The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday December 3 1906

In Waliullah v. Durga Prasad at p. 340 held that where the suit was in fact a suit for the establishment of the Plaintiff's title to a third share in the property and for recovery of possession of the same a claim for parttion being added to make the relief sought effectual an ad valorem Court-fee on the value of the share was paable and not a fee of Rs. [...] Was the proclamation to be construed like the English Statute of Frauds as merely relating to the mode of proof of such contracts 1 In which case the lex foci would be applicable and the Plaintiff's case must fail because the only proof he could offer of the contract was by evidence inadmissible by the law of the Transvaal. [...] The Defendant objected to the competency of the Munsif to try the suit and denied the allegation of fraud. [...] The Repondent applied for execution of the decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge by attachment of a certain amount of money belonging to one of the judgment-debtors only which was in deposit in the Court instead of out of the sum which was in deposit as security for costs in the High Court. [...] On appeal to the High Court Held—That the question out of which fund the costs were to be realised was one for determination of the Court executing the decree in the exercise of its discretion.