Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 524

BURMA LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT

1957

CoJltaining., cases determined by .h:e:.-8-.ipreme


. Court of the Union.,ofJBttf.ma . . . ..

0 TU!'J MAUNG, B.A.,B.L., Bar.-af-Law, EDITOR.


.. ~ <:-,
DR. i\IAUNG 1-.IAUNG, B.L., LL.D., Bar.-at-Law, REPORTER.

l~dex prepared by-MR. K. NGYI PEIK, B.A, B. L. (Advocate).


U MYINT SOE, M.A., Bar.-al~Law.

Publisbed under the authority of the .~President of the Union of


Burma by the Superintendent, Government Printing and Statione-
Burma, Rangoon.

[All rights reserved]


HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME C1lURT
~ Ql! THE- UNION OF BURMA DURING THE
YEAR 1957
0

CHIEF JUSTICE
The fi&ri'ble Justice Thado Thiri Thudhamma,
Agga' Maha T.hray Sithu U THEIN MAUNG,
M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law, Chief Justice
of the Union (from 1st January 1957. to 17th
[u.Jy 1957). .
The Hon'ble Justice Thado Maha Thray Sithu
U MYINT THEIN, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law,
Chief Justice of the Union (from 17th July
1957).

PUISNE JUDGES
The Hon'b~e Justice Thado Maha Thray Sithu
U MYINT, "THEIN, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-
-o:Law (from 1st January 1957 to J 7th July 1957).
The Hon'ble.Justice Thado Maha Thray Sithu
Q
. .
U O!A'N ,HTOON
- ' 'LL.B., Barrister-at-Law.
The Hon'lile Justice Maha Thiri Thudhar.nl!1,a
U Bo GYI, B.A., B.L.
The Hon'ble Justice U AUNG THA GYAW, B . A.~
13.L. (from 21st September 1957).
LAW OFFICERS OF THE UNION OF BQRM~"
...... DURING THE YEAR 1957
-
Thray Sithu U CHOON FOUNG, B.A., B.L.,
Attorney-General (up to 28th February 1957).
DR. U BAHAN, M.A. . ' Ph.D., D.Litt. ' Barrister-at-
Law, Attorney~Gene~al (from 1st March
1957).
U BA SEIN, B.Sc., B.L., Assistant Attorney-General.
Thiri Pyanchi V TIN MAUNG, B.A., B.L.,
. Government Advocate.
U KYAW: TROUNG, Barrister-at-Law, Government
Advocate.
U Cmt, B.A., B.L., Government Advocate.
U BA ~INE, B.Sc., B.L., Government Advocate.
U BA KYAW; B.A., B.L., Government Advocate.
U HLA MAUNG, Advocate, Government Advocate.
U ToE MAUNG, B~A.~B.L., Government Advocate.
U Bi\. PE, B.A., B.L.: Government Advocate.
U BA. PE, B.Sc., B.L., Government Advocate.
U MIN If.j\.N:. B.A., B.L:, Government Advocate
. (frcin1 24th May 1957).
U HLA THIN~ B.A., B.L., Government Adv;cate
(from 23rd October 1957) .
MR. C. GANGOOLY B.A. , B.L. Government Advocate
' ' ,
(frqm 23rd December 1957).
U HNIT, B.A., B.L., Assistant Government Advocate.
U NYUNT TIN, B.A., B.L., LL.M. (Yale), Assistant
Government Advocate.
U TuN LwrN, B.A., B.L., Assi~tant Government
Advocate.
U MYA SHEIN, B.A., B.L., Assistant Government
Advocate (frvm 3rd August 1957).
Thiri, Pyanchi U CHIT TuN, B.A:, Barrister-at-Law,
Legal Dra,ftsman.
2

:U LuN pE;B.A., B.L., Legal Draftsman.


U Ttft-f::SHEIN, B.A., B.L., L~gal Draftsman.
U TIN NYUN, B.A., B.L. , Special Legal Officer.
~

U HLA BAw, B.A., B.L.., Assistant Legal Draftsman.


DAw AYEKYI,B.A., B.L., Assistant Legal Draftsman.
U HLA THAUNG, B.Sc., B.L., Legal Research
Officer.
~ lr~bL o~soc.Cgceg
~eo , , g.nc!hl!;ro ccce>:cihpco3croe~co 7 7 gcCllecgbgcc.oCllccce~eo , , SoK!e
~e.G ccce>:clh;pcogccoeco 7' s:gclewg~pcec;e ~e.G ( :lseso ogche
g3cc:&.>) :~gg~~coe>ctl!3cc 3~ socc3c<'l~~co ( 9) SOG~ 0 occc c c~plhc0
tl!3wgllescoepro;;chco 6 f'l c g38ec:~gbg 9g8c~~S 1e l..Gtl c

"soregceggc0w
.
LIST O'F '~:ASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT

~Sc G-oo Soo c;p g ~ oSG-oo S~[S


PAGE
~.:M."S*d Mohamed v. M. E. Ariff and one 7..6
Lee Kyin Su (a) U Su v. The Commissioner of
Excr~. Rangoon, and three others 5
The Bank of Chettinad Ltd. v. U Taw 56
__ Burma Oil Company Labourers Union v. The
Burma Oil CoDJ!>any (Refineries) Ltd. 61
U Hla Kyi and one v. Commissioner, Irrawaddy
.
Division; Bassein and four others
_Lu 9hein v .. Rent Controller, Rangoon, and five
28

others ... 7_4


.
~~Oi?OO~~rn@oo::TaCJ.2bW ~I ~tc':l;G6):~: I q~Oi ~~ 01 0 46

G8TGG~~ 91~ 8~8b 01 J .... 81

o::l'JOOG800 (~) o:>~~G':l~o::lOO~~ o::lW'JGOJS)gtg@3: _


( O(l:OJ~gG6pt:o o5Gbj:) 1

s
GtS:0 o1 51~ 61~ot~~~ OJ6p:G~: rosp:~~:~a8 ol oo 14
GG':l5G011S)Grn:
. . .
o1 ?_ ~~ GOJ':lt!J(Cl~to ~GC: o1-j 49

GG':lb~~o~~~ @tGoo':l502~~G')~ScGroS 53
GG')tOJ5Goc:~~!>~5o~l o~~~ ol o 17

~O)')GoSr;po;~Od':lG551~ @t Goo':lt~~G':l~t cGooS oa~~61 1


~Ec':l:G 61 :,~: soa@oo~:ocCJ.25:o~ ol o __. 25
LiST bi? .CASES REPORTED

~:v.Q~ ~9 ~OJC:o~t OObp!GI>):O~~:~'J'i'> :t"! 84


~w~'J; ~9 s:1:1>)S:gffi:bGI>):O~ o1 ? :~ 90-
@:~'J~m o1 c; ~~~CcGooS)8~0J~'J.Prr.l06<f>t OO'JO~~
OObp~OOs_) @:GOO'JWe;l 01 ~ @: _ 37:
@d~:@~~ @:&o'Jo:> 01 0 71.
@:ot:Gl9~9 @e}Gco'Jt~ @~~'J~tcGooS @tooGI>):o~~~
~'J{> rr.l065:o~ .. .. __ _ 32
~:~aa20a:>~~ .poS~Eoosr:~oosp:~~:t G@'J5:'~ o1 G 68
LIST OF. CASES CITED.

Eqt~~gG8,)') ~~sg~pg

>'AGE

Ah Nywe v. Commissibner of Police, Rangoon,


(1948) B.L.R. 737, referred to ... 10
Attorney-General for Australia v. The Queen, {1957)
W.L.R., 607 at 614, referred to ... 67_

B. S. Mohamed Eusoof v. Bakridi and another,
(1952) B.L.R., 248, followed 59
Babu Lal Ray v. Bindhyachal Rai, J.L.R. 22 Pat.,
181.-referred to
Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat. A.I.R. (37)
(1950) (S.C.) 188 at 209. referred to 64
Cooper v. Wilson aoo others, (1937) 2 -K.B. 309 at
340, referred to ' ... 62
D. D. Grover v. K. C. Kounda, C.M.A. No. 36 of
..
J 955, ref~rred to
Daw Aye Nyunt v. The Commissioner of Police,
62

Rangoon, (1949) B.L.R. (S.C.) 5, referred to ... 9


- My a Tin v. Commissioner of Police, Rangoon,
(1949) RL.R. (S.C.) 82, referred to_ 10
- Mya Tin v. The Deputy Commissioner, Shwebo,
(1949) B.L.R. (S.C.) 98, referred to 9

Dayaram v. The State, A.I.R. (1955) M.B. 65,


.
approved
Gajanan KrishnaYalyi and others v. Emg,eror, A.I.R.
22

(1945) Bom. 533, at 53'6. approved ._.: 20


Hwe Eve Hain v. The King. (1948) B.L.R. p. 40.
distinguished .. . ..; .. !
J. K.,Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The Iron and Steel
.
Mazdoor Union. (1956) A.I.R. (S.C.), 23 L
referred. to 66
X LIST OF CASES CITED

PAGE

Ma 'fhhn Sint v. The Commissioner of Police,


Rangoon and one, (1949) .B.L.R. p. 3,
approved 19
- Thaung Kyi v. The Deputy Commissioner,
Hanthawaddy, (1949) B.L.R. (S.C.) 30, ref~rred
~ 9
Maung Hla Gyaw v. Commissionez of Pdlice,
Rangoon, (1948) B.L.R. 764, referred to 12
R. Subrao v. Venkatro. A.I.R. (1918) (P.C.), 188.
referred to 59
Raman Lal Rathi v. Commissioner of Police,
Calcutta, and others, A.I.R. ( 1952) Cal. 26,
approved 2:t
Rangoon & Co. v. Maung Waik, 6 Ran. 263, followed 16
S. T. K. Chetty Firm v. Balasundram. 10 L.B.R.
199, followed 59
The Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v.
J . W. Alexander Ltd., (1918) 25 C.E.R. 434,
referred to 66 .

. d3~u?oo~~9 ~CCGOJs:i8JGm o1 J I O@~J ~5l~l q>~qo<J


S<3G8J~na~ Gcgj')o5~')crc 51 oS J ~ J ~s')~mt ... : 47
.r &1r o~~<91~ ~~ G!Ull ~~ 02~a1g u1 ?I OJEi'()~<2$oSGooS~[O
006p~GG8Jg~ 80!o) ?(3 ~~~~ 0@~~ <ill ~~G')~t
~G)t~g ~ 9 ( <2$oS"roS~[Ei) ~tmt 87
~ccGmSTo06Ew~'l~ GaS~ (;;,)) mf~grGmi~CrTo') (~) 1
O@CfOI O~~GO')')t~ 00~ 88

tGoo'JCO(B~G')~CcGo:,S~~ @mo1JS~1 oe~G ~5l~' sr~


oo) !U!G8.)g $~~GC\jpc<3$') 82ijrh 00 0 ~ro.p
mt ..... .... ,_~ ~ .... 54
&cSc~~G~5l9 ~tGco'JCt~~G'J~tcr O@Cf@ yi~l @~~')
t~b]CCX(g oo o ~~tm~ .... .... 87

D<l0f?c{3o)O'tg') ~~ 0 oSOl(@~~Gb]gt]~')gGG)W ~JG!Ul I ~C I


sa')(~) JO@~? <f'l~fCD')CQmffi'J~ ~90 ~~mt 88
LIST OF CASES CITED Xl

. PAGE "

m~)IOOl91g ~9 ~gGOi!S~~~ O@~o ~9~1 ~~~'J@t~G)C


-~~ J 00 q6~~t. ,..__, 88
~gGcg;(G;;lT)G8al ~51 G8l~~ 9~g~,g~1 ~~~~
8@Cf0
@~G'J~t~b)C~: ~Cf8 ~~o.:>t ~ 87
~W~ 9~ o)ot~:GOijg8l'JGoo'J~CD'JgG6)gGmS~d5i 8@ Cf o
~~,@~\;)')~t~qt~? '2~@ ~6~0Jt ..... 88
@d~g@~9 ~g8ro'J:n o1 o 1 8@ ~(3 :r' msp;~cf.iGooS9ll Ei
oospg(,) OCG~WCl~ GOjJ'Jcfj~'JOClSJd) CfCf ~cf){"J
:nt ~ -~- ~ --- = 66
INDEX

PAGE

ACTS:
CITY CIVIL COURT ACT.
CoNSTITUTio~ oF Tl\E U>:ro:-: oF Bumr.~.
co-oPERATivE socJETms AcT.
COURT FEF.S AcT.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CoDE,
EMEHGEXCY PROVISIONS AcT,
l'oHEIGNERS AcT.
Iml!GRAT!O~ {EMERGENCY PROVlSIONS) AcT.
lNDE~INITY AND VALID.-\TING ACT.

PENAL CODE.
PUBLIC ORDER (PRESERVATION) ACT.
SEA CusTOMS ACT,
SP.;IFic RELXE.F AcT,
TRADE DISPUTES ACT.
"CNION CITIZENSHIP AcT.
- - - JUDICIARY AcT.
URBAN RENT CONTROL AcT
VINASAYA ACT.

AHREST mWER PUBLIC ORDER (PRESERVATION) AcT-ILLEGALITY OF
FIRST ORDER-WHETHER IT AFFECTS THE VALIDITY OF THE
FINAL-
CUTIORA~I";"""Wril of-Rule 8 (b) atld Rule 29 (21 and Rules 55
and 57, MzmiciPal Electo1al Rules-Candidate's eligibility aud
qualifications to Mtt1ticipal Comm'ittces--Qrwlificatiou nt t-'1e
time of nomill<ttiou-Ss. 10 a11d 72, Co-oPetativc Socictres Act
(Act XV of 1956). The two applicants are the Secretary and the
Treasurer of a Co-operathe Society, w_hich has a ferry Contract
with the Municipal Committee. They stood {or eltction to the
Municipal Committee and theY. were declared ineligible because
of Rule 3 of tt1c Municiral Electoral Rules. On an application
for direction in the nature o Certiorari, it was contended, that a
Society created under the Co-operative Societies Act (XV of 1956)
does nt>t come within the terms, "person, firm, or incorporated
or rc:gistered Company" of Rule 8 of th e Municipal Electoral
Rules. Held: while a Co-operative Society may not fall within
th~ terms" firm" and" incorporated Company'', it would be a
''registered Company" as one registered under s. 10 of the Co-
operative Societies Act. Held frtrtllcr : The word "pr::rson "
is defined in the General Crauses Act to inch;de " any Company
or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or
not" and it is con1prehen$ive as to inclu:le a Co-operative
So:icty. ,.
U HLA KYI A~D ~NE v, Co~ImSSIONER, IRRAWADDY DIVISION
AND FOUR OTHERS 2
XlV GENERAL INDEX

PAGE
CERTIORARI-Reut Co~rtroller,
wl!etl!cr comPetrJzt to set asidt
ex parte order-Rent Coufroller 1m adminisl1atio1t officer a11d
1td a Co~tri-Frccdom of acltolt in Procedural matter.s.
Held: The Controller under the Urban Rent Control Act is an
administrative Officer and not a Court, Subject to statutory
direction> or principles of natural justice, he has freedom of
action in matters of proced:re. He can set aside his own
ex parte order.
U Lu SHEIN v. RE:>;T CONTROLLER, RANGOON AND FIVE
OTHERS 74
CITY CIVIL CoURT AcT, S. 35 14
CON"STITU'IION OF THE UNION OF BURMA, S. 11 (c) 46
CONSTITUTION, S. 11 {b) 25
- - - - SS. 16 AND 17 (d) 32
---s.l21... S
COOPERATivE SOCIETIES ACT, ss.lO AND 72 ... 28
COURT FEES ACT-NOT A WEAPO:-l OF TECHNICALITY AGAINST
OPPONENT BUT DESIGNED TO SECURE R E VENUE lOR THE STATE 56
- - O F INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION-WI! ETHER A" COURT " UNDER
s. 6, UNW~ JUDICIARY ACT ... 61
CRIMiNAL PROCEDUHE CODE, S. 190 AND S. 4/6. 76
DIRECTIOKS IN Tim NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS-$. 5 (1), Ptt.blic
Otdcr Preservation Act-Initial arrest by luspector of Excise-
Ftert T:cr arrest by Inspector of Police mtd del cntio11 by tire Deputy
CommissiOitcr of Police 1111der orders of tile D : puty Secrctmy,
Miuistry of Home Affairs itt anticipation of order of dele11tio11
tmdcr s. 5-il (l) (d) (e) aud !h)-Order XIX, Rule 8, SuPreme
Court Rules-Return vaguc- Refclencc to Home Jllimstry File..:...
Powers of the President, s. 121 of tlte Crmstitretiott-Dclega/ion
of Powers under s. 7 , Public Order Pl'cservailon Act. The
applicant was arrested by an Inspector of Excise on tit<> 24th
March 1956, under s. 5 (I), Public Order Preservation Act, On
the 3rd April 1956, an Inspector of Police, under orders of the
Deputy Secre!ary, Ministry of Home Affairs arrested and
detained the applicant under s. 5 (I) of tl1c said Act for 15 days,
in anticipation of an issue of an order of detention by the
l:VIinistry of Home Affairs. On the 17th April 1956, the Deputy
Commhsioner of Police ordered the applicant's detention for
. two months with retrospective effect from 3rd April 1956. On
4th May 1956, an order under s. 5-A (1) (d) (c) lind (h) requiring
the applicant to reside in Myanaung until 1st May 1957 was
passed in the name of the President by the Secretary, Ministry
of Home Affairs. The applicant was granted bail lind released
on 7th May 1956 on which date the Deputy Commissioner of
Police also revoked his order of detention. For the applicant it
was submitted:-
(a) The detention at the instance: of the Deputy Secretary,
Finance and Hcvenue, and the actual arrest by an Inspector of
Excise who is invested with no powers under the Act, were
illegal.
(b) The attempt at edifying this ille~ality by subsequent
orders pas sec\ by an Inspector of Police and then by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police were also illegal in that they had
GENERAL INDEX XV

PAGE

automallcally comp~led with the order comeycd to them by the


D~puty Secretary, lVtlnistry of Home Affairs, instead of deciding
for themselves wJJether !her~ were grounds for suspicicon
against the applicant that would justify arrest.
(c] ~i detention in anticipation of restricting: the applicant's
residence to Myanaung w,\S also illegal.
Held :The liberty of the subject is made indefensibk by the
Coastiluiion and ttut S1ch personal liberty is not to be interfered
with save in accord;tnce with law and with strict compliance
with the procedure prescribed. The sufficiency or otherwise of
grounds against a suspect is a matter !hat has to be solely
deci<!ed by the officer empowered to act. An order passed by
an ofi\cer so ~mpowered.merely because of a direction made by
a superior authority is manifestly illegaL Ma Tlrarl/lf! Kyi v.
Tlte Deputy Commissiouer, Hardltawaddy, (19491 B.L.R. [S.C.)
30; D.1w Mya Tin v. Deputy Commissioucr, SIHocbo, (19~9) B.L.R.
(S.C.) 98, referred to. An order meant to be re!ro~pective is also
illegal. Dmo Aye Njuut v. Conrmissiou<JI" of Police; Ra11goou,
09491 B.L.R. {S.C.) 5, referred to. Heldfltrtlzer: The illegality
of the initial arrest and detention will not render any effective
JJe!p to the applicant for the Co1rt is concerned only with the
final order pa~sed in the name of the President by the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs. All previous orders were vacated
when the applicant w;~s released on bail on 7th May, on the
revocation of the Deputy Com111issioner's order. Held also :
The variO:JS orders of arrest and detention do not forrn a
c,mti~uous series and that an ill egal arrest at the out~et would
not ,-itiate a final order, as the orders were issuer! by different
authorities and the final an:! effec!i,e order was made under a
different 2eclion. Ah Nywe v. Commi.swuer of Police,Raugoou,
{1948) B.L.R- 737; Daw M ya Tiu v. Com111issiouer of Police,
Raugoon, (1949) B.r..R. (S.C.) 82, referred to. Held az,o: A return
made by the Deputy Secretary, which merely said tlwt the
President was satisfied as t0 tlJC necessity of the enTer is vague,
is of no help and not in conformity with Rule 8 of Order XIX of
the Supreme Court Rules. All Nywe v_ Commissjoucr of Police,
Ra11goou, (11148) B L.R. 737, r~fer; eel to. Held fttrtiier: The
~atemeQf~ contained in the Heme Ministry file relating to the
applicant 1~1ay fall short of p~oof in a criminal trial. but in cases
of preventive justice, the statements are thtrc and the compcten
authoritv h<1d chosen to believe them. It is not for the Court tc
say he s-hould not have and thus exercise an :1ppellate jurisdic-
tion. Naung Hla. GYaw v. Commissio11cr of Police, Raugoou,
fl948) B.L. R. 764, referred to. Ouartre: In this case, was the
Secretary merely following a direction given to him by a superior
authority or did he use his own discretion? Desirability of
having a properly delegated authority pointed ont.
LEE :({YIN SU (alias) U SU v. THE COMMISSioNER OF EXCISE
AND THREE OTHERS ... 5
E~rERGENCY PROVISIONS ACT, 1950, S. 3 17
FoREIGNERs AcT, s. 3 lb)
. 46
!MmGRATION (EMERGENcY PRovrsPoNs) A cT, s. 7(1), 13 (1) 25
MUNICIPAL ELECTORAL RULES, 8 ((), 29 (2), 55 Al\D 57 .. , 28
ORDER TO MOVE:~ INTO ANOTHER DJSl'RicT-PURPORTED TO BE MADE:
UNDER PUBLIC ORDER (PRESERVATION) ~CT-BAD BECAUSE
INFRINGES CONSTITUTIONAL LlllERTY 32
xvi GENERAL INDEX

PAGll:,

PENAL ConE-S. 193 n11d s. 196-Crimimll Procdr.nl Code-S. 190


a11d s. 476. Held: The question of delay is qv.ite irrelevant whee
the:; Magistrate is to take-co~nizar.::e of an offence under s. 190 of
ihe Criminal Procedure Code. No Magistrate can refuse to take
cognizance of an offence on ground of any delay. This is,
however. a m1tter for consideration in proceedings under s.476
of the Criminal Procedure Code, ~,here a Court is to dele'nnine
whether it would be expedi(.nt in the interest of justice to make
an enquiry and thereafter lay a complaint for offence under s.
195 {1) lb) or (c) of tt.e Penal Codt>. The question of delay is
relevant only in considering whether "it is expedient in the
interest of justice". While acting under s. 1<.0 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, the 1\Iagistrate has no choice but , to take
cognizance of any offence brought bebre l1im, ex-:ept wl>ere it
is specifically provided requiring compl~int by or on the order
of a particular person or authority, such as is provided in ss:'195,
196,196-A, 197, 198 and 199. Therefore, the ruling in Hwe Ei1e
Hain \'. Tfte Kiug, (1948! B.L.R. p. 40 is ap(llicable only to
proceedings under s_ 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
E. M. SEYEO MoHAMED V. M. E. ARIFF AND ONE 76
''PREVENTIVE DETENTION "-SCOPE OF- 5
PUBLIC ORDER (PR ESERVATION) AcT,S, SA (1) (b) l7
- s . 5 ( 1 ) ... 5
- . . . - - - - - - -- - - - 5 . 5 (A) (1) DE-F AND 5-J (2) ... 32

RELIEFS NOT SPECIFICALLY PRAYED FOR-SHOULD BE GRAN'fEQ IF


PROVED FACTS IN THE PLAINT SO WARRANT 56
RENT CONTROLLER-WHETHER CO:\!PETENT TO ,,SET ASIDE HlSOWN
ex parte ORDER

SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION-WHETHER VALID THOUGH PARTICULARS


OF OFFENCE ARE WANTIN~ 53
SEA CUSTOMS ACT, s. 167 IS) ' c
1
SPrtcrFrc REl-IEF AcT, ss. 12, 4~ 56
SUPRE}IE CouRT 0RDE1~ XIX, RULE 8 5

- 14
_ _ _ CouRT-SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION oF

TRADE DISPUTES ACT, s. 9.-The Co!trt of Industrial Arbitration,


7~/zetllcr a "Co11rt "7vit hin tire memzi11g of s. 6 of the UniotL
JrtdiciarY Act. Held; That the Court of Industrial Arbitration
ronned under the Trade Disputes Act is not a Court within the
m<;aning of s. 6 of the Union Judiciary Act, but it is 2> Tribunal
discharging quasi-judicial functions. D. D. Grover v. K. C.
Kozwda, c::M.A.. No. 86 of 1955; Cooper V- Wrlson and others,
ll937)2 K.D. 309at340; BlraratBank v. EmPloyees of Blzarai',
A.I.R. (37) (t950) (<;_QJ 1R8 at 209 (l'ara. 61]; J _ K. Iro11 atld Steel
.Co. Ltd. v. The Irv11 and Stecl)IJazdoov U11ioa, (1956) A.I.R.
(S.C). 231 ; Tire Waleisidc Workers Fedcratio11 of A11stralia v.
J. w. Alexander Ltd., (1918) 23 C.L.R. 434; A ttomc:v-Gc,reral
for Australia v. The Quce.n, (1957) W.L. R 607 at ?14.
THE BURMA 01:. CO~!PANY LABOURERS UNION v. THE BURMA \J\
OIL CO~IPA~Y {REFINERIES) LTD. 61
GENERAL INDEX xvii

PAGE.
Ul'!ON C!T!ZEl':sH!P ACT, 14-A \1}, 14-.t (3} tt 25
- - - JcorcrARY AcT, s. 4 14
---------s. 6 ..... 61
U::\ION Jt:DICIARY AcT, 1948, s. 5-Mouthl! Leases (Termillalion) Ac 1,
194b-Suit for Declaration-Pro1Jiso, s. 42 Specific Relief Act,
failur~ to compty with Court has 110 jurisdiction to dismiss the
suit-..lmcudmeut of Plai1tl to conform with t ftc Proviso-Reliefs
fllol:gl:.uot sPccifiet~lly Prayed for s/wuld [e granted ijtlte proved
facts ilt tlzc Plai11/ 2Cari>11nl it-TI1c object of Court Fees Act.
The appHlant instituted as~ it under s. 42 Specific Relief Act
against t!1e l.~espoudent who was appell:mt'~ monthly tenant
for a bare dtclaration that the appellant is the owner of a
Cine:1;a H:lil and its site and for damages, etc. without a prayer
for posse:>sion. In fact, the I~esponclent \\as found to be a
mere trespasser in possession by virtue of the Monthly Leases
(Tem~inatio:t) Act, 1v46. The suit was decreed, but' on appeal,
the High Court dismissed the suit holding that under the
Pr~:niso to s. 4Z of the Specific Relief Act, tl;e suit wa~ not
maintainable. Oa :tpp~al to the Supreme Court, by special
leave held: Prm'iso to s. 42 Specific Relief Act does not
waaant the assertion th:tt the suit is not maintninable ; for
the PrQYiso merely enacts that the Court shall not make ~~
declaratj,pn where the plaintiff being able to seek further r<:Jief
failed to do so, The Court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit,
it can only refuse to make a declaration unless the plaint is so
amende d a~ to satisfy the requirements to s. 42 of the Specific
Relief Act. S. T. 'K. Chetty Firm v. Balaszwdram, 10 L.B.R.
199; B.S. Mol1amcd Eusoof \'. Batwirii atzd a11ol/ier, (1952)
B.L,R. 248, followed. Field also: That if a plaintiff is entitled
to certain reliefs upon proof of necessary :act alle~ecl in the
plaint, it is for the Court to gr::.nt such reliels although the
reliefs specifically asked for may be inartistically framed.
Babu Lal RZY v, Biudh,racllal Rai, I.L.R. 22 Pat.187, referred
to. IJ.ld fur11!cr : Tile Court Fees Act w, s passed nol to arm
a litigant wit': a weapon of technicality against his orponent but
to secure rennue for the bene!]! Of the State. R. Submo \',
Vcukatro, A.I.R. {1918) (P.C.) 188, referred to.
THE BANK OF CHETTINAD LTD, l.'. U :Ct\V 56
UNLAWFt'L ASSOCIATIONS ACT, S 17 (1) 17
VINA~AY.\ AcT, s . 25 (1)(21, 22 (J)(.;J 37

~d.ieoG~"lJ'J~n
me: qsa'3<l]S:OJ'Js9~9oot@Gbj:~cf.i 80G~ (o~ ~o yj~~).t
~cc@o:OJ'J~[J;Jd.ieoG~u
o1c3Q~Gl~GO)'Jd.i~ [J;Jd.ieoG~.(O~CjO ~96):~
ocmoSG0-:JC~ ~Gm'JC'bGooS ~d.ieoG<311
gtiio;?.So&!J@ .~Gbj: (c~~:JS:G0'J9Gl'Jd.i~) ~d) eo:;~ (oe 9? ~~S )'
~08:D18~[8~~G@~ oad.ieoG~H ~

.
"'msr:oaOJc: ~o5eoG811

2
XV!ll GENERAL INDEX

PAGE

~~~~C6f?91~qS~;, ~~bG6): ozoSeoG~II


6)~0(t~GOJ~ 006f?W~g moSeoG~II
Cli(OC~ cod3ooGm? ([95ro6~d3'1J?:) moSeu,;~ (oe<t? :r~~).1
8~&w~?{> oaoSeoG~ ( o? oo '?~~ ).1
8~&w~?{> (Qcroc~oS) moSe()ro (O?:J(; '?}~ >
o3:-:> ::JJaS::m 89 md3eoG~u
ndG6):GoT3 <7ll ~aS eoG.~ ( 0@ ~ 0 ::r~S) .I
m5:~cf.l9JS:::J.:l?89~9 cn~@Gq:md.ieoGs<?~G 9 (J) (oe ~o <?~.)1
oo6f?:2~s9~::J.:lt&mS~~~ <;f:mS~D25Gt:JJi&mG-:>c:~5:op~p=
OCJD,;ld.i ooop:2~z;:;o:::DtCJt cq:ow11 ~G::D~ m.g~mS~O(d.i
Go:q~ GOji'JoSa:)'):::Dt Gcn?f:~4l'JC72C @~qjoS::J.:ltmG?c:
<iJS:sp~~o;;cot Gl3T@oo-:J:G'Jc: rng9acS~cn'?:r::Dt Gt::Dt
rn;:;?S:m9:aS9p:~9 t&~~:JJ?O]C CDE>p:otG:XJ? mg~mS~
tJt Oj(ro6)Gt'\'tl!i ,l ~:@cf.)<ljoSI: 110@~ 0 y~.1 mC:~QS<jj5;
::D?g~~ ootGS!,:~aSeoc::<tE~ 9 (J) :::~?b)lo:J>p:2~89~:JJ~
mS~4l'JC72 6 CD6f?:29~m z9m S~Go:q:JJt mG'Jt i<j)C~6f?'IJ?:
Gl9Tco?:S: cq:oG~G:JJ~cot: mg~mS~Gmo1qt Goo?t:~
:XJ&0?02c :XJoS~cE>pmG'Jt:<Jif:qJp: ..Jd~mrocGl9T[9co?:
i:g.~ ~mz9mS~Q)'J:JJt CD6f?~G::J.:l'J mg~mS~ @S:JJ~II
8~Gco'J5 112@G'J~ccGcn~~9 ~:G<Jis~ , :::l.e~i3 :t 9 &, GIJ~oo5
8<1G:JJ:D3~GOjj?d3~? m5100 ooo ~oSp'OJtu

G(:J'JC~f:O~~~~ @tGoo'JC~~~ G'J~CcGoos:i 53

o'lc{5G~G~:Gm'JoS~saoSem~o'(oe 7o <?~.) qS(:J ~91 ~ ~ 84


. .
o1o3G~GB]:~mJo5g 'l't:eoGD o'2 ( o) ~9 (?) s4

@tOJ?oSo o8?<Gq:c8~::::3S~GI!l'J~G!jl'Jd)G6)l rnceoGD<(5g ~ (m )n


~:cb<lJrf.i II II ~5 :@~~G:Ja :;>JS~:XJ ')(.l)'JSCgQ ~ BtOjl_@bo 08
@'J:Gq:(c8~::::3S:G4l'J9Gl?c~) moSeoGD~to e9'{ <(~S motoS
i9~~6J::Dtu ~D<!rf.i eoGo~DG ~ (m) 8<16]1 cqoo@:ooGoo?OO!).)~
~~.~rn5l~9 @aOJ?o~o 88~'J:Sl~ c8~aSGm'Jc oo 'l't:'l'tg
19 ~~S :~ 8oSotcn-:J~cl3, 5l ~ mo;).)~ at 01 ~So ~~,~5 :m02oo cgJC
~o~~~JfOG;I?to:n:q~ 80S~Go:~c:uc.1 glcYt~Oj(006f?~ Q~C
o ~GC::JJt mG'Jt:G'Jt:~GO ::D~G)G~II :XJd3G.JJ8<1GO::)'Jd)
rncm:~ 0SGoo~6JcJtn SS~~cmC725: rnG@~G'!'.cf2cot: ::Dd3~
qgtiu ~D<IG?t:G0'Jt:~GOO'Jo5oo?:~ ::J.:l9Go::S:l:JJtuta:;S
5GC))'J::JaS~~OIJ~cf.)"l~ O<J'JCl!)'J~::J.:ltu SSm:XJ:f3G:JJmGro-::aS
su&leoeeco~~ ~~~~@~ gccftgcc ~b:ccogc~eg~'}g,u .u3cc.
~pmoo:.ccecc ~ (} jl: "(.l"TSJ (6t-61) r LO :g:,:~e~ 1~3Co~b
3~ gre:scceu r3&~ccc~b~ccogde~]l'e g~4-:::e;;ccce.s;_,w
cwpcibgc@e:~g::~SJ rP:be.:c~gg os &? cfipleso~scb
~(e)( c)(w) G egtseocpeo (l!isucl9egc0e;~g::38J) :be~c
89o~ol:c? ~~~e ~b'i>cl' IISCJ!ep:?;er !l:g~:ccwf:g
gcfeg]le ~bpcl9sgc0s~~g::38J Sc:lse.~cggo~'&3 3~~~~
S'J O.o>cBJJ IIC mpcirosscos3!ec0 ~gecscoe~sll !1:3:c003C~!'l
gli~ g~(e)( c)(w)l> eghGsocpeG (~pclsgc@e:~~:3SO) :be
~cgg oso&3w 3og'~e~:~6l3goc fi:3& eo:~il II~ 3SOSo soffi .
cc::mhco w~~&:chcopo..:Jdsf&:ccopdroerbec:c~ c egbGe>
ocpeo~C:I!'loe:bees ~~~e oG'i>cu u(c)0c egoGeoc:jcces:chcoe
rs oGc r0o 1~0 r.re)
(c) !J(, rGG rGr 1(6) 0c ego Gsocpen~seo9gliegb3l=o~
.!.
1: ... <i>mg&ec
kS:rBs o :be.<p? sccs938ce3 0~co:::sscB" g~~:::;sc:g
u:)ccg~
p!klsoo scos3!ec0:~&scoslb rP~SeGLo?Fec gccso8JrP
;cf~:lse.essgecOJ~ sgse:eecgg,<i-s 1fechz~S:cc3e :g&es
?3~ G3ccoe3 g~~smsc& cccs:cco SGsowcw rbec
(ro) 0c- :F egoG::v:-,Bs;~ec9sllhgffi~30~Scos?-32ce3~0sccoe.
? :Jcc~aec~1r ,,J'es~e~~:ca:0 wscos:~~ rPPSJep?f>
)O~I'e3aes ~~rP:ceo:~ ?ff:gS slro~:c!f. :coc ropce~ec
:gr.~eG n?cc~~scJ ccc?f~~~:c!b:co:;ecpcco~es:gc)ees
1bsoM~ rP3~esSo 3&~s~ggcmceo cccsso~!esaec 3cc
seas:~~ Leesccc~gccopc!ros prorosco~1!ec@ :g&scoel!b
3bp!Qsoo rP:clhsseccccssofile 1beof( r) 3\ c)(co) G flgoGeoc
peo (lc)suc:.l!ie.gc@e:~sc:~BJ) :lse:csggo~ol'c? 1glfe 0be!c
I' rso!eso~:i!e'!l r( ro) (., c egog~
sc egnceoc~~esi?gll'egffi
:30~ I SCOB?38c~3~gccoe3 scos3jgc0:g&scoe~e> 3ses
:gcBsso<k 1beo (f) (w) G~go 3 (0)(o)(ro)(c)(w) G eg6
I ( ~~e
0 6 tl c) csocpeo (~pcl!i~gc0eg~bc'.38J );bw:.Bsgo~o&?~
61"> ... r LO :ge~og~e~3CCO~ 3~ 0 LO ~roe>c}we>:f-fle>
.
113cc3~~~ bpccp<D
~scoe:~~ wLol!mbeec rbee (co) G flgo 3~c;p~~m~;cooes
pccoeeccc~succ sccesc ~~ fl3gggc.~ wp~~esum SOSo
S2~fl rP:ccoeopccoe.esccepccSo 3~eeo~ecscos3!ec0
wstoe:~~ giroLo~s,ofi!e3ses :~g;ro3~ ff:c~:ccoec
,
3:9/d
XTX XCIGNI 1Y~T3.NtiD
XX GENERAL INDEX

,PAGE

s-J~~Q,~ ~:oS~5G)~ 00~02C:0~:11>?!6)Q~ D<lG::~a~d3<ij?:


O)t Da~~q;p?:O)e1.1 11~00~: o:JGOO?cbo~ 0)')9~GpeO cf)
G?f:eoG:rr.l6) o:>Ef:~~ !ldB~CT.jjGIV~CO?rbGDa'JCO)rb~:x;~go?
Gco?o5 9GDa?t@tC1jjt ~:l(~ S~Oi?. So88?:Gbj:a<JCJ,5o5
~[Oro?:q~~GO)~:x>tO? mG?t::x>~~P GCT.jjoj>DC\)!b Da~:&"t:x>e1
~Oj?~ ~~5~oo?:~CG0G?t:n Gaia1za1t Krishna Yal)'i a11d
others \', Emperor. A. i.R. ( 1943) Bom. 533 at p. 536 O)G::-J?o;?
:x>tn IIO)')I:l~6peo oSG?t:eoG::>"jp:~~ g~Oi?.So 8S@?:G6).
DaCl,2oS ~[8Gptro'J:G6):~t6p 8<?oSeoG:::~~-:J::x>t ro~:~ro@:
et~oS@t::x>?@~G6?t:l ~~ OJ':>4GpG'OoS5l~C rosp:GO)
~oS~:x>~DaCJ2rb tOi?.Sc88@?:G6):~ m-::02c.Ecfl~:~%~ Ei[~
~[DGiji?COO'J!~t4~}:>t:.t Ra ma~t r..al Rat hi v. Co1111111ssioue,. of
Police. Calwtla, and others, A.I.R! 1952) C~l. 26 ; Da;aram v.
The Slatr , A l.R. (1955) M.B. 65 O)G::r.l':>IJ2:x>tzl I!GpG-Od35/
OJ<:~CJ2C o:>Gp:G:x>cgd3~~':lli~ ~cgoS~Ji\82!GOT~58tOi?.So 88
B?:G6)l8'ClCl,2o5 ~[0G5l?CI:la:>':l:~tOjll:l~~ctaf~};,bJ
G9'JCo:JCG82!li d~CO~I O~ffin@. o1 0 "\ 17

~l:l~bGp ~1:&)S:d~:OGEi)l Dacb20G!3<(5G 09 ( m)I <(tG oo ( o )


( ru h(c)n n~:soS~oSu .t~s~EGp 91:6)S:d @:EG&J:
8<!cfeoGm~6~,~ o 9 ( m )~~0~0j!C t c::qfig~6} <Dbf:~~~c
89rocs:?oSco?:spo.;EI ~a<Jo5eoG!)y5~.~ o o (o) ~ ~~Be<
"1j'J~Cl,2C o1~Go.:>? OO~Jrfj"l)'Jlrf? IOU'TgEi)GtO{Q~G~II :l::r.lG~
~:OGG)l o~rr. cot~ I GCijl-::oSoo?l 0,1::>.:>~ rosp: ~~6)~
~~oS r qfi~,~ o9 (m) (?) <Y6SG~T@ro?::x>~oc~ttr~
Go:.JcGo.:>? 801106':/t:~ G~~OJ':>~~~l[&:G~':>c1 GO:WbCijjt
oo6[)=21l~ GotbjQtg~:x>tn ~0:~[GE>)~ o~~ ~~oS~rE.
:x>~1 aJsp:2~:x>~ ~.:GroS~?: G~O)~~t:~~~ ~[~<l!J)~t
g~G~G<1JII 82!CY.>J)~ I &)~G:x>'J Dagrf? 82!GOO':JrbOCOJ"::: @~: 1
w~GojpoSOj?ro :x>oS~Esp ~:GroS~ o:>Gp:~~Oj!CI Sfht
@~~So;p s:1:~S:d~:8Gf>1: DaoSeo:.D~5~,~ oo (o) ~Eo1~
G::>.:l? Grf :x>f 00~5o1 !J?~c OOCOcb"lJ?:D'2bjl ~~O)~~ol?
~')~ GI.9T@SjGOQe1!t wc:~G<:/fg)Ojjtl rosp~~=~ooSroQ~OJ~
oo~5~m01Jim6Gf!}::5: ~~~:@d3r;;g~@o.:>tn '
GDTGg@: ~9 S~bco1 J .. st 1
fu!~.~~tGp s:1:S)S:~ ~:5~61= oorEeoGD !.(fig o!S ( ro) Da&)t
oe~~ fil ~o::f.>?co j j 6)cG~I GOj!'Jcb~'JOJtoJe11 0~~)7 'tl
G-i!?o1~co ?O Ei)rbG<fl!re.; Da)t0~spc;t:occb20GDC(bg j e !32611
oo518d:it:r ocstR~':l~6)E::p Gcgj?oSroo;:Oj?82!~o?!OGOt1
g)8<151~c GCSJ?~OJ?lOj?CY.> 8<1GOj!?CJS~IiiOj?fOl o) j Oi't1 ~~~:
GENERAL INDEX xxi

PAGE
...;

~ .f.o1oS ? Od'J:rows:1:q$~o:ltCJ? 't!::~@~G1: Odrb80G~C(b~


oG ( ro )aofi)l roliP:??~$~ C1@~~ ~~ ~o:h?cc J j qoSG~m
GCSJ?rbco?:!ip 1o~ ~ '( Rl ~~?o l~ro ? o b)rbG~?.Odc81!l~Gw:ro'J
qt~Gj;02t y51:1 j@ 8db)OdSi8oS~rbOJ~Il J~g~ci)~d).l I
ern~:~ J@ 8611 s%01~:~ o;;S~oo~ro!ip~"!Xi~ rooo~91 :qG:
OJtG~111l E C\.'3210,25; OJ~ :f!~~o:J'J OO!ipi~~GroSm 82Cff~
C))rbQ~E 8 ~0Jt
~:0~p: 19 9~:b):;i:Ol@:oGbJW ~ o1 \) 90
C)~O(~~G005 OJ6p!(:}~:G<lrb80G~<(bl:l ?~ ~rb'i06)~~o:lt~~ IJd?rb
?'J::D q;oS02oS~OJ@9 SS6)~oSOJt~ llb]C~oS::D t5f>'J~:~:GOJ'J
4i3'J9 OJ'JO~~O:{ <D'JGhF!J[S86Gol0,2C 82Gb]!o;)O16)~ GO?j'Jrbg;p
~ OJq:>::))I~:~![Sm ~Eq:>~S~:~S::noS~n-a?: 6'J:f>?0SGoo:
IJ~0S:Xi 0'JGq:~[O~ !3<l~SjCQ0')o? O?oSii),j:ooS~oS@S: I G<lstG~T
0'J.J~Goo5 GCSJ?rb0!'JII u[gtGco'JC~ 006p:~SjCGSj:rnoSeoG8<ibll
c;.1 .1;;qg@oS~oSu :1g}i0~ .pSp:x>~ rB~8402oS roq:>:~:02S
OJ~:~~~cz~:~~::Dt~p cotr)'J:o:lti! . Raugo:Jn & Co. v. Maung
Waik, 6 Ran. 263 ~rbf>'J::Dtu J~rB~o:ltl 006p:~SjCG~>j:
otSc~:~ ~oS~oSGuTGo1oSCoSro:n::o'JrB~@0~~~ Gt~oESG0
QtGcxd:"2 OJ6p~~"jtGSj~ 8drb80GO~b~:~ 9 806)1 ~~:G0')5:.:vt
[9tGm?S"2 ~Sc7<102E~~ roliP:~:8d?:~<~ ~:e3S6~1\l~E8~
!JD?m'J~o,)~ rosr~~:@::o~84~S: corbG8d'Jrb~roopg~:royym
SS~8609S:oo'J:OJ~80?m'J~l ~llc.J?OS OJ'JO ~o oSooqJ:OJ~yrf?
~:~GW'JC~cfi!ij}tl;rf02J.)0]C rnSJtOOb[Ji~G6poSG86"Jt oCGq:>oS
~roe1cf,l~ g]~:GO?S~oo"Jo~ ~GroClJtt ,!Gcgj'Jrfoo?:~m ~0~
CO?l::Dt86<1Jrb4j'J:~'J ~~lly} ID'JGq:9][0GOlG~?lf <-lJrbC'J2oS5(~1l~l
~CSJS~ti:lJGCSJ"JoS oo:n~~ ~0p~: ~:OJ~ 0G:.:V'Jrn~oS 9j'J :rf?
9s~~~s:noS~C6p~8'6'J: ? :p00Goo :~ IDS:q OJ6p:oy,@3:~ tS,;
oo:;o ~ ooSooop:@b:.tu lt~~otf~GooS O?qJ:~:~~: rnoSeoGs~5(,)
\)~ 86bjl ~IDQ:00Goo:Q}~ 86S~~yoS~d.iOJ~II
GtS:il o1 9 9~ 't~ot~~~ rospw~: ro:;pg:)j(~'~lS o1 oo.... 14
G5)GOOS:)2 E:~'J8!~Gro5, ~Sc'J:OJ':':80oSeoG8 'tlE(,) ? (;;l) 86G@~eoG8
<?fie,) :l::J( 0 )n .1:)~:8oS9jrbll il~:@oS~rbiD'JJ~GooSrnji~:4j'J:
c2S Ep~o o'3roq:>:~~~G00~4J'Jl~I!)0G~:::JS0-)0~ OJrbG::D4J":nw9
G<lT~: ~::U~jj~XO~'J9j'J:Ct3 86~:86~oSID~GW1GU:~E"l~ ~w:
OJtu oot~S:::ut CY.JJ$:cf-J~ID?~?:d?::o'J 6~~~ "toSQtrn'J:~~
;;JJYd)G~'J82S~~? 80G8~W~CY.JjtOJtr goo~CY.Jjt::Dtrf?ClJ'J
e3~ll!b)~GGt11 d3~~0?~:ji~ ~CCGOJ50J~0') o1 j II ::l@~j ~~01
Gpl!'oo586G::o:8d~;;a;poSc:~P 86rych J ~J @'):::otu
~~o;~ro~.~ rn@ro~:84CJ2C:o~l ~Ec:m~q:~:l q~cq~~ o1 ::J 4
XXll GENERAL INDEX

?AGE

C)IO CJI( cy~ooGro'J8cco8<1ld3~?: )nad3 eoG'J (~ @9 '( 'r~: 1 C(bQ :::>?


(o) Dill;[' (9S~co81?:~6!5@5:1c;,c~eoG!:lC(5Q 7 ( o) Da6[1 @~Q'J~cc
GroS3 'i OiloS06'JlG06[ ~naS~ 1gjtGco-:;c,~~g')~ccGro5~0t:.~59J[O
qrnG@.;,80G!3C(8g o o ( Q) !336[1 @~g'J~CC:::Q'J:@SG?@ ~80G!3C(bl:l
'2 (~ )9$ ~:o ::ooS ~cg~cu .iGCijpoSco'J'Oil::ot o@ ~ ~ :r~Sm
o1m~ro~ ~Ec~:rooS'}oS@~ [9to c~cs-'J"!~f:' ~Q'J~cc~ro'J
GspoS;;l1 ~G'J~cc02c Gtz~~co'J:::oe2qoScooS GOiJSCI6~Gt~E
o::~~ rncooSGt!l T@o1 !33oSeoGoC(5~o~ o? (~ )~r [9S}ICOGlJ:~G'[f:
@E:~~G'[G::D'JGG'J~ C(DG '2 (::J) 0211>)1 OjlO CSc~~:08G6[ :o ~m <=iC:
rn'J: ~5c'}cgi1306'J:G06[~ 9J9 oS~o'3::Di&021S~c1 oc6~00G"J:o16'[ ~
Grn'JoSo1021~5: 021G6'Jc: GcgpoSco?~Gm::Dtu .~SS~rnS
o:>oS'j 021~1:@SOiiG!3TGG::Dt ~g')~t:G'[C:OJ'J:8So::~021[9t ss
'}") ~~o~'J~Cc~ 1:@S~ @~Gco'Jc~~~G'J{i::cGooS ~0t~~5;;;Il5~
rnG@~20G8'(fig ~ o( ~ )D<l"!I@~G'J~CcOJ'J:@alG'f::DB~ o@ 9 '2 1~~~
QtoCJ1021d380G8C(DQ '( ~~ ~:0021<'7ijj:GOCG6?t:@~ GCSJ'::d)
co?::Dt.i J~:~o5<1joSil ooG'Jc:89Jrh rn~C: 'j~G000?W
GCSJ?oScxn:::Ji?:Dtt (o) u1m ~ro ~ ~Eco.:o:021~S~ :) @~ ~ '?~~
e~co o qoSG~~;~S~ ~~~oS@c: ~J~~::Dt mG'Jc:J (J)
o@ ~ ~ ~~S1 ~fro o ~,cG!2GG[Xi3f:OJ&G;>?cb o1m~ro~~tc:
rn~ :E>Jo:J'} ~S:::o?:rnG;;~~ ~Sc~:rooS'ioS 6'10ji~:DtroG6'Jb
~.G'J~ ~g")~CC:D?o@alJ1021oS euGDC(D<l :) 9 (OJ) (~) G<l&)qE :I
:) 9 (ro)(?) 021GJsE: ~G?~CC:D'J:~~s'} G'[biO~fut :toSoaste::t I
~V)?I:loSE>tJOi2rn'Je::5 51~ @~Gco'JE,<l? ~f"?~tcGroS!:l'a~:ql ~Ee:
@-:: :G6'[:~:021@ro:rn02t:o o1 o . .. : ,. . . 25

8~c..D5::~(@EcoE<:jjoS)~r.n' 8UG:J \:)?oG ~~al)1 <JlbG?~'?I$'?71?01


97 to?:) o :t:i\~,8~w~p~!:l<loSeuGD<Jli~,~ o ~ 1o 10 o 10~ 1 'rJ
~c68?o.:>~p;;(5'S 021S~~'dGCY1j~C::o~~ Q~c8~&m~?~ G~'JD
f>'J c tGE;'JC: G0'J!:lf'JO E~" @:Qo5G:)2 :~u E ~oS~cmsp:~; mop:
Oi/@:o:JG'f'Jd)~ 8?00~~0t:G01~;j~GO?I'Jd)CX:01E>p OOS()1:ljl0:
m :)?:) G~~S1 8~m~p;; (@Eeoc~aS) :JioSeoGs<]>fill ? o GOG'[i
8~@,UJ~~G0@: ~to58~00~'J~~ !3<lS~c-1uc6~oS~oSGro~e?.l
~:~oS<]JoSt! .l~fo58~oog?romS~9]yoS~~Gf?oS <)~68~c..D
g?~: GaJ'J:;mo CGE>poS6pQ2C ;;Ji~C::06p:Q~.~Gro6m o CG6pcf
:6t
~oS(!;oS~ 8~ m~~0~ Gu:@E ~E::Pt 021 J (1J)')IJG(}Jc :u

~:~:9~ :8ro'J::P o1 o 71

8~22,m~'J~ (i9EcoE~oS)moSp,uG!:l ( o? oG ~ ~S), <(n<J ?o 1 6?w~


~0f:@E:1 ~fuS8?m5'J t~ !30S~a?GGCY.JlfO:D~f ~~58? w
g?~~ G0':SmOCpOo5 G0'J"m5~ ~80Jm ~20t ~82:
GENERAL INDEX XXlll

.. PAGE

::..k:r.no;~u~'J20-::~[0 <lJ[b~ wspGoo'S~~'J~ ~:@d.i<lJ:fJ


GO~O 1}fc:2:J<J83J@~ qt:~m~@o'S~mG<.>:GCO:lJ~.I ~~:@d;
Cl]d)~ o ~(,l~::h~oS~toosp:g~r;;oo$)~8~ OJ ~~0~ :GO:b[ ~GO]'Jd)
CXl'J:sp~~0t:~o:eq~~cnc..S~:@d3~oS~5loSGroOJ~u J~:@oS
Qj:11 .lf>oS~toosp:g~:r;;ooS~ ::>? o'G ~~~~ 8?&0JS'J? (@[
wt911i) :J<JoSeoG:J~fi(,l ? o :3<lE>JI 8~0J ~~0~:Go:~to.:>&
:J;)'JC1D'JQ~G~I @d~:g~s; :8ro'J3J o1 01 O@::J(3 ~~~~ OJt;p:
9;lc;?~ooS~[~ ror;p:0~G.3J::J<J~r;;cgpd39;1'JOO~oS 9Cf ~~oS.p
::D~I

:G:J<J'JtO'J~~ toS~Soor;p:goor;p:O:(~: o1 IS 68

::J3:@'Jl::Dm3J'Jg~:J<Jm2UGO~Og Cf J 84

:J<J~G QT0-:~rf.i0'J8J~GmS-o1 c8;; G8):Gm'Jd3goj>t:eoG:J o'2 o )(? )1


0@ CfO ~~~ olc8g~Gl1G("])'JcfJg aomeoG:J<(EQ ~Cfl <ib~o~ ~~~
20t:~b<lJ[O~:J<JGS~80GD'itJ0 r;c; (o \ (~ )1 <(bg J::; 1To<;~~: J 1
((bg ~~ l ((b(S 0 "( ( Cf )1 ~5g "2(3 I ~b<.t 0 :J01 ~fig 0 '(I :::.3:@-:J~
xrSo.:>'Js9 moSec.:Ga C(bt> c; J 1GojpoScc'J:Oj?::D~I ('lS J o8
~9ct8GOJSG ..1E:~:G;~ ~ ~~I G2)1GO'Yld3g ot~01J0~cf
G~~'Jblt:o;sc CXl~~t:G\.9T@b GQS:))t20002oSJ oe 90 t~S I
ot c8g~G8J:Gm'JmgTccfJ8uG:JC(bg j 9 9~ ~0t:~D<lJ[b~mG[3i!l
eoGo C(bg '29 (o}(~) meq1 c1:5i~m'Jrooo02E: o1o3g~:J<J;,)oS
Gl:~oS~@t: l ()oo~Go:~tc:~g9G~~ o1~g~G1Gm'Jmg f>t:
eoGo O'(l ooeq~m4JC:Y]d3CJ'6d3:lji@~3Jt<.q ~CcGmS o.:>0mm
G0'1!ts'J6'()1 .~G01jt;3'J~rt_j~ GGOiJfO ~0~:~0~[5~ OOGEJQ
eoG:J<(Slol. J ~ 036)1 m~G<;~T0'J8j~GmS GCXjprt.ico-::6CO::Dtu
~l!lt:~O~[S~mG;;}euGa me>~: J ~oi~GOJ'J ~coms9m'?E>J;
C:jj'JW~ gc8~m::D~I c;t::JaGS~8UG8C(6{cl j J ffi!ijl GCSJ?rt.iCXlJ~
~bg~G~O{ OC1D'JGm~o;2d)~d)@~ {tcGo:>S5G~G~4J[OW GTc'Jd3o1
~6\Ecx?m~ OG~:mm'J:~~OJC::Dt.t~CcGOJS:JC02C:o~5i9raoS~( OJ)
Tcb~:IGOdl~tJm'J(~)IO@ 90 IO~~GW'JCi5 :JO::J l u:;x?:~d)~d)
11 uu1c{3gtGl;Gm-::;oS~ <JaoSeoGa <(bra J J ~ Gl!lT@co-:::Go:>"J
mz9naco6):~9 ml'J:fb.p~:l[~l'l"ll-:: : c8~oSo.:>~9, ~Ecw:S
:uramc;\) ~:@o'S2JoS:lJt ~0t:"'!o~[O~mG[3;}eoGJ~tlG ::>"2 ( 9)
m~Gmco'J:r;;o:o 1/rooo.9mG6'N~:~ c8~d.ir;;ro:ue;u ~CcGooS
o.:><Joo:ut OJ~o)~l ~b~[O~ffiGEJ~80"1Sl <(fig oo:'_) Tc6)1
c6sp:~b)tG6)~~9 :JC'JC1D'J~'J;~~:~oi'it1 stg<(f)G '(IS 006)1 o]djg~
mc;oSm~~ffiG8jl~91 G~aGo;~tz?ca~ c8~rG;;).)@~ g),~:
GmSm ~;tJ<JS~~ rnS(GOlT0'J8J~GmS@9 o<.{)~oS~tG0GCOo.)i.t
31 !51 o~tG1:~9G:J,;j al1 CJ'6to1: u1 ?I msp:~oSr;;mS<\:[0 mr;p:G
cvO):S{Tclo'S ?IS /":J:'J 6t:))tu gt~g~ ~S::::q[gto.:>'J:~'J:
XXlV GENERAL INDEX

PAGE

dil Gag9oaG6)~~~0Dcqj:~l ~:@~~t~$~ 8oGDGa6)!3001t~t;


. ~b~~:1 rot:q~oq:@oSbp~cut:l eOGD8a~C:GOO?Clcf.ib)~ O??O~
CSJCI ~Oil~Goo:Jtlcf.i<l]cf.io:>t qD9JlDG!;j:::>:>cf.io:>rbno06oS
GOO:JCjoS(;Gt I00bpl~S[CG6j!~Cq:> 8<\C\(00 S?tp:"jp:~~ !)O'JCU)')
~p~ o.?:~Goo~E)oSq:>GGpa3o:>t'&l ~:GCJ6: (G~T) GDOI ~:1 GD1:~
99 :azl~:~l O c;o ~~tl @~~J?(gt~6)t~: :;c;o ~~cS::S~:G~/jl~
B~Go:d:'\lB~G?~CCI oec; ~ ::r~5J B~>i?@t!31>)5~: 000
~o:>t&J oospl~6)tG6):~Er s-aC\(So g:;['=~9 Ga'J?<iJS:O~
~:2Goo?c81d3bp g]rn~::>:>tooe:e:oa?: - G9)08~GGo':::D ,5,p~0
G::D? GaS~~~oSC\3jtl ~QJ~cbG::D'JDOS~o:>t ::>:>:::r.)')OOJtp:;>t:
ro~:19G~oSe:1::>:>@$ Goot&@~CII ~:ot99::DCJ(~!GO':l):)? G@o:>?
9)CO:J ;G6):Gm'3~o31 0@ <; 0 y1bl B~G?@t ~li)C~: "2 ~ I e
Gag~o Q(J1!19:GrY.Ji'322~ I O@ ~ 0 <r5ltl B~G?@t~I>)C~: J :j o
~o:>tu oa@?:G::D? o:>d3o:>?s961~~E~I:l1@91 OOjGQT0?~
GooSDOS~~ ~wo~:J:~Sfl~G~tl{ 8oSoEm?:@tom@E~G~
G9J.i Gao;(dlWCl(G:J~9ooSOi(*~6): ~~?:G6)!o~ l GD31 ~c I
!JO'J(g)1 :::>@ ~~ ~q\&")1 OJ')CUOJffi':i! ~ 90 to:>t,l ~G-:>~1
GCSJ?d3co'):Oil::nt SS~0::noS sp DJ f.G ~r ID'Jj~GOJ'3 no~~~
GCSJ?mco'J:~Co:>t.i ::D'JG~~:G,J?:~cut: 0?6fJ:2~~to:>f.i
~:0oE:i982~t:o~l mGp:G6):o~@:~pf> 84

m~t.::<T0?8J+GooS-oSrooSG6-::5: noGcmoSGmS 1 Gad3eoGo <lSY


:::> G'( ( 0) oa::J)oS!JOGO)'JoSGooSJ~E :~:~noS~ I ::J)~')GO?S)g E:[!;:Jn
GalJ?.~n;JS~I ~<l8r.<Bab[l ooS~oS<io:>? <Jai3Gg::>:>t:xJd3~tGpo~t~
oo~d?~~ ~:;;o~0~tG::nSJcut:l rqjOOOGCO-:JCco:~~~ 20GDS~-:J~:
C!JoSicjj':J:O~ oa881oSGo::?d30i(@t: (Speaking Order).1 I;~:~ aS
"l)aS.1 .m~-JGOJS5"'5:@3:dil oatli1~8aS~~ooS~oS9~ GaJIGQt
~f,Gcnl)@~ GC\3J'Jd)GOJ~!JO 0>1 cQ~rf300GO)?d)GO?>_i gf;~:~
rot: GC\3J-::oSco'J:QE>}~oa@~:j~9co~~f1: <;C:~rnS~cRo1 O?C
~t::o<~d)6)~GOJ'Jt:~66)GC!J~t.1 IIOCrooSG6?c~oaGm:Jo5
GcpS rnoSeoGD~fi~,~ o lSi (o )~coo8~oS~tG::>:>? ~ai3Gg'lj'J~O~~:
oo~~~g'i) ~:oocooSG~G06)1 ~oo~:~otoS Oi)OO?Gco?tcoro g~
Gll6)o;(~o1~::>:>t I ~~?~:ClJoS836) o~t:oof~:~ ~:.;oooro~,~~'J:
G::D? oai3Ggd3Go:>S<;t:l Oi)bOOGOO?CcooS ~GJ?:G::D'J Dai3Gg~
G::>:>Sc;S: oo8~ro~5Gt~~G<lJ::>:>t.1 o~t~oo~~: ~:oocooSG~'J:
G0qo;(G::D?B~?~~qjaSs,tl ~~:;;o:).)trq]OO'JGCO?tcooS~,p:;:::n?
rn~ 9p:~ qt~~:::>:>tur Gm?oStJii6)1.ltr OiJSmGco'Jccoro ~s
G0"\ o;(G::D?~?f:qjoS::ni'&l 02?t:oofd?:f't1~1 <;b:)~:oo:xJt'
rqOooGCO?tGi9fG::D'J ~O>C:GJ:m~ 6)t~~:::>:>ttl{ Gro-?JoSOi(6)~t !
O':l)bCDGCO:JtCOroi,I~G0.~o;(G::D'J ~~?$:<l]oS::>:>Eri i ::oot:G~d) 11
o;(G::DJVOO?:?:@G.pG::JJ'JG(@')9 O'l?t:oo~~: ~:oocooSG'lj?:G06[
GENERAL INDEX XXV

PAGE

~G.OJ'Jqj(Y,J'J;c;;'i;8<38~tloS~CY.JJ2~G.Q'Jt~GO<l'JtQ~[oSfl]oS~c.r li80GD
Bl5'J~:~d3~'J:~ O'<l881uS Gm'JoSCJj(spy-::ro~: @~:>~g<lld)c.~E
o1~Go:>:>0m'J:)_0~p~8<3'J1cqi ~881Ji~G8<3:>CGct.l'Jcf.jc..ll(6)GCf;~~ll .I
~::r.)(f5~Gm:>J3GmSYc~@:99 ::n~\~PGOJ5Ytz@:~y'JI <(5~ :::>~\)
(o) ~6jl ~(;jt~ts~ ~'Jctn'J~GO)'JG@'J9 Oif~~~6)tfl]009J?::::D~
(Speaking Order) @~@~ S<lOOCS<l:iJ'J: y'):UJC~yO)'JC\j]C~q;l~:t!S~
~'J:~ ~~:GooSm!:B~GdT 0'Jg)fGo:>S@~ ooS~oS~EO)~.I GOjj'JoS
9:p uoS~oSO)~II
O?J; o ~ooS(S) m~~Y~~::noS~~O?~')GOJS Qt:~~( o;)~OJ~:GspE::
otbG1.:)
~JIG~T0'J8)~GooSGo;r'JoSgp-o? o o ~~~~8~&m~'J~~oSeuGo<(5Y
J ~ (o) ~~ (J )rcr5Q J J (o) (m).1 Hb)tot~@r ~CcGroS8&m
~'J~O>'~ O? :::>0 yi~l G0'JOoj>'JOC5(8<3yOO 9 ~ 0EGQO!'l~ 8~~i~~
~:o~:~~ cx?:@oSGo:6)~ ~8oom~~:m ~ ~:o1:~foS ~:~:~
o1otcx?i@oS(5: Q~Ol6)~0J~02o5t:.r m~02oS~J'J~ ~m~02oS~6j
G::D<"J QOGpGo:>S~So1:99 c;c:~~:o.25o1o5GOJ'J ;;ospGooSooo1:
mo1 o6c%f.i G')c: r oJl@:OJtG.poS ~QObpGooS~:o1:0Jt
G0'J0-t''Jo 5sr~oooSrooS6'J ~'t'')@:. ~6JEflloSfllGooSw@cu!56Jccx?:@oS
fjjoS:::D~C\Jt: m~02o)~~r18<3!:Go:GOJ'J~6)Cfjjm@:@c:.l .1~:
@oS<lJd).! .rm~o;2iJ@t~~6)GOJ'J OOGpGOOSi~o1:0J~ m~02oS~oS
~p: ~o1utiS5:~C\jjt ~006pGOOS~pl:::>.:J~ m~o;;lo5<J;o5~j'J!!91VO
CClJ:~ (it:CY.Jj~GOJ'J 8~f:q oospGro.S~j'Ji6p ~:~oS~d:i~ .p@
66JG<jjYt.l. o:>~~~S<l'J:@~~GO)S CY.>~o;;loS<l]o59j-:: y~Ql~~
t:Oi/~i>J'J ~ccGooS8~t~~~oo6pGOJSmo:J'JC\jfC c9:@oS@~G'lJ
Yt.l rn5~CY.JJ~GO)'J ~CcGooS8't't:~~ro6pGo:>'S,;Jp~q:;m ())~02~
<jjcf.j~.J: GlG6')czcx?:@oSyO)')C\jj9 CY.>~CJ2rf5@t~Q6)GOJ'J ~CC Goo6
8?t:~qooGpGo:>S3~')~0Jt ~GII)')opoC5(~ rooSrooS~ '):p
~~C~:@o5Go:>~~~~t0C:l~.l ICY.>~02oSt:~~6)GO)'J Q06pGo:>5!~
u1:0J~mE:D:Jf~GOJ'J ~tcGro58~~:~~rospGo:>5<:p;~ ~~:
S<loS~C:J~~dJ SS~~OS~E ~:@oSGv:>S~ji~@c~:Dt ~?::JO
<r~E1 8?&mg')~~o5euGo~5C:J J ~~ t(fi~;~coS (J h-9 ~ootoose:
ro~CY.JJE GII)'JrJf')OSSi~ :noScooS~ Y'J:1'-:>G~:@oS~5.r ,,;;o
6pGo:>S ~w1:G~!5G)c~oS~oJ)llloS ~CcGoo58f&m~'Jf~ o:>D~
'):~')II)~G;;mcx?~@oSst~ !:BJio1Bt~OJ~oS~t.r
~:G~')cBm o1 9 ~: :11 ~tcGoo58~&m~pf 8<3CJ.2o5o:>')oF~
;;o6pG~5 ~~Gm'J~~ o1 @ ~: 37
BURMA LAW .REPORTS

HIGH COURT

1957

Containing cases determined by the High Court


of the Union of Burma

U TUN MAUNG, B.A., B.L., Bm.-at-Law, EDITOR .


DR. :rvlAUNG MAUNG, B.L., LL.D., Bar.-at-Law. REPORTER.

lnclex p'reparecl by-MR. K. NGYI PEIK, B.A., B.L. (Advocate).


U 11YINT SOE, M.A., Bar.-at-Law.

Published under the authority of the President of the Union of


Burma by the su;e~intendent, Government Printing and Stationery,
Burma, Rangoon.

[All rights reserved]


HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT" t>F
THE UNION OF BURMA DURING THE
YEAR 19.57
CHIEF JUSTICE
The Hon:ble Justice Thada Maha Thray Sithu
U CHAN TUN AuNG, B.A., B.L., Barrister-at-
Law, Chief Justice.

PUISNE JUDGES
The Hon'ble Justice 1\1aha Thray Sithu U SAN
MAUNG, B.Sc., l.C.S. (Retd.).
The Hon'ble Justice U AuNG THA GYAW, B.A.,
B.L. ~(from 1st January 1957 to 20th September
1957).
The Hon'ble Justice 1\!laha Thiri Thudhamma
U THAUNG SniN, B.Sc., I.C.S. (Retd.).
The Hon'ble Justice U AuNG KHINE, M.A.,
Barrister-at-Law.
The Hon'bl~. Justice U BA TROUNG, Barrister-at-
Law. "
The Hon'ble Justice Maha Thray Sitlm U Po ON,
B.A., B.L.
The Hon'ble Justice U SHu MAUNG, Barrister-
at-Law .
.. The Hon'ble Justice U BA NYUNT, Advocate.
The Hon'ble' Justice Thray Sithu U CROON .

FOUNG, B.A., B.L. (from 14th March 1957).


The HonJble Justice U MYA THEIN~ B.A., Barrister-
at-Law (from 21st September 1957).
MEMBERS OF THE LAW REPORTING
. COUNCIL DURiNG THE YEAR 1957.
The Hon'ble Justic~ Thada Maha Thray Sithu
U CHAN TuN AUNG, Chief Justice of the High
Court (Chairman).

lV.lembers .
.
The Hon'ble Justi~e Maha Thray Sithu U SAN
MAUNG.
The Hon'ble Justice U AUNG THA GYAW (up to 21st
October 1957).
Th-e Hon'ble Justice U AUNG KHINE (from 21st
October 1957).
The Attorney-General, Burma.
DR. B'A HAN, M.A., Ph. D., D. Litt.,Barrister-at-Law
(up to 18th July 1957).
U TUN AUNG (1), B.A., B.L., Advocate (from 18th
July 1957) .
Rai Bahadur P. K. BASU, M.A., B.L., Advocate (up
to 18th July 1957).
.
MR. K. R . .YENKATRAM B.A., B.L. Barrister-at-Law
'
(frdn'l 18th July 1957).
'
U BA MAUNG, B.A., B.L., Advocate.
U TUN MAUNG, B.A., B.L., Barrister-at-Law (Editor).
DR. MAU NG MAUNG, B.A., B.L., LL.D., Barrister-
at-Law (Reporter).
U SAW BA THEIN, Registrar, High Court- Secretary
(frorh 1-1-57 to 21-3-57).
U tiN MAUNG, Registrar, High Court-Secretary
(from 22-3-57 to 21-7-57). 8
U SAw BA THEIN, Reg~trar, High Court-Secretary
(from 22-7-57 to 3 .1-12-57).
CORRIGENDA

8d ~:n@ E;;a E41 oS u


O@~~ ~~ @~C:l'J~tc~Ei]t~~ ~~t~ o ''} c; 1 a:JGp:~d3GroS3m~l w
~d.i~p o '}aS~ l~ <D'J"Vrbp ? G~'JoS~~~~5o#o1m~-
,." ~lJlGGpoS~ xoSGm oo3:n'J:::D'JO 5 GOJ'JC~p:ro@:l ~GCJ'td)
~0@: '51~ S~:u::noSG:x> 5'10@:cGSJOJC''
~Go.J'J0C'D'Jl6]0~0'J:-
'' Od')oSGGpoS~ mrbG:x> oo3:n'J:x>'Jo 5 GOJ'Jo~p~ l0~:r ~~otoS
GOJ'Jr~p: ro@:l~ S~:u :x>rbG:x> 910~:~GS]C25 ''
~GOJ'J 00J'J~ 6]0@~ 8<l~'J:~: :noSjjo 16]~ G\,l~'J 6JO@o1m~ II

The following words appearing in the first line


of the second paragraph of the head-notes between
the word r;< agent" and the word " it " at page 322
of the Burma Law Reports, 1953, should be deleted:-

.
.,at the time of the foan"
LIST OF CASES REPORTED

~b(tcqg~G8J'J. S?QCg~')g

!IIGH COURT

PAGE
Abdul Hai v. The Union of Burma ... 118
Ah };!Itaung v. Tbe Union of Burma and another 122
Ai Htwe and two others v. The Uilion of Burma 134
Daw Daw Shin and two others v. U Aung Pe and
two ~thers 5
__ Hla Ohn & Co. v. The Income-Tax Appellate
Tribunal 143
_ _ Hla Shin and .seven others v. Daw Aye Khin 242
___ Saw Myint v. Daw Mya Thin 152
Kamini Kumar Malick and one v. Zermaini Ranjan
..
Chowdhury 10
Ma Than Sein and three v. Daw Yi ... 251
_ _ Thaung v. Maung Pe Tin 259
Maung Kyaw Nyein and two others v. Maung Kyaw
Kyaw and one .. 266
___ So San v. The Union of Burma 157
___ Tha [Iaing v. Ma A in Tha 16
Messrl;. Arakan Carriers Syndicate v Chandmal Birla
a,pd two others . . . 273
_ ____ The Asiatic Corporation v. Messrs~ Mercantile
Bank of India. Ltd .. .. 288

p. S. K. Asee~al Beevi v. V. S. Syed Ammal and


eleven others 22
Q. S. Mariano. v. ~ J. Grant 164

3
Vlll LIST OF CASES REPORTED

PAGE
Ranchroddas Jethabhai & Co. v. The State Agricul-
tural Marketing Board and another 30

S. Sabir Hussain v. R.M.L. Ramanatha Chettiar .... 172


s. Sham v. The Union of Burma 55
Saw Tha Oo v. Ma Aye Thi 179
Sitaram v. The Superintendent, Rangoon Central.
Jail and another 190
The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Burma v. The
Burma Oil Company (Burma Concessions) Ltd. 316
Official Receiver, High Court, Rangoon and
one v. Tan Gwan Lye and another 63-
___ Union of Burma v. U Nyo 58.

U Ba Chit Tin v. The Union of Burmg, 196


_ Htan Hmat v. Daw Gon ... . 73
_ Kan Tha v. The Union of Burma (U Nyi Lay) 336
_ Khin Maung Gyi v. The Union of Burma 213
_ Kywe (a) U Aung Myint v. Daw Mya Mya
and one 88
_Saw and one v. Lake Mani (alias) Lo Mani 221
- Shwe Lone v. Mr. Kha Choung 106
_ Tl.a Hla v. The Municipal Corporation of,
Rangoon 224-
_Tin Eng v. U Ba Yoke 341
_ U Nyunt v. Daw Kyin Sin 230
_ Za Tila v. Union of Burma 237.

~1cJ3g')d3d5 ( G@T) GGOJ~~~l~ GOO I 8061 1')6p~ 155


80ctJ (~) :1 ~I<XlJ!l~ o1 Cj_ ~~@tGco'Jt~@~G')~CCGmS3 49
808)lG') C\J~ 5l9 GG80g , ~ 1

~g~~9 @tGco':lt~~G')~tcGooS3 102


~go:>2~ o1 J ~9 @tGco')tot~G':l~CcGmS) 67
~:B~9~ _GGrcgS . . 96.
LIST OF CASES CITED

PAGE

A. P. Jost:ph v. E. H. Joseph, A.I.R. (1926) Ran. 186,


distinguished . . 175
Ahid Khondkar v. Mahendra Lal De, I.L.R. 42 Cal.
830, approved and followed 167
Ahsanul Haq and another v. King-Emperor, A.I.R.
(1949) Nag-. 327, referred to 162

Ali Akbar and others v. Khurshed Ali and another,
I.L.R. 27 AU. 695, referred to 168
Allen v . Farquharson Bros. & Co., (1932) 17 Tax
Cas:59 at 64, referred to 320
Ariadne Steamship' Company Ltd. v. -James
Mckelvie and Company, (1922) K.B.D. 5 18.
referred to 45
Audh Behari Singh v. Sailendra Nath Bhattacherjee,
A.I.R. (1954) Cal. 339, referred to 19
_Beijari Lal ahd others v. Faquir Rai and another,
A.I.R: (1951) All. 236, relied on 78
Aziz Khan v. Ekram Hussain. 38 C.L.J. 213, refer-
red to ... 56
Babulal v. Jagat Narain, A.I.R. (1952) Vindhya
Pradesh, 51, referred to 47
Bai Nemat~u v. Bai Nematullabu, 42 Born. 295.
;~;eferred
to 168
Baluswa tpi Aiyar v. Lakshmana Aiyar and three
others, I.L.R. 44 Mad. 605 at 6@8, relied on 276
Balvant Babaji Dhondge \1: Hirachand Gulachand
Gujar, 27 Born. 334, referred to 94
Bhagu Dhondf~v. Emperor, 16 C.L.J. (1915) 213 ... 56
Bhuban Mohan Rana v. Surendra Mohan Das, (1952)
{L.R. Cal. ~eries, Vol. II, 23, referred to 183
X LIST OF CASES CITED

PAGE
Bhub.an.Mohan Rana v. Surendra Mohan Das,(1952)
I.L.R. Cal. Vol II, p. 23, followed 339
Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi and another v. Parath Nath
and another, 61 I.C. 378, referred to 262
Booker v. Palmer, (1942) 2 All E.R. 674, referred to 349
Borthwick v. Bank of New Zealand, (1900) 6 Com.
Cas. 1 ... ... 297
Brazilian and Portuguese Bank v. British and
American Banking Corporation, (1868) 18 L.T.
~23. referred to 297

C.I.R. v. Falkirk Iron Co ., 17 T.C. 625, approved 326


Chinnaya v. U Kha, 14 Ran. ll, approved ,83
Clore v. Theatrical Properties Ltd., (1936) 3 All
E.R. 483, facts distinguished 347
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Burma v. Hajee
Abdul Ganny Ayoob, (1941) R.L.R. 529,
approved 322
Central Provinces
and Berar v. Sir S. Chitnavis, 59 LA. 290,
approved 322
Continental National Bank v National City Bahk of
New York. (1934) 69 F. (2d) 312. referrec1 to 300
.,
Cricklewood Property and Investment Trust v.
Leighton's Investment Trust, (1945) A.C. 221,
referred to 269

Daw Tol.;.e v. Ma Tin Ohn, 12 Ran. p. 703, referred to 250


Dawsons Bank Ltd. v. C. Ein Shaung. (1951) B .L.\~.
308 at 311, distinguished 256
Dayabhai Jiwandas and others v. A.M.M. Muruggapa
Chettiar. (1935) i'2 Ran. 457, referred to 154
Dies and another v. British and In'ternational Mining
and Finance Corporation, Limited, 1 K.B.
(1939) 724. referred to ' 115
Donald H. Scott & Co., Ltd. v. Bartlays Bank. Ltd.,
( 1923) 2 K.B.I., referred to 297
LIST OF CASES CITED xi
PAGE
Dr. A." Karim and arl'other v. Pandit Laiq Ran and
others, (1939) R.L.R. 263, followed 228
_ Gordon Seagrave v: .
The Union of Burma,
(1952) B.L.R. 44 (S.C.), referred to 60
_u Chit and one v. Daw Ohn Yin, (1952) B.L.R.
176, followed 14

Errington' v. l::rrington and Woods, I.K .B. 290,


followed 348
Fairman v. Perpetual Investment Building Society.
(1923) A.C. 74 at 85, approved 354
Fir111 of Khushi Ram Behari Lal v. Mathra Das
and another, A.I.R. ( 1917) La h. 404, referred
to 42
Foster v.. Robinson, (1951) J.K.B. 149. referred to 349
Frey v. "sherburne and the National City Bank of
New York. (1920) 193 App. Div. 849 ; 184
N.Y. Supp. 661. referred to 300

Ghula m Muhammad and others v. The Crown.
through Musammat Allah Wasai. (1933) I.C.
512. refer_red to 240
Girisb Chaqder Lahiri v. Sasi Sekhareswar Roy,
I.L.R. 33 Cal. 329, referr!!d to ... 276
Gopal v. King-Emperor, (1925) A.I.R. Ran. 328 ... 57
Governor-General-in-Council v. Pandit Awadhoot,
I.L.R. (1946) Nag. 246, referred to 222
Gurbachan Singh Bindra v. Jos. E. Fernando, B.L.R.
(1950.\S.C.) 255, referred to 354

H. Pascal v. The Secretary of State in India in


Council. 12 Ran. 124, referred to 228
Hambro v. Burnand and ot..l.ers, (1904) K.B.D. 10,
referred to 42
Hans Muller,. of Nurenburg v. Superintendent,
Presidency Jail. Calcutta and others. A.I.R.
'(1952) (S.C.) 367, referred to 195
Xll LIST OF CASES CITED

Heap v. Hartley, (1889) L.R. 4:2 Ch. D~v. 461 at


16'3, referred to 129
Higgins and others v. John Seni9r, 58 Revised
Reports (1841-43), p. 884. referred to 44
Hiralal Hariram Bhatad v. Mt. Durga Bai Murlid-
har Marwadi, AI.R. (1937) Nag. 413, refer-
red to ... 85
Hup For v. The Deputy Commissioner. Inseiri and
two others. (1950) B.L.R. 86 (S.C.), referred to 127
Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd., I K.B., 1 (1915),
referred to 127
Husain Bhai and another v. Beltie Shah Gilani, 46
All. 733, referred to 19

In Re. C. Devanugraham, A.I.R. (1952), Mad. 725 ,


referred to 161
_ ___ Chouthmal Golapchand. (1938) I.T.R. (VI)
733=(1939) A.I.R. Cal. 559, referred to 325
Inder Pershad Singh v. Campbell, 7 Cal. 474, refer
red to '' 270
Indian Starch Products, Ltd. and another v. Control-
ler of Rents and another. B.L.R. (1950) (S.C.)
64, referred to 354

Jamsh~d Khodaram Irani v. Burjorji Dhunjibhai,


40 Born. 289 (P.C.), approved 83
Janardan Triumbak Gadre v. Martand Triumbak
Gadre, 45 Born. 241. referred to 18
Janki Kuar v. Lachmi Narain, 37 All. 535, referred to 93
K.K.S.A.R. Firm v. Maung Kya Nyun and ozi'e,
I.L.R. 5 Ran. 675, referred to 262
K. M. Modi v. Moh<j]ned Siddique, {1947) R.L.R.
423, followed 270
Khan Bahadur Haji Golan Sherazee v. Empress.
(1941) R.L.R. 599. relied on 52
- -- - - Hajee Gulam Sherazee v. The King,
(1941) R.L.R. 599 , referred to ... 188
T T'lT OF CASES CITED xiii
I'AG~

King v.
David Allen"& Sons,)3illposting Ltd., (1916)
2 A.C. 54, distinguished 347
King-Emperor v. Nga Lpn Maung, I.L.R. 13 Ran.
570. referred to 264
Kshitish Chandra Mondal " Shiba Rani Debi and
others, A.I.R- ( 1950) Cal. 441. followed 270
Kunja Behari Cha)s:rabarti v. Krishna Dhan
Majumdar. (1940) 2 Cal. 477. referred to 93
Kyauksema v. Aparna Charan, 10 L.B.R. 326,
referred to 18
Kyi Chung York v. The Controller of Immigration,
Burma, (1951) B.L.R. 197 (S.C.), referred to... 194
L. Hoke Sein v. The Controller of Rents for the
City of Rangoon and one, (1949) B.L.R. (S.C.)
16,P. followed 65
Lake v. "Simmons, (1927) A.C. 487 at 499, referred
to 210
Luxrnan Anandroa and others v. Ramchandra
Wasudeo Aj~sty, A.I.R. {1938) Nag. 145,
referred to 263

M. Palaniapp?- Chettiar v. Narayanan Chettyar, 226


.
J.C.lll=A.I-R. (1946) Mad. 331, referred to
Ma Kyin Hone and others v. Ong Boon Hock and
306

others, A.I.R. (1937) Ran. 47, referred to 177


__ Gun Bon v~ Maung Po Kywe and another,
(1897-1901) U.B.R- (Buddhist Law. Inheritance)
p. 66, referred to 248
__ Mya 'I;' Maung Kywet, B.L.R., Agabeg Vol.
.
II. (1'905), p. 228. referred to
__ PwaShin v! U Po Sin and one, A.I.R. (1937)
250

R~n. 324 8 & 101


_ _ Thein v. Ma Mya and _one, I-L.R. 7 Ran. P 193,
199, referred to 249
Maganlal Pranjivaa Mehta v. Mrs. Charnpakunvar
Ratilal Mehta and others, ( 1952) B.L.R. (H.C.)
.192, referred to 154
XlV LIST OF OASES CITED

PA(}Ec

Malkarjun Bin Shidramappa Pas~re v. Narhari Bin


3h\'va-ppa, 27 I.. A. 216, relied on 99
Manepalli Satyanarayanamurthi v. Thommandra
Erikalappa, A.I.R. (1926) Mad. 410, referred to 115
Manoo Ali v. Hawabi. A.I.R. (1936) Ran. 63,
referred to 261
Markanda v. V.K.R. Naidu~ 26 Pat. 717, referred to 93
Matrumall Satnarain and others v. Mt: Rami, A.I.R.
(32) (1945) Pat. 463, relied on ... 13
Maung Ba Tu v. Ma Thet Su, 5 Ran. 785, approved 7
- - - Chit Po and one v- The Union of Burma,
( 1948) B.L.R. 175. followed 160
- - Wait and seven others v. Maung Nyein, U.B.R.
(1897-1901} 146, distinguished 100
- - - Zaw v. Maung Hla Din, I.L.R., 12 Ran. 163,
referred to 261
Mohamed Golab v. Mohamed Sulliman, 21 Cal. 613,
referred to 93
- - - - Idris Haider v. Mohamed Hab1bur Rah-
man, A.I.R. (35) ( 1948) Pat. 97, referred to 255
Mohendro Narain Chaturaj v. Gopal Mondul, 17
CaL 7 69, referred to 93
Mote .Shah and Co. Karad v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Bombay South, Bombay, (1952) 22
I.T.R. 39, referred to 149
Muskett v. Hill and Tozer, 5 Bing. (N.C.) 694=Eng.
Reports 132 Common Pleas, 1267, referred to I 29
Mussammat Daropdi v. Mussammat Sada Kaur, 115
Punj. Record (1913) p. 436=22 I-C. 24:.:!,
approved 246
- - - - Durga Deyi v. Hans Raj and others
11 Lab . 402, referred to 19
N. A. Annamalai Chettyar v. Mohamed Yava and two
others, (1954) B.L.R. 86 (H.C.), referred tv ... 128
N . N. :Burjorjee v. Emperor, A.I.R. (1935) Ran. 453,
referred to 209
LIST OF CASES CITED XV

PAGE

Nancy de Silva v. Unfon of Bu,rma, Criminal Appeal
No. 99 of 1957 (H.C.), followed 183
Nandalal Mullick v. Panch.anan Mukerjee, 45 Cal.
60, referred to 167
Narain Das and others v. Chiranji Lal, I.L~R. 47 AIL
361, referred to 168
.
O'Meara !=o. v . National Park Bank of New York,
(1925) 239 N.Y. 3~6; 146 N.E. 636, referred
to 300
Ockenden v. Henly, 120 English Reports (Vol. CXX)
K.B. 590, referred to 113
P. Aodul Gaffor v. The Official Assignee, 3 Ran.
605, followed 27
Parker v. Winlo\v, 119 English Reports, K.B. 1497,
ref6'rred
,. ... 45
, Patel Bald.evdas Karsandas v. Mohanlal Bapalal
Bahia, I.L.R. (1948) Bom. 145, referred to ... 93
Pattan Ahmed Khan v. Pyda Venkatachelamayya and
another, A.I.R. (1942) Mad. 511, dissented from 168
Piari Lal and others v. Mina MaL Balkishan Das,
( 1928) I.L.R. 50 All. 82. referred to 114
Queen v. Okijoy Coomar Shaw, (1874) 13 B.L.R. 307
_ (l874), 21 Weekly Reporter, Cr. 59, referred
to 181
Rai Sahib Chranji Lal and Sons v. Commissioner of
Income~ Tax, Punjab, (1937) 5 I.T.R., 44, referred
to 148
Rajah of Bo~bili v. Marandana Venku Naidu, A.I.R.
{1948) Mad. 340, referred to 168
Ram Ra.tin Lal v. Bhuri Begam. 38 All. 7, referred to 93
__ Sewak Koeri Mosadi Koeri v. R!ai Bahadur
Harihar Prasad Singh and one, A.I.R. (1927)
Ran. 175=5 B.L.J. 242, referred to 306
Ramalinga Adaviar and others v. Meenak
Shisundaram Pillai and others, A.I.R . (1925)
Mad. 177. referred to 84
xvi LIST OF OASES CITED

PAGB
t Ramasami Reddi v. Thalawa~al Marudai Reddi,
, I~L.R. 47 Mad. 453, referred to .. . 133
Ramireddi v. Subbareddi, I.L.R. 12 Mad. 500.
referred to 234
Re Devabhai Jiwandas and others v. A.M.
Murugappa Chettiar, 13 Ran. 457, followed ... 27
Rhodesia Railways, Ltd. v. Income-tax Collector,
Bechuanaland Protectorate, (193:3) LT.~. 227
(P.C.), referred to ... 327

s. A. Nathan v. S. R. Samson, 9 Ran. 480, relied on 99


S.M. Ahmed and one v. Bakridi, (1951) B.L.R. 156
(H.C.), relied on 232
s. R. Raju v. The Assistant Controller of Rents,
Rangoon and two others. B.L.R. (1950) (S.C.)
10, referred to 354
' '
Sakhisona Dasi v. Gour Hari, A.I.R. (1952) Cal.
567, referred to 269
Satyabrata y . Mugreeram. A.I.R. (1954) (S. C.) 44,
referred to 269
Saw Tha Oo v. Ma Aye Thin. Criminal Revision
No. 112 (B) of 1957. fo1lowed ... 339
Shazadee Begam (a) Khin Khin Nyunt and one v. P. C.
Dutt, (1954) B.L.R. 34 (S.C.), referred to 235
Shepherd v . Robinson, L.R. (1919) 1 K.B.D. 474.
approved 256
Shyam Sundar Padhi and others v. Indramoni Das
and another. A.I.R. (1951) Orissa 46, reliedon 78 & 86
Sonaji v. Motiram, LL.R. (1949) Nag. 502. referred to 169
Soper v. Arnold. (1889) 14 A.C. 429. referred to ... 111
Sri P. Guruviah v. The Union of Burma. C.R.S. No.
163 of 1947, relied on 126
Subramanian Chettiar v. Sinnam3lal, 59 Mad. L.J.
634 at p. 640, approved 277

T. C. Leong and one v. U Po Thein. (1953) B.L.R. 1,


explained and distinguished 26,28
LIST OF .CASES CITED XVH

PAGE

T. C. Leong and one 11. U Po .Thein, (1953) B.L.R.


(H.C.) 1, referred to ... 154
T. H. Khan v. Dawood Y~soof Abowath and others,
(1947) R.L.R. 354, relied on 13
T. Muhammad Shamsuddin Ravuthan & Brothers
v. Messrs. Shaw Wallace & Company, I.L.R.
( 1939) Mad. 282, referred. to 46
Tarahai :JivanlJl Parek-h v. Lala Padamchand,
A.I.R. (1950) Bum 89, referred to 269
Tarini Charan Chowdhry v. Amulya Ratan Roy,
I L.R. 20 Cal. 867, referred to 240
Thakarsi v. King-Emperor. I.L.R. Nag. (1949) 620,
''referred to 210
Than Myint v. The Union of Burma, (1 953) B.L.R.
342, referred to
~
141
The Emptess v. Pitambur Singh, I.L.R. 5 Cal. 566 56
King v. David Allen and Sons. Billposting Ltd.,
L. R. ( 1916) A.C. Vol. 2, p. 54, distinguished 131
King v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs,
( 1917) K.B.D. 922. referred to 195
Vellore Taluk Board. By its President v.
popalasami Naidu, I.L.R. (1915) 3g Mad. 801.
referred to 114
Thomas v. Sorrel, Eng. Reports 124, Common Pleas,
1098= Vaughan (330), referred to 128
Thompson v. Park, (1944) K.B. 408. referred to ... 349
Traders and Miners Ltd. v. Dhiredra Nath Banerjee,
23 Pat. 115 94
'
U Ba. Pe v."MaSaw Yin,(1951) B.L.R.113. approved 4
_ Ohn Khin v. Daw Sein Yin, (1949) B.L.R. 201.
foflowed .. . 27
- San Wa and others v. U .Chit San and another,
9 .Ran. 354, referred to 18
- Sein Ban ,.._,_ The Union of Burma, Criminal
Appeal No. 107 of 1955 of the High Court.
Rangoon, referred to 61
XVlll LIST OF CASES CITED

PAGE

U Wa Gyi v. The Union of Bl!rma. (1gq8) B.L.R.


, 6!12, referred to 18 8
Union Bank of Canada v. Cole, (1877) 47 L.J.C.P.
100, referred to 297
____ of Burma v. Maung Maung and two, B.L.R.
(1949) (H.C.) p. 1 at 12, referred to 264-
Universal Steam Navigation Company J:-,td. v. James
Makelvie and Company, (1923) A.c: 492;
referred to 45

V.P.R.V. Chokalingam Chetty v. Seethai Acha and


others, I.L.R. 6 Ran. 29 (P.C.), distinguished 275
V. R. M. Ramaswamy Chettyar and another v.
C.T.M.N. Nachiappa Chettyar. R.L.R. (1939)
711. referred to 177
V. V. Reddy v. K. C. Reddy, (1941) R.L.R. 547~
referred to 186

Walton Harvey Limited v. Walker and Homfrays,


{1931) L.R. 1 Ch. Div. 274, distinguished 132
Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd. v. Millenium
Productions, (1946) 1 All E.R. at p. 685 ;
( 1948) A.C. at PP 189-91. referred to 349
Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 M & W. 838, referred to' .:. 348
Woomesh Chandra Datta Chowdhury v. Jabed Ali and
others, A.I.R. (1944) Cal. p. 42=211 I.C. 388.
~~~ w
Yusofalli Mulla Noorbhoy v. The King, 76 LA.
(1948-49) 158, followed 160
INDEX

PAGE
ACTS:

BUR~! A .EXCISE ~-\CT.

CHI~ HILLS REGULATIOXS, 1596.


CITY OF RA;)IGOON :\lt:;>;JC.:JPAL ACT.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.


COXTRACT ACT.
C~DflNAJ. PROCEDURE CODE.

E~L;L!S!i lNCO)JE-TAx A cT.


E x CISE AcT,
ExTRApiTION AcT.
FOREIG~ERS AcT.
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT.

hD!!GRATION (E)IERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT.


l xco~!E-TAX ACT (BfR)IA).

LnnTA'Cio::>~ AcT.
PENAL CoDE.

SALE OF GOOD~ AcT.


St:PPRESSi<>!i OF BR!DERY AND CoRRUPYI0::-1 ACT.
TRADE DISPJ)TES ACT ,
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ..\CT.
- - - - !M)IO\'EABLE PIWPERTY ( RESTRICTION) AcT.

()~ JON JuDICIARY ACT.


/URBAN RENT CONTHOL ACT.
"ACQUITTAL" FOr! DEFECTIVE S ANCTlOI'<-NO BAR TO FRESH Tr!!AL 157

ADmNISTR.nHiN ~urT-Order for payment ofmaitzfcnatlCC allowauce
fo!' t!te. Respo11dent a11d lzer four chrldrcn duriug tltc
j>ciUtell(;y of the administr<~ tion suit - Such order, w!rdhcr a
"Jud!!,mcut "withi11 tile metmi11g of s. 20 of tire Union Judiciary
Act or a11 appealable order tmder Otder 43, J?ulc 1 of tlte Chil
Pr ocedure Code? The R~spondcnt filecl an adtnini:>tration suit
against the appellant and o~ta ined an orcler for payment of
maintenance allowance . dunn g the pendency of the suit.
The appellant appealed agai nst this order. H <ld: The ~ppea l
is not maint~inable, bec::tuse the order is neither a judgment
within the nean i ll~ of s. 20 of the Union Jud iciary Act, nor an
appealable order Lmder Order 43, Rule 1, Civi l Procedure Code.
Mc..f!ll1tlal Pra"jivat~ ,lfcltta v. Mrs. Clramfal:tmvar Ratital
ltlcltftl a11d .otJ~ers, (1952) B.L.R. (H.C.) 192; DayaUttri
XX GENERAL INDEX

,, PAGE

Jiwqndfls 1111d others v. A.M.M. Mz<~uggapa Chettim, (19351 12


R.\n p. 457 ; T. C. Leong aud 011e v. U Po Thci11, (1953) B.L.R.
{H ,C.) p. 1, referred to.
DAW SAW MYINT !1. DAW MYA THil\ 152

APPEAL-CONTINUATJO:;" OF A SUIT 273


APPELLATE CoURT-POWERS CONFERRED TO IT IN APPEALS 273
APPEAl-S TO ASS!STANT CmB!ISSIONER OF 1:-ICOME-TAX AGAINST
ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT JlY INCOME-TAX 0FFlCER-Rc7eCt:on
of applicatiJu made during Pmaeucy of tire ai>Peals. for
:Permissiou for registtatiolz of the firm ~mder Rtzl~ Z{c) of the
Burma Income-Tax Rilles, I vide Notification No. 37 of tIre Office
of the Fiuarzcial Commissioner, dated the 21st APril 1939)-
Furtfler appeals to the Income-Tax Appellate Tribzmal n1zdcr
s. 33-A, Burma I11come-Tax Act, against the confinnati01z of tile
Jucome-Ta.~ Officer's assessmeuf a11d also against the reJection
of tire application for :Permission by the Assistant Commissio1zer,
dismissal of-Application to liiCoJIIe-Tax APPellate Tdbzmal
mrder s. 66 (1), Burma Iucome-Tn~: Act to slate a case to Hrgh
Court, refttsal tiJereof-.4/>PlicatioJz under sub-s. {2) of s. 66,
f!Jurma Iucome-Ta.t' Ad to the High C-;urt requiring t!Je lucome-
Tax AP Pella! e Trib1111al to state a case on questiotz Of Law.
Held: The rule that the assessee requiring the Income-T"lx
Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of Law to High C, urt
s hould formul~te tlie questions he wants to refer is a rule c,f
practice based on consideration of comenier.ce to prot(ct the
Court from unnecessary apl)!ication tlnder sub-s. (2) of s. 66 of
the Income-Tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal is not bound to
refer only the questions so formtJated. In cases where the
Appellate Tribunal refused to state the case un8er sub-s. (2) on
the ground that no point of law arises, the High Court, under
subs. (2) if not satisfied with. _the mrrectness of the Appellate
TribLinal's view, can require the Appellate Tribunal to state the
caGe, i.e. the case which the Appellate Tribunal ought to have
stated under sub-s. !2) and to refer the case to the High Court.
Howe,er, the actual framing of the questions rests wilh the
Ar~ellate Tribunal. Held also: An application under Rule (2}
(c) of the Income-Tax Rules is not by itself an application for
registration. All that the appellate Assistant Commissigner of
Income-Tax is in effect empowered to do under that Rde is
either to condone the delay, or to refuse to condone the delay in
preferring an application br registration of a firm under s, 26-A
of the Income-Tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commi~sioner
of Income-Tax has no authority under that Rule either to allow
or disallow registration. Heldfur!frer: A decision affecting the
very quantum of assessment according to whether a particular
assessee firm is registered or not registered, or whether
permission for registration should or shot 11 not be granted, or
whether there are sufficient materials to justify the rejection or
acceptance of such an application, even thotgh such a decision
can be said to have been left to the direction of the Income-Tax
authorities, yet !he question as to whet.her such d;scretion has been
exercised perversely, illegally or arbitrarily is a question of Law.
Rai Salzib Cftranji Lal and Som v. Commissiouer of Income-Tax,
Ptwiab. (1937) 5 I.T.R. 44; ltlote Shalz and Co. ,l(mad v.
Commissio11cr of Income-Tax, Bombay South, Bombay, (1952)
22 I.'.r.R. 39.
DAW HLA O:JN & Co. v. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL 143
GENERAL INDEX xxi
PAGE

A!'PI.ICATJO:;; TO SUE iu fo,cma pauper~s-Rcjcction mzdcr Order 33,


Rule 4 (4) Code of C-ivil Proccdttrc-Appcal ttuder Rule 7,"
Originnl Stde Rule.; (Civil) -S. 204 (I) City of Raugcon Muuicipal
Act. Held: I tlle Rangoon Corporation or its Office! s are sued
for ads done in their Oli1c:ial 'capacity it must be deemed thr,t they
were doing them in pursuance or execution or intended execution
under the provisions of the Rangoon Municip:-.1 Act. Ci vii First
Appeal No. 61 of 1955, referred to. Heldfurtlzer: T'.here is
nothing in Rule 4 or in any other rule in Order 33 which expressly
prohibits tile consideration and determination by the Court of
tho>e circumstan:es under cl~.uses (a) or (b, or (c) after i,suc of
notice ~nd he<.-ring of uw case under Order 33, Rule 4.
Dr. A. Karim and a11othcr v. Paudit Lui] Ran a1:d others,
(1939) R.L.R. p. 263, follo\\'ed. H. Pascal v. Tltc SecretarY of
State i11l11dia in Cozmcil, 12 Ran. p. 124, referred to.
U THA HLA V. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF RANGOON 224

APPLICATION UNDER S. 491 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR


DIRECTION IN '1'1-!E NATUWo OF habeas corpus-Foreiguers Act, s.
J(b) and 4 (2)-Burma E~tmdition Acts. 3 (2J-Preamble of a11
Act, w!te1l to be C011Stll/ed. The ;tpplicant was arrested unders. 3
(2) of the Burma Extr:tdition Act. HeJprliecl under s.,91 of the
Criminal P.-ocedure Code for a direction in the nature of htrbeas
cor{ms. and the High Court ordered his release. But a few days
before t~1e order of rele~1se was passed, he was served with :l n
order under s. 3 (b) of the Foreigners Act to remove him~df from
the Union of Hurma. The applicant then applied for a w rit of
hal:ea s corPus in the St:preme Court and wl1ile the application was
pending, the order was cancelled and his release was ordered by
the Supreme Conrt. Upon his release, a fresh urcer was issued by
the President of !he L~ion of Burma under s. 3 (b) of the Foreigners
Act in Foreign Office Memorandum No. 431 Nga Kba 55, dated
8th September 1956. Thereupon, the applicnnt filed an applica-
tion under s. 491 Criminnl PriJcedure Code. Held: Tllat the
fact that actio fl. had been taken against the applicant unsuccessfully
un.der the Burma Extradition Act cannot preclude an order be ing
plssed agltl!~st him under s. 3 (bJ of the Foreigners Act. Iia.m
Muller of Nurenburg v. Suteriutcndcut, Prcsidctrcyl ail, Calc11tfa
aud ct fr; rs, A.I.R. ( !952 ) (S.C.) p. 367, referred to. Held also':
S. 3 (b) of the Foreigners Act is couched in a language which is
not open to doubt and therefore the preamble ofthe Act need not
be consulted for the purposes of interpreting the Section. Max-
w ell on Interpretation of Statutes, NinU1 Edition pp, 46 and 48,
referred to. Held further: So long as the person concerned is
a foreigner it is not the Courts of law to qnestion the desirability
or otherwise of .his deportation under s. 3 (b) of the Foreigners Act.
This. matte'r is entirely within the province ol the e~ecutive
authorities. Kyi Chung York v. Tile Controller of Jmmigratio11,
Bt~1ma, (1951) B.L.r~. p . 197 (S.C.); T!Je King v. Secretary of
State for Home Affairs, (1917) !(.B.D. p. 9Z2, relied on.
4

S HARA::-.1 'II THE SUPERINTEl'<DENT, a,\NGOO:-J CENTRAL


JA.ILAND ANOTHER ... 190'
APPOINnlENT o~ RECEIVER, 0RDiR XL, RULE 1, CIVIL Pl\OCEDURE
CooE.:.._Order rckcti11g, whether appclaabfe-Ordcr XLII I, Rule 1,
Civil Pro ccd~,.c Code-S. 20, C1zion Judiciary Act, 19-!8. Held:
An Order made by a judge rn tlle Ori gina! Side of the High
Court coming under Order XLIII, Rule I, C1vil Procedure Code
is >Jppcalable. P. Abdul Gaffor v. The Official Assiguce, 3 Ran,
p . 605 ; U 0/uz !flzin v , Daw Seiu Yiu, (1949) B.L.R. p. 201 ; Re
:X XU GENERAL INDEX

PAG2

Dc-abllai Jiwaurlas aud others v. 4. M. Naru'i;aPPa Cltelliar, 13


J?;at. p. 457, followed ; T. C. Lcoug aud 011e v, U Po T/ieiu, ( 1953)
B.L.R. p. 1, er.plained and distinguished.
P. S. K. ASEEZAL BEE VI 'iJ, V, S. SYED .il.~!~lAL AND OTHERS 22

BANKERS DUTY IN RESPECT OF LETTERS OF CREDIT 238

BLOOD TEsT OF CHILD 1'0 ASCERTAIN PARENTAGE !}I }!A!NTENANCI':


PROCEEDIKGS-NO LA \V TO ALLOW THIS ... 155.

BUR~!ESE BUDDHIST LAw-Suit for parf~{iim-Mai;.tai1lability.


Held: A suit for partition and po~session among Buimese
Buddhist hdrs i~ not mai11Lainablc in Law. The on'y way in
which one htir can obtain his share of inheritance from lhe
other heirs is by an administration suit. Matlltf! Ba Ttt v. Ma
Thct Su, 5 Ran. p. i~5; Ma BwaS!tiu v. U Po Siu aud another,
A.I.R. (l937) Ran. 32~. approved .
DAW DAW SHI N AND TWO OTHERS v. U AUNG PE AND TWO
OTHERS 5
BURMESE BUDI)HIST LAW-Claim by cltildrcn of a Slef>falhcr by a
subsequent marriag. to the est ate of the deceased ;tep-cilild of a
former marriage--.Attclldaucc in illness a11d Performa11CC '' of
ftmcral obsequies-'' ht!ermeddling ., within t ile pur:icw of s. 2
tl 1) of tire Civil Procedr1rc CJde. Can the c hild ren of a step-father
by a ~ ub sequent m'trriage succeed to the estate of th! de~cas ed
step-child of a .former nnrringe 1 H c:d: A step-child of a
step-father's former marriage, once he seve; s his connection
with U1e step f'lther on the latte r's re-marriagf- is no more a
member ol the step-father's new family and as such he is a
stranger so far a s that new family is concerned in matters (,
succession and inheritance. Ma Gtm Bm v. Nazmg P) Kywc
nndan<Jtllcr, (1897-1901) U.B.R (Buddhist Law, Inheritance),
p, 66, distinguished. J,la Tltciu v, M a illy~ a11d 01r~, 7 Ran.
p. 193 at p. 199, referred to. Held fztrllicl: That .person~
naturally entitled to inherit can b~ e~ c l udcd from in!\'eritancc
b}' the person who supports the rlecea~ed and rerforms the
funeral ceremonies. .ill a lllya v. lllatmR K~wct, B.L. R. Aga beg,
Vol. II, 1905, p. 228; Daw Toke v. Ma Till Oh;t,12 Ran. p. 703,
U Gaun g's "A Digest of the Burmese Buddhist L1w" [Vol. I,
Inheritance, p. 388), s. 816 at p. 38/, Dhammathatkyaw
referred to. Held al.<o: That the very word "Intermeddling"
connotes interference by a person either acting bv himself or
through some one with the properties of a deceased person
which do not really concern him. To justifv acceptan;.e of a
person as legal rcpres ; ntative in tl1e sense of an interm:;!ddler
with reference to certain property, it m:1st clearly be shown th at
he Ins taken pos~ession of s:tch p:opcrty as an intenneddler ..
That unle;s one has in fact taken possession of the decea~~d
person's es tate, one Caflnot be held to be :tn intermeddler a nd be
accepted as his legal reprecentative within the purview of s. 2
(11) of the Civil Procedure Code; ilfussanrmat Daropdi v.
lJ!ussammal Sad a Kartr, 11 5 Punj. Record,(l9J3) p. 436-22
I. C. 242; Woo mesh Chall(/ra Dutta Cfrolcdlmry v. Jabcd Ali aud
otliers, A.LR. (1944) CaL 42 =211 I. C. 3SS, approved. "'

DAW HLA SHIN AND SEVE!< OTHEfi!S <'. DAw AYE KHIN 2H
BUYERS [~E~lEDY AGAINST SET.LER 289
GENERAL INDEX XXlll

PAGE
CHl:-1 HILLS REGULATIONS OF 1896-WHETI!ER STILL IN FORCE .134
CITY OF RANGOON iVIUNIC!P.~L Ac1~ s. 204 (1) .224
CIVIL P!WCEDC'RE CorE, ~. I 07, ORDER 43, RULE 1 fw) AND ORDER
47, RULE 7-A.PP /late Court, ~o!tc/ her Precluthd fr,mz quedioni11g
tl:e proPriety of a rci~w granted by tire Lowa Court 011 the
grouwl of i1zsufjicieucy of C'ilidCIICC-ftitaPrctatioll of the word
'' Strict troof" i11 Order 47, Rule 4. Held: Order 43, I~ule l
!'<v) must be read together ,with Orcer 47, Rule 7 :>f lhe Code of
Civil rrot!edure. 1he phra~.e '' Strid proof" in Order 47, Rule
4 refer$ to the fonnal correctne$s of the evidence offered and not
to its effect or res~tlt and so far as the sufficiencv of eYi(lence
is concerned it is purely a m1tter to betaken care of by the ori!(i-
naj court, and the appella~e Conrt is precl,tded from going into
the suffi::iency of Ihe quantull1 nf the evidence adduce:!. Ahid
Khoudkar v. Malicudra Lal De, I.L. R. 42 Cat. 830, arproved and
followed; Nandalal Mullick v Pa1zcltanan ~ftlkcrjec, 45 Cal. p.
60 ;Bai Nemalbu v. Ba i Nematullab11, 42 Dom. 195 ; Ali Akbar
and others v. [(/wrsl1ed Ali and attotller, I.L.R 27:All. p 695 ;
Ra}alt of Bobbiliv. Mara11da1;a V~nku Naidu, A.I.R (1948] Mad.
340; Naraiu D.rs and others '" Clliran;i Lal, I.L. R 47 AIL p.
361, referr<:d to; l'attau Afrmad Khatl v. Pyda Vertkatachel,r-
mayya a1td another, A.LR. (1942) Mad. 511, dissented from;
SvtwJi v. :tfotiram, I.L.R. (1949] Nag. p. 502, referred to.

Q. S. MARlANO 'IJ, C. J. GRANT 164


CIVIL PROCEDUHE CODE-Order 41. Rule 20 read with Rule 33, 01der
1, Rule 10 rtad witlz s. 107. .The firm of Chandmal Nathmal
claimed a sum of Rs 5,006-14-9 aucl not knowing exactly from
which of the four defendants, namely : -
(i) British India Ste:tm Navigation Company,
(ii) The Ar."lkan Carriers Syndicate,
(iii] The Port Otlic~r. Akvab and
(iv) Tll'e.Union of Burma:

filed a s~tit against all of them, leaving to the Court to deter.ninc


which defendant is liable. The trial Court decreed the suit
against the Ar tk.m C:trrie;s Syndicate alone, dismissing the st it
against the rest. The Arakan Carriers Syndi<:ate filed an appeal
;~gains! the finn alone, without impleading the co-defendants as
co-Responc!ents. The Firm also dicl not appeal against the
judgment and decree dismissing the suit against the other
co-defendants. Th~ High Court, on app<!al directed under Order
41, Rule 20 rrad with Rde 33, Civil Procedure Code to implead
the 3rd defen"dant, the P0rt Officer, Akyab, as a co-Respondent
in the appeal. It was ~:ontended that tile Port Officer should t: ot
be impleaded since no appeal was fi!ecl a~ainst him and that the
period or limitation had expired. Held : An appe;tl is but a
continuation of the suit nnd the powers of the appellate Court
cannot be limited by Order 41. R,:tle 20; th e appellate Court still
has t!le power to ad nncler Order 1, Rule 10 read with s. 107 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Iicld also : The powers
conferred upon !h~ appellate Court by Order 41, Rule 33, Cidl
Procedure Code are Yery wide and the question of limitdion
cannot be urg ed as a g!"ound <~i!ainst the exerci8e of tl1e Court's
cliscreJion under lhis I~ule, V.P.RY. Cltok,rlingam Cl.-efty v.
Seci!ICii Aclw aud olhus, I.L.R. 6 Ran . 29 (P.C.), distin-
guished. Girislt Cl:audcr La/liri v. Sasi S eklrareowar Rt>y, I.L R.
33 Cal. 329, referred to. Balttswami Aiyar ~-. Lahsltmana Aiyar

4
XXlV GENERAL INDEX

PAG$

d11d three others, I.L.R. 44 l\I:ad. 605 at 608, relied on.


Subrnwauin11 Cilettiar v. Simtammal, 59 Mac!. L.J. 634 at p. 640,
approved. ,
:MEssRS. ARAKA~ CARRIERS SYNDICATE V. CHASO~!AL BIRLA
AND TWO OTHERS 273
.CIVIL PROCEDURE CoDE:, SS. 2 (2), 47 16
- - - - - - - - - s . 107, 0 1, H, 10 273
-------s.114 259
------------------0. 21, R. 90 88
- - - - - - - - - - 0 . 23, R. 1 (2), 0. 41 1 R: 23 230
---0.33, R. 4 (4) 224
- - - - - - - - - 0 . 40, R.l, 0. 43, R. 1 22
- - - - - - - - 0 . 43, R. 1 164
- - - - 0 . 47, R. 1. 259
:c.J.~f.~l!SSfON-lSSUE OF-FOR EXAMINATION OF WITl\ESSES IN A
DISTANT COUNTRY ... 289
"CONFESSION "-IRREGULARITY IN RECORDING-HOW CURED,, 134
,CONTRACT AcT, ss. 230, 233 - Burmcse A gencies Ltd. is the Purcflasi1lg
Agent of the S.A.M.B, A special term of tlte co11tract
bctwcett them was tltal all Procuremeuts 11mst be Paid for by
tllC Agent out of !Jis own money at first aud subscqttc11tly
claim for reimbursement from tltc S.A .!Jl.Bi Burmese Agencies
contracted with the plaintiff for the purchase of rice in their
personal capacity, 110 mention whatsoev er being made that
they were buying or acting on behalf of the S.A.M.B. except at
the beginning 0f the contract form that they were the agents
of the S.t\. ~I. B. The Plaintiffs sued both the s.A.M.B. ;Jud
the Burmese Agencies for payment of rice, cont endi~:g th,lt both
the principal an d the agent are liable on the contracts. The 5.A.
'M.B. replied that the Burmese Agencies were primarily liabie
to the p laintiff and they i.e. the Burmese Agencies are liable to be
reimbursed by them subsequently for such payment. The
Burmese Agencies contended that they were clearly acting as
Agents and that the plaintiff should look [or payment to the
S.A. i\LB. the principal. The question is which of the two
defendants are liable? Held: The Burmese Agencies by
executing the5e contracts in their own name made themsehes
li:lble and the S.A.llf.B. being the principals cnUtled to the'
benefit of the contracts are also liable. Tire India I) Company
Act, (l882) 18 Cal. p. 31 ; Firm of K!Jusfli Ram Bcltari Lal'
v. Matlrra Dasa11d a nother, A.I.R. (l91i)Lah. p. 404; llambro
v . Bumand a11d othc1s, (1904) K.B.D. p. 10; Higgir:s and,
others v. John S(}:7iOI", 58 Revised Reports (1841-43) p. 884 ;
Parker v. Winlow, 119 English Heport, ILI:l. 1497; Universal
Steam Navigation Company Z:.td. v. James Makclvic and
Company, {1923) A. C. p. 492; A1iadue Steams/tip Co., Ltd. v.
James Mckelvie & Co., (1922} K.B.D. p. 518; J. Muhammad
Sfwmsrtddirl /(evutTzan & Bros. mtd otlurs v. J.fessrs. Shaw
Wallace aud ComPanY. I .L.H. (19391 l\Iad. 282; Babulal ,..
Japat Naraw, A.I.R 11952) Vindhya Pradesh 51, referred t?,
RAXCI!HODPAS }ETHABHAI & COMPANY ~ THE STATE
A GRicvLTUHAL MARKETING BoARD AND ANOTHER 30
GENERAL INDEX XXV

";AGE
CONTRACT AcT, s. 24 172
-----s.56 122
- - - - - - s. 56 266
- - - - - - - s s . 57, 58 172
-----~s. 73 106
s. 74 74
Co~TRA~T OF SALE-Time tile essence of Collllact--E.wcttliOiz of
Compromise dccr1:e-S. 7-1-, Contract Act, aPPlication ojequitnble
prmc'iplcs-Issue depcndinf! 011 credibility of wrltJesscs-An
APPellate Court nnd tire jiudi11gs of fact by tire trial Cottrt-
Stipulatiou trmt if Seller could not give Possession to the
buyer 011 or before a sPecified date, tire Purchase price <i!ould
be reduced from K 34,000 to K 20,000 whet Iter a Penalty. The
Appellant sued the Responcl~ut for specific performance of
contract of sale and the suit was compromised on the !allowing
amongst other terrr:s : -
{i) That the plaintiff 1Vould purchase the suit property for a
snm of K 34,000 if the defendant was in a position to ghe
vapmt possession on or before the 11th March 1952.
,. (ii) That if the defendant was unable to give vacant
possession of the pr(Jperty on or before the 11th March 1952
the price payable by the plaintiff to the defendant should be
K 20,000.
On defendant's failure to give possession on lHh March 1952
the appellant applifd {or the execution of the compromise
decree. The tri~l Court hclcl-
(1) That time was of the essence of the contract.
{2) That default was due to a third party and not to any act
of negligence or lack of g ood faith on !hi! part of the
Respondcn t,
(3)~That the judgment-debtor \vas entitled to indulgence
and equitable principles laid clowr: in s. 74, Contrac t
Act and therefore the appellant would be entitlec:, to
:1 convepnce upon p;1yment of K 34,000 in terms of
the first clause of the consent Decree, relying on A udlt
Eelzari Lal a1zd otl:ers v. Faquir Rni and mrot/ler,
!\.I.R. ( 1951) All. 236 ; S!ryam Smzdar Pad!ti a11dotlrcrs
v. lndramo11i Das a11d anotlzcr, ;\.I.R. {1951) Orissa
46.
On appeal by the appellant. Held, where there is a conflict
Of oral evidence, and the issue in the case depend s upon
the cl"edibility oi the witnesses a Court of appeal ought to
bear in mind that it does not see or rehear the witnesses
and should not interfere with a decision arrived at by
th~ trial Judg e unless it comes to the conclt~sion that the
trial Court was plainly wrong. Clzirl11ayaev. U lOra, 14 Ran. 11
appro\ed. Held also : Under the circumstances of the case,
time was of the ess ence ol contract, though in contracts for the
sale of land Equity looks r.ot at the letter but at the substance
of the agreement in order to ascertain whether lhe parties,
notwith stitndirrg that they named a specific time within which
completion was to take place, really intended no more than that
it should take place within a reasonable time. Jamshcd
K!zod.!lam lrmzi v. Bttl}OI'jl D/tzmjiblrai, 40 Born. 289 (P.C.)
approved. Held also: In the circumstances of the case, the
s tipulafio,l that if vacant possession could not be given on or
XXVI GENERAL INDEX .

PAGE-

before 11th March 1952, the price should be reduced from


K 34,C'OO to K 20,000 w:::s a stipulation in the nature of penalty.
Ramaliuga Ada:iar l!lzd ethers v. lolcet~ali S!zi.<zmdartrm Pillai
aud otllcrs, A,I.R. (1-925) i\lad. 177; Hiralal liariram Bltalad
v. Mt. Darga Bai Murlidlzar Naruadi, A.l.R. (193i} Nag. 413,
referred to. field furiltC1': A compromise decree merely
embodies the agreement arrhed at between the parties and is
therefore no more than any other contract between them.
Shyam Stmdar Padltiand others v. lndramoni Pas and a11of her,
A.I.R. (1951) Orissa 46, referred to. Ordered a redl!.~tion Cl
K 5,000 from the stipulated price of K 34,000.
U HTAN H1IAT t'. DAW GoN
COUNSEL'S AUTHORITY To COMPROMISE SUlTS ON BEH.~LF OF HIS
CLIEJ'T-Lawyer's Power of atloruey. Held: Counsel has no
power to compromise a suit on behalf of his client, without the
knowledge, consent or instructi on of his client. Though his
lawyer's power of attorney empowered him to do so, he should
not exercise that power without first obtaining the ccnsent of his
client and without his knowledge to a settlement. Mohamed
Idris Haider v. Molramcd Hal;ibur Ralrmau, A.I.R. (35) (19-18)
Pat. 97, referred to. Shepherd v. Robinson, L.R. {1919!,
I.K.B.D. 474, approved. Dawsons Bank, Ltd. v. C. Eiu Sharmr,
(1951), B.L.R. 308 at 311, distinguished.
MA THAN SEIN AND THREE v. DAW )."J 251
CRl!>llNAL BREACH OF TRUST BY PARTNEH ... 336.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, s. 145-Proceediugs Calt.rot be l'Ctlewed
after terminafio1~-A 11ew proceeding should be opc11ed, if there
is afresh disPute- S. 556, Crimitzal Proccdme Code applicaUeio
s.145, Criminal Procedure Code. Held: A settlement between
the parties in a proceeding 1mdcr s. 145 Criminal Procedure Code
puts an end to the prccecdint_S. It cannot be r enewed. If
there is a fresh dispute likely to cause a breach of the peiotc~ .a
new proceeding under s. 145 Criminal Procedure Code must be
opeJi.:d. Tari:li Clraran Clwwdllry v. Amttlya Rafa1~ Roy, I .L. R.
20 Cal. 867; Gfmlam !tlaltammad aud otliCI'S v. Tlze Crown,
through llfusalluua/ Allalt Wasai, (1933} I.C. 512, referred to.
Held further. : The principle underlying s. 5So Criminal
Procedure Code is applicable to a proceeding under s . 145
Criminal Procedure Code.
U ZA TILA v. UN!O~ OF JlUR~!A 237
CRllJI~AL PROCEDURE CODE, SS. 263, 264 (1) ns
s. 403 (1} 157
---------------------- 5.491 190
DECI510N OF TWO BENCHES OF EQUAL STA!'DING-D UTY OF Lo',\'JW
CounT ... 259
DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATIO~ IN CO~Tfi ACT 122
DOCU)!ENTARY LETTERS Ol' CRE~rT-CONSTRt'CTION OF 288

EARNEST MONEY DEPOSITED FOR CONTRACT OF SALE-BUYEJ<


BREACHES CONTHACT -DEPOSI T WH I::THER RECOVhRABLE BY
HDI 106
GENERAL INDEX XXVll

PAGE
"Eju~dcm Geucris"
ENGLISH I~cmrE TAX AcT, 1918'...

''ENTRCSDIE~T" lJNDEII S. 4 (1) (d) OF THE SUP PREs S!ON OF


CORRUPTIO~ AcT-.\IEA:o;I~G OF 196
EXCISE ACT, S. 18 122

EXECUTION OF DCRE-0rdcr staying or rcfusiug to stay C.\ewt io11


of a dtcrce, whet !lcr aPfealab/e-S. 2 (2) and s. 47, Civil
Pro~cdure Code. Held : No hard and fast rule can be !:lid
clown as to when an onler shl\ ing an execution will be appealable
as a oecree tmder s. 2 I~) read with s. 47 of the Civil Procedure
Code. Each case must be decided on the facts and circLmstances
arising therein. U Sau IVa aud others v. U Chit Sa11 and otltcrs,
9 Ran. p. 354; Kyauksema v. AParua Clrarau, 10 L.B.R. p. 326 ;
Jauardcw Trimnbak Gadre v. Martaud Triumbak Cadre, 45 Born.
p. 2-H; Hmai11 Bltai ami mzoi!Jer v. BcUieS/1ah Gila11i, 46 All.
p. 733; ;\Jussammat Dmga DC'IIi v. Ratts RaJ and others, 11 La h.
p. 402; Audit Be!wri Sinf{lt v. Sailendra Nath Bhattacheriec,
' A.I. R (195~) Cal. p. 339, referred to.

MAUNG THA SA!NG v. 2-lA AIN THA 16


E:r-parf.c DECREE-Setli1rg aside-S. 18, Articles 164, 166 aud
181:._Limi'alion Aci-AuctH'11 Sale by Court, setting aside 011
ground of fraud-Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code and
Article 1{>6 aud s. It, Limitation Act- Actual Positive fraud
must be Prorcd-Cutificate of Sale, mcessity of Proaj. Held :
Unless a person aggrie\ed by an , ,v- parte decre e arply within
the time presented either under Article 164 or s. 18 of the
Limit ation Act toosd it aside he is botmd by it. Markauda v .
V.K.R. Naidu, 26 Pat. p. 717 ; Fatal Baldc'l!das Karsaudas
v.Molla11lal B,rpalal Baflia, I.L.R. 119-lSJ Born. p.I45, referred to.
Held also: UniO;ES ;1 person file an application to set aside the
sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Cidl Procedure Code;: within the time
.prescribedby .<\rticle 166 and s. 18 Of the Limitation Act, the sale
is binctin.g upon him. If fraud is alleged, it must be actual
positive fraud, a meditated, and intentional contrivance to keep
the parties and the Court in ignorance of the real facts of the ca:\'e.
la11ki Kua1 v. Laclmzi Narain, 37 All. p. 535; Ram Rat in Lal v.
Blruri Begam, 38 AlL p, 7 ; Kunia Befrari Cltakralmti v.
Krishna [)/~an Majrtndan, (1940) Cal. p. 477 ; Mohamed Galab v.
MoltamedSttllim<w, 21 Cal. p. 613 ; Mol:eud1o Nmai11 C!tatmaj v.
Gopal ltloudrtl, 17 Cal. p. 769, reierred to. Held further: A
certific:lte of sale is not con<:! us he as to the property which had
been purchased at the sale as the prop~rty offered for sale and
bid fOr w'as in fact the property ordered to be solei and proclaimed
for safe. Balvaut Babaji Dlto11dge v. Hiraclzand Gulacltand
cuiar, 27 Born. p. 334, referred to. Held also : Mere production
of the sale certificate alone would not entitle the plaintiff to
de~ ;ee . It is the duty o the plaintiff to p~o,e !1) the existence
of a suit, (2) the existence of a mortgage l!ecree and (3) the sale
of the mortgaged properties in pursuant thereto. A sale
certificate, if p7operl y proved to be ~enuine, is a document of
title and is the best el'idence to prove what was actually sold.
Traders a{~d Miners Ltd. v. Dllircdra Nath Banerjee, 23 Pat.
p. 115.
U KY\\'E (alias) U AUXG i\IYJNT V. DAW MYA l\IYA AND ONE 88
XXVlll GENERAL INDEX

PAGE

"FOREIGNER "-\VHETHEI~ HE CAN SUE ON PERSON.~L CoVENANT


TO PAY WHEN l\10RTGAGE Ol' IMMOVEABLE PROPEl.TY TO HD! IS
. ILLEG,AL, 172
FoHEIGNERs' AcT, s. 3 (b), 4 (2) 190
FRUSTRATION--Tlte doctrine of-S. 56, Contract 24ct-S. 4 and s. lOS,
clause (e) Tramfer of ProPerly Act-Applicability of doctrine
to leases. Held: The doctrine of frustration comes into play
when a contract becomes impcssible of performance a{ler it is
made, on account of circumstances beyond the control of the
parties. "\Vhen such an event or change of circumstances occnrs
which is so fundamental as to be regarded as striking at the root
of the contract as a whole, a Caurt shou)d pronom~cc the
contract to be frustrated and at an end. The doctrine of
frustration applies to leases under special circumstances.
Cricklewood Property aud Investment Trust v. Leighton's
lrrvcslmeut Tmst, (1945) A.C. 221; Sakhiso11a Dasi v.
Gozw Hari, A.l.R (1952) Cal. 567: Tarahai Jivaulal Parekh
v. Lala Padamclmrrd, A.I.R. (19501 Born. 89; lndcr Persllad
Singh ,-, CamPbell, 7 Cal. 474 referred to. K. M. Modi v.
Molramed Siddiquc, (1 947 ), RL.R. 423, follo\ved. Appeal
dismissed,
MAUNG KYAW NYEI N AND TWO OTHEFS V. MAUNG K YAW
KYAW AND ONE 266.
GE:>:ERAL CLAUSES AcT, S. 26 157

Habeas corpus-APPLICATION TO HIGH COURT 190

IMMtGRATION (EMERGENCY PROVJSIO~s) AcT, s . 13 (7) (b)-Act No. 26


of 1G56, 110 rettospective cffcct-Ss. 2o3 and 26f (1) Code of
Crimirral Procedure. Held: Burma Act No. 26 of 1956. The
Burma Imm igration Emergency Provisions (Amendment) Act,
1956 has no retrospective eHect. Held further: Under s. 264
(L) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is imperative on the
Magistrate trying such a case summarily to record a judgtnent
embodying the substance of th e e viden ce and also the particu~.l'l'S
mentiqnecl in s. 263.
ABDUL HAI v. THE UNION OF BURMA 118
lNcOMETAx AcT, s . 66 (1)-Rcfcreocc to Iliglt C~urt-Thc Cnmpa11y
dislmrs.-d [, 38,258 to its emPloyees iu compliauce with the award
of tlze Cor&rt of Iudusltial A r/;itration in 1952-Whether such
disbterscmeut permissible e:rpe11d1l11rt 1111der s. 10 (2) (ix) of tlle
Burma Iucome Ta.v Act, or allowable commercial loss a11d is
tlrereforc dedttclible from tIre tcz..mble profits for tlte assessment
year 1953-54- Distinclion between" E:cpe11diture'' mzd "Less
in~idc11t al to the b~tsilless "-E11glisll l11comc-1'a.v Act, 1918-
Vital cousidcraiion for fleciding ~olretlrcr a certai 11 item is
deductible or ttot-S. 20 (11 Trade Disputes Act-Paymmt wlretlrcr
correlated to tlze accotmnng year or Mty year prior to tltat.
Held : That for purposes of deductions of certain items as loss or
expenditure, the vital ccnsiclcration th-.t should te gi\en is ,
whether sm:h less or expenditure is laid out, expended or
inctured wholly and exclusively for p urposes of the said business,
or one connected witb or arising out of the trade or profC"3sion,
or one which it is necessary to incur for the purpose o f carrying
on the assessee's trade, profession or business. Alleu v .
Fatqultarsoll Bros. & Co., (1 932\, 17 Tax Cas . 59 at 64, referred
GENERAL INDEX XXIX

PAOI!
to. In TJzc Commissioner of l11come-Ta~. B11Jma \-. Ha)ce A!rdul
Gamz:, Ayoob, (1941) l~.L.H. 529; <:;.ommissio11er of l11con:c Ta.,-,
Cent,al Provi11ccs aud Berm v. Sir S. Cllifnatis, 59 I.A.
290, appro\ed. He'd fur/Iter: That the payment can only be
correlated to the accountil'g year in which the liability to pay
was incurred by the company, that is, the year 1952. In rc
Clzoutlzmal Golapclzaml, (1 938) I.T.R. (VI) 733 {1939) A.l.R. Cal.
559, referred to. C.I.R. \', Fa/kirk Iron Co., 17, T.C. 625,
apprO\ed. Rhodesia Railways Ltd. v. I ncome Ta.t Collector,
Btclmcwalaud Protec/OI'a/c , (1933) I.T.R 227 (P.C.). referred to.
THE Co~DIISSI ONEI' OF INCOME TAx, BURMA t. THE BURMA
Ort., Co~tPAI\Y (ll u>lMA Col\cESSioNs) LTD.
.~
316
I NCO~!E TAX AcT, 5.10(2) (ix) 316
- - - - - A C T , SS. 26-A, 33-A, 66 (1) AND (2) 143
RULES 2 (c) 143
INGREDIENT OF OFFENCE UNDER S. 4 (1) (c) SUPPRESSION OF CORRU P
'l'ION -J\CT 213

INLAND \VATER TRANSPORT STAn-WHETHE:R PUBLIC SERVANT 49


INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES-PREAMBLE-WHEN TO BE CONSULTED 190

" l NTERMEDDLq<G" ;.;:.;o "INTERMEDDLER " -M EANING OF 243

LANDLORD AND TENANT-Suit f or cjcctmet~t-Nolice 111/dtl' s.ll (a)


Urba1; R ent Co11trol !let a11d s. 106 Trausjer of P1operty
Act-lizterpretaliou of ambiguous 11olice. Notice, dated the
lOth 0-:lober, 1952 set out iul <'r alia as follows : -
"This notice is I~ereby given to you to pay the said arrears
of K 133 to my client Zarnami Ranj:m Chowdhury or to leave
the premises within 21 days from the receipt of this notice
failing which legal action will be t:>.ken in Court for recover y or
the ar.real s and for ejectment from the premises".
The notice \~:tr. received on the 11th October, 1952. Conten-
ded by the Appellants that-
(1) 21 days after the receipt of notice falls on the 1st of
?\o\'ember 1952, and hence ;t fresh period has
begun from the Jst No\ember, and
(2) Therefore, a (resh notice to appellants gi,ing fifteen
days ending with !hat month \vould be required
relying on MatrmuatSal11araina11d others v. zllt.
Rami, .<\.I.R. (32} 19H, 1-'at. 463. was relied on.
(3) In a suit for ejectment, the provision of both s. 106,
'l'ransfer of Property and the Urban Rent Control
Act must be complied with relying on T. H. J(/um \',
Dawood Yusoof Abowath aud otlters, {1947) R.L.R.
p.354.
Held : The wordings in the notice are a mbiguetiS as to whether
the appellants are to stay on till the lsi of No,ember or quit by
the end oi October. In interpreti11g ambiguous words in notices,
the test is to ~ee what the words would mean to tenants well
cotwers:mt \\'ilh all the {acls and circumstances of the tenancy.
Dr. U Chit aud"o~tc v . Daw 0/m Yilz , ( 1952) B.L.R. p. 176,
followed. Held further : The 21 days' time ghen in the notice is
only f? r the p\lrpose of paying up the arrears of rent and si t~ce
XXX GENERAL INDEX

more than 15 days endin~ with the m,nth of Odobe1 has


been given to quit, it m' st mean that they ar~ to quit by the ctid
of .October.
KAMIN! KUMAn i\fALlCK AND ONE V. ZER~IAINI RANJAN
CHO\\'DHURY 10
LAWYERS POWER OF ATTORNEY 251
LEASES-DOCTRINE OF FRUSTilATJON APPLIES IN CERTAm CASES 266
LETTERS oF CREDlT-hrcvvcable letters of credit or "documcnlary
or conditional /ctlci'S of credit ''-Basis of Plaintiff's clai1z ou
confirmed il-rciJocable Idlers of credit alchze-Ball/!cr's duty 'iu
,cspect of ldtcrs of credit-Construct ion' of" docmneutary letters
of i1edit "-Exallliualion of wit11esses on commission. 'The
appellant purchased from the A$ialic General Trading Company
of Hong Kong Cigarettes an:l Toilet requisites and opened two
irrevocable lellers of c.-edit with the R~;-pondent in favour of the
Hong: Kong Firm, who however sh;pped useless odds and ends.
The Respondent Bank claimed n:imb:Jrsen.,ent {r'lm the appelbnt
who re-sisted the claim all ging negligence on the part of the
Respondent in not as-:ertaining whether the rackages contained
genuine goods in conformity with the Bills of lading, invoices,
etc. Held: That as between the buyer and the banl;er, it is
only on the bank's departure from the exact terms of le tters of
credit can the bank be held responsible and the buyer ca.1not
resist any claim for reimbursemed by the bank, on the str~ngth
of the letter of credit opened at h is (buyer's) in~tance. Brmiliarr
a11d Portugese Bauk v. Brit ish and American Bnnkillf! Corpora-
tion, (1868) IS L.T. 823 ; U11iou Bank of Canada v. Cole, (1877}
47 L.J.C.P. 100; D onald H. Scott & Co. Lfd. v. Bmclays Bauk,
Ltd. (1923\, 2 K.B.l; Bortflwlck v. Bau"._. of Ne w Zealand,
(1900) 6 Com Cas. 1, Hart's Law of B tnking (4th Edition, Vol.
lll , pp. 650, 651, 632 and 654, refer red to. Held further: If
the terms o f the Letter of credit are fully comphcd, any payment
mad e or bills negotiated by the Bade in accordance therewith
cannot g ive rise to a complaint either by the Seiler or the buyer.
That the relationship between the Banker and the buye:r ;'lt whos.:
instance a letter of credit is opened, is determined by \he precise
,+erms l)f lhe letter of credit The Banktr mt:st rigidiy comply
with the>ete rms. In such a d eal. the Banker only makes the credit
amilable for ti1e benefit of his client. T he banker is neither an
agent of the buyer, nor of lhe seller, and in the words of
Professor Davis" on the credit being isst:ed, the trans;:ction is
purely a trust between tlle seller and the buyer". The banker's
duty is to pay against documents and not ;~gains! gnods. allCI tlBt
if the documents are in order, it is notopeu to tlu: banker, or ha s
he any right to enq uire into the q.1estion of quality or quantity.
The deal being based upon documents, the question of'' actual
conformity of the goods to the description on the clocmnents w2s
immaterial". Frey v . Sftcrbunze Mid t ftc Nafio11al City Bau!: of
New York, (1920} 193 App. Div. 849 : 184 N.Y. Supp. r>6l ;
0' Mema Co. v Natifmal Park B,wkof Ne1u Yo;k, (192 ~) 239 N.Y.
386; 146 N.E. 636; Coutinctzfal Nat ioual Ba11k v. Nnfioual City
Bank of New York, 11934), 69 F. (2cl] 312. "The L aw rd:ning to
Commercial Idlers of Credit" by P.-o:essor A. G. Davis, referred
to. Held further : In the matter of issue of commis~ion to
examine certain witncs~es in a d istant conntry, espGcially where
his examination would carse delay, the Court must be fully
convinced that the evidence of such a witness is reallv rel<:\ant
and necessary for the proper decision of the case. Ram Sew:~ k
GENERAL INDEX xxxi
PAGE
Kocri Mosn. ii Kocri v. Roi Ba.ltadur ll<Zrihar Prrr.<ad Si"gft a11d
oui-, A.I.R { 1927) ,;Ran. 175 ~ 5 H L.J. 24 2 ; M. Palar~iapfa
Clzclliar v. Nara:yauau Chctf';JifV, 216 l.C. 111 =A.!. H. (1')-!6)
Mad. 331, referred to. Held, Per U SAN MAUNG, J.-That a
buyer's remedy when goods of tl1e right quality and quantity had
not been shipped is as aga;nst the seller for damages.
IIIE~SRs. TJJE ASIATIC CORPORATION v. :\IESSRS. :\lERCA!\Tl LE
BANK OF INDIA LIMITED 288
LJCEXCE IN' EXC!~E-I!\TE~RCPTJON BY 1!\St:RRECT!n)('-CO~IPLETED
~ONTIIACT in pcrsoJtam-NO QUESTION OF FIWSTHATION .. 122
--- ~\'ITH A. CONTRA'C~,l-AL HIGHT-lNTEHVE:-iTJON BY EQUITY 341
LIMITATION AcT, S.18, ART, 164, 166 AND 18!... 88
LDl!TATlO!\ ACT, ARTICLE 1~9-Tra1Zsftr of lmmovca: le Pmfel'l y
(Rest 1ici ion~ !Amcudn:eut) A~t. 1916. Article 149 Limit~ !ion
Act has no app!ic.1tion to Sidts brought by assignees and oth~r
persons deriving or claiming throngh or under Government.
,I .L.R., (194~) ~a g. 246, rdtrred to. In enacting the Transfer of
Immoveable Property (I{estriction) Amendment) Ad, the legi I.t-
ture co~J!d not ha1e intended to deprive fordgners of immO\e-
able property which h1d been ac ~uired other than by transfer.
l.J SAW AND O~E v. LOKE MA:\1 (alia s) Lo :'IIA~I 221
.,
MAI!>:TE:->A!'\CE ORnER PASSE'l !N AD}JIN!STRATION SUIT-WliETHER
"JUD Gl\1 Dl'f" WlTH!N THl' ~!EAi'IJNG OF S 20, U~ION } l'Dil'IARY
:\cT-OR APPEALABLE ORDER t; NDER ORDER 43, R. 1 CIVIL
PROCEDURE COllE 152
MARRIAGE--sTRicT PR,;JOF REQUIRED WHERE n 1s r:>G:JEDIENT IN
cRmiNAL CASES 55
Mc11s rea-WHETHER NECESSARY !l\GREDIENT IN OFFENCE t.:NDEH
St PPRESSION OF CoRRUPTioN AcT 5~

MOitAmlEDf-~, ~,\RR!AGEs-REQU!S!TES OF 1

NAGA HIU.S-.~PPLICABILITY OF CRDUN.\L PROCEDURE CODE, ~.5.


25(', 342 TO 134
KoTlCE-INTERPRETATION WHEN AMBIGUOUS 10

PARTITION-SUIT FOR-A~IONG BUI<MESE llUDDlllST HEIRS l\OT MAIN


TAlNAlLE 5
P.~RTNERS-l~fSPONSIB!LITY OF-IN CRO!lNAL BREACH OF TROST ... li9
PENAL Coo~, S, 302 Ia) (b) AND 404, 2\Jl (2) AND 404--Ss. 256 a11d 3-{2
''Crimiual Frcccdrti'C Codt rrs ammdcd by Burma Act 13 of 1945,
apflicability to Nag a Hills Did,-ict -The Chi11 Hills Rcgulalio11s
of 1896- Code of Cn"mi11al Proccd,,le, 1882-Burma A ct 33 of
1947-Prewedit at h1-!J regularity in 1"Ccordi11g C01!fessiJ1l,
/to:u cure.i. Held: The Chin Hi !Is r~egulation s of 1896 areS!i!l in
force within the Na~a Hills !Jist ric' ,as ex isting Law. Held also:
In the case of Chins residing in the Naga Hills District,
amendmcn.l.jl toss 256 and 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1898 bv Burma Act of 1945 cannot arply unltss Burma Act 13
or 1945 is exte nded to the Ch ins in the Naga Hills District under
~- 3 of the Chin Hills Regulation of 1896. Hcldfurllrer: ~either
XXXll GENERAL INDEX

PAGii

of the amended ss. 256 and 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
apply to the non-Chins in the N~ga Hills Dii'Jrict without
amendment of s. 9 f2) of the Chin Hills' Regulations, 1896. The
proct.dlire to be foll owed in the tdal must be accorcling to the
procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882
for the trial of warrant cases by Magistmtes. field also: To
constitute a premeditated killing it is necessary that the accused
should have had time to reflect, with a view to determine
whether, he would kill or not, and that he should ha\e
determined to kill a<; a result of th,\t reflection. Tlzcw lllyint Y.
The F11iou of Bun11a, (1953) B.L.R. 342, referred to. Held also;
Where there is any irrc~u l ari!y in the recording of a confession
by a Magistrate empowered to record such ..:::onfc~sions the
Magistrate himself can be called and exaroined as a' witness
;vith a \'iew to consider whether the confession should or should
not be admitted in sr.ite of the irregularity.
AI HTWE AND TWO OTHERS 'II. THE UNION OF BURMA 134
PENAL CoDE, s. 497-Marri.,ge i11gredieul r'lz the offe11ce-Necessity of
s fl'ict proof. Held: In criminal cases where marriage is an
ingredient in the offence, the fact of the marriage must be strictly
proved in the regular way, i.e. as an event whkh took place and
not merely as a stnte in which tl.e parties were living. A ::iz
Khan v. El:ram Fbtssaiu, 38 C.L.J. 213, referred to. The parties
might have lived ns husband and wife but their conduct alone is
not sufficient to prove marriage under s . 50 of the Evidence''
Act. Bllal!,u Dllcmdi v. E111peror, 16 C.L.J, (1915) p. 2!3 ;
Tlze Empress v. Pitambur Siugh, I.L.R. 5 Cal. 566; Gof>al v.
Ki11J!,-E111peror, (1925) A. I.R. Ran. 328.
S. SHAll 'II. 'l'HE UNION OF BUimA 55
PENAL CODE, ss. 21, 120 49
- - - ss. <105, 406 179-
...:.-----s. 405 196
- - - - s.406 .~ ~~ ... ''336
PREMEOIT~TI0:-1-INGREDlENTS OF 134
"PRE~IISES " - DEFl!\lTION 01' -IN URBAN RENT CONTROL ACT 63

PUBLIC SERVANT-ELECTRICITY SCPPLY BOARD STAFF-WHE:rHER


PUBLIC SERVANT UNDI!.R S. 21, PENAL CODE 67
- - -- - - - - - ,STAFF OF STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
BOARD-UNDER S. 21 PENAL CODE 102

QUASHING OF CRI!IIl:-IAL PROCEEDINGs-$. 406, Pe11al Code-Prtdsc


crimmal res Ponsibility of a Partner in relation to Parf1lcrship
fwoperty-W/Jether a partner could le f>1osecuted for Crimiual
breaclt of tmst rluriag tile exist wee of tile pmtucrs/lip. Held: '
If it could be establichecl that a partner having been
entrusted with partnership assets or with dcminion over it
converts to his own use in breach of '!;pe:ific terms of t; us t
imposed upon him or d>c:; anything with the properties or assets
of the partnership, there can be no doubt that he can~ under
certain circun:st;~nces be pr osecuted for crnniual breach or trust
as laid down in s. <105 of the Penal Code. In the absence of
such special agreement, a partner cannot be said to ha\c received
GENERAL INDEX XXXlll

PAGE

the propert~- in a fiduciary capacity, and be prosecuted for


criminnl breach of bust. <;..partner cannot be lial:le for criminal
breach of trust in r('spect of the partndrship properly re.:ehed or
held by him on behalf Of the partnership in the ordinary course
of partnership. Bhubau llfo!Jan Ra11a \', Surc11dra Moflau Das,
(1952) l.L.R. Cal. Series, Yo]. (11) p. 23; Na11cy de Siba v.
U11ion of Burma, fol!O\\ed; Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1957;
Quec11 v, Okhoy Coomar Shaw, ( 18741 13 B.L.R. 307-(1874), 21
Weekly Reporter. Cr. 59; V. V. Reddy v. L. C. Reddy, {1941)
R.L.l{. p. 5~7, referred to. Held jurtl!er: That in order to
constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust the el~me1t of
tn:st must be definitely pro\ed. The \cry conception of
partnership r,recludes the po:;sibility of entrustment of partner-
ship property by one partner ~s ~gains\ the other, tmless the
pro,isions of the partnership are subject to any Special contract.
Held also: The High Court does not deal lightly witl1
applications to qnash pending criminal proceedings. It is onl)'
in cases where there is some manift>st and patent injustice
apparent on the face of the pro~;eedings, or where the evidence on
record for the prost:cution clearly does not justify a charge of any
oftenc-; c>r where the trial is on the face of it an abuse of the
process cf the Court, rare remedy of quashing pending
proceedings are given. Kliau Bal1adm Jlajcc Gulam S/Icrazce
v . The King, (1941) :R L.R. 599'; U Wa G;-i v. The U11iou of
Burma, (1948) B.L.R. 652, referred to.
SAW 'lh1,A Oo t'. MA AYE THI 179
QtASHI~G OF CRD!INAL PROCF.EDINGS-S. { O(o, Pcual Code-Crilllitllll
Breach of trust committed by co-partner dttrillg the subsislwce
of a par/tlcrsltiP. Held : It is only when it is established that
a partner who has been entrusted with the partnership assets or
with any dominion over r.roperty converts to his own use st.ch
specific property or a3sets, in breach of specific terms of the trust
impos ~ d upon him can he be prosecukd for criminal breach of
trust. In the absencr: of any special agreement concerning as to
how he should di~pose of, or otherwise deal with specific
partnership propel ty entrusted to him, he cannot be saicl to have
received or de~lt with the said prope1 ty in a fiduciary capacity
and be prosecuted [or criminal breach of trnst. Saw Uta Oo v
llfa A)e Tl!i, C iminal Ro!dsion No. 112 (B} c 1957; Blmban
Moha11 Ran a\', Surcndr-a Molia11 Das, [1952) I.L.R. CaL Vol. 11,
p, 23, followed.
U KAX THA v. THE UNIOX OF BUR~lA 336

:RECEIVER, APPOINn!ENT OF 22
~EFEl'El\CE TO HIGH COURT OF QUESTION OF LAW llY IKrOMETAX
APPELLATE 'l'R!BUNAL-PROCEDURE AND POWER OF J-llGH
COUR'l'' ... 143
Res Judicata 230
REVIE\\' -APflica!ion for-S. 1J.f, Oni<r 47, Rule 1, ~ivil P1ocedure
Code-Tile phrase" auy other suft)o:ic11t nasou "-Dccisious of
two Be1zc/zcs of equnl slatldi,lg - Duty of Lower CoJ.l'l. Held:
It is settled law that the word $ " any other sufficient reason" are
ejusdc111 gmcris ln.ving re~erence to grounds analogous to those
other two mentioned in the n!le. K.[{.S.A.R. Firm v . Mmmg
Kya Ny1111 aud o11e, L L.R. 5 Ran. 6i5 ; Bisftesll7uar Prat ap Salli
a11d auoJiler \, P,walh Nath and mzollzcr, 61 I.C. 378, referre:l
XXX'lV . GENERAL INDEX

to. Held frrrllrcr: It is settled law that-a \,rong or incorrect


e~position of Jaw is no ground for re,ie,v. Lu.11tum Auau(.roa
aud oiltcrs v. Ramc/randra IFawdco A;asty, :\ I.R. (1938) Nag.
1'45, referred to. H cld furflrer: "\Vhen there are two rulings
by two Hencbes of equal stand in!-!, it is not for the lo,,er Court to
say which rule is right and which rule is wrong. He should
follow the rule which appeals to his reason. Mauoo Ali v.
Hawabi, A.I.R (1936) Ran 63; Mau11g Zaw ,._ Maunt,: Hla Din,
I.L.R. 12 ({an. 163; Kin~-EmPcror ,.. N[!JI Lull Mmmg, I L.R. 13
Han. 570; Tile Uuiou of Buntza v. Maung Marmp and lWtJ,
B.L.R. (1949) (H.C.) 1 at 12, rt:fcrrcd to.
J\1A THAUNG v. 71-!AUNG PE TIN 259
SALE OF ExCISE L!CFNSES FOR ONE YEAR-Jut erruptiou by Com-
tJlUtlisl luszwgcuts-Rewmption of busiucss by licensee on
cessation of interruption till tire expiry of llt~ ycar-APtlicatiou
for remiSSI011 of rctctwc due for tftc Pt;l"iod of i11i!rluption-
Rejcclion b1 GtJ<crmuc.nt--Suit by liccusc agai11st Go:crumcul for
a dcclaatioll a11d a11 i1zjrmctio11-Tirc ualwe of e'cise ltceuse
iu Rurma, a l'i!lM in per-,;nnam-Comf'/ctcd contract-Obiter
dictum by the Suprrmc Court-S. 18 B11rma Exci,c Act-S. 5]
CoJ!t1act Act, tire doctriuc of frustratioll. Two Ex, ise Lkenses
were sold by p :blic auction at Bog:dt- to the highest bidder, the
appellant forK 9J,00fl for the year 1949. The appellad carried
on his bnsincss from 1st ]anua1y, 1949, to 6th FebtUary, 1949.
On 6th February. Bogale w;ts o\"errun by Comrmmist ins 11gents.
He had by then paid K 27,000 towards hi s lie, nse fees''lor the
year. l:l0g:de was reoccupied by Gmenurent in August, 1949
and appdl:.nt resurr:ed his l:u ; ine~s till !he end o the year.
He had paid a further sum of K 13,000 leaving a balance of the
K 45,000. .-\s appe~ lant had heen preYented entirely from
carrying on his tade during the ins~1rgent orcupation of Bogale,
he sub:nitted an application for remission. which was rejected.
The appellant therefore filed a suit ai!airost the Go,ernment
fcr-
(a) a declaration that he was not liable to p;-t_Y the sum of
K 4~,1JOO and ,
(b) an injutclhn re~tra:ning the revenue autlwri~its frcm
enforcin g full p:tyment against him, b2.sing his claim on
two main grounds, dz:
(i) That the auction sale carried an implied condition
that law and order would be maintained in Bogale
Town, and
(ii) That the prohibition of his trade by the insurgents
in occnpation of the Town for nearly seven m<'nlhs
rendered the contract impossible of perfonrance
and conseqr.ently ~oid.
The defence raised by the Government w;:~s !hat tbe excise
sales w~re ccmp'e!ed cnntr:Jcfs . The Trial Cot:rt dismisstd the
suit, rei~ in!! on Sri P. Gumdah v. Tit <Uuion of Burma (Cidl
Rrgular Suit No. lf>3 of 1S47). On an appeal by pl~intiff.
Held: That an exciue license Lnder s. 18, B.trma Excise Act gi,es
nothing more than a ri ght c.r-cJnltac:u which is a right
w tcrsotzam. There is no room <under the Excise Act fa r a
license cmtpled with an interest. HttP For v. The DePuty
Commissioner, lnsciu and two oiJ;crs, {1950) B. L 1R . 86 (S. C.);
Hur:t v. Pictures Ti1catrcs Ltd . I K.B. l (1915), rcfernd to
The above conclnsion is not a mere obiter dictum but e,en
assuming them to be so, s ch observation by the Supreme C~mrt
GENERAL INDEX XXXV

PAGE:

shot.ld be recehed with the greatest respect. N. A. Auuamalai


Cllct/yar v. Mol;amed Yam aud tu:o ot!Jen, (1954) B.L.R. 86
(H.C.), referred to. Held also: That unle<S the license is coupled
with a grant, it is purely a contractual right ill personam.
Tilomas \, Sorrell, Eng. l{eports, 124, Common Pleas, 1098-
Vaughan (330); Muske!t v. Hill and To:cr, 5 Bing (N.C.) 694 =
Eng. !{eports, 132, Common Plea~. p. 1267 ; H. eap v. Hartley,
(18891 L.I<. 42 Ch. Div. 461 at 46~, referred to. Heldfurtltcr:
The licenr.e gr.mted Llll der s 18 of the Burma Excise Act is a
compleh:d co~tract and the -doctrine of frus~r:ttion a~ embodied
in s. 56 n( the Co'ntract Act ;ipplies on!~ to contracts which are
merely exec.ttory and not to executed contracts. The!eforc, the
license had not become void owing to the Licensee's in, possibility
to perform his part of the contract nor was there any implied
guarantee by the Government that the aprellant wonld for the
whole period of one )ear be not disrupted by insurgents, there
was no bteadi of contract. The Kiug v. David Alle11 aud Sous,
Billf?sliug Ltd. L.R.(l916) A.C. \'Ol. 2 p. 54; JVallon Hcltrey
Limited v. Walkcraml Homfrays, (1931) L.R. 1 Ch, Div. 274,
distingdshed. Appeal dismi ssed .
AH HTAU:i:G v. THE UNION OF BUR~fA A :>ID ANOTHER 122

SALE oF GooDS,.-l.cT, ss. 55 to 61 (1)-Coutract Act, s. 73-Contract


of Sa le -Deposit by buyer as part paymelll or earuest mouey-
Brcach of contrt<Cl by Buyer-Deposit whctiJcr reco!erable by
lrim-IVlldlLcrSeller entitled to set off the deposit agai11st damages
ou re-sale or retaitf tire deposit iJL addition to damage. Held:
Tile Buyer is entitled to reco,er the deposit he had made st:bject
to the right oi the Sell>tr to se t off his d: mages on re-sale
against the claim. The Seller is entitled only to tl:e deficiency
and expenses incurred on re-sa le a mi cannot retain the deposit
in addition. Soper v. Aruold, (1889} , 14 A. C. p. 429 ; Ocke11dett
v. Hwly, 120 English Reports (Vol- CXX) K.B. P. 590; The
Vcllort: Taluk Bom:d by its Prcsidettl v. Gopalasami Naidu, I.L.R.
(19151 38 l\Ja<i. p. SO l ; Piari Lal and otlren v. Min a Mal Balkis-
ltau Das, ( 1928) I.L.R. 50 All. p. 82 ; Dies and aTlolher v. Briti~/t
aud lntemat ioual Milling aud Fir:ance Corporatiou Ltd., I.K.B .
(19391 p. 72+; Ma11ePalliSatyarzarayana111urtlzi v. T!tom11:audnf
Erikal.rpfa. A.I.R. (1926) Mad. p. 410, referred to.
U SH\\'E LONE 11. MR. KHA CHOUNG 106
ST..\Y OF EXECCTl0::-1 OF A DECREE ... 16
''STRICT PROOF" .}'); OtWER 47, R. 4 CIVIL PROCEDURE CvDE-
~!EANIXG OF 164
SuccESS!O!\' A '\D lNHER!'l'AXCE-BUI~MESE I3UDDH!ST LAW-C:.N THE
CHILDREN OF A STEP-FATHER BY A SUBSEQUENT UARR!AGE
SUCCEED>TO THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED STEP CH!LD OF A
FOEllER ~!AfWTAGE ... <1> 2-12
SuPPRESSIO'); OF CoRRUPTION AcT, 1 9~8, s . 4 (1) (c)/4 (2)-" Obtains
for !Jimsflj or for auy other Person "-Tire Clrief i11gredicut of
s. 4 (I J !c). The appellant was convict ed and sentenced to four
months' r ig:orons icrnprisonmenl under s . 4 il) (cif.J, 12. Suppression
of Corruption Act, 1948 for obtaining for his wife and his
father-in-law two shares in the \Vin \Vin Cinema Hall business.
Held. : J'he facts in the cases are jt:st the reverse. The obtaining
is by the \\'ife of the appellant, who is a publi~ servant. The
case is one of a non-public servant, namely, a PL!bli c servant's
wife, accertin g or obtaining either for herself or for her hnsband
:XXXVl GENERAL INDEX

~AGE

)a valuable thing or pecuniary advant<Jge. It does 110! co~ne


within the purview of the above Section. What s. 4 11) (c) of the
s~,pprcssion or Corruption Act penalises is !he obtaining by a
public servant for himself or for another person any valuabie
thing c.r pecuniary advantage in the discharge of his duties.
Appeal allowed.
U KHIN :-.IAt:!><G GYI v. THE UNION OF BUR~rA 213
;SUPPRESSION OF CoRRUPTION AcT, S. 4 (1) (d)/4 (2)-Meaniuf! of t/1c
exPression,'' in respect of pr1blic propc1:ty entrusted to !tim "-S.
405 Peual Code-The wol'ds "entrusted", ami "C1Jtritstment ''
their mccmiug-S, 5 (1) (c) Prcveution of Corruption Act, (111dia
Act 11 of 1947). Held: The expression "in respect of public
property entrusted to bitn" in s. 4 t1) 1d}, Suppression of
Corruption Act, 1948 means public property which is in the
possession or under the control of the public servant in question.
It has the same connotiltion but much more restricted wordings
than thooe appearing in s. ~05 Penal Code. It is an essenlial
ingredient of the offence that the Public property either
immoveable or mcvcable or cash which is the subject matter of
the offence must have been entrusted to the public servant. The
word" entrusted" with reference to cash or money meilns that
such cash or money has been transferred to the accu,5ed and
remains in the possession or control of the accused as llt/milet in
trust for the complainant who holds the position Of bailor.
N. N. Bzn-jorjee v. Emperor, A.I.R. {1935) Ran. p. 453 ; La~e v.
Simmons, (1927) A. C. p. 487 at p. 499; T lzakarsi v. King-EmPeror,
I.L R. Nag. (1949) p. 620, referred to. To make an accused
person liable within the purview of s. 4 {1) ld) Suppression of
Corruption Act, I94S,,the ilccused persorfconcerncd must have
possession or control of the property, be it cas h or be it other
moveable property.
U BA CHIT TIN v. THE UNION OF BUR)IA 196

.SUPPRESSION OF CORRUPTIO~ ACT, S. 4 (1)/4 i2)-" A;:;quittal ,; 01!


grouud of defective 5allction-Appella1!t re.arrested and again
sent up twdcr requisite sa net io11-APPlication to quas/1 tlze
second procccditrg- S. 403 (1) Crimi11al Procedure Code-S. 26,
Gc11cral Clau~cs Act-Serztmcc scr.:ed w1der an abortive trial
camzot be treated as scncd mzdcr a lawfu{ couvtctiou. The
applicant was condcted and sentenced to ol'l~ year's rigorous
imprisonment under s. 4 W/4 (2) of the Suppressi'!Jn of Corruption
Act, 1948. On appeal, the Hi_gh Court set aside the conviction
and ".:J.cquitted him" because o! defective sanction. By this
time, the applicant had already served his sentence. He was
re-arrested and again sent up f or trial after obtairling proper
sanction. The applicant filed an application to qua~h the tri:tl
proceedings. Held: If the trial of the applicant is b;J,Sed upon
an invalid sanction, then the trial is void and that the " acquit tal"
or " conviction" thereunder is also void. The first b ial of the
Applicant under a defective sanction was a nullity and that the
ultimate order acquitting the ;q1plicant by the appellate Court
cannot operate as a bar under s. 403, subs. (l) Criminal
Procedure Code to the institution of a fresh prosecution a):(ainst
the applicant. Yttsofalli Nulla Noorb/loy v. Tile J.{iug, 76 l.A.
(1948-49) p.15S ; Maung Cizit Po and o11c v. Tile Uniouof Bunmz,
(19'1-S) B.L.R. p. 175, followed. Held also: The former trial being
no trial ab initio, because of a defective sanction , the. order
q uashing the case could only operate as an o:der of discharge
and no acquittal. /;z Re C. Devanugralzam, A.I .R. ( 1952) Mad.
GENERAL INDEX xxxvii

PAGE

p. i25, referred to. Heltl further: The principle under]y1nf:


s. 26 of the General C!at:ses Act is the same as that in s. 403 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. One is completl1entary to the
other in reiterating the fundamental principle of criminal law
thal no person shall be put in jeopardy of !lis life and liberty
more U1an once ; and s. 403 of the Criminal Procedure Cod<: is no
more than an elaboration of this principle in detail. l\Ioreover,
the General Clauses Act is essenti<~lly, an Act to be invoked only
for ,purposes or interpretation of letjitilati\'e enactments and
st;~tntes. Held also :.. A sentence sened following a con\'iction
undet an ab"0rti ve trial -cannot, in law, be treated as sentence
sened under lawful cvnYiction. Ailsa!llll IJaq ar1d ai/Ollte1 v.
King-EmPeror, A.I.R. (1949) Nag. p. 327, referred to.
II'IAUXG So SAN v. THE UNIOJ>; oF BURMA 157
:SUPPRESSION OF BRIBERY A:\'D CORRUPTION AcT, S. 4 {1) (d) /4 (2)-
G ross 11cgligcuce amor~nted to mi~co1zdttct- Wlietlzer t ftc clemeu tof
. mens rea is necessary ingi'Cdtcllt ill an offence ttuder s. 4 il) (d)/4
(2), SuPPression of Corruption Act. Held: Gruss negligence
amounted to misconduct under s. 4 (1) ld) /4 (2) Suppression
of Corruption Act. The question of 1J1eus rm is irrcle~ant
for the purposes of determining the criminal liability of the
acc,Jserl ~ent up under this Section. Dr. Gordon Seagra"lJC \',
Tile Uniou of Bt~rma,{1952)B.L.R. 44 (S.C.); Criminal Reference
No. !6 of 1956; U Sein Batz v. The Unio11 of Burma, Criminal
:\ppeal :-Jo. 107 of 1956 of the High Court, Rangoon, referred to.
THE UNION 01-' BumrA v. U NYO 58
TENANCY OR L!CENOiE-Disfi1zction between a bare licence aud a
licence with coutraclual right-Enforceability of /iceucee's riglits
against tliird Parties. The Respondent was a tenant of a Room
of a hou~e belonging to one Mr. Jarvis, who subseqaently sold
the house to the appellant. There were two doors leading to
the main hall for the purpose of entry and exit into the room
occupit:d..,by the Respondent. The appella;-.t claimed that the
J~espondent had no cxclnsi\'e use of the two doors, and that the
right, if any , was a mere licen ce re\ocable at will. Tiie
Re>pOttdent replied that his was a tenant's right under the
tenancy \\"ith the pre\ious owner. The qt:estion was whether
the I~espon den t had acquired any te nancy right of fre e access
through the t\\"o doorways or whether his tenancy right was
Jimitecl to the room only. The appelhnt further contended
that a licensee's right, if any, only binds the licensor and not a
third party. Held: On the evidence, that the entire room was
rented erut witho tt any reservation whatsoever. The use of
the two- doorways was not given as a clisti net permission, but as
a necessary incident of the tenant's right accompanying th e
tenancy of the room in question. The Respondent has already
ac,gtired a tenancy right of using the two doorways from the
very inception of hi s attornment of tena~cy with the previous
owner. Held further: That the licence thorg h revocable at
will at Common L:t.w, ntJtwithstanding a Contract to the
Contractor, cannot now be revoked in Equity. Equitable rights
now prevaiJ. when there is a licence with a contractu! right,
Equity would a! ways intervene to protect by injunction, the
Jicemee's r;ght of any revocation or threatening interference
in breach of such contr<!ct. The appellant who has full
J<nowledge of the Respondent's right of usc of these two
Joorways, e;;en a.s a licensee, andr there being an implied
confractna I obligation ofthe former owner to allow the Res pond en t
xxxviii GENERAL INDEX

PA'>E
frc~ ahd tninterrupted use of the two doorways must be held to
be bound by such obligation. Therefore, firstly, Ule Respondent's
right is a tenant's right. and secondly it is a contractual t:censee's
rigiJ! created under an implied contract to last as long as the
tenanc.~- lasts. King \. David A lim & So11s, Billj;osling Lid.
(1916) 2 A. C. 54; Clore v. Tlieatncal Properties Ltd., ( 1936) 3
All E. R 433, facts distinguished. Errirrgton \, Errington aud
Woods, l.K.B. 290, follO\\ed. Wood v. T.cadbitter, 13M & W 838,
referred to. Booker v. Palmer, (1942) 2All E.R. 6i4; TlwmPson
v. Park, (1944) K.B 408; TViuler G,rrdeiL TlrcfJirc(Loudo11], Ltti.
v. Millcnuirnu Productions, Ltd. 11946) l All E.l{. at p: 685; Fer
Vtscotml Simon, (1948) A.C. at pp 18'LCH; Foster v. Robirrsou,
(1951) I.K.B. 149. "Licem:es and Third Parties" Profes~or \\'ade,
68 L:tw Quarterly Review pp. 337-345; Gurbacha11 Si1tglt Bwdra
v. los. E. Ferttmtdo, B.L.R (105!} (S.C.) 255; S. R. Raja v. The
Assis/a11t C01rtroller of Re11ls, Ra~tgool/ mrd two others, R.L.R.
(1950) (S.C.) 10 ; The llidia1l Starch Products I.imiicd altd
al!o/llcr v . Tlte Coulroller of Re11ts, Rarzgoon aml a11otliu, B.L.R.
[1950! rs.c.) 64, referred to. Fairman v. P<"rPetual Ime;/mcut
Building Society, (1923) A.C. 74 at 85, app~o1ed. Appeal
dismissed.
V TIN E:\G v. U B.~ YoKE 341
TRADE DISPUTES AcT, 5. 20 (1) >~-... 316
TRANSFER oF PROPERTY AcT, &. 4, S. lOS (a) .266
- - - - - - - - - - - s. lOIJ 10
TRANSFER OF BnJOVF.AilLE PROPERTY (RE STRICTION.~ (AMENDMENT)
ACT-N01 INTENDED TO DE-
PRIVE FOtmiGNERS OF PRO -
PERTY ACQU!RcDOTHERTHAN
ilY TRANSFER 221
(RESTRICTION) AcT, s.J, ., 172

UNION JUDICIARY ACT, S, 20 22.


UNION JuoJCIARY AcT, s. 20- S. 3 J'rall~fer of Immoveable Property
(Res'rict ion) Act, 19'17 -Ad 17 of 1952-''Forcignlr," whet her
entitled to a simPle mom:y decree when his suit is esseutially a
si111plc mortgage suit but I ftc claim was for r cpa)meut of tile
lomr on personal cotcnaut OHlY a11d uot ngai11st tlte sewnty-
Ss. 24,57 aud 58 Contract Act. A mortgage deed contained ( 1} a
personal cov, n:u,t to repay the loaq and (2) an offer of immove-
ab!e pr0perly as security for the loan. The respondent, a
foreigner wai\ed the security given and claimed the repayment
or the lo ;~n by enforcement of appdlanl's personal covenant.
'The appellant contended that the mortgage deed c:ont[!ined two
indivisible coc:nants Dnd the lran~action was \"Oid from it;
inception under s. 3 of the Transfer of Immoveable Property
!i{estriction) .'\.d, 1947. H cld: The firot part to repay the loan
on personal covenant is legal. The second part i,; il 'ega! under
s. 3 of the Transfer of Immoveable Proptrty (Restrict,ion) Act,
1947. To consi(ler whether a contract i~ void in its entirety or
not t;nder s. 24 of the Contract Ac', one mttst also look into the
SC\'erability or olhetwise of the illega l part from legal part in the
light of the provisions of ss. 57 and 58 of the Coutract Act, Lhe
three sections being supplementary. The nJe (\S r egards
enforce,1bilily of contracts appears to be that where a contract
GENERAL INDEX XXXlX

PAGE

is indl\ lsible and when y )u cannot sever the illegal part from the
legal part of a COYenant the crmtri\ct is altogether void. If a
contract contains distinct covenants, some of which arc legal
and others illegal, the CJurt can enforce the legal ants. If
several distinct promises are made for oue and the same lawful
consideration and one or more of such promises are found to be
illegal, the Court will edo:-ce the legal one~. Even where a
person promises firstly to do certain thit~gs which are legal, and
secondly, under certain circumstances to do other things which
are illegal, the first part of his promise is a good contract and
binding c;n him; but the second part of his promise to perform
under cut<>.in circumstance1S, which is ille).(al, is \'oirl. Similarly,
in the ca;;e of alternati\e promise, if one pan which is found to
be le~al and the other illeg<l, the legal part ran be en0rced.
Appeal dismissed. A. !'. JoscPlt v. E. fl. Joseph, A.I.R (1926)
Ran. p 186, dis:ing:uished ; J1la K:ytn Ho11e atld ot/;~rs ,.. Oug BooTl
Hock a11d others, A.I .R. (.1937) Ran. 47 ; V.R.Jf. Ramaswamy
CIJettnr ami auot!Jer , .. C.T.M.N. NaclliaPta Cltcltyar,
H.L.R. (1939), p. 711, referred to. ,
. _,..,? .. .._t

s. s .uw~ HuosAr:-< v. R. l\L L. RA~l-\NATHA Cifltt!ruR 172


',
URBAN RENT CONTROL ACT, s. 2 ldJ AND S, 1(,-Deji:;;{pon of
tl1c word " Premises" -Electric gcuerating flanl. 'He(d_: :'):n
tlectric penerating plant means and includes mac hilies ,
buildings,:<.-ttlhovses, etc., as well as the lands on which they
stand and hence mctst come within the definitinn of "Premises "
ins. 2 (dl c.f the urh<'n Rent Control Act . !,Hoke Sci11 v. T'lte
Coulroflerof Rents for the"Cityof Raugoou aud one. (1949 : B.L.R.
lS C.) 160, follow ed. Held nlso: In a suit for arrears of rent due
on a lease of an e lectric generating plant. a certificate by the
Controller c ertifying We standard rent of the premises untkr
~. 16 of the Urban Rent Control Act is necessary.

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, HIGH COT:RT v. TAN GWAN L :E


AND A:\OT~ER u3
URBAN RE~T COX'f10L AcT, s, H (a) 106
URH.-\~ RFN'l' Co:-.:'1"}WL AcT, s. 11, sUBS. (1) ldJ --Cerlificat e u11der s.
1-I-.-1-!Vhctlter a Ci;1il Court IU!S Jw isdrclion to decide tlze
question of bona fide requiremcut, 71!/!tch /:ad alrcady leetl
dec ded by the Rent CottlrollcJ-Order 23, Rule 1, sllbrole 12)
C;dllroccciurc Code, terwis;ion to wdlu/1mv suit wit-h ltbcr!y
to institute afresh oue-Fres!t suit filed -Hes Judicat:t-Orclcr
41, Rule 23, Ci:,tl Proce.lure Code. Th( l~espond e nt hied ;1 s dt
for ejectment against the appr:llad tmdcr s. 11, sub-s. (1), Clause
(d) of the Urba!l Rent Coatrol Act, 194:3. after obtaining the
requisite Cer}ilicate umler s. 14-A that the land was reqJirecl
Lo;;a.ftde forercci i:l n of a building. The defence, into alia, \Yas
thJt the land was not required boua fide, by the Respondent. The
Respoml0nt replied tha t the Controller of Rents had already
de:id: d th e question of boua fides and that the Court has no
jurisdiction to go into the san~e tnattcr. This' contention was
accepied by tile Co~trt on a prdin-:.inary i ssue. The R"~pondent
however withdrew the suit under Order 23, l(ule I, sub-rule (2)
of the Civil Procedure Code with liberty to file a fresh one,
bec~use a notice4o quit tmder the Tr<1ns f er of Property Act had
not been. giyen. Subsequently, after giving a fresh and 1alid
notice, she filed a second suit. The <lppellant again raistd the
san:e ;>lea that the land was not required /;oua fide. The
Respondent conten~ecl that the matter was n s judicata in \iew

5
xl GENERAL INDEX

of the decision on the preliminary issue i~. the first snit. The
Trial Court held that (i) the matter was res judicata :\nd that (iil
;he had no jurisdiction to go into the question of bona fides and
decreed. the Resrondent's suit. The District Court, on appeal,
held that the Trial Court was wrong in holding that Civil Court
ha<l no j .1risdic!ion to decide the qt1estion of bo1za fides, but held
that the matter was res judicata in view of the decision in the
first suit. The High Court, on Sc:cond Appeal, held that : ii)
Civil Collrts have j.1risdiction to go into the question whether or
not the land \Vas bona fide required for erection of a building
thereon. tho.,gh the landlord had been granted a certifica:e tu
file a suit nuder s. l1 {i) (d) Of the Urban Rent Con.trol Act, 1948.
S.M. Ahmed and one v. Ba!mdi, (1951) B:L.R. 156 (H.C.) rcHecl on;
(iil The question was not I'CS judicata by reason of the decision
in the first suit, which could nnt ha\e been npcn the same cause
of action as i;~ the secO:l<l suit, inasmuch as in the first suit the
cause of action did not exist at all a notice to quit under the
Transfer of Property Act not having been given by the landlord
to the tenant. Ramasami Redtli v. Tltalawasal 11farudai Reddi,
I.L R. 47 Mad. 453; Ramireddi v. Subba:cddi, I.L.I~ . ~1ad. 500';
Slzamdee Begam (a) [(hin Khiu N:yuu( a11d o;J C v. P. C. Dutt, (1954)
13.L.R. 34{S.C.), re{erred to.
U U NYUNT v. DAW KYIN SIN 230'

ffi!cf.ieor;;~"ll:nn

OJGp~llOiJ~~:~g eor;;m
6p ~:nd:l~G80G!3 I
b[JCS'O oSCT.lJ$~:~G80G8il

ffi!O d3~cf.i0'):}/0J?:~~G~j: ffilrb80G~n


mqJ:IlOij~~i~G80G8C(bG OOIlC!COCl9]rtJ ffi!~b Cf

~G?tt~P')?OJ')80G!311 tt2:xl?::D')Ot COCG(.l.)?! 0?~:~: o;iJ,c:;2~02')!


o1m CT.lJ~E>j~~OjlGOO?o5p:@~G0t ll(.l.)'J:Bt.G0 qc:~~c~t~G:n?
o~t:an:~:~t~EE:u g]o?~ rnd3rr.lroC: ~qE~:~u10.:JJo599
CT.lJ~6[t,~:lj?GOO'J::nt ll6[~rbot ~:GooSro rn9":l:~:@d.la)'):t:.t
~~~ed:l~oS~ ffilo;(~G:nSrot:Gro?t:l @c:;oc~. G::>.:fScct:
Gm?t:l G0?BrooooSGo:&vt~Gro?5: ooS~cf.i@5:1l~~.l Gprb
llm?:@S:li?m 1SSco rbo dXj~GEj":Jt:O?qJ:o?~:oo 6g2@E:1 oosp:G
01J9~~~Q80GSC(6G OOIS)C:ruE:~rbrl<l~5 91 G<fOrbro&:t.~~Eg~
G~ll ~m~m~~[09":l d~:qE519 ~:9~9'J~ro&~ffilblt:@S0
o.Jtu ffi!S~~:~:~:f>tCetGo:>":J:9')ffiiOji~OObp!~GGffii:S@S~IY}g
qE ffil~ SlG6fl oS@:'?;,'o)oSrn~E:@~r;;:n~ 1llG.ffii:SrooS~@SGfto:>tli
rl<l~c:@&G:n~ 1'i(romSS~~ rl<lG'-~:GnTGo:>:~E@S~ tq5:~8'd5
~ji~Gm'JoSroGm'JoSmo oS~:n'J ~5~oS'J~Go:>Sro~: 1:~9ro
S~ro'J~t rosp:G o~Gco'Jcf.i~:l OE~::> yj!Sr ro~:6r~;5t ffil(j65
o 02Et GG~:mS~9 a<~'J:msp:~~?:roGoT025' qc:G"Jl'):O~ g)~
ro~"1~1il~C:6fl=2~~~m~9~ro-::>:1 !jro~~')~cq5 ~~02Eo1oc
GENERAL INDEX xli

.
GOJ:l G~~?:~jl? ~:~cocf.iV6C:~ GE>pcf.i::Jil?oG:>t:.l ~~ol
rnS~ !'lm~~O?bf?:~@S~"'J?:m rnqg~611 d2aG?d3t Sffiru'J
t;;oS~Eooop:g~:l ::>@~J ~~S1 ooop:g~:}l~yoS ? ~t~~Grn:S
m 02oScg~~~:~:6'\E<::\irnG~rn~oS c;t:G@roS~ cooSo d3 6'\C'~o1
OJ~Of O:>E>tJ:2~o.J~.I ~~:::D~~~C:G~?cf.i~~Goo5~~~:1!lo?:m
::>@:J? ~~s, ooE>tJ:0~=w~5lo5 o 02 5 0to):: ~:@oS co'J:Go
CJ.??~I:)G~:S:::D~C'J2uScg~~~~~:!ijt~S~:g@~o.Jt&rnGC\Jj?ri5cod3
orF.!ijGI!lOf S'lm~q;jlo5Go:~o.Jtt ~rnS~!'lm~~~:~mooop:~o5
G0:>6~~q~op~o5Gm5~r J~:~oSqd3r .~~g:m:::D:>occoE
gm'J:CYJ@:@:C'J2oScg~::Jil?:o1mn'ij1ij~~~~m'J~'J:8~G01gm'J:@t
GID c;E:~~E~c~G:::D? oi?t:"li:nrr.:r:no?:eyc~EOJ~.I G0?t8oS~9
'2 :~~ Gl:l:>ttS:r qtd5J~?(~\t oo@'{l oeoot l!l?~chp
::><;Gil ~~GlE~:~ Grn?oS~:I~~wo?:m ::S~o1C\ild35<~ ::>@::P
~~~~ O?P:g[ill:srrn:;oS o 02E gGoa:Srod3ouS~ n<l<lJC: @~G
rn:>:o?:~ ~0oa,.1m :~jl? rocf.ior})OJ? q~oS:::Df~p
coC~p:o1cqJcf.i~~ G~Er.l?:o?:~ @:~rod)~ Er.lOGo:GIDtJt <jjyo5
~J;GOJ:>::r.lS~:::D~ coEcoC'!ll'J:p:~: jl?:~OJ.1 oo~:oo~:y
~jloSCO?IG:::D'J !'lm~~ ET.lo;?QG:::D6qt:t ~COOCJl~~~G:D6qt:l
G0'J9(7)0')oS~G:::D~qE: 00-fe}:;;~=~~ eoGgaa~E: ouS~oS@c:
(;l~~CSJCI qc~!Jm~:::Dt . Er.lJi0002Co1G:::D'J CDE>p~~ mop:Q9j'J:
O<JGof 02C ooe}~~oSot~:::D~.I :~~~ ::>@ ~ ::> ~9~ I O?E>p!l:l~:~
aa9oS o 02E 9jco'J:G:::D'J ~m~:::D~ j~'J:O~~?::S'J:G:::D6rot:
~~:@o5c:o?::::Dt& ~q59JoS~ ooS~oSGl~ rnqQ0o5~@5:G6'J~
G'E:rn~D65 .. 9JCO':l:GOJ?tlm~:::D~ ro~:;Ooc~OJ~II mop:l:l
. CY.lJ~~: C~G2()G0~60 0::> SCI6)1 gGET.l:Sj~'J @:~roy Er.lGgrooS
ooS!ij~Si c:oo~mGp:oo~:cra::D~ ~~5g~0~JI Gc6m?q]f:Y.lC~
lJ!>p(;ltJ1o1:n~~~ f>':l~OO~:J.JC~tloSo1!)>$ OJ~: I ~CIGET.l! J '2 1 ~?
"llcf.i~? J oGu sad5() I GO<l l-f>OJ~~~ sacf.i(S)1na'J(~)tooSoo8.1 @1
li}~"tfJ0'J(,jjoS~? 900 ~~~cf.ip:::D~II (;l~1~\C~~d,l:;;oc o1 J I
GD'di~CIOO'J(~)I ::>@?? <jll 6)~0{~1 l!l'J"td)P ? J '1 ~[3-:l::::Dtll

~:~ ~~ (;lGoo:S .. . eG
G'f?CS':::D;S ct!Jg p.1 O:]lO~~G1oSrn?:Go:Gq:rn~ rn<f'eoG~ ~~ 8~
CO?ZG:::D? 006p~"ij'J:y? [9t~co~co~: SC!b!f~(,jj?~@~l:l@S.I [9~
GCO'JC<@~0'J~CCG0::8 ~0t:~b<lJ[5q a:IGS~20GO C(SG <p! II

~:~oS9Jcf.ill ,iCI3Jbl!l~g1oSrn?~GO:Gq:::r.l~O C OOE>p~ a:l6pOOS:~


OJt E>(:>~::Dcf.i(60 J ::> ~rn8g1uSctrnCY.ll[:o5~~@t:lj?00~co~:
"lJ?:@S6:xi~Ji

::n8~ o1 J ~~- [9EGco?5'G?~CcGooS Grz


xlii GENERAL INDEX

PAGE

q:>~ooSCJ1]9c;R:~Q 80G8 c;oou wdS::n'Jo:>?oCC)l~:~'J: cBS:':l:cooS


roS 8CooG'JoS@t:u :l~:@oS~cbll .!od5::n?::D'JOtC)l~:~'J~ I,)(J
ro?GOO<JCq:>~ 8CGS[!~~G:D'J8C~cb~p Cf.lO?cb9~ro::noS8Ce~roCI]~
80GeJ':lt:~~ :DGO'::J':lo;l~~cbroro~~d)~')l~ Dd)oSGq_:>cbOi/
o:>roGooo:B::n<Jo:>'Jot Goo?o~p:ro~:l ~~:lotoS J :5l~ S~:l:l
o:>roGoo J ~:~G~~t md3@1>'!oot.i ~C~~GffiG~pc~8CG?t:
~S:1 coc~5:~~ ro@Soot: [9t~G8C'Jt~oqo:>tu ~~oo'J ~
CSJC cocro85: 8CroG@<J:f.ioot.IGo:l?lo'J:~~d)R~q:>~.Go:l':lc~p: .
@~:::lj{<Y.l S~:l:ltl'd'J: odS::n?oo'Jo S~:ooS:8CS[ rooSroSI:ltljltr;!GB'J
~~o1cgjb S~wotD:::lj{ m ~S :G~')~ ~d)~~ 'J:oot9wmoSoS~:o::.S:
rnq co:f.iroo:.ljiG'Jt:~ 8Cd38Ca:>J:Dd3G_o:>B6)~:~t_~ @:::nG~ 51~
l:lG0'JS[CI l1951) B.L.R. p. 113 OOG::D'JO'il::Dtu
808)ild'JC\J~ ~~ GGO<l: :)
q_:>c;-OJ3CY.>J~~: ~QBOGO <(01:1 9 oo .1 J<Y.lGCO:~~cbS[~G'JC: :::f.J~C
<Y.JI<Y.lGCO~:lJt S8:D'J:oto5 GCJtoS~G~:o~&E>~~ GC'jj':loSg;p1
~:@oS~rb.l ,180G;J8CS[I <Y.JGco:~ G~:~.;!.91:fi~oSo&Grog~E
:lJ~8C":lC1D~~?:~1 q:>~o o)<T.l]~~: ~Q 80GE:c006CGtoo~O'Jbp:
~0:~~Go:~~:JOJ'): I GC':1\?1)9$J~otJS~d);))t,t
!.91d3G'Jd3d3 ( GdT) GGOO~:~ 51~ Gad I 8CS )'JS[?~ 155

naod3~roo?:sto:o:5G&~: naoSeoGo ~6~:~ 9 ( o) (o) (J ) 5l~bp<.'l':Dcb


~5~:~ oJ o (d) 8CS[2~oS11 bp<.'l'::Do) 1.16C:l J or .jgtGro'JCri( ~G'J~Sc
Gooi3 Qt 02S:G6)G Jt:JJ oSOjiGro 'JCGS[_:,naj%~ ~bp<XlS:naJlroS:
~:Dtst8?.oo ~oo~:<Jp:@~G ~~~'tG CX?~f.~_~~~CcGm~ ,~0t:
~D~lD~~G;;, eoGCJ~tJQ 90.1 i~:@~~t. J;..~l@tGro?S~@~
~?~tC<;;-o::.S) e;cgt:G6!G'Jc;OJoStljl~Gro':lt~:8<1~~ 8CbpooS:
80JlroG:"1J':l~:ra-:>:~!~:l)t bp~oooS <(b~ J :::> ~ rn881oS8<lcgb:
oooSGbpoSGOO'JBtOi/o0 ~co~:~p:~G'Jt:.l Cl$t:JOJS);OJ'J~~co
l?q:>&~~ ::Ji6J.Cgb:@oSn ::J@<t:::> ~5l~l8d:>(~)18CoS( cS)IS3-:>(~)t 0'J
~oS5o ~@e ~rb?'JOJt.l
md3 (5) 1 ~~ mJl\: o1 9 ~~ @tGoo'JC~@~G'J~tc~OJS) S@
8<10 d3~ro0J:~m':l:~G6J.: 8Crb2oG~ ~5~:~ 9 to) (ro) 19 (J ) 8CS[~~d?.n
f5P00JJ.i tt6bl J ou ~Ec~-cos Gm-:>oSu:il:~G~c;o oSG6J.:8C)%~8<1bp
ro~:~11oo~:~'J:~:l)t tOil.o~roS:11p:~g0u n:;q:@d3~d3
.l .l~bCGOJi3Gro'JoSodS:~Gbpbo o5GS[:83~1 Cl~OO'J:GOO'J~~lcSm@:
o::.Goo'JoS:lJt ~e:lJoS~1:l j::J ~ 8C8g1oS8CS[ gtD)I.o~ooS:
m3:'G~oo:1'
v 0 '-'

:tt ~9 gjtGoo'JC~ g~C:l'J~tcGo:>S :::>o J


G.U .B. C.P.O.-No, 35, H.C.R., 3-S~S9-1,75C-1X .
113ccso~le~ge.cg)le:0~o:chc.o 9c.o3::g~ g&pdd9BsitoBcccgcecB~@ =ill'! o
:chco g~~fB[fgg :fB~o~chco 1gc0B:~EF:g g~/e:~so:chc.o sm::>?g~ .J-
no0 sooe.cctbpclfuB~ec:cc:;,e.ce:chco ~~~e sGelc * .

u3eb&1pcw::> eoifcc:s&l~b ~:cMec; ccc::>:clflesucoscco:;,w


glo ~ecce:~~ r3ccshle:~c3 ccc::>l:'ob~:;,:clhosucooe:Sc :?f~w:31Eo
~ccleBg
see g3p~gco :g!J9CCBff8::>SSJGCCC::>:cih fl sucogccoBco#-o' I:gS scc::>~8BSSJEO
ccc~:cihfl pcoce:Sc ~~:?f3co:sc~o be.csole:sc3)~ II~CC~Lo ~l:'ob~~81'}
socogcco::>co gl!:.o SOCo~'>:scco~ ib~:;,ge :fJOOa:!:~ ~:?f~co:sc/Eo :cih8BSSJG
cccBg~gJ~gco g&( o) G~c egoG::>OCSCJe.G SWe>:fJCCJ.Jt)eo;gcJBSOmgo

usceb~:gccot) ~bplbsoo :~:g&gco l o?f~ge.c ~~gb :~:g&scco g~g~e.c&:\9


~:CCO:fJC.lfut) :scm?f;~:g!'l scoopccoae.G :f'CC~ It eec;~CCBSlJCifua 3sc.oB
3jgc@ J, ee~eG 3bsolbsoo?f~sec~&1ec~:f:S:ga9CO~Ca:a:r. rsofeso:~

'f(.IQ;JJO ~u!~Jc=>usl :g&socw~soL Bgec


?f:c!hso/e:gc3 c~oc g~geg~g sucogcOJ::>C')SI!:.o :3roscceg~g
ce:~ ~=[fscoz315o <hg~socc 3cc8::>SSJG cccBso~gco bee agbg:,
Jggec~&1e.c ~~:~:ge SCOBcd3cc r~gec ~:2:gescoasocCJ.JBe.G socc~
( o) 0 sc egoG:;,OCSCJ8 scoasocco~e.G :gcasorosoo scoe~jgc~l e~~ec

* (&b~ g ccoSDciED8)
upb ~c
( gb8so oggcJs8;3ccgW) g0gg~~C08CcJBt:C
mC<f08 ~~
~Gelc.j. ((lcgcooSDclfu8) soccgcB~3co (~) SOG~ooccc

Slfh ~CO$ SO g; g cb CO

S~1IOdH1I &V'I VW11flH


~cc8e::p9 cccsCf~9-c.orbec ( o) 0 ~c e~g0 r;so2soecsc.oesocc.o~ec
~scssorogo c.o~4sle sc.o~soro ~ccco ~ff>&sociEDe
'" n~fpf>3b3re3 3cecesoclhso
~cfbsole~g&l )!,e LosoooeB gcJeccee~cccscebsoo f?crosocfue~
gce~c leso~emgcec ccce'~rol6le> g&pceBe gfuchtb .
~ n~:g&S2ooe~ ~er;&b~ccogx!roe ~scrotf~fa:gf>
sc.oesocc.oeec socc~~ ~~~~e~~g:g&gc.o g&>gc.oe~~~- gdf:lf?llt8g
~StleBSo r~g o.s8::~:gcc.oe3bsu!bToSo3sec~cMco nsceteeb]~
:gccoe 3bsolk>.To Lobo~WB ~gfa:gf>scoesocweec:pce~ ~~~C.03b
rsccc~&pdfue sees~ g:cmg030 nsccc:coosociEDe c~scoe
:~~ sofuer; scoe3rgw .Lee~ec r3bsolbgm [p~gec ~:0:~eseoe
cal3:c c.cf?&tJd~e ~~tc nscccroesof?soo wcro~/!net; ~[f&
c.o~gge sc.oecooce :scrodiLeec cccego~&>ec cp ( ~beTmgch~
:3cc:&>) :~gescoec~cc c.o~&soc!fue ~rscccroeso~so~gcotf
gll:.o oo(/0c 8egos cceeg~ere~~ ~g~!co tbm( o) 0~c _eg0
Ge.lO 2so eG scoepcc.oeec:gcsTmTo3~:g&:gco~scB!olb[p:cle
3ibg\ CCCe~qil:.o n-; O' 0 C 8egbc!co~~f>303~lOSeG~ffl_lc:fcfue
I c.og~gge SWS:fJCC.Oe!eG :fCC~ r~3w3bu lJ Sc.e~ g S~ :g
usc ccso!3gcreeLosof?:gesll:.oe:g bscoeSo soo I so fu ecl_lc~cooso c!fue
u?ccsufl.:>sooctssucroeu l'g3ccg~sulbsoo 3~s-c.o~!jgc~
,Lee~eo cosc.oe:~~ g;:clbs~ec ~&Doc sffucccc!i~gc?mc~ :c!Seogcoec; :~~
( l;lf>JO ~tq)Je::JdS) sccc:cibSCJ!eg~~ ~~&: c~ccc::>~C<JIX.eG 3g~S3~~
rbec( 0) c~c egb cew:~:ges-coeca3cc 31f:0:gflscoepccoeeosucc~
. n(:besoa
J 13eleebl!osucwe gcece~srt B~ec:So:cec:c!flgb:cco~ :gche:~cc
ccce~Lo 3fu!:flle:~c3B :scrocc'ichm~ccoe:;nLBsec g;gc~su!e:3c3BGeoc ~~) 30~ge
s-c.oecCii3 cc
~~3~soleso\!ef> gceB~;gc~:R:.oksoLBseG gif
~:c.co~ ccc~oob0~:cihf> ~coce:~:Scsco:g3$o gceJcccecl>~ ~:c:cco~ socc3ce
CCC::>OO 11 sotoe:g3C.Ofp )) ?ccsuie:3c3 CCC5/:ob~~sesuCXJ3CCO::>C.Oglto ~SC.O (~):fG
u:!flbl!osucco~ tn3cc:~(X)~~ g;:clh;g(';~ cccesc(')gcco~cosfto ~~ce;'~ ~ooccc
~:gS ~:521-~tf;!co:sc~o ~~~sule:3c3B ccc:)oob:J>~8f)~co3cco:)c.og!l:.o ~G~c
LS'6T] s.r1IOdtnr MV'J vw-anu z
II ~OJ~~Ot'> ~fichf;c3~8~
eosccc~~c.~ ( .rgp.ro ~upp~gds) cxe>:gfo:c&cl9w3cow ~~f)
go~&i~ccggfogcfi 'sccc~c~solegb~ ~bo~ cf>kcn n3ccg~su~tJsn:-;
gsco::>3~w J,ee>~w w:;com~A3 tf:cih~gec~tf& JgfEocccfi~s&
:c& gcl.el3COeG. ~~~ ( l<Jp.ro 1Jupru~ds) 13cc:c./flg;~gl9~~fp&:
gcJeccce ~caocm 8gggb~ 1beiJ ( o) 0~c eg~ dibb~~~se
sco~c~cc 3~g[i]~ge :;coe:pcw~ro pee~ ~~swgb gLooof)S:>
II !eeg~cel,loe c.o~coe~~~ ecg2eg~ce>n2
~chco,~cc:gp~p~:ps oo0'0c giW ~~~Sc n3e!he>b&ipccce
gcece~~l8SeG g~gcesgbgcw0 ccce~Lo gwso!e:3c!3~ ::lro
ce;ht'npcc.oeSDLBsec bo~clbsofeg3d5ceo2 n3etp~ ccc~8ec
pccsocc 1cp~e:PL8geG cf)gb~cc.o0 ccc~w (~?cegscco~ 1b0e
:c!l7e <pOJOOZSc :Sc~co g=!8o) :l\)(lopcc.oeg;-L8ges 2:ogggco'7:fG
~g:poogcooecoglto ( 0e~go~3e g&c3c.o:38o) IM3rolb::S2cc3e
:gtpecscccgcoocpdfue g04elescoept\J~c@o ~tf&:pcfue
ng~snlesolree gcroe>:gce:lto E?gt8geG ~~eeoc
ccc?~&1 bGI~:clae pcoce~~gSc'!cm3~o gc~ccce~~ ~gc~cwc
ecce~ , , p2:oegsccosc,, J3ccp!eg3c5 ccce(!h bcoe8esoco
gcooecogiW ug:?eb&lpcwe to3ccl3~scb w:c!l?:ge~ cccesce
gcroe:o glto 13ccce~S'c ~~gs r~:3~ gbc3cm38o 13ccg~!eg3c3B
ccce&ibcoege progcroecoglto u3eb&1pcc.oe 2:c3ocg~~:b
g.ncle~es. ccce~c!fl sooogccoec.ogiW 3ccceg~So 13ccsob3c5~
cccew b0egcR=le g;OJreg~ ~g:~co~sc~o u3cc:le~~SCf,3~SO~Sco
u(~b~~ 0 ~gbSJcce~8e>goG ccc~gcffle pmgccoecogl0 ~~g~scc~bo8egoG
~3ib~~~cc cccegclflepcoo:::~S'c ~~tf~cogsc~o b~soleg~c8~w u2cc~Lo ~~
g~l~~~~(') b!lege pcogccoecogitD sowmg:?co?f lb0~8esocoregS'c ~gf?3co
g!? gsc~o CB~bgos cece3~so~gco gro ( 0) 0 sc ego g&c1~
soc.csc(')
~~co (3):fG u3ccgcmpc'f.oe ~sc;:,
~ooc~ ~e3~ceocgcJ.sco,~cc:ggso~~G oo0'0c glto ~~~ 'g3c~3~
sGe>c 8esocogcm~cogftD gscroscc~g~~reg~ ~gf3cog:la~,cbqbepcc
'Sl.'HOdtHI M..V'l V.V"Jl!DH [L~61
4- BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

oe~ (5 :::Dt':l]JJ'XlCPG::ml OJW'JGO)S Gt~~g~ gos~025, GTo'Jcf.O1


oii
:.J)'JO To~tgo 1~G:::D::::Dt11 r

8oS(~) m~~ '' gllToG2)'Jt~~~ cdiJJcf.~rot:l ~~G'J~t~~


l,l')~:J:) oS ~ . ~
IJ!~ ~~wt~~@~oo@t ~O~J[O~~em ~~w88 To~g6)
:::t:lW'JGo:>S CYJ~:::D~:Gspt~oo5G6)~~'J~I ::>@J 0 :r1 ~~CIJ J ~ 6)dJG?,~
folC;~: ( ~: 01 ~')To~ oS c; J \) J 06.5 Tod3ToCDt: C1.1JO OOGCO'J 5
~~:~~~ cod3qG::D'J To@t~ GOg~~~G'JC: G(!)T[9~@: @~GCD
cotu c;E:~~@oS~oS~1 O@Cf '(_ <r~~mc8 oo~oo~~CP~
f:~@t:G~~sp c;f:~~CJ6,CI OJW'JGOJSGt~~~m Tog~
GooSm~~~ToSJoS c; -8-G@ OJQC m~'JGooS~:~5:~~CP
c:oOGro'JC:Tooot&~~@oS~Grocotu''

Tocorb~t G\9T@co'J:G:::D'J mw'JGOJSGt~~:~ m8~51 GCP'Jcf.


~oS~cf.{:)J'J: To) ~@::m.p'Jcot 1 O@J o <(~tmoS, G@1S:@:G::D'J
@::mp@~~ G~cotu ~tGO1t: \)~ ~~GCY.)jS)CP G@lf:~: @~G~'J
@::m.p'J~@~ ~~6)~ToG6'Jt: o::~oosr':ll~rot: ~~:GooS3m~:~@5u
~@~1 ~GC\3.1'J~'J~ otb~cf.cot11
195/l BUH.MA LA\tV REPORTS. 5

SUPREME .COURT.
LEE KYIN SU (alias) U SU (APPLICANT) t S.C.
1957
v. Jan.U.
THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE AND THREE
OTHERS (RESPONDENTS}.*

Dirccliom iu the 11alure of Habeas Corpus-S. 5 (1), Public Order Prcsena-


lioJt.dcl-Iuitialarrest by InsPector of Excisc-Furtfter arrest by hr
pector of Police a11d dcte11lion by ll1c Dcj>u(y Commissiouer of I'olicc
smufcr orders of file Deputy Secretary, Miuistry of Home Affairs
in anlicipatio!L of ordu of dd ent ion under s. 5-A (1! (d), (e) a11d !h)-
Order XIX, Rule 8, Supreme Conrl R!lles-Rctul'lt tague-Rcfcrwcc to
!1om/ Ministry File-Powers of tile l'residcltl, s. 121 of the Cousliln-
liou-DclegalioJL of Powers under s, 7, Pttblic Order Prcservatio11 Act.
The applicant was arrested by art Inspector of E.~cisc on the 24th March
19!">6, under s ..5(I), Public Order Presenation Act.
On the 3rcl ,~pril 1956, ~n 1 nspector of Police, under orders of the Deputy
Secretary, :tllinistry of Home Mfairs arrested and dtbined the applicant
under s. ) (1) oi the said Act {or 15 clays, in anticipation of an issue of an
order of detention by the Ministry of Horne Affairs.
On the 17th April 1956, ~he Deputy Commissioner of Police ordered U1e
applicant's detention for two months with retrospective effect from 3rd ,\pril
1956.
On 4th May 1956, an order undec s. 5-A (1) (d), (c) and (h) requiring the
;tpp!icant ~reside in ~1)-anaung until 1st May 1957 w;~s passed in the name
.,f the Pn:siclent b) ~he Secretary, ~Iinistry of Home Affairs.
The applicant was granted bail an:l released on 7th May 1956 on \\~lich
d;1te the Deputy Commissioner of Police also revoked his order of detention.
For the applicant it was submitted:-
(a) The detention at the instance of the Deputy Secretary, Finance and
l~evenue, and l11e actual arrest by an Ins pee! or of Excise who is invested with
no powers under the Act, were illegal.
(b) The attempt at rectifying this illegality by subsequent orders passed
by an Insn:::cl<lr of Police and then by the flep.1ty Comrnissionsr of Police
were also illeg'll in that they had automatically complied with the order
com'eyd to t~em by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, instead
ni cle ~ icling for themselves whdher there were gro:tr!ds for srspicion :tgainst
the applic;mt that would justify arrest .
(c) 1\ detention in anlicip;~tion of restricting the applicant's residence to
:\J yanaung was also i~egal.

Cdrnin:-tl Misc. Application No . 129 of 1936.


f PrcsCJJ{ : U MYINT THEIN, Acting Chief Justice, !VIR. JusTICE bo GYI
:lllcl Ml~. JUSHCE CHAN. HTOON.
BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
S.C. Held: The liberty of the subject is m:ldc int:er~:tsible by the Constituthn
1957 and that such person:-~1 liberty is not to be intcr~;.rcd with save ir, accordance
LEE KYIN Su with .l;nv an~l with strict c-ompli:J.n'cc with the procedure prescribed. The
(alias) sulllc!cn:y or otherwise of grounds against a s sped is a matter that has tn
U Su be solely dccicted by the ollic:cr empowered to act. An order passed by an
v. oflicc:r so empowered mrrel y bec:ausc of a direction made by a stperior
THE ('Q)!M!S-
SIONER. OF authority is manif<stly illega'.
EXCISE AND Ma Tltauug [{yi v. The U<'Puty Commissioucr, Hauthawaddy, (1949)
THRF;~ ll.L.R. !S.C.) 30; /Jaw ilfya Tm v. D;puty C mmissioner, Sfrwe!Jo, (1949)
OTHERS.
B.L.R. (S.C.) 98, referred \o.
An order meant to be retro,pccthe is also'illegal. .
Daw Ay~ Nyunl .-. Commissioua of Police, Rangoo1~. (1949) ll.L.R.
(S.C.} 5, referred to.
Held furt/ler: The ille~ality of the initial arrest and detention will not
ren<\er any effccti\e help to the applicant for the Court is concerned on!}
with the final order passed in tlc nan:c of the President by the Fecrebr y,
1\Iinislry of Home Affair~. All previous orders were \'r,cnled wbt:n the
applic:.nt wa~ rcleasel\ on bail on 7,th l\Jay, on the revocation of the
Deputy Commiosioner's order.
Held also: Th; v<trious order> or arrest and detention cto not form a
continuous seri: s am! that an ill ega l .trrtsl at the outset wmtld not \iiiatc
a final orde-r, as the orders were bsned by different attthorilies and the
tina\ and effective or'der was mdc under a dit1'en:nt section. .
Air Nywe v. Commissiu11cr of /'olice, Rangoon, (19l8) B.L.R. 737; Dmo
Mya. Tin v. Commisdoner of Police, Ra1~gooo, (19Wl n.L.R lS.C.) 82,
referred to.
f-Ield also: A return mai:le by the Deputy Secrel<try, which merely said
th:ll the President was satisfied as to the neccs:~ity of the order i> vag,te, i~ of
no help and n1l in conformity with Rnle 8 of Order XIX of Lhe Supreme
Court Rules.
All Nywe v. Commissioner of Police, Rangoon, (19-!S) B.L.R. 737,
referred to.
Held fur tiler: The statements contained in the Home Ministry lite
1:elating to the applit:aut ll1<1Y f;~ll short of proof in a crimimd trial. bul in
cases of preventive justice, the statements are there and the competent
authority had chosen to believe them. It is not for the Court to s<ty 11e
shonlcl not have and thus exercise <~n appellate jurisdiction.
Jllmmg Hla Gyaw " Comndssiouer of !'olice, Ranr.oo1, (1948} B.L.R.
764, referred to.
Quarac : .In this case, was the Secrehtry merely followinc a direction
given t<1 him by a supe-ior authority or did he u~e his own discrdion ?
Dcsir_abiliiy of having a properly rlelegaled authority pointed out.

Tun Maung, Advocate, for the appEcant.

Ba Pe (Government Advocate), for the respondents.


1957] 13 U R1VlA LAW REPORTS. 7
The judment of l:he Court was delivered by S.C.

. 1957

U M YINT THEIN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE OF r,~En


LEE II:YrN
(aJias}
su
UNION.-On the 24th January 1956 the Commissioner usu
of Excise sent in to the Ministry of Finance and :run <~~Mms-
Revenue, un der w h .ICh t he E xc1se
. D epartment func- StONER OF
ExczseA.ND
tions, a recommendation to take action against the 0~~~~~.
applicant \yho w,as reputed to be an opium smuggler
on a large scale. On 22nd March someone
purporting to act for the Deputy Secretary of the
Ministry, directed the Commissioner to secure the
arrest of the applicant under section 5 (!) of the
Public-Qrder (Preservation) Act in anticipation of an
order requiring him to reside at a place later to be
specified. On the authority of this letter an
Inspector of Excise arrested the applicant and had
him confined in the Rangoon Town Lock-up on the
24th March. On 30th March the Deputy Secretary,
Finance and Revenue wrote two letters to the
Ministry of Home Affairs, the first of which was a
request to issue formal orders for the detention of
the apP.licant u.ader section 5 (I). The second letter
was a requeSt for an order directing the applicant
to reside in Tamu in the Lower Chindwin District
for a period of one year.
By a letter dated the 2nd April, the Deputy
Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs directed
the Commissioner of Police, Rangoon, to take action
under section. 5 (1) and the next day, 3rd April, an
Inspector of Police wrote out a formal order of arrest
and detei1tion for 15 days. On pth April the
Deputy Commissioner of :police issued another order
directing the detention of the accused for a period of
two months wi~h retrospective effect from 3rd April.
In the meantime the Home Ministry had taken
action and on 3rd April the proceedings were
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 1~57

s.c. submitted to the Deputy Secretal'y by the office. On


1957
the 6th April he recorded a '11ote recom.inending
LE!'RYINSu action as asked for by the Ministry of Finance and
(tzl(as)
u su Revenue. The papers were submitted to the
TuE ~~M~IIs Secretary. The Secretary in turn agreed and sub-
~~~~:; AO:n mitted the proceedings to the Chief Secretary who
THREE
OTHERS.
noted that Tamu might not be a place where the
applicant would have the means of .earning a
livelihood.
On lOth April the Home Ministry consulted the
Finance Ministry on the point raised by the Chief
Secretary. A reply dated 30th April was received
annexed to which was a letter from the Commissioner
of Excise suggesting Myanaung in the Henzada
district instead of Tamu. The office recommended
acceptance and the proceedings were resul)mitted to
the Deputy Secretary whose final note dated the
4th May was: "Secretary and Chief Secretary have
agreed. Issue orders." On th~ same day an order
under section 5-A (1) (d) (e) and (h) requiring the
applicant to reside in Myanaung until 1st May 1957
was passed in the name of the President by the
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs.
The applicant was granted bail and released on
the 7th May 1956 on which date the Deputy
Commissioner of Police revoked his order of
detention.
We have set out the events in some detail, for
learned Counsel for the applicant h&s submitted
that-
(a) The detention at the instance of the Deputy
Secretary, Finance and R~yenue, and the actual arrest
by an Inspector of Excise who is invested with no
powers under the Act, were illegal. "'
(!7) The attempt at rectifying this illegality by
subsequent orders passed by an Inspector of Police
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 9
.
and theJ~ b.Y the 'Deputy Commissioner of Police s.c.
1957
were also illeg8l in tnat they bad automatically cqm- -
LEE l(YIN Su
plied with the order conveyed to them by the Deputy (alias>
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, instead of u v~u
deciding for themselves whether there were grounds THE CoM~us
. .
for suspiciOn .
agamst t l1e app 11cant
. I
t 1at wou
. 'fy
ld JUSt! sJoNER oF
Exc1sE ANn
THREE
arrest. OTHERS.
(c) A detention in anticipation of restricting
the applicant's residence to I\1yanaung was also
illegal.
There is ample authority in support of these
submissions, but the matter before us cannot he
disposed of on the question of unauthorised arrest
alone.
Since the point has been raised \Ve would observe,
this Court has repeatedly pointed out that the liberty
ol the subject is made indefeasible by the Constitu-
tion and that such personal liberty is not to be
interfered with save.in accordance with law and with
strict compliance with the procedure prescribed.
The sufficiency or otherwise of grounds against a
suspect.is a matter
... that has to be solely decided by
the officer empowered to act. An order passed by
an officer so empowered merely because of a
direction made by a superior authority is manifestly
illegal. See Ma Thaung Kyi v. The Deputy
Commissioner, Hanthawaddy ( 1) and Daw Mya Tin
y. The Deputy Commissioner, Shwebo (2). So also
is an Qrder meant to be retrospective. See Daw
Aye Nyunt v. The Commissioner of Police,
Rangoon (3).
But the illegality of the.initial arrest and detention
will not render any effective help to the applicant for
we are concerntd only with the final order passed in
- - - - - - ---- -
(I J (1~49) B.L. !~. (S.C.) 30. (2) ( 1949) I>.L.R. (S .C.) 9:).
(;l) (1949) B.L.K (S.C.) 5.
10 BURMA LAW REPORTS. (1957

S.C, the name of the President by th-e secretary, Ministry


1957
of Home Affairs. Th~ original direction of the
LEE KYIN Su
(alias) t>e.puty Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Revenue,
U Su
v.
executed ~y an Inspector of Excise, _culminating in
THE CoM~!IS the arrest of the applicant on the 24th March was
SIONER OF
ExcisE AND substituted by the directions of the Deputy Secretary,
'l'lll~EE
OTHEl~S.
Ministry of Home Aff~lirs, under which the applicant
was detained as from 3rd Apr-il, firs.t on ~he rec;;pon-
sibility of an Inspector of Police and later on that
of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. These orders
were in turn vacated when the applicant was released
on bail on the 7th May and the Deputy Commissioner
took the precaution of revoking his own orde1. The
applicant is thus left with the order which has kept
him at the present moment in Myanaung.
It has been U( ged that the various orders of arrest
and detention formed a continuous series and that
an illegal arrest at the outset must vitiate the fina~
order. Some credence is ler1t to this view by the
decision in Ah Ny~ve v. Commissioner of Police,
Rangoon (l) where it was held that an arrest made
by a subordinate officer upon receipt <Of verbal orders
over the telephone from the Commissioner of Police
WdS illegal from its inception and that a subsequent
written order confirming his verbal message could
not cure the illegality. While it is true that the
various orders in this case relate to the same person's
continued detention, it must be borne. in mind that
the orders were issued by different authorities and
that t'he final and effective order which is now being
challenged was made under a different section by
which the applicant was. released from custody but
was restricted to the limits of Myanaung. A deci-
sion which is against the view advanced is Daw JVlya
Tin v. Commissioner of Police, Rangoon (2), where
--- -- - -~--

(1) (1948) l.l.L.R. 737. (21 (1949) B.L.H. (S.C.) 82


1957] 13UR!\l/\ l~AW REPORTS. 11

it was hetd that a person released under the order S.C.


1957
of this Court owing 1o a technical Haw in the orders
LE; l<YmSu
of detention may by rearrested or, if still unae1" (alt'as)
detention, such detention may be continued under a l' s ti
v.
fresh and lawful order. TEE CoM~!IS
SlONH~ OF
Turning to the merits, notice was issued to the EXciSJ; ANH
"rl!IIEE
respondents named in the application, they being the Ol'lJERS.

Commissioner of Exci~e, the Officer-in-charge of the


Rangoon Town Lock-up, the Commissioner of
Police and the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs.
No returns were filed by the first three while a
Deputy Secretary of the Ministry filed an affidavit in
which be merely said that the President was satisfied
as to the necessity of the order. A vague return of
this nature is of no help [see Ah Nywe v. Commis-
sivrzer of l'~;lice (1 )l and not in conformity with Rule
8of Order XIX of the Rules of this Court, which
reads:
"The return of tile \Vrit shall contain a copy of all the
:auszs of the prisoner's dett:ntion endorsed or annexed to the
writ, and the return may b~ amended or any other return
mbstituted. "
The leanloo Government Advocate however has
Jlaced before us the Home Ministry file relating to
:he applicant and we have looked into it. It appears
.hat subsequent to a seizure of a large consignment
)f opium near Rangoon in 1948 the applicant was
~ ep t under surveillance. It is said that he was ruined
)ver the seizu.re and remained inactive for some time
)Ut the "Excise Department had reasons to suspect
hat another big consignment seized in Meiktila in

952 was his . A strict wa!ch had been placed upon
im since then. At the end of 1955 there were two
uge seizures Gn board ships about to sai! from
~angoon. Enquiries were made and there are
(!} (l94S} B.L.R. 737
12 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
S.C.
1957
statements on record that these~ a'ttempts t9 smuggle
opium were done at the. instance of the applicant.
LEE KYINSU
rauas\ These statements may fall short of proof in a
u usu criminal trial but, as pointed out in Maung Hla Gyaw
THE CoMms
S!ONER ol>
v. C01nmissioner of Police, Rangoon (1), preventive
ExcisE ANo justice which comprises restraining a man from com-
~~::~:S. . mitting a crime which he may commit but has not
yet committed, is common in nll .systems of
jurisprudence, and in applying it, it must proceed
upon the principle that a person should be restrained
from doing something which, unfettered and. free, it
is reasonably probable that he would do.
In the past this Court has explained its functions
in dealing with writs. We do not exercise appellate
jurisdiction in dealing with them. What we have to
consider is whether an authority exercidng powers
under the Public Order (Preservation) Act herd
materials before him to juslify the conclusion he had
arrived at. The discretion to e~ercise the powers is
solely his, and even if we wish to, we cannot sub-
stitute our discretion instead. It is for him without
question to decide whether he has re1;1sonable
grounds to act. if

" In this case, there were before the competent


authority the statements that we. have mentioned and
since he had chosen to believe them, it is not for u.s
to say that he should not have. The materials were
there ; on these materials it was within his discretion
to pass the order he had passed ; and it wquld not
be proper for us to interfere.
The appliqtion is dismissed.
We desire to make O\U observations on one point
which was not raised. This relates to the powers of
the President. The Public Order (Freservation) Act
invests the President with certain powers but the
1\ (!9481 B.L.R 764 . .
l95!] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 13

word is .,governecl"by section 121 of the Constitution ;9;7


which provides that all executive action by Jhe ~
Union Government shall be expressed to be taken i~ LE~a'~!~f [;
8

the name of the President. Thus in actual fact the uv.su


powers under section 5 are exercised by the Ministry THE co~tms-
~ror-:FI~
OF
of Home Affairs and not by the President in person. Exct;E AND
We have ~xamined the proceedings before us and we ;~~"~REE:S.
are unable .to discover who actually took the decision
which led to the order restricting applicant's residence
to Myanaung. As has been pointed out, it was the
office that made the recommendation to the Deputy
Secretary who submitted the proceedings to the
Secretary, who ultimately sent it to the Chief Secre-
tary with hi~ recommendation. If the Chief Secretary
was the authority, he should have issued the orders
but in thi.S...case his orders were verbal and the person
who actually signed the order in the name of the
President was the Secretary. In doing so, was he
merely following a djrection given to him by a superior
authority or did he use his own discretion ?
The delegation of powers under section 7 by the
Preside.nt to em individual officer in the Home
Ministry woilld ensure the exercise of individual
discretion which is urged by this Court in a series'" of
pronouncements. The nature of the proceedings
under the Act puts the burden of coming to a
decision upon one person who should issue the order
himself, and who should make the return in the
appropriate . form in the event of a writ being
issued.
' uscccsofile3gw:~ro!le:s :fel~ o~chco jCosucfi~l1~
~:soo'!ie:~ :fe13 o:chco 1:0B::g :0~ o~chco 1:~~3B:~ :0~ o:chco l
r3 el ~9t'iec d:Osoc.!fo~ ~ec:cc~ece:chco 13~e cG 3c ,y,,
I!SCCC3~:chco
p o~ occo ~~~lie:fel&:chco ~b:~0~:re~30d:c. ~cecf?chsS:esoc.c~~:~~~
So:c.!eso!e~ ccc~<Vpcc:~:~;rwil~~ &::c.cosod6)~1f>sces!Eo~ l~e~~sowso-~
l!i,clh:J~ro~glie:b~c.0'1~e~fi di:c!f>so!eec sccc~c,co~g~ co&::ccopclfu~
npccro~Mocco ~sco~:~~ 3bsoSJso~soch~ 3 o3 c.ro~
g;<h:;,sc:chco~fie.G slfuso~so'h3bsol!l3c.re:;,~~~ ~eeco:chcosoo! OGCO 'JCo
esc I~Gal)CeG sccc:c.co:s~gecscsa coeeco:~~clsco~socec~soco :sFeGSCCC
~:~:chco sccccooc,ec 383~~scg:0 So:~:Ge.G~~:<hco ~:3fux;?~~@
gcco:;,scscccsco~:wlbe.G b egoc~ocsorogb~sl:~:<hco0scco:;,sc (])~~so
scsce ~~~~8g.>c.CCBG~SOOOl OeJSO~SOSo ~:~og~:b=>gb~:chco S2cc8g.>'!f
11pcc
dsoS=> 1:9(: 'Ul!M 9 'YfViM SJU.IIVN 't> 'O;) ::j' ttooj!UV<J rsccc:c.\JCOCfisccc~e
g8s~Se~:chco sro:~:<hco sofuedtg.> scccc4<;g~ g:;c:p~r lso!eso:~
u6 eg~ceocsoe.G:b~sb~:chco 0
sccoBsc d:'i.)~"c.[uescoe~c.0leel!iro .1:3SO~PSOo :~~SOc.c Soc0~3b
gec ~~glbbee0 c_ce:g:g0 ):~e30d:c :cecf?soc.c~~=~~~ch3Se
coglie:~&:!<hco Socrosoc,l&:e 3bLolb:beec 3rol oerogl!e:bec0&
~occo 3c@J~ccce:~:~oi>~~~so~bfl [fscccso~bss ~cc~~wso!b
c_cokso~fl ?ff?sccc 3b::.4~~ Gc egoGeocsoro :~e:chc.osco:;,~~(o!b
* (gc!A&l9~gcro
g;clfu~) -oc Lo gllb.w&gchco g~0gchco ~~3co3l9 npb oc
3~ oope
( gclf?&g cro<tJciED~) 6 Lo ~g~30 GGBc L
'31Ib ~ ro~ ~-g; g c1 co
LS6IJ s.L1IOdtrn MV'1 VW1IOH tl
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 15
.


~ & 91 cg ~: 11 11 ~Gcgi'Jch~:>~a ~>Jot~~GmSoospg0~gaad3 2 o
GfJ(./fl<-J ?~ acl6)1c;Eg~g~<D'JGI>)g9Jtb8dGoT~t 80G~Kli(01~>j~ GCSJ?oSm'Jg
~tGcgpoS~-::~ roop:Ojl~~1JtOOO ooS~d3~~1 G~T~Eg~oSm
~~gGmSc'2t GojpoSoo'J~GOJ'J G0jj'Jchsg':1@50Jtu
Gcgj<JoSo::og~ G:JT~Sg~oSm ow1e ~!&>rroop~~g~Ji8'3~o5 oo?
Cf?,'S GOJ~~~$~'Jgmspt~ro@~3ClGoT02S robF:2~GIJ~ OJ6pg~l:lj?t~tl
b]~P'?~~~ oo roQ~I 80:700 O(j Gt~Sjlrool~ 5'0S'JW2t&~ ~g.og~m@ql
c;tw~rf.JE~ @ooS~o 1g~~~mDoo'J~b]~Gcg::>oSoo?~OJ~36~tgl 6J~ot
~Go:):ioospgQ~gm tCJ.;to l~G]Stcqo56)~ 8'.38~~~cf.i~Gro:::otu c;t~uast
02E GcgpoSoo'J~Ojlm 8d~t~O~~>JG~:m;;J1f ua~ol~S~ G-:>~@CX?o
G6ps~9JGJ~Dd8~GOJ:>tg~GCO::Dt&ll ~'J<J;;Jl3CJ~O ~~~~ 88~ooSOJ[:
@54~3'Jtg>. ~cf"l]! gGGi'Jt~~Q~~
1 \
c8m
GC\jj'JchCO?~<D~Cf?oS6p ~d36cq
.

~~GroS~)!Xl8~sa6] ol:6)5:mb<D5'0~!m eo~~3d6} ~oSoji?GQO?t8)oS~~


~OJ~~~ G~oS.p::DqJOS~oS~m@~ l o 1~6]S:~;~'J 3droe}G@~GOJ')
GG'J9 o oSop.i/"/)'J~m 8dS2t;~~t~tCD':':l~OJ~ot O@ ~? ~1&;1 rospgG
::GGOJg8d~GOjj'JoS~p 8d~o5 OtJ 02t1 E>1<Jt~~GO'JS OJGp~G~gm ~6)t
8J.-h~~o5~:x>t&u ~o?::c~rhpSJ~:x>t~~ ~~rb.p:Y.l t)loS<{$o)~
~@~ ss51~c,SO)tJ? G6)~oS:Y.J .Y~r')~:~~GOJ')G'J~' oo?o ~~~
O'JG~:9Jt08dG~T<J6Si ~~O?~~G()')~OJt;pW~! saoSeoGsc;fiCJ ? ~ 8'.36)1
SJG~K~O11>]~ GOjpoSro'J~:)j(CY.l ~~:CQC G~~pd3ro'Jg Gro~en
20~olsaoSeoG~C(5<-J ? ~ Dd~(j'J ~1G6Jg~~~ro5~~ ToS?trooSG83?oS~
~s~Jl8G61~~ssr ct~t~oo@~~~g) Go1Go:JJ?st'<iloS~oS~ 0:nt~G'J~
a:-e~~~G::D')Pi?~'J .pS,p~~~~~cg,f ~~3Cl~~~m ci?f~'io~~~s~
:??CJ6d3 Gcqj~G~SJGt~ a:l6p~o.;(~g~~b()') m8~1!~J.jbjGt@~~tu
u~eiig
p~!e~sro !B?f~C'l '~~xcpo3~SO~GS2cc!l:.o3C.O gt'oscoe>~~~
u~ccso~so~lb3sro ~b
:ree>~Gg~(]~Jb~ Gc egoGe>o~soro~~e~chcoscoe>~~C.O~b wglle:0&;
~chco HSGccso~solkl~o ~3aes ccce>pt!i!eg~~~e> :pb 0 r cog~~
te cG~c ~glieg~oc:chco g~gchcoscoe~~C.O~b tgceoto
11 ~cccoe~gctec
3coemchcopo ~occo 5glieg~&;gcJsco ~[sg~a>~gcee~a>dgcJ :ceo
fpchg~socc~~gg~~ So:cfflso!eec cccea>~cc~W~~c~~~ !FJ~e~e~B
Sl:c~crosocfue g!O: ~~~TWe.G ~CC~fl~CC~ fp~CCG~:fW:f_lh
1~clroe>LDe,. goo10e> eBgl!e:be>cG ~cc~t!ie'l ~cc~fi cf;:cfflso!eec52cc
~cco~g(b w&::crosodroe gEo~ff~ u~ccroe>~cCJDcecg~! occo 5
SJC.Oe>g~~ sbsoGJso(bsochego gceoe:pche~~chco~{ier; gfu.sofusolb
~bso~gccee>~:S-c ~eewchc.op o~ occo peoc=lsc tg;cCJDcro~cc
gcro:g~geowss weecm~~chco~socffiesoco g3boeG3cc~:~gchco
sccc~CCJDCeG Sg3~~scJg0~ ~gSugcer;g~gchco ~ggfueo;>g~o
gccuesc ~C:,:_"Scoe~~~ tbro .b egoGemcsorogbe>gl'lg:chcoogcroe
~ ICDe~gobC~fl il~~~tp CCCelCCD:fOOlOe>g->~:ftoe:~ogro:b~
glsggchco ~cc~tp~ di~0ro u~ccc..usoc!fue w:0~e\5eb:seo C.OLo
pm~~Bcc~b:plkl~o~3Seo ~gl!e:ffilbchco ~~~Bscoo~secscoe>
~jgCCDle~~ffi WSJCOS:~~ sccpme~so:begb~:chco ce8g.>~
uLosc~
(9Z ~UU(l 9 ''f!O M iJWIVJt.J 11. o:J ~ uoo8uoH) n~ccgclgco
c0~c;c~BSg3~~~:chC:o gfug~gcJsco sofuro~tp g:!ccd~~ ::0~
IIOC LO glib
u~ccroe~socfue co:~\l>el~e>~ccco ~ocgcco<fcifu~ g):gc)e>~B
:~]1~c:<hco
3g3~~~:chc.o gscrogw~~=chc.o u:gce~e mSug~C\)g~,} ~bg8b :l9A:<hco
qgcccsoccccce>:ceG 1:Locoe~b:cwsoclfue8:sco3:~'~ sofueG3sen r~3w~~
Cccso~~osc~ u;accroeso~~o ~c80soc!Eoe co~e scb 0 r 3~
b Lo ~:s=!e
rog~l) _te cG~c gfu~~ ~:;ace Sow~ gbgec ~gl!e:b~c0
g~d\Jsocroe> ~l_lcgcrosoclQJe l~ccgl!e:~l:c:chco sw~eGeco l.Gvc
lS6l] 'Sl.~OdH1I M.V'1 VW~flH 91
t
1scccso~!e3set:. gc.fl~=~sc :~
gile:fB3o:cbc.o sco~?g8 geopc.6~l~ :!&sle~fi ~@~o~chco sco~?s~
1:5hC:g :gj3o:chc.osco~?3~ rgcfl~:~g:::g glie~~~~0:cbc.oscoe?3~ .j.
1' f~ p~eccropc.fu~~escc~e.opo~ch tS~e 3Gtlc *
----------~---~------
rS2cc~c.c~cc 9fS 'd lll S wag (Sic'6I) ~TV 'Jo.Jifm:J ' ;'
$.t:11f10 pt~IJ J"/Vtf. 1JlllfS,I~~)}11VUV{Vf) .l ;gc~:cc~g~:C.CO~glietp~.::~ S2cc\3:2eG
glfug<!IW~ c~gcc:gc$e~:; eosccc:cc~~ sb:ccoglle p&ec~l9S!~cBggo~
&:;~ tp~g, ~scruscceg~cec~~ ~g.;cco~~~~cct'pcc gceG$pcc\)''
oolto~eG cb~~cbco tbecceoc :gclepo~ch5ac.cc ~pcmeJco:co&>
rsccc:cc&lgroro 3cc:c!'elp!eec:gcee.o~~19:c.@:~
:g&scco ~b3~so:?te f)~ec p&et:;eeco~g g~:c""ptee.o :gc$e;:;
c.cceg~:cG:(ll :g&scro cbp:~ gccagcc ~b:cco 3c~egl!e g::~
""
. u:!cc
t;pro&>cccacc u }u ~tTa '(6J>6T> r fLo :~:3f)~ ~~swsb ~gce~scc6
uS2ccg c.ccsb:ccogc~~glle 4ee.o cccesofucw pdsec@a :gg:::s~
ff:~:c@ggog &=sc c.~p!esol=b~ (e) (c) (co} G f)goceocpe;:;
(~pc\9egc~$~~~p~~ ):be!c.8g o~&:scB ~~ie 0 6 el CH ;ip!esog:i?e
r:g
:ccfu ~:ggc~~gl!e 3bsoc\9~gw~=~hC~~~ tp:be:c.9g~l:cpB
i5:cib llg:>o.o>chl rcropcfu/;'J SCOeJ~~C.@ :gfusc.oetg~H ;:g:cco
gobgl;e f (e) ( c J (w l G agoG~ocpe;:; (~pc.l&~gccr.~:~g:::!~)
:b~:cggos ~sa wsog~e :s61s gocfi:g1:'oro~~ l':gg?g:>
p&cc~:ibco w ;fBtc:illc.opo.o>ch ff>tc:ccosocfu~ ~~e.o:c.if> flgb c
c~oc~ro (c)~l'H'')/;'J:b~ec ~~~e oGe.lc 3~ (c) 0c 6goce>oc:gccro:chc.ot"'
* (8c~&;b~2cmsoclfv~) c Lo~ll~e~_ ;~og~e
roc~~~ 3~ .
3t;eJc .\. ( OCgcmsoclfuB) g ew~gcogce?
gllh ~(.08 so 8) g c1 co
LT s~li:Ocltl.~ .M.V'l Vv'J:)JDS [!S61
18 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

:::l@~G ~'JG~q:>~ooSG-:>c~ eoGD~'Je~~ QJi:::liL~0o08'J:G6Jg!JdoooS ~lOGOC


GG-:>CCDC~~: O:>'):c:;Eil:~f:!;(:l oooSeoG8(,ij'J~~t ())~~~())~ @~~c1.iE:::o?@alG-:>5n (~ms
~~ ~'.)G~!;(:JC!'O oS~06C OJbp~G::o~oS~G~Scot: Q8JilcSo o8~'J:G6j:~ OO?OJJ)
<l~Eo ~~ c8~~::8~:6Jt ~lDG'Ob co':l':~b:~t~:>@a;Gg?c:.l Raman Lal l~allrt v. Com-
o~rRII~ o1 :::>.1 missioner of l'olicc, Calcutta aud o/lrcrs, A.I.R. (1952) C:tl. 26; Dayaram
\', T/zc State, A.I.R. (1955) M.i3. 65 ~G:::r.J'J02::ot.l

Gp~OaSS{m~~06C CDGp:G~~o)~~{jj~~ ~~d)~~ !:ldcWT06C gt~o


So88s:>~GE>[:rr.l06J:) <lJlOG:j?tGo:>'J:~CO{G~~tG?b .

Gcgpcbco'Jg~8<J02d)l GCijj'Jd)OO')g~ ~J3~t GCO':)tqstg~GC\jj'Jd)


OO'J:OJ~Il

Gcgpcbco'JgQ~ aa'jcf.J : :> ~~ j oo~cbl ao~:b}GS)G~~g@:&2~~oS


0 1GOO'Jt)o5a.:>~11

e:::SS:ro-~-:>tn 118<l'jd3 ?I 9jt:G:::>.:>f>cf.J~5 m5~tg'i mcf3(8)


d3 ~fg~g~:G~1t:GQO'JtGOJ'J <D~a.)')g ? 0 ;;>~~9 ~60~g~gJ3~gGl9!
~!3a~ooS:gJJ~g8<liD~G:::>.:>'J ~::D'J:!Ycl~ ~ 'd:Go18:~: ~oSmc:OJ~
srI d3<D D)'J !J'a~:qs 5 G@@llCY.lJfg)'JOJ')gGcgj;d)~ G~'JC mtGoog~ G92
l'lS:c8:~GroOJ~H ~o Gcfocb ~mS~m5~5:~:m G~'JtmtG~:~
GOJ'J5: 011 ~:~ 8<laJ*G;;J1c:G'QO'Jt~: ~moOJ~ aaG~:on_qoo'JE 81oS
~~- ~~'Jf>'J~Dro.~ ~8<l5 ~cbGroOJ~u ~~-;;>1 6j~'Jf>~Om
G~'JtmtGoa:~goGoTCfd To~~G;;J1t:GQO'JC8<l3:l~~qcgt tGco'JtO{
@~~'J~CcGmS ~Go58(9'JgG~g~ c8g::{3QgG{>'J~Gl')cbGf8J~ ~5c
GmSoo~~ ~ roo5~cf.i~5~pg~ GoO'JC@cb~G!J'a'Jt~CG~: ~ G~'J9G~:
qjcf.i@'J:GOO'JC M~Gf>G::D'J~oo@~~9CJtgJ ~0Jbpg!Ja8Jtg 80GS~6~ : :> 7,
( :::>) SQ~c;cgt 8~~ o ~~~~ 8<lGb}gGoT~0~ !Yclcf.i8~G8~5~ ? To~gb
mbF:~oi?~GCD8J~u o~rnult ? t;pJJcf.it;p~ooS mbF:~~:mro~:
GG'Jtm5Gsog~ :::>~:J~ ~5?3)' qJ~ocf.J~:~UJ'}oS c;o o2S <D~Goog~g
!J'aro~~mqJgooOJtg~ C'rlta.:>~aa~cf.i ~mqJ:!YclOJt:eoG8<f5G 8 7.
( 8) ao~t o~G~~cbmC~a.:>~ll ~0Gf>'Jcb~oe:!'J~Gp:no5sp~ooSmqJ~
~~:OJ~ GG'JtOJtGao:~ :::>.:>cbGOJC:jj'J~~ <D3)GQOg~gG.poS G~'Jtm&
Goag~ mspgGa.:>~cf.J~oSGro::n~u
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 19

~06o'3o.~dlGOJ'J8<1Cl1'~::Ddlm G<ntooCGmw~ ~~~~9.2f:~'Jot oe; ~(5


@~~<9G:~~Gro~tu ~oGr;oS JO ~0S~~sro@'J02C OJdlGOJGll~~ . GQ')E;EGaa:
G GOO'Jch~~ cgoS~rb<:jp:~ GcgpoSoo'J:@~~m~oS J Q~o ~ 3'1~
gC:oomt~ GG:)tOJCGna:rdJ: @t~6o58'J~GG)~ ( c8~::::SSgGID'Jt ~~~of 1
'

G1'JoS51) moSeoGs~5G ~ ( m) ( :J) ( ()) mG't! 9JjOCO'J:G)~ cra~61E~~


0 o::r~nllil 0

1 0.1

GCO::D~fl
dl0d0l1 Cl~Co~GC~G!> O~GG~'JtOOCGcragcra'J~t ~20G3<(5g ~- (J)
rrdllj 9J!OG~'JCOO'J&G)~ craS~~51oS@:1 GpoS<i?g06t Gg'JCOOtGcra:m'J:
~eoGsCfDG ~ (m) ( ~) ( Cl) mt>Jt G~'ooSooS~as~~SJo5@5:G~~066:
9Jt0Gj!'JCOJ'Jgb]~ ga)J~9l9d)~J.iGro::Dtu
~8aS~~5 Ql~Eo~Gtgm Gno'JoSo 1~~5g ~G'JE~@~co'Jg
:x>tn . .
'' Gll'JCOOGGna;::D0r ~5cG0058il~:~~ <(~ro~~rE~oSOiJoS~G::D'JCON~
~~ 0 ~G ~ 1C~Gs::d:oo:@$~ I O'acQ~O<l~~ qC:GI:d3mtG!Ja:OCl'JgJ GG(I!l@;l~<j>uS
22GJ~Ct .:::qb~(OG!i180?:l0 f~n<~8~~~ Gbjl!lffi~r-oS rfdl~:~t:G80J OOGcqpoSq~
:~;Goo'JCI!?8il~:) cv.;;d)~~OOO"lj'J:OO'JG!;poSm ~m~rb.1t OO'Jo ~GO:co'J:Oi/
':'ut:~~t.r ~.@t G(l'JCOJ5Ga~::ot rr.lcU~rr.l~ ~qGgE>JG6l:OaCJ6c GO":Jj:l'J
zdl:dh51 Go~01J~oSGC1:J!:G[S"lf'J: Gct.mn~~IJJ0m ;;uS l'J~8):J:o:J:qp:~~
:n~:~cvoSfo5~coob~'JWa?; n<~GO~a<llOOGmG;;Oilrot~ ~::oc:CJ? ~~'J;'>9
c5G;;ogG::O'J:J.X13GOJ<ij'J;CI;? C2o'3~6::o~n ~S~ GQ'JCOOCGOO:::Dtr @tCQ 0
Soo8'J:G61~~ cB~oSGI!lGaa'JS ~5~tG;;o')S 81 tn Gr::o~ut o;s~S~t.
;;~f'o::ot.r
GQ'JCOJCGaa:oo'Jg ooGp:~~Goo5~ 006(?:2roc~o1m' ~:GroSG~qac GoT
:2E~p :ooSG::oqsrE~o1m q&:,~ooo::l c;E~~naGt9 T<ij'J:~ G1to?"eSI~ <3'JoS
~~lb c;f:~q(Ol_'J:~~ m@:nf~~cvS:~~ OJ~m'J:~cc:G~uh:>@~ c;c:aa'Jg
~SG~'JCo;'J:y ::o~Go.!l?t:itot u;?;;oo1gtJ ''

~@~@ GG::>.boofGcra~oo Q~CO~GC~ G~'Jo5a?:4!~0SGOJ'J ~s~~
:,J)\SJ(}JG)~ ~~gGOJB06 5 GlGooS06cg 0'Jgj~Gro~~92J.i f?.C'3J'Jo5
P):O:Jtu
~O:J~~co$~~GJ~~~~~ q<ltg~w1J c8.G)m~~~td2g (~) 025-
~~gGcoSm Gt9T~@g ~50)~GO~tg O@<f '? ~~~~
(I) (1949) B.L.R. at p. 3,
9r~ c11u fS moa (Sv6Il ~lTV (1\
g~~~~SO o.o)ch~t'lccc ~.co gE'oJ,o~m~&3ccb~gro
g!Eo~~g~lto ~eec.o ~~soo.Qlch 13ccpcco~c.o
:~co &S2M~3 jDch'ifro~cngcn f?gb~~cggoso&3
n:gc~:gro:ce 3cc~g~eo~g~:Sct'l ~
ec.o~!l:.o g!ED:~~~S'cro~ec.o ce~ggg~:ccogc~~gl!e
beG~:.!BG~oa~c: :b~sowcc.o Suscco~g:; ~8g~
be~gcJscobeGG~oa :gc,~soo.Qlch~eccc bosocm~c:D:~co&J
n3ccu)
~J,Iil~:gffroLosocro~ c.o (m:lfo'1) :~ :ffi~o:clsco goo (c)
:~gb~~eG .Jo.Ladw:J ,, s.LalfJO puv !A[V A VUIJS!.l)J zmuv{va
~ n~ccgc
c.w~~eG g3ro3ccgct'h{)b:ce~~CD 3bg~c;o:~ ~0
~~eG pfuroeeco~~ g~Q:~cn~ gccegcc~b:ccogc~~glle
u3cc
gccfu~~w 3ccgciflSDJeroggc~ro S2t'lb:w:cn
:g&scco . 5chg;,~~gb~ ~('J~~eG sofueG~~
ccc~~3ec~'38:J:llfW g~:c!Bpleeo:gcJ~eG ccc~
g~gcCD:CD~g&scco Schc;o:(;egccegcc 3b~ccogd~
glle pfuwpcc:ccwsc u3cc:ccfu~~eG 3cc
gng:o~~eG proeG~~ccc~~3~:111tog~:33c~~
gl!e 3b:;owcc.o ~cl~g(,(J)~:~sc.~~~ smb~:cggo~o&3
n3cc~
cccfS~b:o~ SSJG~eB ~roeG~cc~38:>:11!l:.o ~~~
chg~pcc Ce~'Soo.QlcJ.sccc~~~ ib8ff C t'l90G~o2
g.>eG~tt~lo~:be:~w s~ (c) GC t'lOG~o2g>eG :gccro:chcot'l
r c Lo ~llffieo
n3cc~ccc~b:ccogobgl!b gsbeG
1~03~e.
CCCSjDWCW pcl!isgc0~:~sc:3g:> bog(9~:cggo~ 3~
0
:eBe>3C.03Cfl~
&3 cfisoleT~3b ~ (e) (c) ( c.oi) G ('lgoG~o2
g.>eG c~so.dkw~:~sc:3w ).' :b~~cgg o~n&3 ~Gelc
lS6l] 'Sl"ccOd'tni M.V'1 VW"ccOH oz
'91: '[1!:) (ZS6rl ~TV (J)
3ccgcff,ceo2soec chg8egbegcoogc~eglle soloeB
gJsegcggo~o&3 3~~c:bce~e ggcJesoo-o:ch
3eccc Jg@?f~c/BgjcJeec ~~cmec 'SCccgclf,g0!mdsco
-:3cocf; (c) g~giF>~/!;es s.t<JZflO
puv VJ111:Y[V:J 'CJ:YfJOd jo .l<JUO{SS!UIUIO:J A !lflVH.lV7 W1UI1J'U
uggcesccc?fccgcce
3ggcco~gc~egl~ tp&~ scccbggeo g!rog<i>ltoec~
~ccggcJeec C.03ccgcce~ 3bwx:>glle pfueo
g\.9egcggo~ &3 So&~ I!Jcco0epccoeSoe
t'cesocc gceoesoccoe~e!W~eo g&~~soo.Q)ch ~gsc
Jl :gce~ f} gscco~Jsgoegggcog J!l:Dro so.ooecmct-s-0
u:gce~3occ.ocogec ~b:gec :cc:begcggo~~
0
&3 cfig3ooe.G mccosoee _Loe:lseec uggce
g;croe~ g!rog4ltoe c~gccgsceec . eo3cc~
319:ccogc~eglJe co&sofi!e~sec 3bgcoogc~egl!ef?
Jct!i31stf:ccogc~eglJe pwec:lse:cggo~o&sc goocbf?
u:gcleb:oe :cw~:chco ...
So3g~CO g~w SCJOOei>CDCCSC~ gfu~ COCCSC
ccce3ccg3cleec ~socoes u:gcJe~3flb3~
~@~~ :gce~~eG C~:chco scccscoeg~ 31sg~.
:oe~es g;roweec.o#i:,oo.Qlch u:gcjegccw ce
:3coecgreec ~cceg;cccccegeB~ gcroeg~g~!We
S08 c8gcc:gce<>.G C:o3cc~:ccogc~egl!e sorow
t}~~ ~begcggo~ o&3 g~:3eoecg~eGg.>!e. "
cceg;x ccceg~G~ 31sg8mesec pwweeco#igsoo.oJcb
~Wl ~ ~
IC ~() Qluweo ..,. l *
'Sog~e i!ggcle
3~ .qcccscfl:~~ ~b:cco ~gobgl!e pfoec~be:cg
:ec~~c.cscM g~~o~SC f?o&;[: grugBgcecefl ~socme~fl
~G~c ~cc:?Jpcc
S2ccl!ieBB:> ~socoes pcci>~~~, 11ggce
rz 'S.L~Od3~ M V'J VW"HD g (L56J
22 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

m~~~m~~ @~~0S(gt~;XJJ~~G(Q3'Jbl ,~@~~ ~'JG~


G~')Eo-.,SG8<l~ Gpe'OctJS?CJ2C COGp~GCD~oS~CD~ ~02cf) @t~o
51~ ~So 5 S'J:Gtq~~ m'J~J3d3~:::8S:6)~ Fl][DG!'Jt~
<l~CO~I GCX)')g~C~O? G~~tG6'Jtg ~6)C~:@oS~6GCD~~I!
Otffil!i 01 ::J .I
~mc502CGt3T@~G8)'J d?G::D~6)5o:2~~9 m'Jco~g:i)g~q5o:2:
~ GHm'J::n6)oS COGpg9;100Gm~m Dayaram v.
The State ~j?~qto:2.~ ( :::>) ?25 :::>yG::D~o;(CDcfj~~g
~m":lg0(?~6)C~cfj~ 4JSlo)~GCDC:Dtn

~~:GmSmmt: Epe'O o5~m~'l025 msp:GCD~0S~~~~9 ~C):lo)


~~~GoT026 t~o~So 58~')gG6):~02cf) ~tOG~'JCoo'Jg6)~ ~s~G~
SloS~C~<Jt G~~tG@'Jt: CDG::D'JOf?CDe3U
~O)G:))'Jo;?:::Ot~~Cgl ~~5 O~GC:~GS)CJ,;lC GG'JCOOCG~g~'J;
~[bG~'JCOO'J~6)~ ~s~~SJo)~ 8oSGCY.lJf>OGQ:JGCD'Jcf)G::D'J ffilG'Jt~
~GCD'Xb~CD'J:C:ij')g ~G~Q:J~Grog6~~bp G~'Jrf.iot~~Cg !d?2@t
6):::0~11
GG')COJtG~:~'J:msp:GOJ9;1o)~rf.iG~') oymJ!lisp:nrf.ibpc-OoS
msp:~~:~ ~6)5~oS&')otcg;5 GD'd'Jd:Jo1~~c~o 1~CDtu
11
qt~c G'=l'Jt::8~ :G<9 ( ~B ::>) m I oosp~~8<l'J; CffC\J mot ::8G'Jt: I
c;c:SJ':l 8<lcD~8<lo:>CmtooGro'JoS@~G'Jt: ~d)~Gco:::o,:: qc:~ ~o)~o);~
G~'JC::n~~~ ( ~B ? ) m Oji~W'J6)b:02,f oo~:~:::of 8<lCQ~cOO c@: Ga:l'J~
06-:J:G'Jt: ~oS~Goo'JoS~o,p:Gcoo:>~u
:x>oSG:::o G'=l?tO)lGI:)'Jt (~B <.f ) ~ 'J G23':JC:GOO'J::J{?~:@~~ 006p :~8<l'J:
G:J,J'JC:01j ~:~00 GOJ'Jd3U{oS ~UfoS '=ldJG':Jt: Di$d3~GCO:x>~.l
GO.:d::CY.Jj~:~OJG(X)'Jro8<l'J: ~:ooc OOE>f>:~sa[9$@9 ~:02f~~G;;o::x>~
8<l<lll sa~:Gp5{roS:I:)OfoSG:x>'J ~O~[OGq:rooSCI]Sw~sp~S Gf>6)G:::D'J oo~:
~s:::oroG:x>~(j? :::DcfiG:::D~6)t G5pcG;.@E:@~qc:l I:)Q'.)oS:::O')~ ~osG:::o~b)O1'i
rn~ ~(,) ~rot~@9qc: I G:x>':lt:01j~:~~~G<ji'Jrfibj~ Gp8'~cgd.)q:x>@9
~Oil ~:o;~:02oSmt~r'' o;?:;;o~: ~~<JtG~:x>'J~.I
~G~S) oSml C:8~GOJ') ~roG:::o cgoS<l] ro~sa b) I OJ6p:~(j':l YOJ
8<!00

6f>!::J<l;))C!8<l@b ~CCGooS S<l~~qm G01]23'J~:@~G:::0')L' rnro~~ o;(tG::O'JC)(

(ll A.I.R. f1955l M.B. 65.


1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 2'3

OOGOJ'Jmoto;(~@l qt:30D: GOO~Wc::DC: (@td:>C~d3) eoGO<l5G 07_ (:::>)


( 0@~9 :t~f>: S'dcf.l~yo) J ~) ~b) ~~qlOOCGm~t.l ~G'JCOOCGoo:
* * * * * ,, . ~~
_. :;)~So~l
02J~Sdi\ ooSS4JcDY'J Ct.l6p=~~t G3jg()') GO)'Jt:0ij~:~ ~::Dtmc O<(ffin~ o1 01
OJGo:>'Jcf.i@5G;n'JC:~&o1c8~Gt.r ~G::DS m<rm'J: c;S:~j~~ OOd::lrb8<1~u5
G~::l'J Gd:l'Jb;l>j?C:Gm'Jt:oOS~~ 8d:Od3G~:QGfc8~GttY.I Ojld::lo1:oal 8d:nu5
G['J~~Gm :1(t.x>t&~GCY.jj>JG~'Jt: u~ J )e) ~d)4JcDOOE>1f OO~:~~'JG~5m
0006C:OJC ~~G:;ltoS~~ Gqv'ffi~ <JaGI>j?t:ooooS~~ CO'JCJ2:UtC'!JoS ~OJoSm
c,<!J$:Gc8::Y.lco'J:::Dtjl?l qt:~ro~> OObp:~8'a'J: DdGb't:(JlJ2~~G:O'J~OOGOO'Jo5
0{ jlo)OO'J:OO~OjlGro:Ot.l"

G~ntmCGS'd:o:>t 0~~0'JG6j0ffi~ OOGt;ptmaoJ3~9 <jl~GOllo)


m)::r;~'~ olcqoS SfYJoSm G<9Sw~g:iJoo'J:~::nt~sp~'J GG'JtmtGmg
OJt ~~C\J'JG&poS~G@'Jt: ~a:loScrxScqjrb5l9 ~0Js~0~~~0JG<.D'JC
GCO'Jt@~~~'\)cotn o:Jf0~GOJ~\n'J: ~a:lchWd3G'Jt~ ~rbGOJ~
8'0GOO'Jcnaco'Jg0~~~ cf1GO=Jl.SGO.J'JC: ~o)~frorot~ ( CQI~GCD~5''J
m r;p:~~'<~ro o 5cotGo t::Dr~ 0d3o1) ~nacEmcof~ ffioS~~
OJ~U .

~:rooo1g ~O"Jrbcn O.JMG::DO'aOJ~ G GlD'J(f)~~ o:J~G<>m~: 1


~~~mo:J5~~ttAJ'Jg~ 01~fo ~Gt;ro ro5~fg~GroOJtu ~O.JrtJGO.J
~p: OJ~ G~,oEoo tG80:~ cs-'JoS@~GOJ'J ~~'!-llfgl'J~~ GG'J fm5Gm~
~0JG:SGOJ') :05<Jt~:apyf,ootu ~~aa'J:a?~m GG'JtO.flCG82~
o:>t I 80 c0*GOl1t~G80'Jt@&iG'Jt:J G6)0ffi~ ~J3!1aG5j~Cg ~ DOJJJ 6 G~
OJ'JO~~@SG'Jt~l rra~~p:~o:J~Ganl: mQ~Go:Gcp~ ~G'JS:1
mo.)*o 10S5m02d3oooSG:~'Jg~ ~0DCJ'JgGo:saSbJG'Jt:l Oi?o:Yc3::J2
C9,0SC\:O~'JCXl_<JW1m @t~~<X(~ Go68@'J~G6):~ c8~rf1qd3@'J2
G~m~tB~G'Jt:l ::l.r(~G'\)'Jrb~oS~p~cf1 G'Jrf.i6]GOJ'JG6'J~ CDS(?g
~:GmS~')g0'2t ::uo5GcoG~9GG'JC: m0-)ro~:~oS~~6o:>tu
..
~SgmOGGmS~9 ~~~~~Golf:~ ~tfjrof: c:?tsr~f GG'Jt
ootGo-a: na'Jg .s~Q~ ~roSGGOJl3~cS~:m G0'J5oo5GDO:~'J: ~~P~~
~ooS~~~ ~~'Jcj)OO GG'JCOJtG~:~ 3d GoTcri CD6pg~~~~~ ~2~~
Go.J'J:Yo~C2f ~c:o.:>@:~~g~(9~~ @:~~;<:~ ~d)~~"l)'J:~9 G~'Jd)
24 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

oe,G Co00~G;;o:GOJ'JOJcf.iGOJ ~ GOJ'Jd)~~ cg6~~~j'J~~GCO'Jcf.i;;oGxSI


G~'JCOJCGO<J~ ~~Eo~=>t~~j'J G~ntmtG;ToW~ @ffi~oSo53@'J:G~:oa06oS" 9Jl0GOC
~9 ~ , CO'='~SJ~~Gt<Jt 2cG0:lj~OGCD'Jri3Goa'JC xoSGOJ30G<Xl'JoSoaco'J:~pg
Oy~~~O~I ~XtCJt~~G~~:>tu
0.1

xoSGxoax~ ~ GCD'JoS~m l:ltx&::r3~oS S8~xtc;E:1


oa'J:Oi(tjj'J:xtc;E: o:J6p~~g.tJ]'JWJC GG-:>trotGoa: 8'dGoT~ 8'd@~Oil
GSO'JC xoSGxG@QG~'Jb soG[3-:>t~@~oS~, oyffi;~~~ 6pOJo'3
t;pG>ooSroqY.~~~~ ~5~:7 oacooS02S CX?aS~oSGl9Tj9~GOJ'J m~
m Gco'JoS@C\ijOS~xtu

~@~ ~~Eo~Gt:OJt oa5l~o5 @t~oSoS8@'J:GE;J: c8~::BS:


G0'J~Gl'Jd3bl~ Gl:l'JCO)CGGZ:O~ ~[OG'OCCO'J:~~OJtot 30(06-:>E:
x9~P GOiJ<j)D~X'JC\jjC 8'd~o1oaS~~ ~SJoS~OJt<rt ~~~GmSm
OJGJ:l'Jb)Xtll ~OJGOJ'Jb)OJ&oa~tg GG'Jto:JtGoa:~ G~'Jd)9p~
o'oS~oSxtn ''
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 25

oo~~~~G'~ s9Jls
~(J)')CJoS~cr;l8Cl'JCJt ( GOjj'JoScn'JgJ)(: "I ~e~rs
~~ qoScu J 0.1
B~ GCD'J t 0(@~ CJ'J ~ tcG cnS8a ~gb) I ~fc(3'JgG6p~g8CJ@
m~g aaa2tgo~
. . o 1 ::) ( GcqpoScn'Jg~b)J)(~pg) *
;)ec;? '?~~~ o;{oE51 (cucf.iroGcu'Jcoo5~oS~'J~) oooSeoGCJcf-ll} ;)? (;)) OGJ6)1
@S5:1ro5 51 -:-:~ 9 55~~ sE~eoGD</-il} '2 ( o) OGI6)' @~n~5C:GOJ5~ qsoS::l2'J:
G~6)~0GJS~ @tGm')t~ ~G'J~5cGro5 ~~~:a,?O~[S~ ooG~eoGo<f-ig
;)O 0 ) 8d6)1 @~G'J~Cc:::>.:>'J~~SG;'~ ~8UGDC(DG ~ ( o) ~ 9 ~-o
:::>.:>cf.i~CG~C.I
GcgpoSa::r:n::lj?:::>.:>t o @~:'J '?i~O'J o1mS~oo~5cn;~:oooSSJoS@9 Q~o E
~~') 61~~: g;~,,v~~Ec:: m'JG6f:oS<J1 g~ .. 'J~Eco;sE "t8~~a:m:::>.:>~ stoSo:xf)
Gcr;/)~~Gt~E:::o@~ oomoSGGTo1 8<loSeoG8C(bG o? ( o) OOE>J 1 @~~cot~;:n
~tqcc:~~6)G:::D'JG6'J9 C(OG ?_ ( 0) 66)1 o;(O 5~~;60GGJ:O~O'J qt::J<J'J~~C~
'~oS~'J:G~b]~ ~yoS~oS:::>.:>~OGJS~Ji ooS i.jjoS GO:U 16)~ GOGJ'Jcf.iu10GJ~C: OGJ
c;63'J8s8GOjj'JoS CO'J:Gro:::>.:>tu -'
SS~ooSOJc51 OGJ~1:~::llf GDTGG:::Dt ~G'J~5::::D'J:@~:::otoo5 SSy'J
~G'J~Cc~1~S I;}~GiXnt~~--'J~CcGoo5 ~~fB:~O~[O~mG~ 8UGDC(5G
~;) (a) 006)1 @~G'J~L<C:::o:n@~Gp:::D@~ O@Cf'2 '?~S 1 @toc51 D<ln58UGOC(5g
?. ~~ ~: OD<lll.jj[:Go C~'JC:~9 GC\]poSm:n:::D~u
c;q:@aS<ijc,1 IIOGJG:>t:8<l)oS OGJ~E; SJ~G~O'J'JW GOjj'Jcf.ICO')!~:::OtH II
(o) u1mg?OJ~~Cc:::D'J:OGJ@~~ O@~~ '?~Sr (l~C\J o 6)oSG~G~c3 ~~~o55:
G~~:::otroG[j'Jt:.l
,. (j) O@:'J:'J <(~tr c;:@ro ~ qoSG~G<;pcf.l~::::>.:>eiiGt'Jc u1mgsoo~~CcOGJ~:6)
cCiy ~tc:::D'J<ooGt@9 ~Eco;~:rooS~oSq'1?~:::otooG'Jc:"
~.4~3'J9 G'J~Cc:::>.:>'J:~S~OGJo5euGDC(bG o 9 (m) (o) D<l6)CjC:I o c; ( m)
t?) OGIGJs&: fG'J~cc:::D'J:OGJS 9 9 o0~utyo5on"l ..~_,..
1.< :::l@ ~)IS y~Sr a:><;p:GOGJG:::>.:>:OGJ~G~'Jc92'JOGJloS J :'J"
1 ~tcGw?wq:>:d~@3~<JI[O e~o3G:GY'JCI ~CcGoo5ro<>p:o~ :@~o3~~~
~CcGoo5mq:>:o~@: ~:<l]~q;>~~~~Gj]G~')c025 a:><;p:o~!J: @:~t~t:OGJS~
<ij~oS~tll
26 ilURMA LAW REPORTS. . [1957

8 @~(3 Gcgpcflc:o'J::~nGl~roJ ~cfJGm~G3J~G~~: ()~O'J') ~I 0a5y: ~ro


~OJ'J'"~EiP~ o1~w'J5 81ro~u ~
W'J~C ..
~~ Gcgpcfloo'JgQbJ~~'J:rn~rol rn~:bJ G3JG<J'>~: @:::n2~ ~cfJo1
19tGro'JC~ c ~c .....C:
g~l:l'J~Cc GOO'Jc~m:::D~II
GO')~OCJ~:G) j _ ,,
~tc(3-:>:G6):~: e~ t ~ t
g ll.~Gcqj'J cfl~'Jl'J . 0 ~ Cf '( '{\&I ':)?0 C~ \ rooS
g ll

rn@~~:oo OJGCIJ'J @cooS9]cfl~'J:) rncfJeOGBC(bl,) "2 8'G6)1 020C~~:E)bG6)W~m


02t:ofo1 11 SSrn'J: @~G'J~CCSl ~cflqs'J:GIDbj~ 9]~o5:::Dt8CS~~ ooS~cfJGoW1r>j~
GC\jj'J cfJ C:O'J:~m GOJ'JC:~G:n'J GCijj'J cfJ~'J~ &OJt II
GCijj'Jcflc:o<J:~OJt O@~~ <r~&m olm~m~ ~Cco;[:axE~o5@
@~G'J~5C:~5 ~:CIJG{>g~~OJ~ ~to 5~G''J6)~@: @~G'J~8c~ ro'J
Gt>poS~Go:::Dtu o @~(; <r~&m t>pG-oo5~~:rnSloS o J o CJ2C md3m
t>paJcbmspgPi/@:~:Gm~~ 9Glc:oroGt3T@o1 rnroeOGBt~bG OtJ ( 0)
S<lbjl GCijj'JoSro'J:~GO'J: @~G'J~CcCJ6C G{>g~~c:o'J:oJ~ O@~~ '{~I
~G-::f.>'Jro tJ o 6)cbG<P.OOd) Ga:t6C'S~G<j'>~COJ@~msp:~~spo2t GCijj'JcfJ
ro'J:~mmsp:Q9Gl@&~~ SSC25rn&~G'Jt:o~QOJ~9Gl~t: o @~G
yi~l G'~'JO 1~ro J Cf GjroG<P.OO B~~OOCl'J:~bjtc:@~bjGCD:xltu ~o
G<j'>'JoSrnrooSG\3To1 rnoSeoGnrtbG "2 ( o ) rn91 02o5~~:5G6):o ~
m qt:nGl'J:@~<:n~tC'j ~d)qs'):GIDG)~ 9Gl8~~9JSlcfJ~GCDOJtll .
GCijj'JoSro'J:~m 88~9GlS::noS~ rn~1:~&~ GBTGGOJt @~G'J
~5:6)C::::D'J:~&OJErn@5 88Sl'J~G'J~tcC25 ~1:@5~@&o.J@~ @t
GOO'Jt~~G'J~tcGOJl:J~~Dt:~b9J[b4rnG@@ 80G8<fbG 00 { Q) S<l6)1
88:::Dt @~G'J~CcOJ'J:@~GOJ'JG8'J91 rnrooSGt3T[9o1 O@Cf "2 yi&i
toCj~S<lrbeOG8C(5G '( o1 B~')~g9jcfJ~p:OJt 88i~~gQGOJoS~t
o1u ~p'J~889Gl'J: ~G'J~CcSl 06o5qs<J:GID6)~CX(o5@~o:>ffirn8~o:Jt
msp:eoGsi9 oo~~ tGOJ'J 8d S~@~:::Dt ot GcqpoSc:o'J:Gro:::Dt u
.somoS q5:r~oS~OJt~~f: ~~rn~1:GsTGGOJt ~5:6)5:
::D'J:@&GOJ'JG6'J9 qt:OJtro~: ~CC:::D'J:@~~OJt SJ~GID~:GOJ?
@~G'J~CcOJ'J:@~~rnoSeoGs~bG o c; (m) ( o) y<J6)c;E:r_ ::H7 ( m) (?)
rn6)qc: @~G'J~5cOJ'J:rn@~l E;]b~~@:otSl cf.i~G)G t@~OJt n GajpcfJ
CD'J:~:::Dt o1m~m~~CcOJ'J:rn@0~ O@~~ 1~&1 ~ro o 9oSG~
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 27

G~t~ ~~~oS@tgG~~-J:>~ooG'JtgJ oe~~ ~~SJ cg@ro o t>joSGf. oe~lS


GspJ3gJ.:>~GfooS o1o;;~oo~~5cf!d~gE;Jcey ~~ScOJ'J~aaG~@~ .~Ec ~O)').,;s~>PUi?
02gCDoSjlJJG)~~::DtroG'JCZ~G8'J9 n<l~O1yfiG 09 ( ffi) ( 0) ~~ D;J'J<Jt
(\)) Co1 @~')~g~oS~'JZ8CGj Gcgj'JoSccogJt?OJt [gtGOJ'Jt!lf@~G') @t!!'Jtll2
~5cOJ'J:oo@&;~ G)O~~@w~ Sld)~-)GeOJ')~S::Dtu g~(;l')~tc
d2oG6')9 Gcyj'JrtJOJ')gJ)?~GCijpJ3~')~ ooS~oSOJe311 GOJ~D'J~:'\1 '
~Sc'J:GI;):~:
aa@OJ~:aa
02f:o~ oJ o,1
28 BURMA LAW REPORTS [1957

SUPREMF. COURT.
tS.C.
1956
u HLA KYI AND ONE (APPLICANTS)

1lfar. 29. v.
COMMISSIONER, IRRAWADDY DIVISION AND
FOUR OTHERS (RESPONDENTS).*
.,
Certiorari-Writ of-Rule 8 (b) and Rule Z9 (2J nnd Rules 55 and 57,
MrmiciPal Elector<~ I Rules-Ca11didate's cligibilit y a11d qualificnl ious to
Municipal Committees -Qualificalio:r at tire time of nomiualion-Ss. 10
a11d 72 Co-operal ive Sociclrcs Ad (Act XV of 1956).
The two applicants are the Secretary and the Treasurer of a Co-operatin~
Society, which runs a ferry service under contrnct with the M>mici.pal
Committee.
They stood for election to the Municipal Committee, and they were
declared ineligible because of Rule 8 of the Municipal Eleclo ~al Rules.
On an application for directions in the n:~ture of Certiorari, it was
contended, that a Society created under the Co-operative Societi'C's Act (XV of
1956) docs not come within the terms, "person, firm, or incorporated or
registered Company ' of Hule 8 of the :vluuicipal Electoral Rules.
'H&ld: \Vhile a Co-operative So::iely may not fall within the terms" firin"
and" incorporated Company" it would be a '' regLtered Company" as one
registered under s. 10 of the Co-operative Societies Act.
Held jrtrtl1cr : The word "person " is defmed in the General Clauses Act
to include "any Company or association or body of !ndi vi duals whether
incorporated or not" and it is comprehensive enough to incl}l<\e a Co-v-peratiYe
Society.

San Myint for the applicants.

Hla Maung (Government Advocate) and N.c. Sen


for the respondents.

The judgment of the Court was delivered 'by

MR. JUSTICE- MYINT THEIN._The applicant


U Hla Kyi in Civil Misc61laneous No. 84 and the
applicant U Ah Shwe in No. 85 were declared
Civil i\lisc. Applic.tlions Nos. Sol and SS o[ 1956 .
t l'rc~crrt : MR. JUSTICE ilfYINT THEIN, illR. JUSTICE Bo Gn and MR.
jUSTICE CHAN l:ITOON.
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS:

ineligible for ele'ction to the Bassein Municipal S.C.


1956
Committee by the C::ommis'Sioner, Irrawaddy Division,
U HLA l<YI
in view of Rule 8 of the Municipal Electoral Rtrles> A'\D ON;;;
the relevant portion of which reads : v.
COMMIS-
siONER,
"8. No person shall be qualified as a candidate for [liRA WADDY
DIVISION
election- AND F011R
OTHET~S.
(o) except with the written permission of the Commis-
s!oner, if he takes an active part in the business
of any person, firm or incorporated or regis-
tered company who or which is either directly
or indirectly interested in any contract made
with the Committee."

The applicants are the Secretary and Treasurer


respectively of a Co-operative Society which operates
a ferry :~rvice in Bassein under a contract with the
Committee. They had in fact obtained permission
from the Commissioner to seek election but such
permission was obtained subsequent to their nomina-
tion. Under Rule 29 (2) a candidate's eligibility is
to be adjudged on his qualifications <:ls they stood at
the time of the nomination.
U Hla K.yi's candidature was objected to at the
time of scrutiny of nominations and the Eleetoral
Authority sustained the objections. An appeal to
the Commissioner was unsuccessful. In regard to
U Ah Shwe, objection was taken only before the
Commissioner who set aside the order of the Electoral
Authority. accepting U Ah Sh:we as an eligible
candi'date. The Commissioner is empowered so to
do undt;r Rules 55 and 57.
The Commissioner' orders are sought to be
quashed by way of directions in the nature of
certiorari. f.t cannot be denied that the applicants
are office bearers and as such they take an active
part in the business of the Co-operative Society which
30 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

S.C. runs a ferry service under contract with the ~assein


1956
Municipal Committee. Learned Counsel has concen-
U HLA KYI
AND ONE
trated on the words in Rule 8-" person, firm, or
'V. incorporated or registered company " and has urged
Comns-
slONE!l, that a Society created under the Co-operative
lRR,\WADDY
DIV!S!O~
Societies Act (XV of 1956 which supersedes Act VI
AND
OTHEI~S.
FOCR of 1927) does not come within these terms. He
contends that the words " incorporateq. and registered
company " refer to those contemplated under the
Companies Act, which is inapplicable to a co-opera-
tive society in view of section 72 of the Co-operative
Societies Act. He goes on to say that the society is
not a " firm " not being a partnership, and that the
word '' person, under the Rules must refer to an
individual and not to a group of persons.
It is an accepted rule of interpretation tb.'at words
in statutes must be given their ordinary meaning~ and
reading Rule 8 as a whole, it is clear that any indivi-
dual interested in a contract V(~th a Municipal
Committee, or if he is an active member of a group
similarly interested, would have to seek permission
from the Commissioner, who presumably wouldrhave
to consider whether such an applicant's inClusion in .a
Mur1icipal Committee would be against public interest.
While a co-operative society may not fall within the
terms " firm " and " incorporated company " in our
judgment, it would be a " registered company " as one
registered under section 10 .of the Co-operative
Societies Ad itself. Further, the word "-person " is
defined in the General Clauses Act to include " any
company or asso,eiation or body of individuals
whether incorporated or no~.", and thus it is com-
prehensive as to include a co-operative society.
For these reasons both the applicat:,ons must be
dismissed with costs, Advocates fees in each case to
{?e K 51. The order~ dated the 3rd December 1956
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 31

staying fttrther actiori in the election proceedings are S.C.


1956
withdrawn. We note that inCivil Miscellaneous No.
U liLA KY!
85, the 4th respondent U Mya Bu, had already bcteri AXD OI'E
declared elected as the sole eligible candidate prior v.
COMMIS-
to the filing of the application before us. We accept SIONER,
IR!IA IV.\ ll DY
learned Counsel's statement that this fact was not DIVISION
AND Fotm
known to the applicant at the time the application Ol'IIF.l{~.

was filed.
uscccpc'ile~ieg6g
gcC'lel:$tp:gg]lb~1 c:chcoj CO~?j~ g&scce:)\!b ~fpsR:o~cccg~eG$~~ :~~ 0
:chco g~:0ff;=~ :0~0}-JJco gl!e:~so:cbcoscoe?i8 ~-
, 3 c(')~:~sc=~
1! 0 ~ pc'ieccropc!Eo~~eG:cceeGso o.->ch ~~~e 3Gelc *
0
<'l50Geo2soeB .(~soclegc~ez~sc~3g::>) ~be:cggoj &3 ~~~e
0b~c 1c.oc.oecc~coe~g8ce303cm~3u 11 3 c.~~: s~: g
u3cc
sol33cree Loso~ (i)eJ(Cg~ :reJci-e~~bggeB ISCJfueB&bs::cmpclfu~
~~~sol
gcree Lopf? g~!toogg :reJ<}e~~~co~soro 1
pfueB&:cm:pclfue
" uscccg~soi6Jsoo scoe.~jgC(} :g&scoe.~e.
So3SwLOSeG gcc'p~SJ So:c~:~e.ecg~ro rol!lggp~e.eGg~~e. SeC'l~cb~e.
scccscfl :gooa;tg~03 cme.scB ~lligrosoro ccca:c.msowcw ,tseG (ro) 0c
-3 c C'lgoce.o2~e.eG(_lg]!egbg;CP~Scoe.?g~cflS03croe.S2 scccSSeG~
ub~ft:8:cer>:gepcuscoe.:~~ WSO~f> so~ ~b~t'itesseG
~:So:cecscJ{nff;tp:gS g!Eo~:c~:cmeG~ccoe.a;:gcJe.a; u:fcc~~~]
ccc~~C'l :cle:croecpcme.eG :gce.rosbp61eSo3SeG~ g3J~e.~ggccroceG
cccap6ie3ga; ~ ccscoe:~~ Leeoccce.:ccopc!Eoa g;roeGscoe~jgw :g&
sc.oe~e. 3bsollilsooff;:c!e~geoccce.p61e 1beotp (r)g~(c) arG C'IOce.ocpeG
(l!ipciS,e.gcer>e:~g::~so ):be.:cgg o~o&sc 13~e (, b eJ en u~lep:~
a(w) 0c C'lgo 3~ 3c C'lgoce.o2
~e.eo(_lgJihgemscCP~ jCD5?j~Cfl~0gcmescu lljCDe>~~CC] :goc
sc.oe~e 1ssem3ce.so~ l~eG(f) (w) G (')go 3~ (er>) (~ )( ro) (c)(w)
G egoGe.o2soeG (l!ig;cle.gcer>e:ss:=~SJ) =~e.:cggog,&sc ~~~e 06elc
II~C
* (.&b~~cmsoc!Eo~) 3og3ooec a:>C<fO~
4c5g~~O gb~c;psc sco~?38cA3 03ccxx~sc sf;elc -!-
3~
( &gcmsocrED~) Ei)~ g3 ogg
gl!h ~C.08 so g; g c1 c.o
l56t J sl~OdH~ M\ri V1\f~DH Z
~ 3 8 o ~-a:; eo., ,.(!) .!!) @~ (j (j) fa
0~:QS)~.~ _g 8o "-&') ~ L) &, (8] o8 ...2o c8 OS ...co ..f:5 &J (3 ::0
0 8~;;fJ0um g., &,1.,0) g., o8 0 ,..-..,_. u.
[g] o8 \a ,2 .3:> .o_ cg o. 8 (U) ~ (;f}, CU'D ~ o(Y) 0) ..8o 0 QT.1 ~ e~ m ~ 8 '->
0 -fn ~ 0 <e i'9J 6) ~co
8 rr~ 0 L.J
<Yl{]):) $ r-8 8 @) ~ 0 IC c 0
ec C.8 "--"
CG ~ (Y), -t?) 01 (j")
<...) T 8'1 rB ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ .& ~ & ;::.t J (Y)
8 r.~-. ..(jo ...nlYl --" m ,..--.,_ 0 00
r.1 ~ ...., u C-~ r:--'il ffil LYl '""""" (:J t86) 6) . ::> 6)
-P.o
g, 8~ -s 8 ~~..ern
61 ,-\:X) ~) oo ~ '-- L~ J rn
c<Yl _() '-'-.V w
m 'G
DG 0'1 G ::') @ 0_ CP.n .!D ...!<l m '-1?/1 ..z, .. ....._,
t Cf) n m o::n 0 ! o ~ cvf 8 'Y'> ...e;>') .,8 ....-:;a =r I(; --eP)'u~ o(Y)
Ci:JB o ..IT.D
m ....LX) 8 Qdn -u u o) o ~ o 0 c -&') ~
o
{Y) r.). (/;} (Y) mJ o8 G:;.-:1 c&l
t) cg., Eh ~ liD ~()'") ~ c:B-lI
. 8 [~ ~~ 8
4 ?kc.B ~ ~3. 8 f) s lf'~ Q" mrs, e - a:: ~ "v.'-"'
~ a. ro t:rJ
3. sw'!!'X' ~ 0 &, ~.~ 0 ~~.~~ 00 ,........_

~ ~'0
', &, ..... , co 8,n 8e ~S, .., ~ -~ g., .J!) ~ ~ 8 e " (i)8 ,.QOl0'1 ......o_ o c:
8 ' 8. L,,.J i'QO
0 '-.../ on
8 u 0 . u en Gl ~ ..oo 3 e ~ s, (i) db -fft'1 B ..& LYl ruJ
8u &, 8 '-..-/ .B 0 Ul ....LX) -~ g.,~ t)") ~ 3;b8 ~ u i,(B, .J!)
8 ~ u m~ ~ .!D ~ ;:o
00 no LYl CCJ (i) (/;} (i) 8o A:; QJ c ~ 6) = -ct>>(P..n _, "' c Q -11 ,..-..,_ 2;:
& .J!) () ..,{'/'() 8(i) c.J"0,/)1)5(::;
~ .P..o 8 '"'-8o ~ ~ ~ g o80 0 8 a ~ ~ 8 ()l e ,:n .!?J '--" ;:t>
~ -eifl - {Y) rP.n 13 g: 2 u ~ r.1 l) ~) -eo QJ ""')() l) r00 -fft') _
c&l. ,) e ~ L) 1.,0)
~ .& ~ (j) l=l)
..,8 ~ g., :?-" ~ -fA r~ ,.C,() C 0 J3 8 8 l) {Y)
~1 '--$2 :g.) (U) s, m S,J:l m <Yl
o:; 8 0 ?rn ~J 3 r& Q)
8 o0 (B, 0'l IC cr> ..ao o-.11 0 l"'il 100 "' n (j
0 ffi) m ~ ~ r
!:)() (;tj
IC 8 ~ T . l0!:1 ,en ::P ~J 0 w .,g ;:t>
~ "<J-/ I Lg:) LYl .-So.!!) Li-.J 0 --(/)0 {Y)
[8 n:J 8 "'"'0'l o!'Jl
8 -fft'1 m . 15 ...,,
=n LCf) __ ref)..) 0 8 cY:l o oB <..([; ....'X) 0 ~) -(')>') oo IC (])) n Y.)
g-"l 8 F./1 0 ~ 8 -e;n 1 8 IC rn :f
en (B) .-go ~ ~ ~; 8 ..3 ~~ Cfo"J ~2 !Y' o> ~ ~ m o8 ~ ~ 8 ~ &1 r8 ~ ~ em <~
_(!)8 c ,,n CCJ r--.. 8 -.() (B, ~~ ~ ~ @'1 (8]~ &1~ &, ~ R' ~ 8 "' & If)"""'- u
..UCi:Jo'-L::G) """ 0 e u O'l~ ?:I
.-1!10 0 8 ~ (j) g., JS 8 0 (lg}')8 ~ t9 r-"5'1 ('&-, Qlj Lp; ~ c;; ~ 8 trJ
o (C) s o .o_ lCl0 - o(YJ - CYJ ~ "--"
(lo 0_ oo oo on
m o?...._ (.1 u 0 ~ (C') eJtn
u m 0 .,. U ~ "'0
rn.f'. .301 8u _2 '--" ctJD LYl
-fl 00 , ~
o8 ru- I'U) (.11 0 '-' ' ti) 8 reo 8 - oQy 0 0 (i) o8 0 c a:: (.') 8o -(i) /---..
:e;( Eb8 0 g, 8 -T E) :2/) _'1 ~ CC"'J ~j CSJ (Y) 8 --~ (8J 0 -en l\) r L_ 0
Cti ~.n "'-' en m m 0 8 e- qr ?:I
..B. CG\'J 8o & 6) 8 ~ LYl 8 0 -en - ru (B, ru_ ~ m r.1 ~ 8 B . .-Bo '--"
('-J ""' u G m 0 8 (CI ~ .-8 l;j - ~8" = -8o ~r l) 6) QJ .2' ~
L8 CY)(i) ~ "" ' c8 ~ to/1 "- m @ CY 8 8-"> !;'!q) ~ OJ 8 m, g) 3, .-..% r {f)
m ~~ g, ,.So ..3o m c1fi ~ . .. ,en 0 " .<>~ (i) Cti d!'Al GB> -en ..& 8 nm
:J _ ..DJ .,l .J!) 100 ;<AJ -eJ> QJ o
(Y)
Len . ~ Q:: IC ~ oo :J0
8 ,.H
8 [pf) co 0 ,p...@.
' C!Y "" jy!)/) - ct.JQ)
'-' ' ru- 8 8 >== ..<:X! cob ~ 0 ,en o8 (i) .-8o 100 co lYl
eCi:J -g,Lc.n o' 0 ~ o ,.& n ~ (.j
-""" 1.,0) (i) _()
,1!/0 oo Wl ~?i '--" 8 ~ c8 0 m 0'l -:1>') c 0'l u m -eo 0 .-<0
8_' m 8 ~~ ::, o
m en oo (i) -e;n~~(]j) @ ~r.f!>/) s.~ ...!<J s) ,.a)~ l) - IS) (Y)
c&l '41> 00
B ~ an jp :):) r ~ C'&> o8
8~8~:s~8 'D 8 <..([; ~ Jro8 . ..8o ~
u~ u m ..-' = e -g., ~ g., (&, !2 -eo 3. Qy of/1 ..8 u [11 ~g.,~ s, m ~
J1 ~ CCJ
fils a ~$1rp/) qp o
()( -fft') ~ tl) LPfl 0 I r.;J
WffidccJ~ 8 m sr 1<2>
_g)c{) (B. \i.> g., ~ G')
(,.>)
~ ~ 8- ..e w
34 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [ 1957

~e ~iS ~~o:S>G:x;'JS<l:;}11 s<l~u1@troG~~o ~~~')f 8<?~~-025o1~G:AJ'J


:o C:G!.\', ::n.G~9]:b~'JgJd~l ~5cGrol3:AJ(YJJ~'J ~~:>:x;'J8<3Gcb'Jff3DG!oo'J:
"~<:. ~~ c t-li'J~ ~~1 G10::bt~~G?2@Cb]OJt11
J9~GOO'JC<!( '11 J \._:) D
. ~~G'J~Cc 001~~')~~ ~cnq:n::n~9 o oSUj?GGf?Cg~fg~GOJ'J 8<l~oSl9
:enS gjtoo 08cqjg~ :noSG::n~p;g)~ji~oS:p ~wtgG()OJt 02'tl~"l!'J~~GOJ'J
GG'[:o~@:?JJ!p soSSJ 001 ~(~p:~GC'jl'tG~:l~O o5o;;>~~ GG(_)b:~'Jt~:D'JO1~~x)tll ~~~
m!J2E~o~u T ~ .1
. I:Jj'J:~GOJ'Jf'Jis> 0olg9j'J~~GC\jl?G~J~~9oJl G~t;gt~~el Gm6pg
::n@9 o oSPilG'{JC:Cl]t~GJt~~~~~ ~:o uS~G~S;~S: G@GCX(Ob]CJt
OJ'JgG:U'J 80GOOJ~OJQf_)<l~G~II ~:ot gG(90Jt ciJ~0d)~i~:~~t1C
@~~ 1 ~ro~0c~'J &Sd~:~ f oS~p:~'Jrot: G::D'J 5~~Yi; ~ :~~'J: :Jd'J :ro'J
oScgoSGflG:D'J Sdb]5~'J:@ar_:>l c;gc~~oobJ5:r 0o1:~'J:~,.,~:ot:Go
o oSOi?S::r'J G::D~~GcqjSG::n:> o oSO)?t:@::nt~o5 ~~t~~m:
GQJJ:x>tn
::nt~'J:C~G OJ(?&0J@9 o JiOj(G~C:~@t:~ G::D'J~~ sa ~rh!~0 0
cg:~rot: ~o 5:Gl9 ~ToGoTcgf: OJ oS Go.:x:goS ~~d3~::r'J G::D'J 5:
01~:::li?91'J :foSTocgt:@G::D'J cl:lt~~ ~C~'J~ b]5 Sl OJi~'J:~ ~:oS: G\9
0d)~ :x>oSOjl~GOgG~:xle:.J? 6'J!b]G6~::).)'J@i::ntu ~G(_)CJdC
Sd~~b]a.Jd3G::nm:l8)cgoS9joSsab]o5cg;S ~:oS:G\9:Xlt qcfcgb~
SdG~'JoS::rxf3~@1:~5:D25 OJ~C\(Oc~m~o1 ~5~50-ilm@g@~a.Jtu
::@~ Oil'l~~:~GCI.)')~Ji:r a.Je:p~~ @:ot:Gt9:>Jf1Dcf.>~ ;)JoSon
~GO',t:::Dt Gmspg::D~~ ::nJ3~~Gog@Cg::DtO(l~SCgJ ~OJ~~'Jg~
@:oC~Gt!l::Dt GO?&pgOJ~~oli~G<>pC&<ij:AJtOj?c;5& O)?QJb]~saG6'Jtg
&<lGCD'Jd38dro'J&O'J~OO~~GG~Il
(9tOilo@~o58f3ClgGb!:o1 d3~rbGt@~GOJ'J oo@sa'i{5i90ocqj~:~
qd3madCJ65&o ~~ O'ilsg~~GddoO>pSCJ6S l5&ro8g9(9T@<iJoS Go 1~
GOJ!3rotg1~01JG&~~G~o~cf.>~ o;>~olsa8&~9rooS~5 ~OO~GOJ':
o;>O>l G:xJ'JC~OiJ&~,flpg~~ciJd:>~o5b~ ~~G'J5IrotSj'Jgxtl
Go:>'JCgCJ.iigOil~':)g~9 rooS~oSS~ji~00:D~&~ ::Dd3G::nm~m:> Gsa'Jo<
olad~C&cgoS~::ntn
oil
'' 06J~Gm&'J::S~OJ':l] clJfoSoo~oS0cf.>~E<i]'Jg5l'J GOJ'JC
<J:jJ~&~~')g~ GOJCl cfJyG6&GO&b)::D t utd3b]o10Jt I t1C&c:ro~t
'
Q; c e1 m ~ ...,pj>j r:l I-'
!:lO -4._)~ ill \0
_c_, uo w gw m 41
0
(.') 8 IV' 0 !::!D v
t) ~ .41 Y'JI ~ '-l
r'2-? v----" ,8 ...!Dc [&,
,..&, Q'1 (1_)1!) "" J)m ~ . , ()') ("1)~) CD 0. = (()') :,, 0 0.. (.') '---'
c m CG.:l .._, .._, .c, <lJ ..('}1 ...oo .... ;.tJ.J w c 0 CU1>
B ~ oo en g, 0 CUD P, J3 of~ GJJ '15 c8- 8 <..4:: ~3 ~ .--8 8 E J3 8 hl (QJ) --> [BJ ""
m 0 ~ _cj ~ _J} c
~ 8 u ~ o8 (}!/ )
8 f&l-& ~ ~ B oo _g.,
"' .3 ...:./ 1) Oo
ID-> 8 ~~o8 8 ~g . ~ 0 J COO DB C"t.;Q) C
_ ,, ;; $--> -r;n T 2n .-...1 o)
r~ lli1 rup ~ CP)') 611 _ T ,B C8l 8 ::.<. .0 co~ ~ = . :.) (~"' 8 [~ If)CC
ii1 = 8o c ?.T ~ 0 CcD o u 8-,~1 -..Eo o 1 l;3 CrcJ...D en ...,, &, -- c G
~ 8 g,~8 ~ -~ Jgi Jb ~ ~ J5 oB ,2 f:g ~l k3 g>..;r ~ ~ 8 ~ Z) 8 Oi
e 0 L) if':' l\) cp 0 3 CC ([;
rn'R X 09W lf)p,'- gCn ~- Len &, ~ ~ ~~ 0) cT l) 3-) Db 0 8 f"Pn cj
3-> g., 2 0 ..& ?fl c81 J> 8 ~:h g f.:l = ?n Pn ~ !:lO -!'/>")
~' 8o "S " -~ ~:n ~r 8 ~ ~ ~
a:: 'Q ?f 8 !JC <i; &, ~ [t}, ..& '1~ 8o ~ ~ 100 V"1 8 "8 -lyl') ..!D om ('ff1 ~ E<rl.l ~ m C1EZ! '7
~ '"" &, 8 8 ...& ,3 8 0 8 ~> 8 hl (i) [P/J . e c;_, hl - u o) !oXJ 8 ~ ... ~

..
.- .
. c.
"30
.__' _... _'__
& u (., . r'.n ) Q'l mrP.n
L~J _ }_ ~ (1\ u OQ , m . . ' g., q '!,;_ ~ e u S.
~9. 25 ,() = . ~ -~ -~ @: "~ ~ 8-, ~
8 }8 ~
~ r ~~ ('~_{', d)~~- o&~--:0-~-~ ~~- e~_- ,_ .,JR.~-". ~.- f_. ~. ~.~-.._.. .~. _
. lrt_~_ ct ~.- _. 8~- ~n -f~ ..~~. go. >~
. 8 1'8fY, 8 s,
_<') r~ ...!;., ro_ . t:) __
,.~~U)rtJ f'?..""l ~ . L) ~ 'p.,.j
U.....J
...8 '"V 0 Len <V '\J = '
n (Y) L) v' r'
..
" . .~ .&
; L)_ ~ ." ' . CYl v' ~~J
m :::>_ 8&,. c...S cB- ~~ C%J o8 cc 3,. rm hl ~ g_, ~ 8(:Y) . _~- .., _ ,, ~ __ o .c ........
:D . v . -)
en m o 0 '""' 0 o LDJ cv ~ c ;-;; ~J."r ~- v
...8o c 8 CG"J rrll IX'Y --f/1 m 0 Y o8- _, ...!!Y _ __;> 01 dD e m o8\ m ~ . ~ ._ 8 0
g" ~ GP)') 8 ~..o er' L 0 8 ~ c Pn GD g .-Bo ~ fi1 ~ ~ s, '-S .-3 m g,1 -r.CB- 1 ~
__;, g.., ~ ~ 8 m G&> ~ ~ S . ~ ..& 8 m ...2 8 8 ~ '' . ,2 ..S ~
:rt 2 ~ ~~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 e<m ~cl"J o " ffil w
lf("l o ;=::5 o -fJY') Cf) _o En o
CBJ
l~Jb ..& '-4:: o
s. ~=~~~g..,~ s.
-~ 0') ~ 8 u n~ m 0 au m I!) o co c (&, 8 0
tcB m 8 oo_o
~ 8 I!) ~ m c ~ Oo
rr-> e 0 0 g'"l 8> m 6) ~ . r'?'l-J
8 ~ s, _, ~ 8
[&, ~ o m o e ~ 8 c; 0 v_ cc G LD t1'l :::>. 8 8 CB-
.-f
00 ru % 8 o8 ~ (t) 2n ~ o& U e ~ ~ ~ 8 MSo ~ c (&, ~ s l\3 =)
~ .s ~ (i) s, :3 ~ .!& o8 J.>.c ..8 e&, ~ G5 o =
e:r ..8 . ~ 80
en l;'l ~ ~ ~ If)
..& coDCY ~ ~ru
3 ~ ~ B~ c ...o ~ &....O ,..,
(ill Gfl u GD 8 8 r?n dJ ffiJ ~) ru --f/1 r"t.L .2 r8 '-J!Ji 05 Pn g-> ...!!J T ~ ~.
:::>_
o_ o_
80' m ru_ ru_ t0J 8 o o 'B' u len cv -c u --f/1 .Jl) reo c ~ . en
en 0'1 0'1 Of) ao \..Ul ~en U I CJtt ;::CJ t!:JJ oa ~ 0 -eJ'() (Y) ...J!) ~ (Y) --!) tJ ;i oC.,
""I!)G) CGJ
<iJ ~ 8 Q;)rt> ~ .
Otq 0 o.)")-bY"lLQl ' 0
m~, IC I!) '-1?11 o I (0:)
a m;:la;.J....:b 8 m !?"' I '-'
-~'..'0 ill (&, o; t) 2 CO)
- l.) 0 0 .kr C...>
-{lo> 0' (,/1
36 BURMA LAW REP'ORTS. [L957

oe~G ~e~ Ojt<(~~'J:~~CO'JGsp~o~~~@t~31~ @~ot~G<t~ ~~wS


:oS:GG "l]':>~8J3ro'J:t: 'j~~ffiG~~~rb~t~~<~ @wt:Gel::D@ Ojt({~"JP?.
,., . '~ _ CO'JGi>pcf3o~~oSd3~Gt:J? ffiootd3i~::Dtc.Jil~<;t:t ~d3~~@tg:JJt
l9~:~~')5~ Oittl~"ll'J~~~g,)~cbrn~di~~:x>'J @~xtc..Yii~Gs~ o,t~E;J~ $G8'Jtt
GO?S) @tro n<lGOO':>cf3$0J')gG~G4jll .
~:o~~:g');> oeq 7 ~~~~ (9t~o~Go58(9'J~G6): ( cB~:d3GiG0'J~~l'Jci3~) ~ci)
mCJ6C;o ~~~ 80G~~bG ~ (m) ( ~) ~ (J ) ~8aS[' ~5lcGX''Jno8~~'J:~ .o.J:iqjci)
61 G~GOJ>J~t~ 0~gj~Goo!3oa0',2cf3 Gcgpcf3m'J:G::D'J8dd-t ~~:Goo!)
::nt rn8~~5loSGX'J8d'JC!lJ'J~t~G~02C d2308~~~5loSE;]~:tlGfa'Jt~
n<JGOO'JrbadCO'J:"ll'J:~ G~~X'J ~@@f>xtn noG'Jt~~GOJ'Jd)
mro-:>:"l]'J~~03JE .sS:c~o$@tna-:>~~:~ rnS~~~oS d2o) G~ci3~
~~:Gro!3m 0~!>'::~:G~G~It OJ<(8~~~1'JCDt: n<l~O 18d8~~~5loS6)t
craG@'Jb3dGOJ'Jci3nam'J:~p: ~ G~~::D'JOj,t g)l~:Goo!3m~O)&i~xttt
~~0f>sp~'J d2no8~ac0',2d:82G'Jt: SilGOJ'Jci3saro~~ G~GS'Jt~
oaooci3CY6S GGT@~x~DO~t: Gc;?2@56)::ntu .
~rn8~::Dtcot: @tGm'Jt~@~G'J~cc~ ~O)t:~S~to~mG~
eoG8<(bG ~ G ~ qbG ~? ( ro) D06)100'Joi:..Sm'J:Gx'J C2c3coS~~~
@tGc:o'Jt~~tcDOOJt:l GtOJtGrSf?~G~ Gf~bGaGS~d)~f 8~ ,_~CO
n<l8~8dGS[:"Jp:~ o3~oScqoS~:ntu ,
, ~@~~ no~olra8~~ GS~GroS~t:0'J8J~Goo~~~ ooS~cB~nS
OJtu
1(_;57] BURMA LA\V REPORTS. 37

t ::>e~f3
~gG~'JcBm 0 l Cf ~g ( G0'JS(Y)~')~)
I:!'~"Jo 1~m
.E J (3,,
~tcGooS. 8~W~'J<)S ~02choo'Jo~~ QJ~Goo.S
~~~m'J@~ o l@ g ( <!(8oom(;[J'Jg) *
D<l5/G~TO'J8J~GooSGOj)'Ja5~'JI o ?::> o y9~1 8? OJg'J;; 8<ld3euGs~fig J ~ ( :J)
99 (J) <(CQ JJ (o) (m).r
b)~O{~~~ ~CCGO?S 8~tD9'Jf~ :J?OO y~~l G0'JOf?OCJI8<l~oS 9 d?
mSGco~b)~ 8f>t~~~ ? o~;:99 ~:~oSGo:&J~ d(80?m j ~:m ~ ? ol:
J ~:()~o1oE~<~oSgt:<~&;o'lq~ m~02oSb1 mi02oSJ~ nc>O'J~8<lcw5
!Jdoj'>rh
~GJG:xl'J ;;cspG~S J o!:5l~c;E:i~=02co1oc~::n'JcospGooSroo1:mo1 ooSd?o56
t:r ouS~:;))~G.p:f.i ~oospGooS ? o1::x>~ GO'Jo~'Jo CJI~ oorf.imoS'J:.p
{S:~E)t~Gro.Si6t:l ~qtci2:~oS~aS:x>tcot: m~02aS::l2r:cf? m~:Go:G:x>'J
~qt<~,oS@~E: I
~;~a)~: .I II 00~02d)~b~&) G:xl'J 006flGOJlJ j 0 1::x>t I O'J~CJ,:lOO<ljrftij'J:
o~o1or @E~~CSJE ~oo6f>Gro.S~'J::xlt m~02oS~aS"ii'J:5i9 0So:;'8:~ t:<r.jj~
GOJ'J 8-j>~~~~CXJ6jJG~s~p:6fl~ <i2:8o5~oScf? ;;'J~6&JG~Qt.l
oo-j>t:::l<l'J.~~~G:xJ-5 m~02aS~aS~'J:SI~QSI~rf? E:01JtG:xJ'J ~tcGrolJ
8-j>t:~~1 ocspG0?5o::J.J')C\jrt ~:[9o56qG~Qt.1
bXJJ~G:x>'J &tcGoo-58-?t:~~ 006pGOJS"ij'J:spm m~02oS~oS"ii'J: QSI~
G6'Jt: <i2:joS.~X'JC1jJC m~02o5f:~qG:x>'J ~tCGOJ-5 8f>a:~~ 006pGOJS"ij'J:
:x>t ~G0'JDf00CJI~ ;;oo5moS~ 6'J:~'J!5qt<i2:[9o5Gro5w~t6Qt.!
m~02rf.l@b~~~G:x>? rospGO?S J ol:::nt mt:Oij~G:x>'J ~CcGoo~8f>t:
~~rospGoo5'Jp:z-~ ::l<l~:aa~oS~QQDi?:n SS~rf?oS~E ~:oSGofil?~6c:
:x>t 1:) ?::>::> 1j!5r 8~&0JS-:>> aaoSeoGm(5Q J ~ r 'lti<::coS (J) ~9 aaooE
n<ll-:>:oo~OijC~ G0'JDf>'JO E51cf? ooo5moS Q'J:f-:> G,~:goS~E 1
- - - - - - - - - . --------- --
* 0@~~ y~~l o:>~:~OOG:x>:m~ GC\ji'Jd)S~paa~oS ) [S'u
t ~tcGOJ5Q'J~::u~ff:~[O ~:::SS:GG'JCI ~tc~oo.Soo~:o~g: ~:9::S~:I
~CCGO'J50?~:0 ~~: ~!~~C~1~ G~GSl'JaS~E ~CCG0?500p:O ~~:~JO O?S~
~oSo.:>~r
38 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

:J~~G QObpGm.S? o1g~ ~9t<Uc6~uoS~J~~ ~bcCO!o:r.>58~,ssc.ng':J;;~ oo5~0':J:<P:J


~~G~')cB(;") 10~-~~~~:@oSq~ D'il5/~Bf~~:x>~c6~t.l GID')8ffi"lj'J:~oS~t md~oS:x>tn
01
:9~: ~~gs1GS)Gcp~g @g~~m ~80)m ~ijch 0 ~02d) ~OOc.ilG~'Jt
~tcGO?S) 8JoS::Dt11 ot8oomB'ds:o5 J _Cj ~ ~c8~oScPrt6G6po5g8Jtll
~ill~' -
~02o5oo':Jo~ ~; oSS;~~o~?Stt ~~~~G~ffi':E>jb@0'XDtt E>J0?~~~ 8~:~!;)'J.p~
~:=~ 0\)0\) <t~~~ G0'J81j'OOt~ooCjo5 Cf 02C ~~t~ctic o~~d)E>]~
o1 @ ~:11 ~~GQT0'J~~GooS~02d) G(,;~'J6}bQ0'J@~::Dtl1.
QG~ffi'J6jbQ0'J~$ 0Dcqj~ O<lG61;3'a~2~g@Gx'J @::b:Jcp'JCj'J
~~o1Gwa.p'Jot~~ ~:@oScp02c ~CcGmS 8.pt:~~006J?Gms~jp:
@~GmSwGOJ'J E>]OJ.p::S~o'JGa:jpC:oocpGmS gGG&m51$. 0cb'J)l
oosrGmS @:80J:J 9ac olo5GooSw~60J~aa02oS ~~9S~diLJJoSoS
~>]~ ::D~::Dtg::D~OOto;IGnJ') @o.:Dp@~OJtu
~So.:Dcp'Ji905~tGOJ'J aa@5aaqjoS rn9JoS80:c)("lJ'JW~ G)g~
~'J ~CcGooS8~m~p.pt OJ'JO~QOOGJ?GmS~ J?G0'J8pof~~5,;p
G<p,0cyo5mSgcy CX(oS~oS~ Gt9T@jG8JS c;5:~ij'J Goo'JoSo1m~5:
@~OJtil
'' o -o- ~ ~~~ uoo~mCJ6oS05Googsp~~g@ctsrCJ25rn<:oSrraQ
~ 8.ptg~~
\) ol:9~oE ~:@o)GmE;J~o1al0~ill
006pGmS~m m8~91CJoSGmSw6dltfu <

( ~) :Gm')~~u

J -J -~~~~ uGoo'Jt<;(t GE>)OO'Jltt Gm'JEm~s' - ~CcGmS


8.pt~~~;;;o6J?Gm58C')gl 30~~056)~.. o$0'J~ 85:J::U~
~~6')~G6j~O~~~Cj0000~ ~G0::Dt11 '

(~) ~Gem.~~~~

J- J -~~ 11 ~~~~VJc{aa~::Dt~ao'Jgl Toji~E&,S 0tGWgQ


Q~b1~m02oS1 O@-J -~~ Gip,~~g~::Dtu .

(~) ~:GOJ')~~
0 0 G ()() 30 C6)..!!J086)~ ~
0 m &, 8 ~ \.) rl'ft o(Yl f1:'J 8 ' \.) 8 ~- 'C
\.) ..!!J 0 c8 8 \.) -fJ> -!p 0 LY1 .-co u'
......,
~ .c~) &, o- 8 -fJ>'"l
(}h m <.n-t>fl') & 0
L)'l. Q)o- () ~) ty)
Q)o d
S r-OO '---'
8~ ~
CGJ~~' &, 0u_ S,
0 -" Q)
~ ~ m13 C t~) ~ u - 8 co .o. Q) 0 - ~)
0 -\-, o8 c:J ,.tJ> ,3o o -:---.. 9 1 Qil3 l) o e .en 0
0' (qJ_, m (Oj rJ If!/) ..fl 8 \:Yl
e ' Yl <7 ., IX) rO l) ~
..
'--
kl m - ~ n.So m rn (i) ~ 8 t ~ ~ m O) 8 W u:/f!
I m 8 QJ_ :>([; ,Q 8 -~ -~ ~ c3
0 .-{X) v
~~8.& (3
eOJ (j) 0
.B0 ""'' 'lYl
8 ~
0c ~ 0 (Y1 ("f)
t:o
1;72 - " (;,() oCI> L'l ~ ~lo ~ \.)')8' ~ 8 ..& 80'1 ~ g., 8 e CXJ..!!)
0 """ ~ <l.Yl
g.. #. .,__u ru _
w -fl>
8e ru 0 '8' en -{'/)co 8 c:::
s~~~ ~ 0 f'>" 0 renLuJ "'1 m Lcn o <tJ e o ~
c u " _u_ .-co o u 0'1 r00 ~ ..!!) Cf)-{'/) =
8 -.!>' m 8 ~ Q) o - - " (;Jn rl'ft- P-L)Q 8 ..!D ~ 6) 6) \.) ?.:1
8 !lO ~ -e '---"' e L4:: o -ffl ..EJ 8 co -gn ..ro \.) 8 ~
~.e"l~ 8 CP./1 ..8. [SJ 0!/1 ~ 8 m...P.n 2o ~ ..
,. D8 ~ ~Cb 8~ng ~~ g' ~ 8 8 )il~j] 8 01)'' 8 ;p
""""
ct/'l ~ LY1 'Yl ;) "8-,
8
~&, ..3o 8 J~"~cun 8 - Ab ,.&
~ 8 ll'/1 ~ (~ l i .J rW
-0
t-<
8 e 8 ~ Jr- ~ 8 8 ~~.ay ~-; ~ 3, (Yl~ - 0~~ ~
rtr ~j ~ ;p
G;Jn u 0 ~ LUJ {0;) e 0 o 0 \.)
8 .-s g _go &,~ &, u 0
= m0 m ~ 0 oCI> a.. ..8 8 .& (3 ~~ ~
ruQ) "" L'JO L4:: s
0 Q) 0')..!!) (3 0 l/1 .;;; 6)
_g. ~8 ciD 8 \.) ...
a-. m@)
D0
8LY1 80 L~~ ~ oe -
m"-1!/J OD
8 oCI> 8 -ett1 r0 ~ re C1<D m 0') m ~ & ~
:17? _'!) 0 '- 0 80') ,.........
~ -fJ>'"l
&, CPJl 8 '""" ffi 8 &1 8 ..8 f!l -u ..!!) tTl
g m ffiJ . ' l_ .
c-'-" e\.) ;o4) '---"' -t:/>")
0 =
.-a o- o8 er ..!!) r-8 ~-1 rib 6) '"CJ
u t:) 00
8 {0;) &, - -ett1 <I) ~ cru C9
8 g ~ ..oW> .Be~ 0
~ 8 I e')rp0 8
8 :3"' "t ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ -~ ~s- Eh8no /j
.) l_ 0'--./
CE.11 re coo 8 &, ~ ;;vl
91' .-0 -0 ~ 6) 0 .o. \.) .-8 0
8 0 -{'J>') O>'C ~
S,cJ &,~ ~ <.n ..oo G o --<.10 m (j) - " 'ii""' 6) (/)
(q) m 8 -? -f>ft'l (B 8 8 . !D<D8 liD _8JQ) .......
..C
0 0 <Y1 0 ~
.& 8 ..e ...-. ~o
-2-=- ~") V \J0
0 8~.-e '-- _ C1)
"? 8 80
ctn l_ ___, CDJ 0- -"
..C 0 oCI> ~ 00 (Do 'Ll m
8 13 8 YC ~ - f7'tD <tJ 00 r00 l - , 0
0) c.:' 0 8
~ ~o888 -&1 0 .El 8 ~ -fft o> .5, ..!!> e ..!!> (3 8 6)
~ 88 ~ ..Go G;Jn~ 8 G &, rf_l (P,11 0 iTIJ o __)() 8 8<J
&, LYlt_ -c3
8ll:llo 0 0
13 lYl8 0'J () LY1 CCJ
8 &,~~ 8 8. o&>co:'i o.-0:)0- 0 0 ;' oCI>
!!<.% ;::::.._,
L) ~0 OQ
"" _, 8 v ..!!Jil
8 a oCJ> QJ -.t'fl
l_
e " cun ~ 888o8g,..
o8 _/00 ..!!) \.)') 8 ,.()() o8 0 o8 Q
S S8 ~ C0 &. ~ &, '-4;: ~ 8 \.) '---"'
m 8 g., S, 8 m ~ 2 m .-8 .m ~ ..
am

12> 8 oo
QJ _o -e-or'0 c ~-ll) ()
Cll'loou..,.m --"co[(<;)
__, 8 S,D-' g~ty.,..() 0
.-a 0
cu:>oll)s~s ttJ08a (;>) w
=;' 8 0 l) <.n ., 8 \0
~ CB Ln_g.., -eo
BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

:)e~G '' :> 11 umcooSGl9T@o1 Glt>'JD~'JOt~::J2f D35f~0~trQ:J(~~'Jgf'J


@:G<!-'Jd3ro ~&@oS&J~rB~sc~< Ol~ro0gG~'J ~tcGooS ~?ti~~
o1 c; ~ Wt>pGOJS)~~~'Jg ( :>) (9r(:)t~tg SCGS)s~~~CYt~~
~~ ro~GooS~~ Q)ro'J'ri~~Gm53o1oc6~tot ~Boom
~EcGcn6
8?&oog'J-? r:r)'J~ d3~E;]o1~tn
ad06J30)'JO ~ J 11 u~8.pt~~~;;o;;pGooS2;: J o1g8)t1 G0')~m;tpd3m
~OOI>(?GO)S)
@:Gm'J~e3 ~uSGoo$)1 oSGa:lj'JCg ~gsc'JI!;CD'Jm~~t o~~O)
o1@ -@:11 8)'Jg4jS: @~qb C(~[cSsc'J~@~c;b roo 1g~~roo[:
GCD'JOO~'Jbj~ n2irxnd~oS~p: COCj'J: ~GO:'J
G~'J9c;t: 8~ m::u;cfeuG;JSCE;j a:l6p:~~:83;;;~@~
~GW8fJS?ri? ~~zt~'Jfi?~ gJ3~g(:)G0'J'Cg G0~
0tGro:Ej'J:p~~goSE;]~ Qg~~Eo1n
tJ u II ~G0'JS<j)'JO f~~ ~8~t:~~006pGOOS)fSg J o1: 0 lo 5
G'ro'J5'1 00G~') ~m 0bGro:'J:.p_ ~'~g@oS~G~S)
02Soom~p:JJoS1 ~p:~e~~.p~g~:(:)tO? ~t
0 18)tll

Cf II llnd~o18<j)t:~~ 006pGOOS5~:~p:~ CffCDCDo5~ C(ab


d302'J8)0'J8co? ~:~:006pGmS~'J:D3G;:>@$. ~Boom
"JP! X::Dc.DG~o:n ~G;::nS G0.Jn~ ~:e'Jcrm~uS
GmSI @:D3'JG:O'Jm ~uSGooScfl~~ ooS~oSG:::>J'J
d3~~~ mqJ:~s:;:~'J:SCG;>@~ (:)'J~p (:)~:@oS
~OOG'Jtm~'ff ~~:GmS5GSl02C G@it:Gcg'JoSro'J:
z~qo1m 8)00G~~t OO~G OlT0~GG:G@lt:6}~ Q')'JO~
~ ~Bmm"lp:n2~ Gro'JtlrhE;]~SGl.:n~~u!wtu
:@&Jo1G~'JG6'J9 ~G0'J8<j)'JO 5~ 6'J:~'J0~Gro:~ g@d)
GmS'i(b]~l ~~gGmS02tGt9T@u1 ~5cGmS 8;.t:~~
ro~GooS~: J o1~ o1o5Gro'JtloS@b;Qoibj~ ~G~
~'J GcqpoSco'JgG)~tu ''
ll

( t9tGt~5:D3G~ 8~:~ct,J~g ~GpGOJS~p b]OO;'>'Jd3W0GCY.jj~t,; OOGp


Goo$) ~gGGv3mo5@~~t) II
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. -U

~00~04rf.:0?J;l aoaJ~iJd~o)QE;jGX'J ~~Gm6 J o~~~ G3Cl'Jt O@ :J(S


:x>Gooe;pGooS:JJ'JO1o tG:x>j ~GmrJ'i''JO t~s;,02o) ~0t~oo'Jg~::D'J ~G;~~cf3m
~tcGooS8~ JJ~'J?OJ ~Gip,l'JOt est G:J<l?cho1 aaS~o:o~t3 J g~ 01 9 ~;
~~Q ..C ~
ow~i'mGCD::D~II
99
~5cccnS

'' ( :>) :>~:>~ 15i~r md~ro~oS :> J :jchGf, ~~cGmS ;!~~;:~


.. B?.s; <DI;l'J? J.JqoSGOO?Go:pt~~oSr 0mt~~CGCD'J5i ~ ro~ccn.S
' ~tG:))?Gf;~t 11(8~m ~~2'Jaf36o1 ?_ olg02t @~cCY.>'JW23
OJU.,)g::r,?(.)1820 Cl.l- ~ _0 ~ ,Q
C~~J.i{ egG~'JOJ{)) m G&, G(\)g E;]())'!'g'-ill
o~1 @ ~11
'

8C)~<1j[O 0tgGo:;;p: ~'J:G~Gj~J.J'JG-::1~ ~82JlcfJ


OJCDG.j~b:GO:Gj~ GC\jj'JchOJE~ ~G6'Jt:<:lQ~~
GOJ'JG6'J$ ubS9)~chJ.Jtll
() ) c;t;:J<l ~}:J65o5 m~oS:n23g ::r.?GS]8~:~at~g ~e;pGm
. ~? 000'J~~;;p~ns j o1:~ 0Jf''J5me3~CD'J:@~G::D'J
'<' G23'J~ 0G::D'J80:;6'Jt~g ~Odj(~ OJ~~G~Gjbbl~
m~o,?oS:Dt~ 8~ m~'J.P sooSeoG8C(fiC:J J ~ ~~
<J~ch~G,;:n'JGa'J~ ooS9j~chOJtrr

* * *
" J rr GJO?~s~~l G!Jo'JCJJG[g~~GOOS ~g:Jd~WOOJI!
J II OdGlg~~?:-rr~g 6j:D.p?:8~iJGo:ptg ~gGGJ3mrr
?II l!lOO'J~~6pGOJ5 ~g8JJ?E;j::JII"

~m~~-b0'J~ 8C):o:fJo13ClS~~ ooS@~:JJ~GpoS ~eo;;pGcoS


~ o1gxt Gl!l?s.p~o 5~:1 ~o5rooS~ 6-:l:f?@;Ojjt G'i''JoS ~ 9oS
~6':>1 :>~,~- y,1 Gl!lG.9To1~m J 9 E;Ji3G.P,o;;!tl ~E;Jt<1)ch 9)GmS
'ff~6GC00J~Ii
~3Clo;;!:})l ~~gGmS02S GQffi'JE>jb~~~o, oa~o 1 ooe;pGmS
J o1g o1o5@ ~6JE~~~o5~E::otr :>?:>:> ~~~~ 8~teg'Jcp saoS
eoGoC(fiC:J J ~ ~9oo~~tG'Jf:u ~~~mJE:o~8'il06oS ~fcGco55
8~ m~pf~ ~6Js~~go5<1JoScfJ 0oSL1JoS:D~o1G~')5: sa~~:otu
~::raoSeoG8C(b~ J ~ (:>)51~ (J) l'J G8C)'Jcho1n<l~tg @~8.:ltn
42 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

'' J ~II II ( :J) Gt:JJ~8<j>f:~~~SpGo:iSI ~I::CJto) .e9o1a1.


~:G~?d.Sm 0~ox;oq:>GmSt:J~ qc~5 80~:nt @~G{>:JJ~
o1 9 ~: 8;;t:~~1 1 ~~U?oS 80~1 ~GatoS ~oS~S rr.::~: :.uc-b~S
~s e:lo 1o1v~().) ro;;pGcnl3 Gp:JJ~S<J~I ~GulaS 80~t:@Sg 1gOJ~
~cidcns 6'J:r?0~G;;x:n 8361c~:
8?~ro~pf _ @aSb ~~CJ?oSol G0')80J 1~0)0')~~ 9' E>)5~6)Cg~~ ~g 8'.302JGW:lOS
~02o5a:>'JO ~ 8lGo:t: (;IQ~D::D& @~G{>OJ~S05II ~GatoS qoS~tOJrG6J o1
~ CO~GO'JS ~~oSil
OCG~OJ~ sosr~8'J~'!';? (()~~gtgi~GcJ?oS
@:GO)?~~
oi ~ ~:11 0o 18Gogt:G~6)11 '
(J) GtOJ~Tosr:JJtG~I 8~0Jg'Jcp02C oloCX~ QJbp
GmSmo1w1:~p ~oS~c :::B-~:::Drb~CG6'Jt:l
~;;ataS To~t:@~g1:::D~G0'J8~1~.8mm~l9Jcg)C:
~g~g:J<l~G:mo 5@0G6'Jt:~~Cl6G~ ( :J) s;)i O?~~J)
~b.Jtu m5gOJ~m~~o5~oSq m~~o5@5:@):J.J~
;;o spGm>:im [S5~~5~GC\j)5 c;t:oo,7GooS~To0?~
GO@'J:~f~ 8<j>t:~~;;ospGro)o::o1m~
G3)gGOJ'J.d)
mt~E:s1Gtll ro~02o5S: ~J:D~ ;;o6f:JGmSm
f:~CSlc ~;ospGmS:J.:,t ~m~~oS~o59~ 00
cg:~ @bg:Y.ij~G:J.JJ 8.pt:~~QJ'{)GOJ5 ~')gspg~
~:goS~oS~ op?Q)Gtll'' .,
~@0 m~~o5[3f:@6)GJJ'J QJ4_JG005 j o1:~~ I m~~rb~cb
~'J:"'~~olot ~5:~C\jj5 ~;o~GmS'=lp::JJt m~o;;oS~oS~:~p:~~ 00
cg: @tw1i~GOJ') 8.p~g~~;;ospGmS<=lJ'J:sp~ ~:@aS~oS~.p')G>Eh
G~'=Jtll CD<j>t:aa'J:g~~G:nS m~~o)9jcfil:jj'J~~~G~~q mt:Gij~G::D')
~tcGmS 8.pt:~~;;ospGmS'=lJ'JgOJOJ'JC\j;C ~:@o?G6JG~Gt11 . (25:
o:t~,~GOJ'J ~tcGmS 8tt:~~;;ospGooS'=lpgspm m~fr6o5~<f.i'=lJ':l~ 'J~~
G')tg ~:@oS~OJ')Ojj5 m~C16oS@5gQ)G:JJ') ~CCG.:n) ,8.pt:%~Q06p
GOJS"l)'Jlxt ~G(()'JG~'Jotsr~ ;;ooSCDaS~ 0'J:!f>'J~)5 ~:@05Gml5
~~t0t11
,. .CO"'
0J18<l~~'J~ m~lJ2ffiC~@~S1 G:JJ'J <t;CCGO')r';, 8f~~'l~ QJE>()GOJ'C'J
g~. ~C:.xr

J o1~:nt m~CJ20S~J.ic,pg~ tg~@g ~m~C'J2rf>9Jo5~:jj')g~~ q;Ocg~::


ffit:CJ.ij~Go.:>'J ~CcGmS 8ft~~~;;oGpGmS~')g~ m~g~@oS~ G~
~-" ~ ::> 00 CUD l1 o:; CO 0 r:l 0_ V Q... 0 r:l 0 '\!; ~ C
'-8.;3888-8~8 =-" 8 cJ. ..) oo (\) [& C 8 (\) ,.()() ..) M.AJ ofd (\) >2<>j U oQY "F0 -c
g_, (j)
-fj;;[~~~ ~ ~ ~ Ul
'-R/1 CCJ ~ D\j
o(Y) 8
. u
0 8 8. 0
cnu
(j) O")
8
8 ,_8 0 J? l : l 6) (~ ~
0
lJ
.-' D
~ 2o8
~r ~ ~ ~~")
8 ~~ LYl
=r
l.t}>
'.'.?~ ~~.0

-u 51
f:b ~ ~ ~3 L~~o ~g
8(;1 i~ c() l 0'1
m] ~ ~)n IT"'
(8l 8t
.l~t
o8
(f~ ~
-'l
'---'
fH .fj 8(i) r:r.> c!l2 YJ ..:n u fr' '.) o) .f5 ~' 1 ,) Q) ,o
oo_:) '- \
8Vl c~ ...)t ~8 ci CY1 L~., - tJI C) "
c:l . 18 c 8 rt ("Y} o
8.,..J (O8 u~,J~
.~ (L)_8 G0 ~"JO
,8 (i) ~en S, & L ..Bo c t1-' 0 ,wn -!D ( n J.'il Cu .BJ \Yl (_' ; "" .fj ~n ~ I'!Cil (0-.
' 8 Lf) o8 ' .U oo r<.l 0 0 !>.S -- &1 8 2o
0 cy, _8 '0 Li::l<O \11 0 c.q D3 . ' 3:J (h"J c en c
___j
('g)./) !XS no LRfl OBi) fH 00 8 (;1 en
co CY> ~ ~ c CQJ Pn 3-J [~
...8o t.Yl -eo e.g ~ ~ 'i-i ~ ~ --~
8-) ()'' ~
00 L) '"U ty, 8
~ ~ (8-1 pg),,. 8-'l ~~ ~ oQY. ,8 ,pf e U0 m VV> CUD Cl'l l9 CYl ll.Y 0 -{')1 - r; )1 8 m CC""J -!>"/ ~ -8J Oj
u&1e~li] .r!D(i)_ ~ ell~ d:: ~ ~~ Qo (8] g~ (j) --3G 0 .()3~ ~ uSJ ~~ d:: Q)' cB ..& m
~ If) 8_ C ...___ = L) ....;;:r:J 0 () = ' """- L) v '..!D 0 8. C C c
8_ Q) ()') _.:.> ~ 0 CCJ 0 ~ ~ ~ oQY u Vl _, m
~ ~ 130 8 ~ 8 Vl O (c.;) 0 8_ L) oQ)' co :h O -f'/1 I:':JI (U_ 0 , rG
~u ~~ Jr 8 8'0'1 "'8L o(Y) :::0
8 8 e .c8 oo >;{'ft') 8 0 ;m C!p .o 0'1 m .-B ..:n Vl 8 0 8 ., o . u c8 L\JJ \'!en 7 t:(l tl-'0
0 0 _J1) ~ ~ k'l c8 o(Y) e
m o --u ,RJO 0 (ro> 8 _ (j) CCJ 01 ~~~~(j)~~~~~8~~~c~=~~~m
s;::
~ 0 (j) q) 0 "'~ ..;n c - B. ~b Q'1 ~ :.)_ 8 t:x:J l'.b {.Y) 0 o('J>') L) = (j) .{i Q) rP.o o8 '1:3 " Q),, >
&1 8 C"8J (B; ~ ~ 8 em 3-, r"rJ ~ . g' L)') 8 OV <-2 3 ~ W ~ (!<;""""] ..![) 8, no ,..C r?,o
(j) ,..e
G? oo L'lO
(),.g ;.a' Jr .-\.).') &, [80 1) "=;, C '-'" ;;1:1'1 d ...c .>CUD 8 f!f)8 u(Y) ~ - Cl
c8 80 0CY1 0)0 ..!D8 ..2o C{.Y)@] 0
--;-" q_, 8 ;.0 00 ,di.:; L) ~ ('3] ...co 8 0') ro rl'fO u ' 0 0 0 ,-y)
B) 8 j 55 tS Q)o ~ = ...8o ,.8 .~ lA 0 8 -0 -eo ,.8o Leu 8 ' ~ u 0 . ~ c!d &, 0
,.pro u g"" o~ c'--! ~ ..,ex 51 o (j) t) Q)
m 0 0~ c8 _J1) o(Y) 8 8 l.11 8
::> ,..\;() ~ \B S,CYl-;;W"J ~ ~*, 3 8 . ::%2 8 ~
0 ~ 8. ro -IY1 -fin e 6-J.
3 ~ ~ ~- 0 -5 ~ o8 lBn c c8 "-5 --1&) lf::J >;{'ft') J5 ;[' .& '"'; ~ ;;{1
(j) m Len o 8 ,.~ c -IY1
m = u ....,, en,J-'JO;;{\'Y"l L)
<..1 Vl 3 0 ..![) 6) S, &, C)_ no un J;. :1 '"U L) '-R/1 0 '- oQY
8 3 CCJ o m0(),;;m.8 g;
..:n ;;{\rY")
em 8 (B; CCJ ~ o o. og &, cS ,.&, -!>"/ ~ 8 tn (8] ~ ~ ~ {>/)') ~ 8, 8 ~ ~ 8 '-../ lBJ
00 cB (Yl .-v c 0 0 (j) ()') 2.Y o . !a c8 -eJJ ..?.o u .-GO 0 8 8 !a e t.Yl '::J t.Yl 'Rfl 0 hj
-{'fQ :") Oo "'
;oO ~ lli9rJ tJ Vl (j) 3) g 3_ g., n'l 3-J 8 ;;fJn 8 (j) L) ,. ~ ~ CO o(Y) 8 0
l'.b ()') ...,.__ (j) (Y)
8 '8 '*'"' Q.Y
lY CQT) k'J ~ u il ..:n 3-J 8 ,.p/D ..JD ,42 U q~ S, (j) 8 C1:h c8 o( )')c8 ~ ~ ,.8. q.{l -P/1 8 :::0
8 ma o..Bo-:;Cin 0 ~ (:l
~ [U (j)
3-, ~ (Y) (Y) 8 (.1 rgJ.n lth ~ rrl
Q.O Q3. ili-, 8 0 ~ :%2 o8 ...,co 0
~ g: 'Q; 8-,
c 0 -eo (j) 01 co b8 Q) ,..,.,...., _, lV (U_
8 l(J)
1-1
(/)
-- 80 c=CJ c -tA.J 8 d:: 8 Len ,..,..., r4Y..l m ::::
un..1 <!J ")')
0 ..!D -\'fl"l <..1 _r!l m 8 ~- (B; r o <J 8 0o u.~..~
ru_ o QY ...o r::-,1 ru_ -
-eo (i) o:; <U ru Oo CY1 Len . "'ed:> Len CYl = m CQD &::;> u ru L0J Len 8, 0 - t:l _( l
-0 u !:?.X) c8 "' (j)
(j) mJ (j) g., v' ~ L) 8 (j) (Y) Len L) oo L ..!D OJ ~) ;'r()
DO o Y ~ = CYl MDCI -f.
m u (j)
Lh 3-'l 8 8 Q) ..Jl:r., S o oock'l~~~-~ ~ '-../~80~~~~~
s 8 ~ ~ 8 L)')
i:G[3J 8 3-J ;tJO ='o8 8 rB ~ 8 ~ oS ..s ~ ~ 8 d) 8
lY n -/l') e . trJ 0 -eJJ ~ r..:>
o.> ow ..!D 0'1 o_
r8 Q) ca)
0 .-B 0'1 (),gh ...o 8 .-eo 0 ,_ ;;!'J'I 0"
m(j)
051~&-> 8 ~(B;(j)-{'/) ..JD .-8(j)~0
Q)
8 ..r..a -l'll0 0t"l'> 'U CBC .BJ --" 8 6) r:J Q) 8 o <Yl u
,n,i) (j)
~ 8 ~ ~ &, 8 o 8 8 c8 ~~ ~ u 8 8 u - ~ w o CP./) CGJ r~ ~ ~ ~ " "m 8
Q.~ ..:n m ..2o ,.& (B; ~ 0 ..:n :'("> -{'jl .-B g., !X) 00 L)')
g., ~ 00 ou ~ 00 ~ 8t 8 00 '('J'JI) L)')

coo I!) ~ 00 (UJ)


.S ~) ~ oS -ero'M c., ~ u
(<\) 8 ~8 s-,!!38 O).(Y) I ""
O~ _;; ~01~
00)8
~?3 8 <.) 8 CUll 8o (o)
- CB l.Y1 -en l.Y1
_g.1cs 8 ..j::>.
w
c Coo
. v -f3 cc
0 -ero.-.0'0 c am
., ..P.
~
--" 6)8 8 00 fh rY > __, ~) 0
_J!) (U;)
GV
a."'"' ()-'Ri q I U'>
u 'v 8 8 IS) 0>-.o u
0
coo?"d g 0 ~ 8 &, CO) =
~ru o.,e;;cn s
LO \Yl-/Tl
oQY C 0-!D~-"08~
(])'] !!.() -~'-3 8 Jb 8 8 8 r9o_gnc~ ..H 8 o8 8 ~ C;h-0 8
(y)l!:: s Ci::J &, &. c
0 IV II) cal .-.:' :) [i3 ~ ~ (B, 8 o [P/) 0 ~ m 1) .-8 .-8 &, r-J -J
s r8. -~ ..-'!!".
.Jb~D ~ m o # \.f!II-!D cc 8 c , 8 '--- .-.J 8 _m _.B. a ~J en CQD _ (1,.. lliJ QJ !A~
en.& o_L 0 ~ oS -~ s, C8J c-, l:h! a ru o oo '-"" G m -!D 8v' '"''"'
0 m...oo e 1!{5 m (B, -D .$) 0'0"' '--- o) CG'J 8 3, v &, 8- '-4:: ~'"?., &>
8 II) c 8 08 m ffi-> m 0 0 &, --{'}> 0 _!!) ~ 8 _!!) ~yo, g, 00 8 0 II) ~ 8 oQY (1/.J ~
1.) II) II) -; {?~> ~ o8 r:n a_ o. o) ::-,_ '-''-!D en _tD -0> oC~> ~ c.
8 8 ../l/0 0 t:> 1j ,.8. o..S ~) m -0> ...oo <.Jl -.fJl .-8 LY1 c!!< --w1 c ru ~ ..JD o8 \:Y1
2 &- ~ .ff.;
[B, II) .-e1 a1 <>.J D "b m p, 1!:: ~ 0 0 II) 0) L)
cc 0 ---" II) 00 II) ::-,_ - 3 ~
=-;;{?Jio8 ()o _!!) L)Y1 LY1 @ e ~ ~h ~
~~~~s~Aoo~88Hm~~ eo
0 ,.& o8 0 o8 -0> Oj l.n 0 u 0 (!],, 00
'-S 8 --8. ~L) ffi(j)
s. 8 0
8 8 ~(]] ~~ 0 m 0 m rl!fl ~ m [B, c -!D ~ ~ ,,E;Jo 3 ('(;?'] 8 c c
C08 0'1-0> u e o 8 o e oo 0 o Ol oo JDct.)l) <:l - . _. "" ;;0n
mu D 1.) CC'J 0 _!!) ---" G 0 ~ o B en o t:J
8 r4:D ~ o t:J 8 1,1 O) _~ :;o
00 2o QJ -l'JY'l ~ (;) rWO t:J L) DV o8 ,..!!)_ Q) ~
-oo ~ o IV. ---" m m_
~en w_!!)') c w --{'}> -!'}> 8 D9 c:P2&>c8.r c--3
~ a:: 0 m :-1 . a) ~ M:::""J c!!< 8 (B CEl u 00 L)f) i-h
9
%"% 85 0 rB ~ k'l ~ ~ [B _. 8 oC~> 0 V'l 8 o u u lY'lu mo 8 J1) &, 8 (/"' '"""
>
QJ
.~ c m_ ::L (.:J ~ m "3 @] '
_!!)
c') 8 II) 08 ..8o <-Yl ~Wl rO.
~ g., -0 8 QY 8 L)f)len LY1 (')) 80 ~ c..o ~~ \Y)
wo
~ 00
.-!!~' J:g 8 o
~m II) c3 C'c%J l'
00
uctj 0'10~ o -::::l~ 0 (Q) g, (0- CU0 ~ CCQ:I (c;;J c _, '-R/1 0 ~ .-2o 8 &
-fJY) ..e M:X> ~ ~ oc Ci1 oo 0'1 Go (Y) --./ ~ U ~
-0> 8 3--, g,
L'X) oo c
0) ~ m ..3o 8lYl "2_
LY1 _m !1
8 (Jh 0e cc o_ ..(') g = 15 hl n~ lil 0 ~8 rg) ~ B 8 em d!J
!P 8 t:J m 8 0 ~u <V u r""n V'l ..v o 8 o u ~:></1 u 8 u. Lu. IV m_ ~
Q) 8 G5il 8 11)8 o8 (;) L;JJ rf)(O 4'ii (8. ':JD 0 o 0 8 ~ Len CPn ~ ~
1 -0> = <!)o 0
u men-'U o men--u m
rr) -0>~ rl'l()
rn -
~8 u 0 1.)')
:-1. -0> _!!) c ld
II) c!!< 0 . (.;:) L)f) LY1 1.) o k'l u o) e ..__... Ill u 0 0
8EYl .-o - - -
8 6',; oQX trl
-e:0 ~ - "" o e ~"] 8 t) CL ~""') 0 ~ _2 0 J!J -~11
~ ~ ..v&co
80...oo
8 ~ oQY 1.) m m R.o "' 8 0 co- en ...n L) (;) _<!) ru en = L) -g ~
1.)-8 ~ ~(8) 0~ ~ @'J k1 m .-3 en_]" o &, 1j g., '-g 6) 0 o S,
3->m 0 _!!) 8 [OJ
0
.3o ~ ~ '"'-~ (."1,;1 en g_ Q) oQY 0 8 8 s ~ "" 8
08"en ;;w m ..JD ~ 0 (~ t:J II) (',g) (Y.) 0 (_~
8II) (0.)0 --w"l (Q) 0 CY> LYl ~ = ~ ~ ld
..1!1 (n (~ ~ ..[') rB~ ~ ~ L)f) CU0 0ID ..(') r2 1--j
e 8rJ - - 8 <Xle3 <>.J _U) -eJ>")
rf3(B,
.- 8 rOO () ..80 -o ..(') ~ ten .3o ~) run G)
~..Bo (B, e -0>_ ~ ..& II) - (/}
om~ '-1!/1 C , ~~ Q)_ ..v ~~~
n.
oo f"")) , '
o~~~ 3, oCt>00 ~ G0 rL8_ (th oqy ~
8U cn8 ru:n...oJ~t. r~' \.f!ll
8 ~ CL ceo .-.':Jo ""''
c--" 8
[B.-8 "-' u,
_!!) ;oe DO
0G Len o -M ~
= .-<DO II) ~~- 8 L)') c ""-'' oQY en ~ LiJJ u G CAJ "" en 0 L)f);&
:8 ~) I)) IV ():) -3 _U'/1 8 &J. 0 CB ~ 8 - --en::> ~ Jl) 0 R CCD - Q '--- 8
8 8 o o -_o_ ~3 Q __S!J = o<(') '--- m_ en ' Q) 8 -i!/1 3-,
r . Qo (.1 o(Y) c B
<1~ u e~)_ lC/1 8 -:J10 () .$) ~
e0_ Cen
~ 0) -,~ X-1:) rQ trffl ' 0 ~~
C8
o_ (j) k3 r> k'l en 0 0 rr: .$) 0)q 8 CY1 ~) (i) L)f) e .-!(:: -- e ~ :Y' rS r-
8m--uL)f)
~8uocw8~8 (j) &1 L) 8 ~ II) ~ 8 ~ ' C' 8-n r--.. 8 0) c 8
o8 c - 'n m ;ern -"' _!!))) L)f) o' ~ -a
(Jl
~ tiD_j o 8 '--- ,,)_ 'J '
~"' ~ __ (U- ,)-,. 8 0 _ [B, ~ 8 '---" u 8 8, P.
'"' en u LY'l .-oo oo oo 0'1 .c ~Wl u u me .. '-f
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 4S

G)OOfJ~~0GmpE~ .;O.;pGoo~~9 ~OO'J~ C:OEpGOO~~:xlt o~c.J ::>0 ~ G


~0tgGX'J c:ospGm~ ~ o1~o 1oS:xl~ G<l~025 o1ot~8JtSl~G8JSrotg ~:v~'Jd3m
c~a?~xt Gl!l?~<j>'JOtSI~ ro~Soo~1t:jj 6'J~<j>'J0~Gcm ~b1s~;gos o1 9 ~:
~qG::ng::Dt0o"tcf.iG~il 0C0~G::nSm-:m 8CSIOJt~?:::nt OO'J o~~ .99
C:Of{JG:D~~~c006t ~~'JI G1l~'Jl m~o2cf~'J08J~c~ $~~:J3Cj/~ 8i~:;'J')<j>
mtGf[S.~rbl GID'J~~'JOSSI~ ~C:O<ipGJJ.\) ~ 0 ~g 6?g:p?1D~GC:O:~.s1 t ~o.2oScn':lo~
~~~oS~tGro-JqSGm:>t [9t~GOJ'J:ToG@~<>G~:f8 ~006pGm:S ~ o1: ~ ~6pGa:J5
olotG::D'J 8~m~m~ ~J)d3~:: C:OGpGm) tJ o'l~OJ? o1otG::D'J ~:G1m'JW.a
~ u ~ t!"l
8~ ro~:moo~~ ~0t~~b@~8Jtu
~GO::n~~0t:G::D'J 8~ro~:m::n?cq;t GrD-::spo5Sio? 6?:??
0~G;;o:@t ~~:::nrbGOSIXt"lJ')g OJC~tg~OJ'J:GOJ'J S9P' G9j~'JI
m~02. -~'J 0::nt~~80GoT025 33b)C~g~:f~s1Gruo:>tu
::nt~OJ?(:)O}GOJ:! ::> tJ ::>::> ~511 8~~0)~'Jr 83oSeoG~~bG
j j (m)' 83)1 ~tCGro~8~W~)'J<j>JJt OJoS~tOJ~ 8-jit~
( ::>)
~~006pGcnS~p~sp~ XGJ.l'J836) ~G)C9Jo)cn~mt:OJ'J ~Sld)b1gt@~
sp d:l6pGOJS ~ o1:o1otGOJ'J 8~m~:80~02E J ol~o:>t rt:~
0~:?j5~G0ffi?'ffl C:OGpGcnStJ o1:o1G::n'J 8~ill~~83~<J6C j ol:OJE
'=lJ?iff@~~ ~:~S0sr@~ro'J~COJ t~mt: ::Dd3&G)G910tu
~aqP2oS 839J[GO<l?:@~~GOJS G0'.)DpoE~~ ~CCGmS8t>t:
~~c:o&pGroS ? ol:m ~G)C~:@oS~cfsr ~;;ospGroS tJ oleo 06 5
~GSoSeoGs<(50 J ~ ToG)I <:;o1o5~oS G~:GaS~d:io1ot m~020S
OO'J~G::D'J C:06pGcnS J o1~ o1G<J'>~GruOJtu ~~S(:>Gcnl":l J o1~xt
mt~ m~02d)9!o5~?~< 00cqjg~ rliJ~~tcGcnS 8rt~~.c:o6pGmS
~p~e;pm sa~gsacfGGog8 ~GV'J8<j'>'JOCJr02[ o1o t~g@oS~tg9G~
~G~gG~u. ~~C~g@oS1laSOJtrutg m~02oSon.q~:~ m*gGogG::o'J
~E;)C~g@oS~oS @~G<j':o:>tu
~~ ~~~GcnSm so~o,1 O::GpGO)S,,? o1g~ ~s1ttiJcf~
~ C'~
o~qp;tlgCS!c
C ,.. n ~ "D
G0?8-fOO C)tc-Jt q,. 0t'f>l\5!1
gr. C 8'J~ ro~')~~ocC
_Q
1 ccGm'J
'J~'?')0~Googa3E:tb~~@cf61~ @~~OJ~oS::otu
~~~Gcnl3 06 5 ~::brb8C~::Dtt:JJ?~::D~ 8Gc~.cnsp~0~c~ SS~
~@b1Gtll
46 BURI'>'IA LAW REPORTS. l 19S7

oo tf g ~ oS GO')~ <1.lls
t :'; @~'2 QJ~~O') ( GC\jj'JctJOO'Jg8){)

~oSm E
~.
0 J EqoS ii
na~m~g80CJ2tgo ~ 1 ~5c[3'JgGtqz~gL tq~rri~~ o1 0
( GOjj'Jcboo'Jg~S[8)?~Pg) *
GlGoo5~S~ {)?SJ~Goo-5, ~tc~?~OJ?~oooSeuG~t5Q ? ( ~) ' oo;:~2'->;;'~((5Q
:J O ( 0 ) .I or.?: oS"ljcf.i il n;;q:oS<l)d) 0'J8j~G OJS) S'a~~:"ij::cac qJ(>'Od)
oo;;pgQ~~Goo5~1P:~ 05Gd)~::BOJ~~ OJcf.iGOJ"1]?~o:o9G~T@: ~OJ~g::D:J,j>?
"lJ?m~ oojg3<)BoSd)G;;ogGO:~E6J~ ~oo:OJe;u mc~c:OJt CT.lJS 1~~0')
~op:~~m8t1i1~ t~oStoo?:@~ ~~oSGOJ?~s~~') eu:~9~ OO~CY.ljSOJt
Q;;o~01JC OJt~OJ?0i&lil6JG0Qt.i -
d3~~oo~~~~CCGOJ!30JQOO u1 J II O @~)J t5:~1 op~ooSooGOJ::::t.l~GCSJXb
<;2'Joo~oS J ~ j ~?::::otu

GC'jj'JctJCO'J~::irtn-do;$0)' 9;?oSGm>JGlGf~g ~gJ:)~~g ~rf)O1G;;l:)')t


8\rEu ,,.
. GcspoSco'Jg~~~~'J~83~oS To~g]G~Gf>~~ ~gcyG;nt ~oSo1
G~')&]oS:utu

~~~ oSt~ u nGajpoS~ ~~~CD :ut!Q~G'J@toi~oScooS


Gfg9GGm~oSG::D'J ~tc(3'Jg OJ'Jgm~g~~OJ~ot ~CCGOJ>J
.. OJGOJ m
.,
Di(Q:J~ I ~tc')gOJ')g Too5e()G!J<lig ? ( Q) Ga]1 @~11'J@t_~ Crfg1
~1g&J~ rr.:;8~~51oSOJ~~ G<f'JQX@~t m~St~ @~bl~ e;S~o8g
~JlOGl'JCCO'J~@E~ ~]GOJ'JG6'J~t gJ]tgGro>.lo2t G~GOJS~tg ~:J~
GOO>_)~ GC\ij')rf)CO')g::Dtu
*0@~ '2 ~l1 !ipcr'O oSoo~OJ:OO~GCSJ?d3~'J8".?lO\ ? !I
t G~61 ~tcGooSco-r:o~~:~[S :~:B~:1 msp:o~~~ .9~~~q;: 9~
msp:ot~: 2:~@: ~~Gl~sJ?oS'Jilt
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 47

Gt"\)j':XrS~-::5i9)l:~o 1~~:o~W0'J~Pg02f 06oS~~::Jil ss~Sd~1: I 0


@~ '2
( SGJ:Y.l~ Sdt) Sl-::1 @~~'J~tc ~t~EJC:::Jil ~.G:82~g:n~:@~G')tgu <u~o~oo 9 9 oo
~SGlCJ2rf, ffilGSQ2UG81fb~ 00 ( 0) ToE>)I GOjj'Jo5::Jii::D~l ~GCO;C~ @oo~: m.
O.)')gg~~ I c;E~ ffil'):g t~bab~G 0 g~ oSG@')tgG(9T :))~II ~'J~~~ti g7~~
~Epq;t ~5c@:nG6)g~'Jc)> ~o~w so~tgo~~ 011Sg~f~D'J02t' O?~ o1 o;J
Gc\prf.8)?~t~ tGcc')EO?:n'J~~or:o51 ~Ec'Jg:n-:n m~8C)(:fg@S
OJttrfGdJ u::Dtu
~@~ G~qpoS~:::o~1 SGJmoSoS DtGco'JCO(::D'J~ @~OJ~
(:)@~:n~o;(GJ.J'J @OXl~-::Go TGo 1o5~~~ ~8c@J:G6)~~'Jf> qd3ru~06tg
o ~~~~m~~0'J 1 'J Gcs'JoSo.;(~To~ 1::n~ 1lsgffi)--~ :OJ~~tt~~(:)otcf 07
SCGX:YcG'J ffil@~SGlCiff G~u3tg ~~GOJ'JG0'J~I GOjjJc8)?8<l'Jg
\StGco'Jt~X'J:g So.Jtot 1 ~~gGm>JmOj?d06)f Gc'3PoS~S2CQo5~oS
0 '1G;;()'JC~rbG:D'J ~cfGOJ~G~1Gf>~~ ~~:::J:l~~: ()')GOjpo5a:ogGCIJOJtll
~cf?:: G0,14Eo1m oSf~a:>~5i~ ~tcGm>JOJGOJo~ j sc5r~S
OJ~G:Xtjj'JWs;l. G@T0S~OJ~I ~Sd5{Q2CC1J~g OJoSGOJI:JP: OO~G@T
0~Gro~o16)~ GOj)~oScx:/)~~fOJtu o

~d3mToe16C:o ~~ o:t~:~~0'JSl'J GOjj'JoSO)(~ CY.JJ6:~f~'Jo;$S


G~Tg}co'J ~::oe2 rn ~ oS SGJmaS "Y)'JW~ OJ~ ~(9f@0G ~uGOJS m~: 1' 'ffil~Sl5
~0'J~'Jgi~::O :-fG:::DFgcFj~cFj"V'J:ffilbll GOjj'Jcf.iCO'J:~::otl @~GO:)'JtO(
~Ec::o'Jg~}Jj: oS' '010J.OJt 11 ~o?~ G~T@co'J:x~~~E: ::o :E~tb[J
Sd?~~ 0fG;'0:8e2~'i?l ~d3ru~o;$Cgo ~Gt:~Oi/ro~oS~p rnGc:o'J
80C:O'Jg(,lj'J~ G6'Jt~dtG92@C):::Dtu
0'JBJ~Gm>J::ro ~~~~P ~~5 sr~ o aS OJGp~~~~GmS ~')~s 00 Gro~::B
:)Jd;?~ ::ochGOJ9:'Jgro~G@T~~~ ~X~BOXlfOe:yJ'JU~ m~:::ro~o50~GQ:J:
Goz~t6)~ ~ o.;g:x~ll mt~5~xt Oi, G:~~0'Jqp:cfJOJ'J 6~~ 1
~;oS@t::ro'J~0~ ~9oSG:::D) 83S~~p euG89~ co~o;tOJ~ GCO~o~5
xt~::o'J ~~E>)GO<,Jtll
J3~~u)~~ 82ste16C OJrbG~"Yj'J~~ CX~G@r0~G~g~6)@t~1'J I
&t::GooS::TcJ~~~m d3~~0J~::ot1 @~G'J::roS' B~~')823025 G8~~1g
x~~ 0~n~z~1 ~Bc@'J~OJ'Jg::B@ ~oS~mt@tgcfJOJ'J rn'JgcfJ~~ 1

~ :JC~J y~S 1 E>pa-ooS03G:lJ:ac~cOjj~:f.i~'Jm~oS j~J J


48. BURMA LA~vv REPORTS. [1957
8
~~'( @~~bcS8<lS~~~ch~G23'Jc~H @~0'J8<lS 1 8~~'JB~~CG~~~ 1g~J.Jt
~~Oi/009'~ ~ ~~J.Jt ~~~J.Jt ~G@J~tG6:-t:~ o~~~@~J.Jt11 .
@c~~i ~5 OJ~GC\jj'Jrb~'JSJ? J3~~m~~ G0jpcb~'J~~ o,p@:>~xtu
~?:~:~:~b)~ @tGc:c'JCO(:JJ':lg ~~o1J.Jt ~GJ.J'J ~029Jrh~ ~tcGooS ~a:>GOJm
0{~~ o1 011 ccdJ<:l;;ll ~fc@?~a:>'J~X'J @::D~<J? ~Ojl~G@u~l GC\j]Jrh~m
n-amoS0t0~oc @tGOJ'JCO(::D'J:@~u1cg,ti8UG8f3ag~80G"j~$6'[ ~~-:;~:
~ rhS[S)~I 80'J:cj>t~~9 ~rbC\JrbG~'JC)rh"J~ci?m ~;,o'JC1rb6)~J.J'J
~GOJ?a:>tll
~oS@t8<l'J:~~ @t~bCS808~~ i::fo@~, ~Ec@'J:::n'J:m:~
ss~c:Qt~ ~~ 61~ GS:;;8:~t5G~'JCCO'Jg@c~~P 8 oG8 9 ~ ro~CY:bs
a:>tG:(G~~CI ~8006ch GC\jj'Jr)~p~ ocSci?rfJJ.J~II o ~~)'"2 ~5\~l
~~'JO 1~m : :> o S[rbG~2o1 ~f~oo'J~J.Jt8'aS~~G)5d3~K~rb J.Jtu
:1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 49

00 s
Eip g ~ oS G 00 .s <ij l

G<,ntGOifS)G8Gl~ o1 ?_ ( GCSJ'Jo)CX)')g~~')g)
~$
GOJ'Jt~~~So~gtgo'l J ( GojpoScx:og~bt~~')g) *
_~~.Soo8;9'J:G"l: d3~::>3S:G~')G)'J05G6ll oao5eoGg<(Sg ~ ( m )11 tt
~:o5~d.in u~bjgt~ GDC:C>JS:o:>'Jo:>'JC:G~~~ l9t~,So 88~?:GG):
(c~~:SS:GI!l')~G~')d.iJ~) oad.ieoG8~1 ::>@<;? :r51~m CC(oSB~~G)o:>tu
d2DCo580G!:l<(b~ ~ (m) :Jc~G)I Oj?O?~:o:>Go:>'J b.)tl t~A~st~
[9e}~o~So6S[9'):_~t~ d3~d.iGoa')5 ro;;t:;;t:~ ~wc:~ 8o5otoo'):
o8~~ c~oaS~~ot :;1~co ~gt:m Oil;;oC'3J5 ~Oil~ ~[OG~')CCO'J;6}~ oaS~
Go:~C~~~~ glo'i~Ujl;;oGp~ e>~to ~Gt:::Dt oaG'Jt:G'Jt:~ GO ::r.>~
~gtu ~Go:> aaGand.i~aco?:~ 0~G;;o:6)Gtu SSe>~coao.2b: mG@
aaG;;~rot: o:>cf3W6)Gt11 d2rr.lG6')t:G')c:~ GCO'Jo5oo'J:~ ~GooS
~a<J?o:)ttGo:>?rr.lS~~9J~o5q~aa,an')~o:>tn SSm ~o5~DCGco?o5
aaco'):{,jj-:::~ u?tro6fJ~@: mS~9JSicb~o103JS g)~:Go:JSm 0')81tGoo5
aasraaG;;~ ~~d.i~ rr.l<;OO~o5aaco<J:~ Qu?8td2d.i, rocf.ig~
~OO<J? G@?~Cg~G~V ~Go:>5 ~OOGo:> :Jc~Gco?cf.i !J'30J'):CI}:oG~~
QfiG.~
. (m) O'a6)l S<~Gb):UjlO1m ~~:Gro5m ~o5::r.>o5bj i>~t::Dtu
.
G::\j]'JoSo:YJ: Oil'=!Pg~02oS ~o5GooSG~Gcj)~: GS1oSo:n~~~Gg-=>5
~oSo 1Goo-=>E 81 m~tn

Gcq'Jo5co-:>: QEi')Ojl~'Jg~06j) ~~:bj~OOGroS G~G.cj)~:~:CS'GG'Jb


~oSo1Goo'JC8joS:l;>t 11

~: G$oS t H uGc\jp;oo-:>:~ GOJ'JC~~Gf' GrY.lp5::o'J:"ij'J:


GG'JCGCY.!ISG;,:J GG-:>Coo6@:1 GG'Jt9:B~&J c~'JCGC~GSC'JCI ~G'JC
G:lJ'Jt:G~I GG'JCCY.Jj~G~~I GG'JCm~@$~ 7 :~$ ~4J!b1~c~cf.);
"., O@ ~ 1 ~~bl GB~oo5s:d~::D:rr.:J~G031')d.igpaa51oS J 91 ?OU
t ~tcGo:JSo:>Gp:o~@:<i!lb :~o3~:1 cnsp:o~~: ~:~~~~: ~~ mor:
o ~@3; ~:~~: c~~~9')oSo.2ta

4
so BURMA LAvV REPORTS. [1957

0 e~n @~G::D'J GG'JC~g::{3~g~~ GG'JCGcr.;oc~~Y') w:pC~::D~'J~::DGRl'lJo5


GQ?CG~~ o3G:@tg~ <:lG01JfOOji~'J~ @~@6::>t8ClGOiJ~o51 GopCg::n'J: Gd1Cg
G~m o1 '}_ GCO'J~~'J:90G.p1~ Dd<J?cWC OJ'JO~tlji~00i/~'Jg @8::ntu BtOi/o
5i~ Qr aJcoSTa~oc~p~rot: @~0::Dt. 8ClGOiJ'Jo5 o ~ ~ G ~~ ~C?:o)'Jro ~
G:Y.l?C<j(<l'lJC Q _c
!=>~(;It~ 0 1 J ,1 eqo5G~Q2C O=!JCW<:ltJ~8G::D'J Tac8~s8Cl5IOJ~craq;so5 G0i:23'JID'J"ij'Jg
moGtOi C>~to~<:Jt:~ D<lG6'Jc~ 'J:6~ moz~ E;J~:x>~u
~G::n53 0 ~ ~ G ~I ~edl'J(\) 0 (;] o5Gt,q;sc m8?X'J '~CY.{J23'J[l') (,jj'Jg;
5l'J To~:&)~OC c8~o5Gro'JaSG:)J'J GCI.f23'J(!)'J~j'J:@~ ~8C5fcoGg~'Jgm
~G0~23'J(!)'J(:jj'J~~ ~O)lbl:(oS0~6::nt II
~o)~~C\(0~~ GGCI.jj.p06 GG'Jt~:o3:~~ GG'JCO C:@:~m
~~'J<j>~ ro'JGGpd3~5oo~:~GJ? mGo:l'JoSmco @~eq:)J::u ''d?Oi?coS
~~Gc.D':lo5~ ~~'J.pm ~~:9Jt0~::D~II ~~~Gc.D'Jd) @~<:JCD'J~
~oSo,p:~ GG'JCGC:G8d'JO~~ GG'JCG:x>'JC:G2j~~mt: 83CD'J:Of2
csQ:~: ~[OGOC~cb::Dtu o@~(; ~~ 3eo5'Jm oo <jcf.iG<?,~ G<:J'JC
~oS~:I G~"'JCGOijs:iGOdgl GG'JCG8d'Jt@9c~ l'lG:c;8: 9J[OG~'Jt@~
:x>tu o @~(; ~~ 8eo5'Jro JG 6JcbG.p,~ G<:J'JCO:t![G8Cg~ l'lS:: .
o 3~ '? ~~ Gl'lGl'lTo 1~m J eqo5G<?,~ GG':lttnf~~ro~: l'lG:~:9)[0
G~'Jt~ll
gj)o): go::J3~o3:o~l'lS::@:G.po5 ~E:~~mG'Jt~~~ ~D<l~ro
~IDG:ip mo5Gmtgo59)o5~'Jgm6JI C>~C~O~Gt~m ~:)jlcoS~'J::x>~r
Goi~gmj~~Ml"tl'J:~9 ~9oS~'J . cooS02oSD.J~Oi ~O~m'J. @t~c
~Go 88'J:G &1: c8: o3 S:G[l')~G)'Jo5G6J: nooSe oGnoa 6J 1 ~JIOG~ptco'Jg
o16]~ Ta~Ei)CQmt~ Q~to ~Gtgm rocf.)Q~: C(6G ~ ( ro) DOG] I ~n5
GpCco'J:G]~ D<!S~~SJ6mt n
~coS~')~~ SJJ~'):5l'J )?o6~02GGJ?oSm~ ~po:poS SS~~
OJ'Jg"tl:J:~ 9?oSo1eq~ ~GO1f:~: GC'jpoSco'Jg~ GG'J 5~:o3~:~~
G_G'JCGD<!::>t~~~0-::1.'J ~0~9J[b~~ d~Eo~Gt:m SRo5~~~5lo5~Gro
OJtll .
oo~cod3~5 D<l<1J[O~G<j)6JG~'J ~coS '2 @:w1 ~o?~ Q0~<1JoS
(:jj')~~ rooS~oSG~~ G9?oS::Doo':l~o1m2ot c;t:c~,Taq;soS ~oSo~l
9co'JC1cb~ 9?oS~ooSGSJG{>rng Gn1oSoo'J@:~GG'Jtm G:\]poSco:n
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 51

::D~ll c1iE;J6'tQo ~9Jo55l')a~t~ Gt~~Gd~d)m~ ~tcGf)~:Tc~800~~ .?e ~ ~t


~~ o bGE{Jd) GQD':JC)oSGt G(](oSG6':>tg 0 ~@md3GO~b)Ge;@>~ G~ClbGCt:)]S
~a?~ m::E5l') mG@~eoG~m,o5 m5~E:co':>~G:)J') C2d:i(\)os9~'):o1 GGQW1 '2
8oSotbj?G()cf.i@ C\j/CoS~JJWJ coJ3~o) G~~~tG':>tgn <1tg~~ ~~ S<C
C C ;:q C ';: n hQ .C r GO'J'JCR'"1JC
G,-f.lpc~Si(v COSf?2J~I~ aaOJ't'g\9 ocsp~~pp~m c2'Jl?CW(:JJ':>g:)J~ 0 ~~E~ o1 J u
a,tGroJE~mGC:OgG(pg @f>6G6'JC: GOO':>oSQ~o5~cot: 3C~o202E
o14~':>t~ j!~~g~c:gc~Cijlt rB2oo~mt~m06oS mo;?a<l<9G:~f)G::D':>
Oji2Ji~'Jg~cotg ~o)~oSG':>t~ G(}~'JC~:::o':>: G~ 1tgGCD')t{tio~
{9Gg~; ro.i3rooS~t8G~':>COO')~~Cb)~o:J') GOJ'Jtm:o~ g~~')~~9 aarooS
m~di@::Dtot m:Jon':>~C~ip~ro GB'J~G':>t: o:>:)Jt~ GOjpoS
o:rJg:)Jtn
m<Yil3~:;;[h ~[OG~':>tco':>:q("l/':>g m~oS ~~@~o? ~oSuf>~
m@:J:~~p~d}rot~ ~oS::D~OJt~::DES~c:J ::D':>~~m':>~~~ G@':>ci2oS
G0f':>0ffi'JWC '@~@':>~GOJSmt: C>~to ~Gt::nt C)?O?~:OOGDJ':>J3~
<SG~~~~jOG~pt@E:Si ~oS~ulm @GoS8'JtG6)W~ c:8~oSGt Gd3
~oS<~t~ G:) :n~@:~ ~oS?J~OJtooEC\j)E ~oS~5G)~ S<J':>ClO'J~::Dtu
~~coS(,p~m.poS ::J)oSOiim 8oSQj~o:ltJ OJoSo;cm 8oSG9j6J:)Jt~
cot: 0~gD')g6jGOGtJI Q~toGt~m Oi,~ '( GlD':>o)~ ~d.)CIJo~e
GCO');~tG:.OW'~ ~~OJ') ~<cor 9j[5G~':>tCO':>:@c: @SGOGtu
@o~<jj{50Jd3~oS ~~oot~o:>t:rc:Jcotg Q~to~Gt:m xoSii;l;
;E;):SJoSsi~t~ ~g')~:uE:JO?oSu C)?rntSOJti]'J:ro 88~ o ~Q~oSl~
~G'JC~~::8g~~ GC;JCGa<l':>t~~~ ~~82Gcqpcf.i G~~:::D')~GX':> o~~
~[O~p~o1 m5~5~s~~~:::Dt~ 8Gl~J2065 G9,2@6~ootu
, ;:)~tO~(:Jt~m ~tCGOJ~ GmG<f~!O~~~~GOc') 0~'2 ~J @qcf.ieo
,(S 6jo5Gf.2ll10':>cfJC ~~Ji~p~:::Dt Gmc;pgGOJ':>cj}t:@~ a-J~ro
;,~QG~GOJ':> ~~@1"~~<:~~ ~9oS~p rooS~oSG':>tg~ coS~G<ST
:oett ~cEmt~ Go:otcgS:~ ~8Gl@?g ~tcG~:::DG'Jg~p~~9cotg
Go Jt;~~ ~)?CO~G)~ ~Gro.SG.p GG':>tOtg~g~~ G~':>Cmtcfr~

,s~8~Gco')s~~~ ~cn::>: 61~ 8GlGSGGIJoSGf491Jtg GGT[g:uttt


Gro':>tCB5g02t @~qoS:::Da)l'J ~m~~~G~tu GZa;?gGSg:)jlc:Om
1'~ ~~g~~o50J~rBOJoS 8ccorhG:::D'J ~co5tij':>~88 ~0Sm8\dj
52 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [19.57

o@~'2 ~&S~rot: @~~b.:>~u ::6pOJS lSG~~~~jtSGl~tco:>;S~31:> eoGo


~(,d3G01JS sou:ut~oCGOJ:> oaS~~$ 9J[bG~:>t~xYJ~OJt '=lCO:>~OJt~OJ:> Go :n~6)~
G8'a; o1 7_ ~~~GooS~ OJ'Jo~@~OJttl
'jl9 ~ ~5:8~~ G3iH9)~~ ::DJ~:>atgQ~~ B~~o ~o88;9:>~G6)~
GO'J')tlj(<>~b ~ n
. o~<,~t; ~1 J u ( c8f>~o.%~ G0J~G1'Jchji) soo5e:JGS~l 0@ Cj ' <{~~CD <::qd)l9~
?b10JEn ~soJ.ieoGaqbG ~ (CD) 8d6JI C)IOO~~ooGm'JoS,OJt @~Qi?o
~~!Eli~ @t~oSo58@'Jg~~ cB~oSGso:>t ~>fS~.pt~~9 @~5~~
SaSocOJ'J~~~ ~80bOJ~CY.{ @~Co~GC:m O)?d'JCS)C J2~~ 9J[bG~'JC
co:>~ G)~ 80S~Gcn~SOJtu ~n?~O)?d'JGp~ @~Co ~GC~OJ~ oaG~f:
4~3'JE~~ GOX>~b['=ltll ::DrbG::DToGCO'J0080CO:>:~ 0~GOOgb[Qtll
S~d~CTo06Cg oaG@soG~~rot: :x>d3~b1G~II ~oaG'JC~G:>tg~
GCO'Jrf)OO'J:@ :x>Gcns:i:x>ttJt cof@tGOJ'J 80~~~9J5lcf.ib)~ SO'JC1D'J
~OJ~Il SSro OJo5G::D oaGm:>c DGJOJ'J:~p:~ ~t cooS~@:
~.~~915laS~o10j)5 ~~: GooSCD 0':l8J~Goos:iso~80G<f>fr.} ~::Dcf,G::D
80GCO:>ctJ80CO':l~~ G06t~rf)l corf)'=lQ~ci)~ GB':~Cg~ G~ll
~G::DS OJrbG::DO<lGCD:>o5Tom:>: ~:o~~:])~$ C(b~ ~ (OJ) 8'06)1
oaG~:O)?o1m ~~:GooSro ~o5X>o56)~@~~cb:>tu
QJt3(l~~lP:~c ~~coS:p:~'J GOJ'Jt~a:u~~Oii~P=~~ oocf.i~oS
::D~tJ;2G::D'J ::DJ3G::D~ SOGOJ':l0080CD':l:"lj:>:~ d~CO~GC:~ COctJQ~
9J[~G~'JCm'J:G0CJ;?GOJ:> m8~~ 9JSlo5(3c:OJt ~S8n: nab~c~co:>:
::D~ 80'JC1D'J8006C:D65 OiJGE>pctJ:x>tu 9JSlaS~GOJ'J 80S~y? ~p::x>t
CY.{G~~tl ::@~@ ~~ajpc9;1:>"1]'J:~ ooS~rEOJtn
ooSocooSIS:J:GOJScot: Gajpo5~"l!:>:OJ~ coS31oS:)jl G<Y.lJ'JC~
:x>?:~'J: @OJ~80G:\ij'JoS Gt:~~c:E~~ so'Jrn?~C"l]'J.:m :x>t
e2'J~'JQ):0'J~~ oo~~o 5 ~o ~9J[D~~GOJSqb 80~?g.pfg~$GOJS3t;c:
:x>oSOJ:>g~~ Go:~Sro Go;c8~GtBot ~~:GooSm u;too~ffi'JtgGlST
~oS::D~ .
195iJ BURMA LAW REPORTS. 53

OJ ~ g ~'c) ~OJ s; 11 l s
GQ')tQ~go~g ( GC\jpcfJm')~O){) t ::>@~?
~$ ~~co? ~oS11

tGm'3?ot~~.{;)')~tcGm.S ( GcgpoSm')g~618i?) *
o@~o <?;~' mE:~oSfl!S::::o-:Jz9~~ rot@Gq:rr.Jo5eo<>rJ<(5~ c;(J) OJGp~~~~~
~:::o~rnS~1 qc!rnS~CT.2t Ge;o:>e28<lG'Jt:'l]t~6'(J"!P:rn o.2oSmt;p:2~3
GO:::DtO{ o?:o(,)011 ~Go:>~ Odg~Ods~ O(J3GU:6Jt GC'Sj'JmCO'J::l)~
GOJ.?C~~0?Q,2C ~~y;oS:l)t&~G6?C:<lJC:6p rr.J~~coCGt'J TQco'J:G?c:J
ms~~Siro ~~:::o t GtO) ~rnG~ ?C :rl<l<lJrb"lJ'J :~~~~1:::o'JC'jjt mt;p:
ocGo:>? m 8 ~~s~ut o;c;;oq~~tt:'' ~~~=f9oS'lloSn ,,::J~::Jo y~~~
mE:~c~~S:o:>?z99 mt@G!.):rnoSeoG8<(5(,1 c; (J ) ooq1 rot;p:2~89
~:D~~gi0-:o.2S mt;p;2q ~riO~ rnSiGo:q:::oeiirl<lG?c:'l]c:t;p<iJ'J=Gt'JT@
co'J:@fm?~o G~G:::oSrot: mgi;:rJaS~Go:o 16)_~ GOO-:JC !~Xl~0?CJ,2C ::J:Jrb
~CEif';8qG'Jt:~f:6p~'J::JO~mrotGGT@co'J::@~9 cf?~z~83S~0?::Dt
mt;p:oCG::D'Jrl<lg~s;JS~@6:::o~n
@tGco?CI!{@~G?~CcGmS~~ ~:G01JS<j>l o @::l (3 y~~~ 6p<>'Oo5B'.3Go:>:DQ~
GCijJ?d_)~'J!:l<lyoS 00 0 ~rb<j>":l:::O~U

Gcg;-JoS(X)'J~@6)~mo,soS m~~GJGJG~ ~g ~iCS:G;J'JC ~oSo1G;,c'JC


lrbOJ~II
~~'il~~t : u H~1G cgpoS~'J m:roS :)@ 3i~ GcgpoS~'Jm'JoS
j o 1j j ~Q2CI GO-j!'JoScx:og:JrtGG'Jb~~o~~m c;5:mGoT~1 speOJoS
@:ctbG ~6)1 ~yOOCO'J~GOJ'J @&l~d)3i~ GOJ8a582S~~IJ'J~~
?0 j
::l@~(3 y~&l1 ~eoo5soo;r;;,~DO'Jo5 ~091 ~o Jl ~o? ~o,s5r oosp~
~oSGOJl3m8dOJt~oo'J~8.:lt S6]8~oS~:>g~oo5qJo5Go~o 1~ Gcgpro

* 0@~'2 ~~$1 6pB-OJ.irldG::J:JgOO~Gcqj'Jd)~'Jp;:J51d) 0@ I J 01 J J II


t~ScGroSoot;p:o~@~~[S ~~~d3t~' ~oSGOJS~[Om6p:o~~ ~:~qsf:
~~ ~oSGooSCJ![CooGpio ~g: ~:~~: ~~GffiGOJSCT.2t 'J:~'J~ ~o5GO'JS'1][0
oospw t0: .~:'ll~ qs~ ;:JOS~CJJ~oSo:>tn
54 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

:J@~'( ro'Jg@fg@~:))til o~gm'J~:::o'Jg:))t]G'.3~dl~? 1 S?~u 1Toji"j]'J~~E qtg

Gl,l')E_;:~:o; scGu'T~ OJpg2~~Cfj~:J()cj11 :J@ ~o @~~1 mbc8ch~G~8J'J~~~~


~s 07fS@Gb1r3'CJcf.lt:uG~C(b0 Cf (J) 806]1 ~tcGJJS::Dgco mcxtoSGmG:xo
@t~;,')s~ oospg2~3~~:))~80S~::Dtl ooq:noCG::D'J S?~~S?S~GC.Jtch'J1u~G:))'J
g~l,l')2fc
GooSu
S?9JoS@~:))tn To~o l OJp~~~s9l9.:))~ ~3~S?St, 02 5, '02JJ~
To G'JCg9JCg5p~'JgS?fJ6dl OJ spg2 ~ 6]~ ~8 ~To 3t, GU g:)) to;?G:)) ')

80C1JoSipd~~WGGTi9@t~G~~GCljll ~!?02b O~ffiflel~b~1 o~m ~bCGooS


OJ00J (Qe;roG6JW ~~g~'J~) ~ Tog~Tos~CX(~GOW1~~~ 8 @~ ~ ~ 9~ 1
~o::h'Jro o o qcf.lG~~B~ GmRGa]pcf.lm'J~::D~ GOJ'Jbgg,~'J~ ~~g
GOJS~ To~g6]GIG;p@3gm mt@8Jtll ~GO]j'Jd)~'Jo.2t G03poScn'J~~
GG'Jb~w~~ml ( 8) ~<::g'JgG~JSI d1GClGCDgl ~g~:'~9 ~~~go~d)
(GrogGm'Jd:i8d'Jg CO'J~~9<(oS8JchG::D'J ( G~X:J'J~~~'J<f'J u~0~C~d)
To'jch j ? I Cf@) 80?1 (J ) ~G;T.d3Gl99i~~~ID'Jgj~ c:B9i~Gw'JoSm'Jg
8.)chG:))'J ( G~'J~~j')<f>l O~C:l~CC1jdJTo'joS J ~I c; @)' Toji~~ (?)
~[mtS?'Jgo:JoSG::D'J ( G;;o'J~G'Jfl OZi(:)~59loS8a'jch" J 9 I c; @) 80?
c:mo.2oS' qJ~OJoS~gCfb(:) ? o J 806)1 OJqJg2~61$ 8d~S?S~o:toSGug
o10~S?G-:)fg @~qrbOJ~ToG6'Jtg9lfgqJ To~G<Jrot~ GGTQco'Jg
G6'JCg G9,2~6)::Dtu d?oG6'J~ ~CCGOJSo:J000 ffiCX(chGm~i& Tog~
80S~0'J~9 80~u1Tog980S~CX(chGmq$ GOjj'JoSco<Jgo:;t] Gm'JtgQ0'J
~~ ~gc2:J.Jch)i)<O:))'JU3el11 mbp~Otmg~GGS~@SG'Jtg G?l~6J::Dtu
nagG<JS~ ooy~:))t Gt:))~~G6'Jtg8'a~ch~'Jg~9@t~cs,5 m~~
ot'G::D'J 80g~~s~ot OrtOO~t45')tg~G::D'J BOJ.J<f'J~~ ~iScgg
g~gGooSm [gtGco'Jt<l2 @~(:)'J~CcGooS5i~ ~G:Ji]S.y ( 8~~ (3 y51~1
~~ooS 80GOJga<J~ GO]'Jd)~'J8'a'jch o o o ) (Y,$C C1]5JchCO'JgGCC'J ~qf
~aS~ G~'JoSu1aa~5: Gl9T@m'JgGro::Dtu
'' 8doctk~ch0'J~510J')g~G6]: 80rh20G~C(UI.l (3 -Ga~@~GIDJ
G<l'Jg8'dm'JW~ OJS[_)g8oG~ OJ~ya<l6j~~G0 ~ooCqtli(G)(:)t
@&l:ni] 809rnS~:))t ~:GmS~ ooE~~E:~qG:))') @ID~
80Q2oS rnG@Q@IDo:Jeii 8<1G'Jt:9l5:sr~'J:GGJ<?JoS oosr:~~]~
CX(aSGOgG:))'J 8'dg~808~ @~:))to;/Go:J'Jm~c~ OJ.qJ:~~~
oor_:n~m1 ::DoS~Esr~:GmS GJ.fJ<fOGm'JrhGm'JS. ~6)0;;
1957] BURMA LAW R.EPORT$. 55
@cOJ~II ~~@~6]f,aa02oS~'J~~g~~g~g~~C8J~u a<l9aa8~ 0@~'2

Gog6.)t0'J~C oo.-;p~2~6J~ ms~aa8~GO~E;JJ:>t aaG'Jtg G~~'Js;;)~:Q~g


~bE>LJ'=lPgcfl GGT@co')gcg)tl ~S?~83S~GGg8J~0'Jcfl ~~Gd.J~ 99
~mt@@tg@9 J3~~~G~')oS~tJ:>tu ~o)~"'otoScs;E, aas9 [9~Gro'Jt<l2
B~"'J~Sc
aaS~GOW16]~ GO'J'Jbg@JJ~ 0'J~@~.G01 ~0'JC2b 0 1~0JJ! GO?Sn
8Jro~tspaaG6'Jtg~tgsp~:jpt~900CDJgG8J'J CX(d)~c9JoS'=lp~
~@~G~ oot@@t~@~c;t~r m~~~GmSCJ2S~~co'JgJJ~ @Sst~
aaG@gS~JJ').. n;;G'JCg9jtgsp~opgaa02oS aa~ol aaS~OJtl
~~6]~ cxtaSGog~cGOJ'J aaS~@SJJ~ o;(GOJ'J aa41oS~
mr~g~tgaa')g@~ GoTq:;ScoSl:nGaa')S OJroGOJ@mctg
@~qs~ ooGIJg2~:J)(mspg~m Gro'JS~oS~SOJtu''
~a~6'J~I aas~aa8~CX(cGoW16]~ GOJ'Jt:@8J~0'J~t OJcfJ~c
p~G')cg9JCg~C:U')g::>c~30ootGl9 T@co'J:~@S, OJoS~tspaag~so8~
OJt m~go2l?OJ'JS?g~9dS~@~OJtC:Yt g)j~gGmSm Oi(roOJtu
~.G6'J~I g)j~gGOJ53m Gt~(j]OCGE>pcfJ~d)l9d)6]~80G'Jt: OJ~
. OJ6fG@cOJ@9r glGcgpcfJ~~p~~mn;:?' GC\jpcfJs;?'Jaa:roS J o 'J J c~
uoS~oSOJtu "
~a@Sr ~~gGmS<fCX?oSo:J'J.:G:::lJ'J e'J~.~cw~ ~S:6J~aaS~typ:
cflco~g ~od3~;~oS.J:>tn
...
56 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [ 1957"

SUPREME COURT. ,,
ts.c. ~HE BANK OF CHETTINAO LTD. (APPELLANT)
1956
v.
Dec. 3.
u TAW (RESPONDENT).*

Uniotz Judiciary Act, 1948, s. S-Mo1tl1tl; !.eases (Tenuination) Act, 1946-


Suit for Dcclr~mlioll-Proviso, s. 42 Specific Relief Act, failure lo co:1-1ply
wit/1-Court has uo jut"isdictiorz to dismiss tire Sttit-4.metidment of
Plai11t tv oouform wit it the Proviso-Reliefs .,f/tough '110! specifically
prayed for sl1ould be granted if the proved f,tcls ia the plaint warra1zt
it-Tile ob;ecl of Court Fees Act.
The appellant instituted a suit under s. 42 Specific Relief Act against the
Respondent who was appellant's monthly tenant [or a bare de:laration that
the appellant is the owl)er of a Cinema Hall and its site and {or damages,
etc., witho~t a prayer for possession. '
In fact, the Respondent was found to be a mere trespasser in possession
by virtue of the Monthly Leases (Termination) Act, 1946.
The suit was decreed, bnt on appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit:
holding tha~under the Proviso to s. 42 of the Specific Relief Aci, the suit was
not maintainable. '
On appeal to the Supreme Court, by special leave held:
Proviso to s. 4 2 Specific Relief Act c!Jes not warrant the assertion that
the suit is not maintainable; for the Proviso merely enacts that the Court
shall not m.tkc a declaration where the plaint:ff being able to se.e k further
relief failed to do so. The Court has no jurisdiclion to dismiss the Stlit, it can
only refuse to make a declar;ttionunless the plaint is so amended ash satisf)
the reqnirements of s. 42 of the Specific Heliei Act.
S. T. K. Cl1etty Firm v. Balasmzdram. 10, L.B.R. 199; B. ~ l>foltamcd'
Eus;of v. Bakl'idi and atJOlltcr, 11952) B.L.R. 248, followed.
field also: That if a plaintiff is entitled to certain reliefs upon proof of
necessary fact alleged in the pl aint, it is for the Court to grant such reliefs
although the relief~ specifically asked for may be inartistically framed.
Babtt Lal Ray v. Bi11dhyacl:al Rai, I.L R. 22 Pat. lSi, referred to.
Held furtllcr: The Cotu t Fees Act was passed not to ann a litigant wit
a weapon of tccilnicllity against his opponent but to secure re-.enue for the
benefit of the State.
R . Subrao v. Vc:ukatnJ, A I.I~ (1918 . (P.C.) !88, referred t_o.

K. R. Venkatram for the appellant.


Ba Shun for the respondent.
Chil Appeal No. 1 of 1956 against the decree of the High Court
Rangoon in Chi! 1st Aprea! No. 56 of 1952. ,,
t Present : U MY!NT THE!!\, Actin g Chief Justice, U Bo GYI, J. an
U AUNG THA GYAW, J.
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 57

The judgment of trw Court was delivered by S.C.


1956

MR. Jus neE Bo '(ryr._J''his appeal is by spe~iql Tf!E BANK


OF
leave granted under section 5 of the Union Judiciary CHETTINAD
LTD
Act, 1948 and arises in the following circumstances. v.
U J'AW.
Prior to the events which have led to the present
litigation, the respondent U Taw was in occupation
of a parcel of land in Mandalay town together with a
residential building and a godown standing thereon
as a monthly tenant of the appellants, the Bank of
Chettinad Ltd. In the month of April 1942 during
the Japanese invasion, the respondent ceased to
occupy, the premises but some time later entered
upon the land again and put up a cinema hall in
place of the house and godown without the Bank's
consent. ..Under the Monthly Leases (Termination)
l}ct, 1946, "'the tenancy was determined with effect
from the end of April 1946 and the respondent in
entering upon the property again did so as a tres-
passer. If in draf~ing the plaint the Bank's learned
advocate had kept these legal consequences steadily
in mind, much confusion of thought would have
been avoided. '
The Banic' claimed that the respondent dismant-
led the house and godown on their land and with
part of the materials thus obtained put up the cinema
hall in suit, removing the rest to another place where
he constructed a house. They therefore prayed to
-be declared owners of the cinema hall standing on
the sita in ;question and to be awarded the sum of
K I O,OOO,as damages in respect of building materials
removed to another place or, in the alternative, for
the sum of K 25;000 as da:mages for dismantling the
house and godown and conversion of the materials.
They also prayed that, in case the Court did not
find them- to be owners of the cinema hall the .
58 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
S.C. respondent be ejected by den1qlition of the hall.
1956
They further prayed for mesne orofits and 1ents, but
THE BANK
OF the. claim for rents was later abandoned. The respon-
CHETTI~AD
LTD, dent while admitting the tenancy disputed the Bank's
v. ownership of the land. He denied having dismant-
UTAW.
led the house and godown and averred that the
buildings were dismantled by hooligans dt1r1ng the
enemy occupation of Mandalay.
The learned trial Judge held that the land and
the buildings originally standing thereon belotlged to
the Bank and that the respondent dismantled the
buildings and used some of the materials in the
construction of the cinema hall and the rem a irtder ii1
building a house on another site. He directed an
inquiry as to the mesne profits claimed and the value
of the building materials removed.
The learned Judges of the High Court were of
the opinion that the original buildings standing on
the land were dismantled by the respondent who
constructed the cinema hall with some of the mate-
rials, removing the remainder for the construction of
another building. The learned Judges held, how-
ever, that in view of the proviso to se9t\on 42 of the
SI?ecific Relief Act the suit was not maintainable and
accordingly dismissed the suit without going into the
claim as to damages and mesne profits. The lan-
guage of the proviso to section 42 of the Specific
Relief Act does not warrant the assertion that the
suit is not maintainable; for the proviso merely
enacts that the Court shall not make a declaration
where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief
fails to do so. The Court has no jurisdiction to
dismiss the suit; ~t can on:Iy refuse to make a decla-
ration unless the plaint is so amended as to. satisfy
the requirements of the proviso to section 4~ of the
Specific Relief Act. The view was held in S; T. K
1957] BURMA LA\<V REPORTS. 59

Chetty Finn v. Balasundrcm 0) which has been s.c.


1956
approved by this Court in B. S. j'vfohamed Eusoof v.
THE BAXK
Bakridi and anothe/ (2). OF
CHETT!NAD
Normally, where necessary facts are stated LTn.
jn the plaint which, if proved, would entitle the u
v.
TAW.
plaintiti to obtain certain reliefs it is for the Court to
grant such reliefs although the reliefs specifica1Iy
asked for.. may be inartistically framed. See Babu
La! Ray v~ Bildhyachal Rai (3). This however is
subject to the proviso to section 42 of the Specific
Relief Act. 'vVe hold therefore that the Bank should
have been given an opportunity by the High Court
to amend their plaint adding the necessary reliefs
and paying the deficit court fees, if any.
\V e are not impressed with the argument that
the respo,pdent raised this issue before the trial
Court. R'Cading the written statement as a whole
we find that he did not raise the plea that the suit
was not maintainable for want of a prayer for pos-
session of the cinema hall and its site. As a matter
of fact, r no issue was asked for on the point and
none was framed.
Tin learned advocate for the respondent has
contended that no court fee has been paid on the
relief for possession of the premises. The Bank
have paid Court fees on K 31,080 and it is clear that
they did not try to evade payment of court fees by a
mere declaratory suit. Furthermore, it has been
held by the Privy Council in R. Subrao v. Venkatro
(4) that. the :Court Fees Act was passed not to arm a
litigant W,ith a weapon of technicality against his
opponent but to secure revenue for N1e benefit of the
State.

(I) 10 L.B.R. 199. (3) I.L.R. 22 Pat. 187.


(f) (l952)B.L.R.248 (4) A.1.R. {1918)(P.C.) 1.:!8.
60 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
S.C. We accordingly set aside the;jpdgment and decree
1956
under appeal and remand the q.se to the H~gh Court
THE B,.Vm
OF to . re-admit it under 'its original number in the
CHETT!NAD
L'm. register of Civil Appeals and to detenni_ne it in
'V, accordance with law, after giving the Bank an oppor-
UTAW.
tunity to amend the plaint by adding the necessary
reliefs in conformity with the proviso to section 42
of the Specific Relief Act and paying .the deficit
court fees, if any.
The respondent shall bear the costs of the present
appeal. Advocate's fee in this Court Kyats one
hundred and seventy. A certificate will issue under
section 13 of the Court Fees Act for refung. of the
Court fees paid on the memorandum of appeal in
this Court.
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 61

SUPkEl\1E COURT.
THE BURMA OIL COMPANY LABOURERS t S.C.
1957
UNION (APPELLANTS)
Attg, 26.
v.
THE BURMA OIL COMPANY (REFINERIES)
LTD. (RESPONDENTS).*

Trade Disputes Act, s. 9-Tize Co11rt of ltzdaslrial Arbitration, w/;et/ler a


"Court" within !11c meaui11gojs. 6of the [uion Judiciary Act.
Held: That the Court of Industrial Arbitration formed undet the Trade
Disputes Act is not a Courl within the meaning of s. 6 of the 'Cnion Judiciary
_1\.ct, but it is a Tribunal cli~charging quasi-judicial functions.
D. D. Gro!er v. K C. Komzda, C.:\f.A. No. 36 of 1955; CooPer v. Wilson
41ld others, (1937) 2 K. B. 309 at 340 ; Blwrat Bauk v. Employees of Bhaml,
A.I.R (37) (lCJSO) (S.C.) 188 at 209 (para. 61); f . K. 1Jo1z aud Steel Co. Ltd. v.
Tile Iro11 and Slml llatdoor U11io11, IJ956) A.I.R. (S.C .) 231 ; The Waterside
Workers Federal ion of Australin v. J . W. Alexander Ltd., (!9l8) 25 C.L.R. 434 ~
.Aitomey-General for Australia v. Tile Queen, (1957) W L.R. 607 at 614.

'y an A ung for the applicants .

.Horrocks for the respondents.

Judgment of the Court was delivered by


MR. JusTICE CHAN HTOON._ The President
referred to the Court of Industrial Arbitration, under
section 9 of the Trade .Qisputes Act, for its determina-
tion a dispute between the Burma Oil Company
(Refineries) Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as
~the Company") ~nd its former employees repre-
s.e nted by their Lal.Jour Union known as the Burma
Oil Company Labourers Union (hereinafter to be
referred to as " the Union ") . After hearing the
parties and their witnesses the Court of Industria1
Civil Misc. Appli')ation No. 73 of 1955. Application for Special Lc,lle
to Appeal aga'nst the Aw.trd of the Court of Industrial Arbitration.
T Prerwt; U MYINT THF.!N, Chief Justic'!,l U CHAN HTOON, J. and t: Eo
GYi, J.
62 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
.. .
S.C. Arbitration made an award under section 10 of the
1957
Act. The Union applied to this Court for special
THE HUR~!A
OIL leave to appeal against the award under section 6 of
CoMPANY
LABOURERS
the Union Judiciary Act, and the Company also
U t-:ION applied for special leave to appeal against the said
v.
THE BURMA award in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of
OIL
CO~!PANY 1956.
(REFINERIES)
LTD.
The Court heard the counsel for the Union and
the Company on a preliminary question as to whether
the Court of Industrial Arbitration is a " Court ~
within the meaning of section 6 of the Union
Judiciary Act. The Attorney-General, rep:cesented
by the learned Government Advocate, was also heard
as amicus curiae.
In D. D. Grover v. K . C. Kounda and two others
(1) this Court has observed: "
"It may at once be said that the words ' Court
occurring in section 6 of the Union Judiciary Act denotes only
courts in the strict sense of the term, a.<> the section relates only
to appeals to this Court by special leave. "

It is therefore necessary to see whether the Court


of Industrial Arbitration is a " Court ". in the strict
se.r;.se of the term, in other words whether its functions-
are purely of judicial nature or merely quasi-judicial.
In the above-mentioned case this Court adopted as
the basis of its determination of the meaning of the
terms "judicial " and " quasi-judicial " the following
passage reproduced from the report of the Committee
on Minister's Powers by Scott, LJ.: iri Cdoper v.
rVilson. and others (2).
"A true j~dicial decision presupposes an existing
dispute between two or more parties and then involves four
requisites-
.
(1) the presentation (not necessarily orally) of their
case by the parties to the dispute; .
(1) C.M .<\. N'o. 36 of 1955. (2) (l93i) 2 K.B. 309, 340.
1957] BURMA LA\.Y REPORTS. 63

(2) J,f
the dispute between them is a question of fact, S.C.
1957
the ascer~'ainment "of the fact by means of
e-vidence adduced by the parties to the dispute THE BuRMA

and often with the assistance of argument OIL


COllPANY
by or on behalf of the parties on the evidence ; LA130UIWRS
UX!ON
(3) if the dispute between them is a question of law, v.
the submission of legal argument by the parties; THE Bt;RMA
OIL
and CoMPANY
(4) a d~cision which disposes of the whole matter by a ( RBFI X~RIES)
finding upon the facts in dispute and an LTD.

application of the law of the land to the facts


so found, including where required a ruling
upon any disputed question of law.
A quasi-judicial decision equally presupposes an existing
dispute betweep two or in ore parties and involves ( l) and (2),
but does not necessarily involve (3), and never involves (4).
The place of (4) is in fact taken by administrative action, the
character of .:;.vhich is determined by the Minister's free
chQ,ice."

We must therefore consider whether the Court


of Industrial Arbitration has all the attributes of a
truly judicial body as indicated above. It is common
ground, nor is there any d_oubt whatsoever, that the
Court qf Industrial Arbitration full111s first three
requisites. If , has indeed all the trappings of
law. Under the Act and the Rules made thereunder,
each party to an industrial dispute " when referred
to the Court for its determination by the President
of the Union" is required to present his own case in
writing and to -adduce evidence if he wishes to do
so', as in ..the <;ase of proceedings in an ordinary Court
of law. At the end of the hearing of the parties and
their witnesses, legal arguments an: made by the
parties or their lawyers. Then the Court makes its
award based upon a finding of the facts as brought
out by the evide~ce on record. Is the Court bound
to decide by " an application of the law of the land
to the facts so found " or is it at liberty to come to
64 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
S C. its decision on considerations' other than what is
1957
strictly legal? This se(;;ms to be the question which
"THE ~~~R)[A will determine the character and nature of the Court
co~IPANY of Industrial Arbitration. For this purpose we may
LABOUI('f:RS
UNroN refer to the Trade Disputes Act to see if there are
THE B~RMA any provisions which lay down any substantive law or
co~~~NY which require it to apply the ordinary law of the
.JREFtNERrr..si land. There is no such provision \O be found in the
LTo. Act. The Act contains no provisions relating to the
rights and obligations between employers and
employees, as in the case of the law of master and
servant. It only seeks to regulate the conduct and
relations between the Court and the parties in respect
of the dispute. It does not purport lay downto
what facts and circumstances will give ri_se to what
kinds of rights or obligations between the parties.
It merely provides procedure for settling the
disputes. Section 10 of the Act empowers the
Court "to make such a war.d as it thinks tit'
and proper after due enquiry and consideration".
It is quite apparent that the Court qf Industrial
Arbitration is not bound to apply the law of
Contract or the law of Master a11d Servant or
any other substantive law. On the contrary, it is to
decide on principles of industrial policy and for
peaceful relations between capital and labour or what
appears to be just and proper in the circumstances of
the particular case. In Bharat Bank v. Employees
of Bharat Bank (l), Mukherjea, J. o,bseryed with
reference to the question as to whether the Industrial
Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Di-sputes Act
of India is a Court in the strict sense of the term or
a Tribunal of quasi-judicial nature :
"We would now examine the precess by which an
Industrial Tribunal comes to its decisions and I have no
(1) A.l.R. (37) (1950) ( S.C.) 18!i at 209 (para. 61).
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 65
hesitatiof\) in holding that the process employed is not judicial S.C.
1957
Process at all. In settiing the disputes between the employers
, '
and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is not confined THE BURMA
OIL
to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can Co~rPANY
confer rights and privileges on either party which it considers LABOUREl?S
UNION
reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the ~.
terms of any existing agreement. It has not merely to THE BURUA
interpret o~ give effect to the contractual rights and obliga- OIL
COMPANY
tions of the ;~arties. It can create new rights and obligations (REF!NEIIIES)
LTD.
between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial
peace. An industrial dispute as has been said on many occa-
sions is nothing but a trial of strength between the employers
on the onehand and the workmen's organization on the other
and the Industrial Tribunal has got to arrive at some equitable
arrangement.for averting strikes and lock outs which impede
production of goods and the industrial development of the
country. The Tribunal is not bound by the rigid rules of law.
The proces8 jt employs is rather an extended form of the
nrocess of collective bargaining and is more akin to administra-
tive than to judicial function. In describing the true position
of an Industrial Tribunal in dealing with labour disputes, this
Court in Western Indin Automobile Association v. Industrial
Tribunal, Bombay, (1949) F.C.R. 321 at p. 345: [A.I.R. (36)
(1949) F.C. 111] quoted with approva l. a passage from Ludwig
Teller's well known work on the subject, where the learned
author "observes that 'industrial arbitration may involve the
extension of an existing agreement or the making of new ;::me
or in general the creation of new obligation or modification
of old ones, while commercial arbitration generally concerns
itself with interpretation of existing obligations and disputes
relating to existing agreements.' The views expressed in these
observations we!"e adopted in its entirety by this Court. Our
LOnclusion therefore is that an Industrial Tribunal formed
under th~ Industrial Disputes Act is not a judicial tribunal
and its determination is not a judicial determination in the
proper sense of these expressions. "

The learned Judge further remarks (para. 67, p.


211):
" . the (Industrial) tribunal is not bound to
decide the disputes by application of the ordinary law of the

5
66 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
s.c. land. A good deal depends upon questions of policy
l"
and
1957 public convenience."
TaE BuR~IA
O!L In our opinion these observations correctly set
CO:\!PANY
LABOURERS
out the functions of a Court of Industrial Arbitration
UNION
11,
formed under the Trade Disputes Act of Burma. In
THE BURMA the above mentioned case the Supreme Court of India
OIL
COMPANY held by a majority that the Industrial Tribunals are
(REFINERIES)
LTD.
not courts in the strict sense of the term but are
merely tribunals discharging quasi-judicial functions.
In J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The Iron and
Steel Mazdoor Union (1) it was held that ''these
tribunals are not Courts in the strict sense of the
term" but "they have to discharge quasi-judicial
functions ".
The observations of Issacs and Rich, JJ. in
The Waterside Workers Federation of' Australia
v. J. W. Alexander Limited (2) bring out clearly
the distinction between the functions of an Industrial
Tribunal and a Court of law._
" But the essential difference is that the judicial power is
concerned with the ascertainment, declaration and enforcement
or the rights and liabilities of the parties as they exist, . or are
deemed to exist, at the moment the proceedingsare instituted ;
whe-feas the function of the arbitral power in relation to
industrial disputes is to ascertain and declare, but not enforce,
what in the opinion of the arbitrator ought to be the respective
rights and liabilities of the parties in relation to each other. "
It is contended by the learned counsel for the
Union that the name of the court as "The Court ot
Industrial Arbitration " as provided in the Act,
together with it~ judicial trappings should be the
determining factor in considering this question. We
must at once say that neither the name nor mere
trappings will turn what is merely '} quasi-judicial
body into a court in the strict sense of the term.
(1) (1956) A.l.R (S.C.) 231. (2) (191!3) 25 C.L.R: 4:!.
195~] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 67
.
The following remarks of Barton,
. J. in The Waterside
Workers Federation of Australia v. J. W. AlexandeJ;
S.C.
~957

Ltd. (1) are quite apposite in this respect: THE ~~RMA


"Whether persons were Judges, whether tribunals were LABOURERS
CoMPANY

courts and whether they exercised what is now called judicial UNro:x

power, depends on substance and not on mere names." TH/BuR~rA


OIL
In AttoPney-General for Australia v. The Queen C~~!PANY
(REFINERIES)
(2), Viscount,Simohds in delivering the judgment of LTD.
the Privy Council observes-
" . that in the matter under consideration the
primary and essential object of the Act was the settlement of
industrial ~isputes, that this object can be fulfilled only by the
jntermediacy of. a body of persons established for that purpose,
that the functions of a body so established are not judicial,
that to call it a court or a superior court of record does not
convert its non:-4udicia1 functions into judicial functions, and
that. to add judicial functions or powers to them means only
that a body created to exercise non-judicial functions has now
nsted .in it judicial functions also."
For all the reason's set out above, we are of the
opinion that the Court of Industrial Arbitration
formed under the.-Trade Disputes Act is not a Court
within the meaning of section 6 of the Union
Judiciary Act, but it is a tribunal discharging quasi..:
judicial functions.
Special leave to appeal is therefore refused and
the application is dismissed ; each party to bear its
ovvn costs. Ad.vocate's fees are fixed at Kyats three
hm1dred and forty.

(1) (1918) 25 C .L.R. 434. , 12 1 (195i) W.L.R. 607 at 614.


6R BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

'
OJ .Gf g ~ cs G'OJ~ 9] (8

~gGm'Jb::n ( GcgpoScx:og~)
l~
?oS~5m6p~~m6pg~~go 1G_( Gcg-)oSoo'Jg
~Eq~"ij')g) *

o?oG yl~l 8~,W5')i" (@5ooE4Jo5) rnd3eoG8'lO~ ?OU 8~.@,rn~~0t:E:


l;;uSs~ 8rn 5 'Jfdi\S'OS~o7~GCXJJt8::D@$ ~~ss~ 8rn~P'i"~ G0')8(J.)0Cf>P
ooS G0'J8m~~ 0(80Jm~::Dt ~~@:::DG::O'J02 o~e:p'l!l'J'1j[04J[O~~
roqJGrol3~rn'): ~:o5<1Jo5Go:o1G'[~~rn8:n@~ c;b~~m 'cx?@oS<1JoSGog
.;;ro:ntn ~~:@oS<1JoS~ otjj~i::n .poS~cro~:Cl~:Gro)~ 8~&rn~~l!lt=
Go:6)~GOjj'Jcf.ioo?:t;p ~~0t:Go:6i~ ~~moe ~:c~4!cf.i<1J9o5Gro:nt.l
~:@oS<1Jcf.iu nroS~croqJ:r.>~:GroS~I :::>?:>~ y~b1 8~&rn~p;;(l9trof
~d)) rncf.i80G8'lnG ? 0 8'd6) I 8?8 rn~~0a:~t::Dt 8'd'JOO':W~G~l!
:~:~9~ ~:8ro~::D o1 o O@ ~~ y;b1 rosp:<)SaSGroS3'1J[S roqJ~G
8'dG::D:rn~Gvjpcf.i<_::g'J8'd5Jch 9 9 ~o~cf.i f>'J::D~.I

GCSJ'JrhC:O'Jg02gaOd ch ~cGooS3G~G<j'i0g ~g:)):))~g (-::> ) ~rf.io 1


? oCOC)rf.i::D tu ~

GO.jprf.iro'J!~j02!:ro1QS (~) OO<?arh~~p)GOJS)GS)Gf'~~ ~!:Y.llJ:tb


~rho1Goo'JC8)rh::Dtn

e:~~gn 11~8ast0d5 GO.jprhro'J:~b):)j( 8a1o? (G) ~~pmm


::Dfl Gcgprhoo'J::)j( ~gGra'JC:Y.lra'J: I GgS)ro~g~:~yJ31 8~o.J
~'Jf>~ G'JS:~toS ~:d3~o5Go:u'Jt: 8o1s1a;oSm~cf~sr~9 uoS::DoS
m~g~ ~[:> I ~~:GmSm ~~J3:02o5GCY.Jj'Jt:~@:.pmmga'Jg I O~:Y.labl
rootO?CSI ra'J~SG@'l9mr'2 <(gd3rp~t@~G0 ~~:@o56::DtCl25t

* :) @~ fS <{~s I rot;p: Cl8'dG::D:8'd~GCgj')cf.i~'J ~ljch 0 :J II

t ~tcGroSOJ~0~~: ~~:.B~: I ooe;pm((]: :'1!~02~~9~ roqJw~~;


~'~((]: cGl.G5J 'Jd3CJ6CII
rb6 pfia;c~pclfue~eo:cceec~zchco gl~scoesoro:chc.o ~~r~e ::JGilc a
~
u~roe~:~~so:~g&" 0 L
cccrow 3~:be~g sco~:~~ l:gc~~~coocro~ccg~~ '~3~
:oe~:30~~m1Fgg ~~soccso~socls~go c.oscoe~~~e~c1scogg<p4 1ge'An!
~EBCCCe>:f:heg OC.0GW0 5c4c8co 1r~gg~e J:f~4e~~~0fe3@e8,a
4cgco ~88T4~ lgro:!>8so ccce~sc(oem I scce~g~ce8~(]3(j)
Rg;ccme~frggce~cc
3ccpfile soleso:~C.O~So ~:oe:30~~. ~gfe:;sccc:ccosoc!fu~
~:gm :~roc.oscoe:~e:clsco 38T4 u:gcl~co3cc:ccosoc!fue
~bLmoe>~SC(j)~~ co ~~8 EFscoe~~e~clscog8sn~]fgcBe ~~(!)e~ o~e
:ro~e:; ?f3cc:~meso'hso:~ c.o:c~scoe~ch~ 'sccgedQS~bLmoe
:fleso:~ I :ce8fPSCOechre<f>d)co 'W8gg~e d6~&cc.cecc:g~~fp
ccgcroe:gg~@@3ccc.omd:g'ce:cl!?sole~ccce:c:oog&>~e:;~
u3 ccroe~:ccopclfueecLoBe
:ggro:oe~ :cesc.omdgg ?f~c~:38o :gb0esscccpfi!e:c~scoe~cJ;re
<kc5ro1fggg~e lglfu:~:oe so~e:;gd.ee:;:~:~w 3ccCJ>:g~3b
1~gcpce~s@ :c ~c.omc<i>:g & 4e:S'c:gco&e ~:gc!!:.o~LolGJesocom
'3cctcgcwe>:@ &:ccosoclfue>em ce3cc:ccoso~fu~~gco emf]
<ke>ie> ~c@o~c.ocod:~ u3ccb~SC :gc)e~e:gg5o4-e~uchecrog=:
:gcl!:.oe~So ceE;o:Lo c :smbccce>:crosccesc u:gce~sorug~<i>~
emgro:gc'l:oeLolEile>jOCOEB 3ccc.omd:g 1ce3ccb~SC bec;p/!:~
soclfue~ ~:c~:~<i>~~e~~c@o ccce~socc~\:g~ '3ro~::Jscoe:~~
u3ccroeso~:;oeieso!eso:~ ec36b:;o[gg(,ree>d::p~~:Sc
gSo<ke:c~:~mb&g~ggg~ec;c.o ~ cceo 0:gm ,bec;:c:"l'lsote:5c.o~sc(j)
ccce:;o~:;occbb@@ Jglfu:~gro~ 3}g,~ec;co~ccCoCJ> rgg:Lo 6 :~cob
=~~~Jhc.o g owLoeG::Omcc;hg 'fffp gbgbec;~38oLo~eG ~scrow:cihscoe~ch~
5:cbcog8so~ u<fccroe>~g~J.,Grugc.osore ~~c~~saao ~ggeec; gcec:clflscoeJchce
3~ . ~gro '~Segllegllewc(?go .&ccceccg~g~ 3cc~c.ocog0 g~w
ccg_:~~~ GC0e> lbecp/egoeGL oleg~ ~~gcJescoe~re~koco 'ifg23~ebo I c:p 0
6Ge)c chgowGc~e S:c}e:gm'irgg 3~e:~gce ,gccg41W~"' wccgq.GeJgg
69 s~"HOdtHf M V'I VW"HQS: fL~6 I
70 BURMA LAvV REPORTS. [1957

oe~? ~5!JJ'JI:l()')GJ:l~l ~~~025 ~~58?A';D~p.pm G~')!Jm519112m8m


@:G.G<l'JC:::r.> c: ~~~:~~:::rxfJJJG::D'JO'j(~~'Jt. 00C:~'Jop<Xl6pGro.S~'J~~d'J~ Sd~C:@
~~ 0gt~~'J:O~ GOg800C);t81~~gG,j'>'Jo51 OOS[)GOJ.S"iJ''J80')1 ~O~~g(:lj'Jg~
f':~~@~ 00':2JJ~mo~~ma@~@9 ~~@oS<j]o5 ~~oS~o5GroJJ~ll mt~~@~
o1 (5,~ .pUS~5ro6p:l:l~:GmS~ o \) o[3 <jl~tl 8? 00~'Jop (@to;o5~cfj) !30cf
80G8<(Sc,> \)0 !J'abjl 8?oo~~0tg~C::D~Sd'J(l]')'JI:l~G~II
rnooOOGC9 T[9u1 Sd~'Jt~9)'JgG6'J~ o @~ [3 <f511 'i(~5ro
:J o qcfjG?,~o1.poS~coosp:G~~~ooS~ 8~ c.n ~ ~0 ~~JJ ~ rnS~~c;5: 1
mt:S3S~S3bj~0~~G::n'J 8~oo~~~~0SG::n'J o @~G :r511 0rh
oo::h'JCD e 6100G?,~O1 rnS~~c;t: ooS~rh~rh::D~II
~Sd~025t GOjpOOOO.'J:~bl~ @g.prom::D~t ~gCJ3cgo5GCY.)J'JC2
~ ;3m5:~:GopJJ~@b.)@9 gpmm~~GC\]'JOOOO'J:~ ~<dSd'JC:::D~
~'J Oij~~GJJ'JO~~:bjO~'J:~~ ooS::nd)~ ~~:JJ<l:JJ;O'j( <J~t8? tD
~'J.P rospGooS~')g ~:@oS~~oSJJtSd~C: G<XJ'JCl~:J6'J:G~~cq5t
w:rrnSmEi)cS:~'J ~G-o oS~0::Dt ~~t:"{p:CJGoTGo~(6:, G~:m~s.~2'J
~:~o5~5cB~G~tJt Qj~:GroSmoo5@5::ntn ffiC:~ro5~5::D~!J'C~t:
CD~: ~~~5!t::Dci3::DG::D'JOO'J:~:2'J@9 <l~t8? tD~'Jf<XlGpGO?.S~p.;
rg~ !J'CS~~~oSop'JGro'Jtla5c8GtO?Qi~iGroSmG@Sro:xJfn w5:~
G~5ro9::D~rn~tgro~g ~!JO~~'J Sd~::Dt~')g:xJt SS~0~oS~ SS
c:CPJ~6G0 tJt80 S~~<joS~ctj::nt II
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 71

.
00 !ip ~ ~ cB 00 J; ~ [S

~gqg ( GC\jj'JaSco'Jg~) t 0 @~'2


~$ ~~Ero
~?8CXnCD 01 0 ( GC\jj'JoSa:ngQEi1~8J'JZ) * 0
E>io5
11

o?oG ~~$1 8~&w~"~ (@E~c<l!d3) !J'd:f.ieoGnq&~;,> ?~i ?1 ?'21 ?OJ '1'2'


O?OO ~~~~ 8~,Wpop~oSe(]G:J ~5~;,> 0~1 o(~J 001 O@l ?~J ~!feb

8~.LD~p~~~S~rf? CJ"O':llto:D@~ ~~E8~&w~'J;>~ G<D:JnpoEG,s~


G<D'JD!j'>'JO CJiG@g@oSG:JJ~~oc .;;Ji~EO')~W oo~:~~ga)G~'JoS~ 8~&o:J
~~pt:Gu:!i!~ GC\jpoSa:rJ:r;p oo:op:=)?@3:m o ?ot3 ~~S' 8?&w5'J.P
(Qt~5~) !J'dJ380GD<(bg ?O ~~~ 8&0J:?~G<D~:I ~lj'>Ji8?&w~l'Jf
~~ ~s~~ oJilWoSt~oSGro:Dell .l~~@oS~rbll .l&!foS8~,0J5'J;>OJ
aaS~~pcf-i@:Gj>'JoS ~~E8?&wg'J.p~ G<D?nmoCGr;poS~06E .poS~Eoo
t,p~CJ ~~GO')SmotGr;pd3~d)~oS~ 3?~oo~ ~{)t:Go:@c~~~t:Di& !J'd?m?
G~G@::u

GC\ji'Jo5oo'Jg::J)?OGlC2d3 ~oSGoos:iGmGr~~ ~J.)O.J$g ( :J) ~rt)o1


GOO'Jt~roOJtll

Gcp15oo?:~~~ ~loS (l3) "j ( o) sac8~02oS 9:So5GooS


G~Gr~g ~~()')0:Jjt ~rf)01GCO'Jtlri30Jtn

eg~~&ll 11g)jSCl~D,2t GC\jj'Jo5CO'Jg~ ~g~;m Gojprbcc-:>g~


Gl::li(llil:;d:i (G) ~GOJG'OJJJ 9'a:fa5 (?.) g~s'J0ffi~9 9'a'JaS ( o)
GG'JtOJCffi~~~'J:J o1:~oSG~J ox:d)otGO:pC~:f 01o5l'J:Ccfgrl
~~'J:G~!;j~:Y.l;o,2cf.i1 o 1:~u5G~<j)oS 8~o::l'Jf~OJ~~~~b[JC6b G3~t6)
~~o.:>t~ ~~GO:)(~,o~ o1 11(8oom \) @gcftm GGOijiJSOJ@~rG~'JC~@~~f
8~&w~p~~ G[l'J3;p'Jot6mji5 J?G0'J3f10t~ G~oSGOJg~of
~~t8~0J~'Jt 8tt?3~i~Q0Gf_)GOJ:5~'J~33'J: go?6tut~O'J'J GOjpoS
:;~ 0 ~ :')(; ~~~~ D:l!ip:Yn"aG:l:J:~~GCijj'Jrfi<)S') ~~cf.j
9 ct-l9.1
~:s ~CcGO'J5 OJ~:o~ffi:~[S :@~cSf~r gso~Go:.S~t0006p:o~~: 1~@~
*gso5 -;OJ10'Jop:o ~~: ~~Gro?t~C~G~GSJCloS~n
72 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

CX)')~QG]~ 82'jcf) ( Cj) G@'Jt~@~l<j>oS~tOJ~~~ OJ6p~~~WJG3l'Jd)~

@:~~
8(.).)~ ~<D t:GmO16]~ 2~Gt\:)poSro 'J~6G :xl :::ot II
~d)~ tOJ6p~g
19 OJ6p~~ga) ooE:~GcgprEoo'J:~qj'Jf~9 ~~~:@~02'J: oo9GQT@:
~~8co-:>~ C\]JCI ~d~:@~m m~02oS'J~G:::o~cotg O?oG ~~[)1 8~W~'J<j'>
o1 ou
([gfoot~rb) 82oS2oG~<(Eg ?O 826]1 8~.oo~ ~<Dt~G<D:I 82~~
~OdD~Gco:::otu oo5:8~ <.D~8Jt ~025[~ ro~GOjj'Jrnro'J~~
@d~:@gcu'JG6pcf.l::bG<j):::09 qt:~~rt)02Ji.~5 ~g:::oOGO O?~~:OjjCI
o 1:~oSg~~oS 8~ oo~'J~~~:@oS~d)~ ooS~GS~oS'*-~:::otu
GOj)'JrbCX)'Jg~ ~d~:@~ O~'J~GS)G<j'>~:m 82?mGC'jj'JrbOO'J:
:::ot'j'J oo~O<J~:::ot o i:Qb5G~<j)oS 8~ m~'J~m ~:@o5~:@~ :::o@9
~oS~50J5p:gOJ6p:Jj?~:~:m'J:G:::O'J O?O(; ~5<1 8~&mg'J~ (5
oo5;;uoS) 02oSeoGm(Eg ? o ~5 Gtm~~t:<9'3l- 82~[:Got~E
G'Jb G~mfcf.l~'JG<Xjj'Jcf.loo'J~GCDOJtn rut:D2rb80GDC(EG ? 0 <9
:::ooS~tGpC(tlG ?~l ?(;I ?I ~~ Go1t:<DO{.~ ~::::o~n:x>~GpooS
~~d38~,gs ro~p<j'>cn a?:@oS~:@~~ Q~58~& ru~'J<j'>~ ~Gpd3~Gf>G::D-'J
G<D'J ~<j'>'JO E~qJ'J:<9<D8C~:JJ:~ ~oS~Eoo~:G ro~:~[!3::::ot 1 C(OG ? o
8'236]1 820<C:co):G:::O'J 82'JC1D'J~'J:~ 82~:g@~5G'Jt: G92~GJ:::otu
<Dt<D~82'J~@~~G:::o$) o?oo :r~St 8~ro~'J<)>82oSeoG~C(Ed o~ 026
82"-lJ[:oE:::ot 8'i"t:g~m028m~of.i:sr~ 'J:~'J<DSGoo:~:@o~G]~82c
91 G<D'J~mi~O(Boom~~t SS~:::oGO':l'JCJ2~<DtgG:::o'J 8~ ru~~
~o;8~5:::of& 823~82G6):~ O? oG ~~s, 8~U)~'J<j'> (5roE9JoS)
82rbeoG~C(E ? ~ 82]1G0~82D~~C O? 0 o ~\ 18 <.D~'J~rr.?rbBUGD
C(OG o G ~:::o'J~~:~8239D2GG]~~:Go:ro'J:Gax:otu q5~C(5G o G 'j'J
~o)~G:::o'J82sr~:q ~<t>oS8~i2,ro~'J<j'>'}'J 6'Je<j'>'J<D~Goo:~ ~Eilt~:@oS
6)~ ~CD~G]C~Cs$ 82'JC1D'J~'J!~G6'Jtg @~'J~:co').GCO:::otu . ~fo$
8~(.))~j'J<j'>~ ~~@oS9JoSq ~5~0J~t8?<.D~'J<j'>Q6C G0'J~()')OCgC
G0:820CX::'J:CU~ C(OG o o ~G::oSqb 01~58 OJ~')<f~ q~@o<.i~c~
~5cGooS 8~ 26 m~'Jt~5 Gt'Jrbcx?:~<D'J8m o E 3 $Gog8200J'J~:::of&
C(OG O@ ~G:::oSqE: oot:C?O~ ?~ ~ GJt~~~qjoSG~G~u
82moS~1 'lb@g3\~::nrb:::oGO?'JCJ2~0jjCI G~cut8~& m~'J<j'>OJC
G~ G~g@oS~G<j'>G:::O'J ~8mijjof.i:Y?OJ9:rq G<D'Jl300<j!~~80Jm~QJG~')
usaccso~so~le3gw g'
~gbct;Sfle ~bSO~~gc:ee30~ro~oe w4cBm'{i3gg~e~gce f?I-S
&:fl~cosec ctJ~e:Hg 5Cccgrog0 g~ggcltuego9ccco ~~flTe~L o~
Jgfug~~JbgJO WC03~so~0 ~nc.fl?3~es~E? (b) I (C) I ( 1) I (C).
so~w&b~&CCX)(;ocfue cesngc/!ngceec Lol!ile~coeG
usaccroegclsgoo g3sJegcm~fl ~bg3~gec
cmcecscccg~sec~ ~ooec~bgc:ee30~gco g~0e~~m {F38 ~:f!ilSO~
~Cbego c.og~ocgchco ('lgchcoggp~ Soi-Secccce3 g~sog~
ro Lo
gcf!?scoecboe 4c!3m'&2gsn4~ c~sccecec~scoec;o8J ~fl~Lo g&l
CCCa:>8:g ch~gecgo eg~g~ecgbeecg~ eG w~c~cocog0g~c.oGc0ef;C~mgm
g~ usccc
;ff:!~
megccog~c5 co 0 6 flO (Solegceg) . 4cBcn~gg.,,3~e 3c cc
0Gelc ggceg~gec~ ~~ee~iesog?;ef,ol-)eG&o Sc~cn?ff~g scf}gS2.0~~
ft sLHOc:Itrn fAVJ. VWWlff fLS6 I
74 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

SUPREME CdURi
tS.C.
1957 UL u SHEIN (APPELLANT)
Sept. 9. v.
RENT CONTROLLER, RANGOON AND FIVE
OTHERS (RESPONDENTS).*

Directious i11 tire 11alurc of Certiorari-Rent Cout1aller, whether comPetent


to set aside ex-parte otder-Rettf Controller, a11 admitzisfn1ti011 offi:er
a11d 11ot a Court-Freedom of aclio11 i11 proccduml matters.
Held: The Controller under the Urban Rent Control Act is an
administrative Officer and not a Court. Subject to sta tutory directions or
principles of natural justice, he has freedom of action in matters of
procedure. He can set aside his own ex-parte order.

San lvlyint for the applicant.

Cassim for Aung lvlin (2) for the Respondent No: 2.

Tha Tun Khine for the Respondents Nos. 3 to 6.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

MR. JusTICE CHAN HTOON._ This is an application


t0 quash the order of the Urban Rent Controller of
Rangoon dated lOth January 1957 setting aside the
ex-parte order dated 27th May 1956 passed by him
under section 16-AA of the Urban Rent Control Act.
The learned counsel for the appli,cant has con-
tended that in the absence of any provision in tne
Urban Rent Control Act empowering tue Controller
to set aside an ex-parte order passed by himself, he
has acted without jurisdiction. He further pointed
out that the only provision in the Act which enables
Criminal :VIis~.
Application No. tl of 1957.
t Prese11t: U l\fYJNT THEIN, Chief Justice of the Union, U CHA.l<
HTOON, J . and U BoGYI, J.
1957] BURMA
,. LAW REPORTS. 75

tHe Rent Controller: to deal with an order previously S.C.


1957
passed liy him is section 21-A which allows a review
of any order made by him under the Act. . . ll Lu 'ZJ~HE!N
It is quite clear that the Controller under the CONTROLLER,
RENT

Urban Rent Control Act is an administrative officer l~ANGOON.


AND FIVE
discharging functions of a quasi-judicial nature and oTHERs.
is not a Court in the strict sense of the term.
Except where he is governed by statutory directions
he has freedom~ of action to pursue any course he
thinks necessary to meet the ends of justice or the
exigencies of the case, subject only to the require-
ments of the rules of natural justice. In matters of
procedure, therefore, he may adopt any measures he
deems' proper, provided they do not offend any
statutory directions or the principles of natural justice.
There is nothing in the Urban Rent Control Act to
prevent th~ Coi1troller from setting aside the ex-parte
order passed by him in order to give the respondent-
tenants opportunity to be heard where he thought
that sufficient caus~ had been shown for their failure
to appear on the date of hearing. It may even
be argued that to act otherwise may amount to con-
demni-ng a part'y unheard.
We therefore see no reason to interfere with the
order of the Rent Controller. The application is
dismissed~ Advocate's fees are fixed at Kyats
fifty-one.
76 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

SUPREME COURT.
ts.c. E. M. SEYED MOHAMED (APPELLANT)
1957
v.
Dec. 11.
M. E. ARIFF AND ONE (RESPONDENTS).*
Pe11al Corle -S. 193 a11rl s.l9.i- Cl'imiual P1'ocedure Code-S. 190 a11d. s. ,t76.
Held,' The question of delay is quite irrelevant where U1e Magistrate is to
take cognizance of an offence under s. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
No Magistrate can refuse to take cognizance of an offence on ground of any
delay. This is however, a 111atter for consideration in proceedings under s.
476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where a Co:;rt is to determine whether
it would be expedient in the interest of jus:ice to make an enq1iry and
thereafter lay a complaint for offence under s. 195 [I} (b) or {c) of the Penal
Code. The question of delay is relevant only in considering whd!1er "it is
expedient in the interest of justice ". While acting under s, 190 of the
C"riminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate has no choice but to take c.ognizance
or any offence brought before him, except where it is specifi.::ally provided
reql,jring cun:plaint by or on the order of a particular persoJ or authority,
such as is provided in ss. 195, 196, 196-A, 197, 198 and 199. Then!fore, the
ruling in H1ve Eve Hain v. Tlze Kiag. (194!:!) B.L.R. f' 40 is applicable only :o
proceedings under s. 476 of tlle Criminal Procedure Code.

J. R. Chowdhury for the appellant.

J. K. Munshi and Kyaw Myintforthe respondent 1 and

Hla JV!aung (Government Advocate? for the


respondent 2.

Judgment delivered by

U CHAN HTOON, J._ln this appeal by special


leave correctness of an order of the High Court

which quashed a pending crimincl x:;rosecu-
tion is questioned. Some time in 1947 the.appellant
E. M. Seyed Mohamed filed an application under
section 12 of the Urban Rent Control Act for
* Criminal Appeal .:-!o. 4 of 19.:6.
t Prcse1zt: U lliYINT THElN, Chid Justice, U Ct!AN HTOON. J. and
U Bo Gvr, f ..
1~57] .
BURMA LAW REPORTS. 77
.
permissiun to continue in occuration as a statutory s.c.
8
1957
tenant of room No. 4 which is on the first floor ot a

buildinab known as No. 234/236 ' Mogul Street ' E.i\IOHA~lEO


M. SEYEn
Rangoon, belonging to one Khatiza Bibi. An agree- v.
ment was soon reached between him and the Ist i\~.N~~;,~~ F
respondent M. E. Arlff and his brother who represen-
ted their mother Khatiza Bibi, and the appellant was
accepted as a tenant at a monthly rent of K 50. In
March 1948 Khatiza Bibi through ber son M. E.
Ariff (1st respondent) filed an application under
section 11 (1) (j) of the Urban Rent Control Act
againsJ the appellant for pennission to file an
ejectment suit on the ground that the said room
No. 4 was required for her own occupation; this
application was, however dismissed. On 3rd May
! 949 the 1st respondent and his brother filed an
application under section 13 (c} of the Urban Rent
Control Act against the appellant, claiming in
paragraph 2 of their application ,, that the Respon-
dent entered the room under section 12 (2) of the
Urban Rent Control Act, 1948, at a standard rent of
Rs. 5~ per .rponth ". On the appellant's objection
that he was not a statutory tenant but a contractual
tenant, the respondent and his brother filed an
amended application wherein paragraph 2 was
amended as follows :
"That the respondent entered the room under section
12 (2) of the u'rban Rent Control Act, 1948. and later in the
Rent ControJJer's Office he was taken as a tenant at a standard
rent of Rs. ~0 per month."

This application was dismissed on- 12th July, 1949.
A reference was made to the Chief Judge of the City
Civil Court. No fin al order was however passed
confirming th~ order of the Rent Controller till 26th
August)952. On 25th September 1952 the appellant
applied to the Rent Controller under section 476 of
78 BURMA LA\VREPORTS. [1957

S.C. the Criminal Procedure Code to lay a complaint
1957
ag11inst the lst respondent for an offence of perjury
E:M~a~~~~o in respect of his statement in paragraph 2 of the
v
).1. E. ARIFF
application to the Rent Controller in the previous
JI.ND oNE. Rent Control proceedings. On the contention by
the counsel for the 1st respondent that the Rent
Controller was not a Court within the meaning of
section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, the application
was withdrawn on 11th April 1953. The appellant
then filed a direct complaint against the 1st respon-
dent for an offence under section 193 of the Penal
Code. After examining the complainant/appellant,
the Court of the 7th Additional Magistrate, Rangoon,
issued summons to the 1st respondent. The 1st
respondent then applied to the High Conrt under
section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code to
quash the proceedings pending in the Court of the 7th'
Additional Magistrate. An order was passed !:>y the
Hjgh Court quashing the proce-dings ; hence this
appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends
that the High Court was wrong in extending the
ruling in Hwe Eve Hain v. The King (1) to private com-
plaints under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. In the said case it was held that where
there has been an inordinate delay in making applica-
tion for action under section 476 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, the Court should not entertain such
an application ; complaint should not t be, filed
unless there is a reasonable probability of. co~1Viction.
The learned J udg.e of the High Court who dealt with
the case held that there was an inordinate delay on
the part of the appellant in filing the direct complaint
and purporting to follow the above-mentioned ruling
remarked: "l am of opinion that whether it is a case
\1) ( 1948) B.L.I~. p. 40.
1957] BURMA LAW.REPORTS. 79

where the .M agistrate took cognizance of the oifence i9~7


under section 190 of t11e Crii'ninal Procedure Code~ ~-
or wh eth er It. IS. a case wh ere an app I"1cat"IOn was. E.MoHAMED
M. SEYED

made under section 476 of the Code, the principle M. E.vA.~~IFF


laid down in the ruling in Hwe Eve Hain's case AN oNE.
would be just the same and equally applicable to
both the cases."
We do not, hoyrever, agree with this view. We
are clearly of the opinion that the question of delay
is quite irrelevant where the Magistrate is to take
cognizance of an offence under section 190 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. No Magistrate can refuse
to take 'cogn,jzance of an offence on ground of any
delay. This is, however, a matter for consideration
in proceedin_$S under section 476 of the Criminal
Procedure C-ode, where a Court is to detennine
whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice
to make an enquiry and thereafter Jay a complaint
for offences under section 195 0) (b) or (c) of the
Penal Code. The question of delay is relevant only
in considering whether ''it is expedient in the interest
of justic~e". While acting under section 190 of the
Criminal Prod;tlure Code, the Magistrate has no
choice but to. take cognizance of any offence brought
before him, except where it is specifically provided
requiring complaint by or on the order of a particular
person or authority, such as is provided in sections
195, 196, 196"A, 197, 198 and 199. Therefore we
hold that .the ~uling in Hwe Eve Hain v. The I{ing,
(1948. B. L.)t. p. 40) is applicable only to proceedings
under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
We do not, however, propose to set aside the
order of the High Court, having regard to the facts
and circumst ance~ of the case and the relationship
between the parties. No doubt, the Ist respondent
acted fooU'Shly and rashly, perhaps, in his anxiety
"'
80 BURMA LAV-1 REPORTS. [ 1957

s~
197 for the comfort and happiness of his aged mother,
- - who appeared to have set her heart on regaining
lvLi\IoH;;MEn
E. SEYED possessiOn

of th e premises
c1rom th e appe 11 an t for h er

M. E.vARrFF own residence, as it would be much more convenient


ANo oNE. for her than the 3rd or 4th floors which she was
occupying at the time. If the prosecution were to
continue, the 1st respondent may, in all probability,
be found to be technically guilty . of an offence of
perjury. But in view of his action in correcting the
alleged false statement by filing an amended applica-
tion, no Court would take a very serious view of the
offence if proved. We do not, therefore, consider it
worthwhile to continue with the prose~ution which
would only worsen the relations between the parties,
who are, after all, members of the .same.. community
and living in the same building. For allthesereasons
we do not wish to disturb the order of the High
Court. The appeal is dismissed.
9
'
/
rg;ccso~Je~sm ~0Sc;~ :0~o~chco ~~d:c ff>gl!:oxccgceceJ:g
:~~o~chco ~:0~l~ g!)3o:chco r~3sc3l~ s>l!b0o.:chcoscoeJ:r:s~ +
neG scc!iecf)~ec:cceecfl~chc.o tg~e 0Gelc =~'<
~lo~e~g~e ~ c.je-w-oG soLo~gs:g r~e)G sou+;ofDeB rgl9
~ccc~~sJe ~~~ooe~~~ 'JgceBgss@ (c) sofieB &Gl~pcfue:;prgifu~~so&
gccee~ g~eB&ei:f@ dsg0:t w~~fle1oe pwedSfJ.~'igb. s@ccg
~pchee~ec rpcceegbgb &:ccopclfue~ eCDII rr~~~~g
ugce5gcee~ ccopLBeJ rp&eG (c) r;cfiro &b~~c(X)pdroe
11 ( pmeGpccgcee~cee~~) ~s/eeccd~e !g.;&ro~bco:: pcfue~
nsccc~3eb~:(;eg0g ;gcJ~go
:]wee g&g8ecsccc30 coscoe:~;chco rslfullilesc:sm u:t'lo~l51oe ~cto
~ec~cc?f~ 1bec:c~ pmec pie ec Log8 ec3ccgl fl ccc e~Lo g& ( c) c c 0gn
Geo2suec :begJ~~e:~b:L5 cbs&eE~ g2ccgg rs.fu~~Kbco ~gco3l~ ch
s&esocc col.~socrtue em r:@13:croecsocooeec ~geecccce3b ~ ~socoe.s
niee~0geg~s&sole i~g:gl43cc3[7
:cecscoen~ 3ccSe~:cbco r3ccso'eso:?;e ~~o:begJ!rgf;o r5Ccc3]
~0bwegg~jchco g1Eog4itoe rpde:~:~(J)~ cccs.v~~ ~~cJee:; g
CCC esoc C\J eJ{u g StfeG~ cc :ccoll))el g& (c) (C/j) 6 c f, go I sowee
3b~~:chco 3cc~c,ccosuc.fus ;:3cowsmbeg~ !~co r~e
Sefl ea3flb~l ~e> ~:c!bStJfeeGc.CC~~l03&~c~5}':JS8e.G ~(C) CC .;;go
Ge.o2soe88:> r g&clslccosuc~fu3 geg.3ge~dsco lsw!'lgG:3o 'slf\)~:8
[p(w)bc <'>go Ge>rcsoec ~lqegl~e:$JsgL5 cbg~B~!! r;p~eso:~
rl(o)~(w)( c) cc 0g~ r(co) oc flOGe>o2pe.G z:O,egl~e:gls ;L5 cbgfff~
* (gcR:?&b~gcrosoc!fu~) ( Logcgs
usub Gf
3~
coc<poS ( ocgcro
0Gelc .j. pc!fu~) ( SOWeGt?~gbgb tcsntso:J) g~t?t?lG~
gllh 5co~ ~8,; &d9 co
l
(
"
I8 s..L1!0d3:1! M.Y1 YW1Iil8: [LS6 T
82 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [ 1957

~G:f ogoSz1~-:J:GID)(~ 009_)~;~~~~8?02~1 G~Gco:\1 ~~~CE>p


91g6)G:Q~:bG6)! o~c:002t1 ~~~tsp 9~~E>)G:8@'J:8G~: 80oS8oGn
<(gG C> Cf ( m) 8<lbjl GC\jj'Jd)ro'):GmC>.Jtll ~g60GE>)W~O) ~IDG~~g
C\.~C GCSj'::ld)CO'J: C>j?C>.:lt C>.JGOJ'J~: :j!~GC\jj'JcCO'J~ C>.Jt at OjlCO@:Ojjt I
oot:8<loSt;oGs~bG :Jc; ( m) 8<lb]t msp:R~z~Gow~oSGroC>.Jtu ~
mqJ:~~~Go:~~ moS~o5CJ2Cl oot:8<loSeoGs q60 oq :Co) (ro)
~~ (C) ~~ G<9 T@~roGmOJtll
d?~msp~~~g~moSSJoS cxtoSGo:C>.Jt~ GGotopbC>.J~~ 1S~stm 1
(;)~Gro: .pJ3~5msp:G OJGp:C>ifagc:O~ GID'::lsmo5P 02 oo~ Gcs;-:-oS s,
ro-:J~~C>.JfSI S8(5~.9l~E>!sg@ ~:8Gb]:o~:: GcspoScc-:JgGC>.J'J GcgpoS
~'J~I ~[9~CE>p s:1g6'[$:@~:6DGE>jg 9dcf.ieoGSC(5G :J :J ( :J J ( ro)
(c) ~b]l d3o:u~PG<-'T(9gt:G@OJ@l (?J:OGE>j:O~XtBJ ~Gpg~~tg~
mcs>o5cxto5Go~OJt'f'J I 5l'J~<-C:G6-:Jt:@ m~~cf.iGmOJtu .pJS~f
00 EpgGmspge>j?~: (])I OJ'( Gcgj'JcCD'J!C>j?g~ GC\jj-:JoSc::g;JJt I GCSj'::l d)

ro-:J:Q[~ S~stm~~oSOJt&S?~t:J ~<-C:C>.JtmG-:Jt: 1 ~:66Gq:


o~mrot:1 m5:::~~5:~oS~ 88~o5Go:GOJ'J mGp:~~~Eg
moS~oSG,2tl ~(9~59? s:'l:b]G:@0:@8G~~ 8<loS8oGs qbG o:J ( o )'.
(?X>) (c)~~ G0JT@1 OJGp~~89Go~t:SJ'::lmt:t ~pg<-CtOJ~
roG6'JtgcG'J1 G~ta?@SC>.:lttJt O)(;v~gCijjCI ~:00GE>j:o~
m8~~ obStSJoS~d3GmOJtu
~@~Esp 91g6]G:@~:@bG6):80J)8oGs C(fi~ :JCf ( m) ~ ~ID5cqtr
c;t:<(bGs26) msp:~~~Es9Gcgj-:Jchco-:J:sp02E' ~:::rcoSeoGs ct5~ :J:)
( :J) g-) S?~bcoS~lP:025o1~GOJ'::l S?9JoS9amoS~'J~~ GciT~b)Gt0:(
G~G~II oo<9 C3gOG6JW~m~~l GOjpcf.io.::'J~OjlC>.Jt mspg~~E>j~
mCJ6oSI C(bG o c; ( m) ( \=l) 02E G<9 T@co:nOJ~da~S~, a?Gm'Jc:S
GOJ'J ooGg'JCg ~ g~~OJ'J ~IDGg@gG.pe 1. GO':Ji'f'OOjjf _roq)g~z~G0:6)
0t@~OJ~II ~8~60GE>)W~~ ~~@CJ59jcf;;OJtl OJGpg~~OJ~~gGOJ~
m'::l: 0tX~<!it~l~'jj C11!dJQjoS~tg~<J~G<=lJII
oomoS~, 6)~GOJ'Jm2~~ ooGco-:Jd39doco~&@:t oo~ GO]'::lrbe>j?
m :::ooS~Ssp~:Goo~~ O?Gp:~~D]tl 880J; ~@~t[) r; 1:6]~~@
~gOGG)1cr?d380G8 ybG :JC> ( ;:-,) 02f o~~G:J2-'J gtOJ~cr?~bo1
19~7 J
.
BURMA LAW ;REPORTS. 83

so~oS~rot"ii')gso6)1 ~~:::Dt~ b~~')~ Gt9T@GJGoGtu m..E~~ ~oe~'?

Gl9T@C\j}tr ootp~~;GcnSm GtOJt~~fi06t8dO':jj[wtG''Jtg . 1B~S GBT{;l~:>~:


~g@oSGJ0t@SOJt11 ( coSloSOjl

~mo5Gl9 T@o1acG')E:~p~G0'J9JGcspoSm')g~6J~D<l5JOS (J ) 6)Cb)tG~:> ~


~ro)
Gc?CD~<jioS~t me;p~Gootp~~~g~,acS~~ ooS~d)~d)OJtu GCijj'Jd) 5i~
CD')~~6)~ 805Jcfj ( :J) OJtl ~~~GooS~ GCijpd3m')~~~CJt~O':jj0~00~ S~BC o1; 11
3
O':llQG0'JGtu G~G<j>@5J-:)I 0 @5G06JGtu
82 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [ 1957

::8GSJ Crbg1~-J:GGJ~~ mt;p~:~~6j~ga06~1 ~~Gm:~l ~~~CqJ


s;1:61G:@0:8G6J~ o~co 02 c1 ~b~tt;p 9 :~ 61 S:@~:8G~~ 86rh2oGa
C(tl~ '' ::> Cf ( (Y)) s;36jl GC\jpcfco'):GCD~~II @g(Q30G6jW~ffi ~d)Qgg
0.ic GC1jp0Sco'):~;p.)~ ~G:))'J~~~~GCijj'JrbCO'J~::D~O? art;;;o:9itl
OJbulo'SeoGa<fbG ::x; ( ro) go~' m~:~~g~Gog~rbGm:ntn ~
me;p~~~g~Go:::Df2 cooS~oS065' OJC:gaoSeoGa C(b~ ::>::>:( 8) ( ro)
~~ (c)~~ GGT@~oSGm:ntu
~q~mspg~~8~cooSSJo5 CX?OOGo:~~~ ~Grq.po:n@~~ S~atro1
G~Gm: .yJ3~foosp:G OJE>pgJ.i?0gm~ G0'J8000CS[?02CI ro~ GOji':'rh
OJ'Jg~:ntl 8S~s;1~61Gg@ ~gOG6j:O~~ Gcqj'Jd3cc'JgG:n'J GcgpoS
~'J~ 1 ~g~CqJ 91g6j~: Q~:OG6jg garh2oGmtbG ::J ::> ( ~ J ( ro)
(c) 926]1 d3oij~pG~T~[gt:G~::D@91 ~~60G6jgO~::DtBI OJ.sp:~~tg9
mrf:rooCX?OOGO~::D~~'J I :;J':l~OdC:G'Jt:@~ ffi~o;:lrhGCD::D~II <j>d)~c
mspgGOXp~:J.;?~:ml OJ~ GcgpoScx:n:J){~~GC'Sj'Jd)~?.).)~l GCSJX
oo'J:~GJJ.i? Sfiacm~o::loS:nt2aa~5~1 ~Odfg~to:G'Jb ~:5G4:
0~0') rot: I m5:~~Od f:cgoS~ ~ sSctoS G O~GOJ'J mse:~ ~~58~
rod310002Ci ~~~fsp s:'l:6jS:;;Jrn:(Q3oG6]~ aod3eoG8 <fbG :::>::> ( ::> )'
( ro) (c) c~ Gt9T@~I OJ~~~g~Go:t:y':lro~:l 5''J:Odb~t
m4~3')b~G6')91 G~t~@:n~ot Oi(w~:a3Jt1 ~:0bG6JW~
gas~~ obS~rb~cfGC.'O::DtSII ,
~@~fsp 91g6jG:;;J@3:0G6j:aocf3eoGa C(bY Xj ( ro) ~ ~0b(\.];CI
CjCg\(bG::>a6j msp:2~~t9GC1jpcho:O:qJo;sCI ~::r2oS2oG8 <(b~ ::>~
ao~5coS~pw~5oJ~G::D'J D09JcfJaorooS~')~~ G~T~6)G~~
( ::>) (5)
G~G9JII OJt:l~ ;~gOGG):O~OOCDt~l GC\jprbc:C'JgJ.i?:ne oospg2~6J~
ao~rb1 y_bG ::J 9 ( m) (?) 025 G<9 T@oo'Jg:n~da~b d(Gm'JcS
GJJ'J 86G8'J5~ ~ G~~::D-::> ~0S:@gG~'Orhl GOl<fOcgjf mqJ:~~9Go:6)
Gt@5:ntu ~0~60G6jW~~ ~:aS9Jr::Dtl OJGpg~~:nt~:GOJ~
~')~ ~ext9>t:~9'~ ~joSQjoS~t~G~G9JII
aomoS~I 6)~G~'J8Cg~~ 80GCXl'Jd)8'CJCX)'J~&~:J OJ~ GC'gj'JrhJ.i?
m OJrb~tqJ~gGm~~ O?I>[J:~~cg:fl SSOJ2?- ~Q~Esp s:1:6)S:@
~:60G~~ocd3eoG8 <(tiG 0:::> ( ::-,) CJ2C o1~G~') Ge;JJtoc~bo1
.
19~7 J BURMA LAW .fEPORTS. 83
.
80~M30C\J~"i/')g30Eijl ~~o.:>tq ~~9:P~ Gt9'fE;JGUGtll CDC~~ .:::J@~'2

GL9 TC\jjc! oo,;p~~~GooSm Gt&::D~S'<l~6~8~01Jr~ocG')E~ s~s GOTGG@:


~~@oSE;JGt@So.:>tu (coSloS:::Ji?
m
gaoorf3GG T(c3u1 30G6'Jt:~pgG6')~lGC\jpoSm')g~6)~88SlOS (J)
6)t6)CGG
06nS)
G~ ~cu~.poS~E oospggoo,;pg~~g~8GJS~~ uoSqjr-h~o5:ntu Gcq'JoS
5\9
00')~~6)~ 8Gl~oS ( :::J) o.:>f1 ~~~ GCDS~ GcgpoSm'Jg~~~~CY.j]{)~oS~ S~oS o1 ;u
O':JI~G0"JG~II GS)GcpQ~-JJ 0 3 @~G06JGtn
84 BURMA I,,AW REPORTS. [ 1Y57
<

0') Eif g ~ cs G'O? ~ 911 s


g 0o~g ( GOj]:>o)cxy)g~)

~~
8'aC2CW~IOJ~JgG<qW~~g~:>cp( GOj]'JoSco:>g~S[~) *
~~G<lT ~-:;8Jo50')8JGoo5u uo1d5<~~G l!Gm')o5g~t:eoG8 o'"2 (~) (? ) u~ @ Cio
~9~1 o1d3<~~G8J:Gm')o5goanSeoGG C(b<~ ~9 1 <(b~ ~~~~ ~1Dt:~&q[8q
~G@~8GG8 ((bG '[9(~) (ro)1 <(bG j ~I !J?;'~: j I <(~<I ~~ I <(bG :)'
(s )1 ctE<~ '"2G 1 <tfiG ~~o 1 <(DG o'"2 o3;')~o.:)()S:u'J89oanSecGo erg<~
<; J il GC\j)'Jcf.icm~::li(::Dt l GS J o8 ~~ m8GOJ~G<l1t~~q~Gs @ ~~
G8):Gm'.JoSfiot~~ ID~d3Gh ID"::<:,c:D,;lC co~::-gE :GGTQ5;G~SoJtoa02o5 1
~eso t<~l o1c6<~~GBJiGm-::oS~moSeoG:J <(5<~ ~<; ~~ ~0t:~b~[bc?
oaG<'ieoGs '16<~ '"2<1 ( ~ )( ~:.)m~1 c1~;1;5m-:::com02E: o1c8<~~GoS
G1:"JjoS~@t1 1 i;)ro~Go:~t[3b IS\~G~~- 01dS~>~G):Gm')cflg;pt:eoG8
0'"2 m~ s;~tm"ljttq;d3~810if@al:x>t~ ~CCGo:.S:x><~~m Go:re::p>p1
~GO':J!2':l~<~GO:U?o@ ~0t~~oCJ!t8c?saG[gf.eo:;;o <(bG J :J ?'Jbll ~IFC>T
l!l')gj~GooS:;;cqpho::':l:Gco::Dtl' ~02?W~bQ,J [C~m:;;~80G8 <roe>~: J ~
o1~G::D':l WCOO<~mG~l"J]JlO~ gc~cf.i:x>[:3~ 1 <;C1~G@~80GS<(5G J :J
m")l :;;cspoSro<J:~tB~G~~ om')<~m~o;pSqoSg~ Ec:;;ooSG~Gy:s~[Sm
G~'Jd.>o1~qt~:~ 1 ~~:rom'J:~@oc5:x>t.l ~tc:;;coS ~02E:o~9~
Gcf~ (.;1) ~t~:.l G~ I 8"~C I ~'J (~) 1 O@<f0 1 (.)~gGo?':JC~ 00~ 1
~:~oS9;cflu 1101c6<~~G1:Gm'JoSQ~oSeoGo c.;5Q ~~ ~ GG TQro'J:GOJ')
oo;:,tooG~7
.561
s ... ~s')~sSs')
-1 :r
9 0 I I
::n~
L
~:B":P~
)'~
J\ :.. D w 1 25cGroS
o32j)::DSE ~ xQrof0l1
_s:

~:;9oS;;:pl3:x>t ~ID~W~b<f[O~D<lGG@80GD C(b~ 0[) (9 )~Ei'l l GO:ro'J:


G::D'J ~C\J::W~OOGE>):~Jj'J:01 c8~cf.iGco::Dt11 '\ <:,
~CcGooSx~,~mxJi my0~ ~8;;;:[S~:JG~eo~o C(E<~ oo~ ~0: 1 co~:
~b1CGq:~ 80')CUJ':~'):~~:~o1~1 <;t:ct6g '"2(3 O?S)I o1c8'<)~oa~oS:::c@b O?Ga,:
@21 {};;o~Go:~Es$~~ cB~cfG.p::D@~ ~ g}~;Goos:iw ~oaS~~ ro~G~ T
~

6) 6)
,.....
8 (~ (i)
l2 8 s CCJ c8 ~ 0) rBl~ (;Jp,0)[!3,., ~JID0)28cg -.c.
,Q 0 DQJ Cla .-8 8 &3 (n m ..a CB 0 0) 1: 4, fJ1
(Y) 0 8 <.) ~ 3D [8--J (Y)
I) (') o(Y) (}7) l)
o8 coo
t85 t 6) "B ~ 8 ,.B. g, ~ ='' ~ f.:J ~ -fin
.-o~.83
'-'<!
g_., 8 't, ',_- tB ::8 c &, ,.{;() ..) <~ ~ 0; .0.) (.1 u ---'
0 ., a, o .. , ..oN mJ o<: <V o
rn ru 15) ,} -PJl"l o c s, 8 .-o '' '.. 8 ~ll() ..)fil coen b8 08
0 8
lO 8 l g ' B ...._% ~ b8 8 ,..& ->R s~s r?D ~!") ..8 ~ -;;;" ~8 iW (B., "' ou c..~ (&, .-8 <.Y"1
If> 41'
.8:;;:' Lv - ,, ,oo 8 ~ ...o - IL m fil
.2~ 8-J
0) CG""J
ex::.. '7) <.) ()') 00
8--l <.) r-n 0 G 6) L)
Q) DU 0) 00 rRJC ,u ~.0 U m ~ 8' CUD -6-J 0 () CUD ~"f> - O'l Q"J_ 8 m
L_g l~<J 8 Jr ~ ~) ,'i) ~ 0 Q)o m m I)) ~~ 0 [D. '" If) r"ii -
oM (Y)
~(Y) .,o:"'\
(J ::8 '' m 0 '-Ril .-co ,112<.Y"1 c c
_0
- 8 - 8 c oJ ,C(.lo) IlL en '2D ..!D 8J ,.(!O o81fl 0) ..{;() f:'
(.1 0 oo
8 "' 80 \.\
G [tj f'n
<il .-(X) ~ l LYl :)
0 g,~ [t>,.., c) ~ S '8 ~) C~.r [il J1 ffi, &, -~ ,.8 C~ ~ c; S,
o(i)
.f'..o :~(i)':nc0 ~::8 to
FO ()() ,8 eX) 8 CO _ , o8 - &.,[;1 ~ o..S - ~ '~ <) Ehc~.~ 3 0~ ~ m 8 f:b0r& ~ Q) "' 8 .,0
0 (Yo - c:J C1J 6) 8 ~:I 8 :J c:S::' -
J B <.Y"l.}. ~ CP.n f~ QJ o~ .!!>' ~B " 3> c:::
( 0 cP 8 .) o) ~; o8 .-QJ
8c8 8 0 '-' 0"l t:1
~ c) f8 8 = 0 . -3 .-om c c:c:GJ Cc"J ...0 ,P/0 Al
-
o/' 8 ., 8 OOJ .en
0 ,J!>0) . QJ u ru m ';?
~ -g., (~l 2n &., -('~ 15) 0) ~ ~) -W> 0 en - .l <3 c 1~ oo 0) [;j m - ~en c on ,._,..,
f0CB rPJ ~!, ....---.. u ..!!) G) ' DO) 0 '~'" ~ f!!!l 8 f3 0) e
o:; ~. _0 ~ IX'/ ~J ~ - 8--l ~ ili -!!) dh ~= () _'!) --8 o(Y) ..0 m [il -8 s, l) 8 on ;:p
Q)o .-.:x1 ' L) ~& ,..8 15) ~ 0 ..RIO
cg o8~
0 (J - ~.4'10(0.)
~) -rA 2 C") ' - 0'1~) ?1 ~ 8
rn 6) ,, v () m ( " ~ ru c 0 CC"J 1ik 0 D ,() = ~ 0
~ c8 (Y) -1>'1
8 s, t.~ ' (Jo t n (r.1 f"<V a; r.'J!
0
en ... o lo. ., o. cn i'CO 0 t'1 o r
6) ~-
8 . o 0"l cn - cn u ~ " OJ ro
Cft~ ~ 0'' r-8 .B ~n 3-) u 8 , ;p
'-' L B m._s g, u 6)
8' -u 1 ~ ~ 03 Gi"J -"1J
~.7,ti 8 IY 8 ~ 8 U '"' ~ <.q:; L~
8 (&, 4 (n <RJI o <[!) _!!) _!7) o ~
QJ .JD(J - ()(I) t:1
"' ~~ cc:n {)CI LYl m ..IV - --f" rv
80) _,
o rv [8-, u;;-. '-' en
8CYJ c8 w6) 0 <.
--/>') ~ r~ S, 9:0 Cfl Y) J:l 0) w 'R. t'l en - '"'' en m '" _.)
U LIB "> 0 CYl - -I'! 8 <.!;> ~ r.1 lil - 0 om ~ <.1!/l .-0 <:'jJ? ~ ..m
&, cv "' -u oo-
S0
v 8 315) (i) DO -I> c:J CUD 0) _.) en - oD ~1!: (];) <<V o:: u m O::'J en ~ o-1rv fJl "'' eM . '" ;;:o
[2-J ~ e ,2 If) -en ..3::, 0) -{!/') 'kJI ~ mn fil - -
~ m ~~ e [&, w 8 eo -en 00
,&;! !>'.'>' E}, 3 8v ~ a:: -g S, ~ iJ a:: ~ m 'OJ 8 0 C.~ D t:rJ
o8~15) 0 ru~uo 6) ..& J u ro o ,, c) c8 t'l 0 m-, -Po c~ cf!(J
0 r?, LY1 8 -~ c no m rfliO ~u --'>) LC<V 0 Q ,RJO _ I)}
..) <.RIJ . cc >u
oo oo
I)() ... ,.. ()C/ U 0) Q)o 0
-en m
8<l 8 e0 CCJ
' ..3 ~?). (&, ~ P. 0 w fr. 7.1 ... - m (8] ~.-> 0
'-Rfl (!)' (;3 :) . 0 (:J oQ,t 0,.., u 6) !::!"
(!/) () tl (YJ.-00 ~ ._,, v (;.) s,
_0 Cy _0 CO d;< "" 'n. n:J _, B l;l ~ ~ "%) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .-! ~ cg ~ ru-, ~ ;::cl

0 n:J. 'o t:J n U 6) Ot:J LC/'l 8 [f:>n ~3 'u '-!!!>
8 m Gp ' g> ~ ~ u & o 0) )?. 8 -j
CJ LCII ~ 6) ri':O e{n -PJl <.) 8-, - v .... m <Y~ rfl. it' c .-o::> ....~ -o COJ ~~ ~ cJ rcy-J CP/1 ~ fJr;
.-00 8 8 r8 k3 }J L) S, ctb -3 ~ 0 k3 " '1 8 ~) (OJ ._() ..& 3, ~ . c,;',}, = '1
..!CYl) 6) \.OX) rCO 0
C'/l CYJ ~
8L) 6) ~ ,() &. _fg '- (c;J '-<15 cu ";') f3 .-o::> -
coo '"J 0 ~. U (O:nCO n ~. ..IV ~. 8 0<!l
~ C8J 0 -8. 8 o ~ sr ~ !B >.. .. c uo c Gi52J D'J <RJo ~ ex
"en 0;
-fin(?})~ . '"" 0 ('X!) .-.PKl 8 C0' 0i '"" 8
.-o
~ g, ~ ,n.B:, ~th U.;J C'<V IV GO) 8 0) If) LiJJCG""J
o _UJ C! 0 - If>
o.n
en r>:/ ~ o8
cc 8 t81 >f~Yl~~ m T m ~ , - 0)
n l:l a;J - f'fl')
-~~ 8->g .3::!3...(} fj.-QJ 8 g, o.n o ~~ o ffiJ ..8. - 0 con 1--:J ..-, v u S, (J
-ern c:> oc ru .,0 o. (Ol) m -en -fl'> m o m .-.PJo -"
(:J (YJ
-~ 0 c:JJfl '-RJ> <v (D _) -1l'>'1 .,.-JJ ) ..{;() "'"" <C <C Q0 u 90 m
L) .-Q)
c80 w 8 )-l 'O:n <to ()") "' r::il 8 ~ c & 5. u u 8 cYJ 8 {)QJ
.J!X) (i)
CJ .Eo
8 L.l?/1 -I>~ c80'"1 ,.&, ,.&, .. rn ~ E8 tDJ n:J <:.9 en <.<C (Y1 C:C""J U::-:J 0'1 !?0 <Tl m
ds
S, (&, J:l ~ -ern ~ ~LIB m 3-J 2n ..& --.m ~ ~~ ':?. ~~ ~ .-o ce, (B., B s, .:&,) .-So = ~

.o
l"n (0.)
_g_,8 o8a CUD.. I
l.0ll
Dn
B m..en '
~r) 0 I09 ct(Y') (..!}
~ ~ _g,.,
-0'1 Gllil
r:' ,..,)
..,...
co
VI
86 BURl\fA LAW REPORTS [ 195
'
O@::J Gfi0'JSjCg~~ nd Oi? ~~<:2mf ::lJS~x.~ Cri)G~cqJ~<}{'J ~~ G0'JC8e>Cf2oS CXJG~
-)

~:0o8: G.,;o'JCGOYJ 80g~GroS mOG;;J18d~gGS ~~GO1fg & r?rc;Sg


i9 G!ST~fg~QxtmG6':)fg~G6')~ r ~ ~Sg9Jrh"lJ'Jg~ G6'Jb~~ o1o3
~026w~1 4 GlgGm'Jrh~:ptgeoGn o '7 ( J) 806)1 ~tcGmS::Dc,Jmm Q~m'J~
o:Jbp:G'j:
o~~:g'J~II GJJ'J g)~Goo:>t~@~l:l'J~CcGmS80~g6) mo2c:o~oo:r . m~q880'J
mS~tg~Groxtu ~'ScGro!Sxgmxtr ~:ptgeoG8 o ~ (?) 80(;)1
GlgGm'Jrh~ OJ'JO~Q806p~~ nd~6)C~0'J~ 02g0'J~~gG."j'>'JJll OJ~
GOj):JrhCO'J'O)(J.Jti G~~Gm'Jrh~o;!~OJJ0~oSG~0'J6)C~~ 80~~~ OJt
~tg~GxSro~gr mrorh~Gt9 T@~GJJ'J GS~~S)b~l ~0'J6jtgc;r.sf GoT@
t~ 0~~J.Jt&ind02d)1 ::) @Cf 0 y~~~ o1c\5G~GIgGm'Jcf.i~ndcf'2oG8C(6G
~c; 5l$ ~Q)tg~O~[O~ndG@@eoG8 <(bG ~S ( J) ( ~) ::rc~r J@~G
y9~r ~~ro J c; 6)JJG.p,~0 c1g~~m'Jro8002Sg1 o1c8~:J~9;?ttGmS
mq5'1b~80~o5nd@~@$ Glg~oSE~~q~c;Sgl GlgGm'J0S~02,t ~Gogq~
c;f: D<l6)t80~CgqJl~tgo.;(@~xto;> GO=t~'J~Groxtrr .

OJtg~GCY.Jj~'JJ.Jt~ GGOi;ojlO::D@~ I GC'3j'Jo5ro'J!Oj?Xtr ~0tg


~0~[0~ mG@Q8GG8C,JDG J ~ ~ xm@1 ~tcGm'f3x0mg-) mmJJ
GoT@o1 ~g@Q5~o599 GDiJeP9loS<:~ 1 80~GQT0'J8]~GmS@9 uoS
qjoSo16)~ r g)i~:GmS~ GOj;'JoSco'J~Groxtu ~tcGmSGsY~?~lOml
otm'J'=loo'Jg@~ m~02oSxt:r'Jr ~q:;tg810~[0~me,;~euG8 ma~g J
~ 0 1G:x>'J 'itCD8dg$80G6)g"lJ')g~ Gcfl~Jlx@r CDy GOjj'JdJCXJ'J:Oji
::Dtr ~vtg~09J[O~ ooG@Q20G8<(b0 J ~ 8<!6)1 GcgpJ:iro~~~fg~g~
Of ('f.l~~d)GroJ.Jtll ::6p06t u1o3G~Gl~Gffi'Jd)~ 8d0080G89bG ~~
~ Gl~Gm')Jlg~9::Do5~CGJ.J'J OJt;p:9@"-lJ~~G6'J~I C1g~~G80'Jfb
0GOiJ?Go:J')aJ'JCD8206C~I GlgGm'JCJS5indg980GE>jW~ 8d~gQ6)~ oos:t
s.a~JC: qjoS06SgG::D'JOj{J.Jt mfg:: qoS~5~G::D'JG.P,5>~~ c1g~m:>ro
nd02E: 1 m6pg~'Jf>t>()W~ 02 s ma~Q~5 8 ~r ~ootgGotoS Goo'JtloS
G<f89~~o:J~83j9tl ~C(50 ~~ ~~ G\9TBoo'JgGJ.J'J m[3'J:<fp~g~g
Si'P~~rot: QE>jGoGtu me~::@~~~ ~tcGm6J.JGOJ~ ~;;@oS~JJ
xt1 m~ GCijj'JOOCXJ'JgOji:YcJ'J: ~0tg~O~[O~ ~GBQBOG8 C,JDG J '2
(c;) 8<!6)1 GOgooOcu'JgGx'J WCD83~8<lGE;jg~'J:~ cB~oSxt,o;> ~OO&)
GOGEII ,.
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 87
"
' (:J~~Ot~~GJ GOjj:)C~CXl'J~Oj{~, Y(CDD<lg~D<lGb]~~ (:)o8~oSO/U(
GmomoooS~tcg;tCD~g' QiDtW<fO~[O~mG@~ eoGo C(6G rr_G ~~~ eg.noE:
GOjj'Jo'.iCXJJg~D<J'J~ GOgSdQCD'JWJ~ o1~'cl~33GoSm@~@9 D<JG~g@~t ~9
g~l ol~g~m02oS G8J~GOJ'Jo'.i~02t GOOjGUg~tz9cne~o;?Go:J'J D<lg~ D<lC2t:Otl
OJS[= :G6J:
8<1Gb]g~'Jg~ c8~oS:n~@~:n@~1 ~tCGD:l~OJGOJOJtl OJyo)~ ~g og:~'Jfll
@oS;;p~ ~~~g~O~[O~ mG@i)eoGo C(bG ~~ o SGbJ' OJ6pg~b]CG6Jg
~tGp D<lCl(OooScnGpg(:j)'Jg519 D<l'JCID'J~'JW~ ~g~GOO':'CjoS:ntot
Pi(ciJ~COjjtl g)i~~Goo~m ~m8~~ mj(GQT0J8)~GcnSm8~@~ ooS
~dJ~tGC\J0J~II 31 31 O~g(91g~9 GGOI~I rJ6~3tw1? ~ 6~0111
0

Sd:J"Jtbo)~GOJ'J33Cl(OOd3cnGp~~~ 8d'JCID'J9j'Jg~ ~l~GCl::)'JtloS


:n.pfgo;?o:J~ @21cp'J~ ~~OJOE>p~l GcOi(G~ ~t~~Qt:n'J~'U')g~
8dg~33G6)g~$0o,cq;g~J ~~@oS~Eg~~ eoGOD<lEiJ nao~t~@tg@EiJ~g
mtg~ ~g@oSsp~CDtgl eoGoD<J~t~GOO'JCloSEiJ~ OOJO~~Oj]Ci ~Oil
~ GOO'JCluS~oS:nc ~O~[OG6)g0JoS:noS'3d02oS G;;c'Jt)rf.~t
GG~u cnspl~EiJbGEiJg~tGp oo~oooSoo6pg~')g9~ ~'JC1D'JC:jj'Jgr~ ~gB
GOO'Jtarf.>GpGGpoS OJ~CJ(l gJJ~gGOJ~OJ ~~~o)ooJgGC\JOJtell ~gG~g
'(G~T)GnaJ ~gJ. 0olg~~~"@g~g~ Jl ~oo::S~gG~~~ @tGco')bOj)
@~(:)'J~tc? ~~6tu1u
~D<l}-(025 0 1~(:)~GaJgGJJ'Jd)~q;tg20G3 0 ?_ (?) 3<36)1 G)gGOJ'JO)
g OJ'JO~~D05p~~~~6)bQ0'J~ 0g0')g@~Gf'Jo)l GC\jpoSc:oJgQ6)~
cn5 ~SgG:n'J G1gGmJoS2 ot~CY.JJ0~00Gfi0Jb]C~mtr i
l2tg :ntot
~:@oSsp02tr ~tcGOJ~OJGOJmt olc~l:l~G)?GOJ'JoSg oooSeoGo~~
ftgeoGo"V-Jg~ 0JoS~oSg~')~~~oS41')g~~ ~oSt:ut ~~mt07 ~0
~~~<f,b]gt@~mtu d?::'3S~ r cn~g~6JCGEiJ~Jl:P n<lC\(OooSoo6Fg99
DOjCID'J~j'Jg~ ~g2GciJ'Jtlcf.l6]Gf~SOJtu
OJt%~cnspl~b]CG&J:~tsp DOC\(OoOOmsp~~9 To'JCID'J"lj'JW~ ~g2
GOO'JC)ch6p~ $_wmtOJ~g~~To'.)g G~Og~GGmo'J -t>cp'JGIDGOJ'JD<J8~~
~u5JoSOjjtl ~~5JoSGm'Jm8~mt m8J'Jomsp~.pEgcd)z~$ ~~J)~
--~----- ------------
0
OJ5p:~oSGOJ~9i[bl OJ&flWGOJ:~D<JS/oS ?(3 h~l
1
:;e9o '?95 1 3tQ;~~~6Jc~: ~9 :J.I
? e
:Je 9 ~~s~ g~~n@t~qco:?: :Jo oJl
i'
88 BURM A L A \V R E PORTS. [1957

:::u@~1 Gmt@~Sq ~god)9~ : \Jo{~~G~23)'J G@oo'J~OO'J~G~~G~S~o'S


~~0o~ : ~~ 8<lgqoSt91~~~ @wOiS~~ J :x'?g~~~ ~;GmSm ~g~oS91oS q~oS~
519 t;ffixtn
82CJ6tW~ I ~~g9J[b8<J')g89' ~tcGmSG~G<)>~[O:n ~EC:GmS m02Sw~~~
OOSJ?:G6)1
o~@:g'Jf'H Gcfal ( ~) mSo~g? ~ t>jt~~~~gl ~~qtcx?gG;;>1C~0~S ol~G::O'J
Ga;ooS:;1 eoGs8<39]d3:JOcooS'=tJ'JW~ :::ro~g:::rom'J~~:::Dtn
"The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts
is not to be readily inferred but. such exclusion must
either be explicity expressed or clearly implied. Even if
jurisdiction is so excluded. the Civil Courts have
jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions
of the Act have not been complied with, or
'the statutory
tribunal has not ac ted in conformity with the .ft: ndamen tal
principles of judicial procedure."

~~6)td(g32~t~:::D'J ~oS.p6)~t~Oj]CI oa~G;;> ~0'J~Gm~6)~6)~


8Cl02 rE o~f0'J~:::Df2Gcgp cf~ 'JSl~ :UG.%Jcf?1 ~~gGO) ScJ 0 mog; Gcq 'JdS
m'Jg~~'Jg8Cl'J~ ::O'JG~oospg~tGmS~p;~ OJrbG5pcf3oosp~2~6)~ t~
e}:n6)~::D'J~GOO?::Otn D38JoSG6'J~G::OS I ~~G~ Tw8J~GmS
mS~ G0jpd3m'J~p~rot~ 1 ~o~@GoY)t~ s1Ecx?w.;s5 G<S T~:::ut&
. ?~g1tICOCI G~'Jct)~~lol]'J~:::D~I SS~::uJ'Jg eoGS8<36)Gm::r2bm:n::ot&
~'JCID'Jl~8Cl~ ~;@d3::otl G~~oS::o~J ~oot~GeytoS mC~~G:::D'J
~~@d39lcf3~'J~:::D~I ~~gGmS<ip~~ D2'JCTO'J0cf02E~~ 01JGqJoS
G:::DScofgJ c;E~~di\G~'Jt~rb~nS<il'Jg::ot! OOP~~Ei)CGE;jg5p :JOSm
il)t~ms~(oJJ')gl cf?nSt::otJ Gtmt~ Go8J~~g@cbEiJGt@~o.:,t n
~JgEm;:g 1 m@'J~G::O'J::od3::o'Jg9~~~5~~@9.t :JO~GQT0'Jl~
GmS 8<38~cf? ~wo~'Jg~tg9G~Gt 8d3otm'J~@dlc:o'Jg@t~ G~G~II
:YcJo;(c8o5ot0'J99 ooSOji@~~G6)g~~6'J~Gr;:go~ 9 ~t~1111
mtg~@d;~ , :JOOJrb~ G~ T@~G:::D'J o~@Gco.'JC~ ~~t~D1
sa<<_5'Jt~~pg~ 1 qaGCD'Jo5:JOco'Jg 8<l~WcOJ'Jg[2[g~CI ::r.:l~G;;>T0'Jj~
~ O@CfO y~f>l ~~<n@t~6)t~: '2~@ 1
J oe~o 11~1 @~~,;~')jgt~ccq; J :)0 ,,
? GClQ L ~E1 80')(~) 1 O@CfO! o~gGm'JCB oo~:/u
9
Gaa l ~6 1 ~J<n(~)r oe~? 1~~ ~ O)'JC\JOJ91'J: ~c;ou
1957] BURMA LAVl REPORTS. 89
~

GmS ooS~o~rot: GOjj'JdJOJ'J:~C::AJE.2n ::AJ'JG~~~"lj'J~~rot~ crn;p~~~ oe~'2


~C:xlt@t:xl@~l cp~fO~CD~~CDGOYJ0S::AJe31 SS~~:xloSbpbp ::AJdiiO.I'J ~~.Vote
8~~ GCD'JCg~~C:xl~CJ? Uj(OOjGOGe311 ~~
::D'JG~oo'J~@~ GC\jpoSw:):~::D~I o3~'Jgo.:::oS::D'J8 moSeoGn rr.JC2t:Of1
OJGp:Gb)_:
SJG CJ j S<l]1 OJ6p~2~~bz~~G~GCJ?c)G~Il 8CO'Jc.G6'J~~G::AJSI o~~:g-:>.pa
o1c-SG~G8JgGm'JoS~ naoSeoGn tt5(,) ~ ~ 00]1 oospg~~8~~ 8oSo5
CO'J:o.J~oo@tl ~~,,f~oj'O~~~~G::D'J SdgToGbjg"lj'J~::Dtl ~oo~g
ooGOJ'JoS ~E~Eoo~g~~cG::D'Jo~t~gGvroSG~n mt9~ GCS)'JoSoo'J&
Oj(~ ~ooeGm~Cg~~~ o1c-SG~ooGoS8C@~ <-9@.tmG8)g~~t~~
o3~oSf9'J~G6JScot~l o:;Cg~ ~OOGm~tz91 o1c-SG~ oogcoo@~
05 n?G8Jg@~5g~~~ ~tcGooSo.:>Gmm @~G0I oo'J~~ m@g
OOGCD'JoSm@~G0 ~Cg~tw@~G4] 11
ooaxtJ~Gt9 T@~G::D'J no'Jg~oo@~m5~tg~::D~~G::D'J G~ J aS
~~ cD~DG~~GQllt~~~G~ fS c~1 G8)~Gm'JoSgo?~Oii 0~oSG~
0~E;JCW2 5 co~~CgGt9 T@t:G@SOJ~ OC'J2 oS 1 GC\3)-:>oSco'Jg~ooGo T~ 1
coO 1c-SG~GZ)gGm'Jd.i~ ?age OGO 0 7 n<l]1 n<l6ftS<l9Jb~oS~t~::De;0?

~g~oSo.J I(:)OJ 9~:).) ~ OXl <jl'J OJ!;jOO':Jj~~GCDo.J t I! ~G~5i S~S~p I


o1c-SG~G8J~Gm'JoSg nooSeoGnl .ptgeoGoc~oo'JGOJSoo r;p G8Jg
GCD'Jch~'??~O':JI0~o5~:jpg@S:xltCJ? ~~E::f3~gl ~G~"lj'J~:r') BOGO ~~
G'JgOJ~~~fgr t'if:S.poS'Jgoo8?~@o.J~G~"'J'Jg@~::D@I G8JgGm'JoS
~ ot~C1:JI0~oSG~0'J~Cw~f co~~fgGt9T(9t~G@S::D~oo06oS! UJy
GC\]'JoSco'J~~:xltl G~g::D-:;gG::D'JOJG::rJ'J@ c8~~~~::Dtot Go;(OO~C
GUll UJCg~ GGt9T(9::D~8'306oS of~0:J)0~oSG~0'J~CgOJtl OOGjg~g
G::D'JOO~cfQ6C ~otoS GSJ~@~GcpOJ~ot ~oo~~ ooG@'JC~G~CG~II
~@S1 GOjj'Jo5co'Jgo;(::Dtl o1c:{5G~G8)gGm'JoS~ oooSeuG8 O~G
C'UJ'Jgloc~b :J'J 00;)1 0Jbpg~~D:JJ~Si"'J'Jg <Ji)l[g~~::DtCJ? G~~tGOII
oocxxb~\9T@o1ooG0'Jtg"lj'J:G'JJ o? o q yl .poSGmSrooog
j ~oS ( :J @~G: ~I 8edJ'JCD Cf ~oS)G<f.~Ol OObp:G~g O~~g~'Jcp
(eoGs~~'Jt>@) oo8~GS)@'J0'J n<JloS Go~ ~ ooS~oS~oS::ut;n
"'
90 BURMA LA\V REPORTS. r19s7

0) ~ g ~ ~G'O)~~as
~g0~cy')g ( GOjpoSc:o'Jg~)
~~
91g~Ggd~g6bGS[gO ~ 01 ? ( GOjpoSm'JgQ~
8){'=1Pg) *
s:1:G)5:~~:&Gq: oaoSeoGDC(DG o~(ro)rnG)l o~~~ "{1 ~o::b':lro J J G)oSG~
GCSJ?oSS'<S?o:>tO)tt oe::J'2 :tt ~1'Jo'i~co ?o stmG~rncE 8<llff~~Gp
c;t:8droeoGDC(D<l J e O<l6)1 Sd5?8o5~c:l rn~~?~qE1~::] GC\]?oS
o:n:~oa(9~a?:o~>~o1n g]rnS~CJ6CGOjj'Jrbro'J:~m O<lGC\:;i'Jrb~E>J~ D<l'jd>
J O)tt oo~=~ ad'Jo5? gc')zooro9s:1:stS:O)tut ~:5Gq:oooSeoGo
qb<> otS(ro)ooqt rosp:2~&~~~ :::@:'):') <t l ~o::b:Jcc JJ qroG~m
GOjj'Jrbro':l:spr o ~::n 't l e~'Jo 1~co ?O G)rbG~dlcS ~t.Gro:co?
qt:G~CJ6C C(bG J@ 006)1 8<lY(8c8~cf.>O)t11 cx?:@d3~rbR IIC(bG J@
oaqt ;:BS;;1~:~ ooS~oo~oosp>l&) :X>~~ ooro~s:1~6J.G!O)~Gifl94l e co '
rn02E: msp:2~90)? rosp:~:Goo\3m "' rn~~ rooStJ~Ez~ ~O)tr
G Oj]?rb~?ocb~oSO)tu

..-;"-

O~GGOjj'J 00ro'J:~E>'1 ::l.j(8Gl0200 sa~:6JGSJG~@g @:CijGG')Cu


~d3ooGO.jpOOro')gQ6J::l.j(::Ta<J6oS @:m~n
OJ~OJGOjj'J OOro'J:Q 6J~no02d3 @:OJ En
~ ~ G::S~:H ~~~~~515 :Q)~fDWJl 88~5~6 GoTso5ro~;r
fX3(jo5 ? J 1 ::ra~~:.f>o1oS j ~ s:1:6jS:G~~CCjl GC\?i'Jd)cxo:Q6)02
S<J'jcfj J I ~GroSo 1~0Je?r s:1:6)S:<l~:5G6j:o~~ ::raf:S~oo~OJ6fJG6'\
*0~~'2 ~~t.r o:>sp:<~ DdGO)iffil~ GOjJ?rf.ic:'<S?Ddyd) Cf J II
t ~CcGooScnsp:o@3:~[8 ~g~:JS~:I cnsp:o~: ~:~~eg~~99 roop:
o ~~: :~~:~6'J:pt ~EcGooSrospw f~=~J!5 :~::S~: 8aS~~51o50)tBJ
n3ccso~soo~eso~< Socrosacfu~
;,3ccso~lGJ~ ggc~cc~EPcc 3b~~ge
:;Zo!fgcsbsod~ u3ccoeJggochco~g=~~~ 0 ce~gb~:Zo~
u3cc~Lo Co"l_og8~e ec:ccLom~ gec~C:Cpclfu~ 1~b~
~re~g0 cccSogc/h~ecccc~cccgcl9~e~e ~~e:!cc~g~:reeg(Jiesoec
:~ec :g~esrocco3~ec So~ec,, 3~3sec ~gg~-3ml9~gg0
usocoe:!flcco~g~~socu~eG
coscoe~~gchco 'SO cU::D~ecscccMg38socuEP~es wscoeg~~ch co
lccce~~;chco ggooescu eJ ~~c.ofirbscc-;:::~bgL 5~reco g~~bBcls<;o
~C03tJeG Sog3e~bG IbeG fJ f ego I ~CCOCP~:o~gogg~~:chco IbeG
'( ~) ~c flgo co3o:begJg ~:cJ3fCSb(o~ jgscroscce~:cesy~
eo3ccp~:c)3~ coscoe:~~ r3bLmo~sogc~e g~pcupre
co3ogbegJ:0 ~~g3ccb~dg4ec ~soeoe3ec~&pclfue
u3cc:cco
~c!Eo~3b0ew~gg~ ~:chco 1~:re~g~3cu3?f~ec :~w~j~kccp cc
gcecss pcftDeecsccc~gcco~:M~meoc eob0~c4g4effl&3e gc~
gec~:~ u:gcJ~gccc~ec~3mbeg:~ I~Loflo:~gec~@@
lcfi;gb~c~)~ec sc0~ JcoC:Cg:>cfu~ so~ecscoe3jgc0
- ' u3ccroeso~S08So~es
g~fu6'le ecproe3(")~g~es COL o&J:b~m~propreplm3fCSo f) r
IIC LO flOGeocpecgb~g):@ e!to~efp 1~g~:reeg0e gcecep;~So~ec
so:b~g
~m~~sob oc ro~L oc~.Q 1e 0Gf.Jc Jcogge3mbeg~0 u3cc~
:~e:~b:L5
if gcs:opcfu~ co~~sob r cuc~o~ Je GGf.Jc I ~so:gfl3o:beg90
r
:dsm~ 1bLo:oeggge~:chco 1bec ( w) ~c egqGeo2pec:b~gl:0e:~b:L5
0Gelc ~:9b:L5greco :cen~g!e3so~,~, c pf>ec &b<::cropcEJe ~~.~~
16 s.rtrOd3:1l '}A V'1 VWtlflH [LS6l
~~~~&ecf?3sec~:0Cc:chc.opc..,ch pccch G ~~~C.O'!b LO~~~;:Job c r m@
rg~e .GGel c ccc~so file g&> Gc p~ec~~ ec: :c~ecso o~ch rg ife 6 GeJ c -~
116 o( soli ec ~~l!oec:;o ct-o:Jcb rg~e GG eJ c *
------------..
&~~:cbco 3t'o Gc pew ~~emccl:'ec :;oo~cb r~!fe 6 G~<
~~~~&~::hco soo~ch ~CCclsf.~() r~32:o~l9u HSSS'-eG~:g
rr~dcc 13e.G r~ cco~e-~&ec~:chco~&->e~:
" ( c) :3 e 3 c.rol:'lg-so&ec~d9co~~en
. HJcdoccc~cc r l gij'~>d spod<>(I MU'J uuuna Js6I
rgbc~:;,e3ifcc~cc:~ HS2e3cc~socc ltoecsoec ifqc~l!ogcosooo bec:~c.o~{o
g.osnwco sccc:cfi tf>ple~ce:~S w&g~e:~S glfDLo~gec~C.OI!oegcopco
bemgc.o:Sr>socccccc&eo :cP,ne:~g w8::g~:c.l~fCC03 ~ck>~~S0~01~c0::.coe
"
HSCtcsoc~
co:ggcosoco 3 ~rocccesc ,~rcbgro ~cece~scB=scc.o~~cof?g:,:s~soco
r:gge:gcjeJeo ~socfislge~:go uscccb~~~w g~.ol.9~g:,~g r ccssoc-ce:1s
g~igT scene~ r:gco:c~ccoego~ff~x&:pcbe!;n~eo f?:cf!:p~
~:flC\J ple~&lcccecc~Jf;e:gceeo ~roeo3eo soccco3~so:cco c~pleec
c-:ce:~beeo ~cbgcceecoo9e :elf.:~~,) gocccccc~on ~- usoJeso=~
IJ:g
pcecoeo :b~goosocc:~~~g:> ~c./A:~&:, gocccccc~o 'oo6 :~sR:o:;o o..,ch
r copbJ .
* ( ~gchco~meG) geGae 'I
GGlc.j.
3~
sco::J
soro:chco (f}:nchco~roeG) ~mce~8eG
~(g,g~gcece:~ :~ osco~p8J:cbcc
<;& ensoo.a:>cb
SL1IOdH1I 1& V1' .VW1fi}H
~gccoBgro .?fgrocd~Beo g~geGBfl ~3row ( c-8:>) g:>g38JSo
u3cc~C.Og8cflflboSCccgco:pCD gg~ eGCfglp32cc3fl tcMBSCCC
:!fl g&ds~,, ~t3ccg:;ggc$~:cmagroSD~rocfl~Beo g~geBefl IW
( c-8:>) ~mccgg CC0SOCCSgggb u:!cc~30eB C.O~cc~~b~lt.Ogro~~
c.ogCDcro~gre e1oe~g;ggb ng~Bfl3CD S&}~~Wgeo0fl 1~gl~c0 ce
C<]~C.O Ccc0gl~CDgco:pro nsccc~ecc0alflc~ ggcjeJeo:ces
1oese3cc~{')~ (cgcrocc~~c~cmeJ3em w (~ro~}lB) ug~ceJ{')
ggc)B~Lo3eoc3{') ce (ff:CDSJflel) c.o0goo:pro n:ccSeoc3cc~
g..>tgcre0goLo grogcreBCCDCjfl g~~ess;ocmwso~ le0(s='grfc:l)
&:ncroeo I( CCBeB3~~3Lee) S:>w3 w/Xi~C!.cccc~G3C~e g..>roes
~ggb n:!ccg~soe:;oro socmecoocgces g~gcods~Bes grogl~w
~gb u3cc)~gb0 ecogl~w (leB) CflC~~'J.} I(J)gc<::eecCD)lf>
u:!ccSeeo~ccg>ClieJcro;uccoB G 1b 3cc5f~ goesLoeBgcoch~8es
13ccgoo:;oro gro~osol3caw tggbg~grocfl~8eo ,bv::;p~~g(J)eo~
:gb u3ccSeC.03cc~eJS~gcogocccccc~o c.oleeo(J)~ g3roceggb
ug_gce~3cc:~~IWgcoo::.l~tf> g~:~cog~fugocccccc~o :ceo
3cc:gb 1gebt>g~groct>Mv::; ce~eo~:esflfl u3ccggo:;o~es
c~~socheJcheBL og'6Bes3roes ceSDg3~fl 1g3&igoo:;oro 1gg~ec
~g;p 3 occccccg;o&0~ 3b soroeo~b3~bsoB(J)gwgccot> 3!fuLo~g5':cf!:l
g~eo3occcccc~o 13cc:cr!:J&s~~chco tS:>~chco ~~g~~eG~
. n3cc~ec:!cc:coo~:;orogro~~ g~eG8eeJS09
~~f) e:3g~oc ~~~~a:ggoopro ec.oLees0socc :cec&Se:er;ea.
lWjCDce&Ber; ~:chco~&iv::; u:!ccSeto3ccgggbSe~:dsco 1cc~
pccoet>p\:!0 gceG:gb 1pc~B~:c&p& gccsoro3~e~ff.:ceG~3b
w:groc11~8es1g:bpb 0.roc'f~g 13~e cG elc n3cc~eo3cc)~e
rg~gc.eo~:~
~eggcesc be SO~ ot~g; Jg~roc~b5(i)tsod0:~~Bgroso~cflwSD:gb
uscccgcogJro 3ooso~ceC.O lbeG'f~SnjOCCCCCC~O 3~sroce~8eG r~eo~f'l
IWSOcB~olb scccggb lbeople~~(J)eG ~:eG0B ~:chco ~&ies 3~
~roc.el:iSen
ll sccc~~:gg O~OOeG
GG~c
em '~S~WB!'l c.o~roce&8ffi I[p:gsoe~3SeG C.O:!ebgo:eB:00 ~{..0:?>
c.o~roca/:;BeB ecg~:chc.o ~
8 0 c g!C\)(\)C0 SO\:!CDKC'Of> JgceGgffiBf} soco:chco
LS6l J 'S..L~Odt1 M.':I'J VW1Il8: z
1957.) BURMA LAVv'- REPORTS. 3
'
G&t~ d3xt~~n0Q~e%n ~62':16,.5 rooSooo080~1mI Gt~
G~~ rooSoooG')s~ c;fd30J~I:l0f?ll G~ T2~ ( ~8-s) m GGGC3~<~,.
G6ro"J GCO~tspo.2f I qt~Gspc :::D~II ot C\J')~ o:'2g0rn ~tg rooSooo :::D~II
~GGS]~t1~p GOJ')O~')g Cf I~ GOJ')d)l Gcp:lroG(9g~C~SJ'J S~gG Cf I~
GO:'J:bGro'JoS:x'J G~x~:r{~::Dtu ~;po.2'E c;E~rn'J~S~CI)~GG~~~g
CX(cDS(J~I G6C\J'JGOO'Jt0 GsproG::DS~"l)'J~rn~oSI ~t~Gto 1~~
<f'Jdtop'JGOJO~GG@;~tll, ocScospSJ'JCD~: CJcS~G~o 1@~G6'J:~G::S
~.~mtu
lj(CDOO~ . ( ~@-~) OJI GG83~19838'JG'JC\J~~ rooSooS'ID~qtg
Gspd3:ntu .~od5::n'J:n"Jrnb) rooSooomi trt~::otu qfw ~~~rf.)
Sdb)l c;t:~::, ~G@rnG.po~~~:D'J(j]G~8)l m@:@~G'Jc: ::3J::ot 11
cooSooo0~:nt~GmSrot~ Gt~Gto 1~G'Jc~GG@'J~tu ro:noS
:~~m ( G~15:~5rnG:n) ( tlJ5gcS) C\(S::ot~ ~03)~:ntu
8ff0G~ (~@-G) mr GGrngl~ 82tJ1jG'Jro5cOJtr rotGOJ'J:Oi
~G~.Srot~r. GGrn~~r 83\:)11G'JCD~m rorooo802xt1 Gtlil::Dt~
g'JSc.q~O?tu /
..
GGrn:xtr od5:n'J:n"Jotsa]r sag11G'JCD~~ oo,;pwfS~~g@>
G'Jt: ::ooSG::o~rn~fsaa?<J~u C:>Grng~sa0~Q~oSsas1 r rooSooo0
rn~im GqpE~~J)~~~~O') ( GQ1E~~CToGJ)) ( t)rfgc{)) oro:ntc.q
.~xtu qc~G9pb~~'Jr J3slt:n'Jx'JotC)!~g@~xtu ~@~~ c;cg~
rn0)Q~oS~'J ot~G~II o:i5:D'JOJ'JOCC)!~~m~E~~5: rod3m5spou51
J3~,, :J.)'JOJ'JOCa;(~:ro~gm I.tGsp oSm'J G~ C\J'JGC:O'JCS1 Q s~ S<l<f:l g~ I
0

rnGEi)W1rnsp~spoSx~G.pspm o tGspoSm'J GC:CDC8Jo5xt~cgl'J


0@S~cu .:fvm;tGC:O-:iC.C9:Jg:n~ :n05G:JJ~C\JOJ~m ( GQ lb~tSOG:D)
C\(O~~'JI G~jj'JCn~Gc_qoSr ro::noS~xtc.q m~m<>ID~@:n~u
od5 :JJ'J :J.J? oCo;(~ :C:lj'): GOCO'J GCO?C sp~ 1 83G6)g~~Go.:>'J no~oS
p r oo:noS~9m::noS rn[g~rncg~ rnG"Jt:Q~~I OJG:D'J<J,?~~nS
:DnS Q~ o5<:jpg ~ rn8]oSGspJ.l8j?:n oSG0.} o:f5 X'J OJ?o tG U::'J o~p:OJ~ r
:d~a) J ~g\9 s~~~~d)GOJ j ~gcaGSlo.2C md3&bJ:ntu CJC:~
~tGSJG:i')c~r rnG'Jt:sft@cgr C\JroQtg~~~ OO~Gmt: @tf~
:;sa'JCC\(OJ~t 1 ~1j:::D'JC\jj5 rod3ooo@E~sacoG-: d3 :nt11 ~@fl W
4 BURMA LAW REPORTS. !,19~

OOli(J:<;2oS (;JG82:~aa00~:~j0)8Cl6)1 C)C~3<?'J! G(,OJ')GOO':lC~~Ci uag)ll:il':lOJ~:::D


GJ.>S~ lj c;t:ao':l:GOOJ'JG~:d:b]~ GOJ')tgc:mt:~~~ qf:mro~~ ao~
~e ::1~ G':lOJ~g;'J: rotao@~ GO1t:::DC:Gt ~::D~To~'Jt: cuo5~bb
O<l8!~'Jro 5 G2,3':lt~ ex>Cl'):OJ~u cucf)ro5Go:::D~ ( GdSrod3) .p')gt~oc Gt~
l:lGO<l: 1 G~Olot aad38Cl\!:Jj{;)GB')~C II roo5mb0ao ~1moo ~:1 ID':l~[ 00')00 (
~ - - ~Qc Gbl:ro'):::Dtot~::Dtu qt;0':l~[ OID':looS:~p qc:dil~GoTmoo5:cu':l0
t;':G::r.l'JCorCII ~I
m I qt:?~8Cl~O 1GCU')~ Co5~::Dtu g]~m':l~lj') G.f~~G::D')IOOY
GotoSu 8CJG::D:m~@~G::D') G1oSB:~cuo55JoSJ ~s~~~~CQd)SJoS<:jp:c
Oj(OJ':l~COjjCI 8ClG6):ao~:d(:GOJ') g(,cu'JGOO':ltiDm ~~o~o)c
0')~ [0 ~ Oj( cu'J~C6)Godtu
80fl)lG':lCU~ml GGTo:~ qt:~S~~G@f::Dt~ ~cc(3'J:::D':l:SJcf
ootrooSSJoS~ G<9T@cx)'):S:aoGG':lt:~'2~'3l9l~' GGm~'Xlil c;S:~
S~:Gao@~GG~o5~~5u qc:curESJoSOJE S~:G~ GlSToo'J~@S:::D~
::DG~m')l~m') Gl'lT@CXY:l~S:oc@~oo~on>::Dtu
::@~~ ~8Clli02CI GGm:mt dafl)IG'JroJ~ m~:oCGtD':l:
G'Jt: GGoTqst~n gGna:?~ mg~g')m.))~~~Go 1E:'l':l:~'J m~oor.
G<j'C'O'JCDt<j') lj~CDtll CDtGtD'):@~::Dtot 30{:jj'J!~~CYX.lj(OOGOO')~
Oj(OOGQcB~Gtll ~~a# ~o?~8CJO;j>GOlt~::oC:CU')~~!?~ O~:::D'JCD
oE~~~~oo~wtTo65cutGo)':l:G@~~Sn oooScoo~m' o~::n
::D'J occa?:oo~:ao b]ICUd)gooO~ cqt1 006p!OCCDCGO)')gao@~~ GG~cf
~g;~OJCI GGao:ro 8Clfl1{G')OJ~~~mo5moiDm~:oo~~806)1 rod)oo.
::Dt~ md3aoroC:soG'Jt:G~~ qt:::Dt D<lt)1lG')CU~OOljl gOJ'::
0~c6G6)~80? 06j~D~:@c6::Dt'li @~ ooG-~ j~ lol G-~"HI. ( 1) ~~ m~
02t1 QtD'J!0'J!0~c~~Gp~l GO)')()~'):@~JU_m8~~1::1To':nJ O~:::D'3CD'
o E a?~ooG~0?6] CDchOOOGOj(:JtGB')~~o10jjCI 8~1GC~t0:::t;?m qt:G@
~~o)~ ~'J:::Dti OJmoSoca?:ooG~ao6) ruo5moq,~EJ')cm~ 80C
8Cl0:jJ ::Dd5G::DBbjGt<Jt~mtu
~@~~~ ~m~028 Gaa'Jo)~glj ~~oS~o5G::D':l mS~J? o<:Sqjo
m':ll 8Cl0i/Q oot;p:~ GGTog ~G01'Jd3~')~ oro6~tt::Dtu
..,..~-~---------------~

(I) t95!, Burma L:lw Reports, p.ll3.


1957] BtJRMA LAW REPORTS .

APPELLATE CIVIL.
Before U Sa11 Marmg, 1.

DA w DAw SHIN AND TWO OTHERS (APPELLANTS) H.C.


1956
. v. Aug. 23 .
u AUNG PE AND TWO OTHERS (RESPONDENTS).*

Burmese B11ddlrist Law-Suit for parliliou-11/aiulainabili/ y.


Held; A suit for P.!Ttition and possc;sion among Burmc~c Iluddhist
heirs is not _ruaintainatlc in Law.
The only way .in which one heir can ohlain his share of inhcliLncc
rom lhe other heirs is hy an :tdminislralion S"J it.
Jllauuf! lJa Tu v. Ma Tlzel Szt, 5 R.tn. p. 785 ; Ma rwa Sflm v. (T l"o
Sin a11d allolitcr, ,<\.I. I~. ( 19 .' 7) Ran . 324, appro1ed.
'

Tin Hla for the appellants .


.
Yan. Aung for the respondents.

U Si\N MA.l}NG, J.-In Civil Regular Suit No. 2


of 1952 of the Subdivisional Court of Pakokku, the
plaintiffs U Aung Pe and Daw Sein Po who are the
first and second respondents in the present appeal
sued the defendant-appellants U Soe Maung, Ma
Kyin Myaing and Daw Daw Shin for possession of
a 'piece of Ian'd measuring 2693 acres situated in
Pakokku town. Their case was that the suit land
was purchased by them from Daw Hnin Nwe, widow
of U Po Hlaing who became the solt owner thereof

" Cil il 2nd Appe;tl No.4 of 1954 , against the decree of the District Judge's
Court of Pakukku, in ctvil Appeal J:lio. 2 of 1952, elated 17Lb October 1953,
arising out of the Subclilisional Court of Pakokku in Civil r~cgular No. 2 0
1952, dated the lcth July 1952.
6 BURMA LAvV REPORTS.
~

I-T. C. on U Po Hlaing's death that the defendants U So


1956
Maung and Ma Kyin Myaing had trespassed upo
~~\~~~~ ~~:)'' lhe land erected a house and put up bamboo fencin
T\\'o oTHERs thereon and that when they were told to vacate the

u A;~G PE said that they were there with the permission of th


A:TuH;~:~ 3rd defendant Daw Daw Shin. On a notice bein.
U SAN
issued to Daw Daw Shin the latter claimed that th
MAuNa, .J. suit land belonged to her and that the 1st and 2n<
defendants were occupying the land with her permis
swn.
The defendants by their written statement claim
ed that the suit land belonged exclusively to Dav
Daw Shin as the only wife of the deceased U P<
Hlaing. Daw Hnin Nwe who was subsequent!;
joined as a pro forma defendant under the orders o:
the Court did not file any written statement and th~
case proceeded ex-parte against her, the issue~
framed being_
(a) whether Daw Hnin Nwe or Daw Shin 01
both were the legal wives of the
deceased U Po Hlaing ?
(b) whether the registered deed of sale Exhibit
B executed between Daw Hnin Nwe'~
agen t U Thu and the plaintiff U Aun.g
Pe is valid and enforceable, an.d
(c) to what relief, if any are the plaintilfs
entitled ?
The Subdivisional Judge by his judgment dated
the lOth of July 1952 held that both Daw Bnin Nwe
and Daw Daw Shin were the legal wives of the
deceased U Po Hlaing, that the suit land originally
belonged to U Po Hlaing so that on his death both
the wives will have certain rights an~ interest in . the
properties left behind by him and that until and
unless the rights and in terest of each wife :n respect
1957j I3URMA LAW REPORTS.
of the suit land has been ascertained in a suit H.C.
1956
between them it 1111JSt remain indeterminate. He
accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for posses" ~~~~ ~~:
sion with costs. Two oTHEr<s
v.
On appeal by the plaintiffs to the District Court u AUl\GPn
AND TWO
of Pakokku, the learned District Judge by his order oTHERs.
dated the 4th of April 1953 in his Civil Appeal No. USA:><
2 of 1952 remanded the case to the trial Court under IIJAJNG, J.
Order XLI, Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code for
the trial of the following additional issues :-
If Daw Shin and Daw Hnin Nwe are the legal
wives of U Po Hlaing, what is the status
of each, and what would be her respec-
tive share in the house.
The Subdivisional Judge accordingly submitted a
fi~!ding to me effect that the respective share of each
wife would be half of the suit land or house site as
.the wives were of equal status. When the case
came up again befor-e the successor of the learned
District Judge who had previously remanded it under
Order XLI, Rule 25, the learned Judge passed an
order declari.p~ "that the plaintiffs were entitled to
half the disputed land. He however, refused to give
a direction for the removal from the land of the
house built by the defendants U Soe Maung and Ma
Kyin Myaing.
In the present appeal by Daw Daw Shin, U Soe
1\.faung and Ma Kyin Myaing, it was urged that the
learned Judges of the lower Courts had erred in law
in not holding that the suit as framed was not
maintainable in law. On the authodty of the ruling
in the case of Maung Ba Tu v. Ma Thet Su (1) it
was pointed out that until and unless a suit for
adminis.tration l'lad been decided, Daw Hnin Nwe's
(II S Ran. p. 785.
8 :BURMA LAW REPORTS.
H.C. share in the particuh11 piece of property now in
195{!
dispute nmains indeter-minate and that therefore no
DAW DA\V
::;N ANn ~uit for possession such as that filed by the plaintiffs
Two 9~~mms can be maintained. In my opinion, there is . ample
uA~U
AuN-G PF.
T\\"0
force in the arbo-ument put forward bv J
the learned
orHERS. Advocate for the defendant-appellants. In the case
u SA~ of Ma Pwa Shin v. U Po Sin and another ( 1) it was
MAt:Nn. J. observed by Dunkley, 1 ., that strictly speaking there
is no such thing as a suit for partition among
Burmese Buddhist heirs because they are tenants-in-
common and not joint tenants of the inheritance that
the only way in which one heir can obtain his share
of inheritance from another heir or heirs in,- posses-
sion thereof is by an administration suit in which the
whole of the property belonging to the estate must
be brought to account and that consequ~ntly if an
heir is to get a share of inheritance a sui'i: for a share
of one property out of the inheritance will not lie.
Although no doubt the plaintiffs U Aung Pe and
Daw Sein Po had purchased ~he right title and
interest of Daw Hnin Nwe one of the widows of the
deceased U Po Hlaing, what int~rest they have
acquired in this particular piece of lanP. must remain
indeterminate until the whole of the property
belonging to the estate of the deceased U Po Hlaing
has been brought to account. If for instance, it is
proved that Daw Hnin Nwe had taken more out of
the estate than what she was entitled to obtain her
share in the remaining property including the suit
land will be nil. If, on the other hand, Daw Daw
Shin has taken more out of the estate than what she
is entitled to her share in the remaining property
including the sult land will be nil and Daw Hnin
Nwe will be entitled to receive the whole of the suit
land. ,-
(II A.I. R. (19371 Ran. p. 32~.
l957l BtJRMA LAW REPORTS.
For these reasons I consider that the suit for H. C.
1956
possession' of the land in dispute is not maintainable
DA'V Dt.W
in law. In the result the appeal succeeds, the judg su1N ,\NI)
ment and decree of the District Court of Pakokku T\\o aTIIEIIs
v.
appealed against are set aside and the plaintiffs' suit u AcNG
A~DTWO
PE

dismissed with costs throughout. Advocate's fee in omERs.


this Court, 3 gold mohurs. lJ SAN
1\1 A l'NG, J.
:BtJRMA LAW REPORts [1957

APPELLATE CIVIL.
Bforc U :Ba Tf1ou11g, J.

B.C.
1956 KAMIN! KUMAR MALICK AND ONE (APPELLANfS)
Aug.15. v.
ZERMAINI RANJAN CHOWDHURY (RESPON-
DENT).*

l.a11dlord aud Tcuant-Suil for cjccimelll-No/icc nuder s. 11 [a), Urban Rent


Control Act aud s. 106, Tnmsfer of ProPerly Act-lulcr:Prclatiou of
ambiguous IIDlice.
Notice, dated the lJtl! October, 1952 set out i11fcr alia as follows' :
"This notice is hereby given to you to pay the said arr~ars of K 133 to
my client Zarnami Han jan Chowdhury CJr to leave I h:: premises within 21 days
from the re ceipt of this notice f.iling which Jcgnl action \'lill be taken in
Court for recove-y of the arrears and for cjldment from the '"lremiscs."
The notice was received on the 11th October, 1952.
Contended by the Appellants that:
{1) 21 days after the receipt of notice falls on the 1st of November 1952
anrl hence a fresh period has begun from the ls~ No vember, and
(2) Tl1erefore, a fresh notice to ;tppellants gi,i ng fifken days ending
with that month would he r f'q uired relying on Malrumall Sa/uarain aud others
v. MI. Ram', A.!.!{. (32) (1915) p. 46 ~ , was relied on.
(3) In a suit fvr cjcctnJent, the provision of bot!! .s. 106, 1-r;msfer of
Property and the Urban Rent Control Act must be complied witl] rdyinf( on
T. H. Khan v. D.7wood Yusoof Abowallt a11d ollrcrs, (1947) RL.R p. 354.
Held: The wordings in the notice arc a!llbiguous as b whether the
appellants are to stay on till the Jst of Nove:nber or qllit by the end of
Oc.tober.
In interpreting amb'guous words in notices, the test is to sec what the
words would mean to tenants well conversant witl' all the facts and
circumstances Of the tenancy.
Dr. U Chit and 011e v. Daw Oh't Yin, (1952) B. L.l~. p. li6, followed.
Ilcld fnrl!Jcr: The 21 clays time given in the no:ic! is only for the purpose
of paying up the arn:ars of rent and Since more than 15 days enchng with the
month of October has 6cen given to quit, it means that they are to quit by the
end 0f October.

* Ci vii 2nd Appeal :--l' o. 125 of 1953, againsl th e decree of the Additional
Didrict Court of ,\l:yab IU BA GYM<) in Civil ,\ppca1 No.3 of !953, dated the
4th September 1953, arising out of the Township Court of i\ kyab in Ci vii
Regnlar Suit "No. 59 of 1952, elated the 19th May 1953.
1957] BURMA LAY/ REPORTS. il
Dutt and .,Tun Sein; Advocates, for the appellants. H.C.
1956
~~-Hill'!
Sein Tun (2), Ad vocate, for the respondent. KIJM,\11
i\1,\LICK A~IJ
oNE
U BA THOUNG ' J ._The plainti!f-respondent sued z v _...EI~MAINJ

the defendants-appellants in the Township Court of l~ANJAN


. CHOWDHUR~
Akyab for recovery off( 140 as rent and for eJectment
and for delivery of the suit premises. His case is that
he took the Ieas'e of a room in the suit building
belonging to one Shaik Busher Ali and two others
through their agent Nazir Ahmed at a rental of K 35
per month, and after partitioning the room into two
portion!?, he sublet one portion of it to the defendants-
appellants as his sub-tenant at a rent of K 7 per
month. The defendants-appellants did not pay the
rents due to, him from March 1951 to October 1952,
and refused to deliver possession of the suit room,
and hence he filed the suit after giving clue notice
'Exhibit E. The c+.efendants-appellants contended
that they are not the sub-tenants of the plaintiff-
respondent, but that they are the tenants of N azir
Ahmeq. himself to whom they have paid all the rents
due4 ~,

The trial Court h:;ld that the plaintiff-respondent


is not the tenant of N azir Ahmed ; that the defendants-
appellants are the te1iants of Nazir Ahmed and not
the sub-tenants of the plaintiff-respondent and hence
the question ef ejectment by the plaintiff-respondent
a'gainst the defendants-appellants does not arise, and
with these findings the plaintiff-respondents' suit was
dismissed. On appeal to the Distxict Court, the
learned District Judge reversed the findings of the
trial Court and held that the plaintifi-respondent is
the sole tenant of Nazir Ahmej and that the
defendants-appellants are the sub-tenants of the
plaintiff-Tespondent; and a decree ;fn favour of the
BtJRMA LAW REPORT$. [1957
I-J.C. plaintiff-respondent was given with costs. Hence
1950
this appeal. r '
KAMJNc
KaMAn The question whether the defendants-appellants
IIIAJ.~~~ ANo are the sub-tenants of the plaintiff-respondent or
v.
ZEHM.u:q
whether

they are the tenants of N azir Ahmed is a
HANJAN questiOn of fact, and the lower Appellate Court after
cno~uRv. carefully considering the evidence of both sides came
TH~u~~~.J. to a finding that they are the sub-tenants of the
plaintiff-respondent, and as I do not think that this
finding of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate
Court is either perverse or not according to law,
1 am not prepared to interfere with it in this second
appeal.
The only question to be considered in this appeal
is whether the notice Exhibit E given by the plaintiff-
respondent to the defendants-appellants ,.is valid in
law. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that this notice is not valid in law as it has
not complied with the provisions of section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act.
In the last paragraph of the notice Exhibit E
which is dated the 1Oth October 1952, it sets out as
follows:
* * * *
This notice is hereby given to you to pay the said
arrears of Rs. 133 to my client Zarmani Ranjan Chowdhury
or to leave the premises within 21 days from receipt of this
notice ; failing which legal action will be taken in Court for
recovery of the arrears and for ejectment from the premises.
,,

* * * *
The notice is dated the lOth October 1952 and it
is not disputed that it was received on the 11th
October. It is contended by the learned counsel for
the appellants that since the defendants-appellants
were given 21 days from the date of receipt of the
195?] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 13

notice to ..J.eave the 'premises and as 21 days after the H.C.


1956
receipt of notice fall~on the''rst of November, a fres)l
KA~HNI
period has begun from the 1st November, and hence ]{uUAR

a fresh notice to the defendants~appellants giving MALICK AND


ONE
fifteen days ending with that month would be v.
ZERMt.IN!
required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property RANJAN
CHoWDHURY
Act. It is also contended that if a landlord wants to
eject a tenant, h.e must comply with the provisions U BA
THOU~G, J.
of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as
well as with s~ction 11 (a) of the Urban Rent Control
Act. In support of his contention that the notice
Exhibit E is not in compliance with section 106 of
the Tr~nsfr,r of Property Act, the learned counsel has
cited the case of J\1atrumall Satnarain and others v.
Nit. Rami .(l) where it has held that:

"When the tenancy is a periodic tenancy, the landlord
cannot permit a tenant to remain on in possession after a fresh
. period has begun and then call on him to vacate the premises.
If he permits him t0 remain on after a fresh term has
commenced, he must permit him to remain on till that term
expires."

And !n support of his contention that both the


provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property
Act and section 11 (aJ of the Urban Rent Control
Act must be complied with if a landlord wants to
eject a tenant, he has clted the case of T. H. Khan v.
Dawood Yusoof Abowath and others (2) where it has
held that:
"Urban Rent Control Act does not make any provision
for the creation and determination of the relationship of
landlord and tenant and ifa landlord wants to eject a tenant
he must comply with the provisions of section 106 of the
Transfer of Prop ~rty Act and also comply with section 11 (a)
of the Urban Rent Control Act, and section 11 (a) of the

jl) A.LH. (3ZJ !1945} Pa'. p. 46J .


14 BURI't'IA LA\V REPORTS. [1957

H.C. latter Act does not repeal section 1U6 of the Transfer of
1956 Property Act."
1
~~~ 1 ,~1~
1
It is, however, to be considered first, in this case,
i\IALrcK AND whether by his notice Exhibit E the 'plaintiff-
a~& '
v. respondent meant to allow the defendants-appellants
i~~~N1 A~
ZV1H1A1Xl
to stay on t1'Il t he 1st o f 1N ov ~m b er or w h ether t h ey
CHo~unv. are to quit by the end of October. The wordings in
u BA it are not clear. The 21 days time given in the notice
.TflouxG, J. to the defendants-appellants may be only for the
purpose of paying up the arrears of rent and not for
the purpose of quitting the premises. I think what the
plaintlti-re~pondent meant was that the defendants-
appellants are to quit the premises by. the end of
October as he has given them more than fifteen days
ending with the month of October to de so. I do
not think the plaintiff-respondent has meant to aHo~
the defendants-appellants to stay one day more till
.the 1st Novemher. In any case, the wordings in the
notice Exhibit E are ambiguo:ts as to when the
defendants-appellants should quit and give up
possession of the suit premises. In such cases the
principle laid down in the case of D/. U Chit and one
v. Daw 0/m Yin (1) should be followed. It is held
in that case that :
"In interpreting ambiguous words in notices to quit the
principle which should guide the Court is to test what the words
would mean to tenants conversant with al~ the facts and
circumstances of the tenancy."

In the present case the defendants-appellants must be


presumed to know what was the real intention of the
plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respo ndent has
given them more than 15 days to quit, for the notice
was given on the lOth October and received by them
on the 11th October. Surely it mu st mean to them
---------- -----"-----~
(l) (1952) B,L.I~. p. 176.
1957] B U.RM.i\ LAY~. 1R-E-PORTS. 15
'

that they. are to quit by the end of the month of H.C.


1956
October. In these 'tircumstances ' I hold that the.,~~
KA.~liNI
notice Exhibit E is a valid notice both under KUMAR
section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and MALICK
ONE
AXIJ

under section 11 (a) of the Urban Rent Control Act. v.


ZF..R)!AII't
In the. result the appeal fails and it is accordingly I?A:\J,\N
CHOWDirtr~Y.
dismissed with costs.
U BA
THou:w, ].
16 BURMA LAW REPORTS. _[195/'

APPELLATE CIVIL~

Before U Sa11 Matwg, f.

H.C. MAUNG THA SAING (APPELLANT)


1956

July zv. v.
MA AIN THA (RESPONDENT).*

E.rectt/iou of Darcc-Order sl ,tyi11g or rcjusi11g to slay c,,ccut ion of a ticCJ u,


w/Jetfu:r aPftalable-S, 2(2) aud s. 47, Cidl P1occdurc Code,
Hdd: No hard and !.1st rule can be laid down ;~s to when an order sta) iq!
a n ex.:cdion \dll be apptalablc as a decree under s. 2 (2) .ead with s. 47 of
the Chil Pro:cdure Code.
Each c:tsc must be cledclcd on the facts and cjrcumslan.: ~~ arisin~ the:ein.
U S.:w Ira aud others v. U Clrii Sau aud ,wolftcr, 9 Han. r. 354; Kyauhsema
\', Aparua C/larall, 10 L.ll. l~ . p, 326; Janardau Triwuba~ Gtulrc v. /Jiartuul
Triun.l>ak Gadrc, JS Bom, p. 2~1; Husain Bhai and mJo/llc, v, Belli.: Shaft
Gilar~i, 46 Ali., p. 733; !tftwam;al Durga Devi ,._ Hans Raj and at hers. 11
L-111, p . 4J2; Audh Bd~ari Siugh v. Sa ilcndra Na't!J IJI.at/aciJ, rjcc, A.l R.
1
(1 g54) C'al., p. 339, rderred to.

R. Basu for the appellant.

Kyaw Khin for the respondent.

U SAN MAUNG, J.- In Civil Reguiar Suit No. 16


of 1952 of the Township Court of Sandoway, the
plaintiff Maung Tha Saing who is the appellant in
the present appeal sued the defendant Ma Ain Tha
for her ejectment from the land in suit on the ground
that the land belonged to him and that she was in
unauthorised occupation thereof. Maung Tha Saing's
case was that the land which originally belonged to
Civil 2nd Appeal N0. 112 of 1953. a ~ ainst the ~rd~:r of the Addilion;~l
District Court of Sancloway in Ci\'il App eal Xo. S of 19)3, dated 29 th August
1953, arising -out of the order, da!ed the 7th July 195 ', p~ssed in Chill
El>ecu ~ion Ca~e No.1 of 1953 hy the Township Jud~c, SalJ~luway.
1957] lJ URM l\ LA\:V REPORTS. 17
his parer:'?ts was acquired by Government many years HC.
1956
ago and was re-tra1:lsferred to him by Governn1ent
l\fA.UNG TBA
in March 1951 on his refunding to Government tne SAJ:-::G

compensation awarded to his parents and that one 11.


MA AIN TIIA.
of the conditions of the re-transfer of the land to
U SAN
him was that it should be surrendered to Govern- MAUNG, J,
ment if ~md when reg uired. The defendant's case
was that she ha.d been in occupation of the land
since the pre-independence period and that she Irad
the permission of the then Minister for Welfare and
Rehabilitation to continue to occupy the same.
The le~rned Township Judge, after a full hearing
into the merits of the case, rejected the defendant's
story as u~true. He accordingly decreed the suit
with costs.. The plaintiff Maung Tha Saing then
sought to (.execute the decree against Ma Ain Tha
a'nd his application for execution was dealt with in
Civil Execution Case No. 1 of 1953. While the
execution case, naroely, Civil Execution Case No. I
of 1953, was proceeding the Deputy Commissioner,
Sandmvay, by his letter dated the 6th of 1uly 1953
requested the Township Judge to stay proceedings
on the ground that he was taking necessary steps to
re-acquire the land for the Government. The
Township Judge by his order dated the 7th of July
1953 held in these circumstances that execution
should not proceed against the defendant Ma Ain
Tha. He accordingly closed the execution proceed-
ings with no order as to costs. The plaintiff U Tha
Salng appealed to the Additional District Court of
Sandoway and the Additional Distr.i.ct Judge by his
order dated the 29th of August 1953 in Civil Appeal
No. 5 of 1953 dismissed the appeal upon two
grounds.-(1) that the Township Judge had in the
circumstances acted very properly in exercise of his
inherent' power by staying the execution and (2) that
BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
.H.C. the order of the Township Judge was not a,n appeal-
196
able order.
!\IAUNG . \'HA , . .
'3AING In commg to the conclusiOn that the order
~fA A~THA. relating to the stay of execution of the decree was
U SAN
not appealable, the learned Additional District Judbo-e
MAUNG, J. relied upon the ruling in the case of U San Wa and
others v. U Chit San and another (1). In this
second appeal before this Court it is contended that
the observation in U San Wa arut'others v. U Chit
San and another ( 1) goes too far and that the same
should be reconsidered. In K.yauksema v. Aparna
Charan (2) where an application for execution of a
decree for possession was stayed on the ground that
the judgment-debtor's husband had filed' a suit in
respect of the same land as against the decree-holder,
Maung Kin, J. after a review of the (~authorities
available to him held that orders staying or refusin'g
to stay execution of a decree are orders determining
questions relating to the execution of the decree
within the meaning of section '47 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and are therefore appealable.
The opposite view was, however, taken. by a
Bench of the Bombay High Court' 'in Ja11.wdan
Triumbak Gadre v. l}_1artand Triumbak Gadre (3)
where it was held that such an order is not adecree
as defined in section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code
read with section 47. Fawcett, J. who was a
member of the Bench while admitting that the words
"questions relating to the execution of a dec~ee" ar~
very wide and prima facie cover a question regarding
stay of executiop of a decree held that in construing
the words of section 47, Civil Procedure Code, the
Court is entitled to have regard to the fact that the
- - - ._.... -----~--. 4 + _____.(~---

(1) 9 Ran . p. 354. {2) 10 L. B.R. p. 326.


fJ) 45 13om. p. 2-11.
957] BURMA LAW REPORTS.
,. 19

:orresponding section Df the old Code contains an H.c.


xpress reference to a s~ay of execution, which has
1956

Jeen omitted in the present section. In Husain 'M"uNG SAING
TflA.

?hai and another v. Be/tie Shah Gil ani (l) it was held fl.
lVIA AIN THA.
hat an order staying execution of a decree from the
:3rd of July 1923 to the 6th of September 1923 M~u~~~ J.
,n payment of Rs. 5,000 by the judgment-debtor was
tot a decree within the meaning of sections 2 and 47
,f the Code of Civil Procedure.
U San Wa and others v. U Chit San and
nother (2) relied upon by the learned Additional
)istrict Judge followed the decision in Janardan
'riumbak {;adre v. Martand Triumbak Gadre (3).
'ractically all the authorities bearing upon the
uestion were however exhaustively reviewed by a
lench of the t..,ahore High Court in M ussammat
)urga Devi v. Hans Raj and others (4) where it
1as held that the order for the stay of execution of
decree pending disposal of the appeal to the High
~ourt falls .under sectio~n 2 read with section 47 of
1e Civil Procedure Code and is appealable as a
ecree. .
Between the two extreme . views, namely that
eld by the Bombay High Court in Janardan
'riumbak Gadre 's case and that held by the Lahore
iigh Court in Mussammat Durga Devi's case is that
1ken by Mookerjee, J. in Audh Behari Singh v.
ailendra Nath Bhattacherjee (5) that an order stay-
lg executiop if it conclusively determines the rights
nd liabilities of the parties with reference to the
;lief granted by the decree will be " th~ determina-
on of a question under section 47" within the
teaning of section 2 (2) and will thus be a decree
.
(1) 46 All. p. 733. . (3) 45 Bom. p. 241.
(2) 9 Ran. p. 354. (4) 11 Lab. p. 402
' (5) A.I.R. (1954) Cal. p. 339,
'20 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [195

H.C. under the Code and app<:;alable as such und{


l956
section 96.
!'.IA~:~...}l:l" In my opinion no hard and fast rule can be lai
MA ..\f~ TnA. down as to when an order staying an execution wi
, .. . . :.__- be appealable as a decree under section 2 (2) rea
iYi~u~!~ J. with section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Eac
case must be decided on the facts and circumstanc~
arising therein.
In the case now under consideration it woul
appear that the learned Township Judge considere
that so long as the executive authorities are takin
steps to acquire a piece of land on behalf of th
Government execution proceedings relating to th
decree for possession of that land should be staye<
.He had accordingly not only stayed the executio
sine die but also closed the proceedings. His ord<:
in the circumstances must be regarded as a denial c
the right on the part of the decree-holder to execut
his decree for possession and is therefore
determination of the question under section 47 withi
.the meaning of section 2 (2) of the Civi~. Procedur
Code.
It is now more than three yea1~ since the Deput
Commissioner, Sandoway, had written to th
Township Judge that he was taking steps to acquir
the land in question and the learned Advocat
appearing for the respondent cannot say that th
proposed acquisition is even now effective.
The decree for possession was passed on the 7t
of October 1952 and the order of the Townshi
Judge staying the execution sine die has resulted i
the decree-holder not being able to execute his deere
even though more than three years had elapse
since the date of the decree.
In the result the appeal is aiJowed. The orde
of the Township Judge dated the 7th of July 195
~57] BURMA LAWREPORTS. 2r
:aying the eX:necution sine die is set aside and the H.C.
1956
:arned 1udge is directed to proceed with the
1\!AU!'(G TllA
)(ecution proceedings in accordance with law in the SAIKG
v.
ght of the remarks made above. There will be no i\IA AI N Til A.
rder as to costs of this appeal. U SAX
l\JAU!'(G 1 J.
.i3lJ idviA LAW REPORTS.

APPELLATE CIVIL.
Before U Clran Tun Arwg, Clriej Just icc and U Sa11 Nt1111tg, J.

H.C . P. S. K. ASEEZAL BEEVI (APPELLANT)


. 1956
v.
Oct. 22.
v. s. SYED AMMAL AND OTHERS: (REsPONDENTS
APPointment of Receiver, Order XL, Rule 1, Civil Proccdttrc Cotlc-0.
rcjccliug, w/let!Jer appcalab/c-Ortler XLlll, Rule 1, Civil Procct
Code-S. 20, Union Judiciary Act, 19-1-8.
Held : An Order made by a Judge on the OriRinal Side. of the High C
coming under Order X L Ill, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Cod e. is. appealablc .
P.Abdtll Gafforv. ThcOfficialAssignce,3 Ran. p.6G5; L O!m [{ltinv. l
Seiu Yin, (1949) B.L.I~. p . 201 ; Rc Devabltai Jiwalldas a ntl otltcr
A.M. JllurugaPPa Cltettiar, 13 Ran. p. 457, followed; T. C. Lco11g aud 011
U Po Th ciu, (1953) B.L.R p. 1, explained and cli st ingl;~shed.

P. N. Ghosh for the appellant.

N. Bose for the respondents. 1 and 2. .

/11. Ahmed for the respondent No. 4.

Aung Min (I) for the respondent No. 5.

Jaganathan for the respondent No. 6.

Judgment delivered by

U SAN MAUNG, J.-In Civil Regular Suit 1'\o. '


of 1951 on the Original Side of this Court, tl
plaintiff P. S. K. Aseezal Beevi filed a suit for declar;
tion and re.:covery of Rs. 20,000 being the tentatb
value of plaintiff's share of inheritance and f<
accounts. The plaintiff's case was that she was tl
Civil Misc. Appeal No. ~9 of 1955, ;~gain 5 t the Order of the Judge on l
Original Side of this Court i11 Civil Rgular i:\o. S9 of 1051, dated the &
June 1955.
19571 BURMA LAW REPORTS.

daughter. of the 'late P. S. Kader Sultan Rowther H.C.


1956
while the defendants were the three surviving widows
'P. S. K.
and the sons and daughters of the deceased. ' ASEEZAL
BEEVI
On the 14th June 1938 the deceased who had 7!.
hitherto been carrying on big business as publishers, V.S.SYED
A~J~!A[. ANO
printers and booksellers under the name and style of OTHERS.

K.O.M.Z. Kader Sultan and Company executed a U SAN

deed of partnersqip between himself and hjs three sons l'vJAUNGi J.


by the first wife, namely, P. S. K. Abdul Rahman,
P. S. K. Mohamed Dastaghir and P. S. K. Mohamed
Rashid Khan, the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants in the
case. The business was then run under the name and
style of P .. S. Kader Sultan and Sons. In accordance
with the provisions of this partnership deed, the 4th,
5th and pth defendants carried on the partnership
business u.p till the time of the general evacuation of
Rangoon in February 1942, consequent on the war
with Japan.
On the 17th of December 1943, the 4th, 5th and
6th defendants in collusion with one another executed
a document purporting to be an agreement for the
dissoJ.ution of the partnership. This document, the
plaintiff alfeged, was not genuine because on that
date the state of mind of her father P. S. Kader Sultan
Rowther was such as would make him incompetent
to enter into any agreement or contract. After the
British reoccupation of Burma, the 5th defendant
P. S. Mohamed Dastaghir came to Burma in May 1946
withmJt the knowledge of the other heirs and legal
representatives of P. S. Kader Sultan and took charge
of the stock-in-trade and the accOJ,Jnt books of the
firm which had been left in charge of the employees
of the firm. Thereafter, without consulting the
other heirs and legal representatives of P. S. Kader
Sultan the 5th defendant dealt with the assets of the
firm as he pleased and subsequently entered into a
24 BURMA LAW REPORTS.I
[19S7

H.C. collusive sale with the 6th defendant transferring the


1956
entire assets to the latter for a- sum of Rs. 32 000
P. S. K. w;len such assets were worth well over Rs. 400,000. '
AiEEZAL

...
ifiEEVl Those of the other heirs and legal representatives
V. S. SYE:n who were majors at that time, made a protest through
AMMAL\ND
OTHEI~S.
the 4th defendant against the 5th defendant'$ conduct
U :SAN
in making the unauthorised sale and a long correspon-
.i\IAUI>:G, T
0
dence followed as a result .
Subsequently, on the 27th of March 1947 the 4th
defendant, for himself and purporting to act as the
agent of defendants 1 to 3, 7 to 12 and of the
plaintiff, executed a deed of release in favour of the
6th defendant fill their claims to the properties,
assets, copyrights, trade-marks, goodwill to the
business of their father for a further sum of Rs. 85,000.
In spite of these sales neither the first sum ofRs. 32,000
nor the second sum of Rs. 85,000 had yet been
distributed to the heirs and legal representatives of
P. S. Kader Sultan. The plaintiff.claimed that as she
was a minor at tl).e time of the execution of the sale
deed and the release deed in question, the defendant
No.4 had no authority to act as her ag~nt nor had her
own mother, defendant No. 2, authority to appoint
the 4th defendant as her agent. Consequently, she
asked for a declaration that the transactions aforesaid
were not binding upon her and that she was entitled
to one-sixteenth share in the sum of Rs. 45,000 being
the capital contribution of P. S. Kader Sultan Rqwther,
in the firm of P. S. Kader Sultan and Sons, one-
sixteenth share of trade profits accrued to P. S. Kader
Sultan Rowther )JP to the 17th of December 1943,
one-sixteenth share in the profits due to P. S. Kader
Sultan subsequent to the 17th of December 1943 and
one-sixteenth share in the profits earned by the
defendant Nos. 5 and 6 by making use of the assets
of P. S. Kader Sultan Rowther.
1957J BURMA LAW" REPORTS. 25
The su~t was maihly contested by the 5th and 6th H.C.
195'6
defendants. They emphatically denied that the sale
P. S. K
of the assets of the firm to the 5th defendant by the 1\SEEZAL
6th defendant was collusive or that the assets were BEEV!
v.
worth anything like Rs. 400,000. They contended V.S.S!ED
A~niALAND
that the deed of release executed by the 4th defendant OTHEFIS.
as agent of the other heirs of P. S. Kader Sultan was U SAN
binding upon the Qlaintiff. Accordingly they con- 1\:fAU(\G, J.
tended that the plaintiff had no claim either for a
declaration that the sale deed and the release deed
were not binding upon her or for a declaration that
she was entitled to one-sixteenth share of the assets
and profit's o(the business up to the date of the suit.
The suit was filed on the lOth of July 1951. On
the 18th of, January 1955 the plaintiJf filed an
application under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure for the appointment of the Official
R,ec~iver as Receiver of the properties in suit. In the
affidavit of Zakkariy~, agent of the plaintiff, which
was annexed to the application it is alleged firstly
that the 5th and 6th defendants carried on business
in the name of P. S. K. Mohamed Rashid Khan at
stalls Nos. 74 ' 75, 90 and 91 in Sooratee "D'' Bazaar,
Rangoon, originally forming part of the assets of
P. S. Kader Sultan and Sons and that they had
recently transferred stall No. 75 with its stock worth
K 25,000 to their servant P. S. N. Syed Ebrahim and
;taU No. 91 with its stock worth K 25,000 to their
;ervant P .. S. N. Kamaradin. It is also alleged that
:he 5th and 6th defendants were selling goods without
ssuing vouchers and that they had been prosecuted
rom time to time in respect of such sales under the
)ales Tax Act.
Roth these allegations have been denied by the 5th
Lnd 6th defendants in their counter-affidavits. These
lefendants' alleged that these scandalous allegations
:26 BURMA tAW REPORts. [195

r9~ had been made with a view to damaging thei


-- .. reputation and the good naine of their business a
~~:~z~~ the instigation of the 4th defendant who was runnini
llEEvi
v. a rival concern under the name of "Three Stan
v. s. SYEn Stationery Supply Co." in which the plaintiff's agen
AMMAL MID
oTHEr~s. was also a partner.
u SAN The learned trial Judge by a brief order dismissec
MAuNG, J. the application for the appointment of a receive1
mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had not giver
sufficient reasons for the appointment of a receiveJ
at the present stage of the proceeding and that tht
plaintiff's interest would be amply prqtected b)
directing the 5th and 6th defendants to deposit a surr
of K 10,000 undertaking not to do anything to th
detriment of the plaintiff's interest during: the pendenC)
of the case. Security was accordinglyordered and a
deposit of K 10,000 was duly made in Court.
The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the order
rejecting her application for .the appointment of a
receiver has preferred the present appe~-1.1.
A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of
the 5th and 6th defendants that no" appeal h~s against
the order of the Judge on the Original Side refusing
to appoint a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the
Civil Procedure Code. In support of this, certain
observations of a Bench of this Court in T. C. Leong
and one v. U Po Thein (1) have been relied upon for
the proposition that an order refusing the application
for the appointment of a receiver is not a judgment
within the meaning of section 20 of the Union
Judiciary Ac~, 1948 and section 13 of the Letters
Patent of the late High Court of Judicature at
Rangoon and hence not subject to appeal to a Bench
of this Court. However, the learned Advocate for
the appellant has apparently overlooked the decision
(1) (1953} ll.L.R. p,l.
957j BURMA LAW REPORts. i7
>f a Bench of the late High Court of Judicature in H.C.
19.)6
:J. Abdul Ga!Jor v: The Official Assignee (1). Tb.ere
P. S. K.
t was held that for an order made in exercise of the ASEE.ZAL
BEEV!
)rdinary Original Civil Jurisdiction to be appealable, t.
t must come either under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of V.S.SYE!J
AM.r.'!A[,ANH
:he Civil Procedure Code, or be a judgment within OTfiEHS.

:he meaning of clause 13 of the Rangoon High Court U SAN


:.,etters Patent,. It is thus clear that if an order ~IAUNG, f.
11ade by the Judge on the Original Side of this Court
~ames under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code it is appealable.
The above decision of the late High Court in
P. Abdul Gafjor v. The Official Assignee (1) was
~eferred to with approval by a Bench of this Court in
U Ohn Khin v. Daw Sein Yin (2). In Re Devabhai
Tiwanda!. and others v. A. M. /vi. i'viurugappa Chettiar
(3) when a Full Bench of seven Judges of the late
High Court of Judicature had to consider the meaning
of the word "judgment" in clause 13 of the Letters
Patent, Page, C.J. with whom all the Judges concurred
observed at page 479 :
"But: ~f only 'decrees' are appealable under clause 13
of the Letters Patent what 'orders' are appealablf":, and in what
circumstances does an appeal from a11 ' order' lie ?
Now. an appeal is the creature of statute, for
'an appeal does not exist in the nature. of things.
A right of appeal from any decision of any
tribunal must be given by express enactment.'
In many statutes in India, of course, a right of appeal
from an order passed pursuant to the statute is expressly
provided, and in such cases an appeal will lie on the terms and
conditions therein prescribed. I will not pause to enumerate
or discuss these enactments, although many such statutes were
cited at the Bar. But. except where otherwise a right of
- -- -- ----- - - - - - - --"'-"-'--- - - - -
(1) 3 Ran. p. 605. (2) (1949) B.L. R p. 201.
(3 13 Han. p. 457
28 BURMA LAW REPORTS. (1957
H.G. appeal ad hoc is given under some statute or enactmen.! having
1956
the force of a statute, the right of a ppe<t~ from orders that do
P. S. K. not imiount to 'judgment' is regulated by the provisions of
Asi!:FZAL
BKEV! the Code of Civil Procedure ; {see section l 04 and Order 43,
v. Rule 1)."
V. S.Sn;o
A)JMALAND
OTHIWS. This is clear authority for the proposition that
U SA:-:
besides judgments coming with~n the ambit of clause
!If AUNG, J. 13 of the Letters Patent, orders falli~g under Order
XLIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code made by
a Judge on the Original Side of the late High Court
of Judicature were appealable to a Bench. There is
nothing in the language of section 20 of the Union
Judiciary Act to support the view, that only judgril.ents
falling within the ambit of that section and not orders
falling under Order .
XLIII , Rule 1 of the . Civil
Procedure Code are subject to appeal to a J3ench of
this Court.
In the case ofT. C. Leong and one v. U Po Thein
(1) which has been strongly reli~d upon by the
learned Advocate for the appellant what the Court
had to consider was whether the order of U Aung
Khine, J. in second appeal remanding the case to. the
trial Court for disposal on merits was &~judgment
within the ambit of section 20 of the Union Judiciary
Act as that particular order would only be appealable
if it could be a judgment within the ambit of that
section. Only then could the Judge who had passed
that order declare that the case was fit for further
appeal. The Bench did not, at that time, have
occasion to consider whether or not orders falling
u11der Order XLIII, Rule 1 made by a Judge on the
Orginal Side of this Court were subject to appeal.
The next point for consideration is whether on
the facts as disclosed in the pleadings and in the
affidavits and counter-affidavits of the plaintiff's agent
- - -- -- -- -- - -
{11 (19531 B.L.I~ . P 1,
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 29

and the 5th and 6th defendants, the learned trial H.C.
1Y56
Judge was right in having dismissed the plaj~till"s
application for the appointment of a receiver. Firstly P. S. IC
ASEF.Z.AL
there has been an inordinate delay in the making of BE F.\' I
v.
the application inasmuch as the plaintiff' had filed v. s. SYED
A~B!Af. AI'IO
the suit as early as the 1Oth of 1 ul y 195 I. If she had O'flfEHS.
been so minded she could, on the allegations u S.\N
contained in lJer plaint, have asked for the appoint- Il.f.AUNC., J.
ment of a receiver. The allegations contained in
the affidavit of her agent, all of which have been
denied by the 5th and 6th defendants, are not such
as would materially add to what the plaintiff had said
in her plaint. Besides, the plaintiff has a difficult
hurdle to jump before she can be successful in her
suit, thq_t is, she must prove that the deed of release
execu ted, by the 4th defendant was not binding upon
her. Furthermore, in our opinion also the plaintiff's
right would be fully safeguarded if the 5th and 6th
defendants are placed on terms as to security, though
the sum of K 10,000 fixed by the learned Judge
on the Original Side may be perhaps somewhat
inadequate. 'We would therefore, while dismissing
the appear in so far as it relates to the appointment of
a receiver, direct that the security required of the 5th
and 6th defendants be increased to a sum of K 20,000.
We would direct that each party should bear its own
costs of this appeal.

U CHAN TuN AUNG, C.J.-I agree.


30 BURMA LAW~ REPORTS. [1957

ORIGINAL CIVIL.
Bejo1't U S/m Mauug, J.

H.C. RANCHHODDAS JETHABHAI & CoMPANY


1956
(PLAINTIFF)
nec.-19.
v.
THE STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
BOARD AND ANOTHER (RESPONDENTS).*
Ss. 230, 233, Coutract Act.
Burmese Agencies Ltd., is the purchasing Agent of the S.A.M.B. for
purchase of rice, de!i\ery ex-hopper. A s pecirll term of the contmct between
them was that all procurements must be paid for by the Agent o'ut of his own
money at first and su!Jsequentl)' claim for reimbursement {rom the S.A.M.B.
Burmese Agencies contracted with the plaintiff fur the purchare cf rice in
their personal capacity, no mention whatwever being made U;at they werc
buying or acting on behalf of the S.A.M.B. exce;Jt at the beginning of the
contract rorm that they were the a.~ents of the S.A.M.B.
The pl.tintiffs sued both the S.A.M.B. and the Burmese Agencies for
payment of rice, contending that both the principal :~nd the agent are liable on
the contracfs.
The S.A.M B. replied that the Burmtse <\g;encies were primarily liable to
the plaintiff and they i.e. the Bnrm~se A_ge11cies are liable to be reimbursed by
them subsequc.,tly for sm:h payment.
The Bunn.!~ Agencies conteaded that they were c);;arly acting ;;s Agents
and that the plaintiff should look for paym<:nt to the' S.A.l\LB. the princir;~l.
The question is which of the two ddend;:mls are liable?
Ifcld: That hath E1e agent and the principal are jointly liable. The Bmmese
Agencies by executin~ these contracts in their o.vn name made themsehes
liable ami the S.A.Iv!. B. being the principals. entitled to the benefit of the
contracts are also liable.
Tl1c Indian ComPanies Act, IS82, 18 Cal. p. 31; Firw of [(/mshi Rmp Bclwri
La! v. Malhra Dns and auolher, A.I.R. ( 1917) Lab. p. 404; lfambro v, Bunumd
aud others, (190~) K.B.D. Jl. 10; Higgi11s and others v. lo./11; ScJI.ior, 58
Revised Rep::.rts, (1841-43}-.1. 884; Parkcrv. Wiulow, 119 English Report, K.B.
1497; Unirersal Steam Navigatiorr Compauy Ltd. v. James Mnkclz,ic and
Compauy, ( 1923) A. C. p 492; Ariadne StcamsfziP Co. Ltd. \', James lllchclvie
& Co., (1922) ILB.D. p. 518 ; T. Mullammad Shamsuddiu Rawtlwu & Bros.
v. Messrs. S!taw Wallace ond ComPany, I.L.R. (1939) Mad. '2S2; Babula! v.
Jagat Nmaiu, A.I.R. (1952) Vindhya Pradesh 51, refened to.

Civil Regular Sqit No. 29 of t9S2, High Court.


195i] BURMA .LAW REPORTS. 31

P. K. Basu, for the viaintiff. H.C


1956
RANCH HOD
Sein Tun for the defendant No. 1. DAS
jt.:THABHAl
& CmrPAN'Y
Than Sein for the defendant No. 2. v.
THE STATE
AGRICUL-
TURAL
U SHU MAUNG, 1 .-The plaintiffs in the present
.
MARKETING
suit are a Firm of Gyobingauk dealing in rice . and BoARD AND
ANOTHEI~.

the defendants are No. 1, The State Agncultural


Marketing Board and No. 2, The Burmese Agencies
Ltd.
According to the plaint, the plaintiffs entered into
contracts with the 2nd defendants for the supply of
rice from their two mills situated at Gyobingauk,
Tharrawaddy district and the names of the mills are
the New RiGe Mill and Yadanabala Rice Mill and
the numbers are Nos. 10 and 11 respectively of 1949,
in that particular zone known as Zone No. 15.
Altogether it was all~ged that 28 contracts were
entered into between the plaintiffs and the 2nd
defendants who were said to be agents of the lst
defendan_rs and oat of those 28 contracts in respect
of Mill No. 10, 11 contracts had been completed and
they had received payment leaving a balance of 3
contracts to be still accounted for by the 2nd
defendants and in respect of Mill No. 11; 10 contracts
were completed and also _paid leaving 4 contracts
still to be paid out of which only 3 contracts are now
the~.subject matter of the present suit.
The contracts were for the supply of rice from
rheir mills -and the delivery was to ,be ex-hopper.
1\ccording to the plaintiffs, these contracts were duly
~ompleted by them and the rice was ready !or
1e1ivery and the details are given in paragraph 7 of
heir plaint. After that the 2nd defendants issued
)ay orders in respect of the rice milled and delivered
32 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
ir.c. by the plaintiffs and the details of the pay orders are
1956 4
mentioned in paragraph 8 0f the plaint and the
RANCBHvD
DAS amount to be recovered from the 2nd defendants
JF.:THABHAI
&- Co>IPAN\'
amounted to Rs. 1,63,400-1-0. _
'11'. After the rice had been mined and delivered to
'J.lHE STATE
AGRICUL- the 2nd defendants who accepted these rice on behalf
TtH1AL
MARKETING
of the 1st defendants in their capacity as agents of
BOARD AND the lst defendants, insurgents OGcupied Gyobingauk
ANOTHER.
about the beginning of April 1949 and the rice which
u SHU
llfAUNG 1 J. was kept in the godown of the plaintiffs were looted
by the insurgents and that therefore the plaintiffs now
claimed this sum of money from the 2nd defendants
as well as the 1st defendants on the grqund that both
of them were liable for the goods sold and delivered.
Out of this sum of Rs. 1,63,400-1-0, tl~e only amount
they had received as part payment W8.S Rs. 5,336-0
leaving a balance of Rs. 1,58,064-1-0. They have
also claimed from 6th November 1951 up to 14th
March 1952 interest at the C0urt rate 9 per cent per
annum which comes up toRs. 5,137-15-0 and they
therefore now claimed a total of Rs. 1,63,202-0 against
both the defendants.
The 1st defendants admitted that the 2nd
defendants were employed as their agent in
accordance with the terrris of the agency contract
entered into between the 1st defendants and the
2nd defendants but contended tha,t the 2nd defendants
who purchased this rice from the plaintiffs were
bound to make the payment out of their own funds
in accordance with the terms of the agreement of the
agency and that therefore they denied the liability to
pay the amount claimed. They further denied the
allegations whether this rice was looted by the
insurgents or not and they put the plaintifl's to strict
proof of this. Other pleas were also raised such as
the jurisdiction of this Court to try the ca.se and also
1957] BURMAJLAW REPORTS. 33

as to the maintainability of the suit regarding H.C.


J956
misjoinder of parties. However, when the suit ca:nP:
up for trial the point of jurisdiction and the [{ANCHI!OD
OAS
maintainability of the suit was not pressed for and }ETHAiliiAf
& COMPAI\'Y
therefore their main defence merely came up to this, v.
Tfil'
STATE
that as the agents had entered into the contracts with AGfUCUL-
the plaintiffs on their own responsibility the agent, TURAL
MARKETING
namely the 2nd defendants were liable in the Ilrst BOAIW AND
ANOTI-IER.
instance and that therefore they were not liable to be
U SHU
sued in the present suit. The 2nd defendants i'lfAUNG, J.
admitted the existence of the contracts and their due
delivery, and that they received the reports from the
plaintiffs th~t the rice were looted. They, however,
pleaded that as agents they were not liable for the
claim, as th~y were only purchasing the rice on behalf
of their prin.::ipal the 1st defendants. On the above
pleadings the following issues were framed by
consent of the parties. The issues are as follows :
1. Did the plaintiffs and 2nd defendants
execute the six contracts as alleged in
paragraph 4 of the plaint?
2: Did ~lie plaintiffs deliver the rice and broken
rice as alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 of
the plaint?
3. Was the rice and broken rice in suit and
other stock looted by the insurgents ?
4. Are the plaintiffs entitled to Rs. 1,58,064-1-0
as the price of rice or broken rice from
the defendants or either of them ?
5. Are the plaintiffs entitled tp interest Rs.
5, 137-15-0 as claimed in the suit ?
6. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs
entitled ?
In respect of issue No. 1, we have the evidence
of Motichan Vardhman Sanghavi (PW2) that the
34 BURMA LAW -REPORTS. [1.057
H.C. plaintiffs' Firm entered into ~ix contract;; with the
1956
2nd defendants for the supply of rice and broken
l~ANGHfl(>ll-
nAs
nee. I-r
:J.e was t I1e M'll
1 Manager o f t I1e p ]amtn . . fl's ,
JEnwlH.-\ 1 Firm at the material time of this dis;Jute. The 1
& CO>IPANY
t'. contracts were signed on behalf of the plaintiffs'
TciE STATE
AGmctrL- Firm by the1r representatives and on the other part
M~~K~;~.1;Nl: they were signed on behalf of the 2nd defendants.
BoARn "".m These contracts are Exhibits N, N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4,
ANOTJ;ER.
N-5. This witness is supported by another witness
M~~.:~~~.u J. Maung Tin Aye (PWG). He was the Manager at the
Paungde Rice Mill belonging to the 2nd defendants
and he also stated that these contracts. Exhibits
N to N-5 were those contracts entered. into by the
2nd defendants with the plaintiffs in which they
purchased rice and rice products and a perusal of
these exhibits will show that it is headed"'" Agreement
For Sale & Purchase of Rice " and the name of the
sellers is that of the plaintiffs and the buyers, The
Burmese Agencies Ltd. signed by the Assistant
Branch Manager. There is no rebutting evidence as
far as this piece of evidenc~ is , concerned and in
view of this , the answer to this issue . must b..:: in the
a ITirmative.
As to the next issue No. 2 there is evidence of
Shuji Gangjec {PW 1) who was the agent of the
plaintiffs' Firm in the year under dispute and
according to him the rice was milled at these two
mills of the plaintiffs, Nos. 10 and 11 at Gyobinga~1k
and they were duly delivered in accordance: with the
terms of the contracts e ntered into between the
plaintiffs and the 2n d defendants. He has prepared
an abstract of the amount of paddy milled givin g the
details when the milling started and the date of
deliveries, etc. in respect of Rice Mill No. 10 and
that statement is filed as Exhibit A. Similarly he has
prepared another statement for Mill No. 11 and
1957] BURi\1IA L.AW REPORTS. 35
'
that is Exh~bit B. And then we have the evidence" H.c.
!956
of Motichan Vardhman Sanghavi (PW2) the Mill .
Manager of the plaintiffs' Firm and he also deposed 1 ~,\~c_,:~wo
that
'
after the contracts h ad been entered into between \:Jr.TH ..\JIHA!
CoMPA :-:Y
the plaintiffs a1td the 2nd defendants the paddy was v.
. d and the nee
nulle . supp l"1ed a n d b agge d m
. accor d ance THE S'I'A1'E
AGnrcut-
with the terms of the contract and these were duly 11A~~:~~~NG
delivered and he h.as produced the relevant books BoAim ANn
ANOTHER.
regarding the paddy which landed and the buok
. b U SHU
known as the pad d y lan d mg ook filed as Exhibit :vJAvNo, J.
0. And he has i.\lso produced the daily milling
book ang that is produced as Exhibit Q and he
stated that th,e . practice was that for every hundred
tons of paddy milled he gave a heading " A ''
and for the next hundred tons "B " and for the
next " C " 'as the case may be. And according
to h1m the milling of the paddy started on the 19th
of March and they were con1pleted for all the contracts
on the 27th of March 1-949. And after that, these rice
were bagged and stored up and delivered to the 2nd
defendants on behalf of the 1st defendants. Then we
have Maung Tin A.ye (PW 6) who was the Manager at
the Paungde Mill of the 2nd defendants in the year
1949 and according to him the rice which was purch-
ased by them on behalf of the lst defendants was duly
milled and delivered as stated by the plaintiffs' two
witnesses. And he stated that while the rice was
being milled the milling was supervised by the
Inspector .of the S.A.M.B. and by one person on
behalf of the 2nd defendants and after they had been
mil!ed and delivered bills were submitted by the
plaintiffs to the 2nd defendants and after these bills
were scrutinized and checked up with registers
maintained for the office they passed the bills and
pay orders were duly issued. And he also identified
the pay orders issued by them namely Exhibit t-C
56 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [ l957

H.c.
1956
altogether 4 of them. The first is dated Paungde
, the 23rd of March 1949 to Messrs. Burmese
RA~~~~wn- Agencies Ltd., Rangoon, Pay Order No. 440 for a
JEnlr.tlHAr
&.Cm!PANY
sum of Rs. 47,774. The next is dated the 25th of
THE ~TAT!; March 1949, Pay Order No. 454 for a sum of Rs.
A(:1ucu1.- 46,281 and the third dated th~ 29th March 1949, Pay
MA~~~~!;_G Order No. 468 for Rs. 46)81 and the 4th dated the
l'oRn ANtJ the 4th August 1949 for
ANOTIJEII.
a sun~ of Rs. 23,063-1-0.
This witness also stated that on the first bill dated
U ~HU
:tiL\01\G, J. the 23rd of March 1949 a sum of Rs. 5,336 was paid
by the 2nd defendants and there is an endorsement
to that effect on that Pay Order.
We have also the evidence of U Ba .Maw (PW 3)
former Executive Olficer of the S.A.M.B. and
according to him, he Wd.S deputed to ha.ld an enquiry
into these alleged lootings of rice by tbe rebels, and
in the course of the enquiries he examined witnesses
and documents produced by the parties, the plaintH~s
and the 2nd defendants, and, amongst others, he
admitted the millers registers, Exhibits Q and R,
milling daily reports Exhibits U and V, milling
registers Exhibits 0 and P and log Books Exhibit X
and Exhibit W, duly signed by the Sircar, Inspector
and agent of the rice mill. From these facts, he was
satisfied that the contracted rice had been duly milled
and delivered before the lootings took place. This
witness is entirely an impartial witness, and .there is
no eason to doubt this evidence.
In view of the above evidence which was in no
way rebutted by the defendants, this issue must also
be answered in the affirmative.
Coming to issue No. 3 whether the rice and
broken rice in suit and other stock were looted by
the insurgents, we have the evidence of Shuji Gangjee
(PW 1) who has stated that the rice in dispute were
looted and he has filed a statement giving the abstract
1957] UUfUIA LA\V REPORTS 37

of the ric~ lo_ote_d . f.ron: these' two mills an? tho~e i~-~.
abstracts are Exh1b1t C 111 respect of New R1ce Mill --
No. 10 and Exhibit D in respect of MiH No. lL,. f?Al':~~~on
Ancl over and above that he has also !Jroduced t
JEl'HAHHIII
& Com.>ANY
statements sent by the 2nd defendants to the Jst v;
THE !:>TATE
defendants in respect of rice and broken rice looted AGmcn~
by the insurgents and the abstract of those statements M;~!:;,\~NG
showed the letter No., date, number of bags taken BoAHirAl\ll
,,NOTH!Cl(.
away, insurgent's receipt, etc. and Exhibit E relates
to rice Mill No. 10 and Exhibit F relates to MiH No. M~r.:~~rr.
11. The next witness Motichan Vardhman Sanghavi
(PW 2) also stated that after the rice had been mill~d
in that th~ insurgents came to Gyobingauk about the
4th of April 1949 and then they asked for particulars
regarding the stock of S .A.M. B. paddy and rice and
after
. ,.
that coriunencing from thc.; 9th of May .the
Instirgents begc.~n to remove the stocks, every tlme
they t'Jok away the stocks of rice they give receipts
ahd the receipts are produced as Exhibit Yin respect
of Mill No . 10 and Exhibit Z in respect of Mill No..
11. These series of receipts were produced from the
possession of the 2nd defendants. It was stated that
they also bad .in their possession counterparts of
these receipts and these receipts were seized by the
Police department known as P.4 and he has produced
the receipts granted to them by the police authorities
when those receipts were seized from them and the
receipts given by the police P.4 the Inspector of
Poiice concerned are produced, Exhibits 1-A and 1-B.
The nexfwitness is Mr. N. P. Thakore (PvV 4) who
was an engineer in the mill of the plaintitTs and he
also stated about this looting during' this material
period. Vle have another witness Mr. N. P. Thakur
tPW 5) w[!o is a rice miller of Gyobingauk. He has
a rice mill known as the Ganesh rice mill the number
of which i~ known as No. 9 Mill and according to
BURMA LAW REPORTS.
I
[1957
H.C. him his mill was opposite to the New Rice Mill of
1956
the plaintiffs and he also statfd that the rice from
RA:\CIHIOD
D:~ts "lus mill as well as from the other m1lls wer.; ali
)ETII,\BIIAT
& co~rPM~Y
1oo te d b y th e .msurgen t s c1unng
. . d . Th e
tl1at peno
v
THE STATE
next witness Maung Tin Aye (PW 6) who was the
AGrlrcur. Manager of the 2nd defendants Rice Mill at Paungde
TURAL
MARKETING corroborated the fact that all these paddy which had

~~~~~~~~() been milled and kept in the plaintiffs' possession


Tl SHU
which were the property of the 1st defendants were
~LwNG, J. looted by the insurgents and he was personally aware
of this looting. The next witness U Aye (PW 7)
was a milling clerk at Mill No. 7 and he also
supported this fact of insurgents' looting the rice
from the various mills. In view of this evidence
which has not been in any way rebutted by the
defendants' side this issue must also be 'answered in
the affirmative.
The real diHiculty in this case is in respect of
this 4th issue as to what amount are the plaintif1s
entitled to as the price of rice or broken rice sold by
them and from which of the defendan.t;;; are they
liable to get this amount if any.
According to the 1st defendants it was 'admitted
that the 2nd defendants were the purchasing agent on
their behalf. But exception was taken to this fact
that when the 2nd defendants were appointed their
agent, a special contract was entered into between
the 1st defendants a nd the 2nd defendants relating
to the terms of the agency and a copy of that is the
agreement dated the 9th September 1949, Exhibit 1,
entered into between the State Agricultural Marketing
Board and the Burmese Agencies Ltd. and the atten-
tion of this Court was invited to clause ( 11} of this
contract where it was stated "the company shall in
the first place bear the whole costs of procuring a nd
delivering products in accordance with the terms of
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 39

this Agreement. " Then clause (12l stated payment H.C.


l9~6
shall be 1~1ade by tJic Board to the Company for all
K-l.~,cHHOD
products purchased Dy the Company in the follow.i~_g DA~

manner: JEHIABHAI
& COMPANY
v.
"(a) In the cas\! or ric~
and rice products upon presen- Tu Jc 0TA1.E
tation to th~ Bo:1rd of any invoice accompanied by a Ccrlilicate AGUICVL
TURAL
to the effect th,tt the Company holds the seller's invoice and a l\lARKfcTING
cldivcry order relating to the quantity invoiced, a sum equal BOAJW AND
to 95 per cent of the ex-hopper price of the rice or rice ANOTIJlifl.
products {Jlus custon;ary charge3 for bugging, sewing, weighing U.SHU
i\L1UNG 1 J
and shipping."

In view of these provisions, it was contended by


the learned Advocate for the 1st defendants that the
terms of thjs contract appointing the 2nd defendants
as their agent were quite clear that the li ability for
paym~nt of the rice and rice products purchased by
th ~ 2nd d(;f end ants wa.s to be made by the 2nd
defendants out of their own funds and that therefore
. the lbbility for payment rested with the 2nd
defendants and not. with the 1st defendants. The
le~rned Advo8ate has a lso invited the attention of
the Court to the form of contract entered into by the
2nd c.J.efendants with th~ plaintiffs, namely the
agreement for s<.o.le and purchase of rice, Exhibit N
s:~ri';;s . There it was pointed out, the buyers in that
contract were the 2nd defendants and it was signed
by them in their personal capacity and there was no
nl';ntion whatsoever that they were buying or acting
on behalf of the 1st defendants. And the only place
where they mentioned the 1st defendants was in the
beginning of the contract, where they have mentioned
the fact that they were agents of the. 1st defendants.
And it vvas therefore argued that the liability on the
contract rested upon the 2nd defendants and not on
the lst defrndants in the first instance. And their
liability would only accrue if and when the 2nd
40 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

H.C. defendants had paid up the respective dues to the


19,56
sellers of the rice and in that eyent they can recover
HAN~E~~on- tl). e~amount m1der the terms of their contract entered
JETHABH,u
& CoMl'A~\'
into with the lst defendants to be reimbursed for the
v. payment made by them~
Tllh STATE
A(al 1cuL- On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the
M:~~~~~ING 2nd defendants submitted, that it was quite apparent
BoA~m A'~D that when the contracts were entered into between
ANOTHiW.
the plaintiffs <lnd the 2nd defendants it was to the
M~u~~~ T. knowledge of all the parties concerned that the 2nd
defendants were merely acting as the agent of the 1st
defendants and that it was in evidence that these
contracts were ex-hopper contracts and w~en the
paddy had been milled and converted int(l) rice there
was evidence to show that when the rice was bagged
they were bagged with gunnies supplied -by the 1st
defendants and the gunnies were clearly marked
S.A.M.B. that is the short form of the 1st defendants
Board. And it was therefore argued that as the
2nd defendants were only acting as the agent of the
1st defendants and it was the 1st defendants who had
actnally received these rice, the moment they were
bagged they became the pror:erty of theJ st defendants
and that therefore the agent namely the 2nd defend-
ants were not in any way liable to make good the
amount and it was immaterial whether this rice had
been looted in this instance and the 1st defendants
did not get any benefit out of this transaction and as
he was merely an agent he had done all that was
necessary under the circumstances and he should no
more be held responsible_
In answer to these two contentions raised by the
defendants, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs
submitted that no doubt normally an agent would
not be liable to make any payment in respect of the
contracts entered into by the agent on behalf of the
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 41
~

'
principal. That W?.S the nonnal course of the iaw H.C..
1956
of agency.'' But the qistinction which he sought to
HANCHl-IOj) ..
draw in this particular <.:ase was from the peculia! D<lS
terms of the contract of agency entered into between }F.TH.4.BHJ\I
& CoMP,\'IY
the 1st defendants and the 2nd defendants, and it v.
TI-rr' STATE
was urged that in this particuiar case the very terms i\GTIICFL-
'l'VIIAI
of the contracts entered into between the plaintiils .i\L\IIKE1JNG
and the 2nd defendants which admittedly '.Vere signed flO\fW AXD
A:\0Tf!ER.
by the 2nd defenditnts in their own name, there was
nothing to indicate that they were signing for or on u SllU
~f.WNG, ].
b~half of the lst defendants and that therefore in
this particular case the agent himself was personally
liable tomake good in respect of the rice delivered
and where the agent is personally liable as in this
insta:1c~, fr0m the pe.:: u :Lu cir .:unnt 1nc~s of the
contracts, he submitted that the provisbns of section
233 of the Contract Act applied and that therefore it
was within the purview of this section that he could
sue both the principal and the agent and make both
of them liable and h~ therefore contended that the
defence put forward by the two defendants was not
sustainable in law and that his claim, if proved, the
Court sbould .g.ive a decree in his favour against hath
defendants.
The learned Advocate for the 2nd defendants in
support of his arguments has invited my attention to
section 230 of the Contract Act where it was stated
that in a contract entered into by an agent, the
ptincipals would be liable and he also drew my
attention to the fact that all along in the pleadings,
it was the -plaintitfs' case, that the 2nd defendants
were acting as the agent of the 1st def~mdants. And
that therefore he submitted that the provisions of
this section should apply and his client should not be
made personally liabte. He has invited my atlention
to these decisions. The nrst case is in the matter of
42 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [19
H.C. The Indian Companies Act, 1&82 (1) where it was
1156
held that a persCn contracting, with nn c:igcnt may
HANcm:o:J-
UAS lJc;k directiy to th~ principal unless by the terms of
JETHA.IHlAI
& CoMPA'-Y the contract he ha.s agreed not tO do so, wh.::ther he
v.
THESTHE
was or was not aware when he made the contract
AlRICUL- that the person with whom he was de:ding was an agent
'fw!UL
MAtmEl'l~ G only. The next case is in the cas~ of Finn of
BOAI~D AN;t
A~O'fHEI~.
Khushi Ram Beh{ui Led v. iHathra Das and another
(2). That \vas a decision under section 230 of the
U Srru
M>VNG, J. Contract Act where it was held that the agent was
not personally Hab:e and the letter written by him did
not convey an uaconditional undertaking to pay.
That was a case in which the plaintiffs s.ued the
agent in r0spect of certain sums of money rciying on
a letter which the agent wrote to the plainWTs stating
that th~y would pay for the goods. However, when
we look at the decision as a whole it wr:-s quite clear
that from the correspondence that i)assed betw~en
the p:lrties that this particular letter in which the
agent purported ta make term'3 of payment though
not specifically mentioned that he was acting as an
agent, the other correspondenc~ cl~arly showed that
the plaintiffs Nere looking to the. principals for
payment and therefore their Lordships hold that the
agent was not responsible in respect of this particular
matter in dispute.
The next case quoted is that of Hambro
v. Burnand and others <3) where it was held that
where an agent, in contracting on behalf of his
principal, has acted within the terms of u written
authority given to him by the principal, the principal
cannot repudiate liability on the contract by stating
that the agent had acted in his own interests, and not
in those of his principaL
(1) L;:> C.tl . p. 31. (l) ,\ LH. (l'JL71 L:1h p. ~fit
(3) (1904) K.B.D. p. 10.
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS, -1-3
~

No doubt the decisions quoted by the learned Ad- H., c.


,. J<)5'J
vocate for the 2nd d1!fendants lays down the principles
f{A~ C1H101J
that are generally accept~d in regard to the cont1~aCts lJ.IS
TETHAJ>HAI
entered into by an agent for and on behalf of the ~x CuMI'A~Y
principal. The diffkuity in the present cnse is as I v.
TilE ST-I"fE
have mentioi.1ed above in the s~:ries of contracts ,\c.i<lccl-
'1Ti<AL
referred to ii1 vvhich the Burm.ese Agencies, the ;,-_4.1/f(ETJNG
B<HI<J> ANIJ
2nd defendants no doubt at the top of the contract ANO'fHEil.
form have nwntioued the fact that they v.rerc agents
U SHU
of the 1st defendants. After th~1t when the con- ~io~nw, J.
tract was actually signed they did not sign acting for
or on behalf of the 1st defendants bot merely signed
their 0Wn names us the buyers of the rice. And this
fact alone"would show that th ~y purported to enter
into these contracts -.vith the plaintitl's admitting their
personal ttabihty by virtue of their contract form.
Again if we look at Exhibit ! the contract entered
]nto by them with the Ist defendants there also it
was quite dear under the clause (11) that in regard
to these contracts athe 2nd defendants were to pay
out froin their own fund and cnly later on they were
to be reimbur:;:e.d by the 1st defendants. F urthermore,
it is not in -~ispllte . that ali the pay or ders which
have been mentioned in th.~ earlier part of my judg-
ment (namely those four pay orders Exhibit 1-C),
in all those pay orders these were Jddressed to the
Rangoon Office of the 2nd defendants and not to
the lst defendants and Maung Tin Aye {PV/6)
l1imself stated that in regard to all pre vious bills it
was the 2nd defendants who actually paid out the
money and in respect of these f(m}' bills which are
now in dispute they did make out the payment orders
to be paid by the Rangoon Olfice but unfortunately
they did not get the necessary payment from the 1st
defendants in respt.ct of paymenL; made by them for
other c0ntracts and with the result they were short
44 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
'
H.C. of funds and they could r1ot honour those pcly orders
1956
which normally they would have paid OLlt to the
I~llNCIII!OD
DAS pl'd.ihti!Ts. That admission on the part of U T.in
]ETHAllHAl
& CO~IPANY
Aye coupled with th~ Exhibit 1 agency agreement
..
~
TilE ::i'L\Tl~
between the 2nd defendants and the 1st defendants
AGillCt'L to my mind supports the contention that the 2nd
TUHAL
J'vfARKETl~G
defendants though an agent had by their own conduct
[ OAilD A"D admitted this personal liability on these contracts
ANOTHI-:J~.

with the plaintiffs and that therefore it is not open


U SHU
i\JAUNG, J. to the 2nd defendants now to say that their
liabilities ceased and the plaintitfs should look for
payment to the 1st defendants their principal.
Several decisions were cited by the learned Advocate
for the plaintiffs in support of his contentioh that both
the principal and the agent should be liab!e on these
contracts. He has also drawn the attention of this
Court that the law on this point is slightly differenc
between the English law and the Indian law and that
the law governing this case is the Indian law of
Contract and I need not cite all the decisions but it
would be useful to cite some of the English Reports
to see what are the principles that gov.ern such cases.
In the case of Higgins and orl1ers v. Joiz.n Senior (1)
where it was held, that in an action on a written
agreement purporting on the face of it to be made by
the defendant and subscribed by him for the sale and
delivery by him of goods above the value of J; 10, it is
not competent for the defendant to discharge himself
on an issue by. proving that the agreement was really'"
made by him by the authority of, and as agent' of the
3rd person. The relevant portion of the judgment at
page 889 gives the indication as to whaf is the
extent of the liability of an agent if he signs an
agreement without purporting to be acting on behalf
of another person. This is the relevant quotation.
(1) 58 Rc\isecl l~eports (lti~l-43) p. S84.
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 45
" Y,.ha t if the agent con tracu;
such a form <1 s to make
111
.
Ji.C.
himself personally resp\msible. he c:~nnot aftervnrds. whether 1956
his principal were or were not known at the time o~f ~he HA'-CilllOIJ
contract, relieve himself from that responsibility." VA~
jETHAilHAI
& C:OllPANY
The next case is that of Parker v. Winlow (1). v.
In that case a n:.emorandum of charter-party was THE STATE
,\Gurcur.-
expressed to be made between P. of the good ship "C" TCRAL
and vrafent fo~.E.W. & Sons to whom the ship to be
!\lAJIKETING
BoAIWA:o;n
ANOTHER.
addressed. It was signed by 'N. without any restric-
tion. Held that W. was personally liable as charterer. U SllU
1\:IIU/iG, J.
At page 1499 there is this remark:
"..I can have no doubt myself that the defendant is
personally liable. He makes the contract, using apt words to
show that he contracts; and the only ground s uggested for
rebutting his personal liability IS that he says he is agent for
another; but he may well contract and pledge his personal
\iability, th'Ougl! he is agent for another. If he had signed
the contract as by procuration for E. Winlow & Son, he
might have exempted himself from liability; but on principle.
and on the authorities,,cited, an agent is liable personally if he
is the contracting party; and he may be so though be names
his principal."

T-he next case is Universal Steam Navigation


Company LtCl. v. Jam es .M.akelvie & Company (2).
There in tlMt case, the agent had signed acting on
beha.l:f of the principals. It was held that the
defendants having signed as agents were not liable as
principals to pay demurrage notwithstanding that
,they were described as charterers in the body of the
charter.-party.
Another case arising out of a charter contract is
that of Ariadne Steamship Compan')' Ltd. v. Jam es
l'vickelvie and Company {3) where this issue whether
the agent is personally liable was considered. It
was held that the agent had signed as charterer in the.
[I) ll9,English R.:port, ILl-. 1497. (2) (1923) A.C. p. 492.
(3) (! 922) ILB.D. p. SlS.
-Blli(I\Ii\ LAW REPORTS. [1957

H.C.
I'J56
body of the charter-party. But it' was held- that the
dt:.f~ndants having signed as ageri\s were not liable as
RAKC(;HOD-
OAS principals to pay demurrage, notwithstanding that
}ET~I.\BHAI
& CoMPANY
they were described as charterers in the body of the
1".
TllF..TA'ff.
charter-party.
AGIIlClJL- I think the lav; has been very clearly enunciated
TURAL
MAl~KETING
by his Lordship Bankers, L.J ., at page 525 and this
13oARD AND
ANOTH!;R.
paragraph is most illuminating. It js as follows :
U SHe " In some of the decided cases no special attention
MAUNG. J. appears to have been paid to the question whether the words
of qu3.lificati9n were annexed to the signature or
appear in the
body of the document. My own view is that it is a sound rule
of construction, applicaJ le to cases like the present, th'at where
the signature is unqualified the presumption is that the agent
is personally liable, but that where sufficient words of
qualification are annexed to the signature to indit.<J.te that the
person signing signs as agent the presumption is tlte other way
* * * *
This view is, I think,
quite in accordance with the decided cases some of which are
decisions in reference to ch:uter-parties and sorne in reference
to contracts in writing other than charter-parties."
The view expressed by his Lordship clarifies the
liability of th e agent and I cannot do 'better the:l.""efore
than to quote the passage. The above principle
coupled with the Indian law need further considern-
tion. First is in the case of T. i'Yluhammad
Shanzsuddin Ra vuthan & Brothers v. lv!essrs. Shaw
Wallace & Company (1).. T h2,t was a case in which
section 233 of the Indian Contract Act was in issue
and their Lordship:-; decided that the consideration of
this section meant that the plaintiff must sue .both the
principal and agent and get judgment against both
the principal and the agent in a case where the agent
is personally liable. T he relevant portiDn of this
judgment is at page 2'<37. This is a portion of the
judgment of his Lordship Leach, C.J.
\1) I.L.l~. (t'J3')J Mad. 281
1957] BURMA'LAW REPORTS. 47
'
"Wo are here governed by th;;! pro'>isions of the Indian H.C.
1956
Contract Ac ~. and ::ect:o1t 23 3 of th:lt en::ct:ncnt state-s tha~ in
CJses where the agent is pcrso:1ally lialfi'f. a person dealing with RANCBIIOD-
UAS
him may ho1d either him or his principal, or both of them. JE1'H.HlliM
liable. An iliustration is given to th~ section and it is in & COMPANY
'4/.
thes= words. TI-lE STATE
AG:W:t:L
'A enters into cDntract with f3 to sell him 100 bales ;runAL
of eotton and afterwar~i:> discovers tlnt B was 1\IARI~ETI"C;
I30MW /\NO
ar~tin3 us agent for C. A may sue either B or ANOTHER
C. or both. for the price of the cotton.
Therefore, there is in lrdii.l a statutory
u s~~u
!iJA t:;->:G, J.
provision allowing a plaintiff to sue both the
princip:1l and the agent in a case where the
agenl is personally li:1ble. * *
*
There is no ambiguity in the language used in the section
and I am un~tblc to s~c anything unreasonable in the rule
w]1ich it embo'dies."

There is a r~cent decision in the case of Bab.ulal


"v. Jagat Narain (1). There also this section 233
of the Contract Act was in issue and it was held
that the words " hold them both liable " mean
that the party dealing with a gent can join both the
agent ~and Ure prinsipai in one suit. There is no
suggestion that if he does so, he is only entitled to a
decree against one 01~ the other and not against both.
Whatever the legislature may have intended the words
"may hold both of them liable'' mea l1 that both maybe
suej to judgment and thi" Madras decision which
is quoted above was also citad with approval. Taking
aH these decisions into consideration and as we are
governed by the statutory iaw of COlltract it must be
clearly heU, tha: as far as this claim is concerned, the
answer to this issu-:; woald be that both the
defendants arc b.eld to be liable in view of the
fact that the 2nd defendants by executing these
-- -- ---- (L)- A.I.R.
------- ----- -- - - - -
(Li)5.2) Vin,lltya Pr;tcksh SL
48 BURMA 'LA\V REPORTS. f1957

H.C. contracts in their own name made themse~ves liable


1956
and it is not disputed that the' plaintiffs in the first
RANCHHOD-
DAS
instance look to them for payment as evidenced by
JETHAUHAl the documents before the Court, but the 1st
& CO~IP.~NY
'II. defendants also being the principals who were entitled
TUE ':)TATE
AGRICUL- to .t..h.e benefit of-this contract and as the contracts
'l'URAL
MAHKETING
were ex- hopper contracts and as delivery of rice had
llOAlW ANI> also been made to the 1st defenclants they are also
A:O.:OTHER.
liable in this instance. I would therefore answer this
u SHU
issue that both the defendants are liable to pay the
1\f.\UNG, J..
sum of Rs. 1,58,064-1-0 as the price of rice due from
both the defendants. .
No.5 issue, as far as this issue is conserned , I do
not think it would be fair to give any interest as the
delay in payment by the defendants we.re not so:ely
due to their own default but to circumstcrnces beyond
their control, namely because of the insurrection in
the year 1949. This issue is therefore apswered in~
the negative. Lastly there is this question as to who
should bear the costs. As I have mentioned abpve
under the terms of the contracts between the 1st and
2nd defendants, it was the 2nd defend_ants who were
liable in the first instance to make these payments
and as far as the contracts bet~veen them and the
plaintiffs were concerned, there was no question of
their withholding payment as they now try to get out,
because .they did not get the necessary p.ay1i1ent from
the 1st defendants and that therefore in regard to
costs I would hold that the 2nd defendants would be
liable for the costs of the suit. Consequently there
will be a decree for Rs. 1,58,064-1-0 against both
the defendants, with costs to be paid by the 2nd
defendants and without costs against the I st
defendants the State Agricultural Marketing Board.
The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.
t
tdusoc ~~ccct):s&:gco
gb~of}p!bsno ~:3~:ccogcopfe~g& oc so~ed~:socWJch ~~~e c(;elc
ti:H f) :0&~.:bco;roec(c;Bo2peu <kcB:be:oe~~~~~0~~roro) ~3w~b -~
t(e) c~c g~ (e) ooc f, (e) o0c sof.ro~3oe3soo.olch 1gfe GGvc *
urbW:;:,bg~ro gw:;:,gco:~ t:f&e;&\9~pcfue3b3ce3
p8Jro ( 6)
ugclhegg {pforo (c)
n:d!i~61cco~e :f&>ro ( 1)
ugsrue:g pfuro (c) 'SO&e;~c~&;~cropc/Eoe3bg:xl3
r3ccdp~ v~G c~pfbc~ t( ~)ceG
t(~)~u;l (s) cect~~e CbeJc p;g~gbec 3~~W~~~oog~cco:~,CD>l3e
ng3c~~~:cfb;~co~oo&=! ccceprh~pccg3~eG
SOLosro ~ c r ~sosocc~ch 3ccfp:s:.:::.ec;:~col!iec~jCOcbeB ~~~ec:b~3CO':~
g&~cc :gceb~:;&? SCDB?g~co3 'bscroB:Bt tp!eso:~
reb egoGeoc
~ero qg]hgec ::!0~ scoe?3~Cfi~s lDgcoo~scr r~~('l~~:cfb:~CO
sao&~ 3cc??:~coKw:goxhro ~~ec:bBgcoeb8ibgK~ ~gcebe
:grosc~ s-co~?3~ce~~gcoo~3 1c f (')gosocc~chr ng;!h~bec (e)
0f C (')909J~cb ;3!i(f) ( U ){c) 0 (')J30Geo2pro Sb~~~:r,.co/)~C~'f~tpOeG
u&
(&13q
oogL o.!..6J~Iil~ 32Dgcco83
gcco~cro3 ~b 3 re 3 B) scoe?g8u,_
0~
sG&q 3 .
SCDB
soro:choo
( gc!k=,&gccogJC,Iffi~313greg) bL o gjlft:Dt~l ( ~) g.;eG
s~) g~gcece:~ ~03 oscoesoro~chco
c; & ea SP o ..v <1.
6-1:> s.L ~Od31I A\V'I VW1TI1a,, [LS6I
Ge~3~og8~3:gS msoco u3eb~g38og8~3 sccc:p8o
ccc~g OLogfu~es cemson n3eb~:gcogsoo3 0 o~sc 3cc:3S c@:g
e~o 3bg8gcog.'!f:~g&l o::>eswggo cow:ggm~tt~COOg.'Cifu~
npesoelh~geoem
~:cccgb~ccc~3coecosolegb~ ccoggLo~g() ff>g~0egm!;J coopc!fu~
~ff?:gb ng3cc)gco:g:::g::eocoopcfro~ 3bLo:o~':fi61SDo ffKf!?
gg:.coogcorpie~ gful O!;JeG~:gb cow~g(\)!;}<:gWco~Jto oesfig OeJCv
I (~) gg:; I (~) g>ec ccd~e p~ecgc[f,~gchcog~g.'CeGel fisod!;J:~gco
ple~Sb(D~ n3cc~gcosole~ bes:cf!?e~il olG)e~ooes ff>g~epg~:L:)
~:chco epc~e~~~e~0 ff>pccoe 30 ccepccfig.'ccfp:chco
. n3cc~:ggs~:chco
:cesgnsb pfuec~.ccp8:>:gche :ces~~es :chcofl~o 3~ gGc
8e cc.oleclfu!;Jfnff~CO~g3c.o~mgb pd!;Jg~3bgece!3o g:gce
~co!;Jgcce 3b~~eG~greg lcc~!;}ggfuSog~solbce oc c pfies
~scoSogg~es :be~gcreegl:opcc :gcJeb!;J~g&>3 ~CO$?g8ce~
cw30~ :gLoe:()&es ISCccEP:ggL8:chco Lo16)!;}gfu~es~
n3cc~ccc:~cosccc3w
3eccc cfi~Se3~-~~:chcoe~o ~~ggroge chg~pcc:gltoqpe~cc
38~es:gb GeW!;Jro I (~) g~ I ( ~) soes cc;o8e :chcoffieo0 n3cc
~plgcre!;Jgro~ep~gb ~esclb~e3echg?rpccgmes ce~g leG~
1 () :JeG c~8e ~:chcocosoco n3cc~~~~g.'gcre~ ~esclb~e3e
8Je8Jees gfu~ecggo cfi:Jiro I~ ! (~) :feG cco8e ~gchcomsoG npcc
g:gro ~~p~gcree ~es5E52 gfu~esgbegcreegl:osncc :gce
be:glli3~ scoeyg8ce3 dig<i>:ccc 1:~ cco8e :chcoe!3o IIQSjCeJJ~:g
< ~
npccb:g~~:chco GCOSeCoSCCC3ro:llfto~g 1bes (e) 0 r C I'SsCO~
egosocc.Q)W /_ ( r) ( 0) (C) 0 egoG~OCg.'eG :beg:c,co~:GCllg.'fp 93~co~
so OeG :cec~::L:)~~3~es (G) g~wem I (~) g~ 1 ( ~) soes 3~.@3cco~~ b LO .llll:D
cco8e ( 6) 1~g leG!;> I () g.>eG cco8e (C) 1:11100 I~ I (g) g.>eG g (g):feJJ
1 1
cco8e ( r) 1g~:ccc 1g~ cco8fl_ (c) ~g:g:L:)~:chco goo oc ~~c
pees ~g~soo~ch l,g~e cGvc I&~( r) &~~gchcog/X>eo (ceo2' ~co~
pw <k~ g[9'~gre~~(j)g~(j)~
:&:>es) ~3w3bn ng 3C.eJJ~ ~ g
s soro:cbro .
LS61] .'S.TJ ~Odtnl A\v1: VW1Hl8: os
1957] BURMA LA'N REPORTS. 51

qt~~ooo;sf ~~d)!J'd8~c:oo?~G::J.}'JOS?~:6GJ~~O{ !J'ddS:83gGG?~O <nGp:~cS


~tu ~0@5 c;S:~~t m::voo~ooS:rotg~otoS GqJC~~oS~.D.:q :;;5jrs
~mb~'JOJt~ tq~5o~t:~O{O)J c;Sw~tgSl?cotg CJbcftmCJ.2C -
o?~oS3aOIt~@5~@co?:~t ~otd3ot~OJtu DaoS(10)J ~~
Cqjl!: () 9 ~9
ooe;pgQ~?gnoOJM Gcgprro9r~p: Go~q:>Cl65 gE:~tCl6c:Gq @~Goo?54i
G?Cg ~d)Oi?~GW?tG6j:3d~cf1 oesG ~~,, @~02CgG61G6?tg ~'=l?~tc
OJoSDi?Gw?CGGjg:J.3~ rta8~na6j ~co~0~g~J.J~II ~~ ~na~~()')t GOJ "

GcO?CbpotC ~OOei:bpO~ l9cl?d3co'Jot~cS d5Smch~tG:::D? OJGdJ? ~~G~?&~6.1


Goo?5:~?:~ @[OGf'bfl~B~Gl9T02m?(9fwc so~:GJCDGfS~oSc::qoSro?
@f~::)(CX(6o~?:~GlOJ'J OJcfiOJ?G9J?C~G6)~30o;2dj ~0?0GOJ'J30~@b
OJtn rge>pdd3l9cl?d3ro?ot~~~8ror~E o~t:'=jp:cf1 Qe~y5Qot5
&J~ naoSeoG~a2'cfJg GroS<:>ICOO<t~IDfg~:J.Jtu qt~Gm>JGj)C~0t::
Gf>?d) qc:ot~~~CoS?~:~?z O'J~~~o'10JIE;j8JtH qtgG.p?a5c;c:o;>8~
yf~~t:~p~ndf>cfi <:>t~to~t:~OJ? ::S~:oo~wt<Jt 1(-0-~o ~
G~P.<=>~cSm ~g@oo@Em~GOJ:J ~~ c;S:o~t:~?:~? BtO-i?yE
~~tg~?g@~:xl tat, G ~~tG6?tg@$GOjpoSro8Jt11 ~d3~j!~Od30Jcf3:
1 ~ro.~tGOJ>J065GOJSqf:l ~~:065oo5~5~G:JJ'J GcgpoS~'J'=l!?:oo
Q6CG:nS3CJtg ~mG6?t:9)b;p~?~~ ~COffi33DiJg<JGl9T@~u m~
@cgpoSro9Ji&m~~CY.JJ'J00?0jlf g]naG?t~rnO!lo~~')~~ Gl9T@EJ:
@&JOJtll ~sp 065' g)iGOj)?cc;99)cfJl'J 33Goo~s~~GOJ'J GOjpcf3ro
~ oSro~@a; G?t~~ t ~~to ~t~m?06o5Gii): n-acf3eoG8aGl6)CXJ t)?g
OJtu q6w~ro6:9') ~rom rg~od5 l9~d3co?~I:J~c3So1oSy5 o~tg
@,G~s:irot:l ~23~5~GGjGG'Jb: OJc.Ui?~GQX)')CGlg m~n-a06oS d35:
;;ot:G::U'Jog?t goo~@~~~ 1 q5:oilt:~? [gt ~~5o i?t:@~G@? 5:ro5
)?~:ntu .
~o?mE:~cn~~~~ G~ ~~8 o:>?OJ~:xltO? ~g?OJ? mo5 (8) 1
Gndi8cgm ~:@oS~t~~::utu ~~~o5~f z~D"a?ClD?c;5w65~:xJt
~~;).)t~ G::U~J?2?GOjpoS~9)M~?:gGOg~ l ~ ~ Jo '?~~m Gfgqmf:
~ro~~:Gg~? o,@~c; Go15oo~:ntot ~OJ~II ~9od3<S~J..lro?
CJ?cS~Sood)~ c;f:cqmb:nacY2cbGO'J ?C:GCO? GoiJSGEJ:Gg~? ~, ~ ~@:
GO15@~t~ ~6pcY2C ~~(,}'J~CCGO?s:i tC25~G6)G6?5: :J.JdS~
11~vG c~so!Bc@ 1(~)cec 1( s:')soec 1(~)c-w ~~~e c S~c (c)
d~es go~~l til0 ~gdflch~gte~gc::>es~es tsoochggceg~G~<h
f?S2cc ~fl ~cc~~c!flp!ees~gc~esg&Jes n~cc~roeJptilg.>al:f0003 o
cosc.o0soro~cJ.s~ g'fuccc~~C~~ffiCCC0~scccgccm03gcccpcc
gces~clhc;~chco gecogcl0:fb:.opl3 1cd0g8vJ,M ~gcJ0~M~
~dscof) d~l!ies ~lft:}:!]p~l!ies sceofl~scco: 1&3b~0~~~chco
cco~~C23cc~clsc.ofl scccgcf!:l~~chco ~scrocfi:cc~ggc0eGgroes
nsccc~OJ0:5'1bTo gfuccc~ruLees cCCeJC(\)c:fLOBJ,00 gcf!:l~gcBes
g&JeG ll~flOJBCjJ~TO ff!@es~g~CjJCeG0 ggces~flCCC wsco0pro
~ffico fp~~CCU:fC!fu0 CCC0~'=:(o~ uscccgcro~J,Glel~~ggcmgl
gfmSnpl!ies -~~ (c) pgg~gbC.C ~ ~chcl~rog~c:m~ccoQ~e
~~soccsoo~ggcaec scccg;ccsotilso1ilfl scccccsotilso1il:f~030
coscoep8Jgffico gxch-so:!i!e;cifJ~@eBSogc) cog~l_1cgfficog~SOCeBB
bt::(o~ usccc~~sf!:lcrosoc!fu0scccgcrofjlcffu0 ~b~oB:;ci&lg->Ofp~g@
&crogcosole~ .cog~tt&chw>~s.uce>0 c~egroecrosuclfue~
ll~feg3ch0f)CC03CO~(\)el g~ro6t::(o~ IISCCC
gccleggcJ.s5ccc~gco~me gfu fbgcls0 1~ci>~~~: 8o ccc0~eg~suh'l
gcesepcroeg~~f)g~ro cfig3$o~ ~~COffi ll~ccb~g; eo:cc
~C0~ga::>3 g~ .goo' 00 8::> 1~gceg~co~~e8 fp&gW~..o~gS eco
usccc~ggffieg~ gGc 8::> gcro3~ro~~chco e!~o g&-~be ~o-oc-~c
epc~~sccm~~gb~e> ~(o~ usccc~~gbgro ro3cc~cc~mgcl90
p8Je8sccc'.9f) ~g i~gscmg8Jbe bf)ggwplbce~ 3w~ggb fig;c4e
g~goe sofe~socXlebC(o~ usccc~mesofe~;pcooe ~lsg.:~&>so.o M0e8
g~8og8~ro ccoSeCo~f)g~g'tce&~ec g~roscce~&S'cgceg cfiggc.cip ~sc.ec~:g
113
&gb pde~~~scgcc~~0 coff?goero I(~) gtp I(SJ) SOesJ CCC8fl rsco~
~)C:Dg 1roe 1 (g) pro cco8fl 1g:>:fch3 ccc8fl ~ngwipg~S 93~ce3
u::.ccSef)C.032cc~ggg~so3gSe eo3ccscoccc gG c 8e co .0scro~sc~
~tp? 1eceJ 1() SDe> c~8fl ~,eco~sc~o ccc0Se3cc3cogLoe o ~ ~~~ <:S~~0 t
w~ro~g!J u:Jcc~pcroeie goc c 8eslto~~?3~cft3 cfigLo0 o~
~G;elc
:gb usccc~gSe ccceo~cc~cogLo0 o ~ ffg3w~;gb wgcf!:lgo~e>
sec~
glBswe CCC3&co::nS,20~ ffWe3bgro~gg&;S2 so~em!s0gcceeg so8j :cb\.:0
!..SJ)1] ~l110d31I .M.~'1 VW1IDH zs
195/) 13 tJ R \i.l\ LA\\' .RE l'UkTS. 53
<,>CXJ6pg6p0ijG&pdJG~G8'Jti GOTe]C~::D'JOjJC ~6p~~oSGooSm o t roGpg~~)
GGf:lcD~{'f)Cld)SCg~GOOal1 m~msr 5o CDJ3GJJGo1t~ qG GOJ'Jd3~<:it~ GOJ~
~/DGCD ~~Gf''JoS qc~:xmSG::D ~q)~~d) '-{'Jgndbj I ~ ~ mm5~SGro:>oS '0@ ~ G
G:))'J !JaG'Jc:~E~sr~'J~~~:))')OjJtl Grn'Jm~~m~~oSmcGE;'J5~~') Oda5(~)' ~~
o:.=.o:OJ""'~II Oi!fl: 0 1 9 !~
JJ t::j Qt~>cr:E~
O&I~CDb'r_:n~aa~~jlOOOI rY.Ji~GC\j)'J05co?~o;(~p~~::Dt @t~oo ~ g~t~.,~tc
coSgooGp~~'J; @OJ,:,>~::Dt~::D~ :JaGG 'Jb~l~oo5xoS~ 0~q)'J: GO)$),!

spo oS @tGcn'Jto;>@~G'J~CcGoo~ ~0tgnrt09Jt0~ ~GQec:c~~5o ~GG<r:~En


<t ::> rnbj! ~o'J~Cc~mS @:02tgGGjG(S'Jt~ xoS<Ji~Gro'JCG(;)~rn~~
~Q)~:~;)J~ O<J88'\oSGuT-.;olcf.ico'JGOGe~' grn~~ ~t"Gco'JC!l2
@~~nttcGmS~ ~g~1gG(;)g~C.~ ~0d5~q'J~:Ja6j ~q)t~~CDE,u ::>@~j
~l1 @~~'J~CcGWS @t06tgGt:)G6'Jt~ .:DJ)Olf~GW'JtGGjgrn~ ~d)
eoG8Clhg ? J 32(;)1 sS;oa~~ oasrco~~82lqx:oS~rn?3~~c::Dt' Gp~
~d:i<(h::J j ::> ~ ~SgloS~Q2Cg OJcfG:pmGCD'J @t~.o~roS:(:p;;
@~G:>b ~oSon~ot~GGT@m'Jg0Jt11 ~mme';G~~'J oe~J ~
1~.oil~~oSG::D'JG<-oSeoG8@~~ qf~<(EC,} ? J o;;5 GGT@co'Jg4!J)"Jp:
::x>tr OJ.Y8<lJ?~t<}~tot GD,80JOOcfJGt~m oor~C0S(J8"aGE;'Jb
~n:>tu ~sp~f w~tm szd3:JG~OJC~GCl'f[9~rE~m'J GCG'J~G::DS
rot~~ qt~!Jd~~0t~6)t~n:>t ~tGc:o?fo;> ~'=~'J~tcGw~ ~0tm~8
~tO~rnG8Q'' 2'JG8~J6]~0t~f~ @~::D4iJJG?t~l 8<!~~0tg~sa(;)
aor2 oG8~d)~fmof 't Q~Goo:>t~ g~(;)'J!tcGw~ @t~t~G~
G'Jb ::D~~~G~::ntG6]~:Ja~ '' :JtG )TG::> Too'J~::Dtroe3~ ~G@'Jtg
~@ <t~ ~~~I @tOJt~GGJG'Jt~ OJoS~~G01J'JCG6]~8d~z\\ 0< S~a&l6]1

aa~:G!@g~~O?CJ G~80G'JrEsa'J~ ~rba;>oS~ OJtGo:ot~::Dtrot~


CDG{?tgl 30~gqm O@CjO ~9~1 g-~ro ::> Gjd)G~~0~1 m;;,t 6p0~
G~cf5ro'Jot8clS~SwJ)qf o~t~~'Jg~~ GtO~~~GCD'JtCD?~CJg~ o5g
~oS~:@gGpoSr ~of-~0~ aG)~gl;Jm@~~~m'J ~;o'?t~cbG~::D~
c;5~83~CJ2S otS~tGQO'JC8\ch Gt>6~'-1l'J~cOJtr ~~~GJ~")~~
S?ot5cqOGf>6~"1pg B~::Dtrotw:;G?fgr ;jaaG6'Jt39j:l~G6'J~
sf:m~o.2f C\20qtG;;o'JtlrhGopG::D'J aa~OJG ~GO)!COS~"l)CJW~O) ~I
gt8)1.0 ~CC ~~~VJ< (g~8::DtDt~\ OC'Q"IGUC:/~1!
54 BURMA LaW REPORTS. [1957

roq;:g;oS ~OJcfJGClT@o1 mG8'Jt:rr,c;p~p:51~m021 OOS{Cl2qGv TO,SCG~'J


~G~~ ~cfjG~~~dJ~pggobjl Gg;:J'JdJ~g0:6p~~8~cftm GC\jj'JdJCXJ'J~~~'Jg
~ 8'3GoT ~~oSrotoo'J1@8:0J~ ~'J:o,st:~~0:2~~0J'J1 ~Jgt mSI
00
~~f) 8 ooG'Jt:~b6p~j'J:~ ~JJdJJJ0S~6~~~: 80GD5!~0)>~cQ<D'J oot6E:
1 1

~sco;s~' ~~~o@:G.J:ooS G:JO'JcfJ~:06E Gcqpcfm'J:~"lJ'J:~GoT ~~o)ro5m'J~


!9~(.1-:>~tc @E:~~m~~tO? 02J~OOi(oo~tn ~@ g};GcqprE<:~p~p:~oC\?6
Gro5u ~dJ:x:~n
~:Goa'Jt~C.I
1957] .BURMA LAW REPORTS . . ss
APPELLATE CRIMINAL.
Before UIAzmgl_Tlla Gymu, J.

S. SHAM (APPELLANT} H. C.

THE UNION OF BURMA


v.
(RESPONDENT).*
-
1956

Dec. 13"

Pe11al Code-S.I-197, Marriage iuc.rcdic11t in lltc offcucc-Ncccssii:J) of strict


proof.
Held: In criminal cases where marriage is an inl!rcclient in the offence, tle
fact of the marriage must be strictly pro1ed in the regular way, i.e. as an
event which hlDk place and not merely as a slate iu which the parties were
living. Azia Klrau.v. Ekram Hussain, 38 C.L.J. 213, referred to.
Th e parties might h ave lived as husb;tncl and wife but their conduct alone
is not sufficient to 9rove m arriage under s . 50 of the Eviden:::e Act.
Bllagtt Dlzondi v,; EmPeror, 16 C. L.J. (19!5) p. 21.3 ; T ile E111Press v. Pilam
burSing!t, I.L.R. 5 Cal. 566; Gopal v. King -Emperor, {!92 5) A.I.R. I~an. 328.

r.. N. Ghosh, Advocate, for the appellant.


Nil for the respondent.

U ~UNG T?A GYAW, 1.-The appellant in this


case was convicted of the offence of adultery punish~
able under section 497 of the Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprison-
ment.
The parties involved in the prosecution are said
to be low Caste Telegu Hindus. Chitty, the
complainant, claims that Sattapa (a) Latchmi, the
woman concerned, has been his wife since 1951. On
6th March 1956, the appellant is al1eged to have
removed her from the complainant's protection and
had gone and lived in Kyaikto with her as man and
Criminal Appeal No . 438 Of 1956, appeal from the Order of the 3rd
.-\dclilional Spe'cial Power Magistr;tte of Hangoon, d:~tccl the 26th day of
October 1955 p;~ssed in his Criminal Regular Trial No. 785 of 1956.
56 BURMA LAW REPORTS .. [1 S57

H.C. wife. Regarding his own marrjage with Sattapa,


1956
the complainant Maung Chitty states that although
s. ~~I.;.M h,is. first association with her \vas the result of an
~~rn~~!~;~ elopement, they had subsequently legalized the
-
U AU:-:G TI'A
relationship by calling a Panchayat and paying a
GYAw, J. compensatiOn of K 75, half for the use of the
members of the Panchayat .and half for the satisfac-
tion of the girl's mother.
The learned trying Magistrate accepted this fact
and the. subsequent co-habitation of Chitty and
Sattapa as proof of a valid marriage between them.
It is now contended in this appeal that the
assumption made by the learned trying Magi:;trate is
unwarranted. The marriage of the complainant and
his alleged wife Sattapa, according to settled
authority, must be a matter of strict ,proof in a
prosecution for adultery. Although the paymeEt
of K 75 for the use of the assembled leaders and the
girl's mother is proved, there is nothing in the .,
evidence of the witnesses to shuw .that a marriage
among low Caste Telegu Hindus is, by custom, effec-
ted in this manner. In criminal cases such adultery
where marriage is in an ingredient in the: offence, the
fact of the marriage must be strictly proved in the
regular way, i.e. as an event which took place and
not merely as a state in which the parties were living.
[See Aziz Khan v. Ekram Hussain (l)] .
The complainant Chitty and Sattapa might have
lived as husband and wife but their conduct alone is
not sufficient to prove marriage under section 50 of
the Evidence Act. [See Bhagu Dhondi v. Emperor
(2) ]. A Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in
The Empress v. Pitambur Singh (3) also adopted the
view that where marriage is an ingredient in an
{1) 3SC.L.J. 213. (2! 16 C.L.J. (1915). p. 213.
(3) I.L.R. 5 Ca I. 566
1957] BURMA LAW R:E:PORTS. 57
offence, a~ in bigamy, adultery and the enticing of H.C.
1956
married women, the.-. fact of the marriage must be
strictly proved in the regular way. [See also Gopal \;. s. SlUM
v.
King-Emperor (1) ]. THE UNION
O.F BUIIMA.
The evidence adduced for the prosecution in this
U AuNG THA
case does not satisfy this. requirement of law. G\"A\V, J.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed upon
the appellant S. Sham are set aside and he shall be
acquitted so far as this case is concerned. The bail
bond executed by him will be cancelled.

(I) (1925) .\,! 1~ Rm. J.!:>.


58 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

APPELLATE CRII\1INAL.
Bdorc U Au11g Khiue, J.

H.C,
1956 THE UNION OF BURMA (APPELLANT)
Nov. 30. V.
u NYO (RESPONDENT).*

Suppressiou of CorruPiiou Ad, s . .f ( 1) (d)/.f. (21-Gross ucglif!,cnce amouulccl to


misconduct-Wlrclhcr tlw clement of mens rea is a ucccssary iugrcdiettl
in alt offcucc under s . .f (1) (cl)/.f !2), Srtpprcssion of Cormptiolt Act.
Held: Gross negligence amounted lo misconduct under ~. 4 (1} (d)/4 (2)
Suppression of Corruption Act.
The question of mens rea is irrelevant for the purposes of cR:tcrmining the
criminal liability of the accused sent up under this section. Dr. Gordo11
Seagrave v, Tile Union of Burma, [1952) B,L,R. 44 {S.C.} ; Criminal Hefcrence
No . l6 of 1956; U Seiu Ban v. The Uuion of Burma, Criminal Appeal No.107
of 1955 of the High Court, Rangoon, referred to.

Tin Maung (Government Advocate) for the appel~


lant. ,.

Mon San Hlaing for the respondent.

U AuNG KHINE, J .-In Criminal R-egular Trial


No. 10 of 1955 of the Court of the 2nd Additional
Magistrate, Toungoo, the accused U Nyo was found
guilty under section 4 (]) (d)/4 (2) of the Suppression
of Corruption Act and he was sentenced to suffer
four months' rigorous imprisonment.
U N yo is the Senior Inspector of the State
Agricultural Marketing Board, Pyu, and he was
responsible for the paying out of the price of all
paddy purchased in the locality. There was a Paddy
Buying Centre at a place called Laikpaw and on 3rd
February 1954 one Ko Tun Kyaing came to. that
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1956, appeal fro m the order of the Sessions
JUdge Of Toungoo, elated the 12th day or ~cptember 1955 passed in Crimin:tl
lppeal No. 31 of 1955.
1957] 'BURMA LAV! REPORTS. 59

buying cetJtre in three carts and sold 75 baskets of H.G;,


1956
paddy. After weigh1ng the paddy it was found that
THE UNION
Ko Tun Kyaing was to get the price of 74 baskets. OF BUI!MA
The Weighing Clerk Maung Ba Saw (PW 4} made out U NYO. v.
a voucher in quadruplicate and the original was issued
u AUI\G
to the seller Ko Tun Kyaing. By mistake Ba Saw KIJINP:, J.
mentioned in the voucher that the purchase price
came up to K 49590, whereas the actual price was
really K 21090. "What actually happened was that
he had credited to Tun Kyaing's account the price
of 100 baskets more than he had sold to the SAMB.
According to Head Inspector U Tin Lay (PW 3) and
Maung J3a Saw (PW 4), the mistake was detected in
time and when Ba Saw prepared the daily paddy
purchase statement a correction was made. How-
ever, it is dqubtful whether the corrected statement
reached the office of the accused U Nyo. On 12th
,February 1954, i.e., 9 days after the sale of the paddy,
Ko Tun Kyaing pre~ented his voucher to U Nyo for
payment The voucher in question is Exhibit 0-0.
The amoui1t of money to be paid, both in words and
figures~ still remained unaltered and without doubt
U Nyo must h'a\;e paid out the sum without scrutinising
the voucher carefully. Had he inspected the voucher
carefully he would have seen that there was an over-
writing of the figure '' 73 " by figure " 7 " in .ink in the
~

column shown as " Carts " and also an addition of


figure " I " in ink in front of the original figure " 75 "
in the cQlumn shown as "Baskets " and thirdly, also
an addition of figure ' I " in front of the figure "74 "
in the column shown as " Nett Baskets. " In the
column shown as" Bags "is an entry in pencil showing
the figure " 26. " Then in the same line in another
column there had been an overwriting to make it
appear that the numb.~r of bags was 56. The
figure 2; had been overwritten with the figure " 5 "
60 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

H.C. in ink. Had he scrutinised this voucher carefully


1956
he would have seen these suspicious overwritings
THE UNrON
OF BURMA ar;d additions in figures, and it is doubtful whether
v.
G l\Yo.
he would have paid out the amount shown in the
voucher before verifying or cross~checlcing. The
U Au:-;G
KHINE, J. mistake was discovered when the audit of the
accounts took place and on the report made by
U Maung Maung, Senior Investigation Officer,
Bureau of Special Investigation, U Nyo was sent
up to stand his trial und~r the sections mentioned
,above. At the time it was probably thought that he
had by corrupt or illegal means appropriated the
whole or part of the money which he had overpaid
to Ko Tun Kyaing. It is clear that th_e trial Court
did not attribute to him the offence of misappropriat-
ing the money by corrupt practices. This view was
also upheld by the Sessions Judge before whom the'
appeal of U Nyo was heard subsequently. The
trial Magistrate thought that the accused had been
grossly negligent, so much so that his action amounted
to misconduct as defined in Act No. XVI of 1951.
When U N yo appealed against his conviction and
sentence the learned Sessions Judge gave' a consider-
able thought over the question as to whether an
offence under section 4 U) (d) read with section 4 (2)
of the Suppressiqn of Corruption Act can be deemed
to have b~en committed in law in the absence of the
element of mens rea. Finally, relying on the decision
in the case of Dr. Gordon Seagrave v. The Union of
Burma (1) he held that U Nyo did not commit the
offence with which he had been charged, in the
absence of mens rea and he directed that U Nyo be
acquitted. vIt is as against this order of acquittal
that the Government has come up on appeal. I
understand from the learned Government Advocate
Ill (1952} !{.L.R. 44 (S.C.).
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 61

that the ,yery idea of filing this appeal was to have R.C.
1956
a binding decision a[l to whether the element of mens
rea is a necessary ingredient in an offence Uiider Tf!F.. UN!O,\"
OF UURMA
section 4 (]) (d)/4 (2) of the Suppression of Corrup- v.
p NYO.
tion Act. This very question was referred by U Po
U AUI\G
On, J. to a Bench of this Court and in Criminal KWl\'E, f.
Reference No. 16 of 1956 it was held that" so far as
statutory offences are concerned, words of statutes
are given effect toas they stand without bringing in
the extraneous mens rea doctrine for purposes of
determining the guilt of the offender and that if the
definition does not include the requirement of a
particu1ar mental condition, we must give effect to it
as it stands holding the omission to be deliberate."
In other words, the question of mens rea is irrelevant
for purpos'~s of determining the criminal liability of
the man sent up under section 4 ( l) (d)/4 (2) of the
Suppression of Corruption Act. Exactly the same
' view was taken by me in the case of U Sein Ban v.
The Union of Bw,;ia (1).
Now, reverting back to the facts of the case I
would. say that U Nyo had been negligent to the
extent that lw did not scrutinise properly the voucher,
Exhibit tD-:-o pres~nted by Tun Kyaing before he paid
out the sum. It is true that he paid out the very
amount written, both in words and figures , on the
voucher, but he had overlooked the fact that there
had been overwritings or material alterations in
respect of the quantity of paddy sold. In any such
case a prudent man would have carefully scrutinised
the voucher in question and if then; be any grounds
for suspicion that material alterations had been made
in the entries, a cross-check would have been made
before paying out the amount. Therefore I would
hold that U Nyo was guilty and that the trial Court
--
(1} C;in:inal .\ppcal No. I Oi of 1955 of the High Cou~t, Rangoon .
62 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
H. C. was correct in entering a convict.:on undeJ;. section 4
1956
(1) (d)/4 (2) of the Suppressio1n of Corruption Act
THE UNION
OF BURMA against him. The order of acquittal of U Nyo in
v.
U NYo.
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1955 in the Court of the
Sessions Judge, Toungoo, is hereby set aside and the
U AUNG
KHINE, J. original conviction is now directed to be restored.
Regarding the sentence, it would be improper at
this stage to re-commit the respondent U Nyo to
prison. He was sentenced to suffer four months'
rigorous inwrisonment on 15th July 1955 and he was
released by the order of the Sessions Judge on 12th
September 1955. Thus he had served nearly two
months' imprisonment before he was released. Prior
to his conviction he was in custody for quite a few
months. Taking all these facts into consideration
and also the fact that no sharp or corrupt practices
were attributed to him by the lower Courts I wou~d
reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment he
had already undergone.
1957] URMA LAW REPORTS. 63

'
APP~LLATE CIVIL
Before (1 1'/rauug Sci II and U I'o On, JJ.

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER HIGH COURT H.C.


(APPELLANT) '
1956

Aug. 6.
v.
TAN GWAN L}'E AND ANOTHER (RESPONDENTS).';:

Urban Rent Control Act, s. 2 (d) and s. 16-0eftuifio1t of t/lc word


" Premises "-Electric gcucraling Plant.
Held: An electric generating plant means and includes machines,
bnilclings outhouses, etc., as well as the l:lncls on wllkh they st~nd and
hence nuist come within the definition of " Premises" in s. 2 (rlJ of
the Urban Rent'Control Act.
L. Hoke Scitl v. Tile Controller of Rc11ts for the City of Rangoon aud
one, (1949i B . L,R, {S.C.) 160, followed.
Held al5o: I:n a suit for arrears of rent due on a lease of an clectrk
generating plant, a certificate by the Controller certifying the standard reut
of tile premises under::. 16 of the Urban Rent Control Act is necessary.

Auli,g Min (2), Adv.ocate, for the appellant.

Daw Khin Kyi, Advocate, for the respondent


No.2.
.'
Judgment delivered by

U THAUNG SEIN, J._The estate of one Tan Shu


Yon a wealthy Chinaman of Pyap6n who died some
years ago is the subject matter of Civil Regular Suit
No. 19~ of 1947 of the High Court, Rangoon. By
an order dated the 1st April 1948 and recorded in
that suit the Official Receiver was appointed to take
charge of the estate and among the numerous assets
comprised in that estate is an electric generating
Civil Ist Appeal No. 62 of 1953, against the decree of t11c Additional
District Court of Pyapon in Civil T<egular Suit No. lJ of 1952, dalecl tbe
26th December l952.
64 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [ 195i

~.c. plant which supplied the town of Pyapon with


1956
electrical energy. On the 1st May 1948 the Official
THE
0Fl'ICIAL
:R'eceiver (appellant) leased out to the first respondent
RECEIVE II,
HIGH CoURT
Tan Gwan Lye the electric generating plant in ques~
v. tion at a rental of Rs. 900 per month while the second
TAN GwAN
LYE AND respondent Tan Shu Swan stood as surety for the
ANOTHEil.
payment of the rents as they fell due. The rents
u TI!AUNG soon fell into arrears however and the first respondent
SEIN, J.
approached the Official Receiver to either reduce the
rent or else to terminate the lease as he was suffering
losses. The lease was then terminated and on the
failure of the two respondents to pay up the arrears
of rent a suit was filed in the Additional District
Court of Pyapon for recovery of the same.
Unfortunately for the Official Receiver that suit was
dismissed and he has come up on appeal to the High
Court to have the decision of the lower Court s~t
aside. The main reason advanced by the lower Court
for the dismissal of the suit was that an electric
generating plant fall s within the definition of
''pTemises" in section 2 (d) of the Urban Rent Control
Act and that the Official Receiver had failed to
comply with the provisions of section 1'6 of that Act.
The learned counsel for the Official Receiver has
urged that the lower Court is wrong in that it failed
to realise that the property leased to the first respon-
dent was not the electric generating plant alone but
also the right to collect the dues from consumers of
eletrical energy in Pyapon town. It appears that
the deceased Tan Shu Yon held a lice~1ce Ut)der the
Electricity Act for the supply of electrical
energy to Pyapon and the Official Receiver asserts
that the first respondent was able to supply electricity
in accordance with that licence. Now, it is indis-
putable that an electric generating plant means . and
includes, machines, buildings, outhouses, etc., as well as
1957] r/tJ RMA LAVv, REPORTS. 65
the land o.u which they stand and hence must come H.G.
1956
within the definition 0f "premises'' in section 2 (r/)
TH.E
of the Urban Rent Control Act. In this connection OFFICIAL
HECEIVER 1
it may be noted that the Supreme Court has in HlGfl CtoURT
L. Hoke Sein v. The Controller of Rents for the City v.
TAN GWAN
of Rangoon and one ( 1) held "that the definition of the LYE AIW
ANOTIIEH.
word 'premises ' in section 2 (d) of the Act includes
industrial concern like Rice Mill." An electric U TBAliNG
SElN, J.
generating plant is also an industrial concern like a
rice mill and hence the same consideration will
apply.
With regard to the argument that the first
respondent took over the lease of the electric generat-
ing plant as.'well as the right to collect dues from
consumers o,f electrical energy in Pyapon town, it
should be nqted that under the proviso to section 9
of the Electricity Act the OB.icial Receiver was not
competent to transfer the licence for the supply of
electrical energy withsmt the sanction of the President.
There is no hint or suggestion that the sanction of the
President was ever sought for or obtained for the
transfer, of the lic-ence to the first respondent. Be
that as it may; the first respondent did in fact collect
certain dues from the consumers of electrical energy
in Pyapon town in respect of energy supplied by
him. We need not look very far however to
discover the exact nature of the property which was
leased to the first respondent. The cause title of the
plaint re~ds " Suit for recovery of Rs. 8,400 due as
rent" and in paragraph 3 of the plaint it is alleged
that "the 2nd defendant agreed, in cqnsideration of
the letting on h.ire of the said Electric Plant to the
f1rst defendant, to guarantee the punctual payment of
the said rent jointly and severally with the 1st
defendant". It is significant that there is no mention
(I} (l\H9) ll.L.I~. (S.C.) l{JQ,
66 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

:-I.e. whatsoever in the plaint as regards the licftnce under


19S6
t~e Electricity Act.
TllE
OFFICIAL
On the whole, it is clear that the suit under
-RECEIVE!?, consideration was for arrears of rent in respect of an
lllGI-1 COURT
v. electric generating plant which was leased out to the
TAN GWAN
Ly~: AND first respondent. We have pointed out already that
ANOTIIl'H.
the plant in question comes within the definition of
(; TllAUNG ''premises " in section 2 (d) of the Urban Rent
SI'IN, J.
Control Act. That being so we fail to see how the
plaint could have been accepted in the lower Court
without " a certificate by the Controller certifying
the standard rent of the premises '' in view of the
clear provisions of section 16 of the Urban Rent
Control Act. There was in fact no such certificate
attached to the plaint filed by the Official Receiver.
Accordingly this appeal fails and _is dismissed
with costs.
Hcropclto:} CCC~
:icgc.c~b:ne~~scSU!b So b f g~ cf so0ed~:0soo~cht~~e. GG elc esc.oe>i~
(c) :01bchco:fueo ( ceo2pec~c5:be>:cee~0:$<~:fueo) ~ 3ws~ -!-
u{e) o ~c g~ (e) eJGc sooeo~gcegsoo~ch ~~~e GGlc *
- Hsccc:ccog:=~:chc.o bee ( f) b
j ( c:p) ( o) (c) 6 e~iJGe>o2pec ~be>~:cco~:c(J)so~sooec ~~~e
ob~c rgwloe>ecg~cg~es So~g~8J:g g~~~cc:gccce>gc~/X; :coo
pdfue> 13t:GSb b rg~ c r sofles ~:f:Bsoo~ch,~e GG~c :~ (c)
:0/X;gchc.o:&ec ( G~o2pecck5:be>:cee>~o~gG~:&ec) ~~C.O~b
upepelbcccgbe> ccc?f:p~eco plegbg
~~soccsoo~gwe> r cropdEDe>liigcegB~~~ ~~ 3 ~ 3 c:ec~ ~g
n( 4>d~e>b:@ec) gcfle>gco~~ lg.>~~b~~ccog.>cf&~e>~bgreg~
ugcfle>ge.Ge>;gccosoLGel I soroe;~c~/X;~coog; dfu33bgceg
,,
ll:cc}B:clB:jCO~ 0 &sc scccs o:}!Weo smsotogeo ~ c'r Ago Cf'CC
~cb scccho:~cochec cheogo~ec:be:oe>:cecsote~@g!fult uscleso:~ ..
11 c b Agooe>o~~~e eo {lgl!egec
:sc0~3coeJ?38cA~ C,gcroescB t~A ~:ciP.~cheo:~rof~"&S:: ce:cif.l
~che.Gccce:cro3ebe.Gceocpec ~eo:be>:oe:cecsoLe~<g~ 1c f Agosocc~ch
IG co *(&b~
gLo.L6le>SJeJ gcmgxJme>~bgceg) scoe>9g~cf?~~0gcc:oe>3
0~
~r;a c -~
3
sc.oe>
soro:chco (gc~&gcmsocm3~bgceg) r LO ~~ccg~
~~(') sssc ece:g:~s as coeso8:J:chc.o
~ Po ec so_ 0 .,;) J,
!.9 "S.l(:{OdH~ M Y'l VJr\f~flH [l56l
eoscfl~~:gce0) c.o~ec ~ncfb9mec Mc5g~em~ncecsoL0~0g!OJ
~lngec 5 ( 0) 0( ego !Oleo nsccc~C.Osccc:dgco~gcJesomfl
~dsecb~8E'.G rsccc ~clhec:ccosocffue~~~ usceeL OCo~~:cec~dsec
sccc~~ '' ccce:;omfl~checbg8ro '' gro c ggec ccce:cco;oesocc
)DWeG~b~:ccogccoe~co f?8el?~ccocDg0jO 1bt>.G ( ce) 0 c ego
~EilCO:fldtl IISCCC~WGC00SOCofl:cfh~cheGb~2eG sccc~~~ccchec
~chemgS r39ccccoe~eem cMc8~be~o~~ceGSOV:Jg0g!fu ~~~
usccc~C.Oscf)b/.Upe c.osacc~3ce~ 8=geG~clh:~t=a~eG ~~00
dsec cl.')g~~ec 'scccgndf>:~oo~ec g~:cfb~checccceJ~solm:9oo
~ec r5<i>c}):btJ:oe:c.e?SOLeg0g!fu gro~escccgSCcoeGGeo2:feG~
rgoo Gc f)go ~ usccc~eoscflo5bgroe:groeGsoeG ICOLosc
gee:~ f?Geo2::pec ,:be:oe:cecso L0~0gffu rf?:gcesomfl:clh~
cbec =~oo~co~~B~~cc?sO:c!h~checccceJ4eso~ 3 ccee 3 f?gro gw
~e.G :be:oe:cer;soL0~0glfu Idisccc~ cefisoc.cwec:cro::pcfue
uscccJ:ccopcfue 3bLo
:oeplbcro smclh~ecc.oz~pcece LOlEil0S-JCOeG rgcc4esleesojg
:gfu:r:.fibecseocr sccc:g:cco~~:cbco bzs ( r) !:J1 (()) (c) s flg~
3~ (f) bI (ro) ( 0) (c) b egoGeo2soec ~beg~:ccol!i:c0:ffp
sooec ~~~e ob~c g:~:;oC-Ge,Loee.c~:gS gw:clhcro,pc!Eve~
ll~cc:gtcgcowgwe ( cro::pdroe~ !CW~CoSOCnfl
:cfhgg3tBog81:c:frtscroce~~~o ccceg=sccc~3soLOleQjsoLOlew:gS
goSo usom!'l:c!!=J~cheG:~oo3ooecS2 cccepdsepcc :gooeGg"JLRgeG
~ c flgosocc~chS2cc?f:gb rco:gg~:~chec:gS g'3:scotJ:~~
r 1 3S3cec;~:g
uS2cc~~g8toS2ccgoo~~BsoLEile 0)soLr,)e f?:c~ne8e3~ecsc S2cc li~CO~
:coo :3 ~gecsoesm ce.c~:gSgo~ uscce0e~bg:S24cccegclee:~f) 93~Cfl~
?5.nc!hso~es:!ce.c :e3e::pooemLocoec ~~~:cmS'c~w g;:bee.c (}gcw~scB
3~
gge.c ~:c!h::soo~oo&S2 13ooloees:~~~l~~che.c~gb usccc~ r to 32CC:~
:clhec)4e::p[g:jco~e.c :gbgges glie~dser;gccee~ec 1:gSg
sGeJc
~ec gl/ecco~gfbge.c rgoo~ecggS ceC;o:~oo~g CcK?JC)OCfu0 1~g sw::J
3ffi~ gw~ec~l~e:oe:cecso~ e~0g!fu lce38tc:gec:coosucfue sooo:chc.q
LS61] sl "HOci:;:I~ MV'l V~~tl n ll 89
1957] BVRMA LAW !ffiPORTS. 69

~8~~8n ~~~~ oo~5i~oo~:61ca8.)~ ~8~<:1!8.)oS~cc:g~G6'Jc: oo~:~GS


COCJ'J:8.)tu oo~mc;cw~~ot@c~:oo~oSG@cqao~~~ GJ.:]poSGoo'JC~ . Goo~
G8.)'JOO~11 GS::S Q:ooroe oGs@~'J~: 91c~'J :006) 1~CCGOJ~::UGOJCD G@~
e~
0

bSS:O)i6)~ GOC'Jt1oS~c:JJ8ot~::u8u ~@0~g]D2Sro8~' oo~;iQ :O?~!c; o1 J


8<)~:6)G~tG'Jc:SI'J roS jp:oJtot~8.)8n cgjOID~G 1oSoo'J:Go:oo~ e:~')5~
J?ro8~1 ctbG tJG :3d6) G~G91~CI~~Cg~OO'JC11)'J~'J~GO~OO'J~::U8n G8~ ~~<:l'J~Cc
G~G91~~~G8~0J8J?ro8: C(D;;l ?'2 02c::uo5yoSco'J:::u8n ~@~~ GmSu
cg]0~0G 10080'J~GmG6)~86~ oodieoGD92Gj~C\3)CI GC\jpca:m~~0~: ~:Goo'JC~t.l
~8.)8 m~:~i$G8~<:JJO-Jro~tt:(:)~GOJ?::U@~I qt:~::ut E~o
0 ~(X) ~i: O<)t>p (;p:GJ? oSG6'Jt: y') COC;'J:o:>ttJt~ ::ut II ~~: GOJ ~

8~ ~J ~i~l,. t>p~odJG~'JSmJin2YoS 8 c; o;$CI @~g-:;~CcGoo~ Gro


GG'JC~OJtbt1(~GQ\l'JCG6)~00~SJ ~~fl'J:G::U'JO<}t>p~oo@:O-Jt 1 t>p~ooS
<;b0 J 8 ~oo8g1<.bJa6) ~~~oo~ooS:oo~~@S::u~{J.(~CO'J:G::uSco8u
ot54:91C:ro8:<:J~ 1 oo~~~8=~t:rot:do;?(J.(~O:}') 'J:~G'J~
~'J:;)Jtn BO<:J'J ~~9'J~CcGOJSGroG6'Jt:::uoSOil~GOC'JCG6):82~o.Jt
~c.cGooSsc~:Glo~~:~~:~ ~'Jm'Jm'J~@Urt6l::u~~~ c;c~m~y')
~oS~oSoo~:6)~9 oooS~oSd>t@~~ qbJa~~ cq5~cGoc'JC8joS
G::u'J mt>p~~p::nt BG~oo~ooS:r=le=ot ~Gm'JC:~~cGoGEu
~GF02 5 cg]O 10 So1o5oo~ :Go~G6)~00~ m;EeoGsoo~ <;>~co'J:G::u'Jm Gp~
~ot~008f~80c8~:8091!o5829]u5(:)~o.J@~I qc:c:~@t;?o
<--iP:Y'JI
o$coS:oosp~~'J:@to.Jtot G~::Q'JII ;5~5 moSeoGs~<j)'JGt~
G~T~CGIDGp~ ''@$G'J~CcGooScg]OID0G 1oSm'J:GmG6):oo~oooSem~s''
tJtG~II '' OjjDID0G1oS~'JgGo~G6)~8a~OOcf>eoGs '' CJ?::U'JGaTG'Jtg@~
dt9'J~::utu
~Gp~t I ~J3SJl~Ocho:>oS cg]Oq,JlG1aSm'JgGogG')~OO~ me
20GS~::uaS~~~~ISJbGOJt~OJ~~G8j~c:qrooD ~J ~oS~saSg1Jlo~
~m'JOJo5lcqt zjaSG91Sy:mldcg~c::utu 8g~ 1gG6)~~~J3~g~')g~~ oaS
::UrhOJtG}tl<f)~o)~')g~l 'ffOJ~CD'JID&q,J'Jg6)~Jtu tG:O'JC~~~I:J'J
~tcGooS ~m8g~6~t5~ mG@~euGs<(DI:l c;:) 826)1 ~ccGmS~ G9'
oot S<J'J: ~goooSG~6)~1 t~~c:q~oSl tg2~P sc:CS<J') ~ Gm'JC:OJ tmcf
Gm:;tgGID~~ ~iiloS~, @8Goo?CQ(@~G'J~CcGoo>l~ 3)g21gG6lg~C6p
70 BURMA LAW REPORTS.

CQGp:~oS 8S~rf3~g~'J~~ ~Qjl~:Gco'JCEi)gtSU? Gt9 T3r:c'J:8:tn ~o?~Gt9Tg~.


Goo~ ~ac~5:t t~C\j/cq~:~1~G,;p 'Be;Ga''J6ot@~~'J~tc~mS ::t ~:~1:G
8)

::>~ c ~~:G0Eij~l ~:~1&GEi):~~~)JCf~tt;p8'a~~<Jo3:::f~~ ~0t:68Jtll ~o?:


1
~ ;])8t o1 J ac~aco3:o3:~0t:~~CDt: ~Ec'J:m'J:~Eo~~:~p:~ @t~~
19~~~'JCG2 o~t~~p:~G06J~ GmSg"(5~p:~0t:m'J ~G:;;ct:~mtn d3S:oo2
IS~n~Ec @:G.yoaSSJ ~!J<l~~'J:J?~0t:~m~u eoG'JI @~G'J~CCGmS@i ~
GOJSII GEiJG6'Jt~mo5o~~GOO'JtGEijElZ~ O'J~GOO'JC~OJtu @~g'J~tcGa:
@:G5'<l'JC~C.I GCDG'Jt:mo5~~G:;o'JCGEij:To~mt_Gco'Jt~mtu 0: ~tm 8'a'J (~.
~:1 J3t CJi~of5 ~:i3S:oot:t 6J~CJt~~~ Ojjb0~G 1o5ac'J:Go;GEij~!J<l~<
mtGco'Jt~m'~u q1@~~ 1 C\jj80~G 1o5ac'J:Go:~Eij:ac~~ ~0t~~
::DtG.pcf)t ac~~sot;p~~p:xt @tGoo'JtO( @~G'J~CCGO'JS<
~:g1:G6):a<l~ r otb ~CGOO'JtlaS G.P0 ~~'J:~ 8J tB<J? ~OCGJGOG ~
~o?~OJOOcg]CI c;f:~~~f otS~tGOO'Jt)aSGcj\6G8J'J ac~coi
ao~coS:~p:~8Jt 1 @tJiloo~m S:"lj'J:@~G'Jt:Sl'J c OOC)'J:GcpOJ~
<
C\jjb <D~G1oSTo'J :GmGEij:D<l~2~!;l'J ~tcGm So.:>Go: m01~oo'J:Go:
emot@~o:>~u c;t:To~~f aJ~'JGGjm ~~:~'J.PSl ~oS<D'J:OjoSoo)
8'a(9t1 ~tCGOJ 58JGOJCDOI.To8o.:>t ~~ld3c 1:~:carut: olo to.:>~
c;5:m~o5~p:~JGo: 1 ~oSo&f:~~CijjCl ~cGooS:uGmm OCJ~
GEJ>3')0'Jcxto5f9~GO':IJ-~'J~oSooS6)Gtu qfe~~m<Dt:~S~ecGD~r
~ot6Gt~o1mt ~tC:GooSo.:>Gm~ ~:6~5~[65:~ ~d)f
6J:x>fSu ~~~oS.p'J@~Slm'JUj]Ct <Dt:mS:eoGD~p:~ ~otb~to:>ti
Ojjb0~ G1o'3ac'J:Go~Gb)gcrcJ~~t aoJ320G80 1d3~6JO~'Jgo1 GOO'JCjo56j
rn::J6rl ~acOOJ~G~Gg~'Jg~6)~6J~I n.a~mG~'=JrnG~:~~fm~
~5p<J,2C ~tcG:::JJSo.:>:,;m~ mg~so8~~ moot6)0i(CD'J!~@:@t6JG~
~o?~acS~GGJ~O1mJ G~'=jp:~G~~o;?@t:91G0')00~G:~tu atJ~~EijcO<J,2
rut~ G~GGg~'):G~:O)?~tg9~:utu ~!{)<J,2tG~~'J~8CJo2ch 0~:m~
~o5'=1/'JDJ'J:~6JGt&u c;t:<Dt:mGg~d)'=l!'J~~'JCD~gl ~tCGmS::DGOJr.
OJGO')'JO'j{~GOJ'J <Dt:mS:~r"lp:@&;Eijgtu ~o?~G~gOj(GX'J G~'=lJ":
~ @~rotGog;;ob~E9~1 ~QGgo3:x~~OO'JtEij(;)tu ~~o3:::D~m-::
G::D'J~QG~~F~I @~g'J~tcGm55G~<D'JG]C:0b~IOm ~&l<D<D~GOI:
bJo.:>tu
co~ecd~~3ccee~g&-> ;occ:3ce~meJ sco~:;?g~cc=~3 3~~ec~be~g;o
:gdse ~=~Q:fCCO~~co~~3~ ccc~:crogccoe~co 3osc0~ecd~eJ:oeJ
:cec;oL~g0g!fu~ tgllif;o. be :;o0ed~coGGCP5:fO.D:lOO ~~~(!: fGeJc
3~ rf c :;o~eG~eG~~lnec:;oo.zich tg~e rGelc ~zscoeJ:~~

usccc~c~gm
cB~gc;e~~~ec ccce~gcrogcmeJsccocob:8er; cceJ:;:>g~ 1SL'fuec:!oe8
s
b::J&Jecsc:clhec :scro~cc53co3B c0sccc:c<;agccoescco :~
CCCeJCC :3ogcm!se~L8:g 'So~eG:be~oegcec:;oLeg<DsiED ~~~sc
usccc:cm
~l~e:gmecsoec tog!ds~scco gcceccscoe?3~ scccf;o~sc8o
gbgberi ~SD:~\nced3eecggec J:~:ce.GCCJJ.)Cef~~ffi ICOL o~9:>
=sscg~sc0~ usccc:cceg~:~scg~ COLn~sc~:g;cg& f?:~!hcooceu
CCCeJ:cm:g~.geGfp~eG I ~:oeJ~~eGCm~ gncocoe ccscoe:;?g~ i gfu~g~
p~gcceeJc=~f?:clhgb$su ccce:croso~scb~b:f~3cree gceG:3:fce-:~
W~eG l::flC'b~~geG~ef?:clh~Jogo~ecbeoGeoC COcoeccscoe:;?g~
ICOecccifl~ 113~:ftggccec=~iflfpSCflCO~eG:g!J lw:cJhsbfff> S?cc
pch~cha;Lmbeeu l~:f8J:gcoglb :8ec~coe?g8 1:ccdt9~~:gco
<
uscccbme~:;ooo cob18eG
sco~S?38 lbo:G.fh:e8e scccgeG8o 3bgccceoo.
bo~ec~g!J uscccb~bo~gg1ieg~g:fB ~~COf.CC
scoe?g8 tgm:clhatpcccesocc:;oo ~;be:>~be8e (c)
IISCCC3~:3c5 f?:.:i!?Ger.c:g!J ljlfuccc&~c4p8o
11
35gcec~~~ Su=g~gllegffigJ~0 ~coecc;coe?g~ :~&gro
nsco~ :cfeGeo2:sco:sc0JGeo2:gls\> cccesocc:;oo3i~gliegffi ( r)
93~Ct'l~ uscccb~cccgc'bSJ)go
i}gcro~StJfil ~ L n_r-" b
gf '- ccce:cco,:se ~eG:fi~~l:occceJCC ~coeccscoe:;:>g 0
r L(') ~scc~g tS2cc:de:~&Jgo~eo ccceJ:cm~e3bgl!egec[p~ec:gb (c)
sGelc
90~
-c0mle
~
c coleex;
~-
pK;;chco ccceg{:e&~eu&beeG 1<:pfuer;~~:beweJ:cecsoL e~cog!Eo~ 1~~sc,.
ll s~1!0d'tnr MV'1 vw~na [LS61
72 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

006p~~c n<lbp~U<lt;pro0:co)~lt;pe>:Da':i~5;, J o ~ <Ja8g1uSQ,2tn<ltY.lJimE~~


Ga:>S)
:J@~l3
B~:)jl~0 ~COG~"lj'J:@~O)~ ~ ::x?~oS ~cF "lj'J~~G(\)0)~ II
' na.:ncfJGt9 T[9o1 mG6')cg9Jtgsrr:u')w1' qcgm5i~~goS~oS'=lp:m
~m~~o1 J GCO'JcfJ.;,ro'J~~ @~0) t32G cqp cfJ I GC\jpc CO')~ :)j/"lj'J~@~ 6G::D'J
~tGco-Jf,l!(
@~~?~cc @:::n8~~9 ~:cg~:~~~ G~gpoSco'J~GOJ'JC:~9]cf"lj'J~~~ ~oSGo:p
GO?S),I
~t6)~ToG6'Jt~g@tli ~@~~~ qfgc.;~GCI~-:;rf)~'J~~G!D'Jt~ 021~8
oru6~d3::Dtu
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 73

APPELLATE CIVIl,.
Before U C!ran Ttm Aung, Clticj Jus lice aud U Sau Mnuug, J.

u HTAN HMAT (APPELLANT) H.C.


1956
v.
Aug. 9.
DAW GON (RESPONDENT).*
Coutract of Sale-Ti'llc lite essence of Coulract-Exccutiou of ComProwisc
decree-S. 7-1, Contract Act, aPPlication of cqurtablc PrillcipJcs-lssuc
dcpcndrug 011 crcdibilityofudttJesses-.'Jj>j>clla/c Court aud lite fiudiugs
of facts by the trial Court-SlipulatiOit tltat if Seller could uot gitc
po~scssio/1. to tlte fJIIycr on or before a sPe~ified dale, the purcftasc price
would b" reduced from K 3-1,000 to K 20,000 wlietlter a pcually.
The Appdl:u.t -oucd the Respondent for specific performance of contract of
s.tk and lhe s dl w.1s compromised on the following amongst other tern~s :-
(il That th: plaintilf would ptuchas~ the suit properly for a smn of
K 34,0u0 if the ddr;:ndant w;ts in a !'OSition to give \',.cant possession on or
.
before the lllh /ll.!rch 1952 .
(5) That if the defendant was unable to ghc vacant possession of the
property c1n or bdore'the 11th l\Jarcll 1952 the price p:~y..Lblc by lhe plaintiff to
~he dcfLndant should be K 20,000.
On ddt>ndant's failure t<J g;.vc po~scssion on 11th i\Iarch 195'2 the appellant
applied for the CXL"cntioa 01 the compromise <kcrcl!.
T!1c t~ial Court h<:ld-
f!) That lilne was o.f tl1c essenc e of t11e contract.
12) Tl'tal default was due loa third party and not to anv act of ncgliJ,\encc
or lack of'good faith on tile part of th<.: Hespondent.
(3J Tlnt the jndgment-deb~or was cnlitkcl to indulgence and cqui!able
prindples laid down in s. 74, Contract Act and therefore the
appellant \Vould be entitled to a conveyan::e upon payment of
K 34,000 in terws of the first clause of the consent Decree, relying
on Audit Hchari Lal aud otltcrs v. Faquir Rai aud mzothcr, A.I.H.
(1951} All. 236; Sll:yam S1l11dar J>(Jd/ti and others\'. hulra1liOIIi Das
aud arwlltcr, A. I. H. (1951) Orissa 46.
On appcaJ by the ;tppelbnt,
Held: \Vhere there is a conflict of oral eddence, and the issue in the case
depends upon the credibility ~f lhc witnesses a Court uf appeal ougllt to bear
in Jllind th:tl it che> not see or rehear the wilnessts an~! should not interfere
with ;t decision arrived al by !he trial Jnclgc unless it con.es lo the conclu~ion
tit at lh!' tria! Court was plainly wrong.

Ci\"il ~lis.;. Appeal ::-\o. 78 of 1954, against the decree of lite Original Sitle
of this Court in Civil Ex~culion Case No. 19 of 1952, arising out of Ci\il
r~,gular Suit ~To. i4 Of 1951, dated the 9th November 1954.
74 JJURI'viA LAW REPORTS. [1957
H.C. CTtimzaya v. u l(ll,T I 14 n~n. u; approved.
1956
Held also: Under tile circumstances of the ~ase, lime was of the essence
U HTAN of contract, though in contract~ for the sale a land Equity Jool1s not at Ulc
HMAT IE.tltr but at the substance of the agreement in order to ascertain whether the
'V.
p:trlies, notwithstanding that they named a specific time within which
DAW Go.N.
completion was lo take place, really intended no more than that it should take
place within a reasonable time.
lams/led Kllodaram lmui v. Burjorji D/wajibllaz, 40 Bam. 2.89(P.C.),
appro\cxl.
Held also: In the circumst.ancts of the case, the stipulation that if vacant
possession could not be given on or before the lllh !\larch 1952, the price
should be reduced from K 34,000 to K 20,000 was " stipulation in the nature
of penalty.
Ramaliuga Adard,tr mzd others v.llfecllak Shiszwdaram Pillai aud ot!Lers,
A.I.R. (1925) Mad. 177; I-Iiralal Hariram Efta/ad v. Mt. Dttrga Bai Mttrlidhar
Marwadi, A.I.R. (1937) Nag. 413, referred to.
Held furl her: A compromise decree merely embodies the agreement
arrived at between the parties and is therefore no more than any other
contract l:etween them.
Shyan Srmdcr1 Pad/li aud olltcr-s v. lndramaui Das and ,wotfler, A.I.R.
(1951) Ori ~s a 46, rderr;,d to.
Ordered a reduction of K 5 ,000 from the stipulated price _of K 34,000.

Kyaw Din for the appellant.

Ba Thaw for the respondent.

Judgment delivered by
U SAN MAUNG, J ._ In Civil Regul.r.r Suit No. 74
of 1951 of the Original Side of this Court the
plaintiff U Htan Hmat who is the appellant in the
present appeal, sued the defendant-respondent Daw
Go_n for specific performance of a contract of sale of
a house and site known as No. 793 Dalhousie Street,'~ ,.

Rangoon, for a sum of Rs . 20,000. H!s case was


that at the time the agreement for sale was entered
into between him and Daw Gon the house and site
' '

in suit were under an equitable mortgage by deposit


of title deeds with one U Ba Hla for a sum of Rs .
5,400 and th:1t at the request of the defendant he
had to give her an advance of R s. 200 on the 21st
September 1950 and also paid to U Ba Hla a sum of
1957] :.BURMA LAW REPORTS. 75

R~. 5,400 in full settlement o'f his claim but that when H.C.
t"J56
called upon to do ~ she failed to complete the sale
U HTAN
by accepting the balance of Rs. 14,400. The HMA.T
v.
defendant's case was that she had agreed to sell D,\\V GuN.
U Htan Hmat the house and site in suit for a sum U S,\N
of Rs. 35,000 but that she was responsible for the i\1;\l'NG, l
eviction of the tenants therefrom, and for the
demolition of the house which had already been
condemned by ti'le Rangoon Corporation. The suit
did not go to trial but was compromised upon the
following terms : -

d) That the plaintiff would purchase the suit


property for a sum of Rs. 34,000 if the
defendant was in a position to give
vacant possession on or before the 11th
March 1952 in which event the defendant
must execute ' the necessary deeds and
hand over the same to the plaintiff on or
before" that date.
(2) That the plaintiff should, except for the
money advanced by him to the defendant,
ii)ay to her the balance money on or
before that date.
(3) That the defendant must pay interest on
the money advanced to her at the rate
of 1-i per cent per mensem till the date of
the execution of the sale deed, which was
to be not later than the stipulated date
and further the defendant must pay the
plaintiff the ground rents and house rents
which were due and I~ecoverable from
the tenants who were residing on the
premises in suit from the date of order
recording the compromise till the date
of the execution of the sale deed.
76 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [195/
H.C. (4} That the plaintiff undertcok not to obstruct
195~

U HTAN
or interfere at all while the defendant
HMAT was taking steps to eject the tenants
v.
DAW GoN. from the suit property.
U SAN
(5) That if the defendant was unable to give
MAUNG, J. vacant possession of the property on or
before the 11th March 1952, the price
payable by the plaintiff to the defendant
should be Rs. 20,000 and the defendant
must execute the necessary deed of
conveyance, on the plaintiff depositing
the balance due after deducting the
advance paid by him to the defe1t.dant.

The defe11dant was unable to give vacant


possession on the stipulated date, namely, lhe 11th
March 1952, as the Rangoon Corporation did not
eject the tenants till two days later. Accordingly,
the plaintiff U Htan Hmat applied on the 17th
March 1952 for the execution uf the compromise
decree by directing Daw Gon to execute the necessary
deed of conveyance, on U Htan Hmat depositing the
sum of Rs. 9,998-5-6 which he claim.~d was the
amount due to Daw Gon after making the deductions
stipulated in clause 5 of the compromise terms. To
this Daw Gon filed a written objection stating, inter
alia, that the application for execution , was not
maintainable because the plaintiff had contrary to
his undertaking recorded in the compromise decree,
that he would not raise or cause to be raised any
objection to the ejectment of tenants from the
premises in suit, caused delay in her obtaining vacant
possession of the premises which could only be
secured on the 13th of March 1952. Daw Gon also
filed an application in Civil Regular Suit No. 74 of
1951 asking the Court to direct U Htan Hmat to
1957] BURMA LAW.REPORTS. 77

deposit )a sum of Rs. 34,000 Jess Rs. 5,400 with B.C.


1956
interest due thereon'. In that application she set ~ut
U HTAN
the reason why vacant possession of the premises HMAT
could not be given on the I 1th March 1952 as 1J.
DAW GoN.
stipulated in the first portion of the compromise
U SAN
decree. She said that this was entirely due to the MAUNG,. J.
tactics adopted by U Htan Hmat in obstructing or
interfering with. her attempts to obtain vacant
possession of the premises in suit. The learned trial
Judge, however, without making any enquiry into
the question whether or not the failure on the part
of the defendant Daw Gon to give vacant possession
on the 1 Vh March 1952 was really occasioned by
the conduct of U Htan Hmat in obstructing or
interfering. with her attempts to obtain vacant
possession.of the premises in suit in contravention of
his undertakjng, held that time was clearly of the
essence of contract between the parties and that
there was no jusJification in the claim made by
Daw Gon that the plaintiff should be made to
deposit Rs. 34,000 less the money already paid by
him on the basis that vacant possession was offered
on the date agreed. upon in the compromise decree.
Daw Gon appealed and the learned trial Judge's
order, dated the 23rd June 1952, was set aside on
the ground that Daw Gon should have been given
an opportunity of establishing her case that failure
on her part to obtain vacant possession of the
premises in suit was really due to the obstructive
tactics taken by U Htan Hmat in contravention of
his undertaking in the terms set out i:-1 the compromise
decree. The trial Judge then held an enquiry and
subsequently passed an order, dated the 9th November
1954, which is the subject-matter of the present
appeal. After a careful appraisal of the evidence
add ucea .by both the parties the learned trial Judge
78 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

H.C. held that the evidence adduced on behal: of the


1956
juflgment-debtor Daw Gon, . _ both direct and
U HTAN
HliiAT circumstantial, lent no support to the objection raised
v. by her that the decree-holder U Ht<:n Hmat had been
DAW GoN.
responsible for the two days' delay in the eviction of
U SAN
MAU"NG, J.
the tenants who occupied the premises in suit. He,
however, held that she had been very diligent in
taking all steps possible, in the c;ircumstances, to
give effect to the terms of the compromise decree
for giving vacant possession on the lith March 1952
and that if she was unsuccessful in this respect it
was due not to any act of negligence or lack qf gqod
faith on her part but upon the failure of a third
party, the Buildings Department of the Corporation
ofRangoon, to carry out the eviction of the tenants
from the condemned building before the llth March
1952. Therefore relying on the obseryations of the
learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court in A udh
Behari Lal and others v. Faquir Rai and another
(1), the learned trial Judge held that this was a case
for treating the judgment-debtor's default with
indulgence. The concluding portion-of his judgment
reads: ..

"A compromise decree merely embodies the agreement


arrived at between the parties and is no more than any other
contract between them. It cannot therefore claim the sanctity
of a judgment followed by a decree of the Court and an
executing Court has therefore power to apply the equitable
principle embodied in section 74 of the Contract Act and
relieve one of the parties to the contract against any term
which operates as a penalty although the contract may have
been embodied in a decree of the Court. Sec Shyam Sundar
Padhi and others v. Indramoni Das and another (2). In the
present case payment of quite a large sum of money is made
dependent upon the judgment-debtor agreeing to do a certain

{1) A.I.R. (1951) A 11. 236. (2) A.I.R. 11951) Orissa 46.
1957] ;;n URl\JA LA}V REPORTS. 19

act. namely 1 giving vacant possession of the premises which H.t.


1956
she had contracted to,. sell to the decree-holder. Having
regard to the time at her disposal and the nature of the action U I-ITAN
-HMAT
which the parties contemplated that the judgment-debtor v.
should take in order to comply with her undertaking and to DAW GON,
the difficulties inherent in the situation in which she was U SAN
placed, it would clearly seem to be inequitable that the liJ ,~ UNG, J.
decree-holder should refuse to excuse the delay of two days in
the delivery of the property contracted to be sold to him."

He accordingly directed that the decree-holder


U Htan Hmat would be entitled to the conveyance
of the property in terms of the first Clause of the
consenf"decree only, that js to say, for a price of
Rs. 34,000'' but that he would be entitled to the
reliefs set opt in clauses 2 and 3.
In this. appeal the learned Advocate for the
appellant U Htan Hmat has argued that the learned
trial Judge having held in his first order, dated the
"'23rd June 1952, tha~. time was of the essence of the
contract and has in the order under appeal come to
a finding that U Htan Hmat had not committed any
breach. of the cbvenant not to obstruct or interfere
while Daw Gob was taking steps to eject the tenants
from the premises in suit, was logically bound to
execute the comprom1se decree on the footing that
the premises in suit were to be sold for a sum of
Rs. 20,000 only. The learned Advocate for the
respondent Da w Gon, on the other hand, contended
that the .learned trial Judge was wrong in coming to
a finding that the evidence on record, both direct
and circumstantial, did not lend support to the
objection raised by Daw Gon that the decree-holder
U Htan Hmat was responsible for the two days'
delay in the eviction of the tenants from the
condemned building, that on a true construction of
the compromise decree time was not of the essence
80 BURMA LA_.W REPORTS. [1957

a.c. of the contract, and that in any event, ever assuming


1.956
t.Q.at time was of the essencv of the contract the
U HTAN
HMAT equitable principles embodied in section 74 of the
v.
DAW GoN. Contract Act were applicable.
.U SAN Now; regarding the contention that the learned
.lllAUNG, J. trial Judge was wrong in the view which he took of
the evidence that it lent no support to the objection
raised by the judgment-debtor Daw Gon, we have
carefully perused the evidence in the case and we
are unable to agree that the learned trial Ju4ge's
finding on the facts should be reversed. Daw Gon
in her evidence has stated that when she went to the
Municipal Office to urge the authorities concerned to
take. early steps for the eviction of her 3enants she
was told that U Htan Hmat and his...friend U Ba
Tun, a Municipal Councillbr, had been there to
raise objection. Her informant was no other than ~

the Buildings Engineer U Khin Maung (a) Mcintosh


himself. She had also been infoni1ed by her
tenants that U Htan Hmat had told them that they
need not vacate since he had purchased th~ house
and had come to some sort of undersfanding with the
Tenants' Association. However, Mcintosh (a) U
Khin Maung (DW 6) cited by her, failed to
corroborate her story that U Htan Hmat and tJ Ba
Tun came to raise objection against the eviction of
the tenants. Two witnesses Cassey J ayaran and Ah
Shaung cited by her in support of h er story, that U
Htan Hmat had been roun:l to the tenants telling
them not to vacate, have been disbelieved by the
learned trial Judge for reasons which appear to us to
be cogent. The learned trial Judge observed that
considering that these witnesses had been brought and
examined in Court on the last day of the hearing,
their vagueness in regard to the date on which t he
1957] 1lURMA LAW REPOR'FS. 81
'
\

decree-hold~r came and spoke to them on this vital


matter did not appear ,to impress their evidence with
the stamp of truth. " UH~IAT
HTAN

Daw Gon and U Htan Hmat had been in DAWv.GoN.


negotiation regarding the sale of the premises in suit
U SAN
since 1950, and Daw Gon had been given one year's MAUNG, J.
time in which to eject her tenants. The reasons she
gave for considering that U Htan Hmat was obstruct-
ing her in her atteihpts to obtain vacant possession
of these premises, appear in the penultimate
paragraph of her statement. She said that she had
once seen U Ba Tun and U Htan Hmat in Mcintosh's
room some time before the compromise decree was
passed and sh'e therefore presumed that subsequent
to the decree also U Ba Tun who was very friendly
with U Htan 'Hmat had been helping him to delay
the" eviction , of the tenants till after the 11th
March 1952. She may have reasons for her suspic-
ion but this is not tantamount to proof of the fact
that U Htan Hmat wa~s either instigating the tenants
or otherwise actively opposing her in her attempts to
obtain vacant po~session of the premises in suit
before the crucial date.
Her husband U BaThein (DW 2) was himself a
pleader. On the 25th January 1952 he wrote the
letter Exhibit " o " which was delivered to the
Buildings Engineer by George Tha Khin (DW 4) who
being a friend of that engineer, had promised to
render some assistance in this matter. The Buildings
Engineer . referred U Ba Thein to the Chairman of
theBuildings Committee, U Tun Win !DW 7), and
when this was done U Tun Win promised to help.
Subsequently a promise was obtained from the
Buildings Engineer that steps would be taken for the
demolition of the premises in suit after the municipal
elections were over. On the 25th February 1952 U

6
82 BURMA LAW REPOR1S.
~...:
(1957
, H.C. Ba 1 hein again wrote the letter Exhibit '' ro '' addres-
195p
sed to the Buildings Engineer, wherein he alleged that
U H'fA!:'I .
H~IAT U Ba Tun was acting on behalf of the decree-holder
t..
DAW GON.
U Htan Hmat and was opposing the demolition of the
building. Two days before this letter the Buildings
;u SAN
MAU~G, }. Engineer had directed that notices be issued again to
the tenants for their eviction from the premises. U
Ba Thein then met the Buildings Engineer and from
him obtained the explanation tli'at the 13th March
was the earliest date on which the demolition of this
particular building could be carried . out by the
department in view of the fact that he had other
matters of similar nature fixed for the 11 H1 of March
1952. U Ba Thein alleged that whe'never he saw
the Buildings Engineer he was made to understand
that the opposite party, namely, U Htan Hmat,. had
objected to the eviction of the tenants :and . .that in
these circumstances the responsibility for 'the delay
in the ejectment of the tenants lay with U. Ht'fni.
Hmat. His witness George tha Khin (DW 4) stated
that when he and U Ba Thein went to see the
Buildings Engineer they saw U Ba Tun, .unicipal
Councillor, in the Engineer's room:- The Buildings
Engineer pointed out to U Ba Tun and told them
that he was objecting to the . demolition of the
building on behalf of the opposite party, meaning
the purchaser.
However, as already mentioned above, the stor-Y
sought to be established b.y Daw Gon and her witne.s,..
ses, namely, U Ba Thein and George Tha Khin; that
Mr. Iylcintos)l had himself told them that U Ba Tun
had been objecting to the ejectment of the tenants
and the demolition of the building at the instigation of
U !Han Hmat, had been strongly negatived by
the evidence of Mcintosh whom Daw Gon had
herself cited as her own witness. In these
1957] BURMA LAW, REPORTS. 83
>

circumstaq,ces, it carmot be said to have been proved H.t;.


1956
that U Htan Hmat ht"..cl either instigated the tenants
U HTAN
from. vacating the premises in suit or had himself HMA1'
actively opposed Daw Gon's application with the v.
)DAW GON.
help of his friend U Ba Tun.
0: SAN'
As held by a Bench of the late High Court in 1\f,~U_NG,' J.

Chinnaya v. U Kha (I), where there is a conflict of


oral evide11ce, and the issue in the case depends
upon -the credibility of the witnesses a Court of
Appeal ought to bear in mind that it does not see or
rehear the witnesses and should not interfere with a
decision arrived at by the trial Judge unless it comes
to the conclusion that the trial Court was plainly
wrong. This observation applies with full force to
the finding of facts of a Judge on the Original Side
of this Court.
~-In suppo;t of his c.ontention that time was not
_of the essence of the contract, the learned Advocate
for the respond_ent Daw Gon has cited the case of
Jamshed Khodaram Jiani v. Burjorji Dhunjibhai (2).
There, a stipulation as to time in the agreement to
.the effest that the. purchase price of a piece of land
must be paid em the execution of the deed of sale
which was to be prepared and received with in two
months from the date of that agreement, was held
to be not of the essence of the contract. In this
connection the Privy Council observed that section
55 of the .Contract Act did not lay down any
principle which differed from those that obtained as
regards contracts for the sale of land by which
equity in such a case looks, not at the Jetter, but at
the substance of the agreement in order to ascertain
whether the parties, notwithstanding that they
named a ~pecific time within which completion was
to take place, really intended no more than that it
(l) 1"4 H;tn. 11. - (~) 10 Hom. 289 (P.C ).
84 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [ 1957
H.C. should take place within ~ reasonable time.
1956
Although we agree that the l~w has been correctly
TJ HTA:-1
HMA'f laid down in the case cited above, we consider that
v. it is idle for the judgment-debtor now to contend that
DAW GoN.
time was not of the essence of the contract between
U fAN
l\{AUNG, J. her and the decree-holder. When the matter
regarding the execution of the compromise decree
came before the trial Judge the parties joined issue
only on the question as to who was at fault for
the failure on the part of the judgment-debtor
Daw Gon to give vacant possession of the premises
in suit on the lith March 1952. Even when the
matter came up before a Bench of this Court in
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 52 oi 1952, it was
never contended that time was not of the essence of
the contract and this matter was therefore not
decided as it would otherwise have been, in the
judgment dated the 9th November 1953. Therefore,
in the circumstances obtaining in the case now under
appeal we must hold that time was of the essence of
the contract as embodied in the compromise decree.
The question which now remains for considera-
tion is whether the stipulation to the ~ffect that if the
defendant was not in a position to give vacant pos-
session of the property on or before the 11th March
1952 the purchase price would be reduced from Rs.
34,000 to Rs. 20,000, was in the nature of a penalty
so as to attract the equitable principles embodied in
section 74 of the Contract Act. In this connection,
the observation of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J. in
Ramalinga Adaviar and others v. Meenak Slzisun-
daram Pillai and others (l) may be usefully quoted.
The learned Judge said:
The whole principle of the law of penalty is this as I
understand it. The parties who enter into a contract no
(5) A l.t~. (1925) Mad. 177.
1957] - BURMA LAW .REPORTS. 85
doubt expec:;t that the-" contract would be carried out ; but H.C.
they also contemplate the.npossibility of !he contract not being 1956
carried out and provided for such a case. If in making' U H1A~
provision for breach of contract the promisee stipulates from H~IA'r
v.
the promissor on the breach only for such compensation as the .DAw GoN.
Court would deem reasonable in the circumstances, then there
t; SA~
is no penalty and the stipulation is not penal. But if, on the l\IAUNG. J.
other hand, the Court would on a proper consideration come
to the conclusion that the stipulation was put in not by way
of reasonable compenS'ation to the promisee but in order that
by reason of its burdensome or oppressive character it may
operate in terrorum over the promissor so as to drive him to
fulfil the contract, then the stipulation is one by way of
penalty."

In Hiralal Hariram Bhatad v. Mt. Durga Bai


Murlidhar Marwadi (1) Niyogyi, J. held that where
a contract contains a term which, not being an
integral parf'of the contract, is introduced only for
the purpose df securing the performance of the
c'ontract, that term is penal and equity interferes to
relieve a party to the' contract against it and that a
penalty is a term which is extraneous and collateral
to the actual contract. As to what provisions are
penal have als0. been made clear in Illustrations (a),
(d) ana (e) to section 74 of the Contract Act. These
Illustrations bear out the truth of the observation
of Srinivasa Aiyangar, 1. in Ramalinga Adaviar's
case cited above.
Bearing these observations in mind, we are of
the opinion that in the circumstances obtaining in
this case "the stipulation to the effect that if vacant
possession could not be given on or b<;fore the 11th
March 1952 the price of the house and its site should
be reduced from Rs. 34,000 to Rs. 20,000, was a
stipulation in the nature of penalty. The decree-
holder who had entered into an agreement to
(1) A.I.R. (1937) Nag. 4!3.
86 BURMA LAW REPORTS~ [1957

fi.C. purchase the house as early as 1950 with- the judg-


1956
ment-debtor, had waited for a~ long time before- he
:U HTAN
HMAT filed the suit on the 24th of August 1951. The
v. compromise decree was passed on the 24th of
DAW GoN.
January 1952 and the time limit seems to have been
U 'SAN
-MAUNG1 J. placed in order to compel the judgment-debtor to do
her utmost to give vacant possession of the house
a1id site. The judgment-debtor also probably
thought that since the house had been condemned
by the municipal authorities since 1950 she would be
able to fulfil her part of the contract by glving
deli very of possession on the 11th March 1952 and
accordingly agreed to accept a much lower,.. price in
default.
That a compromise decree merely embodies the
agreement arrived at between the parties and is
therefore no more than any other contract between
them is clearly laid down in many o{ the cases cited
by a Bench of the Orissa High Court in Shyam
Sundar Padhi and others v . Indramani Das and
another (1) wherein the same conclusion was arrived
at by the Judges of the Orissa High Court.
T he question now for considerat16n is how mu.ch
of the penalty stipulated in the contract should be
enforced. The penalty of Rs. 14,000 1i1entioned
therein is certainly excessive considering that the
house and site .in suit would not deteriorate -in vahie
with the passage of time. However, considering the
fact that the original contract for the sale of the
house whereby the decree-holder U Htan Hmat had
made an adv2.nce of Rs. 5,600 which took place . in
the year 1950 and because of the default on the part
of the judgment-debtor to give possession on the
11th March 1952 as stipulated in the compromise
decree' litigation between the parties and consequent
-------------------
(1} A.I.R. (1951) Orissa -46.
1957] BURMA LAW . REPORTS. 87
delay had r~sulted, we consider that the decree-holder H.c..,
1956
should get a reductionrin the price of the property
to the extent of Rs. 5,000 only. Accordingly, we . U HTAN
HMAT
v.
would direct that a sum of Rs. 5,000 be reduced DAW GoN.
from the stipulated price of Rs. 34,000 mentioned in ... '

U'SAN
clause (1) of the compromise decree and that the :MAUNG, J.
judgment-debtor do convey to the decree,..holder the
premises in suit, on the decree-holder paying into
Court the money due to be paid by him having
regard. to clauses 2 and 3 of the compromise decree
which reads :
" 2. That the plaintiff shall. except for the money
advanced oy him to the defendant, pay to the defendant lhe
balance money on or before the said date.
3. That the defendant shall pay the interest on the
advanced money received by her at the rate of Rs. l;l,- per
cent.per mense1Yl from the date of receipt of the said ad~ance
till the date of exec:ution of the deed on or before the said
da,te, -and further the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the
ground rents and house re!].ts which are due and recoverable
from the tenants who are residing on the said property from
the date of this order till the date of executiop of the deeds,"

However', in tl)~ ~circumstances, the words " on or


before the said date " occurring in these clauses
should read "on the date of the execution of the
sale deed."
The payment by the decree-holder of the neces-
.sary amount must be made within one month of
the date of this order or within such further time
as may be' granted by the trial Judge.
Each party must bear its own costs of appeal m
this Court.

U CHAN TUN AUNG, C.J ..- I agree.


88 BURMA I.AW REPORts. [1937

APPELLATE CIVIL.
Before U Chau )'rm Armg, Chief ftul icc aud U Sa11 Mart1lg, J.

H.C. U KYWE (alias) U AUNG MYINT (APPELLANT)


1'.!56

Oct. 12. v.
DAw MY A MY A AND ONE (RESPONDENTS).*

Ex-parte Dccrcc-Scti ilr/!. trsidc-S. 18, Ariicl~s 164, 166 c,wd 181, Liwilal ion
Act-Auction Sale by Coltrt, Eetthg aside ou. grou1UI of fnmd--Ordcr
21, N.ule 90, Civil Procedure Code mrd Article 166 a11d s. 1,~, Limilalio1t
Act-Actual Positive fraud wtrsl l:e proved-Cell ificatc of Sule
1tccessit y of proof.
Held: Unless a pers:m aggrie\ed by an ex- parte decree apply within the
tine p~e~ented either under Article 16~ o; s. 18 of th~ Limitation Ad to set
it aside he is bound by it.
Markandn v. JT. /(, R. N,lidu, 26 Pat p. i17 ; l'alel 8aldeJdas /{ars.znda
v. Moha11lal BaPalal Bahia, I.L. R.. (1948) Bom. p. 145, referred to.
Held crlso: Unless a person file an applicalion to set aside t!:e sale under
0 rder 21, Hule 90, Civil Procedu c Code within tlre time p rescribed by
Arlide 166 an :! s. 18 of the Limitation Act, the sa!e is binding upon him. "'
If fraud is alleged, it must be actual (JOsi!ive fraud, a meditated and
intentional contdvar.ce to keep the parties and the Court in ignorance of the
real 1:! cts of the case.
fallki Kuar v. Lacfwri Narain, 37 All. p. 535; Rau Rali11 l,al v. Blmri.s
Begam, 38 All. p. 7; Krwja Bch,rri Chnkmbartt v. Krj~Fz11a [)flmt Majumdar,
(1940) 2 Cal. p. 477 ; Mohamed Golab v. Mohamed Sulli11uw, 2 l Cal. p. 613 ;
Molrendro Narai11 Cllat uraj v. Go pal Moudul, 17 Cal. p . 769, rderrcd to .
Held furl her A certificate of sale is not conclushe as to !he properly
which had b~en purchased at the sal<! as th e property offered for ~a le and biJ
for was in fact the propedy ordered to be sold and proclain:ed for sale.
Dalvtwt Babaji D/Joudgc v, Hirac!uwd Grtldcfw11d Gu;ar, 27 Bom. p. 334,
ref<::rrcd lo.
Held also: Mere production of the sale certi fi cate alone would not entitle
the plaintiff to deere(.', It is the duty of the pl<tintiff to prove (!) the existence
of a suit (2) the existence of a mor tgage decree and 13) the sale of the
mortgaged fTOperfi.!:S in p:usuant lhueto.
A sale certificate, if rroperly proved to be genuine, is a document of Iitle
and is !he best c1idence to prm e what was ;:ctually so~ cl.
Tradcrsmul ilfiucrs Ltd. v. Dlirrcdra Nalh Ba11crjc., 23 Pat. p. 155.

' Civil 1st AppeJl No.5 of 1955, ag,1inst the decree of the Original S:d~
High Court of I~augoc.n in Civil I~egular No. 30 of 1955.
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 89
lj.C.
San Myint for the" appellant. 1956
u KY\\'E
Kyaw Htoon for the respondents. (a luiS)
\.J AUNG
1\1YJN1'
Judgment delivered by v.
DAW MYA
l\'lYA AND
!)NE;
U SAN MAUNG, J.-In Civil Regular Suit No. 30
of 1955 of the Original Side of this Court the plain-
tiffs Daw Mya Mya and Daw Hla Hla who are the
respondents in the present appeal sued the defendant-
appellant U Kywe (a) U Aung Myint for a
declaration that they were the owners of the house
and sile in suit. Their case was that in Civil
Regular Suit No. 331 of 1937 of the late High Court
of J udicat1,1re at Rangoon, in which the Receiver of
the estate "' of the deceased Mr. Robertson was the
plaintiff and the defendant U Kywe as one of the
heirs and legal representative of Daw Kha was one
of the defendants, tl mortgage decree was passed for
the sale of the mortgaged properties namely, the
house and site in dispute. Thereafter in Civil
Execution Case No. 58 of 1941 the mortgaged
properties w'ere sold by the Court in execution of the
said mortgage decree and the same were purchased
by Daw Hla Nyein, grandmother of the plaintiffs for
a sum of Rs. 10,550. The sale was confirmed on
the 20th of August 1941 and Daw Hla Nycin was
granted a sale certificate. (The original had been
filed w.jth the plaint). The proclamation of the sale
of the properties was advertised in the Rangoon
Commercial Advertiser a copy of, which was also
produced and the sale proceeds of Rs. 10,550 was
paid in three instalments vide the original receipts
also produced with the plaint. On the death of Daw
Hla Nyein in February 1954, the properties devolved
upon the two plaintiffs as her only surviving heirs
90 BURMA LAW _REPORTS-. [lY57
H,C. and since then the plaintiffs had been in actual
1955
possession of the same. On the 29th of December
U 1{YWE
(,Tiias) 1954 the defendant U Kywe gave a notice to the
UAuNG
II'IYTNT plaintiffs' father U Ba Tun, claiming that the said
ll. suit properties still belonged to the estate_. of their
DAw M'YA
MYA.Ai-"D mother Daw Kha and hence the plaintiff had to file
ON~
the .present suit to dispel the cloud which had- been
U SAlf cast upon their title to the suit properties.
MAU:-:!G, J.
The defendant U Aung Myint by his written
statement said that he did not admit the existence of
a mor.tgage suit as alleged by the plaintiffs or the
mortgage decree arising therefrom and the Si;l.}e of the
suit properties in pursuant to that decree. He
alleged that neither he nor the other heirs of Daw
Kha namely Ma Ohn Yin, Ma E Nyun, Maung Tin
U and Ma Khin Nyein were aware of the mortgage
suit or the sale thereunder. He also 'contendeci
that Daw Kha was so ill for many years prior to her
death that she could not possibly have executed
the mortgage deed in question, - and that since
Daw Kha died in December 1935 she could
not possibly have figured as the seeond defendant
ln the mortgage suit brought in 1937.' He alleged
that he and the other co-heirs had been purposely
kept out of the knowledge of the existenc~ of the
mortgage suit in question and the sale" relating
thereto with a view that the properties might be
pur~hased benami in the name of U Ba Tun's
mother-in-law Daw Hla Nyein so th~t U Ba Tun's
own children might benefit thereunder.
:- The plaintiff$ in reply to the written statement
contended that the defendant was barred from
questioning either the validity of the mortgage deere~
on any ground whatsoever after the lapse of so many
years or the validity o~ the auction sale as well.
They also submitted that so lqng as the auction sale
1957] BURMA LAvV ' REPORTS.

was not 1\et aside within the limitation allowed by .'fl,)2.


1956
Article 166 and Article 181 of the Limitation Act
UKYwE
the plaintiffs were estopped from questioning the '(a~;as)
'U''AUNG
validity of the auction sale. Accordingly two 'MY'i~T
preliminary issues were fixed by consent- .,v.. '
DAw MYA
- ~IYA A.f.io
( 1) Is the defendant estopped from question- ot\"it.

ing the validity of the auction sale. by U SAN


~'L~UNG, J,
reason of Articles 166 and 181 of. the
Limitation Act?
(2) Did the auction purchaser Daw Hla Nyein
fail to secure a valid title to the
property in suit by reason of the facts
set out in paragraphs 2 to 8 of the
plaint ? (apparently a mistake for
. written statement).

On the flrst preliminary issue, the learned .Judge


'on the Original Side held that the defendant U Kha
if he wishes to have the execution sale set aside
must make an application within the period allowed
by A~:ticle 166 of the Limitation Act. Also if he
could prove that he had, by means of fraud, been
kept from the knowledge of his right to make such
an application he could claim the benefit of sectioll
18 of the Limitation Act. A mere allegation made
by him 14 years after the sale took place, that he
was unaware of the institution of the proceedings
resulting in the sale was held not to amount to a
plea of fraud on the part of the decree-holder.
Consequenlly the defendant was helQ. to be estopped
by the provisions of Article 166 of the Limitation
Act from questioning the validity of the auction
sale. In the result the first preliminary issue was
answered in the affirmative and the second in the
negative and a decree was passed declaring that the
92 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
H.C. plaintiifs were owners of the house and sire in suit.
195_6
Hence this appeal by the defen:lant U Kywe.
U KYwE
!alias) Now, from the allegations contained in the
U AuNG written statement, it would appear to us that, what
MYINT
t.
D.nv MvA
the defendant sought to contend in the case under
MYA A:SD appeal was, that he and the other co-heirs of Daw
ONE,
Kha, with the exception of the plaintiffs' father U Ba
USAN
l\IA'"NG, J.
Tun, were unaware of the institution of the mortgage
suit by the Receiver of the estate of Mr. Robertson,
deceased because summonses have not been duly
served upon them. Secondly they were also kept
in the dark regarding the sale of the suit properties
in execution of the mortgage decree, thus enabling
the mother-in-law of U Ba Tun to purchase the said
properties. The question which therefore arises for
consideration is can the defendant by way of defence
to the present suit for declaration contend that the
mortgage decree is not binding upon him, because
he had not been duly served with summons. In
our opinion, this defence is untenable. Assuming
that the mortgage decree was passed ex-parte against
the defendant, the proper course fer him to have
adopted was to have applied for the setting aside of
the decree on the ground that he had not been duly
served with summons. His application must be
brought within the period allowed hy Article 164 of
the Limitation Act although of course if he can
prove that he had, by means of fraud, been kept
from the knowledge of the existence of such a
decree he could also invoke the provisions of section
18 of the Limitation Act against the person guilty of
the fraud or accessory thereto, or against any person
claiming through that person otherwise than in good
faith and for valuable consideration. No such
application has yet been filed by the defendant and
so he is bound by the mortgage dectee even
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 93

assuming it to be ex-parte. See Markanda v. H;C,


1956
V. K. R. Naidu 0) aad Patel Baldevdas Karsandas v.
U KYWE
Mohanlal Bapalal Bahia (2). Then again if the (alias}
U AUN'G
defendant wants to say that although the mortgage MVIN'l'
decree may be binding upon him the sale is vitiated t'.
DA\V M.YA
on account of fraud committed by his own brother lVIYA ,\No
ONE.
U Ba Tun, he must file an application for the setting
aside of the sale under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the U SAN
MAUXG, J.
Civil Procedure code within the period of limitation
allowed by Article 166 of the Limitation Act read
with section 18 of the Act the period of limitation
being 30 days from the date on which the fraudulent
sale first became known to the defendant. How~
ever, where fraud is alleged it must be actual
positive ~raud, a meditated and intentional
contrivance to keep the parties and the court in
ignorance of the real facts of the case. See
Janki Kuar v. "Lachmi Narain (3), Ram R.atin La! v.
Bhuri Begam (4), Kunja Behari Chakrabarti v.
Krishna Dhan lvlaju.lndar (5), and lv.lohamed Golab
v. Mohamed Sulliman (6). However, since the
defend.smt had not yet made an application for the
setting aside oi the sale it must be held to be binding
upon him for the purpose of this case. In this
connection the ruling of a Full Bench of the Caclutta
High Court in lvlohendro Narain Chaturaj v. Gopal
Mondul (7) is apposite. There it was held that
when circumstances atiecting the validity of a sale in
executio!l had been brought about by the fraud of
one of the parties to the suit and give rise to a
question between these parties such .as, apart from
fraud, would be within the provisions of section 244

(I} 26 Pat. p. 717 . 14] 38 All. p . 7.


(2) I.L.R {!918) Bom p. 145. (51 (19~0) 2 Cal. p. 477.
13) 37 All. p. 535. (61 21 Cal. p . 613
(7) li Cal. p. 769.
BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882 a suit would not


lie to impeach the validity of the sale on the ground
UKYWE
{nlias} of such fraud. For these reasons we consider that
U.. AVNG
MYlNT
the defendant has no real defence to .the present
v.-. $l!it.'
DAW MYA
MY.A AND ' However, it does not mean that the plaintiffs are
ONE,
entitled to a decree merely on the pleadings and the
U:.SAN production of the sale certificate which has been
Ji4 AUNG1; J,
filed in the proceedings. As the existence of the
mqrtgage suit .in which the defendant U Kywe has
bt;:en made a party defendant along with the other
co-heirs of Daw Kha has not been admitted, it is the
duty of the plaintiff to prove not only the existence
of such a suit but also of the existence of a mortgage
decree against the defendant as an heir and legal
representative of Daw Kha and the s,ale of their
mortgag~d properties in pursuant thereto. In this
9onnection the sale certificate, if proved to be genuine,
will be no"doubt a valuable piece of evidence. As
held in Traders and Mi~:zers Ltd. v. Dhiredra Nath
Banerjee 0). a sale certificate if properly proved is , a
<;locument o.f title and is the best evidence tq, prove
what was actually sold. However, as pointed out
in: ,Balvant Babaji Dhondge v. Hirachand Gula-
chand .Oujar (2) a certiticate of sale is not conclusive
as to the property which had been purchased at the
sale: as the property offered for sale and bid for was
in fact the property ordered to be sold and
proclaimed for sale. Consequently, what was sold
;was tbe: interest mentioned in the Court's order and
proclamatio!f a1.1d if: there is a discrepancy between
the ~ale certificate and the Court's order the sale
.ce.rtifica te itself may have to be rectified.
For these reasons it IS necessary to remand the
~ L.

(ll 23 P;tt. p. 115. : (2) 2i Bom. p. 334.


1957] BURMA LAW .REPORTS .. 95

suit under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 25 for Ji.C.


1956
the trial of the fol!cwing issues:-
U KYWE
(alias)
( 1)Was there such a mortgage suit as alleged U AUNG
in paragraph 1 of the plaint ? MYINT
tr.
(2) Were the properties in suit sold in execu- DAW MYA
MYA AND
tion of the decree in the said mortgage ONE.

suit to Daw Hla Nyein for a sum u SAN


of Rs. 10,550 '! MAUli'G, J.
(3) Was the sale duly confirmed by the late
High Court of Judicature and was the
sale certificate Exhibit A issued to Daw
Hla Nyein in respect of the house and
site in suit ?
_The lean1ed Judge on the Original Side will take
such evidence as may be produced by the parties in
proof or disproof of the facts .mentioned in these
issues and return the evidence to this Court together
" with his findings and reasons.

U CHAN TuN AUNG, C.J. _I agree.


96 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957

i" onp:~ ~g~~ ( 80~QO)~g~)


Grol3
- ~e~:9 ~$
c;~cco ~~~
(:)Ggags c 80~QO)~gQ) *
@~g~~g:::r.>: ~'J 80GDII .lt?,:::r.>?::D'JO C COtC:>UJ'J:OO~~~: <J,2o)~~::J.2~:01ro
CY.:lJt~>,~~~GOO'J~'J:@SGIDI YOO'J:SGID CjCfctt~f;;fJt~G~'J Ot?t:D'<l'J:~:
~5;;fJfl35:.1 ~o?~ D'<ld3~cof: ~qf~~o101jcf.il9 CY.:lJtbl~~::iC:>m?:::Dt
~,~q~OCJut ~:GooSro 8tl~'J:~:oSro'J~aE:u ~~:oS~cf.i~ <JCU2~
G~~cot: Gro'Jb I coot~G~s.lcot~GOO'JC: I GID?Dro~cf.iG~S)'.:Dt:
G<m5: ooSqjoSI3E:Y(Sl~1 G.poSrJoo?:~m SSrooSooSb[~~'Jt:
oosp:oo~:roD~~E:.I msp:<:>~~~: ~G8UGD~b~ ~~~ JC:robll'd)!]a~ .
91 ;>'JoSoo5G~~E8~e:>~., .
~~Jl~o~~[5~;n @:~:st5~~~=B~~~'J~Od&l,~D'<lli)t:6~tu ~~@;:
~:~:qcc:~tJO)'J:y':l D20j?~OOE>p:~ gGm:S~&J~I @:~:qfaa~~GE>poS@:Gf>'Jd)
8tl<~Jb@SG:x>t GG8tl:SrooS~~SG t~e~~

8tl<lJC:gSG~t ~com SS~dtmGG~: GDTG:n:~58~1 GC:~~m&l~


~SGoo'JoS OOGO)'Jcf.icoooS~co'J ~S~oS'J:G~Scot: e=9m S~co'J~I
oosp:r:>o~oo::i~cf.i~:l :Je~~ ~91 mspw~:~8tl~d3 o 02,E <:>GmiS;i~ 8tl'J:
OO<ip!~"l]?!GUTCJ65 qc:G"l]'J!~ sfrot9~!>ttO'JGp:~~ ~0)~9~C))'J: Bm~e')~
~otS mstCJ6Eo1oEG~'J G@"lJ?:~~p ~:@9cooSCJ6f~~ GE>prb:l6'J:G'Jb
ga~olmS~ Bm~~ mGp:~~S~"lJ?:m D20j?G~@n
~ 0Gpti S~ro'J@roj>oS~tmsp~r:>~ : r ~e~JJ '?~Sr ooE>p:G[i3:.Jt9'"~o5 ? o.2E
GGOd:Sm 02li~~~ ~:~:9C~D'<lG8mo.2oS q5:~d)~ oooSooSq~o1cotut
mbp:~;;fJootu

* :::>(!~? '?5>~" OOE>p::J~d3oo~o,r~ ~ aa~oS J 1


t :)@S? <"?~~~ mGp:;.>@3:JtDC~d3 ? o.2S S~ro'J~I oj>oS~Eoo>p:<,~ooE>p:
)jl~~~:Goo$)~ <lj~roG::D? 8ro~~m0j?~ot~1
19 .)7 J BURMA LAVv' REPORTS. 97'

~~:).)t~~s~ G::J<l?W~~GooS9S~:0o?:~n ::>@ ~? <?~S1 ror;p~(,l~:5l 8<l'Jcf)


o CJ6C ~,~~cq~ ~~gcEro?~G0r;?~ I,IGGO:S~ 02uSC2~~ ~d~~6)C~ S~~~,~~S
:xJ~8<!GmpoS moSooS6)G00f Elm~~(joSGm~:xJ~I - '
~8<!S~~m~~ ~:9m oor;p:~oSGooS~ 8<llljlQbp c:goSGooS~ ~~Q
oq:~ oS~ oS 1 IC?9 :JJ?:xJ?C Ea:: E~,~m'J: oo~~~:o;pSC2~~?:u1m CX(J~6j~~::>j? 5?9
GGO<J:S.I
Gm?rf4l?:~5G~VI gw?:~SG0 'it:~~E~S~G:D? o~t:'"Jp:3<l:l:o?:~t~E:).)tl
G~,i?C8oSi~ '2 :~9 GG?t~S~u <li/1J.krcn(q)1 :::lO @'21 :::l@OOI 0'J'"ljd)p
or:;Gu
~~6Jf:a?:~ G8<l'Jd5~:9S~~0o?:m 1l~o1roJoS99 :::l@::J::> '?'IS' oor;p~g~~Si
GeyoS o 02E GG8<l:Smcf.iooS GO~tg~SG@8"J'J::\:.-~ ~028<!01lm ~:9'J'J
rooSo ro:xJ?6) ~d)~t '}'.) co tl?WlcgoS99 GS8<l?: ~:~ ~~8~ moS :: 8<lbGO:
G0CJ? ~:~oSc~oSG:xJ:lmS~:xJt roCcotl?!~'.):23:??~?::Dtu
oo~:oo~:y ~'}oSoo?:G:).)'J Elm~d?::J<lOiiQG:DS::;c:l ~Ero5~rg$~GJ:J.Sqb
G0'J~m ooaSG80 5qE: ())~ tq,t:~~ eoG:J 8<l~C: ooS qJoSt:G~ C\j]C sE:\Jm~
::l)t Ud~dl~So 1~~? oosp:c~oo6p:~'"lj'J!GOGoTOJC rot~OiJd.:ot~:xJtn
~@SS) ::l@::J::l ~9 S1 rosp:d@3:~8'd:;oS o 02S ~a:o:'?:1J'J Bm~20t
~?:UC(j?:?:GOJ.Smt: g]~:8oSoo?::x>e2 ~6)t'lJoSd? ooS~6)~ S<lO)(QGot~
@c:G6')~ qS:::raSi~E~co?:Go.n 8m~20~ oot;;Ooc@So..,t&u o:>E;IJ:gCY.lJ9o?:
d?G80GD((fig oo 836)1 GG:::r.l:Sr? e<g~ro:y 8<JG~OJo~ooSbJ.~I( ooGYOOGp!
oocx?: 3<l:xJ52~~cz9Gu
Go5~5qj~::DC~EJ'-P~,~olo1ro~r~ ~')~e') ~:JJt ~t:)oScoi9~oo~:J ~E rG8<ll J '2 1
V:l'"ljd)p pG'u moS(~) IG~I<j>:xl~j-9 ~:f.i(~)!8<!?(q) 1 roGro61 @r G)~Q{~' 0?
"ljW?'J CjOO ~~ ~oS<j>'J:xJ~II ~,~~1:18 9 ~:~E ol J 1 GS<ll~tJ8<!'J(~)r
:::l@? '2 '?I G)~O(fl ~'J'ijoS~'J ? J 9 28'J~8Utll

8a0jl~ m,;p:~aa02oSr ~~a)~~:rr

8a0jl@ OJE>p~8a02oSr ~~G<'-lJ~C~gu

e~ G'~? S~Srr H~8a)!GOTGO1oSCD')b]~tg Gf'JoSG&t~5p~Ot


(j'J GGa'Jcf.iO1Gaqtg@~OJtrr
Ga)Jl025o1GOJ'JG"!!'J~(j'J ~CD G!JTGOJ~~::ljl~tOJ;:u' G9TGOJ~025
OJ')gOJ~g ~ GOJ'JOO~OJ;:rr qtzcSl'J J?~g~~ ~gm8sr ~~d?OS'l~ GC 1~
~@~~OJ;:rr G9TGOJg ~oS~~8a~GspriJ@~Gf"Jd) 8?~g@3g ~gm8s

7
98 BURMA LAVf REPORTS.' [1957

O?bf:~oS ':P O't~~~~@~@ 9G!G'3~'J~CJOOo5@J ~~~o)~'J OJ~gOJGUJilo) CJq5~~6)C


GO?S
tY.( 1J2~W'J'Jg~8J~II C1t:CJd3~:bjC~::>)I~'JCX:~g UJ~CJ~Gm?l @d~o)~
:)~~~
~WcD~~oS~~ ~G@~~~GB'J1~~G~II CJC1~~') 8J'J:OJ~~ tJ GUJ'JJ3~
~:9 ~OJ~II c.t~~~'J ~d~~bjCI @~@9iCJG9G!:@cfl@~60J~II
~~
GGS<l~S;t G~TG8J:~tG@~'J:OJ~l Gpo5~:8J3~ @w:l8~roffic:O~ Oij~~
o:>~u zm8~02oScg~zGpoS1 g]G5i9ooSOJoS@ ~5~5~~'J:5l'JI
@d~:bj'St ~~@~i~GG9<!:~@~60Jtu ~~~~qE~ogG S~:G CJGtb@~
OJ~ II GCJoS9G!~~GE;IJcD@:Gcf>':lo)1 CJG9G!Z8~9 9G!G6'JtWl8Jtll
CJG9GI:[g~t OJ'J:8J~~i~@:IJ2~:m'J:OJ~II qt~c~'J GCJ'Jt~:o_;>~~CJ@~
@~::ntn GG'JC~~C\}OJ~ ot~~@j~@~~'Jggr cg~~G8J'J J o i~
GCD'Jffiml bjOJ~:ooSi~Ot{jjcg~GOJS)WOJtu G@~'J ~~~~: ~~'!~
rnG'Jt:o1mtu q5~<:025 OJ~~ CJmtGro:~~ro~ tg~:m'J:OJtu
~l@i~CJOJCGrog~'J ruyG~Ga:>?n @:m8~ tn~~GooSw:G.p'JoSJ C1t:~
~1rum'J ~ 10Sm::>CJ~'J:G(9'J~~o59<!6]1 @:~:6jtm Gp '{o8 ot~:@:4J
9G!CQoS ro~~mfn qt:G '{o8 rn.poS1 @:9rooo5@bj~ md3~::Dt~
p:rot~~ro'J:68Jtng]l9<!~CQto'iGOJ'J G@9<!-:>:~:~~'J @:m8~~cg~
gG~'JoSr ~:~:b)t~roo5o 0SGE;IJo5~'J:~:r.Jtu :~~~02oS cg~~'J:
~OJ~Gcp'Jo5 1 qt:~qcBw~ru'J: CJG9<!~8roo5CQt:~ rn~o 1G@~'J:
OiJGt;prb::llp: ::Dt II
@g@m S~ro'J~J OJE;IJ~GO~Goo'Jd:.~:l o @~~, ~i~J a:>E;IJZG~:~
rn~o5 -;-~5~ ~Grn:S.r G~'Jt~:~i~@'J: @ ~:~~'J:J qt:G~~:
~ (9~mtC>J~6J~ ror;p:~~~mtu sE:m mbJ?:g~~OJ~9G!~t:r
s~C\)'J~ I OJbj?gGO ~Gro'JoS~:m GB~')g~ ~:@9~rooS~rnbG~0?
rn8~Bm~~SJoSGo:~8J~uBm~~G>'J~~8~9G!}t02tolo CGOJ'J G@~p:
~~p :9~roo5065:~ Gq:>cDro'Jmtn 9G!~o1rnS~~m~~ a:>q-:>gQ
~8~~'Jgm rnOi(Gi=>OiJH @:@~rocb02tg~ G@~pgGr;poS~~gGpoS51
S~ro'J~( f'oS~Em~:CJ~:' ::>@~J ~5'!~' roE;IJ~CJrngSirn~oS ? 02E1
~GgagSm 02oScg~~ 2.ctbbJt~9G!G~~02oSI qc:G@mp oorf.ioc6]~
~1~20{ rospg~~8Jtll a:>E;IJ~~~~~ 9G!kf~oospg~~ -o@~ o yi~l
oosp:G~:~9<!5lo5 0 02t1. 9G!G~cf3~i~OaS8Jo)~g ~~g~~t~:@aS~:
@~ o:>~5lOJ<S~S~~~ g)jrn)l~:~ G~~o~m9olO{G~oOJtu
Roob dp!Bc@ l~eos\3 I eJ (r) rsc r c~plk@ ll, r ufu~l3fp (C)
eo~ccLo~g~ggeggg.>oco e:c(!:)e~:geeG soroensccc~~wgeeG
~gb:&cg~ :c~occoe:g!J l&~g.>checro CO@:eG6B 3GlCOeeCO
n~cc~@go~~co ~cc~cog ccce~crolegro~en:gb gcJe:g
~goe~&-Jeo 3bsolb:ro~piegbg sccc:crosofr.~~ 1:3mscce
:c:cegoqd n3eoebbeCr.3cc:ce benccceccgs!W sccc:g:cro
so:~ :<;p~ ll~cc~plep:~ Co~egggg:crogolhpm :3mp
~c!be J:ccepfpgc(}~{')ho@e pooeGgb:Sc:~ :cfSoccoe~:gb ce
a:eneft ~soccsoo~solesoccoe:gb u3ccgcropC:oecoplepccoe a-:
cmeccp~~~ben Soe~:geeG ~cca:enee goo~eG ~:croSeCr.3cc
soE?c:sooe~somSo~ ~~ggggegg~poe ~>e~fr.geeG wa:enee
( ~:chco c) Jc~3cc:crolGle~ggeGcoffco c.tui&ero~a:~e~zchco
c;&ieG gro~en:gb n3~oeboe&i Cr.3cc<i-egosol!:u~3coeG pooeG
:clb&cccegoLogoo~eG 3cc~cog ccceS?elegoo o peen~g~e:chco
~~~e cG ~c ~~:: n3ccgeCr.3cc~gosoll:u~3co gro,Loeen:c~
~ibco ~~~chco ccceLogroC<J~eG 3cc~cog:gh Jg!fu~Be:gsolt-J.soo
:g~enceoa g~:34:34co :gbscce~socococc0e r~gbscce~g3~gce
g r:gbscce~~&-Jenfp~cog ccce~cropelee:~co:~ w:clb:?pgb~ggb
n3ccgcoSoSO.:?pp ~~ ( r) goe~oe I(~) CeG I(~) ::jJeG g~~CC~
~~G)SOeG lescoeprogcJsco r~3w3b g\li:?pp~~ (c) g~cog~
Logso~~gcc~co~c4 ~l~oeL<loechc~gcc~lbcco~e ~gc.wl;~~o
n3ccbeeo3eb<f>es3coec :~pomccol&ccplbsooe 0e9~cc
3e 10e~3cc:ce 3cc~co~gb gcc~~e&iec3bsolbsoo So~cog:gb
rg.>desccc:~Je~cog gro o peen~:0e:cl9co r~\lie cG~c rce3cc
r3Sgcen~~g
~socfEDe co:fB~Btgescoepro ~g:~f?:chco~&ien goo:~~
11g:en~~
~~~cc~:oesoele~cog ccobeeo3cc
3~
g:g Loso~bSosoosoro so~emclbe~:geec; Ig.>cll:ueensccc~e:~a~
t;GeJc
gb:ffi:g &38.Jso&J 3cca:ec;ee n3cc~eo~cc~cce~ggggge~:chc.o
sco~
ces:enee {Jjcco0e~cooso:Se ::Zo~~ gOO () s00eG~:0e:chco
piD:cbco I ~~e c G~ c co:~0:~~~scoe:~soceGe I :~soccsoo~c4ccc~
66 s.rtrodtni A\v1 vwtrfla; [L56I
'-100 BURMA LAW REPORTS. Ll957

o:lqY.~oS OJ6p:~~~::Dtu ~qcBo:~rro5i~ aJS():~~:~ ~S.C9J<f.i06~ l GG'Jt8oS


S'~ ~:~~GG'JttS: ( o) ~~~f>!C~:~ ~:m':>:Gl9 T@co':>:::Dt~ISE;
GO::S)

,q@~~
7
@oScq:<?2C Gl9Ta)'):::Dt~-:> t(~OY.)::D-:>ot rotgWJ: cn~:~;06J)~~
e:
~9 Oz1':>:o1m OOGC\J:~'J~G'~~cqtl Ol~(;)~~~GWJct~e:@tGDI (;OJ')~@~G0
GeoG<l:SJ qc:~~E~c~G::D') o~t~c,lp:m-:>:~: ~f~EOJtut~OJ;:u ~~:@oS
9jc0002t n<lG~G~~GOJ:GOJ'J o~t:~':>m~ . 6)Ujli>,~D<lg~n<lGG):~o1
~E~tOJt~~::Dtn ~36)fcq:~ d3~o1o:n~~~ ()~~o ~~~~ oosp:G
~:Sim~oS o CJ6C GGm:ScooS'o<.S~ mdS:@G@m-:>:~J~ @:~~
cooS~ n<l0GO:G0CJ:? 9j~cfj~cfG::D'Jn<l8~::Dt qs~~p~[?90spofu
~088lld1m ~:9~') n'adt:~G@~'J:~ roJ3oro6.J':>r>j~cOJt~')
rot)-:>:01o:nd.J~~ mdt~@~G@m':>:~:~ qE:q;m':>:n<lOGO:G~CJt ~:Goo$)
m 9l~oS@t:OJ;: roErot1':>:~p:~:~'J:~OJtu cnsp:GOil~c:q~~GeoGo
ct,SG o o' 15:ro5:91 &m~5 c; mf>l' m~GGm~S2~0J?:GOJ') m5i<:Y65
qf:m'J:OO':>:G::D':> na~romcoro~OJt 0 ~ ~0 ~~I aJS():g~:Si
n<lljoS 0 CJ6C cqoSGl9Tf9 ~~~G:xl'J ( ~Guto5) ~~~tG:xl')n<lG')E:
e:p:of@~::Dtu mG(':>t:~p:~gj~@: :t~CO-::l::Dt~E:~ocot:l n<lSJ~
oE@~OJt G(Y.)')cfl9jroOJ~(\)t:ato5~::D~I( ~@a:i~g)1c13~~ud3::Drl3~
!Jd~O1mS?CJ6C <:JO~:m@cf.i~:@oS~:@otPi?oof>!GOG'tll ~~ OOS():G
01J~~:~G80G!J~bG oo n<l6)1 GGn<l:Sro o~~j ~~~~ cnr;p.:,~rroSloS
~ CJ6E mE>-p:cncq:ro89na::Da:iG~~~Eu '
. GGn<l:Ss>-:> GOO':>C:G:xl') eoGonage'JCSGugg~~ (:)~o.J')<:qtl
::l@~O . ~~a;, oosp:g~:SimjoS o CJ6C 9J~oSGu:ro-:>:G:x>':> m~~aa02
G:;d~l o @~J ~~~~ mbp:G5i80SJch ~ ~ m<;p:2~m~OflOJt n aa0
e')a6Goo':>t:Go:Gt&Oi?G~::D ssf>!s~61~roGo.J') GB~')=~ ci?~~~f>l
~m7~tn qt:::Dt' aa~~aJGpSJOC ::D-t>':>:IDEl(:>Gro'JC~G::D':> cr_aG@rnG;:>~
~ttG~cGo\>G9J@II ~8aUjl~~~ OJ tGl91'G::D':> !JdG':>t:rro~ro
~p:G':>~ OdUjlQmsp:~ ~:@~aa'J: Da~tGO:~ 8delj?QOO;p: Q GGaa:S
n'd'J: oa~:GU:b)GOC:lt'll
~trt35iCJ6C DaPi(~Q--Jsp:~ @~~i G~G;:.~:m roOGG@':>~Gx:
o::>t~':>l ~Grr.;:S~ aJGp:2~2.pt:~':>G~~~ gJln<lji~:~ n<lG~80CY6ro
" , (::>) ott::8m';)')(~)t ::>O@'l 'oeo:)t ~':l'ijrb~-:> oc;tSii
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS.

o~tg~p:J? ~@~;Gom1o;?] !T.lG~aKE~~Oj{ffi CD6p~~2~f1 ~:GCDS OJGp~~oS


G(l)~
CJ2C <:~t:::ot&!T.lG~~3o2t:~p~~JJtS0f o2t~~'J~~~J? CX(oSGGT GB~
~e~:J
~@:1 ~:GooSen ~E>JCCX(Go:E>J~,>t~G[S'Jt:Gc\jj')OOCO'J:~ CD6p:~~~$
o1:::Dttr,J~:::Dtu g]jd3~i~ooS:::DoS~J ~~1~1f~{~~Q:: o1 J ( ::>) ~<99
. ~9 .
~~~oS~:J?oocgJ:::Dtu ~@oS~:CJ2CO1~GJJ~ 8'aG~c:!T.l6p~~:l~ I:)G8<l:Si1

WC(!T.ljieldCo 1G:::o'J~G6'Jt:!:r.l6p~~:s-~Go;(ll @oS~:CJ2C o1GJJ'J!T.lst~


!T.lG~F~fo~t;sa~:~:~J? <X(OOG<9T~~,>[9:Y.ll O[lt:oo~ooo oS~02oS
JJ~ CD6p~~~m~o;(:::Dtu ~80J?Odfm~: @~~:E>JCl~~:~~ct?g1:saG~~f
:::Dt& o'8t~~~:o?~:::ot ~~GooS::OJt\9 Gl'lT@o:rJ:~:@~:::Dtu ~o1
G::D5:lC\Jt: ~saG6~tg~~d)9J~~1~0c})JJrf)~ OJy~:@ch~rbGO!E>J~
~,>,~GW?G911
!:r.lmd302 5.G<9 T8c:o~~JJt&~~f:, CD6p!I,>:Y.JJ~~: J?0eoG~ <t5(:)
::>o ~Eijl ~G:J0:85l~ ~~m51 !T.lG~::orbo chElJ~ji mb~ msp:m~:
8a:x>D2~~fs(;}~u i2~~ G:JO~J3~g~~~:~~:~ ~s~qJ'J:d?ocl~oS
~oS~, (:)G8Cl :8 ~Sid? oC\Js~ oSJJ~" GG::ro :s5l~ !J,lOJ cf.i.PJG<9T[9m~:
;nt&8Cl~C:i SSE>Js$6J~ch~GOJ'J o~t=~~:J? qt:!T.l~=~8e~cSGmOj(
~~5:~ q5:E>J~oS:::oto'8ii:qj~: ~: ~:E>J5:@0:::Dtu ~naG'Jt:
G0'J~ !:r.lu;?~CD5p~~ @~rg~g;; OJ"f_)~ID~OO~ c:ob~~GO~EijGt~o1m
OJ~Gro~.~.~tGtr,JoS" 0?.6p:~:~~~:~~: 06 5 ~x:::Dt~'Jw~~:x>t ssc:e~
ID~o5~ SS~JJX'SfC CY.JIQGIDElJ~!T.l8~~5JoS~oS::utu
II COO
scclfo~ccc~:s&:gc.o3b:sf?S01bbo 0c peeo~:~soo~ch ~~~e GGeJc ~scoe:~
( f) :~&::chco:&eG ( ~ocsueo 4c5:be:c:e~~(j)=s(j)~:&eG) ~1eo3b -!-
rr (e) oGc so~eo~gc:eg~soo~ch ~~~e GG elc *
u~cc:cc:o
~giU~gxctogchco eo~ccgro~ 3:-flLGleJ~SOL (ileJ sam~~ r~w:c
~es Sog~8ogg&:~ scccb~~gPg~gespfi~ gce.GeJ:fl~83So!~eG
(o&:,C:C~ I SO~':bso~gccee> g~e>emgco~cbesgcce~~eG r goo~e.G
:bepo:gcbe ~:?fqpccoescoe?g~ r~cdng rcfiglle:ft.oeG~eG
u~cc~~~:chco beG
( r) bI (ro) (c) b egoG::lo2pembe>~:cco~:c0so&>so Oe.G JgceG
o:g ~cheGgcree>~eG ~~eG:be>Tmgclse>~:?fQc;pccoe>scoe>?g~ 1300
GC so~~ ~:~sao~~ ~~~e GGelc r:~'(l):gejlbchco:&>e.G(Ge>OC
:pen ~co:be:ree>~0:~0~ :&:leG) ~3.w~b rr rr 383 c.ec ~ &g
u( <b~eb:~es) gc(')~gcogg-pfues<:cb~:cc:opcfuesbgreg
u~z.Ge:g g~gc:.ee>:eG8:gccosoLGe-pfueG&:cc:opcfue>gceg
~
rS2cc~: gco:sco~ o&p beosoLRgeo:!P c f ~go socc~ch S2ccscccoeco:gc.o
~lOccce:ccose li~ec:besoo:gche~:~Qg.>ccoe ~c.oe?~~r uplep:~
/' u~<'l~ :cl5:gro!o&p pccf:cl5:9co
~eG :~rochw ~~ez:besoo:gch~:g::qg.>ccoesc.oegg~ c r egosocc~ch
II rrplh~ beo ( f) b I (00) ( c) b egoG~o2 soro :beg:cc.o?i:cCllp~g> oro
*(&b~
~cmsocro~~bgcesB) sco~ 93 ~c~~0gc-co~scB r0
3~ co~L o J.lil~6H:l
.( &~ccopclfu~~bgceg) ogg 3Gtlc -~
jg~393ceGe:g =~~ osc.oesoro:chc.o
~ &; t'.G ~ 0 ..v c1
lS61] ~~Od3~ MV'l vw~nn Z:Ol
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 103

G8d'Jcf.i.~:CY6C oospg~@OJcf.iG::D ~g~g:xJ'J ()~G00:6jGOJg:xJtn


m)i()0GOO~G.p~cf.il GC\jj'JOSCX)')~~~~ym ~~~Gem~ C\J'JGGp059?'Jr
qf:~ GcgpoS~'JcOCY65 mG6'J5:8d9JoS 8d~:~~ GcToo'J~::o~
mqb CjCgGC)']g 006pg~~CO'J~@f:::ot eoG~8df] ~'J:O,SC:gjaSG9j>)
G'l"::D~m02chJ 8dOJcf.i8d~01006pg~~g~gJ 0@ ~~ ~~01 GpG-oaSfS:Si
m~oS ~ ?_ ~ ooS~oSGmo 16]~ Goo'JS:~GcgpoSco')g::otn
gf:~GOjj'Jcf.i~'JOOCY6t mGf]gm~g~gG:xJ'J8d~b~p 8d~b ( \)) of
@0::Dtn c;t:8d~b ( \) )'02,5 GOjj'JoSoo':l:~m Gt9TcxJ'Jg:ot9'J "88
::Ofg @t~oo ~roGW)@~ooGo:>'Jcf.l(,)otoS::Dtm@f I gf:cB~rot::Dt 1
~oot:(,)otoS m~~:l!l'J:otSOJtr ~oot:GotoS G\91oSc]Gt91oS~
fSloto::Dt~G::D'Jo~t~~ @tO)I~Co~t:G:JtoS' 'CJt ~OJ'Jg::otn
GOjj'Jcf.iOJ~gO)I~ ~cGooSGS]G'1'0: G~ 1oSoo'J~:Gm:GG'Jt m1
'' GOjPOOOJ':lgP,il::otspG-::ooScr5G J ~ DG!f]IBt~oo ~ooS~oo~~f~0::ot
~ G~~cn ~tf;GooSGm'JoSod5:~G6pC:o oSGf]:33~c oS?t:C:lp:::ot
@tO)I~fo~t:GCJtcf)GE)'Jt~ OJC}'J::ot~'JJ c;f:~c8d~o 5C\j?~:~p~
moo02f na~:f]8d;;p~::DOO::OcbGCJtoSG::D')O)I~')W1~::ritJ c;f:~05m~
ofC\j?~:'=lp:mt OJ()'JG~~~m~ m~:6Jm6p~C:)j'J:cyt~ GGJ~6n ~@ 97.
e
~5i~CD g)jO?oSm~ ()Q)to?tGoo'Jt::ot~ooS:8d~5 025' GC:lJ')g~
~oSm~,[<l~oS o3G: ;;ot :6p~ 1 m~ ::J:[9tO)I C\)lCX( m CY.J1l:na~oSoS S:
etd3::Do)~ ~S~oot~6JG~CJt G<9Too'J~::otn ~cJt~G(9T@oo?~
@t:G6'J91 c;f:ptoSm~J.Jt t~~Er ~oot:GotoS t~C\j(<X(~~
nJoS~tnJ~ ~oS~<>~G<JtoSG?c:~prot'l?:oJtu P?oSm~~'J 33~:6]
~9 Gt~~GOJcf.i~tOJ@~I c;t:O?d)nd~J.Jt m~g6]~8GlC\:200g:?6pgqp:
~otOOJtCJtG~::O'JH ~CcGcdlGm'JrboJ3:~GGptW oSGGJ:~~SJ m@oS
m2~: 6JG::D'JG~C:lj?:::o t 1 ~CcGoo Sm ~:6] ~ 8dGCJgGogm 2~GooSG~C:lj'J:
5i$Gt:~~cb~t[3t:G~II ~*3o1Jlrr.:Jcf.ieoGSI ::f2GtJtd) 6J~CJt~~*~
o1J3 rr.:JrfiflOGS5i~ m'J: DG!OJ'JgOijl mcb eoGS'ij'Jg02CI c;f:m~~'Jg
m ~~OJ'J:GOJ'J mGp~~'J:~r GpG-o:>oS~~ y5G J ~ nab] GGT@co':l:
G::O'J Qt.~ 0o~oos~ na6f:l~(jj?~@~G'Jc~ o;troqGt<Jt G0!T(gro?:
nJirr ~sp02f ~tcGooS Gm:Jcoo3~~ G6pcwoSGq:na~ naoSeoGo
oo02S, ~rid~ J5:[3?:GG T@oo'J~E:g~u ~@ ~o ~t~~025' ~Ec
('l.)t)' .......
cr.l(t."J 0
3 4)
.-ffl'1CB-. u ..j:>.
8 8 8%~1G?
I g'l~ u ..c I~
.ill (Jo m '
~ .-e
""'"'_o_ o II) ....co ..n ll) o. il) r.l!/0 J;CJ il) o Ci5[) ll) ll) --o 8 ...co .4< ~- ..0 .4< ~ (D.) 8 9/l,.&~
rt ~ .!!C<J .-o ~ en en rB ...o c en ..8 8 ...o o 8 .-8 \._ en 0_ .-GG
il) 0'1
" u
_ .u. u
e u I.1
~ m a ~ 8(i)
Len CG"'J g'1 m c o m-g., -::-3 o 0'l ~ ~ v en ~-... [3d <;; riJ 8 fB <S) 8 <.) oo ro <S) 8 0'l
J:l ~ "i1' 0 ~ ~ 0 Q)o o8 ~ ~ Q)o 0 ~ 0 o8 U } (B, r.l!/0
8 ~ u .0[8].-Q.)_ 0 ~ cc. ~ \.) (i)
Len - 0 8 il) C OCY u 0 . ..0
~...8~8~-~~~8m~~t~~&lm~~~
il) ll)
CC"'JW/ en il)
~ 0"1 u ~ en IS:> r.> 0"1 8
8 re = &-, m ..8 u . ,.B. o(Y) ~ Q
~ fi3 ~ ~ -l?ln8 ,& 13 ..8o ~ ~ J;_ g.,Jg O 8 ~ Jf ~8 8 0'l 8[0- EcisS j~s,g.,
Q I!.G' v
fi3 ~- ~ m m ..!!J Len C' t:~ ro . ~ m ro_ II)
~ "S ., 0 "1:/Yl4b - [31~ C' (i)
~ ~/) @ I!.G' (2n ?.'ri I!.G' 8 e 8 = & ~ 8 Lg-> ~ Jj. 0'l Len S - 8 .-8 .--0 ~ & II) QY o:;
01 U VI 00
~ 8 0 o8
~ ~ 8 llQn QY 8 Q.l ~ cRP 0'l nr> m o8 IC u ~ 8 &, ~ ~ <Yl CCJ 8 8 '-1!1>
o8 C2n 8 C2n ~ S '5fl>l (8] fi3 ~ .4< 8 II) !;dtJ CGD m cru &, (&, 8 ~C C2n riJ ~
c:cJ - U n_!?)~ - " ,2 [:J -
fEn rB
~~~fB~~t~~~i]~tit~~w~ ru . t:J '='='' m" ~ m s:::
len .o_ ,2 ~ 0 ~ o ..!!J -"
..8 p 8 ~ .s..%-fh ~ J3 8-> 8 u
re 3; ~ g"l~ ~. il) D' .2 =~ 0 0 ~ -1?/n'D 0'1 0 >
01 I ~_!!) .-8o oo .m- fi3 8 '~..8 ~ &~ il)
8.-()().-<::X) II) ..coS 8->&,8 ~ &-,
en ru "'8 0 ~ ru -f.'>'1 fB o)) o)
~ C2n G) 8 G) .-.Y m ..8 0
o
oo ~ 0 ~ w .;; c s C2n El") 8 rB c L<-n 0 o_
8 ~ ~ ecJ ~~ &> ~C8J ~Cl\.Yl 2 rr re "" 8 ~ c .,g;; kl ~~ ..!!J
ru_ ..eo ll) ro :J ~ u c ...:::o co '!!!:!~ 0 o - o
J5 8s-, ~,__~1 = ~GB-J CP.n ..8 rB-> CP/) ~ 8 ~ ~ cg 0
~f51 _E) 8 Len v1 WY i5 ~ ..8o - ~'[ill 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ u fB ~ q; 0_ 8 Q:: DO
.-8o UoJ 8 (i) 8G' ~
c 0'1 ro_ e'1 U} t:l ~
re ~ u .2 ~ o8 -~ ~ e o il) ;. ~ o tl '-6 ~ ~ ~ G) ...o len 8 cr; riJ ..c t:J
0 . g:"] r.l!/0 f':')J ['Y) ~ ~
CP.n o :2 11@0 Jb3 tJ-...- ~ fl o ~ '-- ~J ~ ~ II) ffi-> o 0'1 LiJJ 0 IC :"l_
m ~
o 8 ..8 G) 3 em C2n 8 '-'~ (.81 ('/) CGJ il) t! .__, fi3 riJ G CC-:J = o a u 0'1
,8 C2n ~ Q3 8 G) ~ [8] C2n t:l .8 0"1 ~ ~ .-8o u ~ Vol .gr...- [81 ~ CB ) fB GB> (i) ~r 8 --o rg ~
~n- ~ ~ ~ u og r.I!!Ocffi..SQ:: ,~_,'01 8 o~ 9 _ ~~ ~
-;;O Q m c <:J m m I.JV-' & (2n WY .B 8 ..RI'()1 .-8 c ~oP/ ~
~ riJ
~0 88" C>."'~ o~~o_ ~ 0t:~ 8c:J
~ R.o n~ ~ 2 (8, 8-> o c g., 8-> en = 8 -& ~ R". C9 g m co -{'Jl') 0'1
.. ---" Q_ 0 ~ _!!) ~ {))'
r.l!/08~88-il)<$) ~ fi38..nC2n~~G)o ~l~ 6) ~ <C c 'D _!!) d
0 0
ffC2n.-S D8 U'lfj cfu 0-, 8 = fB ~ [! - &, 8 8-, 8 & ~&,8 G - B:f> C9 -~
:"l_ il) riJ ~ (.) il) fi3 e 2o as' r:1 &, ~ il) ~ frl~_o 8 cr; 8 -{},
ffi>.S J3 !0!18 8~ 8 ~ &, rB WY~ C1{l U} 8 N e~ 8 " o 8 c rn (&, o. o C3
W CUD --" 0'1 k'J r..J
~ 0 _ <-<r: 0 C2n u 8 (i) E mn8 ,..J e CGJ 0 J3 an ~:rq; fB ~ ~ .s ..c 1!.(0/
riJ 0'1 &, ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ o Ceh ~ om &, ~ - r---,
20 fB _!!) OS 0'. ffiJ 8 C' dP. 0'l --,3 ~ - ~ ~ .-_ C' k1 fl5'} 8t 01 ~ ffil rfr; ~ (i) ~ og, rS
.4< ~ a1 & LC/"l &-, & ~ ~ o8 em ~ 0"1 c3 ()') & ~ mffi-> ~ G <-. a 8 -,::;
0
l..n
~-
8 r.l!/0 u c6) 1.0
ru" g 1 m
f.:"}l ,.:;;;;:?, .-v o
0
~ ~ = -Po ..;_; .2 @.!) .;; ..8o LP..J Q'l ~ 0. 8 (1) :A .;; 8-> 8 .2 0
~ Len - tO 0'l '-1-'-' 0 Gr1 O"l ~
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS ..
qt~~CcGroS3~m"JttO~:~G~tgooSGG)~;,~~c o~t:~"Jgo:>tl jgt~~c :::>@~G

o~t~~~::Dt<J.?02~00JoSSJo~~OJtu ~~<(
~~o:>oS~oS~GOJ') 3<l~~:Y my30~~mo3r ~ccGoo SGm"Jmoo3:~ ~9
GtGco'JC~
Gspt;ooSe6)~Yc~~ rot~cc')C~GX') @~')~~~oS~')~ G@')Cgro@cooc @~G'J~tc
GOJ:::DtJ? o;s;~OG:f'6)u m~tm OJ)~OSJ~m~o:>t<J.? o;roocco:Go:>"J GOJSu
so9jm3<l oxf.i~')~ ~ ffiySO~~~c OJ~WJ ~G@') C:cDOj?OO ~86)~SOG'J c:
~"J:mt: GGoTGo1d3Goll
~~:GmS)~ 8~~3 <t~Sr sp~od:iG0'JSOJS? 8C!'jd) 8Cf ~CI
~~G'J~CcGmS) GC\JG0"Jtgo.:JJlo;(~GOO'JCG6)~3<l~~ Q~OO'J:G::D'J306p~
m~:::Dtr ~~o:>c~bbl j 8 ~a28g1oS3<l6)1 t~ 0 0~COG~OJ~:@~
o:>tbl@t::D,~~GX'J@::o:>.p~ 0g0')~~0Je;U ~~0g0'J~qJ~I ~bl'J
~CcGooS GCDGG"JC~::DoSOif~GOO"JCG6): 3<l~::Dt ~zg 1:G6):at8c~:oo6)0
@~GOJSC\Jt3r ~ccGooS3<l~g6)m ootGo:J"JCGo:~o:>t3<l@tr qt~~
L'tOc~:rH@nao o~~ ~tcGooS::ro~:6)moS fiN~!38~89I(O~::D@~r qc:
SO~'j'J ~tc:G0?~3<l~26)m OJ"JO~GGOO'JSlc6)GXO Sd~O?yot~~C
~OJ'JG6')9 qt:Sd~~Q~CO'J~GjJ'Jy~[ cDro @: O?Gffi')rt)~t I ~~o:>o)
~5G j 8 ~a28gloSrn6)r @t~oo~coG:oo~:@So:>t~ ~:@oS~GC\J
o:>t,u qt~3<l5l~~ myC\Jdl~n<>:ff::Dt @')~~.j~t:G~OJII ~~~~ ~nasr
CJ6C GC~jpdlco"J:~~~O?'JC:~<t[aS~ bl~cf.:GC\1j')~to:>t::roGo:poSr
q5:~Go~?5oS~"J~fJ.C\JO~oSx~u
106 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [195/

APPELLATE CIVIL.
Before U Ch,w Ttm Auzr~, Chief .Justice arrd (J San Matwg, ).

H.C.
1956 U SHWE LONE (APPELLANT)
July 30. v.
MR. KHA CHOUNG (RESPONDENT). *
Sale of Goods Act, ss. 55/o 61 (1) -Contract Act, s. 73-Co~ttract of Sale-
Deposit by buyer as part payment or cartLest mottcy-Brcach of contract
byB11yer-Dcposit 7/Jitclltcr recoverable by him-WlrclherSellu entitled
to sct-offllre deposit' agaiust d.rmages or: vc-sa.lc or retain tl1e deposit itt
addi lion to datil a gc.
Held: The Buyer is entitled to recover the deposit he had made s ubject to
the right of th e Seller to set. off his damages on re.sale agait\st the claim.
The Seller is entitled only to the deficiency and expenses incurred on
re-sale and cannot retain the deposit in addition.
Soper v. Arnold, {1889) 14 A.C. p. 429; Ocllcwfw v. H<rrly, 12(1 English
Reports, (Vol. CXXl K. B. p. 590; TIIC T'ellorc Taluk Board v. Gopalasami
Naidu, I.L.R. (191 5) 38 Mad. p. SOl; ]'iad Lal and others v. Miua Mal,
Balkislum Das, (1928) I.L.R. SO All. p. S~; Dies mzd auothcr v. Btitish am~
Iuterua/ional Mi11i11g and Fiuauce Corporal iort Ltd., K.B ( t939l r- 724;
Jlla11ePalli SatyallaraYmanmrtlti v. Th~mmandra ErikalaPPa, A.J.R. (1926)
Mad. p 4l0, referred to.

Ba Than, Advocate, for the appeltant.

Tun Aung (1) , Advocate, for the respondent.

Judgment delivered by

U CHAN TuN AuNG, C.J._This appeal raises


quite interesting points of law under the Sale -of
Goods Act, as to whether a purchaser . of goods
who has made a deposit with the seller either as
part payment towards the purchase price or as
earnest towards the contract, can recover that sum
Civil lsi Appeal .No. t 12 of 1953, ngainst the decree of the 2nd Judge,
City Civil Court of Rangoon (l.J S!IWE BrN) in CiYil Regular No. 308 o 1952,
dated the 26th Augusl1953.
1957] .dURMA LAW REPORTS. 107
'
H.C.
when the, contract falls through by reason of his t9Su
default; and whether. on breach of the contract U SHwE
by the buyer, the seller who re-sells the goods and Lo:m
'U
sues for the recovery of the loss arising on such MR. KHA
CHouNG.
re-sale, should take into account the deposit made
by the buyer towards the diminishing of his loss. U CHAN Tt':-.'
AUNG, C.J
It may be noted that under the Sale of Goods
Act as it now stands, apart from section 61 (1),
which expressly saves the right of both buyer
and seller to recover special damages, sections 56,
57, 59 and 60 lay down the right of the buyer
and seller respectively to sue for recovery of
damages' on other party's breach of contract. The
general rul'e as to the measure of damage is
governed by what is laid down in section 73 of
the Contract Act. When the breach is on the
part of the buyer, the seller's right is to sue the
buyer for the ~price of goods as declared in section
55, either in case property in the goods has passed
to the. buyer or when the price is p~ayable at a
certain date even when the property in goods has
not ~~sed to -the buyer. The seller can also
under section 56 sue the buyer for damages for
non-acceptance ; and the measure of damage is to
be calculated on the basis laid down in section 73
of the Contract Act, i.e. he is entitled to sue the
buyer for the difference between the contract price
and the market price prevailing at the time when
the goo~s ought to have been accepted by the
buyer. The buyer's remedy is to be found in
section 57 of the Sale of Goods Act. He can
sue the seiler for damages for non-delivery of the
contract goods, in case the seller refuses to deliver
or neglects to deliver them and the measure of
damage which he can claim is as envisaged in section
73 of theContract Act l.e. he is entitled to claim
'
108 'BURMA LAW REPORTS. [ 1957

H.C. the difference between the contract price and the


1956
market or current price prevailing at the time when
U SHWE
LONE the goods ought to have been delivered; and if no
v. time is fixed at the time of refusal to deliver by the
1\IRIliA
CHOUNG. seller. In certain exceptional cases, the buyer is
u CJ-iAN TU:-l entitled to sue for specific performance under
AUl'\G, C.J.
section 58.
Now, the facts giving ris~ to this appeal and the
counter-appeal are very simple. The present
appellant U Shwe Lone filed a suit as against the
respondent for recovery of Rs. 10,000 which he
claimed to have paid under a verbal contract, as part-
payment towards the purchase price of tobacco
leaves commonly known in the market as" Kyangin-
Shwe-Letwa-Yolone Tobacco", on !he ground that
the respondent had failed to supply him' the contract
quality, or in other words caused tl-ie breach of
contract. The respondent, on the other hand, main-
tained that the breach was not on his part; that the
tobacco leaves of contract quality were duly sorted
out from respondent's godown by the appellant
himself, after the appellant's examinatig.r. and
satisfaction of the samples shown, and that thereafter
the tobacco leaves were duly set apart in bundles
ready for delivery to the appellant. On the date of
delivery, the appellant refused to accept the tobacco
saying that they were not of the contract quality.
The respondent has made a counter-claim on the
ground that it was the appellant who by his failure
to accept the goods has occasioned the breach of
contract he averred that he had to resell the
tobacco at a loss ; the loss claimed was Rs.
5,733 inclusive of godown charges for storage of
tobacco in question.
Four material issues were framed and the
learned trial Judge, (the Second Judge of the
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 109
'
Rangoon .City Civil Court) in a somewhat rambling H.C.
1956
judgment found that: the breach was occasion~d
U SHWE
by the appellant and dismissed the appellant's LONE
claim in toto, with the following observation :- ~.
MR.KrIA
CHO.UNG.
" . since the basis of the claim of the plaintiff
is on the breach committed by the defendant while it is found U (!'J.fA:-1 TUN
~\uNG, C.J.
that the breach was not committed by the defendant but by
the plaintiff himself. The plaintifi however, could have sued
for recovery of the prices of the goods obtained by the
defendant in resale in excess of the amount of the portion of
the price he had not p:tid as the property in the goods had
passed to him. Since he has not done so, the same relief
cannot be given to him in this suit as the relief is founded on
a cause of' action different from the one on which he is basing
this suit. The relief h:! is claiming is based on the breach of
contract by the defendant, while the relief he could have
claimed is ba~ed on the resale of the goods by the defendant
.
as his bailee."
Dealing with the respondent's counter-claim, which
rh fact, . represents the diflerence between the
contraCt price and 'the price the respondent had
obtained in the resale of the tobacco in question,
the l~arned trial Judge, after making certain
reference to section 56 (2) of the Sale of Goods
Act which, we may note, is absolutely irrelevant to
the present case, observed :
" But where the buyer has paid part of the price, as in
this case, it appears that the seller cannot claim tl1e difference in
the prices when the portion of the price remaining unpaid by
the buyer is equal to or smaller than the price fetched at
re-sale. for' then it cannot be said that loss is occasioned by the
breach of the contract."

As regards the deposit of Rs. 10,000 which is


being retained by the respondent, the learned trial
Judge finds himself in deep waters how it should be
dealt with. It is common ground that the suit
contract was based on a verbal contract with no
JtO BURMA LAW REPORTS. [1957
G.C.
1956-
stipulation whatsoever as regards forfeitur~ or other-
wise of this deposit. of Rs. 10,000 which has been
u SHWE
LONE differently described by the parties_the appellant
~. claims it to be a part payment towards the purchase
MR. I{HA
CHOUNG. price, while the respondent maintains that it was
U CHAN earnest money "~~" and the learned trial Judge's
TUN AUNG,
C.J. remarks concerning that _deposit are as follows :
" If, of course, it is held that the plaintiff forfeits the
whole amount of Rs. 10,000 he has paid as advance, the case
would be different, and the defendant would then be entitled
to claim, as he is doing now, the differe.nce in the contract price
and the price at resale.
But, there is no specific provision of law that ap advance
paid must be forfeited when the seller commits. breach of the
contract . There is no such penal or forfeiture
clause in the agreement between the parties in t]).is case."
The )earned trial Judge then sought to invo\(e
section 73 of the Contract Act, and ftnqing it to .be
inapplicable, brought in equitable principles ; and in
the concluding portion of the judgment be observes :
" Is there any equity to allow the defendant to retain
the whole sum of Rs. 10,000 paid in advance as forfeited and
to appropriate the whole price of goods fetched at :resale as
his own ? There cannot, in my opinion, b~ anything more
equitable than allowing the defendant to do such a thing, i.e.
to swallow up the substantial sum of the advance paid and
also make use of the goods. purchased from him and not taken
from him, as his own. What is reasonable is to allow him to
only recoup himself the unpaid portion of the price and the
godown charges from the proceeds at resale ."
But, surprisingly enough and quite contrary to the
above findings, the learned trial Judge dismissed the
appellant's suit and also the respondent's counter-
claim without making any decision whatsoever as to
the fate of the deposit of Rs. 10,000. Now, from
the facts it appears that the appellant agreed to buy
from the respondent 6,000 viss of tobacco iP.. question
1957] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 111
I'

at the rate of Rs. 280 per hundred viss. Owing to H.G.


1956
appellant'~ failure to take delivery of the said tobacco,
U SHWF.
the respondent had to resell them at a loss, i.e.,, at LO NE
the rate of Rs. 185 per hundred viss, total net loss v.
.MR. KBA
being Rs. 5, 700. This in fact, is the difference CHOUNG.

between the contract price and the price which he U CHAN TUN
fetched on re-sale of the said goods, while Rs. 33-5 AUNG, C.J.
being the godown charges. It also appears that in
the counter-claim oy the respondent he has not given
the appellant the credit of Rs. 10,000. In our view,
there being no specific terms regarding the deposit
of Rs. 10,000 inasmuch as the contract in question
was verl:Jal
. ' there is no material difference whether
we characterise that deposit as earnest (<D~) , or part-
payment. In any event, it is a deposit, and as
observed by"Lord Macnaghten in Soper v.Arnold (1)
" che deposit" serves two purposes._if the purchase is
carried out it goes against the purchase-money_but
its primary purpose is this, it is a guarantee that the
purchaser means business." On a careful survey of
all the relevant facts, we find that the following
points . are not seriously in dispute between the
' >
par~tes :- ..
( l) The contract was a verbal contract ;
(2) The appellant had made a deposit of
Rs. 10,000 either as earnest or as part payment
towards the purchase price ;
(3) The rate at which the appellant agrees to
buy from the respondent is Rs. 280 per hundred viss
for a total quantity of 6,000 viss;
(4) T he appellant refuses to take delivery of
the said bundles C"f tobacco on the date fixed for
delivery ;

(1) (l:>t>9) 14 A.C. p. 429.


112 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [195/'

ILC. (5) The respondent sold the said tobacco at
1956
the rate of Rs. 185 per hundred viss and fetched
U SHWli
Lo~E R.s. 11,100;
tJ,
MR.l{HA (6) The respondent has retained the sum of
CHOU~G
Rs.- 10,000, claiming it to be a forfeit.
'u CH,'\NTUN As regards the question who has committed the
AUN.!i, (;,],
breach, we agree with the trial 1udge that the
appellant was the defaulter; but v.:.e cannot subscribe
to the view that because the appellant has, committed
the breach , he is is not entitled to recover the
.

deposit of Rs. 10,000 merely on the ground that his


frame of suit is one based upon the breach . .
of
contract on the part of the respondent, ap.d not based
upon the recovery of the price of the goods obtained
in resale by the respondent as bailee. We really do
not see the justification of such a finding in the
circumstances obtaining in the case. Here, the
learned trial Judge should not have I~st sight of th~
counter-claim by the respondeJI.t, which is in fact a
claim for damages quite in conformity with what has
been laid down in the Sale of Goods Act.' If it is
found that the breach was not occasioned 0y the
default of the respondent, but - by that of
the appellant, then the remedy available
to the respondent is a claim for damages
as laid down in the Sale of Goods Act, the relevant
provisions of which have been quoted above. This
is clearly what the respondent has dorie in his
counter-claim. He claims damages on the basis of
difference in price between the contract price and .the
price he realised in the resale of the commodity in
question, but he failed to account the appellant's
deposit of Rs. 10,000, obviously because there were
no terms 1 egarding it, whether to treat it
as earnest and suffer forfeiture or as part-
payment towards the price. In these circumstances,
1957 J BUR)VIA LAvV.. REPORTS. 113

we really "do not see how the respondent's claim H.c.


1956
should have been dismissed in its entirety withauJ
U SHWE
also taking into consideration the appe1Iant's claim as LONE
against him. In our view, the appellant's claim and v.
1\'IR. KHA
the respondent's counter-claim must be considered CHOUNG.
to12ether ~o ~" tn ~.,.~., ,~ : ..

.,-.-_--- ~~-'='"' .....'""... .. !~ll Luc expenses~


-to be made good
by the purchaser, . and on non-payment the entire
SlL11 reco-verable from the purchaser as liquidated
damages. Owing to his non-compliance with the
(1) IZJ Englisl1 Reports (VQI. CXXJ K.B. p. S'JO.

8
112 BURMA LA\N REPORTS. [f95'i

H. C. (5) The respondent sold the said tobacco at
1956
the rate of Rs. 185 per hundred viss and fetched
U SHWE
Lmm Rs. u.wo;
v.
Il'lR.l<HA (6) The respondent has retained the sum of
CHOU;>;G
Rs. 10 000, claiming it to be a forfeit.
---

---~--Tn tho rn'"""t1r.n urh() h:=t~ r.ommitted the

- que~uuu, UUl u~; 1a.uvu LV u.'--''--''-'"'u~ .... ~ ~ yy ~ ~- _

deposit of Rs. 10,000, obviously because there were


no terms 1egarding it, whether to treat it
as earnest and suffer forfeiture or as part-
payment towards the price. In these circumstances,
1957 J B URlVIA LA vV. REPORTS. 113
we really do not see how the respondent's claim H.c.
1956
should have been dismissed in its entirety \Vith0uJ
also taking into consideration the appellant's claim as ULo~m
SHWE

against him. In our view, the appellant's claim and UR.v.KHA


the respondent's counter-claim must be considered CHOU~G.
together so as to result in a fair adjustment as U CHAN TUN
between them, having regard to the provisions of law AU:-;G, C.J.
laying down the principles concerning the claim for
damages in cases of breach. No doubt, the Contract
Act or the Sale. of Goods Act make no specific provi-
sion relating to the refund of money paid as earnest
or as part payment by the buyer on a default either
by him "'or b,y the seller. But, there are numerous
judicial decisions where it has been held that on a
breach of c0ntract owing to buyer's fault, and the
seller resells and sues to recover the loss arising from
.such resale, t4e seller must take into account the
.deposit made by the buyer in diminishing his loss.
There are. also decjsions in which it has been held
that where part payment of price has been made by
the buyer and owing to his default, the contract falls
througl1, the buyer is entitled to recover the part
purchase price he has paid subject to the right of
the seller to set oif the damage against that claim.
In Ockenderz v. Henly (1 ), the plaintiff sold property
upon condition that the purchaser should forthwith
pay into the hands of the auctioneer a certain
deposit, and the remainder some time after, that on
purchaseo:r's failure to comply with this condition, the
deposit to be forfeited and the vendor shall resell the
property and any deficiency that may arise upon such
resale together with the expenses, to be made good
by the purchaser, and on non-payment the entire
sum recoverable from the purchaser as liquidated
damages. Owing to his non-compliance with the
(1) 12J Englisa l~eports (Vol. CXX) K, H. p. SYO.

8
114 BURMA LAW REPORTS. [ 1057

H.C.
. aforesaid terms, and the plaintiff having resold at 'a
1956
price below which the defendant had agreed to
U SHWE
LoNE purchase, the plaintiff preferred a claim in terms of
..
MR. KHA
the condition. It was held that the plaintiff was
CHOUNG. entltled to recover from the defendant-purchaser the
U CHAN TUN amount of the deficiency and the expenses only, and
AUNG, C.J.
not, in addition to those sums the amount of the
deposit. . In The Vellore Taluk Board, By its
President v. Gopa!asmni Naidu (1) it
was held that where a person deposits a certain
amount as earnest money for i:he due performance
by him of his part of the contract, under w~1ich he
agrees to pay the other party a certain sum and breaks
the contract thereafter, the other party who becomes
entitled to retain the deposit as forfei ted , under the
terms of the contract, must, in a suit iJy him for
damages for the breach of contract, give credit for
the amount retained as forfeited and that he can
only recover the difference betw~en the actual loss
sustained and the amount of the forfeit~d deposit.
In Piari La! and others v. lV.lina !vial, Balkislzan Das
(2), the defendants sold a quantity of, grain to the
plaintiff, who paid substantial sum as earnest money,
the delivery date being not fixed. The plaintiff
assigned his right under the contract to a third person
and he filed a suit for breach of contract. Apart
from the question whether he should implead as
plaintiff the assignee of his contract, the question that
arose was whether the plaintiff was entitled to sue the
defendant for the return of what is called the earnest
money which in fact was a part payment towards the
price of the goods to be delivered subsequently. It
was held that that although there w2,s no specific
provision in the Indian Contract Act relating

11! I.L.R. (1915) 38 Mad . p.8Ul. 121 i11'J2S) !. L. I~ . ~0 A.il. p . 82.


1957]
.. BURMA LA'V-.t1 REPORTS. 115

to the ref'und of money paid as earnest money H.c.


1956
or part payment by the buyer and the
seller failed to make delivery, the buyer was 0 LoN~> SmvE
entitled to recover the money so paid. Dies and J\IR.v.KHA
another v. British and International /!,dining and CHouNG,
Fin':!nce Corporation, Limited (l) is a case in which L1 CHM< TuN
the purchaser had paid one hundred thousand'pounds AuKG, c.J.
towards the contract for purchase of certai"n rifles
and ammunition from the vendor. He com-
mitted a breach which he himself admitted, and
failed to take delivery of the goods under the terms
<.1f the WJ;itten contract. The vendors having elected
to treat the contract as at an end, the plaintiiT-
purchaser filed a suit for recovery of one hundred
thousand pounds less thirteen thousand fi ve hundred
po.unds which he admitted the vendors were entitled
to retain under- a clause of the written contract, it
'Nas held inter alia that the payment of one hundred
thousand pounds was n ot in the nature of an earnest but
was a part payment of the price and that the plaintiff-
purchaser was accordingly entitled to recover the
sum of ~one hu;1dred thousand pounds subject to the
defenda:ti.t's cla]m for damages for the plaintiff-
purchaser's bryach of contract. In lvlanepalli
Satyanarayanaraurthi v. Thommandra Erikalappa
(2), both the buyer and seller of goods appealed
against the order. of the trial Court in a case where
the buyer failed to take delivery of the goods on
the stipulated terms and the seller filed a suit for
damagesJor non-acceptance. The seller was only
allowed damage he actually suffered: but not the
deposit made by the buyer. It was held that it was
never the practice in mercantile contract to hold that
whatever be the damage suffered or not suffered, the

(!) 1 K. B . (193<)] p. 724 . (2 1 !\.I .r~. (l<.libl Mad r 410.


116 BURMA LAW Rf.:PORTS. [1957

H.C. seller was entitled to keep the deposit. Therefore,


1956
from a catena of authorities cited above, we are
uL~~;l! 'c~nvinced that even if it were found that. the buyer
v.
MR.KHJI.
is in default, the buyer is entitled to recover the part
CHouNG. payment he has made, subject to the right of the
U;CHAN TuN seller to set off his damages against that claim. In
AuNG, c.J. our view therefore the
'
trial Judae
0
was wron()'
0
in
rejecting the claim of the appell":nt as well as the
counter~claim of the respondent. Since both the
parties have preferred an appeal and counter~appeal
to this Court, we must hold that, on the facts and
.. view of
circumstances obtaining in the case, and alsoin
the judicial decisions cited above, both Ifave partially
succeeded in this appeal. Accordingly, the order of
the trial Court will be set aside and there will be a
judgment and decree in favour of the "appellant in
the sum of K 4,267 being the surplus, of the depo'sit
of K iO,OOO paid by the appellant after setting off
the sum of K 5,733 being tq,e difference between
the contract price and the sum realized on the resale
of the tobacco in question plus the godown charges
payable by the appellant to the respondent: Since
both .the parties have partially suc'c'eeded in this
appeal, there will be no order as to costs in this
appeal.

CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No. 112 OF 1953.

U SAN MAUNG J ._On the facts disclosed 111


evidence I do not c~nsider that the transaction now
under consideration ever proceeded beyond the stage
of a contract for the sale of the tobacco. Section 22 of
the Sale of Goods Act provides that where there is a
contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable
state, but the seller is bound to weigh, measure, test
<.>r do some other act or thing with reference to the
1957 J BURMA LAW REPORTS. 117

goods for the purpose of ascertaining the price, the H.C.


19%
property Cloes not pass until such act or thing is
done. In this connection the plaintiff's contenti0n uLo~E SH\\'E

that the tobacco was to be packed in his presence II!R.v.KHA


after weighing is much more probable than the CHOUNG.
defence story that the plaintiff had instructed him to U SAN
MAt:NG, J.
do the weighing and the packing of the goods in his
absence. Therefore the property in the tobacco
had not yet passed from the defendant to the
plain tift'.
If the contrary had been true and if the whole of
the purchase price had been unpaid, sub-section (2) of
section 54 of the SaJe of Goods Act would be appli-
cable. Hovvever, this section does not specifically
deal with the position which may arise when the buyer
has pre-paid' part of the price a nd I would reserve judg-
ment as to what should be done when part of the price
is pre-paid in a case where the property in the goods
had passed from the seller to the buyer.
On the facts and circumstances arising in the
case under appeal I agree that the authorities cited
by the learned Chief Justice are apposite and that
the def'endant must, in equity ,refund to the plaintiff
the difference between K 10,000 and K 5,733. The
learned trial Judge was wrong in thinking that he
could not give a decree for this sum in the suit
under appeal because the plaintiff had claimed for
the recovery of the whole of the amount of K 10,000
paid by him as a deposit. There is nothing in law
)o prevent a suit being decreed for less than the
;amount claimed by the plaintiff.
,~ I agree in the order proposed hy the learned
,.iChief Justice.
118 BURMA LAW REPORT~. [ 1957

APPELLATE CRIMINAL.
Bcfo,e U Shu Mauug, J
H.C.
1957 ABDUL HAl (APPLICANT)
APril :. v.
THE UNION OF BURMA (RESPoNDENT).*
Immigraliotl (l!:merge11cy Provisio11s }Ad, s.13 (7) (b)-Act No. 26 of 1956, rto
retroJ#clizc c!fsct-Ss. 263 ancl 264 (1) Code of Criminal Proc~dura.
Held: Barma Act No. 26 of 1956. The Burma Immigration Emergency
PTOvisions (Amendment) Act, 1956 has no retrospective effect.
Held further: Under s. 264 (1) of the Coue of Crimin:1.l Procedure, it is
imperative on the Magi strate trying such a case summarily to record a Judg-
ment embodying the substance of the evidence an:! also the particulars
mentioned ins. 263.

Ba Saing, A.T.M., for the applicant.

Ba Kyine (Government Advocate) for the


respondent.

U SHu MAUNG, J.-This is an application in


r~vision against the conviction and sentence passed
by the learned 3rd Additional Magistrate, Rangoon,
in his Criminal Summary Trial No. 862 of 1955 in
which the applicant was convicted by the learned
Magistrate under section 13 (7) (b) of the Burma
Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1947.
This trial, as it appears from the record, is full of
unsatisfactory features both in regard to procedure
and in the way it has been conducted by the learned
Magistrate .
..Crin-,inal R ~vision
Xo. 29 (B) of 1957.
the order of the 3rd Additional Magistrate of !{angoon, dated
T\eYiew of
tile 5th d::y Of October 1956 pass.~cl in his Criminal Summary Trial No. 862
,....; 1 o.:;.:;
19 57] BURMA LAW REPORTS. 119

., First of all, there is a complaint filed 1n this pro- H.C.


1957
ceeding aJ: page 2 and the complainant who filed this
ABDUL HAI
-complaint is the Immigration Officer