The Weekly Reporter Appellate High Court Containing Decisions of the Appellate High Court in all its branches viz. in Civil Revenue and Criminal Cases as well as in cases referred by the Mofussil Small Cause Courts and the Recorder’s Courts; together with letters in criminal cases and the Civil and Criminal Circular Orders issued by the High Court; also decisions of H.M.’s Privy Council in cases heard in appeal from Courts of British India

where the ryot and the intervenors deny the title of plaintiff, and his vendor and the ryot denies that he gave the kubooleut upon which plaintiff sues 25 (2) The words the actual receipt and enjoymentof the rent" in the second part of Section 77 cannot mean the actual receipt irrespectively of the question of bona fides alluded to in the first part of the Section . [...] (By seven 'judges. ) (1) Qucere. —Whether, under the provi- sions of the new Letters Patent of the High Court, an appeal lies from the judgment (not being a sentence or order passed or made in a cri- minal trial) of a Division Court in the exercise of appellate jurisdic- tion, when the Judges of such Court are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the [...] 52 (2) An appeal lies under Section 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court to the Court at large from the judg- ment (not being a sentence or order passed or made in a criminal trial) of a Division Court in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, when the Judges of such Court are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges . [...] The suits to which the Privy Council intended to refer in the Shiva Gunga case (2 W. R. 31, P. C. ) are suits in which the title of the settler or the validity of the estate-tail has been in issue, and not to suits against the tenant-in- tail in which a question has incidentally arisen, and been determined as to who was the remainderman entitled to suc- ceed upon the termination of the estate-tail [...] of 1799 in 185 t against the father of the petitioner and another, the petitioner was arrested and lodged in jail in Janu- ary 1867—Held by the majority of the Court (Norman, J. , dissent- ing) that the High Court could not, under the general powers of super- intendence vested in it by Section IS of the High Court's A61, or tion 16 of the Letters Patent, interfere to order the release of the petiti