cover image: The Calcutta Weekly Notes  June 24  1946

Premium

20.500.12592/7tj8g2

The Calcutta Weekly Notes June 24 1946

1946

As to the first case it is not clear what is -meant by saying that the jalkar is still situated in the line-bed of the river where a particular sheet of water (luring part of the year remains disconnected with the flowing stream or the permanent current.” is not the entire decision of the Judicial Committee this that the jalkar (river fishery) is gone? [...] “ The fishings in such disconnected waters cease to be part of the river fishery and pass to the owners of the solum.” The fish may remain and so long as there may bfish there.would be fishing at least in Bengal. [...] The first of these cases 17 C. W. N. 1173 and the decision of the High Court in Rani Provabhati’s case 44 C. W. N. 1017 at 1022 were relied upon in 48 C. W. N. 537 as authority for the propostion : “ defendants would have a right to fish in it also although the pool of water is not connected throughout the year with the flowing waters of the stream “—p. [...] 3rd of June 1946 drawn the attention of your readers to the important decision of the Privy Council in the case of Rani Provabhati Sahiba v. Secretary of State (50 C. W. N. 606). [...] 55 has imported into all transfers unless the parties agree to the contrary a covenant waranting the title of the vendor it would seem that a suit to recover the Coligitieration would he on the basis of that specific covenant and time would begin to run from the date of Ihe deed after it has been established that there.
law
Pages
4
Published in
India
SARF Document ID
sarf.100104
Segment Pages Author Actions
The Calcutta Weekly Notes June 24 1946
cxvii-cxx unknown view

Related Topics

All