High Courts(1869) 12 CAL CK 0012

Bhuli Sing and Others vs Mussamat Nimu Behu

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 8 December 1869

CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 7 of 1869

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 174 words

Sir Barnes Peacock Kt., C.J.—This is a very clear case. Malikana is not rent, nor has it the elements of rent. It is a right to receive a portion of the profits of the estate for which the Government have made a settlement with another person, the real proprietor having neglected to come in and make a settlement. It being a right to receive something out of the collections of the estate, it is an interest in immoveable property, and consequently section 1, clause 12 of Act XIV of 1859 applies to this case. The decision of Mr. Justice Kemp is in conformity with all the previous decisions on the subject, which have held that the right to collect malikana is barred, if the malikana has not been received for a period of 12 years. It appears to me therefore that that decision ought to be affirmed with costs. It may be a question whether u/s 46, Regulation VIII of 1793. a suit will lie at all: upon that point, I express no opinion.