The Calcutta Law Journal Short Notes of Cases Articles and Other Matters February 1 1908

We have shown above that a suit for malikana by some only of the co-proprietors is not a suit for payment of money charged on immovable property (4) ; but in Hurmuzi Begum v. Hirdaynarain (5) where the plaintiff the purchaser of a seveanna share of the malikana rights in a certain mouza sued the defendants the purchasers of the remaining nine-annas share of the malikana to recover from them [...] Nor do we find in any of the Regulations creating the malikana that the estate has been made security for the payment of the allowance ; this point has not yet been reported to have come up for decision in any of the High Courts of India. [...] Judge repudiated the transaction and cancelled the permission and required the Administrator to redeem the mortgage and directed that be must produce the the bond before the Court within 15 days : field (Maclean C. J. and Coxe J.)—That the Administrator raised the Money and applied it properly. [...] Held (Maclean C J. and Coxe 1.)--The assignment of certain monthly payments for maintenance so far as it affected the arrears accrued due at the date of the assignment is a valid assignment and I he assignee is entitled to be substituted on the record in the place of the assignor the decree-holder. [...] medans of the Itanati sect primarily for the use of the members of their own sect and that they could not be debarred from the exercise of such right on the ground of their difference in the matter of ritual provided the plaintiffs in the exercise of their rights of worship do not interrupt or disturb the worship of others.