
as his heirs and legal representatives. On the pleadings
the most important issue framed was whether or not the
properties in suit had been purchased outright by Daw
Kyin Pu or whether the transaction between her and
330 . BURMA LAW REPORTS.-
?~~; U Thi Chan and Daw Than May was a mortgage by con-
DAW KYIN
ditional sale. The learned trial Judge after examining
Pu witnesses cited by both the parties came to the condu-.
v.
u OHN KHIN sion . that it was a mQrtgage and he accordingly decreed
AND ofE. the plaintiff's suit with costs.. Hence this appeal.
Now, from the registered deed of sale, exhibit Hm "
date.<} tQ.e 5th of September 1953, it is clear that the
.. . transaction was a sale of the suit-properties by U Thi
Chan and Daw Than May to Daw Kyin Pu for a considera-
tion of K 5,000. By an agreement, exhibit " ;;, " ex-
ecuted on the. same day the properties were leased out
by . Dnw Kyin Pu to U Thi Chan and Daw Than May
. at a rental of K 300 per mensem. As explained by Daw
Kyin Pu the salt factory was workable only for five
. months in a year so that the yearly r-ental was only
K r ,500 and not K 3,6oo.
In course of her cross-examination Daw Kyin Pu ad:..
mitte~ that at the time of the sale of the properties to
her she had promised U Thi Chan and Daw Than May
to allow redemption on payment of K 5,000 only. In
re-examination she explained that there was no stipula-
tion as to the period of time within which U Thi Chan
: and. Daw Than May could have the properties returned
to them on payment of K 5,000 .
. In view of these statements, the learned trial Judge .
.-h eld. that -the . transaction between Daw Kyin Pu on the
, . one .)1aJ?.d and U Thi Chan and Daw Than May on the
... other~ was a mortgage and that therefore the properties
were .liable to attachment and sale iii execution of the
.decree'. obtained against U Thi Chan and Daw .T han May
. by the plaintiffs U Ohil Khin and Daw Khin Gyi.
In .coming. to this conclusion the learned trial Judge
had entirely ignored the proviso to clause (c) of section
58 .o the Transfer .of Property :Act which was inserted
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 331
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Before U San Maung, U Kyau Zan U, JJ.
1~6~ M~rrow y.rhose wife Daw Th~in May -claimed 'to be.
- According ro her after the -death of 'Mr. Marrow,
~~ --THEIN . l . I d . h. . .
',. ~!' Mrs. Matro~v gave t 1e smt an -to er son Charles
Mo:~o . Marrow and this gift was confirmed by Mrs. Marrow after
Jtso~~~o the death. of her son Charles Marrow. However, Daw
Thein' May could not prove what title Mr. and Mrs.
Marrow had on the suit land ; if it had been leased to
them w'b.ether the lease was still subsisting. Moreover,
Daw Thein May could not show whether the alleged gift
by Mrs. Marrow to Charles Marrow whose wife she
claimed to be was a valid one.
In these circumstances, Daw Thein May's suit for the
ejectment of the defendants Mohamed Esoof and Ma Khati
on the basis of her alleged title was bound to fail. The
question is, can the plaintiff-appellant succeed in her suit
o n the basis of the licence,. eXhibit " (f) ". which was
admitted in evidence on the 3rd November 1958, that is,
about two :months before the date of its expiry.,
Now, the lieence.had 'been issued 1.mder:Rules 33, 34.
37 and 39 of the Rules under the Lower -Burma-Town and
Village Lands Act, 1898. Under section x6 of 't he Act,
land at the disposal of ~he Government may be disposed of,
'(a) by grant or lease, conferring such interests therein
a nd on such conditions as .t he Government may by rule
}n:escribe; or (b) by licence of the Revenue Officer.
Und~r Rule 6 of the Rules under the Lower Burma Town
and vmage Lands Act, ~-898, lesses of land at the disposal
of Government may be made for building, residential :or
-indu~trial -purpos..es . . Und~r Rule 7 a._ le~se - of land for. the
: .J?l:ITP.~e. of' er~~~- ~,substantial buil~~~- .thereon sJ;q.~l
JlOt o~dinarily.. be for .a. ~ort~r period tha11. .thirty years
-.~nd
.. .
. sb:ci,h
...1 .
proYi~~
.
for ".renewal.
.
~P tci-
.
q..' ~axini:um .peyjod.?f
iPJ:l~cy y~aw,:. Jlnder_ E.uJ~ :z~. ,Jel~_ting to . lic~~ces, the
!kputy coirlm~siorier'i:iiay issue.:a. licence to occupy land
it.:the:~~s~sal~D,f .GoYernmen(.~~r_ Jmildin.g. r~~d~n,tial 6~-
BURMA LAW REPORTS.
.,
(I) Civil Second Appeal No. 46 of 1959 of High Court.
(S) (}954) B.L.R, ~74. (H:C)..
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 343
APPELLATE CIVIL.
B efore U Kya-.c Z an U, J.
;:.c.c.
H. A.. SAMUEL (APPELLANT) lt63
v. May2s
Urban Rett.J Control Acr, s. :;oA-Ba1 to suits against R ent Controller for thi11g
done in good faith-aUegeJ eviction by Rent Gontroller without complying
with the'prOtJisions of s. x6AA (.f) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act-wlzetl~r Sftit
against Colltrollct maintainable.
Vvnere the Appellant, had filed a suit against the Controlltr of Rents for
a declaration that the orders of eviction passed against him were illegal as they
did not comply with the provisions of s. x6AA (4) (a) (b) and (c), and the Lower
Court had dismissed the s~it without taking evidence or hearing arguments
on the points raised relying on s. 30A of the Urban Rent Control Act.
Held: It was for the Controller to show that what he did was "in good
faith in ex~rcise of his powers" in complying with the provisions of s. x6AA
(4) (a) (b) and (c) of the Act. Without taking evidence to prove his. alleged
compliance and his act in good faith, the trial Court was wrong in dismissing
the suit.
Civil Cour.s have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions
of the Urba~ 'Rent Control Act have not been complied v.ith,
'.B. S.:. M.oliam~d Eusoof v. Bakridi and anpther, .(1952) B.L.R. 248 (S.C.),
r~ferred and followed.
a suit to declare the order of the Controller null and void c.c.
963
and he obtained a decree against Ahmed and Eusoof, who r
also failed t~ set aside the decree in the High Court. While H.A.!.AMI.isL
upholding the decree the Supreme Court observed " The co~--~~~LER
legal position will be.' the same as if this Court has quashed ~.RENTs,
~NGOON
the proceedings of the Controller by directions in the na- AND ol\
ture of a writ of certiorari. As a matter of fact Bakridi
would have obtained the same relief much quiclCer if he
had applied to this Court for :the said directions instead
of first applying to the Controller for review of his own
Order and then filing the suit for declaration that the order
is null and void." It is clear from these observations that
the appellant was not wound to apply for directions in the
nature of a writ of certiorari even if he could apply for
-such directions.
: In the result the judgment and decree of the trial Court
.'are set ~side with cqsts with the direction that the suit be
restor~d. the issue in question and other issues that may
arise out of the pleadings be tried and the suit de~errnined
~q::<?rding to law. The rst respondent (Controlter) shall
:bear the costs of this appeal.
34'8, BURMA LAW REPORTS.
CRIMINAL REVISION
Ju11e 3 . v.
THE UNION OF BURMA (RESPONDENT).*
For.dgncrs' R egist.ration Act, s. 5 (r)-plosecution and convicticn tlt!del'-f;Jroof of
citizenship to be conside,ed at trial.
CIVlL .REVISION
\\'h<:rc th.: Court had placed the burden of proof on the Appli cant . who v. :&.
th~.huhimd ~f the d eceased, as to whether the Will of h i~ wife had been t>XN:Iltc:d
hy h -:-r under undue influence, merely because the Applicnnt had -wTittc-n to
the Cou<t from. India, that he would respect the Will.
Held : Where a Will is propounded, the onus probandi is on the parry
who propounds the Will. It is for him to show that the Will was duly executed .
. Mrs. Cecilia King and two others v. Arthur Abrett and two others, (JOOJ)
5 L.B.R. 141; G. H. Paul v. T. Thomson, (1920) 13 Bur. L.T. 8o; E.aoqf
Ahmed Semav. Is"!ailAhmed Sema and others, A.I.R. (1938) Ran. :!22, refened
to and followed.
Under s. 93 of the Succession Act, the Will must be attested by two or
more witnesses; and under s. 68 of the Evidence Act, at least one attesting
witness must be called to prove execution.
The 011.u s is n?t shifted by the qualified admission that the signature on the
wm is that of the testator.
Kesheo v. Vithal and others, A.I.R. {1925) Nag. 427, referred to.
In ordinary cases, testamentary capacity will be presumed. But the
mom~nt it is called in question, the or.us lies on those propounding to affirm
positively tite testamentary capacity.
Lachho Bibi v. Gopi Narain and others, I.L.R. 23 AU. 472, referred to.
When the propounder of the Will has discharged the omts, the burden of
p~~vin.g .~hat it was executed under undue infiuence is on the party who alleges it.
Mt. G~mtib~i v. Kanchhedilal and othus, A.I.R. (1949) (P.C.) 272 ; and
Boysev. Rossborough, (r8s6-s?) 6 H.L.C. z at page 48, followed.
and address of :the applicant printed on :the top addressed AND om.
to ")be District Judge, Moulmein and signed by
II
.
p1eadmgs, . ord er wrongty p1acmg
and .t h at l,ts . t h e burden MAUNG
(alias)GYI
of proof upon the applicant i$ not sustainable in law the M~aEgYt
is
said order hereby set aside with costs. Advoc~te's fees AND oNE.
three Gold Mohurs.
BURMA LAW REPORTS.
APPELLATE CIVIL
C.C.
.1963.
.MESSRS. TI-IE BURMFs ECONOMIC BANK, LTD.
(PEOPLE'S BANK No . .Io) (APPELLANT/APPLICANT)
June 4
v.
DA.w TIN MAY AND ONE ~SPONDENT). *
:{.imitation Act, ss. 5 and I4-PUrsuing wrong remedy-uhetlzer time spent can be
excluded.
A decree had been passed against the Appellant Bank in a summary suit on
Nego.tiaMe Instruments under o.37 of the Civil Procedure Code, on sth
August 't959
. Instead of appealing against the.decree, the Appellant filed an application
under 0.37, X: 4, ~f the Civil Precedure Code, to set aside the decree and the
applicati()n was dismissed on z9th August 196o. The Appellant then appealed
under s .. zo of the Union Judiary Act and the Appeal was dismissed on xoth
January x96z. The.Appellant then realized that the proper course would be to
appeal against the decree dated 5 August 1959
Accordingly, an appeal was filed, and it was contended that the time occupied
in m.aki.ng the application under 0.37, r. 4, of the Civil Procedure Code and in
the appeal resulting therefrom, should be excluded under s. 5 read with s. 14 of
the L~itation A1.
Held: The Application under o.37, r. 4, which was dismissed by the learned
Judge of the Original Side, was dismissed not for wantofjurisdiction, but on
th~ merits: . Therefore the time spentin prosecuting the said application cannot
be excluded under s. 5, read with s. 14 of the Limitation Act.
Moreover, if t_he Appellant was dissatisfied with the order dismissing the
saicl applicatio~, tpe proper course would be to file an application for special
leave to app~al under s. 6 of the Union Judiciary Act, and not an appeal under
. s. zo of the U:ni9n Judiciary Act, when such an appeal was bound to be dis-
missed in view of several Bench decisions on the point.
Maganf,a{ Pranjuvan Mehta v. Mrs. Champakunvar Ratilal Mehta and
.others,(x952),B.L.R. 192 (H.C.); T.C. Leong and one v. U Po Thein, (1953)
B.L.R I (H.C.), referred to.
. 1963
~~=
Act can be taken into consideration. In this connection-
he has cited .t he case of Kunwar Rajendra Bahadur Singh
l~c~~~~;c . v. Rai Rajeshwar Balj and others (r) where the Privy
BANK, L-;::o.
(PI!oPLB's
Counc1'} observed :
BANK
No. zo) ~ The question of negligence being out of the way, their
v. ~ordships are of opinion that the facts of the present case
DAW
TIN MAY disclo::;e sufficient -cause within the meaning of section s.
AND ONE.
Limitation .. Act. They are of opinion that in applying
. section 5 to such a case as the present, the analogy of section
14 rwhich applies only to suits) is an argument of consider-
. able weight. Mistaken advice given by a legal practitioner
m~y in . the circumstances of a particular case give rise to
. sufficient cause within the section though there i.s certainly
no . general doctrine which saves parties from the results of
wrong advi~e::
n ...w
that no appeal lay to the District Court. The respondent TIN M"v
AND ONB.
then filed an appeal to the High Court and prayed under
section 5 of the Limitation Act, to excuse the delay in
_presenting the appeal and the High Court excused the
delay and entertained the appeal. It was subsequently
held by the Supreme Court that the delay could have been
excused by the High Court under section 5 of the Limita-
tion Act.
In view of these decisions we are of the opinion that
'there is considerable weight in the argument of the
'learned Advocate for the defendant-appellant bank that
the principles underlying section 14 of the limitation Act
should be taken into consideration in connection with an
application for extension of time under section 5 of the
limitation Act.
Now, section 14 of the Limitation Act in so far as it
is relevant for the present purpose reads :
" In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any
suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting
with due diligence another cjvil proceeding, whether in a
Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal, against the
defendant, shall be excluded, where the proceeding is founded
upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith
iD. a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause
of a like nature, is unable to entertain it."
.AJ-PE~l4,\TE CIVIL
High Court who set aside the judgment and decrees of both ~9~3
the trial and the first appellate Courts which gave a decree RAM NATH
to the appellant for ejectment of the first respondent from S1Ncu
v.
the suit land and for possession of the same. CuANnRIKA
~SAD
The facts put in a nutshell are that V.T. Mohamed Ab- ANo oN,
.
dulla (smce . represented by t h e second respon d- SHEOSHAKAR
deceased),, PRAsAD
ents, as his legal representative was the original owner of A;x~No:~
the suit land, and the first respondent was his monthiy u~N~.~~u"
tenant, who was permitted by him to erect a building ANo oNE,
thereon for residence. The appellant, who is a Burmese ~oGo~w
Citizen, purchased the land forK 8,500 from the owner as !:'~f.':u~~
per exhibit registered sale-deed dated 27th June 1957. The R.':~oK~~
land is termed "'[G!'. (garden-land) in the deed. .The uo.RE SxNcH
tenant failed to pay land rents due in. sp1te . of th e Jega} AND ONE. ..
notice informing him that the appellant had purchased the
land, The notice also asked the tenant to quit as the
appellant was desirous of erecting a new building on the
land but to no avail. The appellant, therefore, filed a suit
for ejectment, and for possession in the Subdivisional Court
of Pyu. . The original owner, who was impleaded in the
suit as a defendant, .confessed that the xst respondent was
his tenant when he sold the land to the appellant, but the
xst respondent though he admitted the r.eceipt.of the notice
denied the arrears of land rents due, and contended on the
main that the sale by the original owner to the appellant
was illegal under the Land Nationalisation Act inasmuch as
the land was a garden land.
Now, stripped of all the unnecessary details, for the
purpose of this appeal, the trial Court, after hearing the
evidence adduced by the appellant, the defence having
declined to , adduc~ any, decreed the suit as prayed for with
costs on contes.ted scale against the Ist respondent andon
uncontested -scale against the original owner (2nd respond-
ent). On appeal, the District Court of Toungoo upholding
the findings o( the trial Court that the appell~int is :t he
312 BURMA. ;LAW RE~Q:RTS ,
~
~.;;
.!.:A~~~. High Court, the judgments and decrees of the two lower
SHEOsHAKAR Courts were set aside and the suit was dismissed with costs
PRASAD
AND .oNil, throughtout on the main ground raised ther=ein that the suit
BISNATH
AND oNB,
1
.an d b ~"..mg
. . 1tural 1and Wlt
an agncu h'm t he meanmg. of.
U;.!~J:~A section 3 (b) of the Land Nationalisation Act the sale was
RA...MG.ooNl!vl!(o void ab initio under section. 4 of the said Act, and c0nse-
N')- l ,
RAGau NAN- quently the appellant had no locus standi to file the suit
DAN PliiASAD
ANooNs, for ejectment for non-payment of the rents.
RAMKis-
Ho.R&SINGH . The main or rather the only point canvassed before us
AJ>ro,oNs. is that though the suit land is classified as " U-2, , i.e.
garden land; it is exempt from the operation of the tand
Nationalisation Act under: section 3 (b) of the said Act.
Now, under section 4 of the Act, no agricultural land is
permitted to be partitioned or transferred in any way con-
trary to the provisions of the Act or the rules framed there-
under. The point for consideration therefore is whether
the suit land 'is agricultural land or not. An .. agricultural
land " as defined in section 3 (b) of the Act means waste-
land, paddy land, Yah, Kaing, island or garden land. which
is, occupied, or is ordinarily utilised, or has been leased,
the
for purposes of agriculture for livelihood or for pur-
poses subservient to agriculture and includes building or
house-site on such land ; but does not include house-site
which is within a town or village. It is true the suit land
is 'termed "(3G" (garden-land). in the exhibit register-
ed sale-deed and classified as "U.-2'" in the certified copy
of th~ map filed by the appellant, but there is clear evidence
on record to. show that it was never 'occupied, or was or-
dinarily- utilised or leased fo;r purposes of agr.iculttue for
livelihood or for the purposes subservie~t to agriculture.
Th~re is also e~dence to show: that there <tl:e residenti~l
.. 373
BURMA.1.AW REPORTS.
p,-,j'Jz'H" 'Y '1~t~ ~~O.'J<i.i.rat.i>.'l-mit on 11ew pro-note in respect rif .tome. d.~bt
d!t~ '' d?r old prn-1?~? -pres:~mption as to consideration-Negotiable l!!strtt-
me!ltS Act, s. II8 (a)-maintainability of suit.
Th~ D!f-:ndant had r:tk;n a total ofK 77,000 from the Plaintiff Bank, znd
for which two promi s~ory notes were executed by him. Later, a pro-note for
K 75,000 was executed by him !n respect of the same debt, and the previous
pro-notes w!re canc:lled by the Plaintiff. The main issues in the s~tit were
wh~ther th~ suit pro-note wa~ executed for consideration and whether the suit
was m3intainable.
H :ld: S!nc~ th~ D :fcndant had mad~ a fresh promise to pay the amount
by executing the suit pro-note, it was executed for consideration.
According to s. 25 (3) of the Contract Act, the old debts ar!l not revived,
but it is considered to b ~ a good consideration for the promise to pay and thi~
n~w promise is 'the !ll~asure of the creditor's right. The Plaintiff Bank is not
relying upon the old notes for payment but:on the new suit note. It is alto.
~ther a new contract. It is ~ substitution and not a renewal.
Sanrll~ura Singh v. Kehr Singh, A.I.R. (1936), Lah. 1016; A_bdu1{4k}n v.
Maung Ne Dun. an.d a1other, I.L.R. 7 Ran. 292; Brajendra Kisi;or~ Roy
Chowdllu_ry v. H.~n4.ustan C()-operatiye Insurance Society , ~imited, I.L.R. 44
Cal. 978; Mrs. Nieri1eyer v. E. M. Mamooji and otlters, (1938) R.L.R. 521,
referred to: :
There,is.J;J.O need to demand payment under a p~qmis~ory ,note if th e debt is
payable o~ _demand. A pro-note. payable. on .de~anfl..i.~. l!-r-Eresent deb_t and is
payable w~tnout demand. There 1s no obllgat'lon m law iogive any notice.
T.C. Bhose v: Ob~dur Rahman ChoWdhury, iJ:.i;.R. 6 . ~. 297 (3oo);
Rf1!jit ~umar; Rfjf <!!'d, ~'lother. v .. Kabira Kisori. J14ohan ~ta and anotlJCT
I.L.R. (1940) (2) Cal. 362, referred to.
376
.....
~
The Income-tu Appellate Tribunal had set aside an assessment and ordered
a ~h ooe, !n 2 =where the assessee had not applied for cancellation of
uscssment unci= ;, z; , but had merely uppealed against the quantwn.
On ...\ppli=uo n b~ the Commi;sioncr of Income-tax, the Tribunal refused to
rriu a case to the Chief Court on the ground that no question of law ~rose:-
Ik/d:--Tl!t Tcibunal was wTong in coming to the conclusion that no
qualon of law ar-ose out of itS Appellate order.
Where an Applicant has not avai lt-d himself of the provwons of s. 27 for
cancellation of assessment made under s. 23 (4), he has no right to challange in
appeal either before the Assistant Commissioner or the Income-ta.'t Appellate
Tribunal the validity of the assessment made under s. 23 (4).
U Kan Gyi v. Commissioner of Income-ta."C, Rangoon, (1~58) B.L.R... 172
(H.~.); Naba Kumar Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner of Iru:ome-tax, Bengal,
1944 XII I.T.R. 327; Chhotelal Gobardhan Das v. Commissi011eT' of Income--tax,
U.P. (tQS3) XXIII, I.T.R. 272; Sir Padampar Singhania v. Conutriss:Umer of
Int-a~-tax, U.P. and Aj_me.t-Menvata, (1 953) XXIV I.T.R., r-t~; M.auladin
Ayuh Firm v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Bombay South, (1959) :XXXV I.T.R._t.
449, referred to and followed.
Suganclumd Kanhaiyalal Ratlii v. Commis.-ioner of ItreoTM-tmc-, (1958) .
XXXIV I.T.R., 162, referred to.
c.c. iefer to the late High Court a ques~on oflaw said to have
1963
arisen out of its order dated the 8th February 196r in
~~~~~~~:;.- -Appeal No. 41 of 1960. The facts giving rise to the present
OF INCOME- application are briefly these:
TAX, BURiVI4
1961 refused to refer the case to this Court on the ground Mt~ns.
PWINT
that no question of law had arisen out of its Appellate GAuNa AND
BROTHERS.
order. Hence, the present application to th1s Court by the
Commissioner of Income-tax, Burma, under sectio'lli 66 (2)
of the Burma Income-tax Act.
In our opinion, the Tribunal was wrong in corning to
the conclusion that no question of law had arisen out of
its Appellate order. In U Kan Gyi v. Commissioner of
Income-tax. Rangoon (r) it was held following the decision
in Naba Kumar Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner
of Income-tax, Bengal (2) that where an applicant has not
availed himself of the provisions of section 2 7 of the
Income-tax Act for cancellation of assessment made under
section ~3 (4), he has no right to challenge in appeal either
before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Appellate
Tribunal the validity of the assessment made under section
23 (4). To the same effect are the desions in Clzhotelal
Gobardhan Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U .P. (3),
Sir Padampat Singhania v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.
P. and Ajmer-Merwara (4) and Mauladin Ayub Firm v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South (5). A recent
decision to the contrary is to be found in Suganchand
Kanhaivalal Rathi v. Commissioner of Income-tax.(6).
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had tried to justify
its action on the ground that because the Assistant Com-
missioner of Income-tax had wrongly considere.d the ques-
tion whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in making
(1) (1958) B.L.R. 172. (HC). (4) (1953) XXIV I.T.R. 141.
(z) (1944) XII I.T.R. 327. (S) (1959) XXXV I.T.R. 449
(3) (1953) XXIII I.T.R. 272. (6) (1958) XXXIV I.T.R. 162.
BBRMA LAW-- REPORTS.
CIVIL REFERENCE
* Arising out of Civil Reference No. 19 of I96o against the order of the
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of Rangoon in Appeal No. 2.5 of r96o, dated
x8th May 1960. .
5
BURMA LAw""'::REPOR.TS.
c.C. force as the word~ " has been registered ~ and" has been duly regist ered" as
1963 the ca~e may be.
Commissio11er of I7!come-tax , Nl~dras v . D. Arokiaswami Chetti and Co ...
TBECOM
MISSIONER OF (1948), XV, I.T.R., p . 404; K~hiram Bhajat~ L al v. Commissioner of !ncom~tax ~
ItccGME-TAX, U.P. (1962), XLV l.T.R. , p. r , referred to.
BmM~
~ Ba Kyaw (Government Advocate) for U!e applicant.
~~:c~ U Paing for the respondent.
TORY.
U SAw MAUNG, ].-This reference under section 66 (r)>
of the Burma Income-tax Act arises out of the order dated
the 19th of May 196o passed by the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal, Rangoon, in Appeal No. 25 of 1960. The ques-
tion referred by the Tribunal to' the late High Court is in
the following terms :
" Whether in the circumstances of the <:ase, the Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Income-
tax Officer to accept the application for renewal of registra-
tion under section 26A of Burma ln{;ome-tax Act, where the
deed of partnership was registered under the Registration Act.
after the date of the applicatoin, but before the date of order
of the Income-tax Officer."
APPELLATE CRIMINAL
Before U Kyaw Zatr U, J.
APPELLATE CIVU..
Before U Bo Gyi, C.J. and U San Maung,J.
c.c. U I\,YAW (APPELLANT)
196.-J
May u.
v.
U AH CHUN (a) U BA YONE (RESPONDENT).*
(x) (1959) B.L.R. 207. (z) A .I .R. (1936) Privy Council 70.
398. lRJRMA~ LAW RRPORTS.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Before U Bo Gyi, C.J., a11d U San Maung,J.
c.c.
I96J U KY.AUK SEIN (APPLICANT)
MayS V.
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, BURMA A.ND THREE
OTHERS (RESPONDENT}.*
are those who can exercise the powers of the civil Court c.c.
1963
executing a decree.
u KYUAK
In the result the application fails and it is dismissed ~~~
v.
with costs. Advocate fees being_ assessed at ten gold
"'THB
mohurs. FINANCIAL
CoMMis-
SIONBR,
BURMA AND
THREll
OTHERS.
6
402 ~lLJi~ LA~. REPORTS.
APPELLATE CIVIL
Before U S an J fmmg . J.
c.c: u THEIN sHvVE AND o~E (APPELLANTs)
1963
v.
;June ~.
u MAUNG MAUNG AND Ol'<E {RESPONDENTS)'.*
Urban Rent Control Act, 1960, s. 12 (r} (c)- ejectment decree passed on account
of conviction for gambling committed after the expiry of the 1948 Act and
before "the enactment of the 196o Act--whether suit maintainable-whether
s. 12 (x) (c) can operate retrospectively.
Where the question in issue was whether a landlord could eject h i s tenants
under s. 12 (x) (c) of the Urban Rent Control Act, 196o, on the ground that
they had been convicted of an offence under tb.e Gambling Act on r8th
November 1959 that is after the expiry of the Urban Rent Countrol Act, 1948,
and be'fore the 1960 Act came into force.
Held: Unless s. 12 (x) (c; of the Urban Rent Control Att, x()6o, can operate
retrospectively with effect from the date the earlier Act expi.nd, the suit against
the tenants under s. 12 (r) (c) would not be maintainable. It bas already been
held that the provisions of the Urban Rent Control Act, x<J(io, are not retro-
spective with effect from the date of the expiry of the old .!,a.
U Ohn Maung v. Daw Kyi Kyi, Special Civil Apo-eal No. 19 of 1958;
Ko Lan Bah v. Prapulla Chandra Palaka and three, Civil M.isceUaneous
Application No. x8 of 1962, r.,ferred to and followed.
Accordingly, although the suit was filed after the new .1\J::t came i.nto force,
it is not maintainable in law.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Before U Bo Gyi and U San Mawrg, JJ.
In a claim by a film actress against her employer for wages, for taking
part in a film production, ir was contended that there was no trade.dispute
within the meaning of s. 2 (J) of the Traae Disputes Act and also that thl!
actress in question was not a "workman" within the meaning of s. 2 (k) of
he Act. T~'l'l court of Insustrial Arbitration rejected both the contentions'
in its Award.
O:t A?;>lication for a Writ of Certiorari to quash die Award:-
Held : The Motion Picture Council, Biuma, to whiCh the film actress
belongs, has taken UP. her case and reported the matter to the Government and
it cannot be said that tl:is Council does r:ot represent the interest of fil~
Actresses ; accordingly, it cannot be contended that there was no '' ti:ide
disj>ute " as defined in s. 2 (j) of the Trade Disputes Act.
Regarding the Question as to whether the actress in question is a
" workman" there is the finding of fact that she did bot intend to give her
services gratis, but that she ciid expect remuneration for the same. She is
therefore a "workman" as defined in the Act.
The Punjab and Si1ul Bonk Ltd. v. Rameshwar Daval and others, A.I.R.
(1958) Punjab 14; D.N. Bmtedi v. P.R.: Mukherjee and others, A.t.R. (r953)
oi
Supreme Court . p. s8 : Mlifulg'nneirt ~Ttiai ExPefimthtitl Station. Ciil1iamara
v .State of Assam and others, A.I.R: (196o) Assam 13z ~t p . 137.
Held further : Mere non-abservanc:e of the Rules ofPr.ocedwe framed under
s. 16 of the Act, will n ot necessarily divest the &uri ofIndustrial A;bitradon
of the jurisdiction to decide a traae dispute rdtrrcd to it under s. 9 of tne Act.
U Chit Pe v . .Sirwe Setkya Cheroot Factqry Worfr,tn' .Asspciati(}fl and one;
Civil Miscellaneous Applicaticr. 1\o. ~6 d 1~6 1 of the late Supnme
Court.
. .
(4) Civi1.Misc. Application No. ?6 of 1961 of the late Supr~ ni.e Court.
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 401
are those who can exercise the powers of the civil Court c.c.
1963
executing a decree.
U KYUAK
In the , result the application fails and it is dismissed qBlN
v.
with costs. Advocate fees being. assessed at ten gold ~ THB
mohurs. FINANCIAL
COMMIS-
SI ONBR,
BuRMA AND
THRBB
OTHERS.
6
402 BURMA LAW REPORTS.
APPELLATE CIVIL
Befora U Sait J1attng, J.
u THEIN SHWE AND ONE (APPELLANTS)
v.
u MAUNG MAUNG A;'lD ONE (RESPONDENTS).*
Urban Rent Control Act, 1960, s. 12 (r) (c)-ejectment decree passed 011 acco1tnt
of comiction for gambling committed afte1 the expiry of the 1948 Act and
before "the enactment of the 1960 Act-'i~hethe' mit maintainable-whether
s. 12 (1) (c) can operate retrospectively.
Whe~.e the question in issue was whether a landlord could eject his tenants
under s: 12 (x) (c) of the Urban Ren~ Control Act, 196o, on the ground that
they had been convicted of an offence under the Gambling Act on x8th
November !959 that is after the eJCPiry of the Urban Rent Countrol Act, 1948,
and be"fore the 196o Act came into force.
Held: Unless's. 12 (x) (c; of the Urban Rent Control Act, 1960, can operate
retrospectively with effect from the date the earlier Act expired, the suit against
the tenants under s: 12 (x) (c) would not be maintainable. It has already been
held that the provisions of the U1ban Rent Control Act, 1960, are not retro~
spective with effect from the date of the expiry of the old Act.
'u Ohn Maung v. Daw Kyi Kyi, Special Civil Apt.-eal No. 19 of 1958;
Ko Lan Bah v . Prapulla Chandra Palaka and three, Civil 1\-Iisccllaneous
Application No. x8 of 1962, r,.ferred to and followed.
Accordingly, although the suit was filed after the new Act came into force,
it is not maintainable in law.
ins1de the premises in suit and that the defendants had c.c.
1963
connived at the commission of this offence. The suit was
UTHsm
decreed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the SHWB ANo
provisions of section 12 (I} (c) of the Urban Rent Control o:.E
Act were applicable. .
The defendants being dissatisfied MllAUNG
MAuNa
AND
with the judgment and decree of the trial Court appealed oNE.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Before U Bo Gyi and U San Maung, JJ.
In a claim by a film actress against her employer for wages, for taking
part .in a film production, it was contended that there was no trade.dis{1ute
within -the maning of&. 2 (J) of the Trade Disputes Act and also that the
actress in question.was not a" workman" within the meaning of s. z (k) of
he Act. T:1~ court of Insustrial Arbitration rejected both the contentions
jO its Award.
0:1 A?;>lication for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Award:-
Held : The M otion Picture Council, Burma, to which the film actress
belongs, has taken up her case and reported the matter to the Government and
it cannot be said that this Council does r.ot represent the interest of film
Actres~es ; accotdingly, it cannot be contend~d that there was no ''trade
dispute" as defined in s. 2 (j) of the Trade Disputes Act.
Regarding the Question as to whether the actress in question is a
'' wod:man" there is the finding of fact that she did not intend to give her
services gratis, . but that she did expect remunera:tion for the same. She is
tl:}erefore a " workman" as defined in the Act.
The Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. v. Rameshwar Daval and others, A.I.Re
(1958) Punjab 14 ; D. N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee and others, A.1.R. (1953)
Supreme Court, p. 58 : MaJUigement oj Tolklo.i Exjlefimeiltal Station, Cinnamarti
v. State of Assam and others, A.I.R. (196o) Assam 132 at p. I37
Held further : Mere non-abservance of the Rules ofProcedwe framed under
s. x6 of the Act, will n ot necessarily divest the Court of industrial Arbitration
of the jurisdiction to decide a traae dispute referred to it under s. 9 oftheAct.
U Chit Pe -:v. Shwe Setkya Cherooi Factory Wor~s' Associatio11 and one;
Civil Miscellaneous Applicaticr. 1\o. ;6 cf xs6x of the late Supreme
Court.
(4) Civil Misc. Application No. 76 of 1961 of the late Supreme Court.
BURMA.LAW REPORTS.
APPELLATE CIVIL
Tl\! Plaintiff had filed a S<lit for ejectm~nt under s. 12 (t) (a) (c) and.U) of
the Urban Rent C<lotrol Act alleging non-payment of rent, nuisance and bona
fide requirement. Since the arrears of rent was admitted, issues were framed
regarding the que,""tiO:I of nuisance and bonafide re-quirement only, and nn both
these issues the Plaintiff failed. However a d ecree for ejectment was passed
on the admitted fact of non-payment of rent.
On Appeal it was contendad that the trial Court was wrong in passing an
ejectment decree for no!l-payment of rent as there was no issue on the point.
Held: Under o. 12, r. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code no issue can arise on
admissions on pleadings. Under 0.12, r. 6 the Respondent could have applied
for a decree on the admission of non-payment of rent. Ur.der s. 58 of the
Evidence Act no fact need be proved which had been admitted on the
-pleadings.
As the -non-payment of rent was admitted, the tria! Court could pass a
ckcree for eviction under s. 12 (1) (a) of the Urban Rent Control Act.
This contention must fail. Under Order 14, Rule I (I) of c.c.
1963
the Code of Civil Procedure, issues arise only when a
material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one u TUN 'U.
YrN
party and denied by the other. Fateh :~!uhamnwd v. LAcHEEYAR.
Imam-Ud-Din & Another (r). No" issue can arise on
admissions on pleadings under Order r2, Rule I of the
Code of Civil Procedure. If the questions of troubles or
.
annoyances or bona nde requirement of the premises were
not pleaded, the respondent could have applied to the
Court for such a decree upon the admission of the appel-
lant that the. rents were due by him to the respondent
under Order ~2, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure read
with Section 12 (r) (a) of the Urban Rent Control Act.
Issues are framed only from the pleadings and if there is
no dispute on a point for the purpose of determining the
real question in controversy between the parties, no issues
need be framed. Section 58 of the Evidence Act enacts
fuat no fact need be proved which a party has admitted
by his pleadings. The appellant has admitted
:the arrears of rent due in his written statement and the
receipt of the notice _(Ex. c- ) demanding payment. In
~ese circumstances the trial Court could pass :the decree
for eviction under section r2 .{I) _(a) of the Urban Rent
Control Act, 1960.
There is .no substance in this appeal. It is therefore
dismissed wi..t h costs. Advocate's fee :three gold mohurs.
---~--~~~~-~ - ---~-~~.~~-------~=-~
(t) A.I.R. (t9Z') L~ore, 369.
414 BURMA LAW REPORTS.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Brfore U .Kyaw Za11 r.:. _1.
<
c.c. V. N. NADESA THEVAR (APPELLANT)
1963
June 15.
v.
A. v. MlfTHUSAMI (RESPONDENT).*
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
U San i\llaung and U Kyaw Zan U, JJ.
VUMTUAL (APPLICANT}
v.
June 29.
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (COMMERCE) AND TWO
{RESPONDENTS).*
JVrit of C~rtiorad-s.167 (8), Sea Customs Act, read with s. 7 (1) of the Land
Customs Act-goods found on plane at Kalemyo Airport-whether amounts
to att empt to export goods out of Bu1ma.
On toth March 1957 the Applicant had sent four packages marked AC
b)r plane to Kalemyo Airport which purported to be motor-car spare parts.
On b~ing opened by Customs Officers they w:re found to contain 200 douns
of bobbins and 300 dozens of bobbin casing!' of Japanese manufacture, adaptable
for use on Singer sewing machines. Action was then taken against the
Applicant on the ground that an attempt had been made to export the goods
illegally out of Burma.
On an application for a writ of certiorari to quash the respective orders of
the Sea and Land Customs Authorities : -
Held: Even if the Applicant had the intention of smuggling the gocds
eventually out of Burma, through the Chin Hills, his act icn ur.ount<d ro ItO
more than mere prepa.ration to smuggle the goods. It did not .amount to
an "attempt" within the mischief of s. 107 (8).
Obiter : Undoubtedly, a new offence of " attempt" has been created by
'S. r67B of the Sea Customs (Amendment) Act, 1959. Bur the pre-visions of
:S. 167B could not have been, and, in fact, they did not purport to
be retrospective.
Ptm Za Cin (a) P. KI1U11 Za Ci,z v. the Fi11ancia/ Commissioner (Commuce)
and two otllm, (196o) D.L.R., 142 (S.C.) ; and Lall Singh v. The Minister of
Finance and Revemte and three others, (1958) B.L.R., 195 (S.C.), referred to and
followed.
(,)(J):;:():itCGO
0<:"
II GV:>Co:>:
c 0 ~C-: tJ('CJ:o. CJJ !DI:l _9 (
~
)
O)C
c
O)ffi!~IC CO: !DI:l!'.
c oc
jj
ll L L J l 1. J1,. 4 -( 0 o l 10
c c-. c o c c c
!Db\ I G OJOJ!D<J:x>::nc:~ !D~I:l~:D:>:co::D?: rom:oc
-r mo:>4:>-,:roo:>ro <.90
-1
(' c C'
CO::D:DC!Cl'=J::Dm
C.!, 0, ~~C.:.--..
~ C?s:
c
2J T
I.L Jl C.:.
:;: l:l~l G ('
0
6 c
l
c
?:::~::;
J
[9 O?QGCOOJ:Ylll
:;:o:
L
(''
o
C'
C.:.
0 [9 C'
ro;;o:
L L
0)
L J
cr,:c- L. co c '
( 0) ~CO<T.>CjftJ')tj~O')C~:~J?II ~~ 91 O') O:JOII
C' ( C')
C' .0 _..A; C' C' C' C' A\
~'):'If '='~GU ll ~;Y.I~J~~ OO'):D:DSJI l:lOfCIJ ro 7C:': G <:
O:OO??,<J a.tm~
0
~ Q OC' C'
0Xf1::1i1t::~l e:~~?o:l:l)fiG~~C
~ c- c- rc- oc-
( LjC~C(;ffGCD~ :>roa:>:>: ~
~ ('
toe~?
o (' C" C' )
L:12:Gro:>c~Bf~:>~cc
~
~c
J
Glo)(O 9 9cJ a
G~')croc:
(' OC'
(l.jCOOC'JfGcqJ')CDCO'):Q')
~ (' C' (' ('
~
0 ) *
L
t"~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
l:::!Jr'.IJll~fooo:>~J?IGO~J!O'<; ~~roeoos !fSI,I
r::: c- j ( 0) ( ~) (~) <jCI!fSI,ISX!
~ C"
~'):
c..o
f .
ll
:~a:l)~?:
-1 IL
c- 0 .
~?W~c;o: c ;('))(, 11
. Oe6r
{' ~t~l
~ r.:~ c- ~
c:J~\r'JI[I~fo:>o?::li11=1J?I Gt:J~J[Ut'; ~Of~eoc;s~SI,I
r::: " ~ " ~ ~
j
( 0) ( ~) (~)
r.:::C". (' (' (" r: ~
~'JI ~(O'JI~t:JCIQ9~~?:1 1[00~1()') ~?W~I:IGOI~0-)?(0~1 ~()')~COXflo:tel:ro ~?{,)~
o ~ r.:r o<' (' o ~s r.:~ (' ~
<Oo:~ro:l)l::l<; 1 ~ccGro?~:9ro ~,~c;roJfU~ t1croc~G"1j?rooo?:cpu
r.:c:
<X{II::)o:>~J""'
(' 01
n~;qo 2'-X;(l:l.)~ (OOO~J
~
eoos (General Law) ~o:>l
C"'
~00$())
~ OC:
(01:111:11 C l(,)~o~
oC II
11:. .6 L LL
C' C' .-vS !;""" C" "".: C' C" t~ C" 0 C" C' C" C" C' OC'
~J[OCO?lCf~ C% ?f:OO?I"""tl'; I 4{11>Wijtc:Jl~l:l)a CXfCG~?C ~J[UCO?I'lf 0-)()')~cp
OC' C' C' 'l C' (" C' C' C' C" C'
'11()) ~t=>J~:l)a~~" ~J<:CXf1 eoo::J!f$1,1 9e0 OX!' ~~:ro occ;cpro
C' (' (' (' r:
~'lf{,)~~;o'l~OO~II
r,:C' ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Q ~0~
tlcro::9tG~?CIX0):~.3d~:U II 8;ltt:')G%JGf e:~Cq>f II
c ., c:r.:~
. ('
* Oi!ISr ~~4>1 cpeoo:>c;croc~~
C"
9? ()
~ II
c ~ ~ c ~ t
. t oetSJ ~t'>~. 'Pc;f:~~
C"
r ~~JF:l)';)
C"
oe~:~ J ~t~
0
ioo:>?ro r '!<" ~
G.S4>0II
~6
' "' ~oo
~~
l,.
~
4Jroaooxo::l)
lL --J~----1:
" 0 :c:w <: ~ro
JC. L
0c;oc
~ ~c:(,)ll
~
.il.
8
s.DIOdffir M.YJ. ~g
BURMA LAW-~REPORTS.~ 435
.
' C' ") 0 (" C' ('" C' {"
.1!C
' 0 1 ~00 mmeoG8~C mmJl:o::;G::D') Industry ~.c.y: OX)<J ~~ro
[o1c.JJ~o~ c rc c o c o [sc:c:o1:~::n:n1
- '1 c '1 o o
4~:o1 J"
G
6 C'
"Jc:K~;:; GQIOQ:l[ o:>cl m~1:m cc:o:> m
lJ tJ b A l l L!
c
I ~l A Jt.. c.:.. o 1ane-
c
<!'
orom
~ ii)-
c c c c r,;:c c r,;: c
romCJG3 "<.f8~ j ~ :T.l())Jl:OCGo:>'J CI:(OCt:OXJO tj0::D2~ ~:Ljo:>Ga:>
c o r,;: c o c r,;: c 'T' c c r,;: c c- c c-
OJ2;:11 <Xf ro;;q: ro(jo:>"'l ~G())JfOOJtj<:;l OO~GQI CO?~tGo:>?tj<:; O<.ooJm9y
c r,:::c- r,;:c c- c . _<:: o ~ Q c-
())t GC\jj?QXD:>:tjc: tj0::D211 G::\)~XDO.:)'):~"el 02':l'iJ G~Gy~:mr 09c
~ ~ 0 0 r,~ c _<:: c '1 0 c C'
at= 0
m<~dt~Jt:ml -~:ro?:tl:l Gropmro?:~l;:l CO?::DCGmpc:o:>~l 01m~
o c- c c r.:;:::: c- rc- cr,; _<:: o
. O~~Q( mmeoGsqc OOffiJl:~OCG~:>C:I9~ ::D:>G:n~JJ?: o:>Ct::::Jc;JJII O:>t
g C' o C ~ C Q C g C ~ G ~ C
CO'jC<:Xf:~p:mtmt g)J~f~ f'~QXJG::D:> IDI."jCOf:~:>l t::jCOGo:>:9 :OJ:>:tJ2
c- c r::::: o r,:c o c c c
oxp:~?ror e:~o<>oo:'l:un:c:!e:! ~~:9 <>mJ?C: ro<ip~p:::no:>c: ~C:
o o e
o:~:'l:o.:>:>:
r.: c
c:Je:!fW 00~ 0
c ( ) r,;:c c o c h'""" e
tjCOOJ~ II Cl:f~~Cl e:f"'"'o:>:9:u:>?: oxp:
C' c . 0 c c c C'C'
~Q)')())I ~=9 o~?o:>e Gmpc:~p:::D2;:1 Industry ~erg
<nQO
---1
C
~(J)())G
t.
C' 6 C'
?C:~c
J
C
ro:
t.
o e
Q)QG(\)O).:D
o C
C'
II OJG::D?
-.L
000QCCJ:mc
c. I l o
C
ll1:D.S())
l:JC:.:, T
0 C OG C C' r C' C
0-:JG{':CJGG>-:>8?'~~.
-- T
r-o o
oxn:::olm: C"
::>:4>G~?C I OXI>I::O
n.l:.::l 1:. -- T ''-
g I
o oc C'
::>IGC>">:::O::OS:&C
1:.
axn:::o : 21:::01>
T J -- T ll
e ~
:3 ,
C' o
!CDCO:> GQ())C II
.._ _,1 o
C'
t !)e~? OC"
gq,f~tl GOO:GU!COOCJt~PD
C ') OC" G (
GCD~ ')(D(X)')g~l
C )
. erro
c"~ ~~
~c
C"
CB (
J
J 15 '\(T.) II c
()).S~U)~C\)()C.S:Q.S~C:
t. T o
c
Ji. l
c c
T 6
c
T
: GCDI')())CO'):~QI~
J.l It
c 0 )
*
C' (' C' (" C'
?) 1rowe~
c c C" c
oJm~m0c:l ~o~
cr: c- C'
Jj'
G9_XI~f ll'm)e<JGO oe~lJ ~~()I ~Oio/ 1 00 (
' <' c-r::::c-r.::c- c-r.::c- ~ ~
~:t.ces.e:~ooc'lf ~"c:ec:>oCI II
(" ("~ ( C" (" (" (") " .. c (" ~
::T.l~">Gro?~C !t:,;JI O[I::Of&~IOill.G 9 :::oe G;x>J">m<X>">I~ ~~~'? ~ro::O""':!I
, . C"O ("!" (" ("() ~ C"C"O\C"OC" C"
OXf'I'JI;>J[O~ G9_Xt~f ll'm)eoGo ~0~ jO ~I tiODf"> t>9 omL~~"1mGCO::oen
c8:~~-:r-
l L J
(' (" C' C' ( ) c (" C' C' (" C' C'
Oil G9_)(;1~f ll'm)000 '-101oi tr.l'JI Gcpc::fS">f~l
00 \' lf<JX{OX OJ~
1 c- :~ ~
(" lolo:>O<T.>C
J ..
"("""
c-. (" Ol<n<"l'Xn
(" Cl C>W ().tC("
" 4 J
<' <'
J
" 'T' c- GCDCI9.S
c- c- c:n: C<' c- c- c-
JU GCIJI">m<X>">I::O
Jl lt.
())(dOD
\U
~01 roc
6 T- 6 T C
:.J::O?!.O:C!::O.:O
U L.....
GCDC!~.S
T- 6 T
(" (" ( ) (' C' (' c ('" ....
f2:1~!l qow Jj tr.l'l oe:ro~o~:::l)CI) GroJ~tol::l)CO"):
* oa~::>
..:. r ~:1~1
LJ
oxr:>:e,lGO?:Jrrn.ltr.lW~
-- 1.- Jl. J
911
t: (' ( ) L,:C'
t oejJ t: ('
~~GI G'f>CI~fG(T.)") tr.l<'T.>CtJGO~Oiol jO 0
(' ("
!1Xj r::Jf(,)">~CC ~">Gro")
OC' C"
(.' .,
1j'):G00J211
~:oSro:>:eln
" Held. by the Full Bench (Dalip Singh. ]., dissenting): that
section 34 of the Acr is not confined to cases where income
had not been returned at all ; it applies also to cases where
an item of income is included in the return made by the
assessee but is left unassessed by the Income-'tax Officer or if
assessed in the first instance the assessment is cancelled by
any appellate or revisional authority; the income in question
had escaped assessment within 'the meaning of section 34
and Ute assessee was rightly assessed under seGtion 34 on this:
income.
Per Dalip Singh, L (contra) :-The word 'Escaped' in
section 34 should not be read in the widest sense that that
word is capable of bearing. I't means 'eluded ~otice ' in the
course of assessment and does not mean ' had avoided being
assessed' and the expression ' had escaped assessment ' is not
. ~uivalent to 'has not been assessed'. In order to escape
assessment the income must avoid both. calculation and charg-
ing and there is no distinction between mistakes of fact and
mistakes of law on the part of the Income-tax Officer ..
~ 5f:ro8:ooToo-:>:~u
0 c c c c c oc c ~r.: c c c c
C9.G~J<? ' c;;'Pc:~n2?:eoc;;sm<p .mm2oc;;s Jj !S "'"l::lroc;;ro')~r
~sg
c ?Cf c c c
qc1 ro~~c:ro?:G::D') " ( Has escaped assessment)" ~G::D?
0
OCGCI
c
::OY(J)O)
o
rr.l roGCrr.lGOI
c c
OOCG::D')CC:I
'l' c c c c c c c c c
o ~t 1. o r ro.-.si!)::Dl
6 T c:.
OCOO)CI
-r 6 YQ)::D:
c.:. ()
o , co c c
6
_<:: c
o c @ c 'T' c c c
G :::r.>l (J)I.SQC\)O)G ?ffiG::D'):::OeiOCGCI ::D'=I(J)O) 8;} O)GCrr.lGOI O)::;G::D')CC:I
tJT Jl 6 ._ 6 .,. 1. 6 ll I
c c r;:;: c cr.;: c..<:: cr,:, c 9 c c c ~ c c c
~t~D2:~w2r:l1Dc:!ill G:::r.>?tl~::o~ m~ooc:~r>~c : !S m~:~ ooGoo?zf
c ~ 9 ~ ~ c
c.IC:~:
( )
j ID9:::01:1 co c ( c)
(cHlf"{o:>f CO? (\)
c- c c c 0
'~ :33~0)GOO':>~fCo~C3~ :
( )
r
G c o c c c cc- c::. c 'l' c c c c
I!)ClCCO:OOOOCI
l l L i~
rr.ld.SV::D:
oTC.:.
0: U c:=:::Oc:ll OCGC:J'dGOI I m.-.sQ)::Dl
~~ il o oTC..:.
oroo:;c
T6 1
c r;:;: co ' co ~ r,: r: c 'l' c c .- r.::;:: cr:::c c-
~ID2:;:e:~O'=I:::r.>l rnJy~~())Gel')O)G::O') OCG'i:J'dGOI rr.l~fiD2:~ol:Jc:~<; qc
c CA; r,;:c r:::c r,: cc::
()0)::0ffi9J I ~:tJOOOO'):l:Jc:tJIDc:lll
~ C' oc c 'l oc 9 c c c C' c ( )
g)l3d~01,CI YQ)-j>a1~G:;o:GOJroo~00::02:; c;;cpc:~;;romeoool.l8Y 0 0
C C C' C C C C oC C C C' C C CC'
mel! (}.).S:))(.))C\)()C.S:~.s O.SGCO')ffi(X);;ll YO)()'=IO)CI o:YdC ()I(J)ffiffi::O::D C
--~ tl o L T uT T u 1 L U u ~
CCC () C CCC'CC'C C o O
CjC:8;}roeoGO~GY 00 0 0Xja:l2:;:1 q;>~tlX\(OCy:~-j> OfGOO')ffiCO~I
9 c.
-., .--1
c o
:JdalQC:;.ID')ClC:mL
O)Cc~ ~ ~'.-:::oc
l
Cl
o
c
(J).SX(.))C\)()C.s:.-~
LTo
c
L
c c
Tot
.- c c
O.SGOO?ffi(J)I
T
c _<:: c: 'l' c c c 'l r: c ~cr:::c J;:'
CJC:c:liG'f?C:'JG~mGOI qc1 Y2:;::02?3'd" l~ 8;}~f4)2~e:Jol:Jc: YD:_~G::O:
c c c c c c r.::;::cr:::c c cr,:c c <::
~etmqm1 CJC:::oe; m~tiD2:e1oe~c: "9~~ Yqro::o~tJC I CJC.:c:!l
c c c c c c r.:;:::c r::: c c ')C c r;::;::: c
q;;~~: G'f>C:'JG<i::D2:; 3'd~yQ)2:;:e:JOt:JC:'jl ~0GOIC:rorote:J') rr.l~f
446 I}l;J~ ~ REPORTS. [196~
c- r,:;:co '\ co c r,: <"\ r.::~ c <"f.<?" oc- o c- c c-
oeli? QID2;:ep~:))l CDJf5l"P-'GI::J?ro~OJ~~l 9r"if&l rr.lG~C:Offfif'WI "if
c (' c c (' (' c _c;:: (' .,... c C' r;::::::c- C'
OC' C' ~~f:~f OyGOO?mCDI C1C:~G'f>C: 9 G~mG()I I rr.l~fl!)~:s<.:<;p~l
~Mrtat
C' (' (' oc (' (' r,:;: (' '\ (" c ('
~OO:G olc&S
~m
u<"
.. Gcpc:~ff~:eoGmD<p
C'
<log 00 !JX)I
(
r
) ('
Jj SX!'~!t~~D~:e:iu:))J Gc;pc:~;;rom2~Go
("(;;:<"h. r,: (' (' (" (" ('
m~f4>~:e:Jur:J": ~OJ~rr.l~CDJ G'f>C:~f1'2::2'JG3
:
C' C'
oc
moo Jj o:>c
fu c c
?.s:oo?:::l:>:n
u
C'
T
c
4>::r>:CDQ:::l)O)~C
c
c c c c- occ- o
oxo:;nc ~c:<,~~m m~oo:>
& l
cc o
oz;;~
L 6 J 1. J L L
<" (' C" "r'S r,:: c c-
rocr:r--~oo ~:Cjoo::l:>e;n
~6~f
~:e:1:n c-c cr.:' c r,:;: C' r,:;: c- c- oc- c
roccro;s G:))?t:J~::l:>~ rr.lGe:i?C:gp:c;;t::l~' Gropnx:o?:qz <Jq)fel~ .
'l oc __o _c;: c c c 'T' c c c- c: c-
GOO:GOIC\X.l
CDQ~ m.soo:n: Gcoc:9GC::r.lGOI OOCI
lU LT oC.. T 6 o
GCDC:~sl!)~")
T- t> T C:.
0.
rc . c c c c c- oc- r,: c- c-
<O?:J9C:::l:>~ O@jj ~~l!)f Gc;pc :~yy2;:t;oG8:3d!.iS j j t:J5?f:<;>JCDB:Xjl
C' C' C' C'
4:l=n:IT.X:I::::oQJGm?ro.s C"BC'c:<J19'ltl(].)l
" m~ '-11:::l:>0 ro:Jdoo:>Co::l:>:n
\ C' C' 0 C' 0
ooxn ~.s?ro
O
G tJ ~T L C:iJ 1.! i. ..o qi. G.. l T L.
r,:: 0 0 (' (" .
Gtl~())::l)~ll
c c c- <: o c- o cr,;:c- _<::
Gro~?CDOJ?:~::l:>~ Goqpmo::r':~90f?c:il ooc;p:1D9oocq mJ~<,~2?~4>eu '"'
r.:~ oc.
trr~?~CC r,::c c c c ' c c ~ c c "'lQ c
8(;ooc~ mc~c:~r ::nw')GO):> ~c~e:l~ro ::>e~::> '!74)' ~t')or9ro J<7 9ro
GOO~G'J!" " \ ') OC' C C r c C C c o <:0 C
~~:'ll
GSQ.lU JSJg.!,.
~~ 10
8?1:>()) :)G?~OI lqC~~ 8';1{:)0) C
J l:. L:J .1t. J 7
:J)ffijO O)C
A
OX''I)Ciffi
l 11
nanC'
~?Go::;8 0
GCo:>GC 0)10 ::> 00 000
c ( <}.\IU()):D.s:
c oc ) 0:?0 GCDI') :CDICGQ:U):;;C
c c [1 <:' 0
~ CT.'GCCD
"'"'
"
g)~CO')?
~ci_
l J
c
.!\
C
t
U<D::O::JI')gc:lJ
~t __. ll
4 1J
_c:: OC"
'>
C
- -l-
C C' 0 C' Q
~XX.>m~:CADroO?S::D;~c m~fG::D:>GC:::l:J
r '" J C.::. ,J.I
0
6 L
t! T ~~- :P JJ t!S:I 'l.~
G(I;)I')QjC\:
:U u l
0::<4
0 <:" 6 :>C:II
(' ~ t
OfeJ of 'V" C' C' C' C' <:' <:'A\ <:' C OC'
GCDJ'?f>2:GJ.;') 8d~fG::r.>:>IJp:fC. Ua:>::x>CX:SJ ~f.m:>: l GOO?ro'i):~ 8';1~,;~
~~?:01mm;x>
o cr,;occ
1oromG ?::::u
lJ L '-' Ut .t
~aJ)')4QI!<itC
('
oT c..~ T
C'
!P.<).SGO)') C').SO)'JO.SQffil
1 ol
C C'o
a;lGrr,'):'J)G())') ~C!
.Jl
C'
6 T..
(' (' 0 <:'
:~c ~CBJ'J
L
<Y CJ ~T T T
Gm'J~~=
J
c c- . : (ro:ro.s:Groc:OU)GO: <:" C' <:' o ~<::
O?c:JI
) oc
8':Yci~~! ?:ro
o c-
t>O.X)!mlq:o.."~tc
1 o
c-rg
C'lr"
c
1t T -r ~~ L .. \: , ;.; u ..tJ
Q o o c c- r ' c r,;:.:- o c c-
ro?:e:>b:q mJ:(.;9:J)W:>Go:>? rr.:li9'D ::>)~!:;,;>,2!::P21f T..Ut!DeJ?:G:u: O?:J)(D
C' <:' <:" ~ <:: OC' 0 <:" f-: 0 C' C C 0 r;:;::: <:'
m<;;ro?:nG.Q)~:::-:e1:eJI ro~,~~~p:<Jt n-;lm~ Dl~mGt3?C: n c:tGL:1'JS
<:" C' <:' C' o <:: OC' 0 '1' C' <:"
::Dm?GCI:~::; .. S';l~GO)X.').S ())')O.SQI~ ::P.~.Sro ~GQI I ~'J?I.S90)')
0r -1 J A cJ T T lio .. ..l OJT
ocr;: c c c " c- A o c- r;:;:::~ r,;:.,..r;:;::: c "l"'!;':
ID~f.i9S ow<.9JroG<-':O"Ji)i' ~~=~ GOipmccn:~cr--: ~t~:ec: G<.9 r t:J
C'
00')!:)..)211
' c c- c c ~ s. oc c- rrr,:: c
q:J)ro ro~<:m:>m~m'J ~c:el:~u oo~.r,~c G<.9t tlco:>:~:n:> Sd01JCT,l~p:.
C' C' C' .<:" C' Q GO <:" C'
~')I ~C\;paxxn:oa 1j~:(j~') or:o:>:G~C~QC..W'{:O~E)l') C\;)~<;r.>mro o:>C
C'\ . ' <:" C' c 0 C' ~<:' <:' C' (' '(' C'
~c.:~G::x>:> G~?GO)'JU)'J2.~J~!~ ~lj)Gro: .t_:32iif.'P~CI ~~:0{;; . Q:>'J_9Q:~c
'T.'f-: \ 0 .G <:' ' -9 C' <:" C' . C" <:' \ C' 0 <:"
cG<.91 ~ <P:>.:q:>-."J??,t 8CDt>tl~(jC ~troc . W?2~J:>! ,,v9W:n1 <:)Q~~o/;> ~::
,(' . .,(),-(' <:" <:" <:' <:" C' (' ( IT') ... (' ~
'~f '0lG.~C SJffiJ~~OC.GOJ'J - ~~C QO:lQ~ . -~ . 9 <J?yU
<:' <:'0<:' C' .<:" <:" f.:C' <' 0 C' o
. p:>CGZb'3ioro~ G~?GOO?ro:>:~p.: l'0~f~20'{ , .~<pc~~~: ~~Sl
c.;: <:' .-or,::<:" C' C' 0 (' C' (' "l"'C: t::. 0 c: -<: .(". .o
:>eli?
<' o
ro:;>rroro
u L
<' 0 <' 0<' o _C
:::omQ:lecnro?CU?'Jucro~
L T L o~L
~=
19
l
<'
OJ:;>rmroc m
ll
<'
A
<'
c::JL!
1
~:m
<' <' c
OCGcnm oo
T"" 6
('(' (' r.;:<' (' (' c ~ ~
l90Xjf ~~<;U( :;q:tlroo::m~~ 11 Gro.J"XD<X>'J:or.m G~Gtu=m ~ro~y)
('rs(' (' ('
("
~lol!~')
(" ("
(' (' ('Q _<:: 0<' 0<' 0<',
m::ot::'fle: GOJ'Jro.sGc.:Gm?Cq) Y.nCet ().)0) ~:Qr~:~'Jocro~.s rous ::> t 3'X>!3;;~
J T I I:.OOc:J 6 u A. l L .6
"'c- .. (' (' ~(' ~ (' (' 0 <'f~<'
OtoG'}~
(;:~
4C
orlol')~cc
.. ("
0(" .
(
4J
o)
('
A
0<'
~3dO)Jl:ocG;;~c:Ge3')<;t
C.:.-"i J1
('
:;>I~:~?OC GU:~~::nm G(\)I?OX:O?:GC\)~:'DII ro~IC\)OJC~:~r~:~?OC
O<'
C:. l A U A
C'
OC'' (
('
) C: "l
('
(" ("
c.:,
6 . ...
l
roCJ3
0<' C
l
~ ~?
J
Gm?\DUI mroc:
C ')
l
OC'
I.
r.: (' C'
tj4>~U
"C
~II II
gj ~.SOl
0<'') 0
<T.>-()dC\)CI
O'l c C'C' J
Q")eOO') 00
o
~O):'D~:> CO~O)O)
C' C'
roo. ~- > t J T- ...... L C.:. J T
~ J;;:C' C' ' ~~ r,;:c ~r C'
el: :lXl [jOOq)l ro~oo '"'"'0?: OJ'{_): t:<JG~ ro~~()d9 :Sq)G~ ~ ?;>:
~m
000 C' 0 C'C' 0 C'C'
<X>?:G~? ~O):'DII (X)q)()')?:OUOJCI ~:9~'J: 1 GO:GOO?C9.S
.Al!.LC, L -. 0 : . T
0 C' C' (:' 0 ' 0<:' C' ~ C' C' C' C' C'
~~~ m~;; mGm?~ oou:o:> ~=cc:~?CGt~c :1q ooroJe:o:>~
~C' 'L C' "
t!IO~I:.lJ?: ~OIOCGQJ II
o::>G
0 ?:; I C' <:'
GCQI')()')O)~I':>:O):'DI C\)Q)
~:Qr~:~?~C rog.s ~03
<:' C:fSC' C' C' OC' OC'
OISJOO
OC'
9l JJ U.ll U C.:, 6c,.o 10 l L
' ( ) C'fSC' C' C' C: C' <"<' 0 OC'
:;> 0 met 000) ~:;r~::?~C 9~C O)::Dm ()')!~ <:X.D~&C II
A J 6 U A C -1 6J l. L. IL L
()dfJGQI
'1'
q)'):;)I.SGOJ?
C' ('
OOOJ~CG9:&c
C'
-,.-
, <:' C'
ro:O
T
C' OC' C:C: 0
~~O?OOC(J) O?I~UOJ
G IL T
(.l)OOO):'D II WO)().)G
~
C'
JL
C' 6 'JC 6JT
<:' 0
OOG::D?
l
<:'
. J
SJ~G~I
'1'
0?
l l L 0Jl t. IL C.:, L Jl
C' C' C' C: C' <C' 0 0 C' C' <:' OC'
QI.SGOJ? CO:::t.>O)C ~(X)O)O)C ()')G~? cnd'l()') q)e:q)?:mrocl O)()')~CO ()d?
0
~T
m?UCO?<:I
0<" 0~
L
OC'
~~.S~?
. L
cc:OJOJC
C' 0
<:'
IL
C' '
OJ:'D~
- l
::>OG3 !JXII
T 0
Q L
C'
4)QCOO: OJ&CCO)?
L
<C'. O C'
L e(. r. J l L 6 C:. C.- -- I - l L L .
C' C' C' C' C' f: . C' C' (' C'
()d?m? ()d~C: ~'{?<UO)~ ~O)O?G't'()')~~ ~0)? roQJm~q I ~
u2cca..-fucohl:C:e
.J
roo;Fco
.J 0 .J ::J 0 .J.J
Cne2ccGhl cLc oll:o el,!>o col :cbco ~b::x.reo:oo &:ecxx.uc.Fcoo
.J ,:~ .:> .:> 0 .J .J .J
n2Me>bcobxxuo toccoax.Fcoe>-
" .J 0 .J 0 .J
tb~coe>gFeeG lee>&c r]cl~:dft:5eJoo:: Lol6'>~'00e.G
u2cc
.)
ohl X~e>:::>Q~ roe>:cG:2G
.:>:1" ~ .>:::Jo . .,
w : l',H7. dNeccw:cP<'lWa:O:: c.oPees ecce>&>.
~ .:> o .:> .;;
;ftc.G c.cce>efeocole:::>en:el, eM~ ~:ees :..J;J~h'J
,) .) ::J .J .J .J .)
C2ccGhlft ,)C2ccGhl
.) ::J .) 0 .) ::J 3':::.1, :=l
c.h-1~ rooo:: IOCc.oGe>wcbooxc :~ ec.ax:.o:: :,bbcohl:C:e ::>! n.:.
~ ,J.; .J .) .:> .) .)0-J ::J .) 6 'S'
~ ~
.n~c.rw~:2n
e HWCoese:cbtoe~
~ . .
II coox.d:o:dx.oe&,w
~ 0
n2cc:~d.!@b
.) .) :> 0
w co~ dcor~o
~ .;,
1:c.~row 1f'Ci)c 1(6)ccs1o'h:
~ ..)Q
W>~ 'pn Sll!:W: UOUO;) WlUO~}{ a. t'Bfl'B.M\lt{g ~Ull{S:IU11D ?~ ~Cf d~ft'IGG
IC.C~ 1tlf'flc I (~)c.a;I~ICD~ 'Sd!t{SW'e~~S .Asqwog a 'BW'e.Jf) 'N'S
~~ce~t.o@cct;:oOlJ,~hl:docoreoa::l-o
u.)0 .) 0 .>~ .> ~ .) .) 0
cc~oa ch:~t:loa;lec.o~dkc o~&c~m co~dc l@ccohl@f'lbe~b<PCD&c.co~:&
:;, ., ::::1.> .> .> .:> o ~ .> :.:1.> .> e o .>
~co~:b~c.C.'b.G~ :df'l:xh,l~e:c.CO<'lCOt;:)&:@f'l IG:o~cchlcolb@f'l 'co~ ~k:b
~.) .) ::::::1 ' .) ,) ~ ::.1 .) 0 .)0 .)
coS~c.ce~c.u&:~b ohle.c<\Jf'lbe:c.c:ooco ~eocb~bbl:df'le.G~t;~f'la:<\Jccobobe:cbco l:o
.;) .) 0 .) .):J .) ' ..) .) .)0.>:.:1 .>0.) ..)0 0
~c.o~CDGo~c.&c
.) .:>
lc.~<bcocooc~~d;cc
.) ~-.) ,)
l~te:~5J~bewc:oCoc.ok&c
0 . .) :> .) 0 .)
coi.!cbe:..JJ
.;':::J
oe.cPe 'coc.o~k&c
.:> o ., ~~rrole!xs
., o 2-c G~o2:@~
.>
;~:korwf'l:cbcon
IC .>o :>
ncorecobi:k
, .> .:r.
n@ccrowc.fo:>~ :xh,l!)~~ce~ to@cc...Q
.) \ .> .) :::::J .)O .) .):J
@<DC& ~~bcbcoe&la: c.kok~cc ohlcc@co'cof'lo~to
.:> .J,; 0 .) .>:l 0 .) 0 .:> 0
sbw IIoc dwrt'IGo
.>0 .;,
z.r
?~ (J sba:: tCc c.~wroco ~ro:l',f'l:cbco~k~b 1~hlw~ccedcol-of'Jbm Zc :@~
.., .) 0 .) \.) .;) .) .) !.l .) \ .) 0 .;,
1C
!f'loe.c:roorcof'l:cbco
., 5
c.l,:ot:leowl'e~c.~
.>::h.> .) ~~~e'lbc:G
.) cd:o:dxoe'lbc:G.
0
coc.~:~!>
.) .)
11 'co'&.s 1~cefu
.)@ccro~e:o~cohre
, ., obcos
o :hl:ce~oococccoccco
e1 .) .) .) o ~
~@ccohl@coa;c.ok&c
.) ., :.3.> ., ~c.co::~:l',cod::~b:,
.) ., 0
11 @ccro~e:c.cooctl
.) \. .)
~~coGCC!;!><'Ia;
.> . .)0
I.>ohlccte:~~ .,
:J o ., -j cb:o~:C.CcC.O~C.~ co~kk&c
.l .>
:c.me:cbco
l_!cohlto:dx.oe~ro
.J:lo
r
~~
~
(ro:cbc.oefuw) ~ec rw~:a
o .:>.:> e
'7 ""
U~CDO~~CDl~CO: " " :
~~11CC: d:X.O
.) .> .> e
1ba:: 0c :C2~
.)
,r:; ~e>ro
.)0
:to~rw~:clxo
.)
lc~:~k:leorore4gcc
.:>~\.) .)
Jw3{1)tu~gcc
.) .:>
lXo~ro
:)
Jroo<h:dt:cXo
.:> :>.:>
W~etoroem tcb"b::cbcOO'itr>ct
0 0 .
JciJtoOO
::Jc;>
uccccroOO>bxoo
.:> .) 0 .)
Wc.&,wclb::ra!l:::)S
0 .) y .)
l:hl.
ee.~~ ~::)kewro
ojo 0 .;)0" .)
~w~e.
.) .)
,<:.&u~el:ehl
.:>
t::>'I:D:cbcoe&w
o :..:1 :> o
,t,rowPeeeccccbe:crond?
.) o .) ' .:>
ktto<Kcl5~Ae.G
.:> ~ .:;o-
IM11ccd::~hl .:>
.;.,:J 0 .:> "J 0h>C2tt:m~:t~ c01~&c
.:>
to:chcbeme.c
0
,bw-roPet:ew&l
.:> 0 .:>
~tut-o~&c Jb!.Oe>fl trifE~~c:o~f,:c~:x:o 1c~wreeekl :xc;-J:;~~a.xh~:c&
.:> .) .:> .:> .:> .) .) o :..:l.) ~ .)
~n&~ IW~e>~ccoroPecvcht>:cec w~~ Jcccct:D:dxod'n-es J:XbCCcce
.) .) .) .) .) .) 0 .) .) \
:cee>oo:~
.) .) kcoo~:r,
.) ~ccww~w
5:1 .) .) cu:cr~.e:Cbco
dhi:n
b.lwPe:coo
0 .)
wtFro~oo
.) 0
uctlccro~:coowclh>~
.) .)
bro ec ooo2:2C~ .)
~~ ~t5ro
.)0
:~~rcoe;:cbco
j
~~b,o"!.Ci~~re~to
.:> 1.. :..:1.:>
:cetflf'l
oo
i~ci>~nU.,bwc
'S' .:> .:> o e e .)
~tt::tcoco~retb<:ttocct6
.:> .) .:>
1~:::)&:~co
':) .:> .:>
c~~Pw:ilPw
.)8 .)
:::)C~~~~cc
.) ~ 00
ccc kn:>:~l;roc'Ji:Bbi~
.) 1...) :..:1
Jbccflbt~
0
:::)ch1~eco~PebwG ~o~ec ,~hlccl;bfl cbco~co
.) :=1 '1..) e e o \
tG~getc=,fl
.) oo
J::)~;e.c
.)
.) ~ o
cob,:cbroerofu
0
,~;1~
.)
r~-G.rc
;:)
'~lew
C.Cc~~coOO
.) .)
tftbroowt;;J~
.) 1...) :..:1
wb 1e r;.)~:~-~:~-0f
;:) J:hl;qccc.oa::
6j:..:J.) .)~c.oeo
.) ~GI:C2~:cQro
~
,:,hlcc~C.Oe>fl
.)~ 0 .)tl.)
J:ccroccc~~~
.:> .) 3 --.)
A!;'J~h:lro c.GGc.o ~ ooi:o:dXoeme.c
o o
.)5':b(i'::j .)
,d,~Mbc.~
.) e
l CD~~ r J111-C.r l~t;~;btrJ(b~torotcQ~
.)0.) .) 0~
twde;(b
to:doo:dxo
0 0
~~W
.)
II CCCCOOi:>~:oex:O~ie bwG IC.O~~ C~-~-rC 1:~cde~ :doottbcoeCnetl
.) " .) e e ;:J ;:J .:> O .) o "
l:hl:c.eelOO ::1
ej .) COCCWCCC.O j - oW~ J~GeCo 'S' WCCCC(J)hlccc.oro
_, _, ~.) C.G~k .) .~C.C.Oe>:~
.)
r ~hlcc~d;0fu en@cc,od:d:;l eex:pro w:::lb J:t2rocc:t~HtG:o~cb~:c.ec
_,~ .) e .:> \.. o .) '"'1 .:> .:> .) .) :> .)
~&c :cc.du:dxoefu<:B cb:>;q :~to::)C.~~ 'X\)b~&c . rwb Cl'.l.C.Z,c
.) 0 .)0-j .) .) .) .) ;:}
) _ . 1 1 f.. 1 ,. J_ ,, ~
- ; r v , ",
rcx::)()e(!XOC.G~flCC cccoro:wcoccom 1 roccc.oo .~rore0ro .
'-.) .:> ;, G 0 .) ;J .) 0 '-0
LSt
BURMA LAW REPORTS.
. . .
o c , c r;c- c c c-' c oc c
gcqrop~~elror:p 'lr~rOJ'P:g'J: ro~1 IO:><JJrop ::l:J' m<{ 8 J? -;s
c oc 0 ~ c c c- c 0 c g r,;: c c
IO?IolJrop ::J0J' O'X{8 J? ~o 9 ~~f:~;urogp:~s g"1ro~~t:lS' ::::D~'fiO?~:>
o 'l' cr,;:c c oc c- r,;:c- r,;:c- c-. c
ro~QCD'P:C~:f.GUI :DCD~lj~~~~ O?.;;Q~C'Jf <Jlj0:::0e:3~1 Gtr.l?CD1J:GCD?~
<' <' oc c g g o c c~ o ~c c- c c
QJ~CD~~ lDI:l~fS 80Xjml U<.OOJffi9J tr.l~~ t)yCD21DIDCOO:GID'Jy
oc c (' :1 (' r;:::;:: (' 0 0 c c
mgf.OXjUQJ~CDGU:U.ga :DG~:ec: tr.lr...m~:m:>: GCO~Xr.>OO?:GCIX:O~II
c oc c o rrr; c :1 oc r,;:c c
CD'f>:gmJsc:q: rr.ll.l~ jl f~:2UG5 ::J? otG\lll tJ'J~ G:D?ffiU.:D<J.tC: (j10~211
.
ll L ~ ---L t! L J1
(~T)~ 9 A; r;:~ <'
<'f::: <'!::: cr,;_;: <' o OC<' <' g <'f:::C'
(" . 09ccr-=<XJ~' l::f":3~J~cr-= ~getf":nen ~~~sr=>: ~cac:
~ ~1.17. f,~ (' O<' ,.~,.._r~ ~('
(' . . <XJt~=Gt ')(l')f~~Go:>') :ngq>:n2mc:~CY~:q
('
<.><..OOJm;c :n~~tlc,
<' <' 0 0 (' <'OC' <'
~
.,:_,r <") 0<'0<'19('
:iiCCOCOO ('
1)(\):x>: O(' O(' ('
:ng:m:i'IC:>.:l:>.:lil 00
co:;o:m&:gr:>:g (' C' S'Xl)Q)
(l')?OX.l)G4X'l.SI
.
~ ~(\)I.
L L C:. M. l C:. L L U J A - IT ll.
G:O)I
(" .. ox:p:cq:ne1 O{GO:lJ?Oy
0 (' 0 <'0<' 0
;;x:p~~'):
.......J~<'
v"t:jgf
(' J;$?<'
~0) oxp::;,~'): G;>?CJX))~g(
O)?q) ~J4>0>1
.() (' (' (' (' (' ' (' 8 (' . . ('
<.'0?:
. ()).SG:;Q?C
<~T)
..e :m?t>l rooo:n:gl')::f~C oo:>:x>m~
(' ( ' ' (' L cC:. "
T
J
~::OO')Q)IIOgl?:
A Ul
('~
U
()).SG:;Q?C
&i('('
T
C\)O:l)::ng')l
l ' C. J
~C\)O'):;)ItOgl'):
.A U IJ
~O)axn:ro
1<
-- T
l
C\)();;x:J~JI ~wc:o:>
0
L
L
IL
<Jroro
~
O:.DC.D1L
('
0
L
f,~ (' ., (' 0 (' ' r,:;::: (' (' 0 (' f,~ (' 0
tj:C\)JCI ~to~e:gp:~ ~~Gt:;j?C:I we:~ ~tl:Gy-:>ml CXl
\~f:::<' (' (' 0 (' 0<' f:::i (' 0 OC' '"f:::C'
~!3~ oxp:~~C:I O~:>.:l~Jroo:>g:t1-':f ~~:~ o:>g:'-'[l:jc:
o .R c- o c- o <'0<' c- o c-
. ~:x>? :;q:m~L:gp:'i mm?mqu:> '!Sl'lt' qGmpo;>8:>?:qc:t CQG;>?<D
. . (' ()).SG:;Q?Cnd
(' (' ('0 (()()OJ.):gl'):m
0 (' 0 ' (' ' C(' I
S'Xl)O)())Q):O)nd'):qc:
11.. l T L oC 1..
C\)G
A
?C:O)o:>
1..1
0 C' C' OOQC' 0<' ~ <' C' <' '~i r;;_c- C'
~e:gp::ner ~~Ge:l?C: cocSI?:GO'Jt oxp:~""t\:j'-': t::joo:>2n
(' \ 0
wc:mo:>:xx:sro
0
L
:;, :Go~0:1 ocntl'lC'IC!o:>m
~~:..--
(' 0
---i.IJI :\.
ggoc:;oc
L L
&
000<' O<'G C' ('
?C: o:x;o'): Jl
C' \ 0 <' 0 (' OC' (' ,~0<' ~~
-G09y oxp:~:;qo:>~ oxp:~:m rom~ro~CG0:9r "'Cf'-'FO)J II ""'M-'~ t
(' O(' (' (' 9 ') h fr:~~ <'
(00)0)8);cGO:C\]croe!:' o:<i1:G9: mGo s;x;i'~l ~'"""?C~ o:n:<Jp:
fr: (' OC' <' (' <' ~ (' 0 <' C' C': C'
oo~Gtl?C:~co:>~ ~2:gp: ~vTI9:n~ m~:n2t mGftjc.
f,'"' <' (' 0 .~ ') -~f,~ C' C' OC' r.:: 0
rn?f:OO?:G:x>? mroeoo:J~ ~~l:G<.9tmtl:l ~o:>~ ;ccl:)'):o:>-:>:<Jp:q
g 0 (' ('
an:Go:~~ ~GOX>~g~u
,.. 0
cogrou1:ro::n:1
....
o:>: '):o:>roo:>?oc
Q
C'
mroX>GS osg
(' (' ('
9J !JXIO)(Do:>')O)C<J-:> (' C' ('
LJ C A C- L -- l 0 J
.grom
fl
9 9
mmm6
o (Equtty
) C'l:gl?:gGo:Go:>?
o:>m:x>-:>O)Cg
<'
c ~: ('~
-u u
A
o o
o~ 1 COo:>Go:>-:>
L t. J
(' (' 5I 0 0 (' r;:c- (' (' .(' C' 0 (' ('
o:>m:x>')~. gdl:q~rox::;qo:>~ ~o:>eoxp:c'-l:x>21 mtlomc:oc'foo2 n
(' 0 ~ .... c-r;~ (' 0 0 ~ .... ('A; t:
W~l[m':>: l m<De<>GSO( ~~l:G<.91rotl:Gy')(l') ~~Qdl:Golm9J9Go:>-:> m~c.
0 (' (' (' '~!:::(' r,;:;: ('
mG'J:gp~ o:x:~p:GO'J;>mqo:> o:x:p=~~c:cru:n2n
C' '1" ') c:;::: (' r,:;::: (' r;::;::: (' 9 r.:: C' c
, mco..'l:>GQ <.>tmGeec:<Jp:Gei"?S o:>G~x:r :n:tj?: o:>ro::o-:>~.
(' (' (' <: 0<' . C'
mo:>29GS<{OO 9J 3Xjro2:1 o:x:p:<i):a o:>GX?~ :o:>')C\).JC o:>~:
19.63] ~ LAW REPORTS. 407'
.. -- '! ....
' .0
4>~G:::O')
C' C' ~ 0
:::0:-r.>::D?O):; C'f9C' ('
~ :ro GO:rJ:::o O:::O:::OO)Q
':>C(':roc;6 ?C('0 ..
S?OJ~CD
0
oeS?
6L 6 t. C.:. C.:. 1. M. l
C' C'
0 <' G
urou'lcw~ 11 e:G~o~X~
o C' c- C' <: ~ C' C' o o c- oC' (G:>lT)t;:nl
q:::r.~:x>D;>Jm;c.OOCOJ2::D S?~:GO:Df9f (J~QO)'?GU II ~G:::O? ~C C'
:D;II :T.Ix.l')l
0 Q C' C' Q C' C' ( ) J;:......2
or.p:fd'J:~:on:G:x>? e:Go:>:>;c. ~JOOJ: fW~ ~ ::> m~:S?Cj'J"'"i c'
4C
C' Q C' C' C' Q ( ) C' C' c-r,~ r;:;:....r;:;::: C' .,..~ 0 C'
c(
C)JOo:>:;;ro:::r.~:J;c. e:Go:>?S?~ j ~I UU)()Jro[j:l:j"""~?C: GUI [j~ro UIO)(l) 00C') I
C'
:::oe.u G<"OI
0
ro?cQJcoo:
C'O
0 0 C' C' C' 0 C' C'
m~~ 4>9~. ml1l UOJ~m:::o2 H (,1)'): ( r;~T)
~.
~~:G~f~'f? G~
C' J;:C'
:x>O roJU (jOO~Q2Q
C'
e:m?c
0
'.
II (:R~~b:~ro) II <.OOOeB
. ~ o ";OC.~~:2u
) e ;) c! ;)ro~ &be :crococ.f<>-.~
;) :.,...
11 ::>C<"~:es~:2n
;) e l
; 11 ;)cdoro&:crowcFco~
;)
.. "' , . . '"I
II :x.oo~co~t'l~c .1. . .
: ~:axo ::J'J. '"I
~cc:c one: .l. -
-~ ~..cc:axa-
::J 0 ...~ . 0 j . p :1 .o
.
::- .::~:;.:--:: .~
,. "J,_
-,I~~~] .$.~M~~1L~W rREFeRTS. 4o9
~: :>:OG(,}?C
Q o .. (." " ] C C . Q\ . (."
ID!:O::)) II 11m cr;J(,)O)CJ GCI.)I?roro?::O e:oco:roJ GOOI?OJ
~e~?
L -LIL :t. JJ C:.1Jt.6 )J tL
. c ( ) r;;:c- c cmr,; oc oc "' r,;"' 0 :
<X>?!~:l[ ~ro ? tlq>G:xl? roroGa:>?mt.lt:l~c~p ro~~= G~g1: ro'P~c:o
:0 ~ , ~
c c
.oa~j .:~q>J cr;JGa:>GCXYd~SJ(,)O)
c :::> O?Cl c
c ::>t.?IS:::> C'
Q~q>J C'~?019ro
"10
jO 9o:x;so
C' \~C'
Cl e;,o "('
.. .,.lJ.
C LJ
C'
6 Oll J
C'' 0 c. 0
\
C' t:. .
G(\):::0211 ul r
rc- c- o o.,_ oc- c . c c rrr,;r,~ r,;:c- r,.:c
SJ~O':l80:r.lUJffi"i l SJ~I SJ(,)f.qCilSJOJJ~ G~lljlj: l~O:::Ot!<:l
c r,:c rrr,; c o c c- g , c
romJe:ro?:tl<?:::o? m~~~ t:1'lf "(Gu:o2u Gco~?mco?::l[ e:oor.::::o~
o o .. r,o r,:c c co g oc c ( ' c ( ) oc- r,; 'T"
IJ~CO?~ T..G~Be'JU"io;>1J 2:<-lCSJ':fOO ~@ OJ) ft<? Q 8".-IJU)? G~GU I
c- "' c ~ 0 c c r,~ c c
qc1 Ol:ro.p:cop:t:j: 00~0{ GOO?ffiei:{Ua:>?:t:I:Gf?\01 GCOpO:X:O?! Q'j~
oe~r
t:: c o
oC:<'q
c A\ G c o c C' "r c o
Qi;(i.)JyO::!JI e:m?<Jm9CY.>fS G81 Gm:roc~CJ.>I
- . c
C\JCI.>GCO?CJ.>~U~
:t963'
c-r,9~
Od;QOI
0')
OOr"O)IlOOOC
C' C' C' 0 C' 0 C' C' ?CI(' C' (''
u A CO?:Q:::O:'n O)())()l(i.)CJXD~G 08<J Oj: OSGO)
(
t
j
~s~'~ll
OC"
'S ?
C'
Jl G
)
Q
0 OC
~Od91 Od~t QJ~OO~CGeJ?C!OC 19():::0~11 cr:m QJ";?OXl)~
\ C' 00
o:oro:::n::nt <JI.lmro QQ::n:nroroc:t o~e~o
0\
C'OC ~
C'
u
('
OC'
.6
C'
A
r;:C'
C
C'
u::n~>l
l
('
C'
l
C
A
~ OC
('
:;ocm
C'
C' J C' 0 0
~c GG Gm:rocromt ~romroc: Gscn
OC C' C'
sro:no:rco?: C' ~ C' C'
<;;G)Q~::nm oc 4.i
J .. . L L n.. l TL- T C.:. U --1 c:.-.l
('
:::02?"
BJ<>OO~:
;1,. L L
[,~
~Cl
t:-1
C' .('
':::OCUjCI C' C~ OC'
a .c romGCXl?()') o t QJCCDI (._ -r
OC' ')
l:P~CI! G Cl: ::r.fCDQ
J J
0
-~- Jt
"')
C'
~:'nl Oa\:SO
C l:,
c :'n~COi [
~J
C' C'
0
oc: C..,1 :9~:;;:;
O::rx'CO
L -l- -l- J
C'
: COG'):
'
C' C'
mm~oGG OS<J 0 OOCI
t. l ..) A
3
('
IssUES.
1. Is the Pla,inti1f firm registered under the Partnershlp Act?
2. ~ 1:4~ suit barred by limitation 7
3 Is the suit bad for misjoinder of parties 1
4 Is th,e li st Defendant a proper party to the suit 7
S Were the goods referred to in paragraph .1. of the Plaint
landed from the m.v. "Bradeverett " . If so, is the
Shippjng Company free from ali responsibility 1
6. Di4 the Plaintiffs give notice of loss or damage as re-
quired by the bill of lading?
1 To what relief jf any is the plaintiff ent,itled 1
'-!;.
s.t~Od:ni M V1 V.W1UUI SL:r
B:t}RMA LAW REPORTS. 479
""" c c c c c~ o c o c .,. c c c
oe~ . CjC:SJ~Jm~s OOX:DmSJ'ml~Q<D~:cqro~mcqmol Gro:>c~m~et
-- o ~ r;::c r,;:c c c c CA;
c (. 02_')~ G~Gfe1!())1 !T.l~C!tjiD 0~2:Gp:~s O<D~mSJI !T.ltl[QO?'P:QI,)p:ml
COOO'X:~'JllC c . c <' C' c ' t,: c c- o o o o r:::;:: c r:::;:: <'J::: c
m~ 5JC!CDC!~U:9f' G:;o')caJro:;o ecu~e:;~t YYCJ?1co, a?GeJ':)C:e1:>:c<D. <O<J!3Ct '
1
" c
~c .
o' <' <' o c <- . r c
Cll::.S~ CI CC:<Dm ~r.?")n ~a.D I Q)())O):J.)')(\) :):'l Q ()) G.SY GO:QJQSO)SJO)
o c o o
J Jl - T . -~ l \:.-..... l 1..1 r , ~ J - -t -~ T t
<~~ . , r... c o r;:' o c '(;; c- , 9 c- m-::::roiO::n:mY:xro
, , c
o~ roroc: t:Jc:ro~tJS 1 0-flm<:lX:> QC.trtx~ ro~<DG::>~Jt
rocuo-:>:3'<1 . L ' J " L ' c.:.
~"-T -1c~ !T.l8~:
OIC'~':>-,\0 L
rofQ:>:o3Gamch:::n[o'1~~~m
[~ L -, 6 C L
moo~~Jf;';ol
ti Jugal Kishore {1)
ij 00 Q 0 i: C'
:r.>-:>:~?:001.1 8JI,)()) m:m:>:GCDI')())(X)')!Ga:>:::D::D II .
C"n JL L L JJ ~
C1X'D
0
JU ~G:::n~1 m~qq? (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, ~chedule
.Article III, Para 6, Clause 3) . ro~:o~:::n::S
l'.jt u..
SJOO~:m~ r
Jl ill 6
~<5r,;m:>co
6 0 Dl
c c c o c- r,;:c cc c- 9 c o c c ~
102:roy:::nro ro<tc:roa:>:tJ<D:::n~ m~coG X') ~QJtC'Y.t '=l~OJ~G~9tD':f
10~ GQ<Dch91,)~
-~ 0
!;;:iJ:::nJSo3
~ Lj C L
roro~oo~J oo:~~~:::n;:l$
l ~ \....!.
~Q~OO!I,)t:>:o3o1
-1 l tJ L
c
o c c: r,;:
u "
[sC' C' C' C''f:::C' C' C'
Gf'm~: c:~o:>~G~'Jffi~::x>-:>1 IO<X>C ~'J~2?~~:(9<X>~\5c:'pi ~ymr ro~o:cu:
('0 ('
question of the ascertainment of the date when the goods OJCGlG~?.U
00
ought to be delivered' for the purpose of Article 31 deal ::Y.>?ll>l?:OO<.l
with cases of transport by Railways where no date<has been ox-6 u1 Jll
or can be specified in the contract for carriage. V'{e, cannot
however ignore the fact that the conditions of carpage of
g~ by ship are essentially different trom contracts of
carriage of goods by Railway in one re<;pect. viz., that whereas
in contracts of carriage of goods by Railways there i.e;
ordinarily no knowledge as to by which particular train the
ge>e9s will be despatched nor is there any undertaki~g by the
Railways . as regards such trains, there is ordinarily, in con-
tracts of carriage of goods by sea a diStinct anangement that
.. the goods will be shipped by a particular vessel."
OG9: ~OGOJ'J
C.!.
0 ('c ::T.)(X)ffi
G 'JC:ml 0 ('
l 6 L o l 16 I ] l
CIVIL REVISION
Stay of. suit-Suit. under s. 9 Sf>ific R~luf .Mct--;hether should be sta)ed pending
cross-wit baud nn title.
A prior suit fiic!i under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act should not be stayed
pending the decision of a cross-suit based on ti de.
i'\tla Kyan and another v. Daw Kye (.". .-\. l.R. (193 5) Ran., refelOI"ed to
and dissented from.
Irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff in the cross-suit is the true owner of
a piece of land, the plaintiff in a prior suit under s. 9 of the Specific Relief
Act is entitled t~ a quick and summary justice in the form of a decree for eject-
ment of the person who had forcibly dispossessed him.
Satishehandrq De v. Madanmohan Jati, A.I.R. (X9JI) Cal. 483 at 484; and
Narayan RI>W v. Dharmachar, I.LR. XXVI, Mad. 514, referred to and followed.
Further more, the cause of action in a suit under s. 9 of the Specific Relief
Act is entirely different froro the C~l)$~ of action of a suit based on title. There-
fore, a d.ecree granted in the former suit should not be restrained by injunction
from being executed in the latter suit.
c.c. 1960, dismissing the plaintiff's SJlit. The facts giving rise
-1963 to t h e present appI'1cat1on
. . fly t h ese.
are bne
::mN
n ...'M. . in Civil Regular Suit No 33 of 1958 .mentioned above,
Ko i{YAw the plaintiff Daw Than May sued the defendant-respondent
HuNs AND Ma Mya Ngwe and 2 others for their ejectment from the
THREE
oTHERs. suit land on the ground that they had forcibly entered
. into 'possession thereof, the suit being one under section
9 of the Specific Relief Act. She impleaded as a proforma
defendant, Ko Maung Ni whom she had herself deputed
to look after the suit land because Ko Maung Ni refused
to join her as a co-plaintiff in the suit. On the 26th of
July 1958, about two weeks after the filing of the present
suit by Daw Than May, Ma Mya Ngwe filed a suit against
her for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit
land in succession to her adoptive parents, U San Nyein ,
and Daw Khin, and for injunction restraining Daw Than
May from executing against her, any decree which
s,he might be able to obtain in the present suit. Ma Mya
Ngwe impleaded in her suit Ko Maung Ni, Ma Kyin Myint
and,Ma Mya Mya. Ma Mya Ngwe then applied for stay of
Civil Regular Suit No. 33 of I958 pending the decisio~
of her suit, namely, Civil Regular Suit 't\o. 36 of 1958 on '
the ground that whatever decree that might be passed in
favour of Daw Than May would be subject to the result
of her own suit, which was based on title. The learned.
Judge then relying on a dictum of Dunkley J. in Ma Kyaw
and anqther v . Daw Kye U (r) stayed the present suit
pending the disposalof Civil Regular Suit No: 36 0 1958.1
In that suit Daw TI1an May's defence was that Ma Mya
. Ngw~'s alleged adoptive mother Daw Khin sold a portion
of the suit 'land to the defendant Ma Mya Mya by an
uriregister~ saJe deed with possession. Ma. Mya Mya in
turn sold her portion to Ma Kyin Myint by a registered
deed and Iy!a Kyin Myint in turn sold it to her,. also by a
. reg1stered deed. The status of Ma Mya NgWe as Kittima
(1) A.l.R. (1935) Ran .3SS
BURMA LAW REPORTS 487'
adoptive daughter of U San Nyein and Daw Khin was also C.~.
disputed. The Township Court decreed Ma Mya Ngwe's ~
suit . on the 27th of Apn'l 19 6o on .t he ground t h at sh e was DAW THAN
MAY
APPELLATE CIVIL
B~Jore U San Marwg and U Tttn Tin, JJ.
Daw Saw Myint _was adopting some persons in the Kittima oNE.
~)) A.I,R. 1946, Cal. 118. (to) A.I.R. 1952, All. 392.
Character " within the meaning .of section 42 of the Act;
and that if he finds a danger or entertains any fear of a
DoRA Wr:-1
Arm THREe challenge to his status as such he may seek relief in a Court
oTHERS of law. In elaboration of his argument the learned
DA\:sAw Advocate contends that if the plaintiffs are the legitimate
MY!~~.AND children of U Ba Win they would succeed to Daw Saw
Myint's own estate, in the event of Daw Saw Myint pre-
deceas~~ them without having any children of her own.
This, in our opinion, is too far-fetched a proposition to
persuade us that the declaration sought for should be given.
In fact, what the plaintiffs sought for was a declaration of
heirship to the estate of the late U Ba Win and not to the
estate of his widow Daw Saw Myint. Consequently, they
can have no claim to Daw Saw Myint's estate until she iS
dead even assuming that they are the children of U Ba Win.
Furthermore, there is no knowing whether Daw Saw Myint
would not be survived by children or adoptive children of
her own. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Judge on
the Original Side of this Court was quite justified in coming
to the conclusion that the present suit for a bare declaration
in the form asked by the plaintiffs should be dismissed.
In the result; the appeal fails and it is dismissed with
costs, Advocate's fees being assessed at ro (ten) gold.
mohurs.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
1:hat is, since about the founding of the Company, he has c.c.
1963
not received any dividends and his attempts to inspect the lNTH
:accounts of the Company were always frustrated by the MATTER OF
CHAN THA
Directors. He was invited to m~etings of the Company ZAYCO.
three or four times but notices of the meeting would arrive
very late. In September 1960, Daw Khin Su, the Managing
Director took his share certificate from him saying that
1:hey were needed for the registration purposes. Daw
Khin Su, according to U Ohn Maung, took the share certi-
:ficates from Daw Than Than, the co-petitioner, and Daw
Yin Yin, a. Director, also. Four or five months later, \vhen
be asked for the share certificates, he found after some cor-
responpence with Daw Khin Su that the shares ha'd been
pledged .with one U Thant. U Ohn \ faung has prosecuted
Daw Khin Su and U Thanr in the Court of the Ioth Addi-
tional Magistrate, Rangoon, and the case is still pending.
U Ohn Maung has heard that the Company has received
K 2,oo,ooo worth of import licences but the Government,
-according to U Ohn Mal,lng, would be discontinuing the
issue of import licence to private traders and the prospect
of the Company, whose main subsistence is import busi-
ness, to survive an,d make profi~s is negligible.
Under cross-examination by U Myint Soe, U Ohn
Maung says that from 1958 to 1960, Daw Yin Yin was
the Managing Director. During those years the petitioner
bad no ground for dissatisfaction with the conduct of the
affairs of the Company. It was after the assumption of
1:he Managing Directorship by Daw Khin Su that the dis-
satisfaction with the management of the Company began.
1t was a matter of principle, U Ohn Maung says, and there
was nothing personal about his dissatisfaction. The elec-
tions of the Directors were made without his knowledge
and without the vote of the shareholders. U Ohn Maung
further says that he did not attend the general meeting at
whfch the Company was founded nor has he read the
Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company
2
BURMA tAw REJfibifts
c.c. {Exhibit. A). He did not attend the meetings of the Com-
1963
. pany partly, he says, because the notices were received
MA~~F late, and alSO because he had other business tO attend tO
c;~,J~ at the times the meetings were held. During the term of
Daw Yin Yin as Managing Director, the Company did not
receive any import licence and it was only after Daw Khin
Su had taken over that licences were received. U Ohn
Mating thinks that now that the licences are received the
Company should be making profits, but he has not received
any statement of accounts or reports on the Company's
affairs-
. Da.w Than Than, who joins with U Ohn Maung in filing
the petitioil., . states in evidence that she too is a holder.
~f K 5,ooo worth of shares in the Company. Daw Yin Yin
who.was her aunt was Managing Director of the Company
and she herself was Secretary for a few years until Daw
Khin Su, with whom also she is related but not so closely;
became Managing Director. All the shareholders accord-
ing to Daw Than Than are relatives of some degree or
other. Daw .T han Than did not attend meetings of the
COmpany after the change in the Managing Directorship,.
ana that was because she did not receive invitations.
Aq::ording to information, Daw Than Than says, Daw Khin
Su draws a monthly salary of K soo and her sister is draw-
ing K 200 or K 300 per month as Assistant Manager. Sh~
also says that statements of accounts of the Company are
not available up to ~ate. Cross-examined by U Myint Soe.
Daw Than Than admits that at the time Daw Yin Yin was
' Managing Director and herself was secretary no import
licence$ were received, business was dull and therefore
there was rio need . to keep accounts and books. She
lives in the same house with Daw Yin Yin but has her
O'Yfi business and was not in league wit~ heraunt in filing
this petition. She had received on 4th August 1961 an
invitation for Daw Yin Yin to attend the meetirig of the
Company and acknowledges that the signature in the peon
:.
book Exhibit 2-A is her own. On 8th August 1961 she c"c.
1963
similarly received and acknowledged on behalf of Daw
IN THE
Yin Yin an invitation from the Company. Again on 9th Mf.TTEROF
'August 1961 she received from the Company letters for CliANTHA
ZAYCO.
Daw Yin Yin, herself, U Ohn Maung the co-petitioner
and a few others. Exhibit 2-B in the peon book also
shows that Daw Than Than received on behalf of Daw
Yin Yin, herself, U Ohn Maung and others, invitations to
an extraordinary meeting of the Company and in the
acknowledgment it is noted that the time at which the
invitations were received was 7 p.m. Daw Than Than
states that it was because of the late hour that she
received the invitc<1tions on behalf of the others and that
she had herself despatched them. On 22nd December
1961 there were similar invitations received by her and
acknowledged in Exhibit 2-C. Her complaint is that
these invitations were received late and gave only very
short notice for the meetings.
Daw Than Than does not go so far as to say :t hat Daw
Khin Su would misappropriate the profits accruing from
the licences that the Company has received. Her fear is
that due to inefficiency and wastage, the profits might not
be shared fairly among the shareholders. She was invited,
Daw Than Than says, to the last annual general meeting
of the Company but she did not attend in protest against
the short notice. She did not go to the Company's office
to inspect the accounts and she does not know whether
the accounts, duly audited, are available for inspection.
In reply to questions by the Court Daw Than Than
states that the Company has 25 shareholders. She has
not discussed with any of the other shareholders the de~
sirability or otherwi$e of voluntarily winding up the Com-
pany and she has not requisitioned a meeting of the
shareholders for the purpose of discussing . this question,
nor did she. speak to the Managing Director or other
Directors about this. Because she has been in the dark
.BURMA
~~ . LAW REPORTS . [19553.
. ...._...,
: ...
:~
would deal with the Company at its own risk. These c.c.
1963
are drastic measures, Daw Khin Su states, and did great
IN THE
harm to the ~usiness of the Company which found itself MATTER OF
unable to obtain over-drafts from the Banks with the re- CHAN THA
ZAYCO.
sult that several orders of goods for which import licences
had been received had to be cancelled at great loss to the
Cpmpany. Daw Khin Su says that annual general meet-
ings have been regularly called and invitations we1 e posted
in advance to. the shareholders in support of which she
files posta l receipts Exhibit 10. Neither U Ohn Vz.1uPg
nor Da\\' ;-han Than. the petitioners, discussed the desir-
ability of the Company going into voluntary liquida_tion,
Daw Khin Su says: this matter was never brought up by
the peti <ioners with the Directors or at meetings. The
accou nts were prepared, audited and kept ready at the
office of the Company and were available for all share-
holders . to see on request. Daw Khin Su admits that
money had to be borrowed from U Thant (PvV r) on pledge
of share certificates but this, she says, was made necessary
because the banks declined to grant over-drafts and the
pledge of share certificates was made with the full know-
ledge and consent of Daw Yin Yin and the owners .
.The evidence on record does not substantiate the charge
of mismanagement and Mr. Fisher, learned Advocate for
the petitioner~, could only point to one or two instances
where invitations to meetings sent to the address of
Daw TI1an Than were received rather late or too late- .
Mr. Fisher do.es not go so far as to say that the Court
should intervene and order the winding up of the Company
.because invitations to meetings addressed to shareholders
arrived late in one or two instances.
There is also a general charge that the capital of the
Company has been squandered and that at the time the
Managing Directorship was transferred from Daw Yin Ym
to Daw Khin Su, cash in hand was down to about K 3,000.
U Po Tha, learned Advocate for the respondent Company,
-=coo BU.RMA LAW~REPORT~
(r) I.L.R. V:>l. XXXIX All., p. 334 (3) A.I.R. (1942) Born., p. 231,
(z) A.I.R (1941) Pat., p. 6o3 . . (4) Xiii B.L.T., p. sr.
~BURMA LAW REPORTS
APPELLATE CIVIL
Civil First Appeal No. 6o of 1958. Against- the Decree of the Originab
Side, late High Cou~ of Rangoon -in-Civjl ReguJar Suit. No. (!8 of 1956, dated
the r8th Se)te:-riber 1958. .
.510
C-f
19 3
U SAN MAUNG, J.-In Civil Regular Suit No. 68 of 1956
of the late High Court the plaintiff S. T. p. N. Subbiah
~~~ Chettyar as Agent of S. T. P. Nachiappa Chettyar, sued
CHETTYAR
v.
the defendant K. M. Chidhambaram Chettyar for the re-
.s. T. P. N. covery of K 8,500 With interest thereon due on the pro-
c=~.!. missory note in suit dated the 7th of July, I953 The
.A~;~::~F plaintiff's case was that he paid the defendant on that
s. T. P. date a sum of K 8,500 for which the defendant executed
N ACHlAPPA ,
-CHETTYAR.' the pr6m1ssory note m question and that altogether a sum
A~~~F th~ promissory note for K 6,ooo. The fact that he allowed
s. T. P. the
N ACHlAPPA
suit promissory note .to remain in the hands of Subbiah
Ca~>rTYAR. Chettyar without taking any necessary action to have it
returned is in strong .corroboration of the truth of Subbiah's
story. In any event, having regard to the dictum of the
late High Court in Chinnaya v. U K.ha (I) the finding of
fact of the learned Judge on the Original Side of the late-
High Court cannot be disturbed.
Nevertheless, the present appeal, in our opinion, must
;succeed on another ground. In his plaint Subbiah Chettyar
said that neither he nor his principal was a money-lender
as defined in the Money Lender's Act of 1945. This was
deni~d by Chidhambaram Chettyar in his amended writ-
ten state~ent! but no steps were taken to have an issue-
framed .on the point. But from the admissions made by
:Subbiah Chettyar in the course of his evidence it is clear
.that his principal Nachiappa Chettyar was a money-lender.
Nachiappa Chettyar came to Burma in the year 1940 and
had been carrying on business as a money-lender through
Subbiah <:hettyar as his agent since 1941. He invested
K 50,000 in this business and one Vallachami Pillay who
. had borrowe4 money from him owed him a large sum
of. money, ~amely, Rs. 49,000. This debt was settled for
Rs . .n,soo through the intervention of the defendant
,Chidharnbaram who claims that he was entitled to some
commissjon. in bringing about. this settlement The date
of th~ loan to Vallachami Pillay does not ~ppear in
su.'bbiah's e'vid.ence but it is dear that in the year !950
there . were
. four transaction,s
,.
b~tween N~chiappa
. and ~he
(I) I.L ..R. 14 Ran., ii.
BURMA LAW REPORTS 513
APPELLATE CIVIL
Before U S(m Maung and U Kyaw Zan U , JJ.
c.c.
KO MAUNG GALE AND ONE (APPELLANTS) 1963
v. July 6 .
The Plaintiffs had sued the Defendants for a Declaration that they are in
possession and enjoyment of a certain 'building under an irrevocable license
granted by the Defendants. It was alleged by the Plaintiffs that it was agt"eed
that they would build the said building, half of which was to be occupied by
them, and the other half by the Defendants who would pay for their share of the
costs of the building by easy instalments. The Defendants however con
tended that the building belonged to them, and that the Plaintiffs were merely
their tenants.
The trial court gave a decree for the Plaintiffs.
On Appeal:-Held: What constitutes a license can be seen from the
English Common Law principles involved in the present case.
The Common Law of England was and still is applied in this country under
s. 13 (3) of the Burma Laws Act, as justice, equity and good conscience.
The Tajmahal Stationery Mart v. K. E. Mohamed Ebrahim, V. S, Aliar
and Co. (1950) B.L.R. 41 (H. C.); The Union of Burma v. U Htoon Pe (1958)
B.L .R. so (H.C.), ,referred to.
In English Common Law, there is a difference between a bare license and
a contractual license which is irrevocable. To establish a contractual license,
there must be a promise which is intended to be binding and is either supported
by consideration or is intended to be acted on and is in fact, acted on.
An irrevocable license confers an equitable title. Winter Garden Theatre
(London) Limited v. Millenium Productions Limited, L.R. (1948) A.C. 173;
Foster v. Robinson, (1950) z All. E.R. 342; Vaughan v. Vaughan, (1953) I A14
E.R. 209 ; Erri11gton v. Errington and another, (1952) I All. E.R. 149, referred
to and followed.
It.has also been held by the late High Court that where there is a license with
a contractual riglit, equity would always intervene to protect by injunction,
the "licensee's right from any revocation or threatening interference in breach
of the contract.
U Tin Eng v. U Ba Yoke, (1957) B.L.R. 341 (H.C.), referred to.
Civil First Appeal No. 101 of 1961, against the decreeforderof the District
C:ourt of Henzada.in Civil Regular Suit No.6 ofi959, dated z3rdAugust 1961
.. .. --
BURMA LAW REPQ:&WSf:::.
It is apparent in this case that the Plaint iffs were mere licensees and not
t enants. There was nevertheless a binding contract that in cons ideration for
whatever they had promised to do, they would be allowed to reside p<!acefull y
: Ko l\1AUNC
GALE on their own section of the house. The license was accordingly an irrevocable
.AND ONE one.
v.
MA ON
NYIJNT
_A..'ID ONE.
Kyaw Myint for the appellants.
.
G. N. Banerji for the respondents .
ORIGINAL CIVIL
Before U Maung Maung, J.
c.c. Mrs. Ghosh left the home to go and stay with her brother
1962
MRS.
Mr. s. Ganguli (P\V r) because she said there were no ser-
PROTIMA' vants in the house and she had to look after the chlldren
GHOSH
v. and do other household duties with her arm in a sling and
BtMALENDU
CHOSH.
plaster. A few weeks later, in April 1955, she returned
to Mr. Ghosh. The fact that she left home and later
returned is not disputed but the reasons are.
... Jn September 1955, Mrs. Ghosh was admitted as an
in~patient to the Mental Hospital, Tadagale and she alleges
that that was an act of betrayal and cruelty on the part
of her husband because she did not need the treatment
and he only wanted to put her away. On the part of
Mr. Ghosh it is pointed out that she was taken 1:0 the
hospital on the best medical advice and that .she herself
signed the necessary forms of admission and gave her
. consent .
Several acts of cruelty are also alleged in the petition
during this period ranging from the use of insulting
language, assaults and beatings to an attempt by the re-
spondent to procure abortion when Mrs. Ghosh was preg-
nant. It is also charged that Mr. Ghosh in the month of
December 1955, took three of the older children away
from the home ostensibly to take them to Toungoo but
actually put them in two Convents in Rangoon . It was
only much later that the mother discovered. according to
~er petition, that the children were in Rangoon. Tearing
the children away from her is, she says, an act of cruelty
'that "caused her extreme distress, sorrow and anxiety.
'There are other acts of cruelty which are charged such
as drunken bouts of violence, varying between beatings
and forced sexual intercourse, The petitioner alleges that
:on the 2rstof March 1956, when she was pregnant again,
the.respondent hit her several times in the neighbourhood
of the abdomen intending to procure an .ab'ortion The
next day she went to consQlt her doctor and on return to
the. home sh'e found that -Mr. Gho$h had taken away the
BURMA LAW: REPORT-$.: 529>
youngest child, r Yz years old, and this finally made her c.c.
1962
leave the house, never to return.
MRS.
A large volume of evidence has been led by both PROTIMA
GHOSH
parties and my learned predecessor took early steps to 11.
BIMALENDU'
shut out from the record evidence relating to custody of GHosH.
the children and of their property. I should say, with
respect, that that was a wise step to take for the admission
of such evidence would only have burdened the. already
rather heavy record. The question of guardianship of the
children and their property should of course be decided
with the main objective of protecting the children's interest
and promoting their welfare.
The following issues were settled by my lectrned
predecessor :
I. Did the respondent treat the petitioner with great harsh-
ness and cruelty as alleged in paragraph 4 of the
petition?
2. Did the respondent stab the petitioner in February 1955,
fracturing her hand as alleged in paragraph 5 of t4e
plaint ?
3 Did the respondent cause the petitioner to be detained
in Tadagale Mental Hospital without sufficient cause or
was she detained there on the advice of Dr. Sea Blue
and Dr. Hufton ?
4 Did the respondent remove the elder children from the
English Methodist School without sufficient cause or
were they removed with the petitioner's consent ?
5 Was the youngest child taken away from the petitioner's
house by the respondent without her knowledge ?
6. Did the respondent hit the petitioner on the night of
21st March, 1956 t-..yo or three times on the abdomen
to cause an abortion ?
7 Did the respondent behavetowards the petitioner in such
a way as to break up the marriage ?
8. Is the petitioner entitled to the remedies claimed in her
petition ?
In paragraph 4 of her petition the petitioner has charged
that shortly after their marriage her husband " conducted
~53{} .. - BURMA LAW REPORTS
been more kind to hls wife might have persuaded Mr Ghosh c.c.
196z
when he returned alone from Calcutta to go and make
Mas.
the admission to Dr. Suvi knowing ~hat when his wife PROTIMA
came back the doctor would hear about it from her lips GHOSH v.
anyway. In considering the evidence of Mitra also, while BIMALENDU
GHOSH.
I suspect that the witness has elaborated and touched up
his story, sifting the chaff from the grain, I think that
there are a few grains of truth in what he says. !he ad-
mission that the respondent was supposed tO<"'have made
to Mitra might not have been made in the very same
words that Mitra utters in Court but an admission to the
same effect was probably made. Mrs. Ghosh herself in
her cross-examination admitted that on her return h<1rne
from Calcu,tta she referred, to the incident, in her con-
versations With friends, as an accident. Dr. Anandan also
says that she told him there was an accident. But the peti-
tioner explains that she was trying to cover up the truth
which after all was not a palatable one. Since she had
come home to resume cohabitation with her husband there
was no need, nor was i.t even desirable, for her to go .
about proclaiming the truth. These considerations lead
me to answer the question posed in issue No. 2 in the
affirmative.
The 3rd is:me relates to the admission of the petitioner
into the Tadagale Mental Hospitai as an in-patient. She
alleges that the respondent arranged for her admission
without sufficient caus~ and by misrepresenting to her
that both the respondent and the petitioner were to receive
treatment to lift the gloom from their moods. The res-
pondent replies that :treatment was given to Mrs. Ghosh
on the best medical advice and it was only when admis-
sion of her as an in-patient was advised that she was ad-
mitted by her consent and after her signl.ng the necessary
forms and papers. This issue also stands agains:t a back-
ground of ~vidence adduced by both parties to prove their
loving nature as husband or wife, to charge the other as
4
534: BURMA
-
LAW REPORT;,s-
. . .. .:-;
c. c. unkind, neglectful father or mother, to prove oneself as
1962
the long suffering spouse, to charge the other as one 'who
Mns.
PROTIMA has consistently caused disharmony and unhappiness in
GHOSH
v.
the home. Not merely failures of paternal or maternal
B!MM.FNT>U duty but acts of violence are also charged. The petitioner
,G HOSH.
is charged with constant nagging of her husband which led
her to shows of temper and violence such as burning her
own Sari, tl1reatening to commit suicide. Similarly, against
the respondent are levelled charges of cruelty such as
beatings and lack of love for the home which he .was
alleged to have shown in pushing children away when
they cuddled up 'to him for love.
:[The learned Judge then discussed the evidence regard-
ing the mental condition and behaviour of the petitioner.]
* * * *
* * * *
Mr. S. Ganguli (WP 1) a brother of the petitioner on
hearing that his sister had been admitted as an in-patient
to the Tadagale Mental Hospital filed an application for
the writ of habeas corpus with the High Court. Notice
w.as duly served on the Medical Superintendent and
Mrs. Ghosh produced before U San Maung, J. On being
asked by the Judge as to what she wanted to do she said
she wanted to .go home and the matter ended. with Mrs.
Ghosh returnin~ home and Mr. Ganguli's applicati<>n being
dismisseQ. a~ A.hhdrawn. ..
Dr . .J?a K"~ says that the treatment of Mrs. Ghosh
was ..<;,ompleted on the 8th of September 1955, and that
same evening he received a summons from the High Court
arising out of the habeas corpus application. He therefore
~ailed Mr. Ghosll..~to. c0me and t*e..-~rs. Ghosh away on
the next ro0rni~. The discharge application, exhibjt 15,
was signed -by r.s Ghosh and she was d;uly discharged
the: vezr; IDf;>pri~~ wr~ the Hi~h Coi.u;t ;w:as io hear an4
pas~
. qr4.~rs. .qJ::\. .the, l].abe~
~ . . J;natt(l!r. A~l thes~ ~e
.corpus ~ . .
BURMA LAW REPOR'f.S . 535
c.c. home, for that was what she asked for when she appeared
1'1(12
before U San Maung, ].
M11s.
PttO:rtMA Tiie 4th issue relates to the removal of the three older
Gao sa children from the English Methodist School where, the
v.
BIMALENDV
GHOSH.
petitioner alleges, they had been rec-eiving adequate educa~
tion.
[Tjle evidence relating to this issue was then discussed
by the learned Judge.]
* * *
* * *
U Kyaw Myint, learned Couusel for the petiti-oner,
comments on this incident that if petitioner had been
wanting in love for her {:hildren regarding them as rivals
in a ferocious contest for the r-espondent's attention she
would have been happy to see .the children go away from
the home. Instead, here was a mother who was angered
by the prospect of her children being placed under the
care of the nuns at the conv.ent and who fought hard
to keep them with her at home. I consider that the child-
ren were removed from home without the petitioner's
consent despite the respondent's assertion that she had
at 'first willingly agreed. On the other hand, I cannot see
that such removal was without suffident cause. It was
the privilege and duty of the respondent as a father to
look after the welfare of the ~hildren and to provide them
with good education in happy surro-l!ndings. The privilege
and duty was shar-ed by the mother but by law and by
custom t he leadership was with the father. In the cir-
cumstance in which tile home had been placed it was
probably a wise thing to send the children to boarding
-school where at least they would be spared the pain of
a ~stur-bed fannly. Sending them away to school deprived
their mother of :the comfort of .their companionship and
probablymade her more .troubled and restle.Ss afterw~rds ;
but, Mr. Ghosh had to make the decision trying to strike
BURM:A LAW ..B.EPORTS 537
,. . - .
a balance between his duty to the children and his duty c.c
I96Z
..
to his wife. I cannot, therefore, hold that sending the
children away constituted an act of cruelty on the part of PR~~~A
the respondent towards the petitioner. I do, however, c:~sa
take the view that the story that the petitioner tells of her BtM.\LENDtl
GHOSK.
being pushed out from the car and left behind is true. rt
is more than probable that Mr. Ghosh used some measure
of physical force to evict the petitioner from the car. In
the excited state that she was in it is higl!Jy improbable
that she would have gently descended and quietly stayed
behind. This act of pushing her out and the use of force
would not by itself amount to cruelty. but it is one of the
factors that must be considered when we look at the
matrimonial life of the Ghosh family as a continuity.
Issues No. 5 and 6 relate to events which are so closely
bound up together that they may be taken up together.
[The evidence relating to these issues was then discuss-
ed.] .
*
*
The answers to issues No. 5 and 6 should, therefore,
be that the respondent hit the petitioner serveral times on
the night of the 21st March 1956, and that in her absence
the next merning while she was away to see her doctor
he took the youngest child away from the home without
her knowledge and consent.
Issue No. 7 is closely bound up with issue No. 8 anQ.
the two must be taken up together. In matrimonial
matters of this kind it is not always safe to think in terms
of the breakup or the breakdown of family life ; for in
the absence of matrimonial offences recognized by law as
valid grounds for dissolution of marriage or judicial separa-
tion the question of breaking up or breaking down can
sometimes be irrelevant. In this connection, it may be
apposite, ~ally in view of the fact that the Divorce
5.3.8_,. BURMA LAW REPORTS [!9~
.; , .""!!f..
. . c.c. Act is based on English principles of matrimonial causes
1962
. . MRs.
to note a finding of .the Royal Commission on Marriage
. PR0TIM,, and Divorce presided over by .Lord Morton. In its Report
GHOSH
. v, published in March r956, the Commission has recognized
BIMALENDU
GHOSH.
that the basis for the existing div-orce law of England and
Sco.tland is the " doctrine of matrimonial offence.'' The
Commission rejected a suggested change of basis to " the
doctritJ.e of break-down of marriage." The reason for
the rejection is mainly that the doctrine of matrimonial
offen-Ce provided a dear and intelligent principle and it
makes for security in marriage, while the introduction of
the doctrine of br~ak-down of marriage in any form would
begravely detrimental to the well-being of the community.
The present petition puts forward cruelty as the basis
for the judicial separation that it sought. Cruelty can
'take many forms and the law has recognized .tl1at some
kinds of !llehtal cruelty may be more grievous than physi-
cal blows. It is not, however, possible to attempt a com-
prehensive definition of cruelty and as Tucker, L.J ..
observed in Jamieson v. jamieson (r) : "Every such act
(to amount: .to c~uelty) must be judged in .r~lation to its
att~ndant qrcumstances, and the physical or mentpl condi-
tion or the susceptibilities of the innocent spouse. The
intention ,of the offending spouse and the offe~9-er's knowl-
edge 'Of the actual or probable effect of his conduct on
the other's health (to botrow fro!J1 the language of Lord
K,eith) are all matters which could be -decisive in det-ermin-
ing .on' :which side of the _line a I?articular .case or -course
of conduct lies." Where physiCal violence is a~erred and
proved the test becomes simpler but there again, the
measure of the physical violence, the circumstan<;:es in
W;hich it is administered and the mental susceptibilities of
the parcy on whom it is administered-and such factors
. become relevant to consider: whether the:ph~sical v\olence
prove&.::-amountS ~to legal cruelry. _tn the recent- case: -o f
('r) (r952) A.c. s2s .
BURMA LAW REPORTS ~39
962
intention to hurt her, with callou~ indifference towards
her feelings . These constitute cruelty and also revive the
MRS.
PR01'll\IIA act of cruelty which the respondent had committed in
GHOSH
t),
Calcutta a little over a year ago.
BIMAI.E.'IOl)
GHOSH .
It may be useful, at this point, to take a look at the
personalities of the petitioner and the respondent She
comes frgm a family of high caste and low means ; he
comes .from a lower caste but otherwise is much more
fortunately placed. The evidence shows her as sensitive
and insecure; capable of love and kindness towards her
family-.e.g. Dr. Hufton, a witness whom the respondent
called~ has said she was normal and a loving mother up
to 1955-and in g:r:eat ne~d herself for loYe and kindness.
She was clubfooted, which probably made her more :shy
and sensitive, more ready to employ wiles to gain, and keep,
her husband's attention. She was hurt in Calcutta, she
was admitted into Mental Hospital alone when she expect-
ed that her husband would receive treatment with her.
she was brought before theHigh Court, and once, earlier.
she went to stay wi~h her brother for a few weeks. But
. she always came home. On th~ 22nd March, 1956, she
went to consult a doctor because she feared abortion after
she had been struck by her husband, but she came ho:me,
and it was only in the late eventng and because her young
child had been taken away that she left the home for good.
On hi~>' part,:the respon:denf is a man of the world, and
has held positions of :feadershtp in government service or
business-; 1he' has confidence and a:bility enough to succ-eed
in business; to organize. for the children's ~ducat~on, and.
if he had out Sincerely tned, to build .a happy .family .
life. He must :also know that his wife wh9 'craves for
. love can be hurt by its denial, who. asks fDr kindness can
.be deeply wounded .by atts :of cruelty. It ri:lay.t. atsq :be
noticed that.tho,ugh he haseresisted th-e petitfonWith ..vigour
the.r e ii 'nd. offer ~~~ h:is J?a.r~ t~ ta:~~: her i>a~k: nb' attempt
543
to coax her home, and six years have passed since the c. c.
1~62
petition was filed.
MRs.
I answer issue No. 7, therefore, in this sense that the PROTIMA
GHOSH
acts of cruelty committed by the respondent place the tl.
'81 MALF.KDU
responsibility on him for breaking up the home. I con- GHOSH.
sider that the petitioner is entitled to the relief she prays
for, and grant her a decree of judicial separation with
costs.
544 _ BURMA LAW
.....
REPORTS
~
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Town Committee dated the 4th of May 1962, which was c.c.
.
purported to have been passed und er secno.n II9, su - b 1913
__
sections (11) and (2) of the Municipal Act and those of the S.N ~~vERI
. "
Deputy Commissioner, lnsein, dated the I]th of May 1963, Two oTHERS
dismissing the appeal against the Executive Officer's order THEvCoM-
on the ground that it was barred by limitation and the ~~~~~:
order in revision of the Commissioner, Pegu Division dated swN ~>ND
THill>
the ISt of July 1963 confirming that of the Executive oTHERS.
Officer. The facrs giving rise to the present application are
b~efly as follows:
CRIMINAL REVISION
Before U Tun Tin , J.
c.c.
UNION OF BURMA (APPLICANT) x963
v. . Aug. JI.
The Respondent who was a dumb person had pleaded guilty befooe the
trial co urt . T he ::ial magistrate had however submitted the proceedings to
the Chief Ccur. t~> p.l$5 an appropriate sentence under s. 341 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
Held : The t ria! magistrate has misconcieved the provisions or
s 341, Criminal Procedure Code, for the section envisages a case "where
the accused though not insane, cannot be made to under tand the proceedings''
and not a case of the present nature where respondent accused, fully understood
the nature of the proceedings though by signs through his mother and has even
pleaded guilty to the charge.
The reference cannot therefore be entertained.
APPELLATE CIVIL
Before U San Marmg, J.
hand, they said that the house had been purchased by Daw
Thein Tin benami on their behalf as Daw Thein Tin had
advanced to them a sum of K 1,500 .which was required by u.~~~Aw
them to pay towards the purchase price of K 2,ooo, K 500 u A:r;a BA
having been paid as earnest money. The Subdivisional AND FIVE
Judge framed an issue as to whether or not the defendants oTHERs.
U Aung Ba and Daw Aye Shi's contention was correct and
coming to the conclusion that the house and itssite were
in fact purchased by Daw Thein Tin as benamidar of
U Aung Ba and Daw Aye Shi and that therefore no rela-
tionship of landlord and tenant existed between them,
dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs U Hla Kyaw
and Maung Thaung Shwe being dissatisfied with the
judgment and decree of the trial Court appealed, and the
learned District Judge by his judgment in Civil Appeal
No. 7-P of 1961 dismissed the appeal on the ground that
the plaintiffs had not served upon the defendants U Aung.
Ba and Daw Aye Shi a valid notice under section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy, and
a valid notice under section 12 (r) (a) of the Urban Rent
Control Act asking them to pay the arrears of rent due
within 2 I days from the date of the notice. The learned
Judge also observed that the trial Judge was wrong _in
having gone into the question whether or' not Daw Thein
Tin was benamidar for the defendants U Aung Ba and Daw
Aye Shi. In so doing, the learned Judge relied upon the
dictum of U Thaung Sein, J. in U Mya v . Abba Kassim and
one {I) where it was held that in a suit under section
I I (r) (a) of the Urban Rent Control .Act, 1948 where the
'defendants contended that they wete not the tenants of
the plaintiff as they were the real purchasers of the suit
. house and the plaintiff was a mere benamidar, the Court
should not go into the question whe'ther the sale of the
suit house to the plaintiff was a benami transaction.
.~
;;r With due respect; I am of the opinion that this is not
a correct exposition of the law. Surely, in a suit under
:P~!v:w section I I (r). (a) of the Urban Rent Control Act, 1948, one
0: ~~~~ BA of the questions involved is whether or not the defendant
: ;:4~ is the tenant of the plaintiff as claimed by the plaintiff.
Therefore, if the -def-endant contends that the plaintiff
cannot be his landlord as the suit house belongs to him and
. the plaintiff is merely his benamidar, the question whether
or not the sale of the ..suit house :to the plaintiff is a benami
. transaction, is a most crucial one.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Before U Maung Maung, _r.
This -.iew of the continuance of prerogative right of dismissal is also sup- c.c.
ported by the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act. In s. 25 of 1963
the .-\c~. the doctrine of employment during the pleasure of the State is expressly u THA DIN:
preserved. "
THE
The basis of the present suit is that the dismissal of the plaintiff from the SECRETARY,
~ervice was wrongful or illegal or ultra vires. The cause of action therefore is REvoLu-
that the Government had acted wrongfully or illegal!y or ultra vires in removing TIONARY
GoVERNMI!NT'
the plaintiff from the service. This is a question which the late Supreme
OFTHB
Court had fully considered. The dismissal of the Plaintiff's application by UNION OF
the Supreme Court was on the ground that the Government had not acted BuRMA,
wrongfully, illegally or ultra vires in removing him from senice. Tile ruling of DEPARTMENT
OF SUPPLY
the Supreme Court and the law on the subject, depriYes the suit in its present
AND Co-
form of its cause of action. OPERATION.
U Tha Din v. The Secreta-ry, Ministry of Co-operative and Commodity
Distribution, (1959) B.L.R. 94- (S.C.); Secretary of State v. J.C. Maurice, (1937)
R.L.R. 35; Baroni v. The Sercetary of State for India in Council, (1929) l.L.R.
8 Rangoon 215; The Secretary of State for India in Council v. D' At,taides,
( 1934) I.L.R. 12 Rangoon 556; Ridge v. Baldwin and others, (1963) 2 W.L.R.
Q35; TerriU v. The Secretary of Statefor theColonie.t, (1953) 2 Q.B., p.482
referred to.
~9~ applies then the suit would be well o_u t of time for,
U
-D
T HA IN
ac-cording to the plaint, the plaintiff was removed from
v. the s.e rvice of the Union Government on 12th June 1956 ..
. SCR~~Y, U Than Sein, learned Advocate for the plaintiff however
~~~~; argues that when the act or order of an officer of the
GoVERNMNT Government is illegal or ultra vires then Article 14 has
C:C.
applies to the suit cannot be adequately determined except ~963
in the light of that history. U THA DIN
. v.
The facts as disclosed in .the plaint are briefly these. s ECRETA
THER"
.Plaintiff U Tha Din was in the . service. of the Union REvoLu-
. TJONARY
Government and on 1st May 1948, he was appomted as GoVERNMENT
Secretary to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. On 28th u~~o;:moF
.
September 1949, the Commissioner U Khin Ma~ng Lati DEPARTMENTBuRMA,
.and U Tha Din were ar.rested under the Public Property oP SuPPLv
Protection Act. They were prosecute.. d bef ore an d tne
d oP.ERATioN.
:>.No Co-
that the Union Government did not act illegally or ultra c.~.
1903
vires in removing him from the service, and that the act
. h . , . f U THA DIN .
or order of the Government m1g t glVe nse to a cause o v.
action for breach of contract as between master and SEc!.~ARY,
servant REvoLu-
Tl<.lNARY
The situation prevailing before the establishment of GovERl'<"MiN:r.
the Union of Burma was summed up in the .Secretary of u~;:~F.
State v. ]. C. Maurice (2). That was a Full Bench d.ecision 0J~R~~~1'
of the High Court at Rangoon, rendered on January 2oth oF StlPPct.Y.-
&"fo o-
193-7, on the eve of the coming into operation of the oPERATioN
Gov~rnment of Burma Act, 1935. The decision was .tb..m:.
for based on the provisions of the Government of I~~ia
Act of 1919 and the rules relating to the civil sefvice
framed thereunder. The concept or doctrine of employ-
;ment during the pleasure of the Crown was examined and
e4_plained fully in the decision and after a review of the
authorities on the subject the High Court held unap.iJ'!!~Ul~Y.
that section 96B of the Government of India Act" does not
entitle the public servant to an inquiry but! directs as a
departmental matter that an inquiry shall be held." It
'Yas held that'the rule relating to the holding of an inquiry
was not always applicable and its applicability was left
to the Secretary of State and responsible officers of the
executive in every case to dedde. - -~----
. Jbe Full Bench in the Maurice case.. expressJx. ~!
ruled the decision in Baroni v. The Secretary of Stote.JQr
India in Council (3) and Sec.re.tary of. S.ta.te f.o!_]ndia"_J.n:-
Council v. D'Attaides (4). In the Baroni case, an Extra
Assistant Commissioner of the Burma Civil S~ryice... sll.eK
th~Secretary of State for damages for wrongful dismis.s~l
and Jhe defence was by way of a demurrer that no__<;;~.S~
of ACtion was disclosed by the plaint. C~nli:ffe, J.,.J~ltJ.~
that action for damages for wrongful dismissal lay__~~!'
the Secretary .of State in respect of a breach o(.!.ll.~
(z) (1937) R.L.R., p. 35 . (3) (1929) I.L.R. 8 Ran., p. 21.5.
. (4) (1934) I.L.R. I2 Ran., p. 556.
. .~.:.. . ~ --- ' ..... ~ ... -
BURMA LAW
.
..REPQ&;E(:S,~>:..
. .. -.. . ... ~~~i'1--.
"""'"'M ' '' ~-, -.oo
APPELLATE CIVIL
Befo1e U Kyaw Zan U, J.
c.c . :This expression does not mean that the lease. reserv:ed a
1963
yearly rent inasmuch as the lease clearly was for less than
UTUN
SHEIN a year or, at most, as stated above, a lease 'for a term of a
v. year only. Hence the contention of the learned Advocate
- UBA
HMYIN. for the appellant that the lease deed is invalid for want of
registration must fail.
The respondent claimed to be the owner and alleged
.~hat th~ appellant trespassed upon the land in 1949-1950
when it was under the control of the insurgents, and that
he allowed the appellant in the year 1956 when the condi-
tions-improved to work the land on payment of rent: He
further alleged that as the appellant refused to vacate by
the-end of Oc.t-ober 19-60 as agreed in the exhibit m lease
deed in spite of the notice (Exhibit c ) he objected to the
Superintendent of Salt to the issue of salt manufacturing
license to the appellant.
The appellant in his written statement denied that the
respondent was the owner and that he trespassed upon the
land or worked it with the permission of the respondent
prior to the execution of the exhibit m lease deed. He
all~ged that the land belonged to the government. He ad-
. mitted that he rec-eived the notice to quit and that the
Salt Department refused to issue a license.
In his reply the respondent denied that it was a Govern-
. .ment land and submitted that since the appellant had ad-
mitted the execution of the -exhibit w Iease deed he was
-estopped from denying the respondent's title. to the land.
to
Of the five issues: the.fust i.ssue was as wh o :owned
the land, and the second issue was on estoppel. The suit
. mainly rested on these two issues. Both the Courts below
were of the qpinion that the question of ownership in a .
suit for ejectment of a tenant was irrelevant, as the appel-
lant was estopped from denying the title of his landlord
the -respondent when he himself had admitted the tenancy.
The learned Advocate for the appellant now contentls
"that since the appellant was not let into .possession at any
BURMA LAW REPORTS 575
c.c. prior to and at the time of the execution 6'f the exhibit ro
1963
lease deed by the respondent, and he was accordingly
U TuN
SHEIN
estopped from denying the respondent's title. In Dayaial
. v. and Sons v. Ko Lon and another (9) it was held that a
UBA
HMYIN. tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his
landlord's title however defective it may be so long as he
ha:s not openly restored possession by surrender to his.
landlor-d. The question . of ownership thus become
irrelevant and both the Courts below were justified in de-
dining to answer the first issue. In Ahamut v. Kalu (IO)
it was held that a person who lets out land to another, cari
recover rent from him, though he has no title in law to the
land. In that case the land was the Government land.
Even if he was not let into possession .he was still
estopped hom denying the respondent's title since he had
executed the Exhibit ro lease deed in view of the authori:.
ties shown above, and also in view of the trite Full Bench
decision of the Madras High Court in Venkata Chetty v.
Aiyanna Goundan (II) in the absence of proof that he
executed the said lease deed in ignorance of the defect of
the lessor's title or that his execution was procured by
fraud, misrepresentation or coercion. When the appellant
himself was a party to the aforesaid deed he cannot now
both approbate and reprobate. Section r r6 of the Evidence
Act is very clear. Under this section no tenant, shall,
during the continuance o~ the tenancy, be permitted to
d eny that the landlord had, at the beginning of the tenancy,
to
a: title the.fand. There is no justification for narrowing
its scope. The section is clear in itself and it should .be
interpreted.as it stan~ and understood without importing
foreign words or mea!lings. Tenancy .being a contract it
was, no doubt, open to the appelhmt to raise.a preliminary
i8sue that the contract was void or voidable but he never
:.did. In the absence of finding.
he w~
.
p~ecl~ded from
.; (9) I.L.R. 6 Ran., 657: (ro) .9 L.T. 55
. .. . (u) I.LR. 40 Mad., s6r (F.S). . .
BURMA LAW REPORTS
APPELLATE CIVIL
Bifo1e U San ~)lfaung and U Tun Tin, JJ.
K 26,ooo was due and it was credited towards the sum ~A.pNO..
which the plaintiff had to pay the defendant in connection
with a building contract. About three years after the
execution of the first pro-note, the pro-note now in suit
was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff
as requested by Daw Khin Nu. The defendant also con-
tended that the plaintiff was a money-lender carrying on
money-lending business as defined in the Money Lerlfler's
Act and that therefore the suit against him was not main-
tainable as the plaintiff was not a registered money-lender.
On the 24th of August 1962 and when Advocates for
both the parties were present several issues involved were
framed by the Iearned C~ief Judge of the City Civil Court.
The suit was then aojourned till the 4th of October 1962
for examination of witnesses cited by the parties. On
the latter date the plaintiff and his witnesses were present
but the defendant and his witnesses were absent. The
defendant's Advocate asked for an adjournment but in the
face of strong objection by the learned Advocate for the
plaintiff adjournment was refused. The learned Advocate
for the plaintiff then claimed that in view of the admission
made by the defendant regarding the execution of the suit
promissory note and . in the absence of any evidence to
the effect that there was no consideration therefor a decree
should be given to the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge
accepted this contention and decreed the plaintiff's suit
with costs.
In this appeal by the defendant two points have been
canvassed on 4;s behalf byhis learned Advocate:
(a) that the mere fact that the burden of proof was
on the defendant-appellant to. show that there
7
ssi BURMA LAW REPORTS.
c-.c: was no consideration did not absolve the
1963
learned trial Judge from examining the
U.YoxE
S.ur plaintiff on oath ; and
."'
U S.AN
{b) that' the learned trial Judge erred in law in pro
MAtii"ro. ceeding under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Civil
Procedure Code instead of under Order 17,
Rule 2 .
C' C' 0 C' . c- . . C' 0 C' C' 0., (' C' ('~
mJg:~CJ u:;;~?20dm2UG8<18Q O?j err GO::J)r'f>31 :D~UI~1t<;UOX:00)9J
GSd?c&>JSJ#: ~~?:Gro:x>t II
"The reason of this rule appears to be that a surety has a
right, immediately on the debt becoming due, to insist upon
proceedings being a't once taken by the creditor against the
principal debtor, and any contract that would prevent the
creditor from suing him would be inconsistent with that right
{s. 139)."
~r.;>c .r,:::c c- c- c- ~ ~f_!?C' ' r,;: c-
~Gt::JIS~e~c:'c; OOCI:>J2:9Jm?:l ~Gtjt:Jg:9f' :x>GO)?~~~C;j<;l :D?Q
5:. .'il 0 00 {' C' [;:;: C' 0 (' (' 00(' .r;::: ('
~~~ romJt:o:rooAf tt1Gt.:_~pc:5J:x>~~ roo::>0:;JJg~~CGOII 8dft8d~c:
" A nominal giving of time may have the effect, .:in sub-
stance, of accelerating the creditor's remedy,. as where having
commen<:ed an action against the principal debtor, the
creditor t(jok a recorded ac.knowledgment of the debt, and
undertook not to enforce it befo:re a certain day-, which,
however, was earlier than the time at which he c9uld have
obtained judgment in the action in the ordinary course. In
such a case the surety, being manifestly not prejudiced, is
not discharged."
o ~ <' r<"G
~roG~~ews ro?m:>roO'J2~19ooror The Secretary of State for
India in Council v. J. Moment ro~ ( o) m/- f~:>~~:>: m2:({&
.
Go.:>:> Go<" oc c o c
OCOOCQG(}) c o c c c <'
.S~:> .::nroq,:c G~:>C O)O)OJ.::03dO'Jffi
o o
O)OJO)roq,:o
,. . L L 6 o l T C..:. l -J J o J U 6 L ll L -.
' r C : QQ.S mm:000ffil
roGUI , GC\:>.I')G
C \ 0 gg CG 0 ~
U " Jt)GCD?C0(}) cx:>rooo : CD
0 \
000&C
OOC'
. U -r-IT -- -r -L 6 t L Jl L ll LL
6
G :>e:&c
C' C'
Jo
ro:;o:roroC'~
0
L
11
'
L
~ro.::n.::n
G
C'
0 0 c c 0c ~ C' C'
. ~ro!lot Gc::n.p'>31 ~02m ro'P:Oflel:;;mu Rankin, C.J. .::n2
Seeretary of.State v. Shiiobinda Chaudhuri ro~ (J) q~ Gro:>oSu1
OC'@ C' 0 ~<;:
roQ?C:
l
~ro:;o~111
L
. "There :the Government of Burma had an ordinary dispute
with an individual about the ownership of certain landed
property. It was finally decided that the property belonged.
: to the individual, and the suit was an ordinary ~ornmon law
suit in tort for damages for wrongfully interfering with the
plaintiff's property. The local Act had purported to say that
all claims to any right over lands as against Government
should be.brought in the Revenue Court and not in the Civil
Court. The Prhy Council held that was ultra vires of the
legislative authority of the local legislature and they held
that a suit for damages for wrongful interference with 'the
plaintiff's property would have lain against the East India
Company for the reasons explained by Sir Barnes Peacock in
the P. and 0. case (3). Therefore the P. and 0. case was
finally affirmed in so far ~s it held that it was possible to sue
the Government for tort if it was in connection with a private
under\ak.ing or undertaking not in the exercise of sovereign
powers. This put an end 'to the doubt raised by Sir Lawrence
Jenkins and Fletcher, J..''-
. .
BURMA LAW REPORTS 595
~~ ( in the exercise of sovereign powers ) ~rS:~:::ooro?'fcOJ~
~~.s?o3
Cj T L
c:O:r,;:~~<:n
ttl---IT J
oo:>uSmroGQIII
6 IL J lJ
(~cor6G<.9T~u1
tj
P. and 0 . o:dGJt..
c ~ c c '"I c c- ~ c o' _C
?
( ) CfJ.C m'P:~e:l:QJlUm G~?mulo:d~c: ~moq~~-
<a ?C!~C
c <: 'cc:. o
GQIO .SetH <J:):;l(')XDG::D? ' moo ~:mel<: o o <: <: <:
CX)O)O):;>~CO)Q OO.S(I)IC 0!, ?
J o U T L 1. Jt ~ l ot. LJ l P U
<: <:OC" <" <:
-c:xn GQJO:;lJ(l')'..IJ?! S'J'PG'P(I)~CY2~<JtmGO II r;: <: <:
tl~c;o:nc~
0 ') C' !i, C' C' C' <: 0 OC' C' 1:": <: OC
<Xflt0)01!CD2!1 g)JS'J~~C GY?C::r.>GY?CS'J?!I OJ0m?:9::Dbl!'Jf O)'P! ~~~?~C
r,;: <: C" r::: <: r::::: C" 'T' C" C" ~
20G~'TSJO!j0Go:>? SJQJlO!nt::t? !D?ffi?Go:moro?:Gt.'.:.:PC: YGOI ~o:>~ J ~
0 0~
~C" C' C" <: OC' C" C" <: C" C" r::::: 2 :~1)ljlll
tjCI GY?C::r.>~Y?C OJ0m?:o:>Y:9.'f'3CD2:1 ::D~GO)'JG::D? GCDJ?G~:Go:
C" ~ t'? OC' C" 0 C" C" (" C" C"' C" C" ( )
Y2<JtGtPt1: ::oo:Groo:>211 ~fJm o:>ooGm?m<:jC:I 00'J0)()9C: o
m::::c:
<: 00
Y'..>m m::n: Go:>?
0 ~
m?ro!Dl>C:~
OC" ?: Q
~::n:::n:~mm
Q C"
GroUJG
C" :
I l l l L 6
' C" 0 r::::: C" (" (" c (" C"
<ao:~:;;ro::n211 ~G~?C. O@<f@ ~;01 00')0):))")(\) 0\:S 9mG~'T O@jj ~~01
t~ c- or,;:c- c- o<: r;:: c- c- r;:::;:::
~ t1 CD Jt 9("))G~SJOO!j0G::D? (';')J'f>m?CVGJtf:SJtj?:m~m GCDJ?G~!G~
OC" ~C" <:~C" OC" 0 C" OC'C" 'OO<: . C"O
~1!9r . t12Gro?c~t:lfY?~ccro~:9::P?:l OJ0m?:<tc~c m'P:~;;q~c~~5l
r::::: C' <: r,;: <:r,: ("
G~?:::~q SJ~!SJ\90)D('JG<Y..ICII
0 OC" r::: C" <: r::::: C" 0 C' C" C" c- C"
Cl:l-I.>?CD'D<iC:rotj?: ~qm GCDJ JG~:G~Y2YJ'J5J::lX~ ::n2;~ 00COJ2!
A r,;: <:
~1 s;~:,~p:ro?:C::l~
'"
G::l'JGO)'J(J)?:~
'"
0
G':C " '" "'~ c- c-
Gm:1'-CXi:3J9m 11:'f>31 O)Gf,"3JC
. C" C" r::::: C" 0 C" C" C" OC" C" <: C"
'0!) (I)JOj;':GO:'JG~?C:II q(G::D? GQ'JGO)?(I)?:qc~m GQ?C:~~
'"G':. (" C" C"" 'Cil C" C" 0 C" <: <: C' ,.s, r,: C' r::::: C"
'O?~tf"'l GYJGO)'J(I)'J:OJm0:~JL~:"3JC qG5JCfOOC o:>?Ofurr9J t1C9G~?c: ..
C"
0)\I)GO)(X)O);;:oQI\I)gi"):Cl::D::D II
C" 0 C" 0 C' gjS'JOOI"' C'
010(1)?:(1)
0 OC"
::oo:mco~
C' 0<:
UCCIC(I)
C'
~ l U U ] ~ A U L -iT~ L jj
c <: c~c c c <: or,;:c c o~c- c '\ c
GY?C:~Y002t911 OJ(I)CDJCr:JC'Jf o:>?OyC02!Y~r:J0::D211 qftjCC02: SJ~OI
c- cr.:::: r,:' c- C' C' .,c;! c-
OJ0m?:~? m?roroo:>;>e;P mot:Dt~'P~cJ mt2=;<:mYp: ~Jl~c:
c- oc- cr,;:c c . o r::::: . c c c t
::n21? o:>::r.>?oroqc :ocr:J0o:>~ 11 qfGe.:f:>S O@<f@ ~;0r 0mo:>::r.>")(\)
c C' C' r,~ C" 0 r,: C' C' C'
0\:S 'j("))G~~ O@jj ~;()I elj ('I) j<j 'JroG~SJOO o:>Gtj:o:>2:~f: o:>G~COJ?
~
c- c c 'l c c erg C' oo
muOO)(J.)YO)()I\1) o:>::Gm?GCO?m ()) <DOO::D::DII OOG
00(1)")(\)-
. ?Cc
J Lit. C:.:, t L
0 C' r;:: C' " " O~.L'? C' C' C' r;;: C' C' r;:::;:::
roqc:3:lt.~:e:ro~m <CO~:S~O{tf"'t1:1 o:>G~C 00 mJOjf:r:JS GCOJ?Gt:l:
C" C'. t;;:C'OC' C"
<aO:GOO?CG0'Jf ~:(jo:>~m:n211
C' C" C' o 0 C' 0 OC' 0 C' ,c;! C'
~::n~p:~~l i'0~:0'Jo;>~ Sll~C:Di):SJ~IDI ro:;>Ul:mJ GO:GOO?G
6~~~11 .
nl!iooe.
.)
&ec lobcoc
0 0 0
cc:c~~re
.;,
(ch::ih:coc.cro1!,)
.)0 .:>
olre~~:chco
.::>
rocc.d:.owcem> r<r~e ll:l.~c ro<o ?_,b cobro~:~~:cbco :G~e 0C~c t
0:) :) J .::> .::> (t3 .:>
II fo ~<X>f,eclJie~a5o~:cbco 10~e :i
~
. l ~~ >1c
i!.. o
0 OC<"CDoO<ll<ll<"
(,r.J,.
y o eo:J
r
']>g
c~~cbco~toe.s) o ,.
('r) ,,1
mG<:>COC<"C.C
:J o :J e
. . .. .
. t '
.nccccc.O\;:Jcce~l GWOO ,. ~2
co:ao
o C.)
:e
.) .) . .) "' ,) 0
( ...
~~ cc~e>ba?Cn<:r.2cc:X:ec:cc<"': ~<c:~~~.; :x: : 7;' ("'~~
~ .J .JO J - :> ::: c ' e ; ; ~ .; ; ~
1
;~t,~~X:::~~
:;" .:;o --~~
_. . ... - -~x
... ..- ..... ::fi!."'t"~-
J ..."' ' J.....i;..z.. .., .....:..-x~-~
; _ -, 8~->
;- _;- -
.. Q~~. . .J~~:~~xu
.:>
t~e:~l.-::.-:;")4~: ~:::c.~:'"':: ~fo:!z..~~~: ~~a-~ :~~_jf: : p
--:; """"' ;I
. fC:::?5:.?:1:cco
~.. 3h ~==~:,
:.,"'...; --~.. . . . _-.. .., ; .. .......... -.., ..,.~- )
-~:f<:
.. ~ -. ..... _ ...,.,.. ~:: ... ~ ....... ...... __.... . . ~ .
..... J .. ._._ ........:::-
:::.:.- o~~ Wc.f:c,ob~coCo
: ... _ .. .J:.Jo' J oo
,~...o .>~
. .,. . . Ac;.. .. :. . ~.;;~
., ........, ~--= -:..~-.r . _:_ ~::fiit>.l.c~
... __ -.,)=~ ::.,-h:...'-.~::.o
:.--<J.. ;:; c~ 'cooob$G$oh:>h!>
o o .,o
. . . ~ -( b ~ ~
:gee:;>~~~~~>--~=-::-"'~.-: =~~~c.::~ :g1~:c.~f)rco . u ~@:>so~=.re~~
cocl:l$e
.> ~
cQ....-c.~..-::.-
.>:J ......... . J .,' ,..:..
- ;
. :;JX!- -.':J"'>">X-'
- .>
::-'Sceo2ww
.> .)
:6$:ct:il:eco:row
:_j.>O
u2cc:~~@b
,) j ,)
[[)''oc:eco. '0c.ooo
0
n (o ~ . e
o ....
Gee bbc-cbc cG l:::l;:.:> .:; e.: :..o
:a c~--c!,...., cc ,.;:x=<'l
.>
s.;:xo0~
.> .> .)
ndcc cG 10 toec
\.
r:de:h:>obG
.> o
Q
&0xr
~'!: ~w46 u),corocc:,f:),':!.'C'.:>::z c~ ~c !- e.G (ooa SsH) rG.f~ C:loc 'ob~:,bbli .
,) ,) .)0..> 0.) - .) ..) .) .') .
0 . u.s
([[)'' ''
;> 0 . . u2cc<l>hl2~'~6ce~ 'cr.2c-:::Xca.x:cw2ro4hl
4cocecc
.) .)::.b ;, .) ;; .) .)~ colkco6
.) .) .)~cc~b:l:llb
.) .)~@
;~ e ;~ebb
,)
cl rocoe
,)
l@f~
.)
~:~C ~c 0w~wow1x'!2cc~to:llrco
~ .;) .) .) .)
,e~:c&5coroco
.>01 IGf~
.) i;C:~c
IICCCC:~~@b
.) .J .)
Co
0
~)b C0 l:c.i'l'll;eroW
I@~~
..)
bb)c l:>re!C:XO
,) \,.)
o\bceiGOCO
.) .) l,..,)
'66S
BURMA .LAW REPORTS 1
.... . ... o .. ~ . t ,, .,,.. _ .. -- . ,.,_ , _ .. ,_"'" ..,.._ _ _ , ,.,.,. .~,ofl,.. f"_,._.. ~ i'r . .. , _. ...... ,. ,,,..,_,,, _ :;..o.:.
ttoz
!4 "', -~ 0 ~r 8
~ 8 ' ) ..r> 8' 8 ' ? ' '(d II) ) ~ 6 ~ 8 :c '''CO'CQ'J ~ !=!(ill ) e s
a';~ ?'
j [81[81_~ ffi8
O'l~Oo ~!) - ~ n'l . ~ .-a '::J ~I') e 8 O'lWgo6"> ~'l:::o: ~~ ~ oO'l ~ .,o 8
8 _t8 u u r _,_'l ~. lo Co 'le>8 dh v \:!o V'l v 4> [81 .-S:::o~ 8 CG'J 8 'I 8 8 !!f,
~~ . o01') .o, ":"; 8 'l~'l a, el'l t> n'l fu-J -g_, nf'l 8 ~ u iJI'I 8 C>Of'l ef'l 1'1 =
~, Of') 1)8
~ -B,.,-B,~oC>~ 8,., 8 . e,., 6)
c. \,) , 8o~ s Fe f?.,., g
~ H,.,j3o-!1,.,~ ~ ~ rn,.,~
8 8 rB o,., 81') ~ ~ .. c ~ an -8 c:2t1
e e 8 ~ So CCJ ~ e
I.J[BI'I =, S
rtl .
S~>!f,~
-o 0 o v ;;,vl I ) 10"1 l 01') V'l
~_Sm~~ S 0,.,-..ov oe>~ ., ~11 u 6'\ uu, u
~1;, ~P.~~"'~ 0 "e ~
~o~O.>... ~
S ...o.., n..,a..,
....n
- C. 8
-f/11') S"~ .u n~.
> ~ ,.. ::>
0"1 . ~ URI>
~ i::i)o 8 ";-~ ~"~
8 8 s
6"> oo- > v8 ,o.., ov 8 ~RJ>n u'l o ..8o u ] c6"> S H .a:: -f/1.., u
- 01'1 'I () S [8] 0: ..oo o u ..So 8. ~ W 0 8 0"1 8 (.') v a"' 8 q; 6"> ~ 8 a
~~ 8o g}lt.j~ ~o ~~ _.., nl') CBI') ~8~ ~~o ~ ~ . )ogs a ... ~I')I') -(II.., .. g. . jl') ;5. . . CGJ
~o ~ ~o 1;"~ A . . to ,
......o<- 8 [81 .
:Ba 8, . ~"~ ~ ..; ~ P. !1 > 8'oC>S ~ 2 < ~ 8 8 u ~ u g ~- <:::~
--r.;'l <- LU J u u.. ' o 0"1 .. 1 LU J a = o o s:; v (GJ ~.
~ ~ 8. . , 6)8 ~ 0), ~~ 4L
s gl') Of') u of)/ s O'l g "'.... r
, [B 2.., 0. ru... o... 0 ~.., So
0 0 '--" ,. 01 0
\:!0 ..) ::ell> .- O[B !1'1 . _,...g .., ., . rOO ~ .,, ;;.Jn e
. ',
.. ,
0
I') .. "' " "': --?., e v "' ~ o S 61 ~-;.....8o 8 <u . , .o, ~g~eo = .an B S ~;
:S j t ~ Cl ~~- 9, ~ ..8o ~>f3 ~ ~ S ~ t>~ C>~ e g 8 ~ (:8, J) ~ S 91"1 ~ ~~o .o.., ;=8 ~ -~~
D9 ~> . fl ..8 ~"' ~o "J. a, ~0 ~ ~ . 8 S~ "(), , _g, o,.fBI'I ~ 8, ..;,; CVl ~.... t.t2n 8 S 0 e ?:.
~ 'l j" ~ [B, s ); ,o.., ~~ ..ao . . V'l ~ S ~.... ~:
;o,.;~ Cl -'ItO ;: (.:Jf;;&, ~ ,4),-{3 .0
~'l 0~ ~n'l -':"~~ ~,O..- .-o ~u .-ao - , V') v
8 ~ -n.., ~-::-an
ioYl e'l = ;=8 fB
,., ,~ !in,& 'l t) , (;B, " ..~p !Co ~eo (d m1 = 8 ' C!U'l a <= S !:; S " r ~ :::0 '
~ 0 a,., S s:; = ~ H 8 "' ~J ..8o ~ V ~o 4'1 cmLUJ ~Ro .o,., B S (.:J
:>.~ ~ .. ~> 0 1') 8,~eo ~ {: m.
q;,., o fl n, .~ o S .o... ..c Bo ~61 el') 3 o o .-a o ~ S '"0
ta.~l') o a ~ ~ v. ,.8 c.1 ~ ..~g=~ :
g v 8u 2u ~61 ..8e :'atO
(.:J r
]l.e0 a~ .o,.,LB"~ ~o ..0~ru 8 u ~.., 8
.-QO ~ .C? u .too ~ r=-1 1 ~
~ ..., J ::.. 0
'"08 ,. !=!o 0 .I)8 U ~ VI')
8 o 8u v LUv J !l'l V o6"> 8 lU .., a 'ij? ~0 '1) ' 'I' j:...f:
0
- ~ .1~ ... .Cl!'hl.., g.~1')~ ~,~aoa, 1;1.):
~.& ~ 1 ~ CC1 u Bo 8 .... 0 's " ~ 0 ,.8 e '\) ~, e>:' ...i.>. vi) "~.. 0 n,., 8o [:8,., a ~ t'B.\ ;=8
~Cal~ ~\~ . ~: ~g~-~o~ i ~~. ~~C>M,j,C>~ 81')-~ r-l>a8.' ~8
--!1~'~ ~,
'-RI>
.o.., rt~ ., ~ ~1\ . g, b ~ ~ og C1 ~ 88,
l 0.., u <- e>O ....... LU J 8 f't1 ~'l r
J.t,-8. j 8 <=~o 8 .~ . . ~ (d ~ ~ . ~ t ~v
dl>o .v 'U u , s LU J (C) ~<~; (d g 8
0
1l (3 1>8 ~ ._9_,; 0 ~>9 o 1>S H g,1,., ~~.., P." gfl e 2" ,b. v ~ . . o -6 .-(3 ~ <:!,., ~ ~~ fl,., ~t ..
8 F8 a... q; ~ cl) e.., i a ~~ :! ,q,;., 6) 8 ~ 8 . ..~. o (.:J = 8
~ ..
C>~ s LBJ ea :~ nl>8, ~ ,e 8 ~g fl8 ll 1)8 ...8 ~ ,-,
"' S, o, ,., u " PliO >
mu ~.., :2" ~ !)..nfBI') -
.. C3l u ,!.8o
3 .....
~8 fl a; e ~~ ~ o ~, CBJ . C:> 8 ~ .. C8lr=-1 Co 88 ~, ..8. o.., 6"> f'?\1
~'I A~ \0
= fl 0 Co ..> C =
88 ~ , 8 ~"~l!j ~ '-' ~"m u 8 '-"' ' 0 e =L> LUI e. fl
u ..Bo .. u ~ ~;:S rJU,.8 rnl') e n,., c .o, 8.., C>o.., .g.., ~ @,., ~ -f/11') ~r8o ...v ~:> v'l ..o,,g-,-0 -(II ~
l09; SL'HOcltffi 'VT::YW1IOH
-- ;,. --.
BURMA LAW REPORTS .
0 0 C'f,"t C' C' C' ')C' C' ~ OC' f:;.C' (' o-
CJ:{~O)J jl:~ylj:G.p?CUI OOCUC\XT.>GC.Jolc::::oc:9J Gf>CJ:{CCU?~JtJC? mJIl:~f'S{t"Y.?
(' C C' C OC' C' (' r::;: C' (' (' '1 (' (' (' ") C'
~S~OX:02~ <XlC04>:;)J qfO~C~~ ~tlfO)Gt:ec:tq (J.)COI<;OC q (J.)C8100C
:;8:n mm::::o~::~
l ll - - T ll:e,j c.:. a98
tl
:;,~
J
aQ8
u. .
(li)mi:IO)t
Jt. ~
Gm-x&~:
L
~cbr::;::?:
co. ~
\ ('
~:::0211
c
O@ji:S ~!IDI ~OXU
('' ' ' OOJil:~;>Go:>?
JO 'JOOG~~ C" ' ' '
'JOOID~o:>2 O@jj ~~01
('
oeli?
"'' ')G OC" C" C' C" C' 0 C' C' <::
G<.9G<.91 019C08J~C: OOJ !l:O~fGo:>? 9001000~GCO?OO ~~:~?:::0200?!C:f<jic:llll .. <:
o c- o c c- c c c o
o:>Go:>? SO)UJQOOID~:)):1'> ()C~qOOIO~GCO?OO ~OCI!Cl?!GlOO?I:l cc:oo
c- o c- O)~?CI:>f
~L l -1 Jl c ~ JL L 61 u. I L
'JC!
j
?,:~~~)
6r;;: ' C'
.SC0:1'>
T C.:,
C'
~'
SJ:))OOOCGID~CG
t
C'
('
C' OC'
0
0
)
('
SJI:lO)C SJC.O:
..tl '-'
'
C"
.
L
liiC
J
OOII>O'i\
<: 0
.<:: 0 C' C" (' OC' C" C'~ C' C' 0 .C:
oei II ~ro~J~C 8J~GOO?CG9: OJ())tjllG():))~? ~U?OOX[>:C\(I::K
' 0 ('
~~"\._-n
-cAL-G moo:>
A ; T C.:. 6 Jt -1
mro~s on~
. G-- L
j j mo-t
C' '
<0Cg(l)'J: 0> ?:C.S<X>CG()COI:l ()Cl())'J! 00100 .SI:ll 0)0):1'>:<:XJ:)O) Cl~~l
O(' 0 C" ') C'C' 0 C' (' C' C'
6 -- T L LJl - -, TJl -t c L I Jl
0 (' (' ''1 "''C" -~ \ ooc ' 0 C" C" C"
W0):1'>!(:X))O) UOO"=>GOI ::>:))? ~0):1'> 1000.iCGGI:l:1'> II OOGO??OOO)IO')O)C
~ oo~l ~ C "' IJ
<o)l
"'"OO?!Go:>?
I.
6 0>1())C'CC'
I;. 1.:..:, A lL
~:m
<&.)
<i:<.91
('
G())<X>GO II (X)I:lO)()I:o:;.::m
L
0
LJ
~
...
G
C"
?C~
C'
IJ
0::>0>8JI:ll:l?9())()~GOI
&. .......
C"
\ 0
o::>~roo:>Go:>?
l " L
('
..tl..
"''
~0)
tl
a, ~
A.
0
0
()000):1'> 0000?:1
A\. c.:, --,
l
\ OOC" C"
()OCI~C~:1'>
A t. l
('(' C.:,
0
~:xlell
. - .<::
W
~ 0
~roo:>?
(' (' (' 0 (' ('
00:1'>::UC:()~:ID'):.\C~U~::n II
g) ~C
C"
GO)Q9Go:>?
0
u c c.:. .II. Q.
- , JL
Q~
C" C" ~
L
lO)IC :)):1'>8J
ll
('
l
(' gc- 6
~GI?:a:>C SJo::>a>mcn:O)O')
C"
L
0
~U)O)O)CD:CO WGUI 2
0 0
Ot) .:.
"''C"
~I .;:t. tJ C.:.. U u lt. -- T :t L, L u
<>C'O
~ro:;o:Gro?roGSJ?c
L
c.- C'
m ~Lmoo
IL.
~: ~ roo:::o:nm
L L
C' C'
C.:. -l oo~
i4) J--
u
o (' roc('Go:>? m
SJO);;)mm:romo:>ro
IL ---r -1. o
:>:SJG x:c- C"
c:m~l?:ro
T 1. u
o ~n"'C'':-
.~.,.-:on .
Q c c c o o c- c-r,~ ~... r;;:, ,J;<., o co cr,::c-
~'JCO)J~C O)())J42?00Go:>:()O) GOOftl: r:f":))Cj'; ~~:ro CDOOGC<Sfl:jc:
~ Gd:>?~:1'>
L
~ C'
o C.:, 1.
('
4'- "'
0 ')C'
(:X))O)GUII ~00 Q)~urom:>:ro:ro GUIC: [~
l
(' (' .91 GCOCO?o:>:1'>
o Go
('
'1C: o o C" o o c o !i1 T C'
SJO>I:J 8JO)QO)m:roo:>:1'> SJO)O)O)CO:O)~C 90Go:>? o:>?:o:>~:~ l?: WGUI O)C
~ IL -LLC ll TJoJl U . c)
~(' (' (' 0 0 "''C' 0 C' 0 (' ''l ~ C"
DC<f?o:>m2,??o:>Gro?ro SJ<f.O) o:l'f':O)SJGUI 3 Q:><X>C\(ml:l?;>UI Dt.<;ta:>a:>
r::::: C' 0 C' C' 0 ~ C' C' OC' C" C" "'' ')Q
-Ge;1?~: G~9o:>211 o::>c:~ DI.O)O):))i:28J~C!C02: O@jj ~t()l G<.9G~I 019
C" r,<?c- ~C" c C' ' (" c.- C"
<:D~C rororogp:~30)e1<,ll O~ji:S. ~I oo:>CO jO 9roGt~ G::O?CXl~<X>?
OC"C' ~C' o o "''C" C" C" C" ~ C" 0
-Gf8JI:l~O)e11:l SJ<.l;(G<X>'f:O)SJGUI 3 9())()~J?! roJil:~fGe1?C: G~
C"
'9:::0211
" 17. The Burma Divorce Act shall apply to all marriages
contracted under this Act. and any such marriage may be
declared null or dissolved in the manner therein provided,
and Jor the causes therein mentioned, or on the ground that
it contravenes some one or more of the conditions prescribed'
in clauses (r). (2), (3) or (4) of section 2 of this Act."
. 'LAW~PORTs!-.
BURMA ~-:.. ~
61t
o o6 .- c;ro:::otm
r <> " c- o c-
oxo:::o
l
::;,1[0<' ;,::;,)
11 l,j , \... L
:~c
J -r ,11.\:_J: t:N>G~-:>C CT.\G;J<DC
L -:i . Q
II
C:OC'"'' ( C'
G~')C4:>f>O Ij GCDpmco:>:~~J '):)
~8
J
( GCD~:>CJSCQ0:~9~) *
:!\' ,.;,.G~
"-' f
~~~i
L.J
mm:~ rJJGt::ti.Goo~~
--L . 6 , QJl . ,J
nc;n
(.,
c- c- ~ o c- oo o o c-o o c- o oo o
!Jd'[o:>~p:o:>~ ::!JJ'J:5 ~~~CDJQ!'j-f~Go:>-:> o:>'[):ID'JO:>~J?:q ~~
9 Q ("
m::mo:>: CY.>JOOID'J~~II
11 ( ~~15~b:gen) 5cf>~:~:~u 11 wt'.oene:cbcoefuen
.) . .
11 l;e~ll
0
11 oo~oo:lrcow
.) .) .
" <> n ~ <> c ' ' o r _,_ 1 r_ <> ~ } <>
;?CD~ec.cc:t'llel CDOO t:oel:~co:XO COCOWIIOI:>~:~C.() COOCI O~C.() I oeC.CCI~tel~ COO)
- 9.1 :J .>O .> .).:J.) .)O .l L .l .,)0 .> .> .> .) .;)
0
* ( e:cbcoe~e.r;)
:x:>~ce>4bi~:)Cooe>@hl
0 .)0.)~ .) .) ~
r
~~
.)
c~~cbco~Lbe.r;)
1r 11 ,
f>e
0
cnec .)coo .A>cb
sjjioamr
.....~
M.v::J.
_...-
- ... ..-:vmns " tt93
.. . .
S~1!0dH1!a~\V1
~r.
vmng:
... .... .
~ \ ' "' I ' o
nt~&w to~olfo!)G:~I;~f;;,.ci" rbcl(fJ' r~~ !'Ghcocc~ I
'0 .:>':J~ G .:> !'~ .> .i :J'
ir~:~Cc
:.J:J.
~ee~el!oecco;~ w~e c~:~~c .... :J.) ;.)"ft"
. .'. . . '
li 0~611 ocoCoroOO:Cbco.S~
.) 0
..
t ; ~" o ~n 1 , , , <> <>
I!OOI'oo: cc U<l>COtoeilS'COOCO 0<0<0<.0
n ~ coro
j :> .J.....J .J :>O
l hrcoec:o.., :scoococo:
:> .:>o e o .>o .> o
r;:>e<.CC:f're:~
.) .:> .:>
.. r
0~
.)
(~:d:Ko~&lw) ~9~5cft~
1r ,, l_
~ecow COO .Q>(.C)
.)
S.DIOd3if; MY1 ~g
'. ' -1 \r ., I t '
. .. . .... - ~
cs~c
::c~ii(F
-.-...UO~
.. z-~lElS Jo pe~f.l e .<q ~ltrnl2 uopmd ;>;>l.:J e s;e 1:>;).JJ;> ;>mes dl{l
~Aeq)! SdOp lO 'ltmmqs!und JO UO!S~!t,U;>l UE;}Ul Alal;}Ul 1! SdOQ
zSdse:> q:>ns ~ SD)i.io ..<~Sdumv dq1 10 :p;>jp ;}tp, S! ~et{M .,.
-c.kg.
11 :4cccctoe:d :h.l&:cbco
-'O e .0':!
uC:Ca:oQ~bce&obloro
.> .>::.3.> .>:.:1.>
~&@ci:~
~ .) 0
(uopnd 3:ud) ~c.a::t~fe:fl5l coi
.> .> .)0.>
1
o:b~ MwcGRro c.cc~:c.~re
;""'"'!'.j ~ .), .)~ . .) r~:ob
J,.; .)
l@d:'c:c.cxx.oc:.6
.) .)
ohlcc:cro:k5R
.) :.l . .) ~
~@a:curo1rl
.> .>o:.l.:>
~eca::flre:flhlco~:ro cuooec:crflJ.;Ghlcoo~ cub:~eccco~oo~
.:> .>C:J.> .> .:>~.> o .> . .)O
u@flbcelbobl:x:o ~@a:~~GQ~Co& ca:~fl:ocuohlec~flca: ICC
.) .)~.) .) .>~""', \ .) .)~ .) \
CCO~~
.) &ccce>~OO:llrculo\oH
.) @cc:ob
.)~ .) .) IOQCCCCO~~fl
J:J 0
(uotl::>!AUO:))
. .
c.oreob~
' .> .) &
:c~~ohl
.) .>:.:1 ccc~:co:xoflre
.) ~:&cue~
.) .)
.):Xo.J.,rc=bcrococbu Ncul'ekhl~
.) 0 :J
o@ccro:>
.J
ohl:o~nec~
.):I .>::1.> \
tc:2of:(:;J&:cbco
0 0.) ~
~bkhl~ 0h>c~<tehl
.) 0 :.J J
ccc~~fl-b (uop.red ;);}.I d)
oeca::flre:flhlcoOOo:ro ~cureob~Ghr ca:~ecollrefl:&c.ocec~ fbGhli;C n~chl:Rc.or6'>cno
.:> .> .> ~.> :J .> e .> :J \ .> .> ~.) :lo :f.> :3 f>'J.> .>
h>(uot~::>TAUO:::>) c.oreoboc.a::x.oMe
o .> e.:> .> w
to~::>!:>
.>
uhlcol.\X.Oo o
OJ.> o .> o 'l:.o&t:e1bec bec~~1:o
.>O o
1cb\;wrroooei!oec ~~eececlccc.@r~ ~c.cc:flre:l'l!Jcoro uRohiJ.!..be:..J:l:o~filec
o.> .J .>t,., .> .> .> .>~.b OJ.>.:T"'"""' 3'~ .>...J
wcoc.ro~ 1bec ~ob Mh:(:;Jcocc.;)cb <X!cc:ob c.k~ctehlc.a:~c.rocoJo~ 10~ 1cb:coo
~ .,) . .,) o.:3.J .) .,) ~ .) t.. w
coc.fro!l
.:J
~bocohcof,@l'lec:o!>
.) .,) .) .) .)
I.)ooo:obr..GbiS~:~CUCX>eD
.) .,) .,)
l@cc&:crococ.f6:>
.) .)
11 ccfl}ccfbsog:~ ~&~cc~b ( uopl11d
;}:JJ~) j>eca::~re:~~~O:~~gec!r (lOlplQ AlSOlutuy) oec.a::l'lfe:Ahl~'O
~ .> .> .>oh
. . . . ~
l z9 ~s~0aa~r M.v1 ~vmna: {9611.r
:hlco~b ~bGhl 01<::e& ~occ ,cre~:~hxe lc.&corecose2b 1::>hl~cc
ol:> ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~~""
,. r n . '::! ot o n ~
.,-
~wee ::>lg:c,,~:c.cc =~ :~
, ::>::.
b::xo 1 ~Ieece
. :>lg, c.~c; c;l'le!l ~~c.cc:~1e . .
.)o-~ ~ . . ~ ~o ~o ~ ~ ~o ~ . ~ . ~o ~
c.cc~~hleoro b:~es ::>::>~ 1w :::>cett:2 :~~~IS~ b:~ro lk.@o
. .:>~~ o . ~~o ~ e. e .. o . o
n!?:c.rol~e:c.ltC2 ~~:b ~~
".p~sop S! ~Sl:!:) .I~plQ A::l~uury .1~pun p~qsl:!nb S! UO!:P!J\UO:>,~
ul2cccco~ro
~ .) 0
1fbcuro ~0 (; ~
'5'~ 0w;~es:e,IOWC.C.C~ 1bec ~~a:;
~0
~Jc.rc:~re
~ . ~
: .)~Sk.d:o
6J:>
~
(,.)OI~e ~l:lik:) l)ee.G
"
C.CC~b wfe:c.Q~t2 ~bc.oo loc:dfl~e.G ~
~ :=:b ~ ~ 0 0 ~0 ~ '
Oc_Qoccc~:x>:lrwes ~~;~ro~ec.cc:de:~5kceo 101~e ~~tlc .:.: ~c.o
1~ ::::1 ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ob ~ . ~ " ~
;~a:; :::.:>l:'l:flccco& :d~ 1bro ;~'~cc ~~c.cc:~re :~Reo& 101'4e ~s:~tlc
~o ~~ ~o ~ ~o ~ ~ ~oh ~ ~
nn:>ic.oo
"::>
:~c.3hl
:> ~ '5' ~ 0 ~ ~
,~&> " ~C:Cccw~)Q o~~cc:~re:~Cl
..) .:>5'J
ro&Y
~
mh:>
1wloro
~
:df)oohl
~~ ~
roo~Cb :c.Qro ,e>Cero 1wb~ro :b~~cco~
~ l- 0 0 ~ ~
::>::>k~~Q~::>c.coe>CC!hl l::>fcoe ~0::: 11 rwCt..:eeco~ahl coc~cb :c.l?es""""
~0 ~:_j ~ - ~- :.;J ~ \ ~ 0 ~~ :> . -l
OO~::>to~ wbb ~cc~hlcolu ~~eel(] 1CC!CC :2:2co :c.cc::>::>~ t:>::>::>i- ~~~~
e~o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o '$ ~ e e ~ o ::> ~ o ~u
~::>c.co~(2hl
~ ~ ~, :>
1:Xo (c) C Ghro ~~e.G oec.cc:~re :~5iaXo IOI~e ~~tJc . .
~o - ~o ~ ~ ~oJ.:> ~ . ::J
u~co ~t,O~JS'~ c. ~a:c~ L~~cc~~ ~b:o~
1 1 i!_1 ,. 2 r ~,. _]_ __ i!..~ ~ r'::) , '::!
c.o]a; :ceec a:::oe 1axo: 01~ : cc:oxo:o 1cc~
,:, o o e.> o
1 ..) .:>CO() ..>::::~cc~o~~
..> c ..>o ..>
::>i-c:efu
~0
u-,((!CCOIQ
~
:hl:c.~WC.QooXo o:lu ~ (uOll::>TAUO::>) wre::>b0
:>:1 e'J .) ~ ~ . ~ ~ e
:c.\;::>ro
~
/!;~hi
~~
c.cc~~c.cxx.oMe
~
1o~ec d:>
..L ~
tC2cc:~cc
~
:blc.~e:cHc:c.cowc.lk~
~o :>~~ e ~
oc.Qsc.cc~Oihl :hlrnbx.oro ~:::c.ro~ c.cce>bbdw 1f!;:'Al ~c.cc:ftre
~ ::::1 .>~ el)o ~ ~ '5'~ ~ ~
:~Redo WOO~CO WGXOO~ ~:~oNCC C.CCe>Wb:Jcol,re lfj;!:ooohlec
~o'h 0 e~ ~ ~ ~ :,':=::1~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ o
bec ~ob ~Gh :h-lcocc~ IO~e.G d:> t::>&>tn U Ot CU c.o{,a:; ~:QrooA><h no co
. 0
r
l ~ &:::b ..L ~ ~ o .> ~ e:~~
:2co:I=:'J~~:>
0 ct1
1~01~e CCtlc 1:&
(c) :~&:dxo
e:l :&:>ro '~i~w~b
0 .) .)
1bro ~0
~~ ~~~c.cc:~re
~
~Reo&> 1wb~
: ~oh o
::>::>~ COI:c.cowc
~o ~ ~
~co~ ,&a.x.dc.5
o ~ &~~a; :r,ffi
~
,;;..
...,.......
S..DIOdni M Vl vrruq~
i963J Bti4tAW REPORts- f.t if
c c@c c c oc c c
m
~ ~u~~~:
J
O:Y:>:G::D? <J8d;il roo:> ;J:
u. -, 6
~I(J::>J?Ol::: !)d(J!;~C
tJ c. ~j 0
!)d()')tl:OCG::D? a;J(J
tJ Jl o~G?
0 crsc
c c ~- crsc c c oc c
~:>:ro1 ro:o roo:> <J: ~'=>::x>:>~:::Go: :1 roo:> (;lg ;;li(,:>;::D?Ol::: ro~o~.sa.c
!;; G~Gf@3:.002:
U L I. 0 U A o A tJ 6 10 J o
c c ~c c ., c r,;:c t;: c
34:'DJl: '=IOCG::D? ro~~o~p:qc 8d(j0 smGronGO!~u:9of l:j~::Di:jC.I g)j8d~ ~011
.,
: c- C G CC OC : C 'crsC C C OC c C
-o:>c Grot:>roro:>:::n :1:GC'? ::: ::n.s: ::n:n1 roro <J: ~t'=l:::;l)?Ol::: ml.l.s~c ::nro
6 ll 11. [, T C:.:, 'll tJ o 10 J,
oc c c c 'I' c. c c crsc c
-OOC::Dl~C I cc:roGOI GSd?mCI: ~I<Jmro?:G::D? OOI.l ro:O rom (:)': ~1(;1:
L u ---, H-u u J Jl J .. o u
c o c c~c r:::;::: c c c~ _c;:
:oJ?~~ ~::n2ur roc 13c 9tooGt:ec: G9J-=>roro:>: rocti~;~n
cc c
"~'' oc c G cc oc-. 'I'
!)dCX):J)~ ;;l::D:TI Sd:DC:I G::OI?()')CX>?:::D e:GC'? C x.;;: l:GGOI
G<.91
D oU L lJ IL l
(". (' C' C' 0 C' 0 ("f0 C"
0 c 0
c _c:. c- c 'I' c c c - - G c: c-
cc:~ ro:x>Q (;I;Jt:>:rocl cc:roGOI ~t(;lmro?:G::n? ol.l cocc:>: =c ~1m
I . il JL lJ 0 l uJ JL ;; ~t ""
. . ) o c cr,~ o o c o ,.s:.~~ !::3:
( COUVlCtlOn ~I U().)t9Jffi(j:l 8d~9,1 00)0:>?:~"-'{j: &G:x>?
.-- c c- .,. c c. c- c c g c c
~!m?~l Cc: . G:~Gvl met G8d?roQ: ~t(;lmCX>?:Q::D? O(;l CX)CQ?t
~ 1 C) 1.!1 IJ J Jl .a OOC~I()')
- -t v
(~o~~iction) l.l~Gro? :x>{ 96::x>21 ~~ roJil:~fG::D~ ~(:)
_c ' O)')(J.Sc 3dc
(.J.)O)GO)?:DI c ,
D ro::::dG::D? , o c
o:>roo:> c
IOG.SO):TI(.J.) cc
COC C U):::ni:l
L T IL L T c l 0A.---, 0
'-~ c
G0(:)211
C C G C COC 0 ( ) C" C C C
mcorooo~:G~Gf e~<>CGI.l~COf m~ ::> qGI U)~C o:xp:~O??()')I
'I'~ G C C"
<G<.91 (jGo:>:l OI>)C0?:5-
~ 1,;; C c 0 C C' CC OC o C ~c
'Oflijt ~:l:jro OO?::x>2<q GOJ?()').IijroJCI ~CC ~:9m1 '-?C'OO) (jO~<JJ?:
~
c ro:o
romro1
l
crsc c
0)0) (:): Qt~::n?Qc
A 0
c~oc
t. L l
C', m
roroo:>:n
C.:, L
c ro-:>:o:> C'
c?s:
CJ T
co B
c G c~c oc C' c 'l' c ~c
>G9J?roro?:O[I e:GC'?O~o:>y: ::D21 CJC: SdGOI ~J'fO) CX>?:Go:>? rs.ltJO
c C' con~g crsc C' c ( Free Pardon) 9" c ~
Jl :n:nm~
0
smlii:::
J :J JL J
ro:o
L
rom
A
r.J: Qt<J::x>?QC
U A C.:. - fL
,ro[~[ U);;QQ~ r,;:~ II - ----- - . . . - -- .-~ .
.. .- .,l. j., ... IL-- -, T .t1
('B
.?(!~? G1S
~I
g ;J:::::O:n-s::n:x> G::OI"XT.>CO?::XJ G81 <!:Cl)SQ:);,) G::; "\ 000 G.:II:<X>
ox::.:n::
(' ('
0
('
:x>::>.);,)?:));::o:
"l'
L
(' <:.
t. - , __.
G:.>l
U o
0 c
roc~ 11
[s(' ")
m cc:tmG:x>? ~'?.o>:mdl ?:<.l?
(' rotD'JQ)l[O
o GJ t...- h o J lJ J L U
c (' (' (' ' (' ")C' (' rc rc ('
:).)2 BJG:;p::;:tD?Q)JlO ~q::n::::o1 G:;p::::~ul:::tD?<>J[U::D? ;.::;l~[3C:I Gropmcx;")g~
")" OC' r GG C' C'o (' C'.,OC C' C' ~
G81 etDym G~Gy~ 2:::::o~fg::J.l")g ~O?~::::o::::;t>:9t~~C:G:Xl'JCD2: G~G;>~:
G C C' o C'
G :>;;a Qs:l GCG.s:m: ?:::::o~,.":ro G81 e0.s
~o:>o:::n:::;;~sr,nxn
C' 0 0 C' (;:G G C , ")" oC
2:::::o!P.S:\'n
LT
co o
l J,
c
L
c
~"! TL..J
IT t
'I' o c
c cr;;: <: .--.
c. ....... L
co c c o
T
<' r,;
BJ?:I GCDOO?CClS~(SD:;:m:>::::-;;:u?roG:Xl?CD:D:I G81 etD.Sm Go:>Oo:>CQ00).( )')
J L -lTC/ W lJ L C I J L 1T L L
r o~ c c o~ c .5:. ~ c c c C'A; . ~
G~?~EJC: 0:).)2:~8Dc;JJ II gp;~;;um;,)p:~~ Oo:>:DCDSJI G~Gy~:~p:
CG "l' ocr;;:c ~ G c r;;:c "l' c c
GCDX:tD~t\:m G81 (;IDftJ~GIDI GgGf~~ e:o:>~f:tJI!>GI!> , GOI ~C COC~J:l:
C'
Gmjc :Xl:nG:Xl~ q~C()') G<SI
c OC'
L L
")"CO?:en<:_ II ~:D::DOC
C.:. L
C 0 C'C'
IDG01 ~QG
oJI T
6: G
;)::pro~:
L hI
C'
C' 0 C' C' . J;: C' OC' C' C' C' C'A,
Q)Jlo~:;:o:G:D? 0?;;1JjO::D2 ~G~~G[jJC:~CG:Xl? O'fe:!:~q Oo:>::DffiSJI
c o cr;;: erG co c c o c
Q)Jl:O~w?:G:J.:>? tD?QJlDtlt>~: cto:>~o:>cco?:e~c : ~11:n2~ ? ~:~ cc:~cGm-:>c
c oc c r::: [s
-r c c <: cr.;:c c o "l' oC'
GOI ~o::>c~rn:n~ ffi;;IJCD[90GO:Xl~ll G~ j,OOO GQ)~:~o:G:D? GGI 1Df
c <' co c c c o <' r.;:c~
:J.:>!:DI :J.:>")dS~o:>:.>o:>::::o::>?:IQ::::~(;l:J.):D GCGQ)Ig:XJI(Stl)C\ GCGO)jg(l)G:XJ"):XJ~'J
1:.:. T J t. 0 J l:.2, A lJ ItO :"1 A 1..1 IL ltJ
0 C' "'\C C' t: (( "' )) C' C C'A; ~ C C' C' 0 f,"; ('
~28?Q)I~ otO:Dm 01 BJGo:>?BJo:>y9SSJ G~Gy~:cqocy:qc Sd:XJG;~:::;
.IDG<DBJ. ~I'J:G:XJ? ~CIG B :d)G(l)')ffi (" '19" c:.(' 0:Xl:-l"ll:l? GOI c C'O~<::
"l'a::>CCDIOXellll
u
CO ');:::(' GClG.Sg :
Ofl L 0 ~1 T J t:. .it
0 G C' C C ' 0
;:>:o:>:D.s:m GCGQig(l)roO)C :XJ')I:ISGCG~/::Xlm:Xl
oL oJI T o u tT 6 0 Il-L A T 0 IL o oL
ltJ
XII)
~GQ.s<,}:l)C::::OI :J.)'JG.SGCGQI;(l):J.)O)O')ffi
C C'' C' 0 C' C' C' (' ('o
20G~O:D? BJQI;:D~QIC:~c
L fL-IT- tJo T ~ ll IL L C..:. ..__. tJ J o ~ L
(' C' (' 0 0 C'
G:Xl?~OG
0
GJI T B
(' 0~
: GCGQ)I:::D ans C GQI:(l)G:Xl'JGC:Do:>CD
A U
('
ll.
0
T
('
o
('
1J IL
(':;;C(l);;:o~n II A
~<:.
cl
0?Q)Il0m O::>:J'JO
U L L
0
.o:>CD Ql lO;;:o ~Go:os CDBJO:Xl:'l'l()') OJC 20~:>1 20GOOC'')
L lJ L L il IT L C L ll e
C'A;
I
G C' ( (')] ' 0 C' C' 00 0 C' Q C'
::::Oiffi(l) a:> tD?;;~:'io~~:lCSJ I G~Gf<qO~C. ~9_~G:Xl'J q~lC007f;::n2
(' (' 0 ( ) 0 C' (' C'
(;)Gm?c:G:XJ") mmJq 0-:l'J~ Moral T urpttude 1\C\.jJCI G~Gycqo~q
OC' C' C' 0 A; C' (' C' C C
.G9~cGo1 _ G~Gycqc.>~qot'l9J G~Gycqocy: G~x~a:x;p~ Moral
o c c c o " c- c c C" ' o c c-
, Turpitude . I:I~G:D:>c cqucy:~G;;:o:>c~ox.:ty O{BJOGO:Xl211 G~Gycqo
~.x:n~ [GQ
_
~I
Gs~:o:>G~:l')~~nS
T~
G~:n~
C:. ~
ro&~;<&~ w6d5trocn~
~ ~
.ii
G~.S
~- T
~ g -<;: :~
C'O
(lC8):XJffi") m
L
C.:.
Q
T L
~
L
C' C'G
Sdl;l~C Gt\)I'J:D0'J
J( J 0 c:. 6 u
~ C'
L
.
a::>OG;;:o")CClffi ;))CG:J.)'J
L .L
C' . C'
.51
L L
C'
0
6
-
~'i.~ ("
::Ot:::""'A))
,<'A> ....J:::
""~~
<" c- c- <' c- cr.:;<' C:,.J;
~ei"':J ~Q\oxp:~lP::PCI::P~ Common Carner
cr,:<" <"
~tq;om~:J "'"i:e=~~:>w:~J ;om~OJoc=~ocviC:ll oa;o'lftl:O:D~Il
f: ('
~:m :D~f
('\ ('
Carners-
~O)')l~J
1:<' c cr.s ~
'l~~ [jo::o~. coccr-~;o::o~ 11
=...." ~QC.!S.
~"':J G!n?m'JIC>Cf~J~ oo:><JJ~~ II
<" 9 (' C' 0 (" (' 0 (' ('
~c,
e ' ,tjt ('
::n:;o~:..8
.., - t.J
Jll ttX.D=a>:ro
0 ('
~CfX'O u
Q
ue=~~l:ocu
a.--- T L .,.
Q ('
OOOO~O'XJ"\:~mox~n
ll ---r 4)
n e:OX>J~:u
~ e oe[ oc
S:
Q 0('
. o:>ro::l:> ::>:c:o:>:Y.>:l:>.SI II um roo:>ooo:>:n I ;;>Qcaxn:oo:
o~
l
.0 0"\9 ;;>~~~
\;...)
e
IL
i. J
l..
men:~
-. r
8
:~OOOCD
1
e
J\. J
~
\
C:J
J
IL Jl
'l" 'l ('~
C
c:::
L -
;"I
0
ll -- -[
l
e
Ll
.
::>@?~
. ~~01. ~m~:>: Q:l9ca:::ro9J~c ! <C?<:>J<T.7? '"'2@ ~c-
- - ~
oom:~~oo~
T IL
.
' c:!Q 1:(' ~O~C'"O C'
o:xp=~e~' 2 :01;t.I?C'~ <D'f>l~e:~' ~t:ox: ~~~
t oe_li?
Grol (!)I
g
ro~t
C' (
roqQo:>'P:cq0) 0
Ol"
~t\)
~t,
y'j~ II J
( roq~ro'P:~) *
C' OC' C' ~
o~~=oot:{:lc:t_j:
c- c-
SX:GOO':>C\:10Collfe1eoo3
co c
0~01
r: c-
~c:JOOGOO~t::j:<O~I.IJ"I ~o:o:>tJC: I
c ~ r;;:c- c " c:.,
(J<~ IOOI'!f' Ol'j<l:
C'
0 ~
~~~~?I ~I ~I
0
~~,=ro~~mu O)pdJu
0 (' e c-oc
~~m'P:~~mu u.e:~;;u
C") ~IGO)':>C:J
C' C:.
t
C' OC' 0
C'
:IG~e , ~;()I flX:GOO':>CI:>OC~~Ij<D
C
C"
C C'O C
:J C' ,.S
~ ~O)'f?I'JIO>J[O ~:7.)0)
C (
~J~o:>?~jrq ~O>Oc~ll
L~
...,. ....... . :
~
,J.:.O~--~~-
,.
.... . BuRMA: EA.w' a~i5 r;.,-.~
.. ,,..
!:~C.: ..
- -...--
~
. .
..;:.:.__ -:,.,. ~~,_,,.... , J
~-
0 0 OC" t:
OXfll::l;te;!l 21100-:>0XOfl ~~
Q '"
e:GmpOji: tJCOOC9fGC\jj')C/)(D')COj>J
cr: (" (" (" (" ,, oeS? t
~l ~(I)
Q
2:00')00
Q cr: (" ("9tlcooc fGC\1jJmCO'):C} ~
J
C" C"
9
)
.. l c
O?'l.m
('Y.)J(I~O:>~ro,o:>?COU~
The Plaintiff/Respondent was the second wife of the deceased and had sued
'the D efendant/Appellant who was the keittima adoptive daughter of the first
marriage of deceased, for the administration of the estate of the decease~
The property sought to be adminisrered was the payin of the deceased, to
ibis second marriage with the Plaintiff/Respondent.
In passing the final decree for administration, the t_rial judge.had held that
'the Plaintifl' was entitled to !th sha~e of the estate and. the Defendant was
-entitled to. .the remaining tths. On app~. to the District Judge, the decree
was varied and both parties were given equal shares.
Held: The learned District iud~e had overlooked cert.~iJ?. decision~. Of
>the Chief Court of Lower Burma where it has been h eld that the widow is
;entitled as against the children of her husband by .the former marriages t 0
<One-fourth ~hare of the property which her husband brought to his marriage
with her.
. Ma Ba We v. Mi Sa U and oihers, II L.B.R. 174: (F:B:); and MaLay and
cn'e v. Tun Shwe, X L.B.R. ro, referred to and follow'E;d.
Ma Nwe v. Ma Sai Da, VII Rangoon, p. 578, referred to.
Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the trial. coUrt. wa$ rest~~d:
1963
facts giving rise to the present appeal are briefly these :
DAWPU
v. In Civil Regular Suit No. 3 of 196 r. mentioned abo-..:e
DAW AYE
TIN. the plaintiff Daw Aye Tin who is the respondent in the
present appeal sued the defendant-appeliant Daw Pu for
administration of the estate of her deceased husband U Ba.
Tin. It is common ground that the defendant Daw Pu was.
the keittima adoptive daughter of U Ba Tin and his first
wife Da'vY Ohn Tin, who predeceased her husband. It is.
also not disputed that the property sought to be admin
istered w.:~s the payin of U Ba Tin to his second marriage
with Dav,; Aye Tin. A preliminary decree for administra-
tion' was passed by consent of both the parties. However,
when the finar decree was passed the learned trial judge
held that the plaintiff Daw Aye Tj.n was entitled to one-
fourth share of the estate and that the defendant Daw Pu
was entitled to remaining three-fourths. Daw A.ye Tin
being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the tria!
Court appealed and the learned District Judge holding that
the trial .Judge was in error in giving- the defendant one-
fourth share of the estate varied the decree by ordering
that the plaintiff and the defendant should .receive equal
shares of U Ba Tin's estate. -
Now, it is clear that the learned District Jurge had
overlook-ed the decision of the Full Bench of the Chief
l,'
* Civil Second Appe11l No. 36 of 1962 against the decree of the Additional
<district Co.urtof Basseinin-Civil;A:ppeatNtr. I' of 196z;dllfed' x'6Ui' M'a)>' i'962:
Besides, " Expl~nation IV " to section 1 t of the Civil Procedure Code says ~ . e:
that any matter which might and ought to have been mad.e gro1,111d of defence cf ~.~b~
attack in a former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substan- DAw _MvA
tially 'in issue in a subsequent suit. 1n the case now under consideration it would t/.
be difficult to say that the plaintiff ought to aver in the same suit such contradic- Ko~UNG
tory state.ments to the effect that (1) the house in question is reasonable and TH'.lli.
bona fide required by him for his own occupation, and (z) that it should be pulled
down for the purpose of erecting a new building in its place.
Therefore, the Defendant/Appellant's contention that the suit now under
appeal is barred by res judicata cannot be accepted.
Regarding the question of reasonable and bone fide requi~cment for re-
erection, one cannot apply a subjective test, but must be decided objectively in
the context 'of facts and circumstances relevant in each case.
Dm' Da-<~J Tlzi v. U Thein Maung and Co., Ltd., (t'}s6) B.L.R. q (HC),
rcf.:rred to.
Ac,vrdingly, on the e\idence, the two courts below cannot he <: 1d I~ l: e
wron~: !" the concluson arri\ed at by them.
:~c.c. /,,on the 25tli of June 1960, Ko Maung Than fi.Ie'd another suit
?~~ against Daw Mya in which he averred that the notice to
D.-\~.MvA quit had been issued to her on the 2rst of April r960
KoMAUNG asking her to vacate by the end of May 1960 and that the
THAN.
,premises in question were required by him bona fide for
his own residence. The suit was. ho\Ve\-er, dismissed by
the learned trial Judge on the ground that the plaintiff was
not the " owner " as defined in the proviso to section
12 (r) (f) 0f the Urban Rent Control Act 1960, as he did
not .own th~ premises on the rst day of May 1945 or had
become the ownerthereof subsequent to that date by
inheritance.
On the 13th of July 1961, the plaintiff filed the
present suit for ejectment on the ground that the premises
in quest.ion were reasonably and bona fide required by him
for the purpose of erecting a new and substantially cons-
tructed puilding on its site, the suit being one under section
'I2 (r) (e) of the Urban Rent Control Act. Among the
defences raised by the defendant Daw Mya were:- (a) that
r
the suit was barred by section r of the Civil Procedure
Code read with Explanation IV thereto and (b) that the
plaintiff did not require the suit premises reasonabfy and
bona fide for the purpose of erecting a new building. Both
these issues were, however, answered by the learned trial
Judge in favour of the plaintiff Ko Maung Than and his
. suit was decree'd. The defendant Daw Mya appe;:tled and
the learned Judge of the Additional District Court of
~assein agreeing with the findings of the learned trial Judge
. .dismissed the. defendant's appeal with costs. Hence this
appeal.
Now, se~tion r r of the Civil. Procedure Code in so far
a~ it is .relevant for the present purpose enacts that no
. Court shall tz:y any suit in which the matter directly an'd
:s ubstantially, in issue has been directly and substantially
in issue 'i~ -~ former suit between the same parties litigating
under . ~e s~me title, in a Court compe~ent to try such
BURMA LAW REPOR!J?S-- 657
subsequent' suit and has been heard and finally decided by c.c.
1963
such Court:
DAW MYA
"Explanation IV.-Any matter which might and ought to v.
Ko MAUNG
have been made ground of defeaC"e or attack in such former THAN.
suit shall be deemed to have bee:1 a matter directly and
substantially in issue in such suit."
Oct. g. v.
U HLA MAUNG A:-.iD tvfA THAN KYI (RESPONDE~TS).*
Partitioll-Suit for partition-Court rrithout power to direct a sale apa7t j1wn
the provisions of the Pa~tition Act-dismiss~! of suit -tdtether proper-
prop,iety of allowing 011Wtdment of pleadings .
.The Respondents had obtained a decree for possession against the Appell:mt
in a previous suit and at the execution proceedings the Appellant's husband has
filed an application under o. 2r, r. roo, of the Civil Procedure Code without
success. ~e had thereafter filed a suit for Declaration against the Respondents
that he had a one-third sharein the property, under o. 21, r. 103 of the Civil
'Ptocedure Code. In that suit he was successful.
Thereafter, the Appellant's hus-band filed the suit related to the present
Appe~;l against the Respondents for partition of the suit land h)' the method of
selling it and distributing the proceeds of the sale in the ratio of ! : fr.
A preliminary objection was taken by the Respondents that the suit in it
present form was not maintainable. In the meantime the Appellant's husband
-died, and the Appellant was brought in as his legal representative.
The objection was upheld by the learned trial judge '\\ho dismissed the
suit.
On Appeal against such dismissal:
lield: If apart from the provbions of the Partition Act, 1893, civil courts had
inherent power to order sale of the immoveable property sought to be
partitioned on the ground that it is just and equitable to follow such a procedure,
the pl11intiff's suit would be quite maintainable in the form in which it has been
presented. to the Court. However, Oll the question whether such an. inherent
. 'Powe~ is. possessed by the Court there is great divergence of opinion.
Pannala Datta v. H1ishikesh Datta, I Cal. p.192; Nitva Gopal Sa7m1nta
:v. Prarr Krishna Dau and others, A.I.R. (1952.) Cal. 893; R. Ramaprasada
iRao v. R. Suhbaramaiah and others, A.I.R. (1958) Andhra Pradesh 647
refe~:red to. '
Among the conflicting views, the view taken by the Calcutta High Court
"that in. a suit for partition the Court has no power to dir-ect a sale apart from
' the Pariition Act and that the power of the Court. to direct a sale in a suit for
;partition must be held to be limited to the case~ provided for within the Patti-
ion Ad, is the sounder view.
~--------------------------------~------------------
9ivil Fi~t Appeal No. 27 of 1962. against the decree of the 4th Judge,
'City Civil Court of Rangoon, in Civil R~gula Suit No. 447 of 1960, dated
~3th February zg62.
. . . . : ..'~; :.. ..- -~lt
BURMA LAW-:RER'QRT~
- .';::; ~ - -4 ~- ~
661
Accordingly, the suit was not mainta"inable in the form it was presented to c.c.
the Court. 1963
However, the learned trial judge should not ha\c taken the drs5tic step of DAwToK!l
dismissing the plaintiff's .suit without" giving him an opportunity of amending TOKE
"the plaint, which could have been easily done. (1.
u Ht.A
Hardandas Paladroy v. Sunder, IV U .B.R., PS7, referred to. MAUNG
AND
The suit is therefore returned to the original Court for readmission under
MA THAN
its original number and for disposal according to law. .KYI.
c. c. Nitya Gopal v. Pran Krishna (2). Das and Guha Ray, JJ.,
IQ63
definitely ruled that the court had no power apart from the
DAwToKE provisions of the .'\t't to direct :1 <de of the properties, the
TOKE
v. subject matter of a partition suit. After considering the
U HL.o\ English Law and also the relev.mr lndi.1n decisions .. the learned,
MAUNO
. AN'D Judges concluded their discussion thus :tt page 896 :
MA THAN
KYI. The result of th-e above discussion in my opinion is thatr
there is no cunent of authority which would establish that
in a suit for partition the court possesses a power to direct
a sale apart from the Partition Act. In my opinion, in the:
absence of clear authority which, binds us, it is open to us
to come to a conclusion based on the terms of the Act
looked at from the historical perspective. In my opinion
the effect of the Partition Act cannot b-e whittled down by
<irawing upon some undefined and uncertain inherent
powers in court to direct a sale in lieu of partition where
the invitation of t..he parti.es to the court is merely to make:
a partition between the co-shares inter .se. The power of
the Court to direct a sale in a suit for partition must be
held to be limited to the cases provided for within Parti-.
tion Act.'
With great respect to the learned Judges, we find it diffi.cui~
to agree with the aforesaid observations."
Urban Rent Control Act, s. 12, (1)(a)-written demand for .arrears of rent--neces-
sity to specify in notice the arrems of rent .
. W.here the notice to quit did not specify the amount of arrears of rent due:-
Held: Under s. I2(I)(a) of the Urban Rent Control Act, 19'6o, it is necessary
t'or thelandlord to make a wri~ten demand for payment of arrears of rent and
1:o send the same to the tenant by registered post. .Only when the det"Uand has
. not ~een complied within three weeks 'from the date thereof <:an a suit under
"that section be filed.
Accordingly, it is necessary for the landiord to specify in the notice of
-demand the arrears of rent said to be due by the tenant. In the notice now
under consideration there is no inkling whatsoever as to what amount was due
tO be paid.
Jamna Lal v. Ram Bilas and amth~r. A.LR. (1950) , .-\jmer r; , referred to
Oct. 29. v.
KO SOE SAN AND ONE (RESPO?'>:DEJ\TS). *
Civi! First Appeal No. 6 of 1963, against the decree of the znd Judge
C;ty Civil .Court .of Rangoon in Civil Regular Suit No. 1053 of 1958, dated
9th November 1962.
" D.:\1 ." in respect of the suit land was the daughter, instead of the sons, and a 5 c.c.
'the sons had signed the Sale Deed, it was invalid. 1963
'Cndoubtedly, if the deceased "D.M." was a Hindu lady of the Sudra caste, Ko KYl
-succession to her Stridhana would still be governed by the Mitakshara Law. SHEIN
However, there is nothing in the evidence to show whether the deceased "D.M." 1lo
"Was a lady belonging to the Sudra or to the Panchama caste. Ko SoE SAN
ANDONB.
Bastar Transport and Trading Co. v. Court of Wards, Bastar and mzother,
.A.I.R. (1955) Nag. 78, referred to.
Assuming that the sons only of " D.M." and not her daughters having
Conveyed the suit land to the Chettyar firm the title of that form was defective
at its inception; that firm had been in possession since 1941. lt-'herefore had
possessory title which in course <) f time ripened into prescriptive title.
Narayana Row v. DharrruJcluJr, I.L.R. 26 Mad. 515; Ma Saio v. l\1aung
Shwe Gan and Ma Ban, XI L.B.R. 415; Ma Pwa Zon and two v. Ma Pan I and
one, I.L.R. 5 Ran. 154; and .Hg Mya Than and another v. U Tun Tin, Civil
Second Appeal 1-\o. +4 of 1962 of the Chief Court, referred to.
Acccrdingly, the defendants clearly have a better title to the suit l~d.
c.c.
1963
. October I928lranti<fi:>}r''the Rangoon Development Trust
to D. Masaramma. He was also able to produce receipts
Ko KYr
SHEIN for payment of ground rent issued by the National Housing
~o s6~ SAN . Board for the 2nd quarter 1954-55 till the 4th quarter
A~noNE. 1957-58 in the name of D. Masaramma.
On the other hand, the defendants were able to pro-
duce: -(a) the original deed of 90 years ' lease dated the
8th of October 1928, issued by the Rangoon Development
Trust <to D. Masaramma (Exhibit 1); (t!) certified copy of
the registered deed of mortgage dated the 21st December
1934, by which the suit land and 1426 acres of cultivable
land in Godavari .district in India were mortgaged by
D., Masaramma and one, Kondapalli Subramaniam to
"
R.M.P.L.S. Palaniappa Chettyar for a sum of Rs. r,ooo
(Exhibit 6) ; (c) registered deed of sale (Exhibit 7) dated
the 22nd of May 1941 executed by D. Subramaniam for
himself and his minor brothers D. Venkanna and D. Neela-
. kantam conveying the suit land to R.M.P.l.J.S. Chettyar firm
in consideration of the debt due by their deceased mother
D. Masaramma, their co-vendor being Kondapalli Subra-
maniam, the co-mortgagor mentioned in the mortgage deed,
Exhibit 6; (d) registered deed of sale dated the 14th of
December 1954 executed by R.M.P.L.S. Chettyar firm by
its Managing Partner Ramanathan Chet~yar by which the
suit land was conveyed to the defendants Ko Soe San and
Ma Yin Yin for a sum of K 4.500 ~ (Exhibit 5) and (e)
ground rent receipts for the 4th quarter 1953-54 issued by
the Rangoon Development Trust in the name of D. Masa-
ramma '(Exhibit 8).
In order to prove that the sale deea, Exhibit " m "
dated the.:I6th of Jan.uary 1958, was executed in his favour
by D. Masaramma the plaintiff has cited one witness,
Mau.ng .Shwe (PW 2), who had attested the deed. Accord-
. ~ng . to this witness, he wa? on a visit to the Regis~ation
Office .in connection .'with the sale of the land belonging
to his aunt, when he saw D. Masaramma r~eiving K 5,000
from the plai~tiff Ko Kyi Shein. He was asked to attest
the sale deed and he willingly obliged. However, he had
Ko KYI
to admit that this was the first time he had seen ~he person . RmnN
named D. Masaramma who was an Indian of about 6o years Ko 5~8 SAN
of age. The evidence of this witness is accordingly uselP.s!' AND oNE: '
to establish that the person executing the sale deed F.xhi~>it
.cc ro "was, in fact, the Indian lady named D. Masaramma
who was the grantee of the 90 years' lease issued by the
Rangoon Development Trust in respect of the suit land.
Another witness U Thein Maung (PW 3) who was the
Ayat-Luayi of the locality said that about the year 1958,
when he was visiting the houses in the locality in connec-
tion with Mee-kin (Fire Watchers) matters he sa'Y a
Coringhee woman known as D. Masaramma packing up to
lease House ~o. 39 in 90th Street and that he also saw
plaintiff Ko Kyi Shein at that house. House No. 39, 90th
street was the building standing on the suit land. How-
~ver, this witness did not state that the Coringhee woman
:known as D. Masaramma was in fact the grantee of the
9o years' lease in question.
For the defendants Arumugam Chettyar (DVv' r) who
was at one time partner .of R.M.P.L.S. Chettyar fum said
that he had attested the deed of sale evidencing the sale of
the suit land by Ramanathan Chettyar, Managing Partner
,of. the firm to the defendants, vide Exhibit 5 He could
.also say that this land and the house standing thereon were
mortgaged by a South Indian Hindu lady by the name of D.
:Masaramma to the chettyar fum and that on the death of
that lady, as the debt owing by her could not be repaid by
'her sons and daughter, the suit land was conveyed by them
-to the chettyar. That was .about the month of May 1941.
:Since then the chettyar firm had been collecting rent from
the tenants of the building which, ho.:wever, was destroyed
<Owing to Japanese bombing during the last World Vvar.
After the War the house site was occupied by certain
Coringhees from whom the chettvar collected rent. The
~Ajj BURMA AW-'Rf:V~R~
.. ~ ~;l;'>t,;oz-
ma~~;
-- : -~ .
..... ;..:... ..:..
.('
. . -,~:;:;';:k.\;:- c.;;~_:;.}: ,,,,
chettyar also paid land revenue in respect of the- suit land..
After selling the land to the defendants by the registered
Ko KYt
SHEIN deed of sale, Exhibit 5, Ramanathan C.h ettyar went away
t1. to India never to return to this country.
Ko SoE SAN
AND ONE. Balaji (D\V 2) is the most important witness in this case.
According to him he was the nephew of D. Masaramma,
the owner of the suit land who died during the month of
October 1938 leaving Neelakantam, Sultan, Venkanna and
Bodhi Amma as her sons and daughter. He knew that
the sUit bmd was mortgaged by his aunt D. Masaramma to
a chettyar and that after her death the land was sold by
her son-in-law Gnagana to this chettyar. After the sale-
the :chettyar collected rent in respect of the suit land and
the house situated thereon. About 6 or 7 months later,
tl'l.e War with Japan broke out and during the War the
house was destroyed owing to Japanese bombing. After
the return of the British to BuFma he -collected rent on
behalf.of the chettyar from those who were staying on the
suit land. After thus collecting rent for about a y~ar , the.
chettyar himself collected the same till about the time of
the sale of the sqit land to the defendant Ko Soe San. At
.. the outbreak of the War D. Masaramma's sons and daughter
were living at Yegyaw where they were engaged in Pinmin
(launderers') business. They then went back to India ..
They did not return after the cessation of hostilities.
Now, reg2.rding the deed of sale, Exhibit" m "in favour
of the plaintiff Ko Kyi Shein we have very little doubt:
that it was executed by an imposter. The defendants have
been a:ble to prove by the evidence of a Finger-print Expert
of the Criminal Investigation Department, lnsein p J Tin
~aung (DvV 4)] that the thumb impression of
D. Masaramma on the reverse of Exhibit " m " was that
of a different person from D. Masaramma whose thumb
im.pliession appears at the bottom of the original deed of
9'0 years'"lease, Exhibit I. On the other hand, the thumb:
impression: on this latt-er docume11t is of the same person
6iJ9
APPELLATE CIVIL
V. Oct. z6.
~ Civil. l,"irst Appeal No. 17 of 1962 against the decree of the Additional
District Court' of Mandalay in Civil Regular Suit No:'6 of
x96~. dated '29th
October 1962. .
3
684 ~~b;_ . 'REPORTS
r,~ ~tny e~ent the 'fearned tri2l judge w!!s wrong in having dk11i::~"d tl1e suit
witho;_~t goir.g into the evidence in order to dercrmine the na!urc of ~!1c trust in.
KRISHNAN r~pett of th:! suit property, and the int.-:res~ which the Hindu Co:l;.n:.t!!"!lc: v::>!.t1d
LALAND h:tve -in ~~ch 3 tl.""J.~t property. ..
FOUR OTHERS The suit vlas thei.cfo rc. rcn-.aadcd for <.h:c!sion accordL.tg to la"-, in the light
"
SURAJMAL
BAL CHAND.
of tbe ::bove remarks.
dissatisfied .., _!th the dismissal of r:Kir suit have filed the SuRAJMIIL
BAL CHAl'.fD.
present appc.1l.
Noi, .. r ;nm the deed of sale of the suit land relied upon
by tl).e p;,,intit1s; it would appear that this hmd was
purchasd ; : ~.1bu Madan Chand ~s :\-bnaging Trustee of
the Tag~: !'~ ' -. : .:~ Gawshala from. a firm of merchants known
as Ganp:r:; ....- Gz,jadhar as repres~n :.::d by th.::ir Managing
Part;1er :\.::: t,ico . the conside:.;;.tio.:-l l~c:t:g p.~ ~t of the ~ebt
due to 1. . .: L1gu1H.laing Gawshala by C:iie Gangadhar, son
of Lac:~:~: ; r:Y..ly<m of Mandalay. It also seems to be
commo;-1 ground as stated in the judgment now under
appe~l. th.lt rhc suit land was property belonging to a
public trust.
No doubt in Saw Durmay v. Baggah Singh and others
(r) it was held that in respect of properties \Vhich form
part of a public trust, as for instance, a Christian church,
a mere worshipper can have no right by way of suit to
obtain possession of the properties. It was also held that
he would have no right to sue for any of the reliefs
mentioned in section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code except
in the manner prescribed by that section.
However, regarding the scope of section 92 of the Civil
Procedure Code, there is clear authority for the proposition
that where a suit relating to religious endowment does not
claim any such relief as is specified "in sub-section (r) of
section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, the section is no
bar to the maintainability of the suit without the sanction
?f the Advocate-General, and in the Court of the Sub-
ordinate Judge instead of the Court of District Judge. See
'A.bdur. Rahim and others v-. Syed Abu l\Jahomed Barkat Ali
Shah and others (2)._ The relief asked in the present suit
(r) rn R~:.1. , p. :::x:;. (z} -'.. 1 !<. ( r<)z~) P.C., p. 16.
~URM~
... . ' . . ..
anqther (5) where the Privy Council held that Article 144
.o f the Limitation Act applies to wakf property and that
property made wakf for purposes of mosque can be
adversely possessed, jt was observ:ed that the .r igp.t of
(3) A.LR. (1936) 'Oudh, p. 1.33 '( 4) A.I:R. '(19~3)' Mad.', i>.' 276.
(s) A.I.R. (rg4o) P.C., p. ri6: . ... - . .
BURMA. LAW Ri'FoRTS 687
of a trespasser and have the property delivered into the FouR ~THERS
Possession of the mutawalli or of some other person for the
.
SuRAJMAL
B AL CHAND
. purposes of the wakf.
In this connection the Pri,y Council had cited with
approval the case of chidambaranatha Thambi;-an and
another v. P. S. Nallasira .\fudaliar and others (6). In
t hat case the properties in suit were purchased by a Pand~Ha
Sannaclhi of the Dharm.:1pur.1m .\dheenam in the year 1869.
Ano(rcr Pand.:r.1 SannJ~h i -;,!d them to the various contcst-
ii:g C:<.-ncants in jul~: 1901. Th~ plaintiffs arc the
t.1mbir2n;; of the mutt. Thl'y obtained leave under Ordrr
i. Rule 8. Ci\il Procedure Code. 1908 to institute a suit on
lx half of all the persons interested in the mutt. Their
case was that the properties belonged to the mutt and that
their aiienation in 1901 was invalid. They prayed for a
declaration that the alienation was not binding on the mutt
and for possession being delivered to defendant I who was
at the time of the suit the Pandara Sannadhi. It was held
that such a suit was maintainable.
The following observation of Seshagiri Aiyar, J. who
delivered the leading judgment in the case cited above is
most apposite. The learned Judge said :
"Sec-rion 63 is a very important provision. Mr. T.
Rangachariar contended that this section expressly limits the
right of the beneficiary to a bare declaration, and that con-
sequently he is not entitled to ask for possession. I do not
think that th.:: word declaration should be given such a narrow
interpretation. Even in a suit for fOSSession, there must be
an antecedent declara'tion. I am inclined to think that the
Legislature did not intend to prevent a beneficiary from suing
for possession in favour of the trustee. The beneficiary is
only entitled to a declaration in his own right, bul that would
688 BURMA LAW REPORTS
c.c . not prevent him from asking th<tt the declaration be followed
. 1963
up by giving possession to the trustee. However 'that may
KRISHNAN be. sec-tion 68 is not in terms applicable to charitable trusts
LALAND
FOUR OTHERS and consequently its language is not .conclusive of the 1ights
v. of a public trustee. If this section is rc<~d ;:long with section
SURAJMAL
BAL CHAND. ro, Limitation Act, it is dear that \\hrrcn'r trn5t property
has gone into the hands of a stranger. the b~neficiary can
take all the necessary steps to place it in the h,1 nds of a person
who tan legally administer the trust."
APPELLATE CIV1L
MA NU (APPELLA:-iT)
V.
* Civil Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 1963 against the order of the District Court
<!lf Toungoo in Civil Misc.cllaneous Case No. 17 of 1962, dated Z9th April 1963.
690
c:c. : Than Aye. The facts which have been fully stated in the
1963
order appealed against are briefly as follows:
MAv.Nu The applicant MaNu and the respondent Ko San Aye,
Ko SAN AYE. a: clerk in the office of the Highway Dep~rtment had been
married 'for several years. There were fi\e daughters to
the' marriage, of whom San San Aye, 2ged I r is the eldest
and Than Than Ay~. aged eight is the third daughter.
When S<m San Aye was about one year and four months.
old, she was given to Daw Thein Yin, sister of Ko San Aye,
to be broughf up by her, Daw Thein Yin being Headmistress
of a State Primary School. Daw Thein Yin was married to
one Ko Saw, arid there being no issue to the marriage, San
San 1\.ye was brought up almost as a daL:~hter. She was
bottle Ied when young and was put into Saint Joseph's
Convent School when she was only four years old. About
May 1 962, the third daughter Th::m Tb:: Aye wc.s also
placed under the care of Daw Thein Yin. She also was
put "into the same Convent School as her eldest sister San
San Aye.
Differences arose between Ma Nu and her husband
Ko San Aye and they parted company. Ma Nu has in her
custody the second daughter Ni Ni Aye and the two
youngest daughters. She is receiving maintenance
allowance of K 30 for herself and K so for her three
children from her husband Ko San Aye. The application
under section IO of the Guardians and \Vards Act was filed
by her on the ground that the children San San Aye and
Than Than Aye being of tender age she was the fittest
person to act as their guardian. There was no allegation
that the father Ko San Aye was unfit to be the guardian of
the person of these two minor daughters. In the reply to
the written objection, however, MaNu alleged that she had
topart company from Ko San Aye as he was cruel to her,
having administered C\1-inese medi~ine to cause abortion~
on two occasions. On the third occasion he beat her wheru
pr-egnant with the result that there was abortion.
_. 691.
APPELLATE CIVIL
Bffo-re U San Mazmg ana U Sa~o Ba 1'hein, JJ.
:t'he P~est>ondents v:ho vlere :nu:.thers of t:~e \i:.t.,.lirn Co mmunity had filed
a suit fo: a Declaration ng2in~t t!J.e Appell~:-'~' ~!1at 3 piec~s of land Ilamely
Holding No. 30 Kagyi, H<Jlding Nn. 30 Khagwz (both o~iginaily being Hold in?,
No. 30) and Holding No. 55 were waqf ;noperty, :tnd had b'!en dedicated as
such by 2 Muslim gentlemen about 70 years ::go by a register-ed deed.
Holding No. 30 was the site of a mosque and Holding No. 55 was the site
of a l\1adra sa (school).
Held: Regarding the existence cf the registered deed creating tne waqf,
it is to be found that some witnesses were speaking from hearsay and tho$e who
were said to know of the existence of the deed had not actually read them so as
to be able to give admissible evidence regarding thei; contents.
Ma Mi andanolher v. Kalland~r Al:!.ma!, I.L.R. V Ran. r8 (PC}, reft!rred to.
of
In the absence direct evidence, circ:.tmstantial evidence is admissible in
proof of the existence of the waqf, and it is weli s~ttled that a ro:aqf may, in the
.absence of direct e\idence of dedication, estJ!>Ii;h!.'d by '"'i::lencc of U5el:.
Abdul Ghafoor \". Rahmat Ali and othL'rs, A.LR. (1930) Oudh 245; Umar Di11
and others v. _Hst. Aidhan a11d otheYs, A.I.R. (r9z r) L.~ht>r~ 303; K. Rausltan Din
.and others v. H. ,'\1"ohamed Sharif and others, A.I.R.(r936) Lahore 87 et p. 88, and
Mazhar Hussain and ethers v. Rao Bahadur Adha Saran Singh, A.I.R. (1948)
P.C. 42, rciem:d to.
In such circtLrnstances, the standard of proof necessary is t.~at the fact
.-established ~ust lead to the only =onable inference possible.
Although di.r ect evide:1ce is lacking, circumstantial evidence regarding the
-existence of the waqf itself was concerned must be regarded as conc!.usive, as
immemorial user had been established.
This however, cannot be said of the Holding No. 55 on which the madras sa
(school) stood. As it is not at all necessary for such school to be zoaqf property
1;0 ~nab!e it .to function, the exist.:nce of a waqf so far 2s the school itself is
COncerneq, <:an hardly be said to have been established by the evidence 011
T~rd .
. Civil First Appeal No. I r of I 962 against the decree of the District Court
<>f Mandalay in Civil Suit No. 13 of 1955, dat'!d I!thJune 1962.
1~3] BURMA LAW REPORTS . 693
c .c.
1<)63
U .Shwe
.
Oh
. .
was the~first Mutwalli. In fact, there \vere
two Waqfs which were effected by the execution of the
A~i\\~~T~~R vVaqf-nama. u Shwe Oh died about 40 years ago, h is
SAYAvMvA younger brother U Nyo Glay having pre-deceased him by
AND THREE about 5 or 6 years. Before U Shwe Oh died h e called
OT HERS.
the Muslhn elders of the locality and entru s~e.d \:o them
the mosque and the school. These elders were U Nyunt,
Ko Esa, Ko Har Dun, Ko Hman Gyi, Ko Tun, Say a Kar
and H.aji Ali Khan. All of them were dead at the time of
the filing of the present suit. These elders looked after
the school and the mosque after the death of U Shwe Oh
until Daw May, daughter of U Nyo Glay, obtained letters
of administration to U Shwe Oh's estate. After the death
o( Daw May, Ma Nyunt, one of the wives of U Shwe Oh
and mother of the rst defendant Ma Tin Kyi obtained
letters of administration to the estate of U Shwe Oh. She
then. looked after the mosque and the school. The school
which was in a dilapidated condition was dismantled by
Ma Nyunt at the beginning of the Japanese occupation of
Burma. She, however, promised td build a new school
in place of tb.e old. As regards the mosque it was in
ruins because of allied. bombing' just prior to the Japanese
evacuation from Burma. Later Ma Nyunt mutated both
Holdfng No. 30 and Holding No. 55 into her own name.
$he marr{ed one Shia Muslim gentleman and the first
d~fenda'!lt Ma Tin Kyi was the issue of this marriage.'
Nf$1 ~yu.'nt sole! the northe~:n portion of Holding No. 30 to
Ma si' si: . She inade a . ~ft of . the southern portion, on
which the rhosg;qe ~~s sitilaty, t~ ~~~ d~~ghter Ma T~~ K0.
Sh~ also had tenants living on '9oth Holdings No. 55 and
No. 36 and.
- ,
made
use of the
{ ~
~~rits ~e~eiv~d therefrom
. \ ~I ' ~'"'l ' \ ' ' I
V{ithout spending any sum on the upkeep of the mosque ..
Beca~se of tile 'conduct of Ma Nyunt aJ;ld of h~r da~gh~~r
. Ma tin Kyi 'after the .death of Ma Nyunt, he and th:e other
. . h~d to file the present suit for. declaration
.pimntl.trs . . and.,
pos~ession.
BURMA LAW REPORTS 699
Now, although U Kar spoke of two registered deeds
evidcr.cing the H'aqf executed by U Shwe Oh and his
co-donors he had not really seen them executed. He had A~~~;~T~En
not even seen them after their execution. He said that SAYAv.MYA
after the death of U Shwe Oh the deeds evidencing the AND THREE
Waqfs came into the possession of Daw May, a niece oTmRs.
of U Shwe Oh and that he had seen them once or twice
in her possession. He. however, admitted that he had
~ver read them and could not say whether they were
executed on sramped papers. Therefore U Kar could not
in fact gi,e .>ny cogent evidence regarding the execution
of t he tied t >;- <!ceds of \"\ aqfs w h ich ' ' e re said to ha,c
been executed by U Shwc Oh and his co-donors.
!\.Ia Ma (PW 1), daughter of Daw May said that the
deeds of \\'aqfs t;ame into her possession after the death
of her mother and that they were destroyed during the
fire which took place during the Japanese evacuation
period. However, this witness could not say that she
had read these two deeds herself and could therefore give
no evidence regarding their contents. All she could say
was that she had shown them to the Muslim elders. This
witness also corroborated U Kar in that Ma Nyunt rented
out Holdings No. 55 and No. 30 after she obtained letters
"Of administration to the estate of U Shwe Oh, and that
-she spent all the mo!_l.ey she received without doing any-
thing for the mosque.
Contradicting both the main witnessess U Kar and
Daw Ma Ma is A. K. U Tin (PW 2). According to him
there was only one registered deed evidencing the crea-
tion of the Waqf by U Shwe Oh and his co-donors.
Furthermore, after Ma Nyunt had obtained letters of ad-
ministration to the estate of U Shwe Oh, she spent some
of the money received by her as rent from Holding Nos-
30 and 55 in paying the Moulvi who officiated at the
mosque and in defraying charges for electricity consumed.
4
. i:700 BURMA LAW"~REP.QE:-J:$;;
c.c. this witness, however, had to. admit that he had himself
1963
not read the so-o1lccl registered deed of vVaqf relating to
M ... St St both Holding Noc.;. 55 and 30. He could not also say
AND ANOT!:!J;
v. whether the deed in possession of Daw Ma Ma was
SAYA MYA
AND THREE registered. Haji Maung (PVv 6) corroborated deed of
OTHERS.
vVaqf in respect of the mosque .:md the school. He thus
contradicted both U Kar and Daw Ma Ma. He is in tum
contradicted by another witness Daw Htay (PvV 3),.
accordingto whom the Waqf relating to the school was
created about 6o years ago while the 1cV aqf re1ating to the
mosque was created many years earlier. None of these
witnesses, however, actually knew of the execution of the
deed or deeds of Waqf or their contents. \Vhat evidence
they had given before the Court was merely on hearsay.
In fact, we have carefully gone through the evidence
adduced by the plaintiffs regarding the existence of the
registered deed or deeds of VIaqf and we find that while
most of the witnesses were speaking from hearsay some
who said that they knew of the existence of these deeds
had not actually read them so as to enable them to give
admissible evidence regarding their contents. In this con-
nection the decision of the Privy Council in Ma Mi and'
another v. Kallander Ammal (1) may be usefully cited.
There. it was held that oral evidence of the contents of
a . document is admissible as secondary evidence under
section 63 (5) of the Evidence Act only if the witness has
himself read the document and .could speak to its contents ..
Tested by this standard there is no admissible evidence
whatsoever regarding the contents of the alleged deed or
deeds evidencing the creation of the W aqfs relating to the
mosque and the school.
The learned District Judge who .answered issues No. r
and No. 2 fully realized this fact. H~, however, relied'
:upon section 188 of the Principles of Mahomeda.n Law.
(x) I.L.R. V Ran. 1.8 (PC).
701
~-
she did obtain the letters, she tried to undo the work of
."'~ ..,
\ .' .-.. . ::.. '"
.. ,' ,,:,ter of U "-'}'O G!?y t,> exl1ib;t
' v l, .. 9 which is 1\.1 . s c:
1
... ... ' :" .
a true copy of the extract from the Diary in Suit No. 54I A..~~~K~T;.~R
of I 924 of the Subdivisional Court of Mandalay and S AYAv.MYA
evidence of Daw Saw (DW 5). So, the probabilities are A::-;D Tl! REE
APPELLATE ClVIJJ
Possessory ti 11-Hit l>y holder of possessory ti: .-,. ~7i,?.<t mere purchaser-whether
mailltail!af>!<-"' mrt!ssity of possession _fl)>" t . , . :'11:'"Y period of 12 years.
The Pl.l'::'"; H~,;pondent s..<ed the D :!<.. ':~ :\,-,pellants for their eject
ment fro:n 1h .,ni'. bnd.
Ac:.,r..:i:::: t". r;"':~~
t>la!ntiffhe bec::-.rne th~.. , . .,~ ;h.' ~nit land by obtait, : ~~ !
it as :l ~if: ~-!.".~,.1~
n:11; "P.T." the origin~i ,..,,.n .~ ~~ .! !,i:; !~rnnCfather) at'i.d thn C
he ,,_.a" i: ~ "- <.:m of the suit land tiil - , ~ . . : :- -.;; b.;-fore the d:\te of ,,~<i !
when h:~ ~- ;-t :! .1 1\'!'\ hecau!\e of insnr;rf'nt ;1-: ..... . .: :.....! h~d lef!' the ~:un~ ,,- :~: 1
his l:1lf-.im:r. ..!~" !a !urn had left the vill ~!!,-: ~ 11..,c :~ :-~h e >"n',.;;~:1 1 tr~~tm.:> 1 t
in IJT9 B.E.
T !w n . :",:~-.:, ...,;.~ppeHl!.nt.; contended '
h:;d ;~bC!n:::n~t'.:: t~:.c suit !:lnd; :?.0':.~ ~h~" c
Ji:-.,~l J ~' cel~ -b~t of the said" P.T." h~.i " ..
The :rid jud~te held that as the gift t<> ;'-:..- p; ,;~ ::1 w~ :1or .:videnced b ::
a registc-r'!c! dt"rd: jt \\'as invalid in la\v ~1:1\: .5 :~:-:1is;:cd the suit.
On .-\ppe<\1 by ti~e Plaintiffs, the. lower .'.,-.:-;! .:te Cou rt decreed the suit on
the gro~u'ld th:lt a sa it based on posse:-:sory t: ~ : \s in~intainablc ?.gainst a mere
trespasser.
On Iuri.h.:r .\ppt'al by the Det"-.ndan;; ro rh~ Chief Court:
Held: Tl;c Pbintiff had been in pos:<"ssion eit!v~r by himself os: through
his licensee, his h ~ lf-sister, till abcut -1- y ;:11s hcfor-e the date of suit.
Accordingly, the conclusion :miv<'d at by the lower Appellate c o urt is
correct.
Ismail A1ifj v. Jfahomed Ghou.s, I.L.R. zo Cal. 834 (P.C.); Maung Naw v.
Ma Since Fbnut and one, 8 L.:S.R. 227 (FB); Nisa Chand Gaita and others v .
Kanchiram Eag:wi, I.L.R. 26 Cal. 579; Nga Tha Zan v. Surtder Singh, III.
U .B.R. 125; Nara)ana Row v. Dharmac!r.ar, I.L.R. .26 M ad. , p. 514, referred to.
It can be tah-en as settled l.aw that it is not necessary in order to maintain
a suit for eje-ctment based on a possessory tit!~ th?.t the plaintiff should have
been in posses-sion of the s:.~it land for the statutory period of r2 years or more.
In the case now under consideration if the plaintiff's story is true, he had
been in possession for more than I2 years.
* Civil Second Appeal No. 44 of 196z, against the decree of the Additional
District Co~rt of Pyapon in Civil A9peal No.9 of r96.r, dated 3r st May 1962.
709-
U T vN TtN.
U K.yaw (I) (Ad\oc He for the appellants.
U San Myint (Adrourc) for ~::1e respo;H.!cnt.
ANOTHER \'.:ere v.'her:her the plaintiff b.;d ::::!i:v sort of tit~ t' !lY e: '1::
u Tc~ Tm. suit land by having been in posse~sion thereof for :::any
years and if l":Jt. w t1ether t he zkfer:dants had the r!:;' ';t :-."'!
squat upon it when they found it practically ab.andcne~~.
After hearing witnesses cited by both the parties the
learn~d trial Judge held that the plaintiff's story that the
suit land originally belonged to U Po Tauk and his 2nd
wife Daw Hla Bone, and that when U Po Tauk migrated
to Upper Burma 18 years ago 3tter the death of Daw Hla
.&one, he gave the suit land to plaintiff U Tun Tin who
xemained in possession thereof till he himself left for
Rangoon, was true. However, the learned trial Judge held
that since the gift of the suit land by U Po Tauk to U Tun
Tin was not evidenced by a registered deed it was :invalid in
. law and that, therefore, the plaintiff who could only
succe~ on the strength of his title and not upon the
weakness of the defence, must fail in his suit.
The plaintiff U Tun Tin appealed and the learned Ad-
ditional District Judge of Pyapon by his judgment and
decree in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1961, now under appeal,
decreed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that a suit based
. on. possessory title was maintainable against a mere
trespasser. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and de~
cree of the Additional District Court the defendants have
preferred this appeal under clause (d) to sub-section (r) of
section IOO of the Civil Procedure Code.
Now, the parties to the suit and some of the :witnesses
cited by them are close relatives. U Po Tauk first rnar-.
.ried Daw. Tar who died about 40 years ago. His issues
by Daw Tar were U Tha U, father of the plaintiff U Tun
. Tin and Daw Ein May, mother of defen~e witness Ko B'C}
Mya.lng {DW r). When U Tha U died, his wife married
one 'l!Po Sat and the issue of this marriage was.Ma Phwa .
BURMA LAW REPORTS . 711
Civil First Appeal No. 1 of 1963 against the decree of the Additional
D istrict Court or" Mandalay in Civil Regular Suit No. 6. of 1959, dated the
-6th October 1962.
715
the Plaintiffs can only recover rents and mesne profits from their own tenant.
They cannot recover either rent or mesne profits direct from the znd Defendant
who was only a licensee of the r~t Defendant. NAGINBHAI
Gulam Mohiuddin Narmava ~. Dayabhi Chimanlal, A.I.R. (1923) Bombay v.
CHHAGANLAL
398, referred to and followed. AND
TWO OTHERS.
c.c. of the Urban Rerit Control Act, 1948 as the cost of recons
1963
truction was less than 40 per cent of the prevailing market
NAc~~HAr .value of the whole building. Rega1:ding the rent Clue in
CHRAGANLAL respect of the t\VO rooms in suit this defendant said that
TWoA;.{'HERS. he was always ready and willing to pay the same but that
Respondent in person.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Before U Bo Gyi, C.J., and U S an J1ormg, J.
TAlK GW AN COMPANY (APPLICANT) c. c.
1963
v.
Oct. 5
MR. N. B. SEN GUPTA AND TWO OTHERS (RESPONDENTS). *
being one under section II (I) (a) of the Urban Rent ~-f"
. h . 9 3
Control Act, 1948. U Jone Bin also obtained m t at smt -
f . f f . TAIK GWAN
a decree ._or payment o arrears o rent amounting to CoMPANY
K 3.330 by instalments. Under section 14 (I) of the Mn.N.B.
Urban Rent Control Act, the Subdivisional Judge also or- SEN A~;:PTA
dered that the execution of the decree should be stayed Two oTHERs.
if the instalments were paid as ordered by him. Mr. Sen
Gupta appealed against the judgment and decree of the
subdivisional Court but the District Court of Basse'in con-
firmed the ejectment decree in its Civil Appeal No. 2r
o f 1951 but reduced the amount payable as arrears of
rent to K. 2.840. Mr. Sen Gupta's further appeal to the
High Court was unsuccessful.
In Civil .Execution Case No. 9 of I95I of the Sub-
-divisional O;m_rt of Bassein, the decree-holder U Jane Bin
took out execution and the judgment-debtor Mr. Sen Gupta
was forcibly evicted from the premises in suit. Sub-
sequently on the 3rd February 1953 U Jone Bin rented
'OUt these premises to Taik Gwan Company. Mr. Sen
Gupta appealed to the District Court against the order
of the Subdivisional Court for his ejectment from the suit
premises and in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1953, the District
'Court set aside the order of the trial Court and directed
it to fix fresh dates for payment of arrears of rent by
'instalments as 'the original dates fixed had elapsed when
the matter was pending before the High Court. U Jone
'Bin then appe;1led to the High Court against the order o'f
the District Court but the High Court in its Civil Second
Appeal No. 27 of 1953 not only confirmed the decision
'()f the District Court but fixed fresh dates for the payment
of the instalments as the original dates for payment had
1apsed long ago. The High Court also ordered that the
ejectment order be rescinded if the defendant paid the
instalments as fixed by it. The judgment-debtor then paid
1:he instalments fixed by the High Court and applied for
restitution of the premises, damages and mesne profits as
726
c.c. against both U Jone Bin and the present applicant Taik
1963
Gwan Company. The Subdivisional Court then ordered
Tc~~1:1:'~ restitution of the premises as against the decree-holder
MR.v:r:t B. U Jone Bin and the appeal by U Jone Bin to the District
SEN GcPTA Court was dismissed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3
7:wo ~~Eru;. of 1955 of that Court. The District Court also ordered
the 'Subdivisional Court to hold an enquiry as to the amount
of damages payable by the decree-holder U Jone Bin to
the judgment-debtor Mr. Sen Gupta. As against the order
of the District Court U Jone Bin appealed to the High
Court and his appeal was dismissed in Civil Second Appeal
No. 97 of I955 of that Court. The appeal under section
2c of the Union Judiciary Act was also dismissed b.y the
High Court. Further appeal to the Supreme Court was
also dismissed.
Subsequently, on the r rth April 1961 the judgment-
debtor Mr .. Sen Gupta applied to the Subdivisiona1 Court
for possession of the premises in suit. This application
was opposed by the present applicant Taik Gwan Company
on the ground that since they had made repairs to the
premises to the value of K 28,400 the Court should hold
an e nquiry with a view to consider whether the premises
in question was exempt from the operation of the Urban
Rent Control Act, 1948 in view of the Ministry of Finance
and Revenue Notification No. 35. dated 16th February 195r.
This application was rejected by the Subdivisional Court
and the ,appeal to the District Court was dismissed. Further
appeal to thiscourt was also dismissed by U Kyaw Zan U,
J. in Civil Second Appeal No. 8r of 1961
Hence the present application for a writ of certiorari:
In connection with the present application, it is con-
tended by the learned Advocate for the .a pplicant Taik
Gwan Company that the order now sought to be quashed
-is a speaking order as the learned Subdivisional Judge could
not refuse to .make an enquiry with .a View to consider
.whether the premises in question was exempt from the
operation of the Urban Rent Control Ad. in view of the c6c.
19 3
Ministry of Finance and Revenue Notification No. 35, dated TAlK GW.-\."<
16th February 1951. We are unable to accept this conten- CoMPANY
tion of the learned Advocate. The decree for ejectment Ma. "N. B.
passed against the present 1st respondent Mr. Sen Gupta SEN ~uPTA
was a cohditional decree under section I I (r) (a) of the Two oTHERs.
.
BttRMA
. LAw RriPoirsf~ ~ ~:-~:
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
Bejo1e U Bo Gyi, C.J. a11d U San A!aung, J.
The Applicant together with the Respondent \\'Cre def<':1clants in a suit for
di\solution of partnership. The Applicant hnd made common cause with
the Ph:int iff in the said suit and had also a~kcd for rendition of accounts by
the Respondent who was the Managing Partner.
One of the issues involved in the said <uit was whether the Applicant and'
the Plailltiffhad left the Partnen;hip as comcnded by the Responden1:. Inspitc
of this fact the Respondent had inserted advertisements in three newspapers t<>-
the eff~cr that the Applicant and the Plaintiff had ceased to be partners sine<'
the dac-.: nf the advertisement. It was therefore contended that this action of
the RE~pondcnt con$tituted a contempt of Court as it was designed to influence
the mif'ld of the trial Judge and also to prejudice others.
Held: Regarding the question whether the publication constitutes contem pt
of Court. one had to bear in mind that contempt proceedings being summary
. and a very :~rbitrary method of dealing with an offence should be sparingly
in~tituted and therefore a person should not be convicted for contempt unless
his con victinn is essential in the interests of justice. Accordingly there must be
something more than a technical contempt which tends in a substantial manner
to interfere with the ccnrse of justice or to prejudice the public against one of
the parties to a proceeding.
The Queen v. Gray (xgoo) 2 Q.B.D. 36; In rc Read and Huggonson (1742)-
2 Atk. 291. 469; Rex v. Parkei (1903) 2 K.B.D. 432; Molumdas Karamchand
Gandhi and Mahadeo Haribhai Desai, (1920) 58 I. C. 915; In the matter of
Subr:ahmanyan, Editor and others, I.L.R. 25 Lahore xu; Subrahamanyan case,.
Civ. M;isc. Application No. I I of I952 of the late High Court, referred to.
. In examining the circumstances of the case it is to be seen tluitthe Respondent
was not only faced with a civil suit against him but also found himself to be
the subject o.f several criminal proceedings by some of the other parties to
the ~uit, and others who also claimed to be partners. Newspapers reports
which ten4ed to blemish his character bad also appeared! In. these circwns-
~ces, he _felt impelled i:o vin!licate himself by publishing the advertisements.
both " Hanthawaddy " and " The New Light of Burma " c .c.
1963
carried repo!"ts to the effect that he (Thakin Pu) had
absconded with Kyats fourteen lakhs' worth of pearls M~~~NT
because a warrant for his arrest had been issued. I-Ie THARrNPu.
v.
accordingly surrendered himself at the Botataung Police
Station. Subsequently, during the hearing of his applica-
tion for bail, U Tin Nyunt and Thakin Myo Nyunt showed
the keen interest taken by them in the matter, by be!ng
present in Court. Therefore, he felt impelled to insert the
advertisemen ts in question with a view to dispel whate\cr
misunderstandings that might have arisen in the minds of
the newspaper reading public.
~ow, regarding the nature of the advertisen~ents
inserted by the respondent Thakin Pu in the " Ahtauk
Taw, .. Hanthawaddy" and "The Guardian" in the
several dates mentioned above he began by saying that
the Burma Pearl Fishing and Culture Syndicate was a
partnership firm constituted in the y~r 1954. In the year
1956, owing to the activities of the insurgents the business
declined to such an extent that the partnership was heavily
in debt. Thereupon, several of the pq.rtners left the part-
nership by sending him written intimations to that effect.
Among them were U Tin Nyunt and Thakin Myo Nyunt
whose letters to him he had reproduced in the advertise-
ments. Later, however, when the affairs of the Syndicate
improved . owing to the assistance rendered to him by the
Government and by his friends, U Tin Nyunt and
Thakin Myo Nyunt conspired to cause misunderstandings
between him on the one hand and the Government and
the public .on the o~her . They also tried to compel
him to pay them money by indulging in blackmail :.
To illustrate, he was reproducing two letters purported to
have bten written by U Tin Nyunt to one U Kan
N~nt to. the effect that he had since learned.
that. U Kan Nyunt w.as also one of the partners who had_
contributed K s,ooo -towaros the share-capital and that
6
!'Vr-3,2-.:.
lt:~:~
BURMA LAW REPORJ:'~
~:;..~~--- ~ -- -..:.~t--";11fl~~-:: .. _.~;..:_ .
,.._.
; G<G U Kan Nyunt stoo'd to gain about three lakhs kyats as his -
1963 .
share of the profits. Another v;as a circular letter written
Mv~~v~J-."T by Thakin Myo Nyunt to U Kyee Myint (who had reported
THA::_;NPu. to the police that Thakin Pu had cheated him) ; U Kan
Nyunt (the addressee of the letter written by U Tin Nyunt)
and eight others informing them all that he had learned
that they too had contributed K s,ooo each towards the
share-capital of the Burma Pearl Fishing and Culture
Syndicate. that a suit had been filed against Thakin Pu and
others by U Tin Nyunt but that their names did not appear
in the array of defendants, and that if they were interested
in the matter they should contact him on any day at any
time between 8 a.m. and ro a.m. and 6 p.m. and 8 p.m.
Thakin Pu's advertisement concluded by saying that hjs
friends need not be unduly alarmed regarding the state of
affairs of the Burma Pearl Fishing and Culture Syndicate.
It may be mentioned in passing that the ten persons
appearing in the circular-letter written by Thakin Myo
Nyunt had been made party-defendants by U Tin Nyunt
in the plaint filed on the 5th of March 1963, about r6
months after the date of the original plaint. It may also
'be mentioned that one of the allegations of U Tin Nyunt
against Thakin Pu was that the latter had surreptitiously
written to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Burma.
that all the partners of the Syndicate except his wife had
left the partnership, and that t11is action of Thakin Pu was
taken with a view to defraud the other partners and to
enjoy the benefits of the partnership by himself alone. The
defenc-e of Thakin Pu to these allegations was that the
original parmers had in fact resig~ed, that a new partner-
ship was then formed by him and r8 others and that in th~
new .partnership also all the partn.ers had subsequently
resigned leaving only himself and his y.rife as partners.
Thus, Jt would seem that there had been allegations of
fraud by U Tin Nyunt and those who made common cause
wfth him against Thakin Pu, and counter-allega.t ions of
733
(1) (1900) 2 Q.B.D. 36. (2) In reRead and Huggonson (17-f.2) 2 Atk. 291, 4!}.
(3) (1903) 2 K.B.D. 432.
734
c.c. brought before it. Their tendency is to reduce the Court
!963
which has to try the case to impotence, so far as the effectual
THAKlN eli!nination of prejudice and prepossession is concerned.''
MYO NYUNT
v. These two cases were among those relied upon by a
THAKrNPu.
Spedal Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Mahadeo Haribhai
Desai (4)'. In that case the District Judge \Hote a letter to
the Registrar of the High Court submitting for determina-
tion the question whether the conduct of the legal prani
tioners in subscribing to the Satyagraha mo\cment was
consistent with their duties as Advocates and Pleadt'r<;.
The respondents who were editor and publisher of a news-
papel" printed the District Judge's letter in their newspape:-
together with their own comments to the effect that
" O'Dwyerism " had spread to the length and breadth of
India from Burma to Bombay, while the proceedings against
the Advocates and Pleaders were pending before the High
Court, were held to be guilty of contempt of Court. The
learned Judges of the Bombay High Court held that mere
publication of the letter of the District Judge while the
matter was pending bef{)re the High Court was contempt
of Court but that the matter was aggravated by the scan-
dalous comment made against the District Judge concerned.
This Bombay case has been strongly relied upon by the
learned Advocate for the applicant Thakin Myo Nyunt.
In the . Matter of Subrahmanyan, Editor and others (5) is
one of the cases relied upon by the late High Court in
taking action against the editors and printers of a Tamil
newspaper "Rasika Ranjani" for contempt of Court. Tn
that case the editors and printers were found guilty of
having published an article likely to
prejudice the trial of
an accus~d person which was pend~ng before~ Court (6).
Th~refore it is necessary t{) refer ,~o .t~e Su~ra~m:anyan
case (5). There it was held by a Full Bench o the tahore
{4} (1920) s8 I.C. 915. (5) I.L.R. 25 Lahore III.
(6) CiviiMisc. ApplicaticnNo.u of(1952) of the late High Court.
19@1_~
,: .. .... "
\
BBRM.AW
..
~ ~ ~ ~
REPORTS
.t.o . .......
~
had been indulging in shady practices by representing that
1963 .
- as the other partners having left the partnership he and
THAKIN
Mvo NYLNr
h.Is
..vv..!.C . . partners, a lso .f'..ound h'Im-
u.e were t.h e on1y remammg
~HA~;N Pu. self to be the subject of several crim inal prosecutions by
some of the other parties to that suit, and by others who
claim to be.a.lso partners. Newspaper reports had appeared
which tended to blemish his character. In these circ-
umstances. he felt impelled to vindicate himself by publish-
ing l~tters to the effect that two of the persons whom he
considered to be at the bottom of the suit against him, h ad
in Jact left the partnership, and that these persons were in
stigating others to take action against him. Vt/e do not
.. consider that the publication can, by any stretch of imagi-
nation, be said to have been designed to influence the mind
of:the Judge trying the suit. Nor can it be said to tend to
influence the trial Judge. The publication may, however,
tendto.create in the minds of the newspaper reading public
an impression favourable to Thakin Pu's version . of the
.. story. In that way it may technically amount to contempt
of .C-ourt!. But we will be guided in this matter by the
.. observations. of Harries, C.J. in Subrahmanyan's (5) case
.. referred t.o .above and by the following passage in Oswald's
Contempt -of Court, Third Edition, pages r8 to 19:
"In dealing with an application to commit the publisher
of a newspaper for having published some observations on a
..case while the trial was pending, which were alleged to tend
. to prejudice the minds of the public against one of the defend-
ants before the hearing, Cotton. L.J. said, ' In my opinion,
no 'application to commit for contempt ought to be made
unless. the offence was of so serious a nature as to render the
exercise of this summary jurisdiction necessary to prevent .
.interference with the course of justiCe ; and though there is
. here technically a contempt. I cannot see any such fear .of
..Serious int~rference with . the course . of justice, or prejudi~
.to .the defendant as to justify the Court -i n interfering by this
summary and arbitrary process:' '' (7) .
~--~--~------------~--~~---- ------------
I I x. {7) Hunt v. Cla~kdr889), 37W.R. 724 at p . 725
. (S) J.L.R.,zs. Lahore
737
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Sea Custvms Act, s. 167.4-burden of proof-no necessity of prima facie proof by-
sea customs authorities-illegal seizure-zchether vitiates proceedings-
comparison' with s. 259 of the :English Act and s. 178A. of the Indian Act-
. pusumption of honesty of Collector of Customs, Burma-but not bound by
Evidence Act-jtt1zctions of superior court in considering writ applications-
not a Court of Appeal--non-application of Amnesty Order, 1963-goods
seized not in personam but in rem.
The customs authorities had taken action against the Applicants on the
seizure of certain gold discs in a vault i~ the Applicant's Bank as each of the gold
discs bad a hole in the middle and there were Chinese characters inscribed
thereon on the presumption that they were smuggled goods.
The gold was subsequently confiscated by the Collector of Customs who
held that the Applicants had not discharged the burden of proof imposed on
theni 'under s. x67A of the Sea Customs Act. The order was upheld by
the successive higher authorities and hence this application for a writ of cer-
tiorari.
Held: section 167A of the Sea Customs Act makes no reference what..
soever to the manner of -seizure of the goods, the importation or exportation of
which had been prohibited or restricted under section 19 of the Act. In fact,
the Sea Customs Act itself recognizes the fact that goods liable to confiscation
under the Act may be seized by .persons other than ~hose mentioned in section
i78. For instance, goods liable to confiscation under the Sea Customs Act
may beseized under section x8o by a police officer on suspicion that they have
been :stolen; Goods liable to confiscation under ti:).e Sea Customs Act ~n also
. be 'Seized by excise officers.,
"U Tun Aung & I qnd 4 others,-Civ. Misc. Application N9s. 130, 133,. 157,
197 of 196o and No. 35 of 1961; Kantilal Gorhandas Sh_ah v. The Assistmz't
. Collector ' of: Cust~ms, (1951) B.L.R. 244 (S.C.); Daw Nyunt Nyunt,
No.
e <;:iv.il M~sc. Applicatiorl.: 109 of 1962. Application fo~ direction in
. the nature 'i:>f certiorari, ~gainst.the order of the Collector of Customs of Rangoon,
dated 7th . 06'-...obe~ 1959 and ~cinfimied by the Financial Commissioner
{Comm:.erce) intl by the Hon'ble Minister for Finance artd Revenue dated
x.8th Jiffie 1!)62.
DmJJ Th!In Than and Mc. Tin Jliin ,.. Tlzr !Jon'blc !ltliuistn far Finance and c.c.
1963
Revenue and z others, Civ. !\lise. Applic3tion :\n. .:;6 of 1961 of the late Supreme
Court, referred to. U SoE
NYUNT AND
Assu~1in:; th~t the seizure of th~: ~old made hy the officers of "the Army,
ANOTHER
l3ureau of Special Imestig-ation un...i ;h.: Police Department in the case now f).
under consideration is ilk~ral, thi ;; fllC't alone w: ll not ,itiatc the proceed- THE
ings taken by the Collector of C ustoms for ooof~:Sation of tho: gold in question. COLLECTOR
OF CusToMS
Queen Empress v. /'{qa T ,'i;_; lht~, (r89:;- r900) P.J.I..ll. 369; Kyin Sein AND
(a) Maung Slme l'Vlya , .. Tlu Fin~mce J,fiaisur and tm:~ others. ( H)S9)B.L.R. 196 TWO OTHERS.
(SC); Mi Hauk v. Kin~ l:'mf'l"TO"T, IY L .B.R. n1; ,\ .!!a Pr- Tiw and anotherv.
Queen Empress, ( 1897-1 <JO 1 l l. L' .B.R. 239; /Yiaung Sat: ,\1yin , .. King Emperor,
I.L.R. 7 Ran. 7II; Aun:: .~ : m. &i,. v. The King, (IQ.p ) , R.L . H. .:;.:;: . r~ferred to.
Where the search 1:1 t!k-:;21 persons participating in the search render
themSelves liable for d= .::> for trespass but the illegality of the search does
not effect the ques:.ion "~'-'he!' the person whose place was searched has com-
mitted the offer.cc i( pro>:--,:'ly which cannot be legally possessed is actually
found in the course of l hC' search.
Regarding s. 167A o! rhc Sea Customs Act. it may be compared to s. zsy of
the Customs Consolida ion Act of 1876 and s. 178A of the Indian Act.
Rez "" Cdre~, (195<) 1 .-\11. E.R. 203 at pp. zos/2o6; R. v. Kakelo, (1923)
2 K..B- i93 ; R. v. Fit=gcrald. (1948) unrep; referred to.
It is noticeable that in India the burden of proof under section r78A of
the Act would only arise ,if the goods in question had been seized in t~e reasonable
belief that they _were smuggled goods. The same phraseology does not appear
in section 167.-\ of the Sea Customs Act of Burma. Nevertheless it is a fair
presumption .that Collectors of Customs are honest in the discharge of their
duties and that they would not take out proceedings in respect of any goods
the importation of which has been prohibited or restricted under section 19 of
the Sea Customs Act unless they as reasonable persons believe that such action
was necessary. . But in coming to that conclusion they would not be necessarily
bound by the provisio~s of the Evidence Act.
Sltermal Jain v. Collutor of Central Excise and Land Customs, Calcutta,
A.I.R.(I9S6) Cal. 612 at p. 623, referred to.
The Chief Court is not sitting as a Court of Appeal over the decision of
the Co).lector of .Customs and those authorities who confirmed his decision
T.C. Basappg v. T. Nagappa and another, A.I.R. (1954) (S.C.) 440, referred
to.
In grant~ a writ of certiorari the superior Court does not exercise the
powers 'ofanappeiiate Tribunal. It does not r eview or reweight the evidence
~pori whlcii the determination of the inferior T ribunal purports to be based.
It demolish~ the order which it considers .to be without jurisdiction or probably
erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal.
Sev.:pujanrai lndrasanarai Ltd. \. Collector of Cr~toms and others, A.I.R.
(I959)
. (S.C.) 845, referred
. to.
Regarding whether the provisions of the Amnesty Order covers the case in
question assuming that the order passed against the applicants was p~nal in
nature the applicantS cannot claim to have the be.nefit of the Amnesty Order in
view of paragrnph 6 of th:-.t O rder which excepts those offences :;r::J!ving
evasion of revenue from ;h,; o peratiOil of the Amnesty O rde;:. But, there is
clear autho rity fo r rhe v i{\\ ~hat the action taken by the Collec tor of Customs
N YUNT AND \.vas one in re1'n again.st rhc:.~ goods stized and r~ot i'l P<:rsc;zan: as aga:nst the
ANOTHER applicants.
v. In the result 1h c app!ic;;tion fails.
THE
COLLECTOR
oF ~~~ToMs Khin Maung (Advocate), for the ;;tppl innts.
TWO OTHERS.
Hla M~ung (Government Advocat<>). for the respondents.
. c.c.
1963
Article 8 of section !67 of the Sea '' _..,..,.-
(3) Ci\. Misc. Application -No. s6 of I96I of the late Supreme Court.
(4) (~893- 1900) P.J.L.B. 369. (?) (I897-I90I) I.U.B.R. 239
(s) (1959) B.L.R. 196 (SC). (8) I.L:R. 7 Ran. 77I
(6). IV. L.B.R. IZI. (9) (I94I) R.L.R. 552
..
REPORTs~'
~ - ~~~ --+~'";.;.: .. ~
A6~
71:.~'"*
----.--.
iBDRMA
!!'!"-
LAvv c!J,f:BF-~~ii
~---:~,..-~_,-?!F :;:
-. ..--
,~ O--~,i
:{~''own Views .for those .of the inferior.'tribunar.. ; ![See also : r;6c.
Sewjmjaiiraf':lhdrasanatai' Ltd. v: .Colle'Ct.o r of<U$.~Qm,s '<lQ.d :. ~ .J
1
. h b d d h u . so~
'"'thers . (IS), where t e a ove eos1on . was : qte :~wt.. !:';lyui:rr .ANo
~-:lp.p
. roval.] .. " .. .. . ~oii~.
. ' .i ;. ,.,, .
, .,,:-
...,, . .. '\.
..... .... .:
tiC2:4C.0:211
o . .:> e
11 coO::es&be:c.a:
.:>
a:c
.:>
lb:>e>4b::>reohl
.:> ,) .:>::1
1 1 9 11 11: . lL J
~ cca wu .: 11 a:c.c a cc:c oca:c 1roe>.;n::o~o :
11 .)0 .) 0 t..; ..) :) . .:> .:; .)
.
~ ~ - ~
~-54. B'OR\M~!;t.AW'. RBP.QRT&1 '[~~9.3
'I
I
~:~(~~T)
0)
ll B. ]
c
:n:1 :!1:?1:$~
\:', \ LJ
(' C'
-l:
C'
~Ztl!>l 'COe'Oo:>~::r.lYO).,J)")
.
.1'-'' J .. ' {.;J
o:>C
A
C'
GC\:>I?m:a>?::D
:.U ll
O.S
T
C' Q (
.
G~l
"~')
.c;~?~,;;>J>
' (' .. GY')8~J~::r.l'): ~Sc?::n?: 'fcf,~d.;~ ~c-&eoG8~~y j ( :>)s-;9, t'rtmJlt=~t
C' 0 A\
<:" . <:" r,:<" C: G <:"' <:" o - C'
:.c ~~'>Xf9J 8(]')G~ j j Ci,>J<,.?~~')C9t t11!>8COO'jC~:D2:;rq GO-jj?(J')C:O'):~
C: C:
c~il~ C'
~~eob:>-:>c.>
.::1t:.:.. ..o ::... C' A\ o G C: C' <:" OC: C: <" ~ C C'
YGroJtUSJ m:n?oro~s 9-f~,~~c <D~cro9.:n~e.::~:1 :>el:$? ~~ c;peoe>
Hti~-;t(~li
":~:'~ \ r,:c: c: C' ('
t:lc:;oc1{8d."'rro 130
. ' r,: C' ') .C' ' " '('
qc
C' C' ('
t1cro:::GO.!U19f GcqjXQCO?::Dt:!ctC Q?.mslco:>c;p::
~- :))g :ro C'
G(I.)I')(D(X)');O)I:l'). c:
:l')GCQ')CI!> ~C' oc.
S(:I')ZtCCO)')~ I!>Y
c: '
roro;::;UGS ("
ll Jl ll J c:. " l T l JL L
. C . ( :\ OC' (;;: C' C' ; C' ') C' C' <:"
q3Y ."Cf, !-.:JJ Od91 ~CC:D?:I:jp:nez~p CO~~')!()IC\)JCD I!>I!>GOO:o:>~. OXf>g:
o:>Qi~Fro~~<;~
nl~..:J.:.-. . "ij
(o1)ro~ciJ
-l
~l --r.:~Goo?8o
J o L1L:. L C:.iv?Z6e
fj I L
(o) ~(<)~a5:d5:
-1 l L
~~-s;:: o ~
y')g~I!)'):D~m?:c
:nGc;o?CI!>o:>?:
c c- Y Bc:oc 'D~C()) U:~~
'cC:Y? ();)(:1 C
<" ( j)
~ , :tl' :: J;> L ::1 \:,.:., . L . L l ll o ~ l 7
92~~~~Jrh<:>p:~~ :;:otCDJ~-'f?:qq:GfOlo:>~ GCOJ~~-ro~:~rociuT ~
~;>ro~,
0 C'
C'G
>80P1)Q'.::CO?~
<:" C"c:ro0 <."
u:.oorro:ncut:n:nm
C C' 1 <: C' o C' C' '
Gro?m~c~c:~o:>:n
C'
, oA.J - -I L . t.J o C.:. L . . A o C!a.
. . c: C'
8d;,)r,;:{)GU:D:n II .
. ' JlB L .
. '
84<).. ':>c:ro
o c.- o
CBQC:('J) G(91
'T' 9~
c~ :, c
0)(\)IC I COOCY
@3
: o 'c.- "-'
~ ffiUGQ1:<:>:
- ~~' o
2::
,.
.
C'
ll T
('
L-1
-
I II.
C'
lJ 0
L ll Jl
c .c
Jlt.
c-
.oc.
ZtCC
L
a
~O?J?GC:')('f)
?~:D?:
.
:>el:$? ~I
c.
YO)()O)CCQCDYO)Yl?:O)
J L J tJ l
.C'
~~a:>
c C'
. :>o 'JCDGf.CD
0 c . .
GCDJ?:DG9~c:GC'!W~J?qc
,
I!>I!>G:;o;roGCQI'):/.lCO?::n
. -l JJ ll
0
OOYQ::D
Jl
Co-
c-
0<" r:::
~CCr;)')~O)'): Cfo:xro:>c~gy j :>
c:.
$Xj'l oxp:~~()I0)2~ G<.91 15:i:D221r
' c: ( ) . ' 0., C' . 'l'~ '
.., c oo c: o o o r,:c- (;; c c 1 A\ c- o
G::opmco:>::nmY Y;,)e\l~:Y):O)')i Yo:lroY:> t:J-fY?Cj;:x>o?CG{:)!~I:9) 8d4>2o:><Dm
c-
; o<" u. , IL <: e. 0t0 A .. c- '' J c 'c' 6 c- A 0 , c t <:
PSOOCCO')O)~I?:r,;;l!)r;~:
T L IL U l:j t:l
YYY')C\:i': n: GCDI')(DG90)CfO)C G<:>:<.9J:~::Dr,;;C 08
J C:. 11 A 6 6 6 o l:j. l
. ( )
Cj . j m9 1 ~CC:D?:~:ji!>:Oei::r.lCJtC:
oc:. r,;:c: c: 0<:" oc r:::
~CCt:'j?::n?:com~ro <X>?:1\9r Y9_U!Uf
c c 0 ' 0 "'
C'
GQJ UGCO:D2:;11
0 C' 0 C' C' c c _c;: C'., . ') c.-
cqGQJUQJCDCJ:t GCO~?CDCO?:~ sc:e~~~QC~ ~UIO"..OC: GO:)')CDQ9f
C' ' c.- .<: c 0<" .C' ''
C'. C'
o:>roG:n ~ Go:>?m roc Qro Grot-:>mco-:>7:n~::~ :::r.lQ:::<:>? cnc:9c::n?:<:>rouroc
\ 0 T JJ IL J L J l
c 'c- c- or,~ r,:;:: c
r,:' r c ' . "' , t:;:: c- o . c.- ,fil>
CO(D~O) 91\t1:Gt~pc:1t::; sc:'f? t:Jf'=>?~2~ G~:~I:~G~?c:ot ~:>Ym0;>
C' <:" 0 G C: 6<" 0 C' C '
~q ill:Dill ?_0 5j e:u;;:~Cq[CD GCO:>:D~GU~2:; II
0 C'
O)GO)') OOGOO::n:n ():l')')Qaxn:x
c: C' 0
:n-- T
g :ro COI')(DOO:>:::De\1 o:l:::x>?:o:>Y? c . <: 0 . 0
c:
SY')c L
C'
:n~c
., , .
G{:);~I:QG
~
6 ')C: C
c c:
ll
o:>CDG:DCOGCO?CDG::r.l')C
lJ
c: '
ll
..
l
YGOX.iO::'D C
~
0
oLJ
("
T C:. ll ll 0 o l . . 0 A J1 -1 o
c oc r,;:c c c: ( ) .~c
o<" ..
G."9j?<r.?.q:r:>.:Oi['f.A:. -G.:P:;>.;r:J>jt Cj . j roroeuG8 ~8'=1 ::r.l'JI t:Jf'=>')~CC
coc:
o:>?: Y I!>~Co:>
l l
U.
~ c- c-o c-,
:1 . ~ -( o
c
C.:.
o ' o
1.. o oL
o c
O)Ol:)C\ 1!>8Cimc!C~Groo:>:nll OO:D:D ~QiO)Y') U8~ l': j
l tJ J L
c
7
( )
' .
( ) f' ~c oc " c 'c r:
::> ::>ell::> ~~ E!f"'?~cc >9;;~:1 O~Jo:>p ~jl~ll
llcob
.)
oc
mccccocoo-:
. .)
.\ . .
.(f;:>:Cbco~(!oa:;) (~)soc I~ rro~ ~~~c,J...
~~~
.,;)
.,)
:2=rco~:a
0 . ~
: ~&:cb<.o :,,
0 o::3
:hlh::2 olre:Q&<bco
,;) ~ 0 ., _ o.::J . _.
~
-
~OJH~I
~(t)
:.a
;~QJ'J)g~,
o} ~u
11 S.O~~~gu 11 ~row:d<'lS!:~cos:~
11. ~~:cx:c:2c.cocc.:r s~11
.> l.
e
11 .>a..:&wb:m:bcoe&es
P
:re.~3:]... BUIR9J~1 EAW./ RERJ{>T$.: .. 1-6t
4;n+dS~68:od;(;):J.
C::, - .... l -1L -lJ[ C..:. J "ort at:tount of ar~eai.s of rent
for :.:o."s~-,~~a
r .. .. . d'e~-r
. c- 0 r,:c- 0 . c
occupation of the ~ores~id .land ' 9:023tq ~cxl':>=t:tt'P ~a>rm:~cJ ~OJi ~j
.- . 0 . c-r,: c- ~ c c- '"I c- ("! c-
~?1. W.'f:2UG8::P:OOO~O?DlG:D? a>ro?:9U<JJl:<JeJ.imO?op'f>191g9g:;;>G:D~0)23: . ooS(~)
r;;:c-.oc- c- c-o A; r,: r;;:c
t::Ja>~C0?21i <JO?t;p:com~a)'):9J m~:l)t :Otj<:;GO:'j~e GCOJ?G~:G:))?a:>2: .
c- c- ~ c c-.
.--: :
t&
J .
C ~L -[ U C L J tJ \
C' o 1,~ C' C' r,;:c- r,: 0 " C" ~ ' C' O~C' A; Q C'~
<'T.ff<X(:[j:Gf?001 8'd:;>C:tj~G~:T.t gg !:'J~:GO?~:>e_p:;: II ~t:'J09J 2:G~?Ct5 :
l.
..~Gco nbooo 0
GOJ:O:n<J?c ') c
cJ:;;~g:;;>goomr
c
G::OnGc- , :Gco::>? L ~("
~G'im?c:u
. c-
. C:.J J-1 t U 6 c 11~
~QC:C' Ql . ("~ c- . c- c- .o . . C" A;
~tF e:Gg-:>? ~:mcoe: o@9o ~it0' GSd?<'r;~:.:;?ro o . 9m9~19J
oo c- r,;:c r,: o co ' G c~ c Q o c- o c
~~8'd?C:I9a>Gr::J~ ro~~~CO'):Gm'?::D e:G~?I=-~:a;>c C'Jlgffi~ G'-?:8;;.~otm
r::::: (:- 0 c- c ci 0 0 c 0 c c. c- Q''. C'~
G~?C:Il GC I( 000 GU;:::CCg-:>ro~: ~g(l)U)O)C8'd0?('))(,)0:X})I ;:>:G0':>C~: :
c- Q.:~'c. c-J LC'~ .. .:~ t ~ -
sx ~~CID~OfD .GmG?C: G<JTGro:02:?11 . ....
c c- r::: c- Q C'~ . C' c- c c- c 0
s .
. SD:=?Je! 8'dGcr~Gt~C e:G~?Ce3:ro ~1.r~~0':>0>J!v~CJ:?~; . <71t.:;'C(= \
c- S'JOOUIG
. . :.G.S?(T.)I o .., mo ::PU)O> 0"...-Q'):CX~
0 o I?:~ CJ:Q~g:n
.., " . ~())O)GOJ';GIO:Pp
c- c. c
:;
T
c- . o
.L
.C' . fs"
t . IL
o ere
l L tJ
Q
J J
c~
Teo 8dOJS"~C?.c.: c:oXfo.)~j3Q::'[JI 2:G'=1?.: ;el::o2 Q~C_:}:~Gtj')C:G'j:
iL l
c . c. , r,: c
o c..::J -~
c- . c c . c c- c- c c "l c c c
mmeuGS
.
UlJ<J. 0~~ Q)C
. .t.
8'dmi[:OC::U~ OOroC\)mC. I:~g:O? C 0:0~()) <Jffi.: P
o . . u. J _~...
!,_:;:, c.:. . .. -a c
0 C' C" C" (' C 9 C 'l . CO
~~G0u rn.~~K~c~.mro?:~. ~:o? ~oJ8G3-:>rJm G.~J-:?~8'1 1c.o~IOlJ~"?!t1J
- ( ) C' o c c- c- .., . c . ' o
8Jg j oocr o::9:mm roc:p:O>m?: <C!JSO?mrog ooroO>JGa>9t roq-J:~ro
Jl 6 l . 4l: .~ . 6 .4l . :. :' .. _ ~. ~ :" ~ ,L
. ,
(.)) (! C'p.'J~:a8o:ioS~~('q)) ~'J 9Sou
B1JRMA:fTIAW '.REPORTS:
c-c- o c- c- c- c- o[;:o'lc-'-r;:;:<- o '
::X>2~C 00~1 s:JGQJ3 Gt:D~::r.>roro~~ ~<;;CJ~ q1 :9G:~~eJ?c:. Q~O)
(" c . c ~ c c. 0 ("
C\.1Jffil G8J?n:>8d:.l[:lj1::U oxp::;,ro'J: ~X! 9f -"-1_Gm?rt::Go:>? <1:. 0)00':>
<JGU: ~
L
mro~
IL ::lJ o ' o '
OO~cq<.>~OC'.i_~
c c c ~ oc
oxp:~O)GO')')()) .G$4?())0 ro9c:
ro~:S?~ci&~ 11
" The suit ought to have been decreed. "The Lower
Appellate Court could not make for the Defendant a cas~
which was different from and inconsistent wjth that set up
by hkn."
.t963:J BURMA LAW :REPGRTS 765
0
rom~c,Hrt><.x>~
T IL
o:>c:>:o:>~;:;JI[O
~ c o o~
e:o:> ~:~C o:l'P::P
c @a: e:oG~?COX:QC:~-:>CDO:)C
o c o c C"
T 1~ tJ .. t .J . ll . L .~1 J ~- .
~sTG0?1)6o1~ j ( :3d0j[~~~g9gpg)
. .
. . .
C"
f o~ti?
:<\C c
J 0
4)('/)00 o:>-:>00
-~ G ... c- ~
~ rogm?ot~~:
~ (
.i \. \ V'?-~Y~~~-r:~P~g/*.. .
o 0 r JO 9ron
c
rocrlG:P;) ::JOC:so~
[, ~ . l
ooo oo::rl:~r;;~X;
~L T - Jl u.
8gag~<r.>rf>ror::::..,g:
L 11 L c.:t
-~f.:~g, _q)~~;,
ti;(IJ~ . -~- i b. .IL I
. rr.looTg _
m ?oHg:
lt: ~ , .~.
oa>~:~r;;?9:c:'l; rr.lc:Peoc:ood~
. .o~ ... , .>.... ~ ...~ ~ ., .;
9o 8g~g~g~::;;~
t. .. .. .. . L. . J. . -1. IL. J
0G,~:ou3~g:c&__.ou3:0; 4)~ii~:!::E:~~<fi~8: 8do88;;,88~8u . ' .
oC.:. t:j t> l\, L l:JT :!J Cj I. L ~ JI J) . .
o
o
o;>~:;Jo:>'P::;, o ~c. mJr~Cfc~O:!f.:.f
~ r,: o o o ~<:
o . C' oc o c~ c
\'j e=m92 O:~!:>rr.l~ut=.~.,:~p:~4>.~r!l:
r;;:.c- r;:;:. c . r,: c .
. r: c r: o
-~~~~~~::!'!' ~~~ ~~:PG:cp !{C~C<Elf;l'::lq,~~?G: J~~<r.>GmJw~~'J.tt9. '11:!JQ:ll
~oS~~o39'lf o:>'P:~C:(\)0)~11 q8:~~f3?.~ oe.ro~~~~ (JJJO(c~~:f 0 rr.lQ1?~
rr.l<i>QI
0 'l 'l .
~IG<P!l>.lC:.l;C
(' ('
tr.l
"
?::II. J :;>;.1 GQIC:
.. . 'l.C'
9. j:.~:mo:>::pJ
.. 0 c 0
OOOJrr.l::l:>ctro
c ';~l?!rr.l ~
L 6 : J U 01. ~ l L ll \1 ' .
c c i: c- cr;;: ~ c-' :i;:;:: ci.' o o -i 'l c c ' .c
?1-rr.lo;'C!rr.l~m 'J~OOCO?~JlOt'JC: 000~GEJ?c:~7>~11 G<l~OI ~IG?O:G<~c:o:>ce ~~
o.C'Q cL~ c c r;;:c . r,: 'T' c ' oc C' c-.s, .oc r;;:c- ~ c
~~~.:~~_?Ctj:Gf?m G<l:;lJC:t:jq,c;~r;;QI ~C o:lrr.l~Gro?~:Jl Gf~C:>f.:P?l:ja>C:t:j?G:I
oC. oC..
0C<l;1C:P ~<r.J(T.!CI I GOOC:'J.SG()IC9.S
c~ c c 'lC c
o:IOlC~C:
c o -:>c:opO)::OII
~ o C'
ft: t,: ' IL L :1 T T T 6~Jl - L C
' .. . o c oo or,: o o c- <-oc-r:- c . o o r,:c
-~<f.<XX!'f>:ro, o ro _~~o:>~ cqr;;c:Jro, ~~o:~::o.c:~"3?c: "1:ooo:> o;>G:?'J:I'::I~
c-
4)00:C:~:
L
c
.s:C'
c:T
51 (\)()~
l. L
c~ m?COo:>,So:>:Go:
. .co c
: OOJO)G 'T. &.
B U.
-:>c:G:;JIO:Q::PII
C'
tJ
1:
C ..
0 C' o C"O G
. . C' 0 C" ~ C"
' 0 . C" o
~(\)<\;('/) G;IO)::><rio'l;~~l?;; q):;QOJ::Orr.lo:>C:I rr.l.l;COCDQ:;JI\X))C\:)('1)~.
II,; i,.l ll--; ;:-t- U 6 :.} C,!. L l ---~UJ l : :
G G<l<X):;JOXO;(U
1.,. -; -; .T L
~p:m oo'P:~::;,Jlq~a;;<>?c~o8g;~O:Ieu
... . C'
roi O:>O)I('/)11
C ; C'
flrr.l:;Jc: G>G O):DI
(' .
CIX))Q O:;J:P::p~? .l\G>0.9G~3
C' -j
~IGCD:rr.lc:
C' C'OC' C' . .C 0. .
t \1 t.:..:. 6. Jl 0~ J GO .
. cr;:;:. r,:c' c oc .r;:;:. C' OC' c c oc C::::..... C' !>: c- C'
G<~o:>fe:1?~C:~'P' qc:~~Gelx; ~~~rr.l:PC::P?C\jlc qcc:e.t""': !XlC~?:tl'lfo:>?Ot
~?
J
o:>crlG:P~
.
:xlGOot~
t:, - I.
000 ~hc?.i!Qitrl:Y.l'}~<U;g
tJ<:J T U L JJ
i.lm~axr>:~l?i~
IL -- T
~:Ga:>iGrog
.tJ _t.:j . C'
m?~t~c:roo:~eu :4:o8~ro{c-OO?:I ~orc~oo'P=~~p=o:~~ ~e~~ 94 o:xrl.GOJOX:.
*. C' c
oeiSJ~>1 o:>-p:~os~rr.lOft~rr.l'Jo:lOell
. 0 c
c c ~ c c. c c " r c - . c ~ 'l , ~
t O!.ljiS :;J~a>l moo:~ :~rr.l~o:> j o:>c 012130 ~&4)1 OC'o:>?CO 0\S ClCDG.SO()If o:;,: I
I;; ~J -- T Jl J . 6 : !,;. lJ ~ l-6 IL 1.
C'OC' ~ C'<: c QQO . o('
COO)('/):;JOCO:X:O:~
T 1! -: ~( 0:>00!0)
-r lL : C'o!GOJ?~ ~~~o:>G:P?
] . UJ
OCDCCD
-~ L
OOOO~OC~II
II. Jl.
v n 1 _ __ ,,
II OC.t'le>:~&:>:CII 11 c.cx.oro:c.me:cocoe<Qes
:;, . . : .
. . . :,. '
" " e ; _,_ ~ - 11
11o&e~~211 II C.OCoes:c.
.)
rt'ltu:ox.o~cnro
0 . .
.,o . ., e
768
i
. .. . . . I
uMe C:< Je.rohbroroo 10c toet: :eooceec.oc.ee e (f:\
:J:;J : .oe. o e ' .:> .> J
S:.UfOdmi. /.it\V1 Y.~{lg:
772
.,
. - "!
773
C'
~c
J
~
C' 0 OC' C" 0
SdG.SG ::::oc OOGJ':):::OC:OC CDffi.S'J:J.)IC W: Q:): <DO>G
T l> lll L L
<:
T
<:
Uo
L
o
l
C''
6 <: 0
:>c:~:>GmGl':>:O)I
U l
~Q8ro:g?
:t , L J C. ::>oosro~,oSoocorf.>~cf
II J
>8co,5:~
tiC ;:Jl J
Y?:m8:G!ffi?:gGuT
II e.:i oo8G~'
1> U
w -
: It- o. o c c c- ~ o c::
m~ en:> . ::>UG8~(!;00CQI:::>:~ mco:a:gl');eu SdillSdOO G ?C:CO C:.$Co:l?;
c- ' c e-
. 3 . L c J .. oc -- L 1J lJ . n. J'
r,;, c ..c- o o It o o : . oo ~ cc c-r;:: c- r;;: c c- .
l;j>?J211 ~())~ cq:> euGS~? Sd*illl.j2~Sdo:>~tJ>G~? E;UG8tJQ)~~ II .
..
"O)O)Sd{:lOJCO)?:l (" ('.S{:l?::Do:>C c- C' . (' C' . ('
~O):"D{:l lOG~? o:><i)UC()g02()G8~C ()0)
c- c- 0 0
. ( Sd(.l)Qmm:co
IL
T ~-
L
. ~~
0 SdG
l
.--.T '" 0L
~ mco:>OOG~? SdOOUI $())(l)I[)')QijUQ?
0 "
l l
0 C"
u J
c-
Otro
u
1:\ (" C' 0 r,;: C"f,~ r,;: (' ~~r.: (" 0 (" (' c- C' ,;:; (' 0 c- c
t:lm~2~ oq:l'::lmt:l:l'::1>"'4::lqr cq>?QJ iu~qooroJe=9J (,f~pqc;c.
c- c coo co co c- o oo cr,:
~Jf.:>lJCGCOJ?C~ cq~?QJ!U~ ~JIU~-~c SdGU:Sdc.Jfl ~~~oq~e t)~f~
'T' " c )
~G(;)I GUIO)GOO?G~III
0 o .c:: 0
ll
Sdc.Xl_;;>O)rn:co
1&: -[ L
enu:"D?QGOOS
C:. Jl eJI-T
B 0 C'O C'
:mro~~>e:~:::DISdGG
L ttJ
'
C., A
c c c c,;:; ~c '11m c o ~r.!?c c r;;: c o 'l
~~~:;q . uro~.ro~ rotlc:~l:tj~2~ Gl.jtJg:~e roGftl~ rooqu r
c o c o~ c r,;:c .c c c- oo .<: c- o t' o-
4?'-?QJIUR ~JIO~e::l~2 l'::1109m?:~ QJf:>lJCGCOJ?Cro ggenGoo?c:oq~JffiCT.(
c c -cr;;:,c,;:; c o c c c oo c o 1m c- c c-
~~~~Cik:t>9J! mc:0;1~t~ro~a?~g::ommroGu:'ilGt:J~:;qG9 ?ro.
:;.(?)
.
:8gm~o.:>:~~I':i:n3:;di,~ol
n \ . .-'b U.... . . ~-4 .'\
. e>?:>ll
. .
.. . ::
~
' .. ;~ . . J
':
~
-
. cBs;s:!r.ld3t:o8
Ll C:. l
mc8 :;.J
l J
:;t)g~'luS
T
c~)!r.l~
~ Jl, 4
~6~~~~ "roc(id;
- : T t1C
C' C' ~ C' '() ~
C' 0 r.:: c
mOOGro? oxp=~e~= Lord Macriaghten o:>~ u:>t ~u~~t=ot ~=t~O?
~~ ~~~r&1rocf: ~oS~~-~roo:>~n
. ' .
" The question is what effect would the coiilDltinica~on
have on the minds of the persons to whom it is ad<fress~d.
That is the test as laid down in this House. It is :only a
matter of cop1~on ~ense, as A. L. Smith, L.J. observed, All
that is requir~- is that a communication proceeding from the
debtor, made seriously, should give the creditors. or . anY' qf
the. creditors to understand from the state of circu~~ces
as djsclosed at the' time that the debtor has suspended or
that he is about to suspend' payment. If it ccimes to this- I
borrow the . illustration from the judgement of Fry; I,..J. in
In re Lamb {4), which was referred to by Lord Selboll!e:fu
Crook v. Morley t5}-that the debtor has said in effect I am
in a position at tlie' pre5ennir~ent in which ids iiripossible
for me to go on paying my creditors who may 'apply to me
in 'the ordinary coUr-se of trade, and if I pay tlie 1irSt: who
-apply there will be nothing left for the rest,' that is an
intiination tha t he Will either immediately suspend payment
o th-at he is ~bout to suspena . payment. as soon as he
reaches 'the end' of his. resources." . . . ,. .
n;~:'l'o:r..;t.A .'-<.
~~~1~ ; .1:-
T,A''.!flf
li.T R. EPr.;o:rs
/': ....: ( . ~!)-~.1 , . ~ .
reccag co:ce
Ol: .,) 0 0 . ..>
.)
_n
,. [IIIOCC
OC ~ro
1W ( 0 )1r ,. v r n
ftW CD :cCOCOIGCOfllO Olg :fln:cco:COOJelt'I:'.C
r co ..> 6- 1, ..> o <) ~ .,e 1, .> e ..> .> o .> .>
.@h.l:~cc ac~
..,) :::::1.> ..... JflWJ(o)coecJftec] ucccc0hl axccc:ro~:~
.,) . .,) .,) .,) .,) .,)~ ccfibcdh
.,) .,) e.:J cMocco
.,) ~.
.,)~bhl
r3vc :c~ococc~cc
.,) .,)
lo~ro&:ccowc!bJ~oeo:lrekoi(Z
.,)..1,; .,)
e
.,) ~ ~
un~rooo:!~o~~:ol:l
.) .,) .)0~ .,:;:J
' d.')
Z'i5l ;SJ.~od:W ':W{vf: f:iJ>~.fHI .. [9i
~*(:cPC?ocb~:cro~~lb:>e>)
.;~~~~~e>ccoe>~Q ,~?~c~1 uQb cr co
.: ~ ,~-.~. _; ~~.~.. .: .. . ..~ .. ~. ~~ . . 1
~cccococesl>
0 .:>
. 0 . :J
(&:cro~cFro~) ?~:~~j_Ge> ds~;+
82.C.
\_. :)...;..
.,
: -.ucc~=~~:~cx5~c~~~m ;~:f~-Ls~ f~r~ ,}l~co-~g.re~~ .
1e~~ro ~Soflro ~cc:c:coPe'Ccbo ijll:lCOto:ccoPe :c.rooce~oeoce.~ tubl~l:o,_
.L o -_,o .:> o o Y. j _o .:> .:> .:> .o ~ 9 ~
~Soflro ~ci:>eJcro~d:.o rocoeJcro~ccobl~~Q ri:b~hli
.,oFro:hlcohoo
- e~b ._., - c;> .:>o Y6 6.:> . ::>Q 6 .6.:> .~ o .. .,~
ooe&>ro OOC.OflCaJ~cmbl~ b:~ro:b~~CoCCO~ OO~Cfl~Q ~ocoob.~Q:
.:> 6 6.:> :_j o - o .:> .:> .:>o .:>~ .:> .:> ~
~o2A~oe:;ceJe
.Y .:> .:> .:>
u@ccwtt:croPe
.:> .:> o . .
:ces.:>o~:~cc.:>0 .L
1s~ od.Jbl~@hl:oero
~ .:>~ .:>
.:>6Fco-.:
:QtoP6)COO toS.ero lt:)C.OflCW~c{g:PaJ~ COCOflCW~:om IO~CCecooe.&,a:{
6j_, s o .:>O :> 5 6.:> 6 6.:> .,o .:> .:> ., . - :
: ~x)'c.oAcw~c:mbl~
. ...6 . 6.:> . .: ~
r:otocoocb~
.:>06 _,...._. .:>
oG!ccoMw~fl .:>o~:~cc .:>O.L
,G; uJt:)(Ob:'
Yj - o
:C:ro:
Pe!- -:ce.G:::ceJ~oe :::c.fl.~ ~g~@J:~ro. rwc. ~e~Socc:lccroO:OO::c.Pei:b~eS' 0
o~ .~: ~ . ~ .:> . ~o :> ..> .:> o r /' .> ~ ' . : '
.:>
oero .,. ~ccwcob:::ccb
.:> o .:>
co:;ceJ~:::e:::cfl~
o .:> .:> .:>
o\t'o~:~cc IG~ rwc.o.
.:> _,. .:>O .L
eJcweccoble~~
6 6.:> ~-
c~:PaSe
. :cPm:;c.Pe~
., rco4~bGm~
., . >o~h. eS.~wb
., ., c roe~ l@~e .:~..
., c~~c . wc.~~li:>:
., . o .. .~; .
. . . .
-~~~~~co~Pee~~di~. :
.) . \.) . .) . j . .:
.c. c.roP~:I@~e
.6j .) c~llc
::J
toSofle.G l~oiPe&icbc.O.
0 .)0 :5.)
Ii re~eoblbc~~fl;@a')C;i:c'~
\.)~.) 0 .) .)
:cro~ciEoe ~~ c so~rocrosOclh:~~Cq~fl;cbco ~lre: ~:cbco;
rs/rr ..
.) .) .;) .) . .,. .:.) .;)
0 .)0 .) ...J.)
.) . . .) .
. @(c . ~cf}~oe:::c.M ~bcor""'o :::t>lc~~4fec@ . ' -.t.;1e~&n to~flrola~:c~
Pett:x0
o .:>
ult:)wb::ccoPe
:5 .:> o
~ere d~:~cc 18~ wc.oficwe:b:cc6Pdca:~ .
.:> .:>O .L e e.:> 6
J:o'l:oc.Ciocb~ . e:~c.c.;d~ cb:c~wdf:u~ c.c.:~w4botooto :o~ro0~~
.:>O 6 : . ,~; .:> ~ .:> . . rJ 1i . ;-' . .:> : .:>o .:> .:> .:> . .
C~-r~lJc COOCfl~Oe:::c.fl~ COflW ccbe:ccoroclbJ~:c~:CCI:O:Ob
C :::f
::J::J.O.:> .:>.:>. . .:> ~ .:> 6Y.:> .:>
_.) . .:>.0 -.t.;
ol;:4cc rG~. &:ccoc.c.:C.Itod~co
.)
~cc@hlo~6h
. .)
t_ubl~corobo
.)~.) .) 0 0 ~ .) 0
u~ccahlbl~mro
.) _,~:_j .;) ;
-~ .. 3~~-C . ~co~~fte~r (e)~ T~~iJ=~ lfCr ~~ rct;:rw~:~r~;
.;ocre~'
_,
ohro~~B-
1JO o~\ .
:8~ IC~Q~@6j:~eroecon
. ~ __,...., .:> o :h:'l~td oJre:h:ll;b(b~
o::3o. e .:> o::3 . , ... ./-'
u~Pe:2u
.:> e
a (c) :tcccc:~u ~~~~~&:ccosoc.,~~,
... .
. ; . . "; . : ......... . !
n.)@&'a.ik:Od.ocK>wC.fb~
. .) .0 ' .) 0 . ::J . . ..
. . . . .:. ~~~ccroi:l~:scJ~~
~bee& . 'co@Cc::coo:o~@es'l!.ees ::>CJcooC! 46e:,~~ Wfuwwt.~~ee ::>~:*::io~
..> ~ . e ..>:l . :> . o . .> ...> ..> .> ~
~:::>!, uhlc~~C26 'W46e~l;:lrcoo::4k:~:4ooke:cr~:c!'ICCcoro'&::>cc.o~
.> .> .> .> .>
~ o ...> . e'J.> o o B'
::>"&>
.> .., :;:f . .> .>
co~ccc.oe~hco . ICCC~Ca:>Co~l::li0~'!1 "co: crMeoC:@~ O~coo<JJo'b::es I;Ch.l~&~ . .
. .> .> .>t..; :--J o ,.> .> . t,;o .> ~ o.. .
. .. ... .-~ .:. u~:Cro:4c5hl
. ::,- .,)
:::>ro~c.oes
~ .,) . 0
'co@~be~eQ@c.Oes
-?'{ . .)~.) .
-~hles:81
:> ~ 0
~@~c6r6
_. ..) '..) . 1
cdil:'Qe :~to~;CW~crobl-~loA I oitu:hl]JJ ::>eO~~&~ OOCQ~CW~ccObl;,-toA 'liieore~Q
"~ ~o :~.> ~ ~ 0 . .:>. el:l.> .>O .. ., 0 '0.) '-' ..., ~to 0 .:> ~ :1
;
I
. 0.6t
~nq A{!~.ll!qltl p~spJaxa aq ~ou Prno-qs
locaoc.es'co
-- 0
u2coc.cc~ ~:brcoc&:.a:x:.es
;) ~ .) .)
\
.(&b~:c:.oosuclh>e>) =~~ 5cese>:~ uc.o~; . ?,
. .) -. . .
. o-f roc.cctoeoo
,"'. \ J .. V ,;) :
~
(&:coosuclh>e>) ~96-~+ .
- -
-.. .. ..... r , -~
". '
i~:iii.:;c~~;a
. .)O <~. e
;.\ ~?t..~.~
. ,)~-~~~ie:~
-"- ..L
. ...... ~ .
.~~gtlc .
; . t4 ': "'.: . '.' ; :: . ; -~i'A'i.\.'F . . :.
,2igL. -~~"HOtiffi! M:\ff.F,~V:>r -i~l'HI
01.
GlN'i:il'Jr.tr;\f!: +~ U'J5 '?tA~~!
~~~~~.~:lt'YY. ilJ~~~
11 c :~oce:s~:2u uaX.oe:s&be:ccoc.oclb.:>~~bore...J::l
.).) e.> .> .>.>:>'~
C' ., 0 C' C'' C' ~ 'I"' 0 C'
0):3-St
-T
W~\n:p
L L
oxo:oca;)Q')Ol:p::n
~- T Jl A J C!,
m~~
A
:~
J
mcn::>lmc:ot
_., T
mYm
A ..
rom
C' C' C' C' C' 0 . C' ~ C' C' OC'
C\XD ~OG~:9s
T
c:rot?OXO:>~am.ru;.:~. m~~
Jl '"7Pl~ ,..,. \.. ~ Jl
:cnc
b
orc:ro:>~
1J J
roms-:>
L T
;...
:,...~"'' ~.. . .. ..
,:c..Q:._
l g. ."<>:. "'-!:2;
~;
a. ~ > :~-'C)-~"'H.: .a~~
"'s
it!.,
"a"
~
~-'0
;a ..
r:u .
,::,g -.( , 8 ..
~
"=='
8
o
!.' <J
.. 'Ci>l! ... ' . 8 ,; R .cra-.o -, ,' C..(\ " 0 " 1 ug
....
I
.~:1 .(.\ t:\~ '.# (
.. . JJ23 ..." 'Q :) en .0 ~ "8 ..
' " ~t:> '_, .., . : cg ' , . _; ... t:.2:) 8 '. 8."... ~ ' ~.: '.,'0:;.' .. 1 .;~1)f - ~:) ren
9
'
~
"'
&
.o
. c:.:;..
tru
c.,e . . . . 0..':
w .. ,
~8 > ;.~Q . '. '08\.
o\. (.t:)i, 0
8 .
~ .
--8
' "'
, . a~
__ a...G . ... : B t =:. -c::; ,.. va:-.- -B . .o . .. .... . .../ (>:- ~~.. ~~~
't4
. G~ . ,.. G
. .
8
. <J !J..
;j ' .. Cl' ~~.,"~
" , . ~ .. ~ .... . ~ o .
Et' ~ru
:.
:~~ ~~ ~8"' : >~. :~~;.
.B-': . ,.8.--Lo :-8 ..
.J.':
. S)
0 v<" ~ .
" :;8 -~
-\2 , o .OP,
'"c i' o " 3) ' - ,., .. (' -
- '
,- '~ s '
:. ;, . ~.ll-'-YRJ c:i. " ."8 . f~ ~ -: ba."i
o
G<J '~ , .. 0 -Yo c;;-. :Jr . <9 .,:)~.:)... . :'< <".'
" ~ '.,._..
"~....~.... ~-<>8~
8'. "<"> ,8"8 " o0
a
'0
<:. ..;
''IT"
-oe"'
..
n
qa . . .~ ~ ..::.t~ :~.; (9> .....: ~'- "
n - ~>4:: ..~ R .& 6J., -~ .B : 3_:
. 0 .., . . .,-
S: ' .;;t"' 0 '-; 1t
e> vo ti ...
14;: ' c
. ~
,.. .. -~' ~;.oe~. g:: "RJ' ~ 0 8 .~-~ -~~.. : 'ill'.; r~ . :~
"~ ot "G..":. O "O. . "~-: t "' ...,. . .. . - . o - .... C?t
.,g ..oa.
o:'
0
,.~ ~-~"-
;c.o . ,:. .<)s...~
HD s)..Sl O(i'" c., ~ 0
o -8- ' .. c... 8 ~ "" .., '"8
:ji-. ' oa.."' ~ . - .. g=."o -. C)
8 '
: 0 '8' <>cr: .~
~ - e. ., .
0..
~
..:
"
~ db OC) c!O :: 8, . 8. . :" C9
o8J ..== ~ :.-:_ .~8Jc...cw": -: 8 "<1:Jr8 .. 8 ~ B
(l) 0 :.. - :. (\
..~ 8 oe~<>cr. ~
<IJ..,
~ ~""t 3
r:-3 e,o .
~~. <.>.;,r "~" f'8 .(JD. ;;. :
. ~ ,.
~ '18S . . . CT": 8 ., gu >o"' ' "O Cl 0
0 :o~ ~- '.Jg ~c;~ : o~.. ;""; ;~ 8 ,;w8.s"8- "8 . .-. <>Cl
8 :
~'.o& " - B~
8
~
o
.
"8
--:?
::. ;~o
a .~ :. " 4~
!8 _.. fT' 8 "o 'uD
"o - oR-'
3-" ';; , , ~~- ~'Go . CLJ :~~ C) h; og.: .oa-!. '8 <>m ~.. C'l, ~ ' '~
~:-\:
~ ' :8S "S? ''~8" ','"G . <-(.) . "O . o~ "8 ,.~ :: 'S>8 ;;., "oo -.. 8 ' -" ~"" . -o :. C) .._.o ..i .- cr.oa':' ~ 8- 'M ' 'n
~~ '0:) C) , . =<;:~.o>4:: ~ "8
"~~ ....
~... ."
,.~~
8 . 'ss'" 8 ., l2:i
o"'
031 '"'-
:) . :-JU. ~
l.J ~\') :
cs='i UG : .:: . ~ ~;i>O~C.,Q '-'OD.
~ r_e-~ ... 8. . ~ : $ . LID !T't-o .. o ~o <-<."o~
o GVj:: .~ ss . "G "o . 84 o
C"\ > <9 :.: ~ -~ . . ;;.!
"o...
t~g ! f_ - ..~ ~ . .~:
UDvo .,..,;,. r~.,
<>CT r ""' '-""-' 0 ...
-S ,. .~t{<J
:,~
'\::1
UI!Jwu v<:? (,., R 8 :_c:Q : . <r; "<c> C:l
~
,,t ('
g :. ~~ - , .':'~9:) ~~ : ~ s. '---~~ ~- ~ :!" " ' vcrJ 8:' ~ :~ ~~~ <lB~
'I
:)~,,. e
m ..
......
.6 :~r ":~
"R:l :-::. ori}: . :)~ . c..o .~ . . : .. .. . C) '8'-'<'3 ,;;,. , . "":b _: 8", OCll 0 ' "t:s1 '~'
f
~~ 8.. ~ 8- 8 os e ~-- c Ss n . ~!""" : ~ ~ : "" .
0 ~ ~ ~ e, ; ,_- c., . . .......<l t ~~!J- ~, W r
(\
8 .o:) . . U1J ,. <: ,~ -"'~ ~~::. s <><'l:) ~- .. ,_- 8.J . 81. .ffi~ R:: ?~ ~ . a~
0 c., (9
"YJ- - 0 '
'CI' ... . c;;, .. .. ..... .. (..o (., ' (:')
~ i:~ ,. :A <>cr ._o o :: 8 - <>Cl"'1.,- li.
,.~ ~- 8 .... ~ s . . ....0s - .,_
.l1tl: o.... "G ..;g. {_ID.~:_;,==s o8"' o3.. ,;( .~ "8:. fl .-;:. 88 B , 8 _.fo:: . .- ~-. ""
~
..,.8. ....;;;; ;- 8~: 0~ "'... ._8::
!.!S "-'l" rr<>rr : <>va- .(o . : $ . o "'o ""G . " " :
"O , '. :~:)~ ~fl ;. ;~.:q$:) OCT ..8 O<T-iY"'" <'"cr' ...8 . L:;Q' l
G o . o ~ ~:1 <>.o ...
<>G
9 ~ ::t'
<>C)
IJ( .. ;), ,)Ji~; ':'~
~
(T-; t:1
(U. .
8 &"8 ~"' " "8 -'ll" ' llu;u
:" : "RJ"O' ' G~:"o. .. ; :)' "
oe"' "~ t.ID' ~ 0 ' c.T".:<., .; .. .. . "R
on"'
<>C)
o ~ :Jr:!
.~
8 . ~:)
;.:ss
=< J ' ' ((
\8~ :!
s ' ' 19
:~ OC) . G<l
8 :dicr .,o,:: " ?." :,. ., i:fCr-o8:.. . 5" ' . "RJ "~ ~.. B.:;
"o"i~ :;:.. 1 0-:~
Q~l-'.<'<:., e~.g: 8 =
<S1
c.
.,.,._
8"'
r =' .o 8 '3 t.i5, <~ 0.. - Rj 9::' _'.. ... \().... ..; .:.e cu..
$.>.,._
~ r:gg ,0 Ocr; .' n.J ;hl2) 0 .q; .,......... ..., .. .. = ::X S;-t..A a.l
G (\ ,.e .:"RJ fT'
O .J ..!). '' ' : .
o ' o" .. !T' : fl : A I") g.;. ' <>o.. : . . . . . . ~ru. .. ~e>.G- :::: 8 ..,~C) o 8 :~a- .8, -~~ ::s ::u;- :tih-g " .. osi .. P~ -.~-n .:: ~ a ;;;..
~ B' S : <9 .. ~a- ...~ ;:~~'o. ~.~ ~ ?, ~ ;B : ,.. .. :.. ..; ~~ ~;,8 ~ ;;~ : ,. ;; C'-'... yo. \'g ' ~og ; &" ....H,:-.,... "R-
H~ "'8 " c;8 8 ;.,o <.;. . ~ ~" "8' ... ;= '" :8S"i5'' 0 ~ ~ - ,. 8a . 8 .. .."""-; ~ 'OC) 8
~8J.;:b~ ::s S : . s '~o '~ ~-;
C? .~ o (!\ ~)'o . o
i'C> l a \ -...-~ o
. >1... 8 ~
....,., R
:8
/8 . .~~ (8) :::":) :!'1 :. :("\. ?Cl...... ,;.. . -~;;..) . -;. :. .~ o 'ocr:< g,.,o'i
.. ;;~ .... ,-;:; a:.:<":::'. .a: -w ,., ru a .. " ... ... '_. .,.,:b . <" '"'g' ~" . :. : ;.:. o:
'''8 ' - . .. _ ,,, 8' . (l) .. :
rr ..
~ o8~ ~
R..' "Be "o8
(I) <1
"''"<J.
.cf : .
... s ,._@J o / . g_; !1: -~ .. ~ .
:)~ r..v o. s" "~il' ~ ;:;.:;
_
- ( a:)l
'-l\
~
o ().
'o
0 "
0 ' (..1
. . . ...
~ '('\
8
o c,>T'I
. 9 ..
.. ~ >~,-'
~
.
"8'
., ~
.8 .,8 8 .(\ ~ "'" (.t ''"8 : ... ~- n ... .. ~:. ~ ,Cl .
' "o <>o
.~ -v.J~ .
'"'""''
. Ill!~
..
,..
Ot'> ~ ur.- ;~ C/._
':J'
(.I
~~
...,
"C <7-'
"
..
(JRJ .<r A ~c;r-; .~R . :o ."o :s "l:i ;'<...,._ . B.:::3 ,.. . - ; ~ r "o~ . !!>~:; "<fl} """ = X " 8"
C . (\ V' C)" v , y . ..
~ ~.!: \1! :r.-. .., ~~~: . ~, ~::
"S "E -~8o 8 :"'Cl ' :8~:0~ :)~:-hB8~ oCP'8.:::_ :~- ..(\ r&:i''8- B. ~-. . ~- -o8B"RJ ~8 ~ B
i t C) I , : :
,_
~
$. :\ 3'. ., $ :.,- ;;~;~: ~:~~ ~.i'j c.go.. . .
'fr'> . ' g .,..., .
8:1 - : ..~
.. a.: . . . . .,. .~R
;,im rcn :~ '~" . :) ':'cj
.
,.. .. . .. ,. .(;(:;"- G W<.J ""
~ ..l'J ............ . <>Cl. " . ~ -
oa"'..: c:f" ' . :.,.,_
8"'
.. "o
o "" oe . "
:)
~
4 ;,
G \
l!qr
tL W:<J
.. rr ' \? .
CJlS''-c:> :.o ..<" (V'l 'f\i!._ .
~ -,, ~ v1 _ : o/" c:~. :.t.l2J ' c q- <. ':
.. - v' "G ' '
i"'"'> ~ 'oe> u:Q '.! I
v-
e- ..
"' .
.~(
-~~ Y:ms
, . . . .. ... . . . . ... .... . .... . ... 3 -<:~~?.l~~~
l_! }-e_gl_.;?~.?~;>p _?l. ~~Itt~~?~ -~g l.~ ~ ;>~~,. _P~~-:>J~~y? ~rp .
JCt .Ado:5~tl.ll ~ ~q:.lSfi:m -:~t-. l'etp "st tio!:}::>~s ;>q:r Xq pd~no;>:Z
S! :n~'llf'')ItM -~-~~:) :x~}..~,-u.; -:.&n:ss~~~u -:fp~::~\ ttr.i_oJ': l-~tll ~-:fnq : .
.... ..~ . / ! - ..... ... . .. J ...
'p~qH;>~?.-!.C!_~t~n;e::>y!:}l;)::> JO WlOJ .t-e{n::>!:}.t-ed -e 9!. UOp::>;>S UJ ,
.f. . .... ;. . . ......... ' 'J
' .
{1';-96.J].
~ :(!>~~
.,.,;
~
~}} ~
l,""'~J
(~~"-lM .)
d~
.~
.
. tw
,;:r...
(ui!C~'~e
..'f ..fkw~l/ e1 ~d:i-1Ti.~c~t3~'{C!i:;
.)' .) ./J ~~ .>0
'(61i 'v;)ll
i -::.. -;'"iJ::=-:W'"':;:=-~~~~=-c:'7.W . -;-~;-;:~~;--:-;-;;;;: .
~-~~ ~''()" ~E:.J~'G~IIl.~Wru
0
~W~i~JCZ1~1'-:f"~~~:-vtm
., :; r . , ~ ;.:;, ~- .:> ,r.~: .:> ' ~ ~.:.. ,e, "=~ .:> ...-:' .). ~ -.!> '-',.. .. :-
~~.am~hl
.) 1:.
.:>t.!J :.d&.l~{ c~bl.,~<ecce~~' t@~Q~k~~ ~;1)<1) tr~i.... .:>~i c. ' . :) ... .) ~- 0, :0 . ..
~:!) ..,<.,;~:..,~ .1.j:''st~.\ .. c ~'U .. : .. ><:.:
7 r. ...
, .....,.,,. ,;,:;.'~
, .. .:.~f:;.~..,; "'?. r '-"'1~>1.t..:~:~.'-;lroi1
.. t ~ '~ ~ ~- ~ it7neF "ttf' -.
.~ t:
~rrnuw :iou .sr-.'r')-ern dri;J~"' 0:). ~n e~u~ru-v9ue'lfm nm' ;)l-emnd~>t~::.....~ ~.
~-r.r. ... ~~~. . f.. .: -n .. r .:-r.:. ;! ":l~ 1 ~, .... ~ .....: - ~~ .J .... ~~ .. .~~.-:-.;r.:~.... ... ::r:..-. ..o~ : o.u.l 0 ...
Ol p.re~l{ ~,~q ialJ~.IPt#.{-e~. QJ;)i;:)tp 'p;)1tQS'il:eo rOt{~"\ ~ubs1~ ,-::-: . . r
'.c)$~ Jo '~tia~ ~it ~iS~:~oiuf~f..wd _:-&~J~{':~ti )iiii':~ki~rci . : ~ ~-
.&rrm~ ~<Qt{ti m.e:p.:~ls~~mosuOSl;)~ : Jt13 :..Kq ttr pw~tnM-e '::;:'"-'1 mil
.J,Q.. ..:
. ......: .1 ~~.;--.,1( ....~ ., . ~ ~... ..,. :It . . ~~ .. l . . .. . . . . . . .., ,l!'~:r.:J'-.. ,....~_v..."'l:l~ l::. ,,
cn.m.,n~~:l1~ ,~;)n ~S;1f,;: }Ua~~8UB~ . ;{~;l?X --~::.\n">rr ;~:;~~ ;~:r"' ~- U
~ ;" ~0 ~- 1 ~ ... : " too' ~
..0 I .. ... . ) . ).
,~)liw.-t. .. . .:. .
. . . ;i-.. .(.) ",~0~-.~+r .0 ..~ ..
...1; . .. . . . ../
, ,..__. . -. ,r... "~),_,:,.n,~o:>~~'J:ffi:.1olw~.(?~e~~;C9'! ~
~{~)..~R?~r~ ~i~.-LG~ :?'~ sfo/~~- n~q;~~t;''\ 9f~~~}1~~~:: ~.:Iff~-'
, I ... ,,-:;, v ' "'2 (1.1.,1..;' '1 ' J;:J . {!((
:;a", ~ , rnP. 111Q" ;;a
''B1ff.lf~Y.-:E'L1:>..::!!,~ -- ~O?=-o (\)~~- t-~ -~~;J$) ~ ~~) -~9.~ -:...... :P.~oy~y~f,),~
1 i- ;to' ft <7'1 ' ,:::JC 1<" ~.!. ~ 1' 1' c:;JF.)l
~~:.,~~&1 q:>SSUG?S'_t'l,tg; . ;:1u:.<Po~>~sc~~ ~~S~-~q;;:~g@. -,..~~~~J~~.;
. . ,_. n~~ 1 ~"'~~,')!J ,. .. ,_ ~ Q;:;l.,:T:;:.:?.
-~~ysn.;: :.tb~~~~,..,-~~= . 1 !, -
. o~~~~~cr.H~:s.~c:cg~gt.c.=s~c~fP:.':;
, . .. 9 . ;J 1o 11 "' 1 ~~,
.' ....GiY::.dtl'
'.. ~. ' ~; r
~r~~~~. ~:;J:.,cpS?~~~~ !; ,g.>f?.-~ ~-~~~~.. -~~.:,J ,!~~~;9~
J...Q ..,.-, _Jf bb " ~11 b 1 Q ~ . ' If LbL 11 m
~e'is:-!J~' C<f~ :~. %gof> _-!~ffi,-.::~~7<.:~ ~~J;~~;~Gf;.~)?~ ..ll!c;c~j~~
P< ~ . s C1t" ~ ... IPc '1 ~Q k ~ .. . tx.
:st~~ .~ffi_\O,xi:~~-f.S9Y. ~' ~<>; fl~:.:9.. e~ro ,.SZ{Jc;q .:~so::J~~~~~:J.:r, ..) CS:~-
11 v:~,'- t jPc ., ~""' .. '' 11 rbm .. Q: . . ... .:
~~:5~:!?~ S ~s>fBw:O"~~~ .'~~FC,~ ,_, ~~=-.P~~. -~y;ry.t.~~~ ,:;:)
. ' .:. ... . . .. . . ;: ... :- . ' ~ -:j:. - ~;~
. ' -v ncuc::co:>~~
. .,: 0 , _ , : __
' ~ '= .
1:.
ftt~f .
~0?;;'0_'); .'. .
. ~ ' oo~g:)j~gQl[8 i:.f:3~:it IIOQCQ
-r ... ~ .CJ ... . ,-L = te:l : c.1c lJ
~~~0)~
o
r::;S~g ~oSob?iGI:l?6
L::Jc.:.-u ~ . .
C'OC'
~~~11;:._,,
.:3f:d)~:6jj~J.,t~8d:ioS~:;S
T -[ LO .. :.. C
. ~2cGoo5
l '
~.6-:>nsd~:~
.,Gcri~:o~G;;;i
-l- J -~
f.:PayOfder) ~l:l<&x:>-:>::;>I~Si:roa>oc$.sj(j~~r;;,cC'
\' 6J T T. c,C;) ~
L
coo5G'6:~ai'il ~:~i;)1hS.i8
dJ l.l L L . J
e~~. O>Ji:sro~;s:o1~d5~
1--; I.J_T -( .. tl
.d52;s
.L . -l.- ot.
~-:>:c;end;ll'?:
A -r l:J l , d5ro'rh~oSd5 L
~rod::~
-L .-r Jl.
.'.$)u:J~ J
roeo::8o3m;mi
-r L CIL ::D5GeJS
u o .. L ~o:::\3oS~n L
d5oooc$ro~~:w:n~Booro:
t 'U ill Jt. ~
.:~: ' J
sro-:>56:>i::0>3~oo~~c3~o1~
~ T L IL '~G L ::iJ 2 :Gro-:>~o.::>i::m
9
T
.c8GccooS~8ro~C;~~oo'o
L A l 0 o J' . 0
~or~~ A
.~co0SG~o1
L :J
~erE
b
~~t;<?.
L ljc:,Gil
GClo:>?o:>o3
..01 Jl oL
o)oSGo:a3oSo10.,.'
L l . l
~ o:~?:
"J ..:' 9
l:ll?iu6
ll ..
r;;:~O)~OO .o.::>oSGo.::>GoT
l:j ...G L . :"":
co8el
6 .
II d5GcOO~~c: ror&~roa.~C?:>to.::>8
L A L A ..- J . . -1.. .:. :'<1;~~ o .
. . o . .o c . c o <.' , ~ eo
G.:D? Gem
&>~ .
.'8dOJO>o::>CO:rol:lL?:ro
1~ - T ~0
l:lCDOO?:
Gl:l?eo.::>.s:o:>ro:o.::>?::'JXI('O').,(I.):.l
1 T , W .
roci>coo
. J'
G;;-:>~:::5ro
-l
~o::Or;;:ecl
!I
~
L:J o. t.:o
ro&-:>Ql-:>:
- tl
G;;8r,~:ro161:
.ottl :U
mm. :5 mro . . :cS
n. .-.-T t.
. ' C' ... C' C' 0 C' C' C' C' C' 0 C' . . .. 9 '"90 .
l:lJ?;o.::>~ ?teo~. ~~q);;~~oo'~ > l:lroro.-:>: Gl:l-:><;;o.::>.t:oxp:o.::>-:>:owcp~.:~
C' 0 'l'C' \ 0 ' _<:: " 0 C' 9 C' C' 0 '1' - "o;,;..r;;,C'
. mro~roGu1 ~ .o::>.'P=~~~~n : ~r"m -e=:Goo-:>co.::>;;:0f>' oxp~~"~Q
C' C' \ 0 \ _<;:. .
to:-no:>c:~ro~c:~~.u
(3, b A L~ '
.
5.
tl . ~ ' t "'~~ ; _ <)~:::tJ '~ r:b~"' ~ . ...~it> Ci:5") ~.
c=. ..Do l:D 1-vo e..,
...cc
: 8 -=-~ ,.oo
~ ...ao .,... . uoa.'-~ ~ ...e<>:~ -f/1.., 8 o .. .o.., ... o ...e>O8 u, \Iii
t:l 'lruo CQ; ""U 0
8
(GJr: 0<
a CC r:::-1~ g ' 1-R,._ a f"U a (N
6 6) Q :... a.., l.l6J
., 8..,
8 8f.J :::>? 6')..,.,LO'lffit') :::> e'l Ct') 8'l.-8 ,
... ... 0 - ceo c.:!' ~ 0~ <:Z.Jo t)
et') 0 ~ s ~ 0 . 8 6 -8 8.., ........
~-
! a..,,. c., ccsg .-'(,O 8.., ~ CC Ceo 6)
o V m ~, .. f.J
u ru8 ~~ . 0u _s" ~ 0 ... m LU .u J :::> e .,.._ .., :::=:D c
'() o ..o ~ of') l o.., cc ~ .n.., o ~ o IC<I'> .
("B..,..-cc ~ 8 _s 8 . 6) ru ~'l;:O ..D 8 t:l "<;, 1 8 1:::0 8
~
- = :-- sf')-;:, . 8~ ...v ..Bo 8 .l gt') :r,t') v. ~ 0t') ..8 ~ j ~8. ~ O'l H
~
..~ cc 8 ..8 cP: 9.., o.., 8 8 cc .. 8.., Ro ~c0 8 8
- s ru, [B.., 0 at') ...~ 8o . a -' . a Cl: 6) rv.~ 6)~ ..D ru., ;.8o "8
o.., io 8o ~~.., ~" 80 -8 ~oy. ~ e>O cc 8. u
eo
o...o C>~t') ...~..,a g ~ ~ .s . ~ ~ ~: a ~-- . .~8 ...s ~C>g
lS m ..D ._...~ C>c .-8 8 .., e.., 8 a ~C>g8
6> C v e>V
ge CC 8
" u . :.cc 8u
_tj i.5 .!,., o ,..~ ,.. o .-
~.; 8 = :.cc ru~ (i;l .., 8 .., v . ~ 6) tu.., .o.., o ..15.., s..,
..,.., o~ =. e..,,..8o ~ . 2t') V. ~o ~ e>aO G> 8 ~..,-(/>, ~ ov
r?. 8 . t')
..,!;
g
8 a..,. _s !>e_...*..,
[]t') ~~. ' ~ 8 c~ ; . . -(/l'l:;~o_,p.., ~~ g '"s~ . 1>8 45~t') ~
... o ~H.., - 6 ... ..,.un
i'
S:,.
..D
6 . em Jn ., ~.., .a~ ~ 6 8 Co?~ rnJ a ~ . , a, lS .., ~-
... .,8 ~.., u.., n; .eo : ' ~~:.. \) jo ~.., rn.., ~.., ~.., ea ~ ...
~., >Cv. '"""""
~ J , .....
!In 6?1'1 ceo ,. ~ .. 6>. ] o =.::.J :1) =Do .., ~ " , ~:
-f)
LB. .
8
:.cc
8 ef . ~ 8 ;
u-1 _g 6> .a.., -~ ~ s..,. . . , : 2.., a " : cc l>.n ..,o [:B.., ~a.... 8 ~ ..8o
~ 6
'"tl
0
~~
0
B ._o.., o.., ~ 6 ...8o.:,g <= fB &J CffJ ~ 1>8 ()t') .,8 '-1
l>s ...;.; ~ 6) ., a..,~ at') . ofi Of') ~ci v. Cit
"=, a, ...g, -:~.., . .~ ~ . , .B -. ~ ~ e'i 6 " ...;,;o -(/>.., v ~
o ..D .., w, t:l
u
o '-Ill o
ru_ t') . ~ a ru8 ~~ ()t') 6'> o ...,_.o 8,
" u gl) ~, t> U J>e_... . , - .~ .()t') ol~"'l>(').., 8 .-e C'l
8... 8 'rl/1.., oo ...8o , .a. "c:t') cca - ~ ..., . . 8t') ~ ...8o
. , - R
c2o,
tl a.v> '(,
GO) ~ ;: eu " n.
6) . Q
. : . 8 t'). . ~ ~ t') ~- .., .o"p :.,. ..r.D. j .
_. .aA .. ' '
v. ~
l.
,-.
. ~
...... u ...,v
. ,, .
u
01)
~- '
, a 0 {)
. . 8o c
'
:MJ3
,,-a 0 Q'>,; ., '"8Ar-nl>8
~: ... :~r,gv,:..o,) .,_;Cf' '.m .~. .:'-fl> CCL~ ~
e . "' :: ~ v u. ~t') o~ ~ - o,
; JJo : ffi,-?8- ;?. ... ~ a J~''eo , . a J) : . , ~-
p ~ = t> .
8 .., . u . . 0 -f/1") ....o,.. 0 c,
3.LUJ .o,.., ~
' ~ c
Q 8.,
~ :!!!! ' c ,..o .-a 8 l 0
' ' ''1. 8,;~... ~ ('i;)
.... -~ 8 ."'o"~<t.'l ..D ..tP
,'1 . = ~ [,~,., <%..
"~, ~
oioax:.~~~~
~
'?
:~~<CGGt>:2
~?. .
U~:c:ko
<tt ~-- .
... t!; ~,
11 w~&be:ccxx.pc.~~b~~
.,) -..I
~ ..) <J
~
. !9&ra
.. \ .
~~.. <' .. ..,-
i26' B~k tAWWt~"ref~:
' ,_ , . -. 0 - ; . ' .' 0 . : . .. 0 ;
(tg6i'
\
::o.J.
~~~~w~~6~~
-~1":~~ '.~.:,.. ~-_:.~:~-~-ilf. ~ :...- .-~
:--(
mm..::o~:
-~: ~:c6:~ t ~,,
f :"'"''"
(iCloSd
n. ., ' ~:' "'':
, ~. , - '.. !IV
..
'"'r'C'!"":t::'--1":
'' 4~
,., .. I ~, . . ...
c: C' (~ c-.,.,..s... :c
t , ' , ... . ' '
; :c ~ ~)
0
t ~~~
. -. 0
~~
"';t.)a;,;
(" (
y
<11)('/)0)~?C\)
: . ' - ' ' 0 0 ' :. 0
J'l 'fOil
::.~
.. .. . t .. .ii' . ti . , ~ 0
~Q',::n)
' 1 It}
~1r~i:~~8-~0J.~~q~~i~~.g . ~ (J)~~~?~i~~~~~~ao~t;~~.~tf~'
...:'J~. ~. ~ ::r.l:G!i ~S:,r . .:~
.. GCOI~(i~,!~;~l
.
.:M'~:soSG~~~lO-)
lL t:..:. .' .
)1 T. ...r:J ' .,
. .
;~'\)8:i:s~,~-:>iil4r.>8iti?o3i"':
~L Jl .
G~~i~{ ,;-j .
" c:i.'C'@t~ <: c-~ c:> <: ..
6 . .\ ; . -~",~ ~ .o~ . .C'<I! o .<::: oc . c c
GCO)C Ql :1 CO'IGO)'JI,IO:>~ GCO) ':Pd:l::0:4>':>twO-v::O::O,.~ IG(J:)?Iolo:l;;.mQ~ o:Jc<:i:>.s;~IO)
6 L ~ ~- .,. , '6 L b:- L l C.:.. L..om ~ l T lJ
m"' -1
d.sc.h:~Jl~:Sa6ar
~r: 4 L T -1 [,
o:x1P3:~us:xm~~I.
6 D 6 J.o
-GoTcooSro1rot
o T
c:Z~~i~8
L 1o J
~m't:,J
\1
(' t:z..
~ If. . :c . . : .
,,.,_ c . .
<>~6-:iO; ~~o~:Po: G<;\:).J"'~oo-:>:~....,eu .
-9 !:; ('
~~c Q)~;x,:Oo}?i oocp: oat!::l:m ~rop<Y.>~~~r!l ~q~!'fc~' ~~otro~G>4>~0~
" - ~ . "-" 0 ~ r.: ' 0 c (' c
'<' o oco <'~ cor.;c. ,.r;- C' C'
~::oe;u 9.~tm, ~~CDJfO;w CT.>"f~'a=~Jlt\~ .tlc~~.:ooc~:"fl.' .
(;'; C' . t: . ' ~ (', C' 0 C . OC' C' C' C'
. ~,!~~?J'PII II:P~O-ll~?ll)t"tt~~e;~.o:>~~J?I'f? Q'QOC'OOI:P~O)I,I?I GG>?C:
<! ..t: C\ (' ' oc 0 'c 'l 0 oc (' ~(' ('
<;CI?O)GCli:POOt'!> GO)?O)QO>::O:DGC~t?. ~::O~:PO:>C ICO:P~c:J 00CI)O)OC 00::::01 Q)::O::D II
IS<'
Jl -l A . U- :6 U [.!. L L ~ Ln l eC.:. ~
" 0 0(' (' (' ' ('
m CO C
''t dC'
L
0
o:JCo:>.&:OO II'G::D?
T
('
ll
GCD?I,IO:>:JCDC::O::O
Q ..
t:.mc=
('
C..:.
:P1l:C:PCOQ Q>Go:>')C\:l:DII
t. -1 T J1 C
:P<9o:>C
ta 6 .
COG
0 ?C(' I o:>O:>"fSI,IIQII,II::O?QC
(' c u
:PO!:! 0
C'
0:>C axT.>I[IIK>C II
c C'
l 1J. IJ 6' L ll 1J
C' 0 c 0 (' C'
Go:>pmc~pCJ:t oo:>o:>lmo:>~u
::> II
)
meo ooogu:>~
r
(."
IL
.
~ 0 ('
CT.l~~~~~ e:QCOI.I?C I oxp:~ell 21<Xlf1CT.lC I CT.l'f.'lo.:l..t:j: e:GQ?CGQ?C
~ 0 (" (" .... o 0 (' (' . 0
~~
c
(" .
4){7.)0):7)')(0'
r,:c oc
,~
c C' :jl:
GCD~ ')(DCX)'):Q)9 ~)
C' 0 '
0
C'~ C"
. <"fj?<" C" C" OC'
~t~"'::>J"' I o.:l?~~t' 'Fo.)(T.)~s~o~.~
(" ("
?eiS
r::
C C'
~c;oe~ ~~q)l ~"'l:"o1 q)(,J~3':1roeo"3
C" 'T'O . C"
. 0 (" (" (' (" '\C'~ ' (" (" 0 .0.<"0 ('
~:;>OOQ')IC\:>o.:lo.:l t::::O?CIC"PI:;Io.:lloJI?I~C
ll- -- -l- L l-:1 U I - il Q J
Olt::OICI I
ll
aroc:
r ::>
\ C'PCIC'P
l.
<:T.>fD;>OO
l l
t\~ r-;:: C'
l?~IGe:J~C:I ~Cjf!T.l9yOO:)O;)CjCI 'jo.:l?l (!I
r:~ c C' <' <" '
9 g c- c 1: c
G::OyCT.l3CU)'fc:JS G::O~I~~c:lC: '
' r:c
c-~ c- c c- c- ~c-
c-
<jC I~?: '('C'o.:lOOe:ll<l31oJ
'T'<>
reiS tS ~C:91t::OI q)loJjt IT.lCP20G!l'l31>l
c- C'
r m91 G::OStn~CjO
~o:g ~~~roo.)~ n
i: \ c (" (" (" ("~ '
(' "
?''f.'I'JI;>J[O -"l~~O)C\:)~1. <;;:>.)tJ(J)C'P,
(' C'fJ?C'. ('
C'
('
(" 0
('~('\~
oeiSrc:('
~I loJOOOO 00 'JCPGt~ ~002D'I.~'f.'l
('
<jC I<;f?~ ~[lloii;>J<o~I::O?~<; ~c:Jf~~lc:Jq)t;:C\:>:>:>ell
('
OXOI<Xl> ~COIIT.li.D;I;>C GOO?CI;oCO<Dc
(" . 0
I
('
0000
('rs('loJIO)IIollo.:l?;>C:,c
(' (' (' ~C'PI[IOC
. (" <olOC' C' \
-- -~ f\ -ilA &.T_6_ A tJ A J U
Ojf.::o? m;>J.~GoTc;o'k&o-xp-
r;: C' C' (I 0 (' 0 (' 0 (' (' ... ~ ('\
~=t~oo:>Jm.. ~~~:>oxp'~~ "::o~ 7 e=~?: o.)OO::O~..:ll M
C"
;>10)(\):DIQQI
C' 0 \ C" C: A
~!XO::l.)I..,..O
;rOOCII C: 0
(X)(;
?CC" CCIC'Pifllco:;t::::O?IT.lQ!ol? CIJ::l.)Q:)Q(I)::l.)l
C: <" C: C:
1J C.:, Jt A 6z:t--t:..J 0 C. 1 U - 6J AJ It A C:.
(' 0 00 (" (" C' ~ (" 0 0~ <' C'
~ oame=~? : co-trorof?c;o::o~ ~~~~ <{~~e: ~~~=t'f'
c- c C' <' r,::::: c- <' c cr,~c- c c:- OC"
t::oo.:l~~~~~ll 9c:c;~?<; 9CIC'T.>J(1~fC::O? ~? ~I::JQIO>J~Io.:l?~ll3~to?
0 ("
IT.lO!l :>I
L
0
q)?QO~
L
C', ::> CT.lC
6 6
c ) (' ~I[IOC::O
tJ
. (" C"ro:oroo:>
. ('rs('
I. 6
~:;>t~I:?;>C
(J
c
6
(' o
acnmo.:l::nll
- ~~~...
C'
C.:.
("'
~~~~II
<" <"
G9J:>mcx:>":>:~~qmu
<" .. ('
G9J':>ffiC~:)'~:~9 ~~~(1) II " ~('
ue:::r.>c_jtC
(
~~:9G~Gf
0 )
fl
ooro:::>:>
-r 1t B: 0
1:.
('
::>:q)~IJ 'JC II
C'
114>0GO:>
o
[ I
t
OC~ ~ro:.mro:OJ
cJ 1l-~- - ..-
0 :S):c::ll
rl
. Oai,:Sj
c
c
1l
_<;:.
L
~I
Discretion of Court
as to declaration of
status or right.
..
.I9,63:J 833
'
0 C'
~o:Y.l~
,~~~~~:
0~,~0'>.1
II (r) :Of'::>Ces~:CII
.) .) e
11 ocf'~::>co:2ti
.) .) e
(x) A.I.R. (x96o) Kerela 212. (z) B.L.R. (x96o) _(H.C.), p. sox
BURMA LAW REPORTS 837
1 J_ -- 11.. ) '
( ro:~ewm
0. 0
,
11 ccc:h:::'8 i)~:;,~~ 11
.o e .e .
.9 ':1 l ,,
11 woororo:o::c.oeroen
'.;) .0 0
11 10:;!)6
cohle.c:kec ~~@ft "ohlcci;ft:oJoe.cto ~wcccoo.oHbcol:k lol;eibd:co 1c.~
j ::I . . ~ :>:I 0 .>, .) 0 .) j .) 0 .)
..)
.)
wree.c:..)ob :@oo:c.c.lo~cc
.) ""'j 0
u:@c.oo~och-l~CC~GQ
.) .) ::::::3 . .) ~
.>:I :J@fto~~~GQ :@ooe:cbco
..)
10hlec
.) !:.1
'oo:Cbc.O
0
ooC2cc:ob
.) .) ..)
ccc~koch-le.coccec
.) 0 . ) :::::J.)
na?cco~Gt:Jccftoe.cto
.) .)j.) .) 0
~b:ce:2G
.) ..)
c.~w<hoo:;!)
.)
h.J@ccte~t'l~
o :J o o o :..J:lo;te~:cbco
.r:::boo \ . .>
. IOobe.c 0 C~o2:@~ IC ~t'lec :tooPCtJft:cbc.o IO~es:cre>
.> .)0 .l .J.,
:c.cc:occec
.> O.J
ow6e&!cck@ccl;~b~M
., o .) oo
OOCCIJ ~ccGobft oH~e.c:2cooo:occec fl:occe.cb:>
\..l .> e .:> .> .> o
o:lcd:o:cbc.oe&,e.c
.) 0
'ecwcc:coohlo~
0 \ . ~"""
l,cco~:i1etoe.c:~e.c
.)
:cwb:cc~b l;@c.oCtJoowce
0.) , .) .)
o'l:ocoo:>ea., :2c.ooo:
.J:O .J e .) .>
occe.c ..>&:!ccooo:cbcol:o
.) o
.>2cck:cbcoe~ec
o
:c.wbeQ(C
.>:.:10
u@ccc~wk.~:
.) .) , 0
<1r2@bloli>
'$'.) .) 0 0
tgg d ':UOt{II'J (Et6I) '):!TV 'ssvq ]V01al(8 'II. s.mJtO pUVFJt/Ot)_UI'JfJVW !6SS d
':pno::> .~m;udr:s (6S6x) 1:Irv 's~q10o pltv zvuuotloN ' 1>. poW.lC ~~poa
u@ccGQ
. .) '..)~
:,ci.h-l~c.cc'S~ft "oee:occo~~:cbco @cc:2co :ccc:occe.c w!>~&:!ccMbb [l: occes
,.:). ~ ;- o ..> .) o " .) e .> o .J o.J .>
iaccooo:cb~cch:)
.,) .) .o 0
I:CCtJbo~te:oc.lft
. .>00 .) .....J .cl,:oi:l:c.ooocoftbco~
.>::I .) .> . . ~~~oosodWl)'
.) t,;.) .
or
0
----.-
"' 1 J_ 11 o 1 IJ ll t q ro
tC.CC:_?CCtc_?Otc(;JCC ao:ooc.o~coe.c "OC.O:_?cctcg:> Il_l~~COSOC.CO~~~O~W:;xce.c C.ft.Oe>
S.L}{Od3}I M v1 vmnca
11 @cco:::>OihlwPewcw:::>
.) ,;:j, .)' .
1:. .)
,owca;~ .)fc!cco'1l
.);:j
(d) .)co[,w c~corewcweJfc!cc:h.l;be~w
.) ,.) .) e:l cbec.O~
\.) . .)
. 0to:dBwrewcw~
.) .) .
&:?ccoed:\)
.) .) 0
~ccoe~:&
.)
&:lcc:ce~OIOI
.) .) . !5",
IG@co~. ..Ltoe.:c_re; .
docPe~ .)o~eeed:o
0 0
uccccro~}::J_
.)
,o~ :.ocw~Mbb
:_j;_t; .) :::1 0.)
:c.r(')t~ecre~ ~:::cccr;
.) .
.
"::>t;lccbe:(')oo
.) ;:j '1. .)
4ocree :ccroc~:c.w(')(')
.) .)
16e4d.u~wreeehl
00 !5" 0 0~.) 0.)
towPek~
0 :_j 1, .)
f,c;:~
0 \ ' .
eo ' o .:> .)0'\
o~cc:2 e:cbcoe8-Jro UCCCCrooore~ tD1 0~B:oc~~eB 4bte~:cbc.O ..L10~
VO:>~
to:ob
0 .)
Shlccee~4o
.) :J \. .) .)
. :a:!roC.O@~,ooce:o~:
.) \; .)
te&1(')4occ.04b:oo
'1. .) .)
co~~
0 00 0
wo~
ecre~
:
d:o&:?cck~
:.)0 .) 0 \ 0
to:cbcoel!nm l~:oQ:cooocobcoc\;
0 0 ,:::.r .) o.) C2m e
~~c:;oo2:dxo
.) . .
.
c.c\;:occer;:C2rocccee~o
.> " .> o .>
W:oQk@ccOihl
o .> ::::lo .> .>~ e
:2co::>o:occm
.> .>
c~b:::cbcodbro
o
co:c.P(')e:Cbco el!nm:c.Qm
. o o :::::1
Joroc\;o~cc:2 lf.!wcccoo o~wrek~h>
e ~ .:> .:> .l .) o \~ .
SJ.'dOdtl'd f4.V1 vmna:
lt8 SDIOd'tniM.V1 VmOH
.O't
oAz:....
. . " t
BUru\.fA~rJ.v..; REPbRTS 1
~ :.!;-1.-1~
'l~~~<ti -~i6~::G~~;?;~;~~i8&.
:~ c. .. :c c-
i;;r!_~~= . c~) .~~~r~=:l)
; 'c- -:~ t
c- c-' . - .. o o -~ ~-
:>a#r~;;
~
c-6:l)~::o.:::m:u. ~:r.>.'il::ldr.:moe~a.s:l)')I.)(J.),:Y.>"~:x> ::oc ~:x>c :,oo
. ~OJ ., , . { -;
L c . . c 6 C' ~t - ~~'~J[':'IT C' l c C C" .- ;.!~ ~ L . e:~:,.
~o:>~~t=9~9f GOO')C~f'?Go:c: ro2j:~l5l:.oc::ne~. : .. .~&.J: ~g:~ .. ~,
0
OO'f;2~~?S:~~
- liJ . ("' ('""
.'; .(e)P~)3iz4ri
,
.. P~asad v. Nagar~al~rl;g~hi;__1,;;.;
... -.: ~
: l ...(,. .
( ::'>
(,)
CDCICC:O:b::C--'
--1 l 6
"'> . .;, -.:
... 4
.; :
.,.
,
0:.:~ . :;.
'h -~?G&.;;~:@3-:
2.W7 a>t-
Ol (' ' ('
2;0:>~:&1 ~~~ - ~~'#~(,1~~8 ~
(' 0 0 ~ "'c-l ~~J . ~ c-:- e. . :J .
--~~- <:~~.,~ro:ne:u <D::-:0-i?l ln~m Gro~~ f.~-~=-~
' .,., 0 'l C":~ ('
(' (' 0 (' 'l ~~ ~ . c: .s ~
. ~~ -G~JII co~sost.l oo 01 tTti ?yt:;>J<D~.r:ro us~ o 01 tfu ?'FJ~p~~;;; ~Cj
r.. ~_g: o1. _c- l l c- c-
c:- c- c- l l c- c- <:~ c- 0 . c- J . .. ~
S,~~~ ~-
~~1'~~?9~:n
JL!
!;:t>:x>o.:>ll
CJ ~ C.:.
03C> 0 IDCI OOO:>~GO?:D GOJ?OOC:.OOO oo:rtm\i
L A 0> -f"..]l
- ~,, . oc- o c- o c- o o c o c- o c: oc- o ac e. ~G. o 1
~~~~ fu~~ro Gffi?~GID?3Xp1Jo.:> I Gro?~d:)?OOf'9c:1 OO~~ro <:OC:'0c_:~:'tt)
\a. "'.. ;.. ~'Y .~~,; O~ ;. .Q ~(" 0 J t.. C" ~ )OOG ~ J C' C" C L..- 6..<:: ff!J:-:: ..(.L
-~e~~-'l
,.~~t'e
&.>o:C:.lc:r;:;!::c:l
~
lng.sro o:>ronro:>'JC: . :::>.:> ooroc;;ec rou:>Q~C ~c:.
T l
; 'f.r~.U. ~.; t> .
l
c-
t"r
c-
L
c- c- ~ - .<l
~f;.t::l': ";-"'f'J! ~@~(jj ~ ?.StOO? :Groo.:>:n II O'Xt)?G.ro?::>c: =~ 'fJJ''dSO) lD":ti1i'G\5\ ~:>
,-
oc-' o
tt. l
o o
"
....,
.;" . ;e.~- 5 T . C c-or ' 1' ll . ( 'l l ~
~m'5'
....
.
J
:u . co.c- . c- c- c- o . . c- c o c-
-~::::~C/;~?c: r,"'?.S:O'I:T.)~CHoO'III lnu:>~O'O~;)-~O)o.:>~? ~~l'>O~S"""'J;;Oe&!
o. ... -~
l 't:j Cj~ T U Ji U ll A -'1. C. J . 1:. "~ .
.~~g0'#2~~ ln(.))~:o.:>~Gq:>~ii;?')' eoc<:sroi~GD G'0!~:1'<1~ f~~o:
. :).)~11 eunr mnS2uGmri9 B9"~;1i:~::>t~t eoGs<t.r ' S'l)~~~~cic:~9:
cig~gGu::~:i;
l .JI L
11 8.s~8:-8
T
.a& o:nmw-,l:w?::
~ 1&. -r I' ~~-
JL
(o) rof'. u~~~m~tai).~j
A -1
jiJ , . J' Q
C 'l OC' ~...r::::i ' .C
~rnl?OOUIOOqc: ~~~-'d-::>:~<:11 11
C' C'OC ~
::orn~?l 2XXSQ)(I)? ~ o~c ~o.:>.s?: O'ro? o:> ::>.:>? <D:::.i:l.Q ~m . oo:>:-fttl
t: ijC'' C
c.:.-1 ,. ll . .o t T .o IL it--T ..:;.. c;; .
c- r,;:c:- r,: c- r;; r;:c-
r,..,.,. c r,;:c c- fi::C' ~F . t-
c: r,;:c-
~93:1::loG1<j:x>21 GO~ ij0::02;. t:lQ)G4)~ Gcr-tC. l:jQ):li)~. t:loG'UJ> .ll:lJ<~~C
"~" <-- c- ~ r;;:c- r,;: c- c~c- r;; c- G c- c- '(.'
GO I ag~:G:::O? q]t:Gt:J tjl!>o.:>t:lC.z' ~OOC'T.lof.'=~':>tfe:! ~C:~ OO.l,~.G~')-
'e.oos C(~'=~ J? (o) 2Xl' oo~:9c{~ '$. &o :ncl.u~G~~. o:>~_?G~~
C' ~ Q "!"'~ C' OC" OC' . S.f.:. C C 'l ;..
~~~ci; e:o:>GS: Gl!ll tlo.:>i?t 00~: OO<{C 09, O?QlJr>!itt;~O.JUCf.fl ~ !0'}.
~fA~ C' C' OC' c-r,;:_s. C' C' 0 ~- ~
~')O'JtUCj~Go.:>'!Xf~l C\.lCOOtr,.-. Go.:>?CJC: . ~:9ro O'JOO?:~OJ'? . "of"lwt.*"
c . c r,;:.s o c- c- . O:!;:C. o t- ~(! t"
~O)G~J' II ln"ffOO?:~.. ;;qG:x>?GCOj?O)OO?:~ roe:t:lo~ e;~~~ IDJ~:
...JIC'- . 0~ (' 0 (' r;; "!"' c "i>f:C' .. ~
\~-{)f~'j ln~S \) ~I ~rGt::J GOI C\31C GOI' I:IP; ~Ol~f'~~;.; ~'\'?t
. . . "";\ . . . :. . J . . : .. . .~:~:-
e.P..--No. 43 H:C.R., 223-65-I ,soo ~ 68-Mono.-].luo {L ).
BURMA LAW REPORTS 851
~PELLATE CIVIL
Before U San 111aung, J.
_.DA';'8~J>?0 N the present appellant Daw Hpoon Soq. for their ejectment
: .Mv M from the premises in suit, being the ground-floor of house
D Jt;W I I
~n .. No. 13; .Kyaiktan, Kemmendine, .Rangoon~ on the ground
AND/~~E. that Swana was her tenant and ~at Swana had in con-
. :traventioh of the contract of tenancy s-qb-let the premises
.
. .in;:~qudiclon' to Ka Pyit, the suit befrig cmi un8:er. section
rr (r) (a) of the Urban Rent Centro! Act, 1948. The suit
was decreed ex parte against Swana .and affer hearing
evidence, as against: Ka Pyit. Ka Pyjt died during the
pendency of the sui.t and his wife the present ap pellant
Da* Hpoon Soo was added as his heir and leg'al repre-
sentative. ~~~: :./:~
The plaintiff's case was that the pr~mises in questtor( '
were .let to Swana on the condition that _h e would ,not
part with the posseSsion of the same to any other person
. J?ufthat on or about i9th.November 1954 Swaria informed
: :her in writing t hat he was giving possession of the said
premises to her in pursuance of. the terms of the contract
of tena:ncy. S-v,varta had nevertheless sub-let these pre-
mises to Ka Pjit without her permission, and he had .
. accordingly contravened the terms of tenancy and should
be .ejected. His sub-tenant Ka Pyit was added as' a pa.r ty
. defendant as he would be .bound by the decree as against
Swana. .. . .. . ... :.
The defendant Swana filed his written stateil;lenf deny:..
iu'g 'tha:t he was tenant of the premises in question as ai- ,
leged by th~ pl$,tiff. He said ~hat .the tenant was a .
Chinese firm known. as Lim Sein Moh and that he was
merely an employee of thai firm. He also said that the
. ....
ihe 's~~ P,~e~i~~! m J?i~ 'in~vid~al ~apa~~.:' 9n ~~~. ?th:~r DAw6 ;?o~
hand, the t~n~ts : were Byan Sem Moh C01;11;pa.ny .for v.: .
whom '$wa~a~W'a~ : acrlng..in entering intp .t~~: C_Qntract 0~ DA~K~I MI
tenaricy::. dH~iil~lly there were six partner$ ~in :the firm AND oNE.
;-~ ~w 2). ~d h.er si~ter Da.w Ma Ma Gyj, als9. ~ai4 that. ~yan
~:-!. Sein. Moh w.a.s the name of a shop of which Swan.a wa~
DAWs!:~OON .th~ ;sole p;roprietO!. However, the aefendant's versjon .~f .
DA~ : 1 ~~the' stqrr, i.S,. ~qqngly .corrobora~ed by the doc~ment of
. KYI . lea~e .:9f "Yvhich Exh,!b.i t "m" and (Exhibit I) are counter-
ANP oNB. par~:.,. Then~, i.t js cle3.!ly mentioned tha~ tl_l.e tenant. was
Byan $ejn M0J:1 Compa)ly. No doubt Swana sig~ed on.
b~harr:'of 't he tenants but . h~. did not s,ign l).is own name
but Wr~e fhe name "Byari Sein Moh ''. Vlh~n Swana
surrendered the premises by executing the d9CUID~J;lt. Ex~
hibit" " he also signed himself as "Byan.Sein Moh ".:
. r "'f.ro:o/, tt .S~ap.a had been sigirlng the docume~t of le~.~i'
a~.#U.as letter surrendering the suit premises to the .pla(J.l;o.
.. :' , . ' . .
ti.ff in 'his . own name as Swana, there would have been
so~.~ subst~ce in Th~ plaintiff's allegatiori tha t Sw~ria . ~ .
4n ~ndi\jd.ual ~n4 not as a m~mber of the firm had ..e.niere~ .
fhto.th~ :cohtraet
of .lease with 'her. However, the fadf
:that 'Sw~mr :~ote .. " Byan Sein Moh both in Exhibi~, .
" m ": tile document of .lease and jn Exhibit " ~ , the.
letter ..sup-efid~ring i:hc lease shows clearly .thaL he was
~o:Jije~~~~~t..~ iPs indiVidual capa:ity. .. <: . ; ;
Adnnttooly, :the firm of Byan Sem Moh was not re-
gistered. That fact will on.ly prevent the firm from suing
anybody ~o enforce a right arising from any contract enter-
ed into' 'by it with a third person vide section 69 of the
Pattne;r~hip Act. It will not _jnvaHdate the contract of
lease E~ibit "m" and ~xl_l.ibit I) which .are. co~n.ter-
~ts . ., . . . . . . , '.:
1
[n Uris view of.the case, the notice sent by, the pl~ntiff
. Daw }:.1i Mi.. Gy.i ':to s wana and Ka Pyit on .the footing that:
swi:ind };'as~ lier tenant and Ka Pyit! . the sti~tep.ant :
-o($wana !s. invaJid in law, ..even if they h~d been ~erved
oh ~h~ addreSs~ <:oncernea. . ...
The :<:refendant-appellant Daw Hpoon s8o ~ t4e)ygal
representative 'Of .the deceased partner ~ entitled to rel!la~n
in p~ssess~tm of t'h.e suit' premises as the . word ." t~nant ,:,
~ .. , . . . . ' . . ' . .'I , ' ..
as defin~d in the Urbe~ Rent. Control Act, 1948 includes ~~
. a legal representative of. the tenant as defined in the Code .. -
. . . DAW H POO
. of Civil Procedure. Under section I I .(r) .(a) of the U!ban soo N
Rent Control Act,. 1948, she can only be ejected for non- 0 ~~- M
. . . AW --mJ
payment of arrears of rent lawfully due. Of course she Kvr
Call a~SO be ejected if the plaintiff Can base her SUit Oll any AND ONE.
other clause of section I I (r) of the Act .
succeeds. The judgment and
In the result the appeal
deer~~- ~ ~he tri~l Court for the ejectment of the d~fendant.:
appe1~ant Daw Hpoon Soo as legal representative of Ka Pyit
are ~et As~<Ie with costs. Advocate fees being assesse.d at
thr~e gold_mohurs.
Dec. ro.
. DR. Y. C: GULATI {RES,P.ONDENT). *
()
. _ lfeld: Where the lessor himself has .ouste.cl, tg.e l~ee . !roq1 .the preiD;il!e~
Ii!ased !!'c/him l:l.Uring the contimiance bf the Ie:i~;<J1suii:.!or possession 'l:iy tb~
Jessee against the lessor will be maintainable. . ' ! ..1 ( (' ' ~ : ''
Md. Fazihzzam.an v. Anwar Hussain, A.I.R. (1932.) All. 314; and
Bishm0
Sarup v. Abdul Samad, A.I.R. (1931) All. 649,referred to.
Among the liabilities of the lessor asenumerated ins. xo8 of the Transfer or'
Property Act, are that he is bound to put the lessee in possessi:m of the property
and be deemed to contraft with the lessee that he may hold the propertY. during
the time limited by the lease without interruption.
* Civil ReVisiQn No. 44 of 1962, against the order of the 4th Judge, Citv
Civil Court of Rangoon in Civil Regular Suit No. 848 of 1961.
lo.ckediup.Jt:h:ri gatag~ ;wh~e he had1 b~eri keeping hls,sal0cip . r~.~~
carr andstlfuS:1deJ:niveLhim of.the ~e .of the.garagel Ghe ...
of;-t he defences;raise& by the defendant;applieant,w~s nh~t ~!: ~:
the plaintiff's .suit for>posses~i0n w.as ..notJmairitainable iri on, i..Y: C:.
la:w. ,i This:ile.d. to the.framil)g .o f a: preminaryissue~ which Qiui:,.Tr.
:W.aS,; subs.equently. ~ecid'ed . by.) the learned. triaL :Judge :in
favour of theplaintiff. Hence the present application:f.Qt
revision.
In my opinion, the learned trial Judge was quite rjght
in the view taken by him that the contenti&>n of the
defendant that a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief
Act was the only suit which could be filed by the plaintiff,
was untenable. Among the liabilities of the lessor as
enumerated in section 108 of the Transfer of Property 0
Act are that be is bound to put the lessee in possession of
the property and be deemed to contract with the lessee,
that he may hold the property during the time limited by
the lease without interruption.
Accordingly, where the lessor himself has ousted the
lessee from the premises leased to him during the con-
tinuance of the lease, a suit for possession by the lessee
against the lessor will be maintaina15le. In this connec-
tion, the decision in the case of Md. Fazihzzaman v. Anwar
Hussain (I) may be cited by way of analogy. There it
was held that the lessee is entitled to enforce his right to
obtain the possession of the land leased to him so that
he may enjoy its usufruct, by ejecting another in posses-
sion of the property leased out to him, and that there is
no reason why he should not be all0wed to enforce his
right against' another person who is holding under his
lessor, who is bound to put him in possession.
In Bisben Sarup v. Abdul Samad (2) it was held that
a suit by the plaintiff as lessee against defendant who is.
continuing in possession is maintainable without a proper
(x) A.I.R. (1932) All. 314. (2) A.I.R. (1931) Al1.649.
BURMA LAW REPORTS
. .
c.~. ejec~~n~ ~~it haYing been brought by tlr~ lessbr Himself
.:!_! when the ~essor is impleaded as andther defendant. This.
DAW KHIN
kHiN SEm cas.. ~11 us.t rates t h e, f.a ct .that the Iessee can sue hi s 1essor
e .u '
DR. vY. c. "for possession of the property leased to ltim.
G-crLAri. For these reasons, . .the application for revision js dis:
. niissea: With costs, Advocate fees being assessed at 2 Gold
Mohuts.-
BURMA LAW' REPORTS
APPELLATE CIVIL
Before U San Maung; J.
Sulaiman and 2 others v. Ma Hla Bi. Civil Second Appeal No. s6 of 1953
of the. late High Court; U Chit Tun v. Daw Ngwe Tharmg, Civil First Appeal
No. 9 of xg6o of the Chief Court, referred to and followed. ...
In the pr!lsent suit the plaintilf nevet abandoned the suit:land. There, was
no Jf!~pQ~~~s-~ion or ~iscontinuance of posses.sion with~ th~ mean~ng of Ar.t icle
14i_of f!ie .Limitariori Act. . _ . . .. . . . '
AriicTe 144 ~pplies, and ihe defendant ha:l Mt proved adverse possession.
for more than 'the stet:.~ tory period of 12 years.
c.~. thereon .since a15out the month of May 1949 when Henzada
19 3
- . ,.
town was un der ...v.t.e-t
'f. . ,c .I . I . d .
swa)t l'Q:t 'M'!l tlf~p oure msurgents.
DAsw~1 Th~ defence of Daw Mat Shiri w<;1s th~~ even assuming that
u ;itu . the plaintiffs were the - ~~ers of .the suit land she had
AN~ oi-IE. been in poss~sidn. ofih~(pottfoh' 6c~~~fe'd by her since
the.month of Tagu, 1309 B.E:' (Match-April 1947) and that
therefore :the plaintiffs! suit. whi.ch was. filed on the 29th
~t April 1960 was barre~ by liltlitation, she having been
in--possession for more tha~ theprescriptive period of -12
years.' o
On the pleadings twoissues were framed as to whether
or not the plaintiffs were tlie owners o~ the suit land ariQ.
whether the defendant was in adverse possession of the
p:mtion occupied by her for more than r 2 years at the
date of :the plaintiffs' suit. After hearing witnesses qted
by both the parties the learried trial judge came to the
conclusion that the suit .land belonged to the plaintiffs,
that :the defendant trespassed thereon only during the year
1949 and that, :therefore, the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment
was not barred by limitation. In the result, the plaintiffs'
suit was decreed with costs.
o Now, regarding .the plaintiffs' title to the suit land
there is abundant proof. u Kadone (PW r) the then
Headman of Nyaungbin-zay within whose jurisdiction the
suit land was situate, said that the plaintiffs were owners
of the suit land, that it was assessed to la~d revenue -in
:their :names an~ that when they shifted to Taungyar-gyi
Village about 3 miles away nearly zo years ago 1n o!d~r
to cultivate paddy lands the suit land:was occupied bythe
plaintiffs' relatives, namely, their grandson Aung--Sein arid
.their .nephew Aung Gyaw. When the 'Kar~n insurgents
rose in re~ellion against the Govennp.ent .t he plaintiffs tJ
~ali a nd: 'Daw Baw .U left Taungyar-gyi village and
migrated to the south still ~eaving Aung Sein and Aung
Gyaw in charge of the suit land. The defendant Daw Mai
Shiri ' who had hitherto been sta}r:ing in K6iiegyi village
<'"'
86i...
G. C.
ea~e 9~. ~11~ suit. :~aJ;l:d,~l;>C?-ut t}le-Awmth..~f tcaspn-Nayqrw. i963
I:ti;I ; ~E.;: (Apz:il~May.::J919~ .. ~. B.'1- . ~~ (f?,W .~): whose 0Aw.. ~~
ho~e,}~)tbont ,.J.5~:Y.M.~ away.from t4~ ~~~~ 1l<md ~orro~. .. SHIN'" -
'/}~ .
:ra~~-' ;$~J~~dm~~ ~~~garding_ th.e -,p~ail}#ff~' .q~erspip u KALI
ANDO~ .
~l?-~J~9~ ~Wl~ ,thct.. t~rt:.'tp,at:,about 29 :re.ar.s ago ~~ey. ~sb;i~t~
:t9, Ttl~P&Y.Ii~%gyi yi;ll~g~ to cultiv~~e P~44Y lal).d tpere. 1~ay~
l.qg l Ap.ng ;?,~~~h~~.s\ . .t\.1.\~& (;Y,a:w.,: th~ir r:ela~ye~ . ill,t<;};l.arge~
He ~~-~Q- ~~f:lf9~q~t~~ til~ headman that it w~!).op.ly..aJ.?gqt
~~$PI-\oi3.H, l}:f.:.,_tha~ . the. d~fendant <;:arne and .OCp.lpjeg:~
pq~t\9IkRJ..r!JJ.~ ~uit ,laJJ.d. . . . o ': , ~-
Maung Aung Sein (PW 3), son of Aung Gyaw . s;~iq
:thfl;f.)1~ ; ~~ a, grandson (meaning grand nephe~) of- the
p~$.It:iff$,.and that when the plaintiffs who owned the suit
la~q ..shffl:ed to Taungyar-gyi village. he was in posses~ign,
()f the suit land together with his cousin U .San Dun a~q
Ma Mya Zai. When the Karen. insurgents rose in arms.
:against the: Ggvernment he, San DuJl at:J.d Ma Mya Zai w~~~
intern~~L!>y the Government. Later, when multi-colour~
insu:_rgents <?Cc;upied H~nzada to~ they were released
from. custoq.y,. s~bsequently, the )defend,ant came an<~
squatted on a portion o f the suit land. He did not object
to her presence and even collec;:~ from her a portio~ of
the r~y~n~e which he ,had to pay 9n behalf of U Kali <!.IJ.d
D~w:.~~.W: u.
; . Acc.9,~di.ng::to Mr. B.. K. Sen .(PW 7), an Advo~at~ wlw
h~d\.~~iied.. at ._ Henzada for more than 30 yea],!s, he . ~w,~~
in Henzada when :the multi-coloured insurgents pc,c;:,up~~9.
the town on the 7ili
or 8th of April 1 949 The adrninis-
:tratiqn of the t<;>'wn by- the Government was Withdrawn
till after the insurgents had left. That' was abo~~ the ,
month of July 1949.
Daw Mai Shin in giving evidence said that . she had to
leave her native village of Le-ti-gone when the Communists
and the Karens rose in rebellion against the Government.
She and her husband dared not stay any longer at that
village as her husband was the President o( th~ local
C:9 she came tel Hefizadi th& mtllti-coloiir&
APP.Ft. Wheb.
D ; ~ . insuig~n~ h~4 not yet oc~upied the ~.town. . She at fiisf
96
A~~rn AI stayed -at' -Kongyi village before coming on the suit land
v iALI whic~ was during the morith of Tagti 'r30'9 B.E .. (Match.:.
..:N-o oN-E. April 19-:1;7). Her witness tJ Po Wa (DW r); however;_
said that the defendant came :to-occupy the suit land about
_two months after Burma became an: independent country:
A;nothet. Witness Kyaw Nyei;n (bW 2) said that both he -
and~ baw Mai Shin carne :to Heiizada about one or tWo
months Mfore the multi-coloured insurgents occupied 'the
town. . .
: Now, if the plaintiffs' witnesses were _to be believed:
it was only during 1949 that the defendant Daw Mai sb.ii{
came to occupy the portion ef the suit land from whidi
the plaintiffs-:s ought to eject her. If the defence witnesses
be believed, she came there a few months' after the 4th '(:;{
J~nuary 1948. Both the Courts below accepted the p~ili_p..:
tiffs' version of the story and in view of the dictumo:f
the late High Ccitrrt <?f Judicature in Ma Pyu v. K. C. Miti~
(r) the findings of fact by the two Courts below cannot
be disriti-bed.
:.' ,As :to whether Articles 142 or 144 of the Llin.itation
Act applies to the suit now under consideration . the
observation which I had made in Sulaiman and two otHers
v. Mp. Hla Bi (2) and quoted with approval by the Chief
Judge U Bo Gyi in U Chit Tun v. Daw Nywe Thauily ' (3)
may be usefully repeated. There I said : . . . .
. '
" : ... It is d ear from the language of Arti<;:le 142 of ~!'\~
Lifuitation Act that this article is restricted to
suits' which
are in. terms -and substance based on plaintiff's prior possession
which had been lost by dispo~ession or discontinuance:
Where the .plaintill' dc-cs not plead dispossession a:nd i:? is not
found ~hat He was actually dispossessed on a certain date, ~he
:: su.lt would ~11 u;nder Article 144 and not .Article 142.'~
(x) LL: R. vI. Ran. s86.
(2) Civil Second ..A.ppe-al No .. s6 of t9S3 of the h .t e High Court.
{3) Civil rirst Appeal No.9 of l96o of the Chief C.ourt.
BURMA LAW REPORTS 0
86~
[U Chit Tun v. Daw Ngwe Thaung (3) was in turn cited c.c.
1963
with approval by a Ft,11l Bench of this Court in Civil First DAW MAl
Appeal No. 6 of 1962: U Kan and one v. Kalachand and SHIN
tl.
one]. U KALI
In the case now under co~ideration the plaintiffs never AND ONE.
c.c. DA
. .
w. NYEn\l
.
'kli~N
. .
(APPELLANT)
.
1963
. ;
v. . . . . :,.
,MESSRS. JAFFER BRQS.. LTD: (RESPONDENT),~-.
0
. , :::- : . . .: . .r .-:
Fral,ld- qbjection in a later .suit t~ set aside d tkcree ~n aformer suit on gTO!!-ndS qF
. ' 'Jraitd~fraud intrinsic to tiUJ}ormer mit~iatef suit noi maintainaole: . ' .. .
:< ~he-respondent
.. had filed a suit in1:95:~'ai.;~t
the Appellant, praying ; ~d~i
others 'for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of the appella~t in respect of.
the suit lands was nuU and void as the sale was Benami.
A decree was :passed ex-parte against the appellant in that suit in 1959
.Subsequently in 1961, th~ appellant filed the present suit for a declaration
that the ex-parte dec~ee passed !lgainst her iti the previous suit was null ancr'
void; as the same was obtained ag.ainst her .bY fraud and .bY making of false
statements.
. The: learned trial Judge however dismissed the suit.
c Held: 'In 'the . previous suit,. the appellant by her written statement fhad.
raised the very' sa me points raised by her in the suit under appeal. 'l'he (raud
and falSe statements 'alleged by her were intrU}sic in nature and not extraneous- '
to tJ:ie previous trial: . Th~refore, the suit under appeal is not maintah1able:
in Ia~. . . . : . ,
K.E. Musthan v. Babu, Mohe11dra Nath ; Si11gh I. Ran. p. 500, referred tO-
Moreover in the case now under consideration the appellant cannot seek
. to agitate the issues which she had already tri~d to agitate in the former .suit~
the mere allegation that the statements' made hy the plaintiff in' the former
:~~it$,. wer~ fals.e. ' . . . . . ' .
. . . ,M.'A.~M'aistry v. ;Abdul Aziz Rahmen( v. Ran. ~471; and Gopatir . antl
a.riOt'hef v. AbclUl AziZ, IX Ran. i35, referred to. ...
* Civil First Appeal No. z6 of 1962 against: the decr~e qf the 4th Judge~
City Civil Court, Rangoon, in C.R. Suit No. 359 of 1961, dated 3'1 st May 1962.
BURMA LAWREP6RtS sos:
. . ..
Civil:cour.t,-Rang oon~- is agamst the J'udgment and decree c.~:
' . 19UJ
of that . .
Court
;
dismissing
.
her
-
suit. against the defendant-:
;
: .. : --._. _
' . DAW NYBIN'
respondent Messrs~ Jaffer. Brdther~ Limited a5 represented ~-
by ' M. _D-. Ebrahii:n; ,its alleged Manag}ng Director, The-.... ~~as;~. .
facts' ,.giving rise to the present appeal are briefly th.ese. J:A'FfiT-JlaQs~'
.
. .
In Civil-::Regular
... .. .
Su_it No. 61o
.
9f 1951 of
Civil Court; Rangoon, Messrs. Jaffer Brothers Limited which
the City
.
.
'JD .
~;Z Although the suit was filed on the 24th May 1951, it
DAw NYEIN dragged on for ~everal. years for the reasons noted i_ Q. the
K.ilrn ... diary of the proceedings. On the 3rd February 1958~ .how
~~s. ever, Ma Nyein Khin's Advocate U Kyaw Htoon withdrew
JAF~JRos- from the case on the .ground that he had no further in-
structions from his client. So the case was ordered to
proceed ex-parte against Ma Ny~in Khin. The ex~parte
hearing was also a pro.tracted one, so that judgment was
passed only on the. 3oth October 1959 in favour of the-
.then plaintiff. company, Messrs. Jaffer Brothers Limited.
Th~ evidence led by the plaintiff was to the effect t hat
Messrs. Jaffer Brothers Limited was a private limited com-
p~ny consisting of Mohamed Ebrahim and his .s on
,. M. E. A~ Jaffer, that M E. A. Jaffer was the Managing .
Director and Mohamed Ebrahim was the Director .of the
company, that the suit lands which had been purchased
by the company were a.t the time of their alleged sale to
Ma Nyein Khin by M. E A. Jaffer worth not less than
Rs. ro,oo:O that both M. E. A. Jaffer and his wife Ma Nyein
Khin
.
did not have the means to purchase the same as they
~
- - --.. -- -~---------=-~~~--'-~-'"'
(3) IX Rangoon 135.
BURMA LAW REPORTS
. APPELLATE CIVIL
Before U San Mauug J.
Limitation-suit for damages based on ad-interim injunction and breach of Wtltract
-Limitation Act, s.4z- suit to be filed within 3 years from ilate injunction
fiJQI f)(JC(Jted-Limitation Act. Art. 1 JS-three years from breach of contract-
Limitation Act, s. 23-continuing wrong--nature of.
. The Appellant had entered into an agreement w~th the Respondent Phauns,cyi
..under which he ha,d set up prac"ice in that Phal'fl\acy. Subsequently .. ~;e to
disagreement between them, the Respondent had filed a suit for il\funciion
: 4!gainst the Appellant in J9S4 An ad-interim injunction was at first given
. against the Appellant ~twas vacated on 6th August 19S4 The said suit was
~t~n'u.t~y ~smissed on 13th August 19s6.
, . 0~ 3oth March 19S9, the Appellant filed the present suit for damages
. against the Respondent. The trial judge however dismissed the s~it on the
,. gro~nd that it was barred by limitation.
On Appeal :
H eld: .in so far as the present suit is based on the ad-interim il\iunction
issued against the Plaintiff/Appellant in the former suit, it is barred by limi~lltion.
The ad~interim injunction was vacated on 6th August l9S4 and under Article
42.Qfthe Limitation Act, a suit for compensation for injury caused by such
. i.J\i~,~n~on must .be filed within 3 years from the date on which the injunction
cease4 .
'Harlnder Singh v. Anant Ram and others, A.I.R. 1939 Lah..6, referred to
and distinguished.
Mohi~i M ohan Misser v. Surendra N,arayan Singh, 42 Cal. s~o,.referred to
and- followed.
Held f urther: Regarding that part of the Plaintiff-Appellant's suit for
damages for breach of contract between him and the Defendant/Respondent
the latC\t date fro~ which time would begin to run would be from 1st J une I9S4;
that is the date from which Pbintiff/Appellant was prevented from entering
_~ pre~ises. for his practice. Article us governs the Plaintiff/Appellant's
s~t.
Civil .First Appeal No. 7S of 1962, against the decree of the City Civil
c ow.t of ~~oon in ~i,!l Rc~lar S~i ~ No, ~u) of 9S?
:
BURMA . LAW REPORtS ..f1963
C.C. Regarding the f~ther contention that even if Article I I 5 applies, the s\fit is
1963 within time because the breach alleged is a continuing one, s.23 of the Limita
DR tion Act s~?-ould be referred to: Tne"fubt:S .M 'ine.case do not estaolisll.. th~'t
~imW:EL8 a continuing breach such as that contempla.ted in s.23 can be comniitted by
v. the Defendant/Responde~t. ,;.'
Tr;!~;:~L Sarat Chandra Mukherji v. Nerode Chandra M'l{kherjee, 156 I.C. 396; and
P~j.l'oiACY, Moti Ram v. Ham Raj and others, ~~:;I.<::. , :JOJ, referre9 to and distinguished
,'llm:i. Jogat Kishcre Pd. Narain Singh v. Pormeshwar Singk and others, A.t.R.
(I9SI) .Patna. 348, referred to and followed.
:- I ' ~ , l - 'I ; ~~
. :IXL(kul{
. .. . .
24 ._or. tfi~
.
civill>~otedille Code,&ea'
.
'With
. .
>su'ch :....'o.c.
1963
:.:~~~~~~-~ .',~~ -Pl~11i~'s. case was that __ ~~e~-~~a~g~m'eht .~;.,~'Rts .
.... set out Iil ltiS plan~t
"' ...--. ' .. ; .. . . was to. be .a permanen~
.
one o~ly 'Giui~aL
' . ". . . . .. ,}.:.;.' \
tet'rliii:)a'ble '.ib. case of his disabilitY' ot death. . Ort tli1s , ;,M'~.
-~ ~~~t 'ne' Is I}9t supported by any witness cit~d~ b)fniln . .-gtt~::
. 'Qfl. the:other hifnd it is dehied by the defenda:rlt'S witheSs, L'rh.
' 'f~ K wrth who~ the plaintiff had eritered :u:pori fhe
J'iui,
: :ahcinghfu~ht iii question. This witness said:. "it is not
~'\:r~{tii~t 'the contract between us was a :p~tmah~j:lt t;he
te:r)Jlinabl~ only in case of plaintiff's 'disability or dea'tli."
-~~~ow/ :let us _see th~ nature of arrangemen~ bet~een the
t
~~tiff. aria the' defendant wjth a view to consider '\Yhbse
f . I ~ r '
.
. . hlS : own contract with t]).e defendant .company;
permanent one. On. the evidence I am not sa.tisfi.ed
' ..... J ! . . .
..
vya.c;\: a
. . . .
. .. - ....t.ha~
/
t ...
: .
the. .plaintiff . has . succeeded . ip. disch~rging the burden
.
.. proof ~o Jl'eayjly cast upon. him.
' )I .
.....
: . ... .
........
.
of
, ~ ' t
~<;: i~-,s~s~ ~\ Vf3.{ that o1;1e .<?~ the,.ve~tila_tors ha~ _been. <;!~s~, 1
~>u and another mterferred With, 1t was held that the case was
DJ~~;~;.~; o~<: of C?-n~ip.~ng_~reach a_n<:I.no li~it~ti~~ p~~?~~~~~P~.UF~:i
M"':t~~ . :.)n, ip:y PJ?ii}i9~ ... the .facts: in 1~e case .now \l,~~e:;r' 5Rn\'
1
between.'it ~nd the plaintiff witll effect fio.m the' I~t N,n~-
r9:s:4:J~us negativing the pe:rforina~ce of his pa.~t 1cit.f~t:
co'/Nti.et.: ~ :: ~' . : ' ,,)( ,
. -~:: 1 ~ .;_. .~ : . . . : : : l .r-; -: ~s:..rl .
. ..,f9~, t.hese, r~asons,I consi,der that ~he learned J\id~~ ,pf. ;
the City Civil Court had rightly dismissed the .plai,nW(:: ,
app~llant's suit as barred by }jmitation. In the res~lt ~~C.
ap~~~l. 'fails and it is qismissed with. costs, Advo<;:~~~:~ f~~~- ,
befng asse$se0. at ro Gold Mohurs, .. . ;
~, .. r ... ~ t : \.,d
. BURMA LAW REPORT$
om_GINAL CIVIL
Before U il{qung Maung, J.
FSOOF HASHIM
0 0
. (P.\tAINTIFFS)
v.
.:M.J.. F.JASH~~ ME.HTA,R :(P~FENDANT) *
{ ,,,, i : . . . . . ' :.
' ':Pta~tfu's. and the Defendant w~re co~owners of the suit oil wellS apd tJv;:
D(!iendaiit 'liad: -been extracting. tlie oil; as. -~gent ~f th,e plain.~s.' 0~ t~' ,;.
ap_n\i~#Pl\ ?.f t~~ p);l,inti(fs in their sujf for accounts an ad intf'.if!l .ir.~~cti91l
ha,4.be~I.\fl~'?e4_ 'r~t~~.i,ni~ w~ defen4a~t from selling the pla~W~. sqar~~ .., 0
:
e~c;n fil~ . cOI}.t.emP.~ ,proce_ed.\ngs agains,t ~ach other th~ fear o(,t}.le p!ajl)~~~ :.
tb1<\~ 1~e .~~ffr;~~nt Wi~ not: ~oo~ a~t~r tl).e!r ~nterests pro~er~y i.s not !!W~g~~~~ ~
pn exaggerated or an tmagti:Jary one. It wdl therefore do JUSUce to tl;ie plam-
. 1iffs ~ith~ut~.doing injustic;e -to the defendant to confirm the injuncti~n -ord:r :
d~~i;qg jtpl( ~~?~fl9Y. ~f. fhe ~uit. _ . . .
: ~. -~ ~ ; ... ) : t 1 ~
rU.n ~~~:iti-'.(Ad:Vtic~te)
J ~ . . .
~}: ;:
for .the defendant . .
H~.~
c.c. of !!on-joinder, U Tun Sein also submits that .all those who.
1963 ,
had 'signed the power of attorney appointing the defen- .
EsooF
HAsHIM dant as their agent should join as plaintiffs in the . suit.
~~:-~~~~ But as each plaintiff represents a distinct and separate
Hv: ., interest and each has acted on his own in granting the
ALI ASHlM .
MEHT~R. power of attorney to t h e d ef end ant and 1ater m
revo}dng
the power, it is arguable whether. the mere failure to join
together as plaintiffs of all those who signed and executed
one power of attorney appointing the defendant their
agent is necessarily fatal to the suit. U Tun Sein would,
of course, be at liberty to raise the issue of maintainability
of the suit as a preliminary issue of law later on if he
wishes .
On the face of the pleadings, the affidavits and the-
counter-affidavits and other documents which have been
-:_put on the record, it appears that the parties are genuinely
at issue over several facts and these can only be deter-
mined after the evidence has 'Qeen fully led in the trial.
There may be issues of law also, some of which may be
med as preliminary issues while the others can only b~
prQpel'ly
. determined after the facts have been gathered.
jn:. .
APPELLATE CIVIL
v. Nov. -~6.
. UKHIN MAUNG
. AND Two OTHERS (REsP()NDENTs):*
. . . ' .
Dilmissri of suit-jaz7ure to give notice under s. So C.P.C. against Defendant noi
. --~ .: :neussal'y as party-defendant-proper course to strifie out said party" :an~ ~rocee~
with suit.
The Plaintiff filing an ejectment suit against the first two Def~ndant;
m
h\ld :a"dd~d :as co-defendant. the' Controller. o!'Rents. Ranioo~ : a.s:p~- -ha-4 Wl ed
to take action against them under s_. x6AA ofthe Urban Ren\ Co~t~ol;;A.ct.
The Plaintiff had however omitted to give the statutory notice required under ~'C
8o.ofthe Civil Procedur~ Code. . - . . ' . _
., ';l'h~ tt;ialJ~dg~ dismissed the whole suit because'o~ the said omission.,..
On Appeal:
. .Held: The refusal of the Controller of Rents t~ take action against the
fitst two Defendants under s. x6AA of the Urban Rent Control Act is no.
ground why he should have been added as a _party-defendant. His presence
l:lefore th_e Court was entirely unne~essary even as a proforma defendant. .
. 'A_~~- (a) Hanull~ v. u Par Sein and two others (x96o), B.L.R. zs6 .
(HC), referred to and followed. . . ,
The Cont.::oller of Rents could therefore have been struck out and, the suit
a1iow~d to .-proceed.
.Th,e suit .was accordingly remanded.
-~ ~ . .
Ch0.wdliury for the appellant.
. .
Mauna Mauna Aye, Ba Thaw and Toe Mauna (GOvernment
Adv6C:ates) for the respondents.
U SAN MAUNG, J.-In Civil Regular Suit No. 491 .of
196i Q{ the City Civil Court of Rangoon, the plaintiff '
Ismail Ahmed Madha Waqf by its Managing Trustee '
A:-E. Madha sued the rst.
and 2nd defepdant-respondents
.
.-. Civill"irst App~al No. 17 of 1962 against the decree o_f the 4th Ju,age, q~
(::ivii Co1:ut of,Ran~~on in Civil Re~ar Suit No. 491 of 1961 Qated Ifth.l\1ay
.,.,..(,.";.. "/ ' . .. . . . .. . . "f
888 mJRMA LAV\t REPORTS
..c:c. U K'hin Maung and Madam Chwa Shin for their ejecment
1963
from ' the premises in su~t fo! non-payment of arrears of
. ' ..>' .
~~~ rent and for alleged breach by'UKhin Maung of the obliga-
MADHA WAQP tion of. tenancy :the suit be~~g one under section r2 (r) (a)
u i{HIN of the Urban Rent Control Act, 1960. The plaintiff added
~~~~~~ aS' a co-defendant. the respondent Controller of Rents,
" Rangoon, Without having issued the statutory notice re-
quired by section 8o of. the Civil Procedure. Code. The
!'earned qial Judge holding that the whole suit was bad
because of this failure to issue a notice under section. 8o
of the Civil Procedure Code to the Control.l er o~ Rents
dismissed the suit with costs. Hence this appeal.
-1
meantime,
the Urban Rent Control Act of 1948 expired
Mu KmN
AUNO AND
by efflux of time -and the Controller of Rents did not pass TWO oTHERS.
any orders on the appli_cation filed by the plaintiff Waqf.
Consequently, the present suit under section 12 (r) (a) of
: the~ Urban Rent Contro~ Act of 1960 had to be fiJed, with
the Controller of Rents as a proforma defendant against
whom no relief was asked for.
. The defence of U Khin Maung was that he had during
the interregnum after the expiry of the Urban Rent Con-
trol Act of 1948 and the coming into force of the Urban
Rent Control Act, 1960, .assigned the tenancy to Madam
~hw~ Shin under section r.o8 of the Transfer of Property
. Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff's suit against him was not
only not maintainable but was also bad for misjojnder
qf. defendants. The defence of Madam Chwa Shin was
that she was willing to pay rent to the plaintiff in view
of the fact that the tenancy had been validly assigned :to
0
- (x) 1960, B:t:R. 256 (H.C.) : (2) A:I.R. 1948. P~t. 1J7
(3) A.I.R. 1927 P.C, I76,
BURMA :LAW REP.ORTS,
.
parties, as against the respondents, they. .(the plaintiffs)
must fail.' " . ,.r-.
W1t great respect,- I am of t he optmon
. h that th. e. VIew
._,_
U:ll'o.en lsMAtL
AHMED
by Meredith, J., is correctexposition of the law as lajd down.. MADRA WtQF
by the Privy Council and to be preferred to that of Rowland, u ':{ut.:N
J., in the two cases referred to above. MAu~9:';.Nn
TWO -d'tHERS.
" As pointed out by Meredith J.,
the true test in cases of
this kind is whether th~ suit would be niaintainable as ag~inst
the private -individual without impleading the official who
. . requires a riotice under section 8o of the Civil.~rQ.G~dure
Code. In such a case, there is no reason why the official-
:.. should not be struck out and the suit allowed to proc~ed
:. -~gainst the private individual in. whose c~se .rio 'nptiCe u,nq~:~; 1
section 8o is at all necessary." .
APPELLATE CIVIL
JAGARU (APPELLANT)
v.
N_ov. I_1 u PO NAING (REsroNoENT). *
E}edment su'tt_;,ight ofd~fendi::nt to question tiile of alleged landlord'_:.:absence
: . of attornment--no estoppel.
. ': ; : ..... : . ) .
. _: In a suit for ejectment for arrears of rent the defendant had c6iitended
a
thai-he was t~nant ofthe plaintiff's' predecessor in title and ;was 'never ii t~nant
of the plaintiff.
. Meld: A tenant is not estopped from questioning the derivative title of t4e
Plaintiff who is suing him.
Deena Bandu .Gan v. Makim Sardai- LXIII Cal. 763; Kri~hna Prasa~
Lal' Singha Deo v. Barabon, Coal Concern Ltd. (1938), I Cal p. r;
DauZat Ram.v: Havel Sliah anti aiw'ther A.I.R.. (1939), Lah. 49; and -.Par~ih.
Kaur.and others v.'. Gian chand .A.i:.R. (194o), Lab: 341, referred to. . ~.'
_Also .. the plaintiff has not produced satisfactory evidence to show that'~he
defendant had attomed to him after the purchase of the land. .
Accordingly the relationship o_f landlord and tenant has not been established
between the plaintiff and the defendant . . The defendant is thel'efore ~ot
estopped from denying tlae title of the plaintiff 'and . as wen as h is statUs' ~~-.
Jamijo~d of the suit land.
CIVIL REFERENCE
Before U San Maung, U Saw !3a Thein and U Kyaw Zan U, JJ.
a
"' It is commonplace that in statutes of taxation the
imposition of a duty must be in plain terms (4) ; such a
statut~ must be construed strictly and the onus lies upon
the Crown to shew that the person whom it is sought to
tax falls clearly within its operation (5). In Par.tinotoD, y.
Attorney-General (6) Lord Cairns says: 'I am not at all 5ure
that in a case of this kind-a fiscal case-form is not a~ply
sufficient; because, .as I understand the principle of all fiscal
legislation. It is this: If the person -sought to be taxed
comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however
'great thP. hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be.
--------~ ~ ----------------------------~--~
(3) XI L.B.R. 299.atp. 306. (4) (1913) 3 K .B. 212 at p. 219.
- {s)J~go8)/K8. 7os at p. 709. (6) L.R. s H.L. I co-ac p. 122.
. 902 BVRMA LAW REPORTS
cic. On the other hand, if the Crown seeking to recover the
:963 tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter. 'Of the law,
M'a: t>. H. the subject is free, however apparently withi1,1 the spir.i~. of
cozilN~ . the law the c~e m~ght otherwise appear to be. In other
: .TJii! v~~M~ words, if there be adrniss~ble, in any statute, what ~s called
. "Jii!iSSI<;>:NER OF
INcOMBT.AX
an equitable construction, certainly such a construction is
. : i!ti.IIMi., ' . not admissible in a 'taxing statute, where you can simply
R-t.N~N . . . adhere to th~, jYOras of the st~tute '. These observatip~s
were cited by Collins, M:R. in The Attorney-Genera,Z ir. The
E.arl of 5elborne .(7) and the learned Judge. proceeded to say:
'Therefore the Crown fails, if the case. is not brought within
cpe words of th~ statute, Interpreted according to 'their naturaJ
meaning ; and if there is a case which is not covered by the
''Statute so interJ>reted that can only be cured by legislation,
. and not oy an attempt to construe the statute benev.olently
in favour of the Crown.: "
'
:~earing ~hese observations in mind, we are of the opinjop
,th<J.t in the two cases from the Indian High Court ci!:ed
above the approach made by the Bombay High Cour.t was
the right one.
.In the case now under consideration, .the applicant .
. Mr. Cozens has arlinitte<lly not satisfied the se~on'd c01i- .
.. ._dirioii. laid down in clause {a) of section 4B of the Burn:la
Income-tax Act. As regards the first condition laid down
in that clause he has failed to show that he had been
: non-resident " in the Union of Burma for nine out of
. the ten preceding years. He did not then~fore $atisfy
:that condition also. Accordingly, our answer to the ques. . ..-
:tion referred to this Court is that he did not come Within
the definition of the term " not ordinarily resident "' giv~
ih clause (a) of section 4B of the Burma Incom:e-~ax Act~
Th~ applicant must pay costs of this reference ; .t\,dvo~;u:e
:fees being a.ssessed at ten gold mohurs. .
BURMA t.;AW RPORTS :
CIVIL REFERENCE
Before U San Maung, U Saw Ba Thein and U Ky:zw Zan U , J.J.
Civil R~ference. No. 10 .of 1963 ngainst the order of the Inco~e-tax
Appellate
.
Tribunal
. I
of Rangoon in its Appeal No. 46 of 1961-
.
, dated the 29th
Octo.ber 19.62. /
. C;C. installed ship~ and also to consider whether he should give 5 per cent annua 1
. . 1"963 depreciation for the other ships which never came :to-Burma.
--'-
: . MESSRS.. . The iogic of the situation which compels the Inomce-tax Officer to allow
~ORWEGl~ initiaf depreciation on the newly installed ships which never came-to Bkma is
AFRICA AND that they being more modem and faster and more efficient will be abie to
Aus1;_R;\LlA . c~ili:rlbut~ g~eater profit to the shipping company. . . .. . .. .
LINB- LTD.
.b:.:: . The next point to remember is, that the amount of-depreciation which :Bu.rm3
. THEiCUM'- has to bear is i-n proportion to the freight earnings in Burma as against the total
Mtssibi:-:BR OF receipts of the non-res-ident shipping compall" from its world, business.
. lNCOI'viE-TAX,
BURMA, a
' In.. taxing statute an equitable construction is not adniissi!:>le . an~ . the
.'R ANGOON. words of tJae statute have to be simply adhered to. ' .
Messrs. Rowe fSi Co. v. The Secretary of State for India, XI L.B:R; 299 ;
(1913) 3 K.B. zrz at._p. zr9; (1908) 1 K.B. 705 at p. 709; Partington v. Attorney-
General, L.R. 4 H.L. xoo at p. xzz ; The Attorney-GJneral v. The 'Eatl 'of
Selborne, (19oz} 1 K.B. 338 at p. 396, -referred to.
Held ju.rther : Regarding the question of interest, the. proviso to s. ~o (z}
(ii~ of the Burma Income-tax' Act would only apply to interest paid outside
0 f tlie Union of'Burma if there is " business connection" between the shipping
company and the lenders of money. This expression" business connection '
depends on 'the particular facts of each case. As the required information
ha5 not yet been given by the Tribunal the matter is referred back to it for a
further statement.
c:c: ~ Tyr" and " Trinidad '' which were respectively instal-
1963
- led in the year 1958, . 1952, 1954 and 1943, :the assessee
N!~J;iN Company claimed depreciation at the rate of 5 per cent
:Ai>RICA.' ANo per annum. The assessee Company also had new ships
AuspiA'LIA
'L\im D rD> installed in Oslo, Norway, {or K 28,660,443 during_the
Talif!CoMi. y~ar ending the 31st of December 19:59 and claimed initial
7J~6:~;.i%! d~preciation therefor at 15 per cep.t. Not a single on~
-R~~uR.MA'~ of these new ships came to Burma during the year in ques-
ANcooN.
tion ~.. The~ question is what depreciation allowance s~ourd
be made to the assessee Company.
In the Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. The com-
missioner of Income-tax, Burma (1) where the q~estion
referred was f' Whether on the facts and circum~tances
. of the, case the sum of K 23,91,868 was allowable deduc-
.tion as initial depreciation for the ships under section
to'(2) (vi) of the Burma Income-tax Act read With sub-
section (3) of section 42 of the Income-tax Rule,' ' a Bench
of the late High Court which included two members of
the ptesent Bench, after a careful consideration of the
Cjttte.stion involved answered it in the affirmative. In that
case it was observed<-:
41
"The vjew taken by the Income-tax. App,ellate Tribunal
that the ini'tial depreciation allowance under section zo (2> (vi)
was only admissible to 'local industries ', is not warranted
by the language of that section. Moreover, it only stands to
reas0n tha't if a shipping company which is not a resident
company in the Union of Burma is to be charged incomet.a x
by virtue of section 42, sub-sections (z) and (3) of the'Burma
Income-tax Act and that as a mean of ascertaining the actual
amoun't of income_ profits or gains accruing to it, recourse
should be had to Rule 33 of the Burma Income-tax Rules,
. initial depreciation should be allowed for the newly contru~t-
.; 'ed ships in its fleet."
MBSSRS.
Th.'ese observations were cited by Collins, M.R: in :The.
Attorney-General v. The Earl of Selborne .(6) and the Jeamed
NOl\~QIAN "
ARRICA AND Juqge pro~e~ded to sa.y: Therefore the Cr9wn . fails, if the
AUSTRALI'A
case is not' brought witbin the words qf 'the statUte: interp~eted
LI!"B (.TD.
t'. according to their natural meaning ; and if there is a case
'{'HB 'Cq~-
which is not covered by the statute so interpreted that can
1'!flSS,I9N~ n.F. only "be cured by legislation, and not by an: attempt .to
lN~~~.i.
. ,; . . > construe the statute benevolently in favour of the Cro:wn! ~'
RMc;;p.qN.
0
APPELLATE CIVIL
* Civil Seco'nd Appeal No. 43 of 1962 against the decree of the District
Court of Toungoo in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 196z, dated 14th Juae 1962.
BURMA LAW REPORTS . 9.1.l
Aye M_aung .(Advocate) for the appellants c.c.
1,9(!3
MAUNG.KYlJ'(
N. R. Majumdar (Advocate) for the respondent. MAUNO ANO:
ONll
Regarding. the contentio~ .of the plaintiff that s1nce her .:::c6:
' 19 3
m0ther had committed adultery she had ceased- to have w ,...,k ...... ,.
any:interest in-the.joint .property of herself and -her hus- Mo.~a~~~,.
band U -Chit,:: the learned trial Judge came fo the con- oNE ,,~
" ,
.tlif.
elusion" since .there had been no decree for divorce w Ai;;;," K~-z;..
on:...the gtomi~ :of the wife's adultery, the suit land and -
the.'.builGing there6n coa.tinued to be the joint property
otU~Chif arid his wife Daw Htu till the date of U Chit's .
de~ith and that therefore Daw Htu's right, title andiri.terest
. coulc;l be V:alidly .' sofd in execution of the decree against
her,. .rn: tlie result the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with
cost'S:
~e plairit~ff Ma Waiag Kyi appealed and the learnt!d
pistrict Judge of Toungoo by his judgment in Civil Appeal
N9 ~ of 196i se~ aside the j~dgment and decree of the
trfal,Court.and decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs. In
th~ bpihion of the learned District Judge, since one of
the conditions of the lease granted by the Deputy Commis- .
s~dJier was that. no 'portion of the land s~ leased could be
sold -without the consent of the Dep'U.ty Commissioner
vide p~ragraph 5 of the lease agreement, Exhibit Kagyi,
the auctioti" sale in execution of .the decree against Daw
Htu was invalid in so far as it concerned a half-portion
of;the suit-land. Accordingly all th~t the defendants had
su~~eede_d. in ~~u~hasing was the house situated thereon,
an.d since the house had already been burnt down they
h(\d no-r~ht..whatsoever to remain on the suit land. There-
. fore," they. should .. be .eje'cted.
~ Now.~ it is common ground that at the time of the
exeeutiQn sale of
. the . southern half of the suit land and
. the building thereon, the house which was sold was in
ao'tua1 .physical possession of the plaintiff's father U Chit
W\th .whom the plaintiff was then living. Accordingly
th.e delivery .of possession .as stated by the defence wit-
U:SS M,a:uo!L 1:!ya Thaung .'(DW 3), . Process Server~ was ..
s
BURMA LAW REPORTS.
c:P -.
execution, which had always been held not to be of itself I-.,v3
a breach of a covenant not to assign. [See Golak Nath ---:- ~ '.
Roy Chowdhury v. Mathura Nath Roy Chowdhury (r)]. ==~~
The execution sale by which the defendants purchased ?;.~.:..
the 'sou~he:rn hal:f <?f the suit land as well as the house w...~~~~K~~;;
on which it i~ situate was undoubtedly valid, However,
what had really succeeded in obtaining was the right, title
and interest o~ Daw Htu, a Burmese Bubdhist wife in the
joint property of herself and her husband U Chi..f. As
a Burmese Buddhist wife cannot claim partition of the
suit land as against her husband during the subsistence
of the marriage between them, so also the defendants
who had purchased the right, title and interest cannot
claim partition of the suit land as against U Chit in whose
name the lease stood. All that the defendants could pro-
bably claim in a suit properly framed against U Chit, was
joint possession of the suit land as well as of the house
standing thereon.
Instead of filing a suit, the defendants squatted on the.
southern portion of the suit land by tapng advantage of
U Chit's absence and of the destruction of the house stand
ing on th~ land. The defendants' possession at the incep
tion was a little better than that of mere treapassers. How.
ever, they have been in possession of the portion occupied
by them since the year 1948, so that by the time the
pres~nt suit was filed on the 2rst of June 1961, they had
obtai~Cd a prescriptive title thereto as against the plaintiff
Ma W;:rlng Kyi as successor-in-title to her father U Chit.
Accordingly, the defendants cannot be ejected by her.
However, the 25 years' lease granted to U Chit by the
Peputy ~Commissioner expires on the 28th of November
1964. It-would then be open to the Deputy Commis
sioner if he so elects, to grant a lease of the suit land
either to Ma Waing Kyi in her own right, or to any other
(1) I .L.R. (1893) ~.Cal, zn.
c,Q.::.< per-spn he _ple~e~ . . !Jl.e po~i~on. oft~~ d~f:en~a~~~- in:-s.o
~:::_ far-~a-s :ti\at lease. is concerned might wei.l be diff~rent, . :;
M~f~::.~1 . -In t~e result the appeal -succeeds. - ~e-judgroent: an~ : .
M ~~~~~dqcr.ei.-of the _D.~$tr:ict. Court-of ~oungoo_. ap~-~~~.d -?g~!J.st .
6
. ;~ti~: . .a~f _set:-~sidi an<l those of t:h"e trial ~~UJCt .restor~d:. V\:1tP.";
W~~;~~~to~t:S __.tnrcnighout~ Advocate's fees in this ~ourt :b~ing ?S- )
. se~s~ at 3. ~$-ee) _gold mohurs- .. .. - , ,..
. BURMA tAW REPORTS
- -- (x) (t89798) II C.W.N. 755 (z) I.L.R. (1907) XXXIV Cal. 922.
. . . . .. . . '(J) . XLV I.e: 64a. . . .. . . .
.. fiURMA LAW M~6tt'fs
~ .it. was ~ufficient if something was done by the landlord ; . ~f1 .
to show :his intention to determine the lease. Howev~r, '0!; ;, .,
~ t,h~s de<;ision was given in l;he !ear 1918 prior ~o thelf,,::~iX~:~
amendment to clause .(9) of section II I of the Transf~r ft~.r;;no
o~ Propery Act ~y J\c't No. 20 of 1929. ,-1;~i~:S~
.. .~ In "Ahamadali' Fakruadin Bohri and others v. Mz.{l!d.''f;u~J.NooN.
~. Fid_aali._ ?:~Jlianali Bo~r! (4) purchased a house and ask~d
:, f)~ wh<{ ~as a t~nant of his predecessor to attorn to Wtp..
. D tepudJ.aied -pstitle and set up a title of his own. On
p..continUing.. to set up his own title P served him with
:"a 'notice to vacate the premises in the event .of his not
payirig.. tlie ~rrears of rent and on his refusal to do so
brough( a suit for recovery of the house from D. It~was
- helcl that section 7 (r z) (cc) of the Court Fees Att did not
: apply, that coiut-fees should be paid on the market-value
of 'the property and that is also was the value for the
purpose of jurisdiction. In this connection the I~arned
judge (Vivian Bose, J.) observed that the fact that an
option was left to .the defendants to co.ntinue.. as tenants
. by paying up the arrears of rent coul~ make no diff.e~~n7ce
. .to the fact that a clear intimation was given to the dtfep-
.. dants to vacate if they did not choose to exercise; t})e
; option
...
' " . .
Of remaining as tenants. . . ...
. In the case now under consideration no doubt accofa-
. irig to the plaintiffs' own story notices had been given
by U Mya to the defendants to vacate for failure to pay
alil'ears of rent. The first notice was .in 1950, .in resp.ect
~ oCwhich Exhibit " > " is the Burmese translation.:of
the reply given by the defendants' lawyer to U Mya.
. Another notice was given on t;he 30th of September i955,
' to which no reply was given by the defendants. How-
: ever, the adverse title set up by the dt!fendants was orily
. in the year 1956 when U Mya filed his application,befote
\.~e .'Ass)st:aii.t , ton!roller of Rents, Pegu, for a. permit. to
. . . .. , .
. I (.~) A.I.R. (1938) Nag. 16z. - - .. _. -'
fiVR:MA~ tAW~ REPORTS
,'\ .. ..... t .. . 4 - -'
r~h~ .ye I.9S6 is that dated the 9th of April 1959,. Exhibit
:,'.~, .~ o ~-,.,~ . .., T.hisis.~ a .compo~~te .notke ..u.nder,sec.ti9I).... IR6.-pf
~fhe .T:~~psfey o{ J>roperl:y..Ar:r.t.a:n~ Y,'Iider. ~ection. fl (~) .{a}
:;qf.. th~ _ . ur):>an .Rel).t .-Co.ntrol. Ac.t... ' It, was. n9I:a _jlptke
.~~conte.mpJai:ed l?:v.:. sec.rl,<>P..:OJ: I iJiJ) ;of' $e Tr~S.f~i. ..of .ito-
~P~o/.-A.c~ wh~ch-in .so fci..as.J:s. r-e1~an.t. f~r.. tqe._ pr~e~t
_.p.urpose -re,a(k, . ' ... . y:
'-'V r~
~ .. ?
:,-.".A'lease'
' of .inuii:ovea:bie prqperty, detel'll\ines :by
f . -.
forfel.t~e
,-,.-it;i ~~e-:th.~ Jes~ee :renou!lte:S b,i~ ~~h~ac~~ ~as::-5uch~ ;by ~et~wg
--.up. :~ - :title ~in : a.- ~d .,person ;oo~,,by claiming _title' .m . }ai.m;s~
t -'i - . .
, ~ :groy_ided,J;hat the le,ssor :givt.s notice i.n: wri.ting Jo
.
J.~$~e _the
.:,:~oJ:..hts: !~te~u9n: to: peterniine:tht( lease." .. : ~ . :: '
. . ...: . . ...
~
CIVIL REVISION
R. D. RAM (APPELLANT/APl'UCANT)
v.
.. KUNJA MAISTRY (RESPONDENT),. *
" ...
"
Mon&-lender~t . Act, r. 9-expiry .of cerJif.cate during trial-C.ourt: shoziLd. gii.i~ .
reasonable time for obtaining new certificate.
the rate of one and a half per cent per mensem whidi Was ?9~j _
allowable under the Money Lenders Act, I945 The_R 0 R ..
de{ence of Kunja . Maistry was . that .?e . did not _.. K~.-;M
execute the prormssory note m smt . apd . that __ MA~:a . . .--
he . .had merely signed it as a witness to the -:
execution thereof .by Anandaw. \IVhen the case came up
for hearing the plaintiff Jl_. D. Ram admitted that he could
on.Jy produce_the c~rtificate of registration as money-lender
. valid for -the period r8th February . I958 till tke 2-B(h
Nevember 1960. He had no certificate v;alid for the period
sul?s~quent to the 28th November r96d.
. In view of this admission the learned Chief Judge__of ..
the City C-ivil Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit witho~t
going into the merits of his claim against the defendant
Kunja Maisfry. It is now contended that since the plaint
iff, who had already applied for re-registration during. the
pendency of the suit, was able to obtain a certificate only
two days after the date of the judgment dismissing his suit,
the learned Chief Judge of the City Civil Court should have
given him time to proauce the certificate.
Now, section 9 of :the Money Lenders- Act provides that
no Court shall pass a decree on a suit by a money-lender
ior the recovery of a loan unless the money-lender is
registered under the Act and the registration is in force ..
Therefore, a decree can be passed if the money-lender can
produce a certificate of registration during the pendency
of th:e sui~ filed by him.
. In the circumstances of this case I think that the learned
Chief Judge of the City Civil Cou:rt should have given_the
plaintiff reasonable time to produce the certificate of regis.
tration which will be valid at the time the decree is passed
in his fayour. The plaintiff has ~ow filed an affidavit
saying that he has obtained a certificate showing that the
registration as a money-lender has been renew;d on the
. 22n_~ Jun~- -~96~_ and that it WOUld be Valid till the 21St June
1965~ ..
~
RM' .. .. ( ' : T . I. ' ... . ' 'Ji rihr-1:~ "r"t:'l''
BU ' A bJ"k. W :.ru::;n.JA.a:j [r.:3-:
.
Therefore it is clear that .to be allowable deduction
unaer that cl:mse the sum payable as bonus must te
a.ctually paid t.q the employee concerned, and npt into th~
Provident Fund as had been done in the case now under
consideration.
Regarding the Provident Fund itself the proviso ~o
clause (ixl) of s<7ction ro (2) of the Act is explicit on the
point that lt is only payment by way of contribution by an
employer towards a recognized Provident Fund which js
allowable oeduction under that clause.
For "these reasons we consider that the order of the
Income-tax Officer as confirmed by that of the Assistant
Commissioner of Income-tax )$ correct. The question pro-
pounded will, accordingly be answered in the- uegative.
The respond,ent must pay cos.t;s of this reference ; Advocate
fe_es being ~ssessed at ten gold mohurs.
934 ~BURMA LAW REPORTS
CIVIL REFERENCE
Before U San Maung, U Saw Ba Thein, and U Kyaw Zan U , Tf.
. 0
c.c.
1963
. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BURMA
v.
D ec. 26.
MESSRS. PWINT GAUNG AND BROTHERS {RESPONDENT) ."'
The applicant had been assessed under s. 2.3(4) of the Incox;ne-tax Act,
;On applicatjon .to the Assistant Commissioner, the assessment was confinned
013 znd appeal to the Appellate T ribunal, the Tribunal set aside the assess-
ment and directed the Income-bx Officer 1:o make a fresh aese~ssnent.
In passing its order, the Tribunal had remarked thnt the Assistant Com-
missioner's decision was not confined to the queStion of assessment only, and
had given decision also on the validity of the assessment as if the respondent
had led an. application under s. 27 of the Act.
The question for consideration by the Chief Court was whether the
Tribunal had rightly set aside the assessment made under s. 23 (4) of the Act,
in spite of the fact that there had been no application under s. 2.7 of the Act
{or the cancellation of this assessment.
Held: There is a ~rge prep~nderance of~ authority to show that
q~estiol?- referred to should be answered in the negative.
Naba K~tmar . Singh Dttdlluria v. Commissi01zer of Income-tax, Bet;gal, 1944,
:XII I .T.R. 327; U Kan Gyi v. Commissioner of ltrcome-tax, Rangoon, (1958)
B.L.R. 1o72 (H.C .); Chhotelal Gobardhan Das v. Commissitmer of ;Jncome-tax
U.P. f!J V.P., 1953,23 I.T.R. 272; Sir Padampat Singhania v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, U.P. and Ajmer-Merwarea, 1953, 24 I.T.R. 141; teferr~d to and
followed.
Suga_nchar.d Kanhaivalal Rathi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P; and
'Bhopal, 1958, 34 I.T.R. 152; referred to.
Mauladin Ayub Firm v. Commissioner cf Inconu-tax Bombay South,
1959, 35, I.T.R, 449', referred to and foliowec!.
The fact that the Assistant.Comm.issioner of -Income-tax, h!td g~;e into the
question whether the best of judgment assessment .under secti~n 23 '(4) was or
was not justified in the appeal &gainst the quantum of the ass~sment under
section 30 of the Butma Income-tax Act, does not make any cliffer~nce. The
As~istant C~n~issionet wa$ act~ng without any jurisdictio::1 in considering the
Civil Rc:,ference No. xi; of 1'963, against the order of the Income-tax
Appelltte Tribunal of Rangqon in ~efetep.ce No. 9 of r86t, dated 18-6-63.
BURMA LAW REPORTS 935
c. c.
.matter, and this fact should have been ignored by the lncome-tax Appel~te
Tribunal. It is quite wrong to say that because the Assistant Commissioner
had considered the matter over wbich he had no jurisdiction the TBB CoM
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in going into the same question.
- .
1963
MlSSlO:tiER OP
INCOM;TAX.
BURMA
Ba)(yaw (Government Advocate) for the appellant. v
. MESSRS.
U Paing (Advocate) for the respondent!. Pw.rNr
GAUNG AND
BROTHERs.
U SAN MAUNG, J.-Thjs reference under section 66 (2)
of the Burma Income-tax Act was made by the Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal, Rangoon, in pursuant of the. order of
:t;his Court dated the 14th May 1963 in Civil Miscellaneous
Application No. 52 of 1961. The question of law referred
for consideration by this Court is as follows :
" VVhether in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal had rightly set aside the assessment m;de
under section 23 (4) where the respondent had not applied
under section 27 an'd where the respondent's appeal to the
Tribunal is against the quantum only."
The facts giving rise to the present reference are briefly
these. The respondents Messrs. Pwint Gaung and Brothers
of Rangoon, were assessed for the assessment year 1957-58
corresponding to the previous year endirtg the 30th Septem-
ber 1957 under section 23 (4) of the Burma Income-tax Act
on an income of K 2,59,583. Being dissatisfied with the
amount of mcome assessed and the amount of tax deter-
minea; the respondents filed an appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who dismissed. the
appeal on the ground that the income estimated as assessed
by the Income-tax Officer was not excessive. The
respondent then filed a second appeal before the Income-
tax Appellate Tribunal under section 33A of the Act on
the ground that the assessment of the Income-tax Officer
was arbitrary, excessive and unreasonable, and that the
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was wrong in having
confirmed th~ same. The Tribunal however bl i~ order
<lated the 8~h February 1961 in Appeal No. 41 of 1960 set
BURMA LAW-REPORTS
.c.c. aside the assesSment and directed the Income-tax Officer
1963
" T c
:a:B OM-
to make a fresh assessment:. In ~}:lis connection, the
. MtsstoNBR oF Tribunal said :
. !NCOMETllX,,
' BURMA " Taking all the facts and circumstancc::s of the case into
. fl
MESSRS. consideration, we are of opinion that a fresh asses~rrient
, PwJNT would! the 'fairer and more proper; and consequently, we set
4GAUNG. =AND
-BRG~Hl!Rs. aside the as.sessment and direct the Income-tax Officer to make
. ' a fresh one from the stage at whjch the return had beeiz filed
.,by t~.e appelfant firm."
~Theq.commissioner of Income-tax, Burma, being dis-
. satisfied with. the order of the Tribunal:.
'section66 (r)':o.f the B~ lnc~tt~a:K'
court the question of law mentioned above, which was
0
said to have arisen out of its order. The Tribunat however,
.
O.~ also ~eld that seetion 30 does not give an assessee the right .
-:> ~.} . ~0 object to the validity of an assessment u'nder section
THa CoM,.
.:MlSSxo'NBR o-F 23 ( 4) w. hen he h au
..t
not tak en any proceed'InK under sectiOn
.
IN'if~AX, 27 to dmcel the order under section 23 (4). The decision
..-M~. cited above was quoted with approval by a special Bench
.PWiNT of the late High Court in U Kan Gyit.}v. Commissioner. of
'GA1JNG 'AND . .
-Ba~. 'Income-ta.x , Rangoon (2}.. It was followed by the Allahbad
H:igb: Court in Chhotelal Gobardh(m Das v. CommissiQiier .
of Jncome-tax, U.P. and V.P. (3).
In' Si!Padampat Singhania v. Commissioner of Income-
tax; :f.J.:P. and Ajmer-Merwara (4) the same Bench of the
Allahaba'd High Court. as the one which decided Chlwte~al
Gobardhan Das's case, observed at page t47=
o . "Mr. Pathak .has urged that in a case where an ; ssessee has
.already made his submissions why he was not able to comply
with the notice under section 22 (4~ and the Income-tax Officer
had held against him and had come to the conclusion that he
. had not complied with the notice and had thereafter proceeded
to -make the assessment under section 23 {4), it would . be
tiseless for the assessee 'to apply to him again under section 2z
for ;reconsideration of th~ .question. an~l in such a case to re-
quire him to file,.an app'.ica'tion unde! section 27, would be to
"ask him to do something which was useless. We do not agree
wjth learned coun~el. In some cases it might be that all the
facts were already before the Income-tax Officer and it was
no't likely that he would change his mind, but in the majority
of cases it would be useful for an a3sessee to have an opportu-
nity to place the facts afresh so that, if the Income-tax Officer
was not prepared to change his mind, the Appellate Assistant
Commissioner or the Tribunal might be able in the light . of
the facts to consider whether there was sufficient justification
for . non-compliance with the notice under section . 22 . (4).
.Before the amendment of sed:ion 30 of the Income-tax Act,
the position was that the' order of the Income-ta~ Officer .
making an assessment under section 23 (4\ was final, -b ut if
. the assessee h~ made an application under section 27 :that
h~ should not have been assessed under sec.tion 23 (4) and the
Income-tax Officer had rejected that application, he could
file an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, THB Cow.-
MlSSIONER.OF
go up in appeal to the Appellate Tnbunal and even as.k for a INcoM!k:r.\X,
-reference to this Court if a question of law arose. After the ~u-~
.3mendment of section 30 the assessee has now got two rights: ~.
(i) to question tl?e validity of an assessment under section -Pwoo
:23 (4' in the same way as before, that is, py an application Gi,~~~.
0
c:c. tliat the assessee had not made any application, under
19~3 . 1
~ . section 27 of the Act. It was hetd by a Bench of the High
MI~~o~-&~~P Court of Madhya Pradesh that in the appeal under section
IN<;,:~~AX.' 30. against the quantum of assessment, the question whether
. ~~ , ~he .Ipcome~tax Officer was justified in holding that the
Pw;:,: books of account were suppressed was-implicit, and it was:
13~'I'~~o lncum'bent on .the Appellate i\ss1stant Commissioner to
decide ' whet~er the contention oi the assessee that the
~ool<.S 6f account didnbt exist was well founded ; therefore,.
an application under section 27 of the Act was riot a condi.
tion precedent to the raising of that contention a$ section
27Was ~n emibling provision for re.opening assess.meht in
~he specific sitUations mentioned therein, and did not apply
to a case where the assessee contended that no books of
0 .
.. _. Both
. .....
the divergent views were considered by the
B<:nn?ayHigh Court in a later case in Mauladin Ayub Firrrr
v.: :C:orn'missioner of Income-tax, Bombay South (6). Ih
lhai ease~ .in :making the assessment pf the assessee in the
asse:osment year 1951-52, the Income-tax Officer believed
that it was maintaining a separate set of books which had
not been produced before him. He, therefor~, issued a
'notice to produce the second set of books. The ~ssessee
contended that it did not maintain two sets of books an(l .
thai whatever books it had had be.o...n produced and tnere
fore it.could not comply with the notice. As the assessee
failed to comply with the notice, the Income-tax Officer
assessed the assessee under section 23 {4) of the Income-tax
Act ~6 :the best of his judgment. The assessee did no\ apply
under sec;tion 27 to have the best of judgment assessment
:set aside but appealed to the Appell~te Assistant Coinmis-
. si~ner under sectibn 30 and in this appeal questioned the
. 6) L959, 35 J.'IR., .4 94
BURMA LAW REPORTS 941
does. not possess ; and, therefore, in both the cases the basis G:~~~
of the Income-tax Officer's order under section 23 (4) is
that the conduct of the assessee is contumacious. It was
also held that section 27 is wide enough to cover~very kind
of case where the Income-tax Officer proceeds to make a
best judgment assessment by reason of the contumacious
conduct o'f the assessee. Therefore, section 27 applied to
the cas~ then under consideration and as the assesse~ did
not avail himself of the right under section 27 to show
cause and have the best judgment assessment set aside, he
was precluded from agitating the valjdity of the best
judgment assessment under section 23 (4) in the appeal
to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 30.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
Before U Bo Gyi C.J. ff U San Maung,J.
- .
N w . 23-
THEOCOURT OF INDUS1RIAL ARBilRATION, BURMA
0
AND ONE.*
,.
Trade Disputes .Act, s.14B-iU.,gal strike dimtissal of workers participating in
illegal st.r ike-s.1,.A-illegal :ockout.-effect of refusal to re-emproy workers
after strike-whether dismissaljustifod-compnsation in lieu of reimtate-
ment--applicatiotl for writ of certiorari--whether proper remedy.
The Applicant was the proprietor of a goldsmith shop and he had dismissed
his workers belonging to the 2nd Respondent Union, because of participation
i n a "sit-down" strike staged by them, from 8th October 1958 until 21st
November 1958, on account of the dismissal of another worker.
On the dispute being referred to the Court of I ndustrial Abritration, the
Court held that the "sit-down " strike was illegal under s. 14B of the Trade
Disputes Act as the matter was pending before a Conciliation Officer; and also
the refusal of the Applicant to re: employ the workers in question after the end'
o! the strike .was also illegal under s. x4A of the Act as the matter in dispute
r~ardingtheworkerforwhom the strike was staged, had already been referred
to the Industrial Court.
Accordingly the workes:s in question were not 'lsrnnted their " strike pay "
and the Applicant was also ordered to pay six months pay for each wo.rRer for.
wrongful dismissal, in lieu of" reinstatement", which was no longer feasible.
On Application for a writ of Certiorari to quash the said order.
Held: Tfie provisions in the T rade Disputes Act of Burma, are different
f rom .the provisions -of s. 24(3) of the Indian Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
where it is provided that a lock-out declared in c;oosequence of an illegal strike.
shall not be deemed to be illegal.
Spencer & Co.,Ltd. and Their Workers, 1952, Vol. I. Labour Law Journal,
469;JeevanLallo &! others and Metal Box Company of India Ltd., 1952, Vol. II;.
L .L.J., p. 869; Mill Manager Modtl Mills Nagpur, Ltd. v. Dharam Das, A.I.R
1958. Supreme Court, 3II.
In the case under consideration, even if the Applicant had refused ta
emploB the workers in question as he had decided to shut down his goldsmith
because of the strike, his action would still be illegal, as under s. 4C of tbe Trade
Disputes Act, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal under such cirNm$Noces,
is illegal.
'l'RIAL Hla Thin \Government Advocate) amd Win Kyi for ~he
ARBITRA-
'T!ON, BURMA r~ponaents r and 2.
ANDONB.
police that the doors were opend three times ~ day for
the purpose of supplying with strikers with food. While
th. _e. ": sIt D own , stn
. .ke was m
. progress t h ree more meet- THE o ...aoN
SHWBBA-
ingswere held before the Conciliation Officer in cQnnec- DBtt:f CoM-
.tiori with the dispute between Chew Ka'uk Phein and. . P~~
p Kh~n Maung. They we-,e held on rsth. October r958, ~Br~:~
25th <!ctober 1958 and.the 30th of October 1958. These. TIAL
~i~etipgS -b-ore. nO S~tisf~CtOry reSUlts SO that On t1le !8th TI~~B:-~6.
--.()f Nuv.ember 1958, the dispute between Chew K~uk Phein AND ONE.
and U ~in Maung was referred to the Court of Industrial
Arbitration J:>y the Ministry of Labour vide Labour Brf!ncli
II Notification No. 104 of that date. The workers on
0
reGeiving. the advance copy of this notification decided
. <>n the 2rst November 1958 to call off the "Si.t Down;;
strike- Accordingly, on the 22nd November 1958, :the
four strikers, namely, Ko Kauk Ewan, Lin Lin Phwan, Chet
Ket Kyan and Chin Kim Hoke offered to resume wo~k.
HQwever, U K4in"Maung refused to employ them .o n the
groun5f that they had not yet given back tile articles -.of
gold which they had in their possession. These articles
were returned on the. 27th of November 1958 in :the pre-
.
sence of witnesses, but U Khin Mau~g was ~damant. He
.
refused to reinstate the four workers in question. Accord-
ingly, .after" a considerable lapse of time the Chairman of
the Revolutionary Council in exercise of the p.owers vested
in him by section 9 of the Trade Disputes Act referred
~o the Court of Industrial Arbitration the dispute between
. U Khili Maung and the four workers who proceeded on.
strike in sympathy with their leader Chew Kauk. Phein,
vide. Ministry of Labour Branch II Notification No. 192
dated the 9th of October 1962. The questj.on? referred
:to Ihe Court were :
.
.
.
~r) Whether the Proprietor of The Dagon Shwe-l>a-
dein Company was justified in refusing to re-
employ fhe four workers, Ko Kauk Ewan,
946 BURMA LAW REPORTS
:. . . ') . . ,
.; .. 0
:p : ~~p~
-
0 0 --
,~:
)~:;J)~CO
!'0
r '
(J.e:~)
C.CC.CC~<'IG
!> 0 0
-
z-963] BURMA LAW REPORTS 955
C'
O!JQ ()f 01 t:? ~:;
C'
00
0
o:>o:>C
C'
:Do:>Qo:>CO?:~:n
C'
<OJ;;~C
C'
:;occn OOOlC OOGCI:Qu?:Q
C' C' '/f./ C'
:)eG? -
I. { t;. J L 6 J U ~J L T b - -1 J
r C' o C' o C' C' C'~ o r,; C'
ooo 00[9?:oo~ :. m:::9:gp:~ g~~'11 oo~:9~S :;of.mJC91 Q')~G~9ot tlg.,;;: O~f?of~
C' OOG C' 0 C' C' C' C' C' C'
00?: ;;ro:x>::n
c.:. II 1'1. 000!3WI?:o:>c
;:, LL tJ
O)())Q())CX)?::x>::n
Cl~g().)')~
o J ~
OOOlC
o
00109: 000L
0
(c::~1)
0\ C' OC' 0 0 "l o , C' G GC::::C:::I
())XlQ;!OlGOllll
-r Jl u o:>::::x>L cooro?: OJO)Ql mm:C\lQI?;~ OOCI:OC\OOOOQGO:Q
---r LU . ..
G Q G ~ C'
--~ M. J -11.
~ O C' ~C' C' C' \ 0 ~ <"
:.8
J
~m.s?o:>o:>oo?: ::no:> oo:oog .sro~"llXlG:OO?ccoo:SdOml ~ oooo:> 0 C' C'
T C.:. LL I. P C -H.- -, ~ L rol:'i1-f''lc
c . L c c r::: c r,; "~ c ' - c c r::: r,;<" o1jn
m~~""'Jf m:~ooG9:coo:(jc~ '-'DLOI<.Jf?<O:x>? cocqpmro~Jm:x>~l ~GI!tSdc::J~..
.0 0
-~~GOO?.GO II
_QrC'
coJtlcQ.xn: o:>Olm:x>
C'
mcr:o9ooooGo::x>::n
'\ 0 "l o C' C' 0 ~ C'
OJ4)Q :oocr
2:x> oo:rog 0 OC'
OllJ C.:. L ' t. J l t:.i 0 6 tt I.
.r,;c- C' C' \ C' C' o r,;: c cr,;:c r,;: C'
tjfC\l~q(GOO?::G'):~<:jl OO~fGOO? Sd'P~gp:ro ~:tjOXjQ2lj~:x>ljC:, I
C'
0
1 OJO)Ol())
6
ll
0 .
L --,
-r
0 C' C'
coo~c oom
J o 0
l . L A o J L
C'
oo:>rom:o::n
L
II..-- -I C
c..:;
11
o C'
C.:.
C' ro .
a:GoG.soo:>
1) ~ T J
"'10 wro
.J U
<;...... C'
~G()')Q~fl
~{?~~r
8~~
Ji 'loSu
l'tolt'
o o ..D.- o roo " D o o .o.- s; ~ " ..D !reO 8 o " !reO s c c. s a ~ .II) , s ~ '<C'
-fit o <.:~o 8 " ~o 8 0"[8) o e -fit,~ :-c ~ % ~ =e. -fllocc-:o ~ g o., u .~ . u .~
~ ~,:{!;, ~ .-~o ~~ s 2~ g ~ 0 '""'~ 8 8g ~S8 0
~ 8 <- ~., 6~ fiE1 "" ~ ..Jio ;; .a , ; 8
j., ~
.,~;;~, 8,.; " as ~sc ~ w, " .,Q v " a" . . ., ..-B .-v ~ 8.,,C'., ~ Co o> v .-a
0
a,
j" 8 ~{;,
. ru 0 . - 8 t:l
8I& o.,:.o ,......., . R/1()
2~ . . a, Co 8 ~o~Co
'-"' 1 I& IIO'l 0"1 C 1tf> v ..:... ru .-o 1 ., .,
-~
a ..~o~., ~~~ ~s-- . .8o a,~ = '"f/ .a.. dg roo a
.......... 8 > ~ r*J !:tn .o., . .ao S ~-fit., ~ [:B., ,!.~o o., ...!).
o .,.aQ .. ...!).
= ~~ . u., o c:. 2., a:n r::;,o L
o 6> (5 .. -
c.o 0 U el') LUO
~ <.:lo LL) " s a c ~s ;=8 6 " .:2
..D
a" ' ~ s ~ ~~~:
. .8 ~~s e.,.,Q e,
s \.)8 a:n ..o~o a
o H., .-go . .o~ ~kll o., 8o roo
... ., ru.o ..-8 v C1...-
a ~ ,......_ ;::v J c,a,()., o J 8 -fll'l ., a .o., t> q; f) ~ o., 8 c 0...
0 g t:l 0 t=: ~ e g o -fit o 00 cf). ' ... oro
Jio
o..,
.,r-8, ,oi
l O'l- 0 C 0.,
0., ~8., ru.,.-.21>o s a,
V
o ..
ru., 1') u 6') ('"'0:)
v ~oo r-x-t a ......
- [8., ., . ., ~ 8 ~0 ., e0 ~Rft
o., co = 1tt> ., .. ..D \.)
c <-GO) f) : t:l . a~ e.,
...,.., o
. ~oo c.....
ij - \.) ~., 0. f) .,
o.,
a., J ....'":=.> a
FIC > -- ,..~0 W0 [B., t:l :/D
,.--..
"' ~ _g ~~a .,:.So~. ct ~ ~., 8 ..., ~ 2=!
..-8 ....8o..-8 :;: ~
~ =a.:&., Jla., ("),~ :~e.,.-88 8~., -~".~vs '"sa:n-~
eJ >~ "';;: A rl ~ li)., e.,~ 8., o.,c2 ..ao .o., >:
ell -
..0 8 ~ 8 ~ " ~Q - cD. 8 ' .o, e..,. "c j .
8 .,. " :-a; ~a 8 a s ..~~ CY.., 8 O'l ~8 rn.., ..-8 s;cl ru., u .c
,!. 0 ..,
c:. ~
...-ao ~o.,
o
8o -fit., .,Q o . f8oa, 8 o.
~1.
~ [B., [S] [81 cU 0 - (0;) ,.. . ,- Pr-G
I) ~ ~ 8 [:B., ~ -1! 8 c,a, ii
2., ~~o ~0 0 roo ~ 6 c... GO>
t>8 ' a., g., 8. :=c, 6 :.c
.. ~ FIC ~ g., r::\1 ~ r::\1 -1! ~~., - ~. [B., 8 rB .,~('S.,~'l 0 .. ~ a 8 8 8;., 8 2., 8. ::c ~ G)
a a:n LL) J ~ LL) J ~ ~0 8 \.) c2 <- ..oo " ~ ru v ru a f)
~ .-a s
~ 9, ~ 8., ..VO g., I> ~" W'l ~ ;DO .o., u ~v <- 6) c ..D , :"' ., u ~
.-~o .o., ~ " ~"' a, G)~., ., = o., :.8o ~e . . _!:!.,. ~
Q.., ~ a ..., v .. ., W'l 6 So .." 8. ._
..a s;c1 ru =-> .o., o e .u eD 8 ........ o-a
~O'l~~j n'l)l~ CBl 8 ~Ois2 ego~ 8 :c ~a L 01) o., C rl/1 u .-k/lo #:JO
a ~ a -(D\J .. o
.-6 ~~o a c=. j 0 U'l t=: t:l'l ., o 1- 1 CIU'l " 8
0 o - o -D ., C
~ .. o u o O!Ol ~c u ...So
.. t>O.- ~.; c roo ..a., 8 ~ '-{
c 8 r-5"1 o c0\.) ..Do
a CC1 a 8.. e ' ,., ~.,.fB...
~... -fit " ~ ..;,; <= rv.., o ~., g ~0 ~ o 0
f) ~ :=...> o-o .:& &J 8 J; u., 8., ~ a., :So 8 'g :.8o 6 ~~-- ~~ ~ ~:
~,:;
e
.o, \.) \.) c ~ o., \.) u0
,, I ~ ) ~ 8 0 , ~ . -8ot.B e,~,
;=8 rv. S o
o.,~ :15"
- vc:. 0
6 ~ LL)
3;, CCJ. J
..., = .~a (.. -.C) :
*" f)
8 8 w u ..D ~v o., S c ;Do ., .,
H"' 8 ~- .,[],ct . c ~ ~ Sn -=?. 8., f) 6 f) ,.
::0 . [B., 0 l" a e., [81 ., 8 a s" ~ ~ 8 0 f) :=8& ~So o., ~ ...8o - ;j,." .:o., 2 c:E; Is~ 8
..8 .. (), \.) c ..a a \.) f) ~ co~ a r*l 8 ~ ... o? = ~~ ' . o.>.: [B.,
..c " ., a 8 ~o ;o KD o ru., \.)., a, 3 .,Q ~., 9 ~., CY.o '-8 J '"ao .-a rt;.,; . . 8 au .. 2 ,8 CY.o.
e k:::!:: -fitCt'l ~, ..._.., c:Gq; .-.l'fto 01) .. .!-8o 8.- <.:1 5'1
..00 ~f)~ t:l I) 0.
0 ., ~
... 0 \.)
"oo <.:) ..8o "' ~8 o., 0 f) ..8o ru g em
~ c
~, u ...8o o v
(C] ao
--D '"C
eG'>.: t;B.,. . rt. <.J
...
u S , 8 6
o., . ,.oo. 1:
., ~ R 01 0 o -fit c 8 O.-l u S G'> a '" '? " Co v o
g oiJ ~ .,.!-So u = e"8o., g co., ., ~ ....,.., J n'"!. ..D ~s-- a-~ ~!) ~ ""~ 1>8 ; ..>
;wn
= , e,-f/1, ~, a ~., ~ ~ a ~ '"~~ ..8 e., .O'l = a., . .ao ~~,... ...So o-o- !:!!:>" --... ...o, 0'l
v ~ , o-o- '-"''
6')~ .1
. 0 :.:g.{{) .. .,.;.:' '
., ._ o.,:o.,.B.~f IU .
1
<-
9,J...'"'~~~ ...~oi~:&.:~ b~ ~"'
'"'" 5') I .,.
8 .! <Y..{,._/e" "s ro ~?..~ . . ' ' \ "-'
~ .
....,.
:: v ; 1 '-' <U> ;:. g .. o-. ....::;.
- ~~o..~
958 BURMA'- LAW REPORTS: [1.963
..J: 0 r:::::: C' 0 ~ C' C' C' -c C' .0 C' C'
~~..? 'QGe1?~.1 o:z~Go:>?~~c:~ ~ro~:3 Go:>~t:~o:>'P:oc q<-b>?:Ojo:>
(1 -- 0 C' C' C' C' ~ ;r
"'l C' r,;: ("\ l:' '
c 3T~Jt5~ ~J?:'Jtl ~~C<X>~~C :'Jf ~:j::Wf? ~GO GO I~ ~:tlo:>~GC\)0:>~ II
e o ,.,!i; C' C' o C' oc- C' C' c- c- o C'
( C~~l e:~: ~~~ro~: O:Zf~:~:oc II G)?3~ oxp:~ro?~ ~Gf>e
c 31c:di O?'{': c [.'? c- c o o "'l c- _<:: c:- o c- c
c:- 0 ~ . 00~: ~fu:><Y.>'f>:~:~ Go:>~:;;> e:~:G3JC:~:~oxp:oc~?:<'fo:>
oc~mo<J. o C' C' C' C' r,;:_oC' .-
. ro~) ~J?:~ ~4C<X>~~c.:'}f ~r:r"~CGOU
~';
... 0 ?:I~.>OOo:><!iCO"lO"lOC\)()C\)()')0):1">11
C' -- .P 0 C' C' g].O:G::laS~?
C' 0 (" C' ('
.'ft.
COG
... Jl l--, J --- o .. c u ~- r J r~7 -u
mlO
-
0
uC2ccwb::coMe
0
.
.. 1 1 1 ~ r - o ,
~~ec t~bcohl:teoboc~co :~es~ccoesroGood o~ 4bc9 oe wrocchl
.:>0 .:> .:> ~ .:> e .:> o .:>0 .:> .:> o .:> .:>. ~.:> o ~
n 1b~ v 1 ,.
> .,.. n r .,.. 1
:c.,~cc~wcc 1~ oeoa::::> truro~
, lboooo wcoc.roJe~ o~crooo
t:c.esco
.:> .:> .:>.:> .:> o .:> .:> a o c- o .:> o
C2cc~es t4-bco:;,:oo~oo iGC2roJ tbes:cPft:b:>obco o~wPe:c.cocohl:oo ~cc
.:> .:> .:> 3 .:> .:>~ .:> e .:> .:> .:> ~ .:>
ehlr"~ ~oco ~~es w:&wc.es~ ::>~4-bwP001o toG1ccbflcobco tbes:cPft
\.~J.. . .) 0 .) .) .) .) .) .) ~ 0 .) 0
9.6
11 @~flro<Pe>d<P~b :c.we:c1co
.:) ., 0 .:> 0
QI6QW~e
.., .., ..,
uOa:~~boes;e
.) .> .) .:)
~o:4co:@go
,;) .:10 :>
::,c:J:c.w4ec.cc
.:)~ .)
J:>&:lP~hrol:l...wllTI
.) ~ ::I.., ~~
u@~:c.&l;wsbe> 'Ccoc.c;,coro ~lkoro &oo
.> 0.) 0 \..) 0.) 0
e:d,(o
u@roc.cce>4-%,
..:> .> .>
@~~m:>!Jcorococ.roe>
.> o .:>:::.1..> ;:,
J@cc:cJ<:!:@~o
.::> .:>
JO"If:oe<Pe>~:c.co:ftcc:~co
:> ., .o .:>o: .>o
:c.w~o:~co:@l$o h>:c.r~:@l$o~cnocorol!llle:cbco
.) ,)0 ., 0 .) ., :::.~.
0.)'
u@cc~d:JCo~c.~<P~
.,) 0 :> .)
1~e:cbco
.)
c.cc~e
:c.ooe~o
,.J
Eocccc<PR:~.:J:>o:d:lco
.) .>::le.)
l!llll!drocow
:::,- .) .>
co:>k:r)t.o~cbco
.JO .:> o o
J:@o:d6*hlow~e
.:> .) .:>~ .:>
J:@roccce><Pe>:>~G~<P~ IGW~:d,co I :>i6eoe&;e<'J 4o:4oo:@lou II corec.oQk
.) .) .)0 .;) 0 .) \..) .) :> .)0 ;) .) .) :.T ..
u~:c.co~~
~b;e:4oo:@~o 46:~cc:4oo :d~:@&ob, Jc14ooc::lflcoro d1M :hl4e>lkocbe> &
.,,;) .;>o .::J .) .>o .Jo .J o . :> ::3."'"' oo eJ o.> o
coowro
.> .>
me:ebco
~
@cc&:@l$o
.:> o .,
c.cce>:~:c.ec Jbrokece~:d:lco u@ccbe~:cbco co&,oo
o :::fo .> o ' .>.:.
o~:c.<Peoe>; l.ut1,e>ec ll:l>&~rocow c.cokk@cc<Phl:>lc::l:c;cn~ o~e:cbco J@cc~:cbco
.> " o ::.- .) .> o- .> .J ::~., OJ .) .> o .
ucob re:
0~ ~c.co~
, 0
~
(~gebco) 5eg~b:; 1n~.
996
u(c) :~ccce:211
:J e . nw&,ece:Cbeo
.)
1v r 2
II 11
.) 0
- ~:scoco:
I '
BURMA LAW REPORTS
----------------------------~---~
II :ore l<b lWei
.> . e
..
C.CO~flll 11 w'Coese:cbcoe&es
.) 0 0
,. ()
II <b a:; lWei 10 CCO<bftll
() 11 wtoe.d:o:Cbcodbe.e:i
.J o e .) 0
nwb oc o o
(e~Cbcoefuro) :~:>Ce
".).)e
(o) arroc
, ? ,
<OCCCO'f r
) 0 ::>~
.)
(l.-o~chcoel'nro) C.coe>4~6o
o " e
,, J
eroecft;asco
S.UIOd3.1! MV1 VY-rn!lg
972
0
O):J':>-
L J
~l'6
974 BURMA LAW REPORTS [1963
C'r,;:~ c-
::>~li? m~ It::n:>::n?OC~::ne? ~~2oGO~J :>:otr
C'o (' o C' o oC'
otro;; ?9 tl"""'e:1 :>c:
r,;:C'
~:tlm
C' C' f.': C' C' f.':C' OC' o C' C'O C' 0 "' ( ) 0 C'
c- CO?:G::D?o:>~l t:jeGC:OX~t:JfW?~CC ' ' : mw~o;;:m'[':OI ? j q>'JC~:
..
<Xj03f~'"1
.
C' C' "'1'1:": ') 0 C' 0 0 0 C' r.::. r: ' C' C' A; Q C' 0 r,;: C'
~C "m<:Po:>G<91 tjOI q)'fQ::(-Oi otrof?t:J":~Dl.O?I OO~OOJC~ q>'JC~tlO)
&~(&) ! C'
.. '
;oc:A
CO?:::De?ll
o XI C' C' OC'oC' C' oc Go:>?
oO)C:G.SCOC e 0 C'O C'
o:>G .S~').ft(;Cg ~
--c. T 1. u J T~ l m~lt::n:>o:>:x:.ce>'lo:>~
00 OC'' C' f.": C' C' 0 C C' OC' o C' OC'
OO~ill~CC ~~0~0) ~@ r::J5?f:CO?:QJ~I .S~"J.ftCC<DC., G.SCOC
T L 6 T L
~ C' C'OOC C' C' C'O C'< \ 0
e:1q)21 ; Q?:~<?~~C~~uto:>GO II U)OC~'JC:~ ())~I[::r.>?::D?OXf>: 20G08X)
C' 0_<;. 00 C' r.: C' C' C'A; C' o 00 OC'oC'
OJ?I qc:o.t,c;~ OO~~'JC~tjOXJGWC? II ' S'd(J.)U)SJ qc:~l 3d~<I-)~CC5
r: c C' C' 0 _<;. C' 0. 0 . C' r;;: C'
r::J5":>f': 00-:>:~::n') ooroeoGOGXjl qc:~eJJOO~OOQC:~p:n:tl q)'jC:;q_: tlO?
. o C' C' o o C' o C' C' C' r;;: C' C'
Gq)~"1JCI qc:~ro93'JO::D"'f GOO?C~OO'Jfo:l':>tjV::De?ll
0 C' C' C' C'Si 0 C' . 0
90?(l)00Q
.l IJI OO~C
J ~.
, OOOOJOO I ~00109C
II.
G'J:o:>?:G::n:> ~~lO?'XX>?
3 - - l.-
men:
20~S::r.l<f9
0 C' (
999 j ~C
) C' s
C'
COCGill?o:>d?:ro
C' _<;.
qc:eJJ ~f:~oo-:>:1 ~~OIDSJ
0 C'
0
C' C' A;
C' r.::C'
-GOO:xr.>~l~:JC: ~tl::r.>l
r,, ' C'
COJVCOJIL<iJI:::I:t o:>G::n~:tl<?l oo'P:~::xrtjc: ODLGo:>?l
~ o r;;:C' ' or,:::c r: C'
. \,)
. . ~ ~
n~ .. eo t>S em 8. ~ v-
g;, :..0 o..., 00 o_ ,.,.oo
0 ,.,
8: 0'1 ~ 0 8-
t.8 c ~a 8 g re1 J2 a.-, . v.
8 ,., ;..o ,., 8 ~,., : 0'> e,., 8
!!> ~!Ill ~> ,.e rr.l,., -,; . ~> ru
LO c:J ~LO">
l5l
8~ ~ov ::.>~, . 0 () 0"> . ~ v U':) J ~'l
. .. '-"-
IJ"> eJ. c:JO !4.i>g...; ,., 1"8' 8,., 2".
-DO 8 r=-t . 1"\1 V, o "" -
~ 8.!\...Do'-'-'J H .... qA..
a,.,~J
~ CGl :y v -D .o,., 8
~ 0 .. ...oo o,.,-o s " ~tj,.,
-en. 0 I")' - tF 00 00 - . 0
0'\"1 ,. ro _sq -
. ., .ro .. ~8
~.ti "' 0 oU -il'>"l . ' "" ~- Vo
!J 8. Q'> 15) "' ~.
V. C'> ., ~ ...:.. :<:
,.&, 8
- ~ ...g
a a
-.cri ~,.,.-9 ~r 8. e-8..- _a 8
u 3,., g,., .<~,., W"> ~".-- ,...8o
c-e 6> ro
8
i>
~Gr ,.
U()O
~o a,.,~ S8 C<U ~ v ~o,:u,,
~tt'1 0 v oo O L Ql")
~ 0 ~ 0'>t>8 : rtl ~
u;n ...a:: a,., f""\1 m o,., 8 l o,.,
e,., 8,.,--D ~ J <1.'>C2'51-1> 8 ~
0 --/><") v 8 0'> <.) 8 ;=
o ~8.o - .o,., '' ~ 0 8 ~.
f,., a,., 8 ,,- s Q:; rll ;=., 8 ~
- o 0 (j)
!=DO lO "tl
.0 .. 6) 0 . 8 1,) r-o
8v . o -D Q
("B,.,[81 8 ~"'E1 --D ~
\.) - 0 00
...;'1
v ::?,.,
-- o,., o,.,
a,., --8~ .'-JlnQ).
.:IJ e '-t/1 ~ . tA
.JSo ~ a,., .o,., Qj
. e: . . .Qj) ~ ~~ . P. .
cGl e"> 8" ':'RAO~~
o o f') ..Do
oO '-" C').""'-
.o.. t:;:;C~J WIJ'd
~ v 5
k3 q). So 8
81)~ ~
8 ~o 8 ru ..So .. . m
'' ru Sof 8 ru;, 2" . . ~o
LIS<.,.,~~ ~ -Bcs,., iJa
);CJ. f;l' ....~-~ ~., ~ ~ ,G\
~ 1:,)' :00~ "'fii"l ~
.. . . . .. ~
:@rocccoo:coore:&~~
~ .) ' \_; ' :)''
b~ ooc
;) '. 0
;e> .)olhxx>co bwolrec01to
' .)
u<ikt ' (i) ,-~ - .
~ "<P, ~~ c.~lrec01:Lbw 11 !fSO~:coore:Lbw ~~~lc q~
3
roc~o~o 101~
.>
bCtlc ahx:oo2 .):)~ew ~ .oo .:>co~a:>- l:oo:>:~IW:~rocc
.>o " o .> .:> .:>:3 --
~~b.
.:> ..:>
~oo~~~ 'T~~g:5i . ~J~tcc:~ ~-:d:lco~lbes S2ec:roe>WCC.!~~
4ee>) J-~ePIJe(,;~ ~;~c1,. ~~eG II, II:fiag::~ ~wf,:_:~~:cbe:o '
v_ o , .'L ~ 11
u.>ococ.c:2n
. e
n,www
.. ro:axnecnw
o- 0 . .
_ II ~<edg:>~~~t~~b&i>
0
b~c ce(:c.[Zwcoc.co) 1e!Pe ~C3c 1(b)c.ec 1ole 1ec8 lcoecabcoo-fcoeccoec.crie
. ~ . .~ . .> ~o ~ e ~ ..!> e . .. ~ .
. .) ~
udcCc.e 1(c.~[Zo) te~~. ~:oftle 1(b)c.ecaolciec8 1c.aPe<'e &>.~ .)0
M
,
: ~b~c.ooPo
.> .)0
. n(;occ c.e ( :c.[Zcococ.co)
1 g~k ~hvc (~~ 'JW ec~ . E~)so.*d3~<'~~ ~f:Lc:cflcecb.cjr~, (~)~b:&
" .
ul.
.)
M $oH$
,o..
. .c.cocoo:S:ooe
, .)
'coetil8c.<e8o<ePc.O
\. '. o ~ ...,
Jcod$:Q
., . O'J
:~:?e$~ ,?~(Ci~~: ~<C~$'9.3Qg.co :b$~?~ec~99 ~.<e_: L f>~co, ?c.l8~
. . ~~~-~suSb$~~c.~~ &o?~_rg:c.co gsococG:_rre:_ec$
'>< Q 11 r ':3 b r ou '6 j:J 1 o "J. . .,
f1LO~JCO<'l_ IC.e~~~=g. ..~LO. :,c.~;c.Je<e:c.::~ec :o!~cosoc.oo$; : w~~e8,30C.008W. r(9
l:l$Q
~ ~j
C.<e$e:eb:5~acool;l:l
' .) ..\, 00 .) . ~J
1beccoo2wec:b8: oc}::l$ &>:@~oil 11 wPec.oQ:k
.) .) ~ '\ .) .) ,.) :1
.
11cob
~
'Cl C\Y..CC~C
* c~g~(D~&1~) 3~gfccgg
1 e
M
.>.,
(~gcbro~~w) gro~wcc~g (l~~) 5Qce.Gr~a:>r~
...J,...~$ :Q1:c:2 olre:t:;Jlk:cbco
;'fr &.::lo e .> &.::1
978 BURMA LAW 'REPORTS '[!963'
c
Q C' f.":C' C' C' OC' C' 0 0 C' ! \ C::: S C' 0
0
eSr 2
:o:lf:t:l<;; OOo:>OJo:>G,YCX(Co:l~~ e:aXr.>Gro:ro~: ::DGO:>:>Ojl~~l II g)(~:qc
C' ' C' C'Q C' C' 0 ~ C' 0 0 C'
0 (' ('
.o:ll~l~?e'C G9J:>mOO'f'5 1102:~100:>(")')GO)':l 0~':>5jG~Gf~:~p:mro~:l ~0~~')2
(~,;;;lT) ~ C' 0 0 C:A;. C' '~ <:: 0 ~ C' C' C' ('
10-:>QJlO"'t Sdcq:Sdo:>-:>:tftSf GC\Jj-:>o:>ro~~l II ~~-:><;; COfiO~fOCi:Go:l:>
e::nm~;;co: C' 0 0 C' (' C' C' C' C'Q C' ('
(' OJ~:( ~0~~-:>eiO')QJlO IO~:m~:~p:Sd'JOCI 110t:1100:>(")') ::DGO:>?O(c
'lQ
4C
I
C':f.:C"
(' (' (' ('.\
<;O(")')C\JO) GOO')CQO)Q (J)S
C'
o:>:x>.::n II
C' ('
(JC~/iliOo:>.Sro:o:J::t"lG.S
(; (' ('
':>0)1 CJ
1 :9~:QO)
C' 0
e::Df:~~" AI ~ T 11.. C.:. ~ J t.T t U- T 1..
COC\JOJIC('
G'C G)
000 <:1 Oj
0
o:lo:lG::r.>')CO 0 ~(' 0 (' <::
co: CC\J(")')~III
Q
~:OJ
~('
o
('
C::D::l)
lJ C C:.
('6 J
cJ 1:9~:Qml romromGo:Gro:>cQrol
f) C' C' C'\
L U.. t l
oa~o
L
c
Q.iiOI
(' '1"' '10
G~G~I 0190J~ oa~o
c
o
Q/iliOI
. C'
0
G~COSdCO
T.
C'
CD.Uo:JCG::D? CJ 1:Q~:Q~u'):o:>
I
C' 0 C' (' ('C'
roo:>OJ(")')GO:Gro-:>c c:
1.;. LJ J C
~
51'QGQI.uII LJ
0
COG
L
6X
.
C' g
o
.
e:o:>o:>Gp.:>:o:>
l
g
~:o:J.s:
G T
C' ~C'
cro?:
o
C' ~C' OC' C'
SdQC: C' 1 C'
IOSd~~C G ~ mroe> ~O)Q'):
J J -o .o .JI
lO
~r.: c-
')., C' 0 C' 0 fsC' 0 ('
m -:>:~~J?:Sd?: Sd9 ~QJCO-:>:o:l~OCio:l~ <~ C:Go:>?GQJ II q:(Go:l? 2: Q
::Do)i:EJc;ro-:>: QJCO-:>:o:l~'P
c r~ r,:
t:IGElo:>~~:~~col
c 1 (' o c ('
m9 ::;JJCO-:>:o:Jet ro~1S
OC' ~
Sd~IOI .
u C'O
CIJO) "):J)O)QJl 6
C'
t
'1"'
G C\JO)O)QGOI COC
ill
C'
C' C'O (' C'
"UQCI:l(")')o:>:'J.s
-d ] U ft. T
g 0
IOCOS<.D.lf~C
,.. It
C'
lJ o
C' C'
CI(.)QC
1.1 Jl
C" oc-- c-- c-- c- c c- c- l c-
Sd"10o:lC:l'):~p: GojiCX(C'jf cof:rop: GOO')(")')"iO'Jfroqmo:l:> 9 :'!'=~:
'1 C'
0J:l:>::l)(J) 0@ _C::: C' 0
c l mool l 1:1111 <nc:o:J Ol
mro0~ C' 0
o:>::l)m m~ ":mro::l):
L L c.:. l 6J tJ
c
C'
.
C' 0 C'
rom<:~e>~CGO>U 11
l
.r;::;::: c- c o ., c- o c- c- g r~ r,: c-
roGe~:>c:Go:J?m'):i 8dOCiOIIO?QJlO osC:lroqsqc e::omGa:>:(l) ~GEJ1t<;i
C' f~ C' 0 0 C'
~c:\.'jroqc:1) Sd~GSd::[o;>COU,O)t:JC"i:cq
(' (' r.: C' 0 g
e:::nf:Elsm:>: 9
C' r,: C' 1:9~:o:l~
. (' .o
000)
C'
C'
B:la:>C: G~l
"rCO?:IOIII 1:;. 0 C'
cpG.S')O) C'
G o:>o:>GOI 'T'0
O)CC' Q 0OC'
IOO)$ffi
COSd~C\JO) ')O)O':>Cl
~ C'O
ot. T 4) A L IL -1. j'
C' (' - C' C' c-r,: 1::: C' r;: (' C' C' C' 0
1~ m~o:>~-:>: oo;;:rop:c;;ro:>m'lt m~~Dtt:lc:~o:J-:> r:JIOo:J~II <.DC:o.1
c-r,: r,:;::: (' 0 C'. .( ' 0 C' 'T'r,: 5:. 0 0 C'~ ('
m~DI.Gelc:>c:cq 10-:>~JlO':f?Oc mcororoc: G~l t:lco?:~ 11 CX(o.1 mc~C?Dto:>~
. g c- -r,:c 0 '1 r~ C' r,: 0 1 (' C' (' ('0 (' .:- ('
<f':> e:o:Jf:EJ<:;o:> _mOCiOI i3~'?GEJ9 9 :9~:'>5 1 'ti 0~C~o:>Ojl:9r3d<J{D
C' . C'f:: (' r,;: C' ~ g 0 . C' -<; C' (' . C' ' t:'
-cJ 1.:9~:o:J~r:l10o:Jtlc
C'
. ~ ~
1 IOO)S<n~c mrooo:J~?:co.s:rop:
JL . LJ o L T .
Gro'-:>mro
. .L
U'J.s OIO::t'):
T oC
~~-:>8:G9: ror8eOGs~8~ ooo ( m) :~91 e:?XDGro:o:Y-t .m~~~~9'=>.t
0
r;: (' r;: C' Q . C'~ r,:;::: C' 0 . (' , C' t C' ' C' ('
C:'JIOo:l[j~ 2:0Xr.>GOJ:m SJ~DI.Gel-:>c:q IO':>~Jl~ C02!~:~'f0j?::D~II
. . .
6
,;b~c C.G. (:c.?.8~c:.CI:)J l~~CCtJ~-~{~) ccc ~~~ IC,S~ ( ~)
. uccCco (c~E.8h)~i1i.gl'~ci(~)'c~i~ ;~~; (F)
r~c<;: co (:c~Ci>fuc.w} i~!-1,-~vc r(~) ccc.r# cc~ (c)
9an. BURMA LAW REPORT! (I96:J:~J
~c~ ~
'fC'OOOj~COOC~
(' 0 )
C' C' C" ( ) " C" OC' 0 C' C" C" C'O-<"
cpc'OCOO?J<;~sq::~~ jjj \ o l~:ro ~J~G:))?::OOtCT.t ~'\l:ro ~(.)Jm~c-
c ( ) <: C' C' C' C' 0 C'
<{G'-> j j j f c:l~::r.>?4G'-> 9rf! 3Xj O<.D<fJCD'If:D?m~4G'-> CffO :DGj'
' C' C'O C' or::.
<;OO'Jro0l00C\{'Ii::U?5)cr-l II
-~ . c "'!' C' c c t' or,'( \ .o
Q.~':>moo':>:~m ec~:Ipmoo':>:OJ90f, 3:)~01 ocG'P:r.>mJlttGmp:n~~C:lt mcp14200L
\ r,:c C'O C'c:;C' Af.'! c c ( ) r,: o c- r,:c
::cp1 C:lq)tJ('8)>9Ct'JC:~~Itl:l "('<!'::oo:>q:l'-> j j j 0 3Xj <;i::I~G9J?o:>OO?ZO(.~?S C:JfCOO~
(' ' 0~ (' \ C'
'lf ~rom ::OO~OlJIJCO~ c:oo::ue:: n
(' ('o J;:C' C' 0 ~ (' C' C' C' ( ) C' c-
>ro~C'JSCD Cjq):J(J)(T.), mcoc;[)tG::U?002::ll CDJ~~:qa~ jjj 0 :D'j ~J1IOO::Ut
OC' 0 (' C' 0 (' ~C"'., C' (' 0 C'(;: C' (' ('o (' 0
::00t~J~'PI g.)Cj"';oc~ aXIO)O')CC'jC00)')3;1dJ~? ():r.l~C'J: :De:: (X)L
OC' 0 C' C' C' 0~ C'f.:C" C"
(T.}QtO)L()().)OJOX)t (T.l')Q)~~:OC t'I()0)2II
r;.:c c- C' C' c () t: cc .
~:qo:>.,Jroll II~J<;~:qa~ jJJ ? ~c an order under th1S.
. ma"'
sectson .T
be made u OO::U? ;;ooo?t:))
o L
C oc .occ t:T.lO:J
c1 cc:moa
l .\(;
o o(liU.
oc ( o) o:>m c- L'
::uc,~ BC'
L. J L L l t. 11. ,
o __cc c _o OC' o
mrn~.-. ::u~=
-f.l. L L. U,
C'
cooc::u~o:m
~00'1:~ cot:T.l~.S~
l.! J L ~
1m
~
0<>
I:!. 'i
:;liQo:>e L tl J
C'\
~dl~::r.>d:.ll oos:~::,)r ?:~
lt. Ll! t.l J \1 1
~ OC' ~ 0 C ('
::UC(' o:>~OO
C'
C.:. l ll UJ
(' 0('
oo;;oro:;li'->COGOS~Co:>~
\
C'
Ei.
('
A
OOOlC:T.l?CID?::U?GOSCO?I<I I :1
0
OO~<lo'->
l 1- l
:m Oooarro
\J
~to:>oSoo
L
~~GO II
L:. : L L
o 1 C' o C'C' C' C' o 0 C' ( ) C' C'O(' c
OOa:kr.>ml :DOO~C\11~(.1.)()) C;;QCO)~CIIO)I 000)03'-1 j j j 0 OOCI()(X)~lO>o'IOC~"' :.
l 6 lA. i L L t:.f. -~~ L l I. '" -~ U &. 6
0 (;:. C' ~'<....S C 0 OC' Ol C' _C C' C' 'l C' C'
"'SII[I Cj"';oc::uQ:"" uSlccocp:~:ml cxr"~tm,,c:x.o<JJm::u<;o:>~~;;oom CDJ<:~t<{G'-'
..
9?n !D'!I
o cc-
,};;. 0
:::Jt'JI~OO'Jro=:>C~'jfo:l? ~GO::U2::11
t~ oc
(>
oc
C'O ~
c- oc
0
c
~
c
~
Cf:~:~roJq~:qo~
o
~ (> ~
we :D'}.
:D'X1>~::Utl<:; t:T.l[jlmqc~t~J~CO <;O~o:>~ ~r:t:T.lG')l'->~ II
0
COG
L
?C C'~;()COO?ro
(' 0 dC
A
OXT.>o:>~ II
&.6ll. C.:,
('lSl 0 c C'
Qlo)~;!J&i tr
__.__..
Col8
~e
c:
ColC.~:o:>c
Oljn
'986 . BURMA LAW. REP<:)RTS
o- -:..:....:..
-~~~8
.
~
C'
<JG~:o:>c
OJ Jll
(l; '
C' C'
')I.I09rooo ;SC' OC'()Q C'
::Y.>I.lf 0
C'
0'JCCl:t:~C-
"
j .
"Under order 23, Rule r,.a plaintiff has a right to.relinquis~
part of his claim in order .to bring it within the ~o~rt-fee .
paid. Neither permission of the Court nor an application for
am~ndment of the plaint is necessary for $e pmp~se. If
the plaintiff abandons part of his claim, he has only to inti-
.. mate the fact to the Court and the Court haS only to note
it on the plaint. " . ." "
G
(p)
.
co:roc-
L '6
('
ISSUES
(h) Was U Po Sai or U K}~W Nyar the origijlal owner of e
suit Land?
(BJ Who were the heirs of the suit land at tp~ time of
U Kyaw Nyar'.s death?
.(~~ Can the plaintiff appellant file this suit in t~e present
form?.
994 BURMA LAW REPORTS.
- . (' c
t:~"SC>~:'
(;0'1-:lg
.8
Q~~e
<10'11'
mj:~n
~ 0 r,;: 0 C' ~C' OC' ~ C' C'
o~~Jtl:m;;-:~nt G~:j~'Jt' ot~? t(~.:::n?o:>? m'P:200s OO<J:~:>: romcoo
0 . ~C' C'~ C' C' 0 C' C'
G9!ot t:Jf 00~9J 9 : o:>o9f "t~()GOo:>2ll
OO?~Go:>?
0 C' 0 0
Q>;;!CCQ;Idi?!O') 0)1
('
:J)O')C\ Groro?~
:J
0
~a:o:>?:G:x>?
(' .S~? tiS
~. l tl ~ L .i1 I T LO
. OC' ~ . C' C' C' C'
o5?o:>? o:>'P:20GS OO~:l<p: a:;>mCOOG'J: O?!J{O~-
c c r,:::;::: cr.:;:: c .c c c 8c o~ oc
oe!i?
o:>2 ~cqpmco:>:~~ ~l;..:;l~e12Go~q .~:q,c mJ~::x>~:>m~r~9J co~:
~ c cr:::;:: c. :l:f;~ c r:::;::c c r;;:cr:::;:: c
tj?: CCroCOOt:j:x>~ G~'JVB$1 Q)'P:.O.C IDt:jCCCC~O:)'): [jQ)t:j0)2~ ('
~lol~c4>;; :
('
.
Gror:>oSco-:>:QQ::O:
lJ ~I IL
.(:)r;:;::z:&;~::~,0CI2G:x>:>
e1cJ~:k:; Til .
mGcc:~:>
J
GOCi:>r&o:>:o:>
Jl ll
c c c c o c c c c o
GG')OO.S:GID')CC
. T .
QQIG:x>:> mGCC:
J' o -J J
Q)O)::D())
C
Qr\"'ICI;~c GID:>miDu:>OJCI:o:>m
L ll'"""''U J o .ll -~ oL
.. . r::;:::: c- r;:: c c .. c. r,;: c C" 0 ~ c 0 .
~,
o-J~~
~-
~lfd.a~JnS~&~6roJ2t~~-<J~(~)
,~ ~ ~J :~c. c.
~~{oS)rr.nc:>~~~
. ~~ .
-~~mo~~ci;S. {o}
1 ~ . .
$ :
. : Jr
.,. c ;)." : , mr- G:id'Jroo1SJWb::~
. <.>rt.lr,:;;:'J:~l:iu '.
e;~9o . <h ''J .. ""~"'. l ll u .
. ~ ., ~. . I~ is toJ,e noted that there is a marked di~ti~ttion
.. e:o~- oTJ" iii form betw;en se~tion : 4 and section I4- .The l~n~age
emP:loyed 'in s~ction. {1Jidic~tes tha,t it ~othil}_gA.,t~., d9,,Wit_q uas
computing the pres,crlbed periG.>d. ..,Wh~t the .section'. ptovides
. i's. that, whde ttl&perlo'd prescribed' e'Xpi'res on a da~ wlien :
. the. <;ourt: iS:closed; net.wi.thstandfn~ .tha.t .faCt, the appJicati()IL
.may be niade on the day that the Court reope'$.; so that th.ere .
rs nofiting :in the section which alters the length the or
prescribed period!; whereas in section 14 and other se~tions
;of a: similar nature in the Act, the direction begi-ns With the
~ords : ' In computing the period of limitation, prescii.b~d
for 'any a:pplica:tion/ certain periods shall be exdud$d.'' .
""
C' C' . ._; C'
~roeu~sosG
. . l,
9 J
-~c .
0
.. ~. .
"
I y
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . :' ns._?.rc.oosvs:.:l6~
~krOO)O :ot~q.o~~recG e~~cs l:ccorec.oQ:le c.cc~oo~re Hr~h1:a.b ~r ro;;;'ci<~
.) .) .) .., jg.) .) . ..J.; 0 .) .) :J .) . .) - \ ~ ;J .) 0
e ~Sltl.
;) c 1:1~
.) 00.) .
'tH.:fb.~ :)c.o~cs1bodoc.G~~k5co~~ocoo~oo~
.) :>- ,Jfl~eu~b
.) 0 . (,j.) .) +
.r & ~ !1 " cb r1 1 ':l
II~CC ~!'>eGC ~fJC ro~ OO~OO~CO!'>: C.O l~'te C~lJC *
n(r) i):;,b: :~n u~~ro.. (ll ;, b)
I (~bl~:;,b:gro) :JCC~:~u nsuroro (C) :croo.:C.Cg~
u(c) :fcccc:~u 11 ~rowGc~:;,
II re~~!'>:och'il~cs
0 ~ :::::1
fb'flngo~.h~_ro :oc)occc~ c.cc:cf~">'flre~l.'o cf,:cr<"~S.Oec:~~~rco
11 @ccco'rocor'>coo
~ 0. ~ ~ ~
.?~>btltc.GJ,~&c Ho~lo :~ego ucw_r}~~" =.r~~~re~b'cs fb~P~9~~
[,.: :x:.rco~}o
I) .o Jl~. 0 .) ~
" cc:lkccib.~ lo~cscoic.5cot~oco~'!.EI
I)
1:~~.:c.<X'~oo:leo ~~~
00~ o:J .) 0 .) . "
:W~tOeiCIOO C.CC~te~:<hc.owoc.G:le~eo C.CC:lk:J:lc.ec~~Ccll II corec.oQ:k
.) o(,.,t..o "0'\ .> -o O...T.) ~ !l:.;J
. . ncbico:>
II c.ub C
~. ,
roccco>r
) 0
,
.. . . . .;'
S.D!Odffil .MV1.. YW}Iflij
1;010 BU.RMA. LAW. REPORTS
tt
:~{~~~-:~~pcF~;)~ =d. Lo._5-~~~-l~~ .. ncob
.;) .
. r
' .., 'F]'!: of OOC~.:>C
J ' 0
....,.-.
(~:~cosGC:Jrro~) c d3~c f'
" .
.: 0o&>IS~oclo;~o~~;:<f 1:~& ..
.:) O .) ' .:> , Or ... 0:::l .' ' . .
:&,~ ~oh~=t~:g__':~~:~ rre~~G:~ ,:g&~~ro ~:ij_~b~ _,s>lre;o~~~:
' 1r 11 . . ' J_ -
ftemeo~:~CQ: .._
0
:-. -- ~~~c.w~d&):2u
..~ .; ? . . .> e :.~
u;o.i:J;~~bco~o~re~' &@~ : .
. . .):::!.) .) .) .) 0 . ) ' ' . .
&o~c.Pe:~~O; ~~a:;~~~~:-6~f~~J~~~~co~ffecGi7~~~
. . . .
.
(&~sc.coc.ocf.ro~) . ,o :h.J:~~~~~4-6o&>m&~&
. . ;) L
r
e.J;) ;) ;) , ;) ;) ..;> '
~ ( r! .. " 1
:Jlg ..
:> .
(~:c.cowc.Fro~)
' ;) _ .
~-bl:~cc:2 :
~~;)0 e .,
:!am .
. "S,DIOdffil
- , : M. VU: -lN'd-AH
~ -.. J ..... :. . .., .... :.:: ..;_ ~
-~ . ;,..tu; N1 .- - : ~l
B '' ! .>.--~.~
. Li
t"
~ J;.,fi.
-i VNI
tim~
t l .':. .... 9':.f:t:fSJ
' ..
'; 6.f 0l S.DlOd3}f .M V1-:.VMIOH
ro22' BumK tA#1RitPe~fs ;~ (t96~~.
~
"-'" '
. ... -t
G<:b:>CSC!q, :J 0100 mJ~G49G~ trDS~tJ9C~~:<pC9~; c:pc-o:>o:>t1j:'
~?Ct (' c . ('. ;, . . C' \ ' C' oc c ( ) (' .. C' . C' C' 0 (' ::
t":f 0. ~
err'n~cc <(SG. \$j 1~ ~:~~C\.)('0~4>:>~~3 \$0? j ~ )jC:roc:oo:>:o:>20{C:
. ~:8 coc- .c c- c- .c:. r,;:.c -o<-" c- c C'
.~~ :". .. .
(' ~J'JXX>~C:De GOO')CSOJ:x>~ . Gro:q_o:>i(9~:0~ . ~ro:o:>~ o:>OQ)~m
!
~OO')c> . . (' c. . ...:,r,;: C' C' C' C' (' ~ .. f.:. C' e-, ~ c . C' -
.. . - ~"C" .c .. ---
.:.'fC'?~r:J~~~~:.:
A
oXn~~~
-- -..- llq
:~ 8ioog:~d
1.:. ~l ;
"c:~oo8
......,, 6
--.e:~~=G~ (8~~9~cs~~-)~oo~:0:1l)
. .
t~tfi
- ..
~-
. . . . c ... . o r
.. ~ ' ~ - - 1
"~
J ~. ,
'
! '
OC':7.l,?C'\) ~
~(jcrlll
~0~~oo?8G>~EQ?~8~.
~~k::::, . t.~ ! . ~
c2:ro:;:(@&d&~E~ro~;oScx,;=~ 6:5).
, ... L , ... : :._ , -j.,J. ~ JJ e .9 ll
. "
, cpeo~J~ai#<.t8~ '9J?. (:>) (o) n?O;l~~:o_;' ~J~~f8~~~~ :- ~~o3<{cf~ ~JO
L. (' ('- lf (' .. "~.<'
~')I ~or.~:ro t:lo::lm~o
. (' (' . 'P3'
(! .
c:oo?coro~OI~c:- oocp:oc~qcu
('
,~ cJcOOICD~OOI~crl~?=~~G:OJ
u.-: -d ~ ~ ... . ct:le~~:~8~
-r-.. . C,!j~, , ;.. s':i:,ii~dl.
_
~L.~c:o:co31
-. . C:i ,-" ::l~G;-
~Aj-.~
. oo$:c:QO?~G:OI Coi'G;;x:>')~E~o1ro tioo..,6::~tri Gnvi:ii~G'OOO~CI~~G;OO~~II
...-~ Ll C.:.
Q:D')crl~o:i;
' ll
('oc.~~.,.-
- ~:ro
'
coe:poo
t.
. ,('3' c- .
too~ CjO :DC>O>?
. ~(' (' ... 'o' C'.._, (' . ~ax.~mooc:oc
c:p:noo;JJGO>?w:l:m ' .. 0 .(' ('
1.! 1'-J T ~ I. ... 1 -, . J,:;.;. L L C.:. ll ll 1.
L. (' ('0 ( ' ' : (' . .. ,
tjoomq) o~c:ro~eu . . ' ~-- . . , .
9 '. .. ., ' <:'
... .WsC!~~n5n
I. 0 \J
. ~~~O>fu<'Oto~Q
~(- "'C!J 4
cjo:
J
~ai QI~~Qa~~~ r.~::~~i.l-:>.
~ }J J , 6' ll [..!, Cj J
c:oo~8oco
, I
7 ~~~8.o<rlco:co1~!"'>;,
.~ J
c::D~:J?irl-11.~asrot,(;~:,~~a~c-8
I! \...J'- . a:
,., a. ~ro4L.~g,
--cctr ~ o~~
l
cjo
1 - -,
C' <' (' . C' 'l ' J:C' .OL,C' C' ' C' 0 C' C'L,C' ' C'L':C'
._D)') QJ~OJ~et G~?(!.Om.OOI::\:>.(j~ <Xltjii)O~~? oocp:eo~or~ ~e~O>i?1::!11)0CU(j0
. ' (' . . . . . '
f"'~f.11 . '
_..
. . o (" ("
-~t~.~ ~~ ~co:oo?8~Sf~')-tM (~9s~> :B.L.~.* p.148 cs.c:;.).~ 'lci~f~~
. . .
- ~rof~~u .. . .. . .
C' (' C' ( ) ( ) . C'OC' <' L,~ C' (' f::::: ('.
., 'f~gpt:<{O~ . CjJ? 0 ~ D)'jl ~JIJOOtC:el c::J:"OCV>~OfOOGt:j?C IIj'>
(' ('
. Q:lc~?:~u
...
. ' .
t- C' C' . c ,._~-- C' g C' - oC'
: C00C9.SG,OOI')(Y.)(X)?::x>OOOX"P II
., . T ll : tL 4
ue:~.sq>:oC II
4T .k
COURTS.MARTIAL APPEAL COTTRT
.
.1036 . '
:eURMA LAW
,' .
REPORTS
~ : (~'. I' ~.
~c~~t~ ,P~l,'agta.ph. i .Qf .tlte'. Amn,esty., Qr<),~.~prpiiJ1g~ted on ~he
. .'. o' . , ,: :. . 't'