BURMA LAW R-E PORTS

SUPR.EM E COURT

1952

Cont"aining cas.e s determined by. · the ~t.tpre~ ,
Cou.rt -of the Union of· ·aprm~~

:MR. B;. W:~~· TUN, ,M._A., LL.B., Bar.-at-Law, E~r~Ol{. .
U TUN ON, B.A.·, ;s.L. (A.dvoca'te), R EPORTER•.

lpdex prepared by-U T UN MAUNG,B.A., B.L., Bar.-at-Law.
. ' . .
DR. MAUNG MAUNG, B.L., LL.D., Bar.-al-Law.

t>ublish ~d u nder the aut hority. of the .
. . President. of the ·Union
S urma by the Supe rintendent, Union Gove rnp1ent Printi-ng• ..:
. . of
a nd
Stati one~y; Burma, Rangoon :

.fAll rights
.
1'esei-vedJ
. .
NAMES OF THE JUDGES AND LAW
OFFICERS OF THE UNION

SUPREME COURT
CHIEF JUST:rtE OF THE UNION
The Hon'b1e Agga Maha Thray Sithu SIR BA. U, Kt. ,
M.A. (C~mtab.) , Barrister-at-Law, Chief Justice
of the Union from· 1st J anuary 1952 ·to 12th
March 19.52. •
The . Hon'l;>l~ Thado Thiri Thudhamma U THEIN
MAUNG, ;M.A., LL.B.· (Cantab.), Bairister-:at-
Law, Chief Justice . of. the Union fro:m 22nd
M ~rcl} ) -952. ·
..... . , . . ' •.
:P..U ISNE .. IUDGES .
The Hori.'bl~ · ·Ju~tld~· ':~;fhpdo. ../i:hiri ·.T hiidhamma
U THEIN MAUNG, M:A. , LL.B. (Cantab.h
Barrister-at-Law, from 1st January 1952 to 21st
March 1952. · ·
The Hon~ble . ·.Justice · Thado ;T hiri Thudhamma
U E MAUNG, · M.A.,.. ·... LLM. . .(Cantab.),.
·: Barrister~ai-..taw:
The Hori'ble.:...' J ustice T hado ' Maha 1'hr.ay Sithu
· · . U MYINT THEIN, M .A., LL.B., Barris'ier-:at-Law,
~r.om 22nd March 1952. ·
...

: "LAW, OFFICERS OF · THE ·UNION :
. · . .. ;":·ATTORNEY-GENERAL . ·.· ..
. .
Thado Maha Thray Sithu u·CHAN HTOON, "LL.B.,.·:
' . ·. Barrister-at-Law. · · · ·
. .
ASSISTANT
. .
ATTORNEY~GENERAL
. . . . ...
'

'Thray Sithir u· ··.CHAN .. Ti:J~ AUNG, B.~: /B ..L.,.·
.
Barri-sier~at-Law.
2

GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES
U CROON FOUNG, B.A., B.L.
u TIN MAUNG, B.A., B.L. .
U MYA THEIN, B.A., Barrister-at-Law.
U BA SEIN, B.Sc., B.L.-
U KYAW 0), B.A., B.L.
U KYAW THAUNG, Barrister-at-Law.
u CHIT, B.A., B.L.

ASSISTA~T GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
U ·'B A KYINE, B.Sc ., B.L.

LEGAL DRAFTSMEN
U CHTT T UN , B.A. , •Barrister-at-Law.
u .BA THAU NG, B.A., B.L.

ASSISTANT LEGAL DRAFTSMEN
U B.A. , B.L.
TUN SHEIN,
u HLA BAw B.A., B:L.
' .
LIST OF CASES REPORTED

SUI"REME COURT
PAG!':

A. C. Akboon and one v. A. Habib .~. 236
Ah Kam v. U Ba Shwe Pho~.e and one 222
B. S. Mohamed Eusoof v. Bakridi and others 248-
Bo Kyi Myint and others v. Controller of Rents.
Rangoon and one ... 185

Cassim Ebrahim Malam v. Mariam Bi Bi (a) .Haji
Bibi and others 4
Dalbir v. The Secretary, -Ministry o~ · Health a~d
Local
. Government and.· two others
.
·. .. 20
Daw . Kywe v. The Deputy·
. Com!jlission~r.
.. Pegu·
. and
others ... 92
. _Dr. Gordon S. Seagrave v. The Union ·of Burma 44
Hussein Buksh .~han v. MudaJia ~nd others · 1'46
..
Isaxail Molia~~d (!A.hrried) Bodi. Bros. and others. v .
Chief Judge, ·City Civil Cou:rt,.' Rangoon and .
others ~.: · · · ·· · ... 1,82
. , . • I

J. Kimatrai & Co. v .. Ministet: for Finance a:~.d .
Revenue and . ot~ers.. .. , ···' .
..
. ..
cp1: (~Oln C)~:T.l())?~i~~ ·b~:Ol~t o3:0?.:~o:n=~'ln:g~ Bffi¥
· . OOG&JI~~t:~~OJ~: ·. · ,. ~ · · · ... ·. ·: .· . · ooo ·
.o
K. K. Dever v. The Chairman, :Oist~ict Tenancy Dis~ ..
· posal Committee, Hanthaw~9y an,d two others··. : 255
s.
.K. J(. K~der. v. The Cont;oller of R~nts. Rangoon · .
: and others ... ... · .·. · 64 ~
-ghadiza Bibi v. The·:R~sfd~~t. Southe~~ .~~~ St:ate :-.~:, ._.· .
. and anqther ., . .-. · :.·· 210
. . : .. ; . . .. . ·.. .. . : . : . . . ·..·...
. \·'.

'Lim Pv.·a :I:itin v •. The ClJ:airman, Public .J>roperty .....
· }>rot.~~tion_ CoXU:qi.it~ee. and ~Jhers · .·. .. ... · · 55
Vlll LIST OF CASES REPORTED

PAGE
M. E. Bhayet & Sons. v. The Chief Judge of the
Rangoon City Civil Court ·
and others· . . .
:- """· .. ..
40
----(Burma) Ltd. v. The Chief
Judge, Rangoon City Civil Court 69·
Ma Ain Yu- v. Dr, Miss A. G. D. Netto and others 65
Maung Ko"Lan v. Ma Ngwe Lwai and others 179·
Maurice· Bower Padgett and othlrs v. Collector · of
Rangoon • 126
Mohamed Haniff and others v. The financiaf
Commissioner, Burma and othe{'s 11
M/S. .Ramchhodas Jethabhai & Co .. v. The Hon'ble
Minister for Judicial Affairs ~nd others 22.7'
Ponoya and .
. two others v. The Secr~tary.
.· District
· Agricultural Board, Pyapon. and others.· . .. 200 ·
@f§~oS<:if?:~~· @f§.~oo?C~·§~:,yJ~~oo59'a~:€t ... .. .· O?~ ·
~m$1~~ c£~o.2o:~S ~:c?g<l!oo?:~q: ~m~d3o1 13' ~: ) G_o
S. Huie ~- The Collector of Rango~n and others · . . . '131
. .Bros.' & Co.
Steel .· . . Coll~_to~.. ·.o fR.a.ngo6n.
Ltd. l':.· The t'ss
T. N. Ahuja & Co: v.. ~bdul Latiff' iainal & Co: 197
Thakin Hla Kyw~y· y. lJ Nyj Nyi . . .,.. t9l'
·~a~ Ken$ we.s v.
tJ Yin and · Otbe~t .·•. ,. ,.·. . · ·... ,: 37'
-~e_ Rangoon .illectric Tr~tnw.~y ;!.~ ·Supply & Co. ·.
Ltd.,
.
v...The-Court
·on"'
. ·
.. ..•
..
··::_; oH.iidt,Jstrial:Ar]Jitra·
.,..
. . . . .·.'. ; ' .
.....
. · ... ..
.. 75 ..
. eoni'niissioner•. Shw~b:q · and ·:
x' • .. : .. ..•:.: ·~·: .• • . •• : • .
;.: .. . . '·:·· ··.:-. :. ... . . 33
·.'
., Win
r. and·
: . others
. ·• ·• • ··· ..15.
..a-.-n·- .-·· ·6f:·R.ents1•• Rangoon
:~:·:-.: < .· ~/: ::/. •, ': :.·~.. .:,·:· . . · ·,.>·~ t:&'
n~~turriing -:dffi~e.t;' 'Las~ib ari(_J
i·.j:.?.' <~~- . . 1,:.. ... .. - ·..
• ,,_. • •. •• ..·.':- .. > .·: ·:~ :-·· •.. .,·~·. . •.•
:.V..·U Po:. Thi(and two others .·.. :. . 257
~·:. The Hort'l;ll~: :· Miii~tei: fo~··. · : .. · · ·
·:·
''"'~'".U'~"'
•• • . .. .... ·::i ~::.>·
- .. .. :'.
·:;, > ' 1.94
LIST OF CASES REPORTED ix
PAGE

U Ko Ko Gyi v. Engineer-in-charge, Rangoon
Corporation and others 266
_ Kyaw U (a) Myo Chit Kyaw U and others v.
Bureau of Special "Investigation and others 96
_ Kyone Myaing v. The Financial Commissioner,
Burma, and others 214
_ Ohn Khin v. The Union of Burma t58
_Po Mya v.· The District A-gricultural Committee,
Insein and one 96
_Po Nge v. V , R.. A. Veerappa Chettyar 108
_ Po Thin v. ·District Agricultural Board, Maubin
and others 202
~~~~ ~~&§6 . · . ...
~~~!G-:>c~:51~ ~:o:>~:c§E51~ ~· ~: ...
0

V. Ramaswamy Iyeng~r ·and others v. ~. V: K. V.
Velayudhan Chettyar ·and o~e ·· .. . 25

Vrajlal Naranda and one v. The Collector of Rangoon 118
Yaya Pat~l v. The District Judge, Bassein and others 58
TABLE OF CASES CITED

I' AGE

Allcard v. Skinn~r. (1887) :36 Ch. D . 145 8
Ambala North Sikh Rural Constitution, 1937. (S:!n
& Pod dar's Indian Election Cases, 1935_51)... 84
Attorney-General for Canada ~· Attorney-General for
British Coturnbia and others, (1930)
A.C.lllat118 • ... 143
- - - - - - o f Ontario v. Attorney-General for
Dominion, (1894) A.C. 189; (1896) A.C. ~48
and 349 \A . . 14~-144
Babu Sagarmal .Tibriwala v. G. M. Latimoux:. (19~8)
B.L.R. ll3, referred to · 2s3
Carlona Ltd. v. Commissioner of Worh and others,
.· ·.:. (.1948) All Eng. L.R. Vol. It P·.. ~6p 157
Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioners of Works and others.
(1943) All Eng. L.R. Vol.' II, 560 . 123
Charles R. Manasseh v . T.Qe Collector of Rangoon
and Dr. Kun Lwin. B.L.R. (t951)(S.C.) 201 122
___ Russel v. The Queen, (1881-8·2) L.B.. 7 A.C.
829 at 839-840 ...
· · · ... . . 142
Cp. Re. Rippon Ho~sing Order; (1939)' 2 K.B, ·.838 161'
Daily Parbhat. ~ahore v. Empe~~~. (1947)~L~h. ·
A:I.R. "
· 366 at 371 · · ... 167
Dattatraya Sitaram v .. ~mper.or, A.I.~. (1948) Boin.
· .· . .239 at 24.3.- · .,. .. ·:.: . ·.·· . .. . •.. .. .'.
'
.... 169
Daw KhinTee ~. U .Chan Tha and one. 0 .949) B.L.R .
.(s.c.). ·193~·-ret~rred to ... . ·::. .. · .:. 9i
. . ·.~;: -·:
I;>ice~'s. Conflict::Of Laws (6th E~~.) ; , 710-711 32
Dutt v. D~~t. :9.Luck. 178 a·t (8~ . . 8; 9
_Emperor, v-.- )la~oinali Ma.h~apa, (1.943) J.L.R·. 22
. . Pat. 48 .. . .. . ~ .. :.. . . ·1·62
. -~··::
· ---:-__; ·v: Miss Maniben.L. Kara, 57 Born. £53 · .. : -161~164
Ertell Biepet Cas~:· (i9'1·s) A.c.·· 260 ~t ·274. · referr~d. :. ~ .
to ... . .. . · . , . .. . .. . .· ~.'- · 30 ·.
Xll TABLE OF CASES CITED

G·allagher v. Lynn, ( !937) A•C- 863 at 870
Grand Trunk Ry. of Cabada v. Attorney-General of
Canada, (1907) A.C. 65 . . . " .. . . .. 143 .
Gwan Kee v. The Union of Burma, B.L.R. (1949)
(S.C.) 151, followed 196- 433 .
Habib' Sahib v. Sheik Budboo, A.I.R. (1939) Ran.
143, approved .. . · .99''
H oe Moe v. Set::lat, 2 Ran. 349: applied 246·:
Hup Fot ~ - Tlfe Deputy Commissioner, Insein and
others, . (S:C.)
. B.L .R. (1950) . 86 · -13
_ _ _ _ v The Deputy Commissioner. Insein,
B.L.R. (1950) (S.C.) 86 ... . 2.f6
In the matter of." Daily Zamindar" (Urdu), L ahore,
A.I.R. (19.47) La·h . 340 ...
·- - - - - " Nawai Wafqt Daily" Labore, (1947)
. . . ~.L.R, 28 Lab. 497 . . 164.1'69·
_ _ ___·.- _~be · " Partap '' (Urdv) Daily, Labore,
(1947) I.L-R. 28 ·Lah. 795 . . .. . 164~165
. ·"'' ......,,.
the " Sun Press. 'L td. '? A.I.R.
(1938) Ran: 41.7 . 162
.iowala. Das Govind Ram v. ·. Thakar Das~. · A~I.R.
· ·. · ·.. (1936). L:ah. · 251 ... foilowed
I

-K.L.C.T. Chidabaram ·Firm v: Aziz Meah. ·( 1~ 38)
,., '. R.L.R. 316, distinguished · ·. . . , ... 113·;(15 r •

·~a,mal Sarkar v. ·:Em.peror, (193&) 'I,.LR. ··1 Cal: 455 1,q2
• • • • ••• ;.. • .. •• • # • • • • :_ •• • ·: :!
,..gin 'Ma Ma_. ~, The ~hairnian, . Public ' Property
· . ··_ Protection·'Bo.a rd and two ·.o~hers; 0 948) ·B.L.R.
. .
·-··..· 574·· . .. . :· . . . . -· .
. : . .... .. .. ... :..
'Krisb.tia Prosad · Lal Singha'. Deo . v. ·Biraboni Coal
. .:.:·· . . . · ... ·.

·· · ... Concern, 64 I .A..; j 11·. followed ·.....
. K~rri.~r:· BadJ:i -~a~ain Sin~h. v:··Chief s~~r~tary to the
: Gov~~ent. . .
of Biha:t'.:.A.I.R:
. ·': •
'(t~4t)
0 •
.Pat. 132
.Kunw~ v. Si.ngh. -=14..~· A- :-~·49~ referreq· to ·. ·. '· . ...
M~.-. Aye · t,yi'; ..~. ·. c~~issi~~~t. ..:Of ·Poli¢e, . '(1948) :
B.L.R: .77,2. (S.C.), . fblloW~d . . ?J 1
..:_Khin Ky~~ ·v. R.:·· C. D~~~ _I.I,.,,IL4 Ra~·. '96·. 'itt
TA!TL£ OF CASES CITED .. Xii i
PAGE

Ma Khin Th'an v. The Commissioner of Police,
Rangoon. ..
..a:D.d. one, ( 1949) B.L.R. t3 at. 16 ...
~

- Kyin Hnin· v. The Commissioner of Police, Rangoon
170

and another, ( 1948) B.L.R. 777 . 93 .
-:-1oo Teanand qther~ v. Ma Thein Nyun and others,
10 Ran_, '103.' ; ·· 112,ll6
-Shwe Mya v. Mattng f{mo Hn~ung. U~B~R. p. 30
at 33, disting1,1ishe.d • · · .... ·. 238,241
Maung .~hit v. Ro~an N. M . A. 'Kareem Oom•er &
Co .• 12 Ran. 500 · ... 198 ~ 199
- - - Khin Lay v. Maung. Tun Thaing, 5 Ran: 679 . 114
- - Lu Gale v. Maun,g Kyaw .Yail? P.J.I;.B. is8 :. 114
- - ·Shwe Lone v. Maung Shwe An. P.J.L.B. 68 1,13
Mafar Chandra Pal v. Shuk1,1r and ot4e.rs, 45 I.A.
183, referred to and f'Ollo.w~d . 6()
Mitchell v .. fiomfray, (1881) 8 Q.B.D. ·587 8
Mohamed Ebrahim Moolla v. S. R. Jandass, 11
L.B.R. 387 72
----Hanif and one. v. The Financial Commis-·
sioner, B.L.R. ( 1952) (S.C.) 11, followed 216
Nakhuda Ali v. M. F. DeS. Jayaraine,(19Sl) A.C. 6~.
referred to and appli~d :. . . . · .. ~; . 13
Nokes v. Doncaster A~alga~at~d · .C.o.llieries, (1~40) ·
A.C. 1014 at 1022 .. . . . . . .. 160
. ·.:.
Oppenh~ims Internationa) Law, Vol. J 1 (5th. Edn.),
?.63. referred to :.,: · · . . . . • .:. 31
· Province of Boinbay..:;: Kulsald~s S. Advani and
· others. (195.9) :s.c:R. 621, referred. to · 124• .
Punjab Anglo-In,!iian Constituency (Case. No.' 1)
Daobia~~· Indian Election Cases.- Vol. 1, z41 85
_ ___:Sind Bank v. Oanesh Das · Nathu· Rane. I.L.R.
16 Lab. 1113 . . . ; ~ =· ·•• .- ·.. ... 1 H>
R·.· v. Peters; (1886) ~6 ·Q._B ..p." 636 at 641 . :. . 161
. ~aj Pal v. The.Crown;
. . . :(l922f
.:
I.L.R.
. 3 .Lah.
. 405 161
. Raila Ram v. Tpe .Province of. East Punjab, A.I.R. ·
(1949) F.c.. .81 .;. · · · · · ... . 160
xiv TABLE OF CASES CITED

PA(iF.
Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and others v. The State
of Bihar and others, A. I.R. (1952) Pat. 194 at
199 and"200. followed • 129
_._ Gopal and another v. Shamskhatoon and others.
19 I.A. 228 66
Ranchhoddas Jetbabhai and Co. v. The Secretary of
the Union Government, Ministry. of Judicial
Affairs and two others •. B.L.R. (1950) (S.C) 68
~avula " Haripfassada Rao v. The .State, A.I.R.
(1951) S ..C.R. 322, followed 49 .
Re. The ·Delhi Laws Act, 1912, (1951) ..S.C.R. 747
a.t 907, referred to and followed 223
-The Initiative and Referendum Act, (1919) A.C.
935 at 945 223 ;
·.·
R.e.x v. Steane. L.R. (1~47) 1 K.B. 997 at lOOS
Robert f<i~cher .v. The Secr~tary of State.for India in
Coundl, (1899) I.L.R. 22· Mad. 270 (P.C.)',
referred to , ,.·.· .;353
S.T.K. ·Chetty·.Firm y,., Balasundram. 10 L.B,R·. 199.
.. referred to ... . . ·. .
·s atgur Prasad ·v·. Ma.hant Har Narain Das. 59 I.A.. ..
.1.1.
distinguished . 66
· ..·Saw
0
Benson

v. . T-he. C~mmissioner
.
of. Poltce. Rangoon
. .
.. ; . . and· o~her$. B.L.R. ( 1950) (S.C.) 196. followed
:r ·singer M~nufilct~ri~ co, v. · L'o.~g. O.S8Q) ·18 Ch.J?. ·
.;>:· :.' .
.
39_5: at'4t2'
.
· :.. : _. . . _: .. ·
.
· · :./
' ' ~IJ;l·· . Bhaigapta ·Bewali V. HiiiiniM Bl\dyakar, 20 c.w.~..
' ' "
.· :. ....
. ,.

. · '1335, referred to ·:..
.. . .~ . . . .:. .. . ·.'
· ....
•. : .
·
:T<:n.~rit · v~-: Union .Bank of - ~an~da, (1.894) J\.c.··~1. ·j~3
·:.r.It,~ Mt1nia.pal Corpor:~ti~n .· of Rang<;>on -~.. ·M· A.: · ··;. .
'..: ·~· , Sh:~ur-. 3 Ran. s~o. refeti~d tb··ancfdi$.tinguisl;tttd :. . :.59;1.'?·
·: =_ · _provibce -'o f B~~1.b~y ~-- Kusai~as S;. Adva.P.i -~Iid ,
. : · ·.. ·.ot-hers,. ·(19!50) S.C.R.· 621
•• .. , • • \ • •
· : ... · .. · ' ..:·::.· :..:, 1!!;7
•• 0 • • • • • • • •

·.· ::i.:.Sed-eta~y.'.'o~ ·state..f~r .):ndfl;l .in C<?q~cii- ~- :~~/·
· · · .. . Jitiiidr~ · Nath (:howqury ·ana· ot})er,s:_. ·A:·.t.R: ·
.: · ft-924) (P.C·) 175 at ' i79',.. foil6wed ··:·: ..:. ~: ,: . · 250~i5J,. ·
.....·.. .. . . . .·.. . . .. .:. . .. . . ~·~··:.
TABLE OF CAS ES CITED

The Secretary of State for India in Council v.
Maharadhiraja Kameshwar Singh Bahadur,
I .L.R. (1936) 15 Pat. 446, distinguished 25 1·
Thomas Bear & Sons "(India) Ltd. v. Prayag Narain.
( 1940) 67 J.A. 212 iH 216, followed 205
T inza Maw Naing v. The Commissioner of Police,
Rangoon and one. (1950) B.L.R. (S.C.) 17 89
U Ba Pe and others v. U Ba Shwe and others, l 1
R an. 1
.

.
_Ba Yi and others v. The Officer in-charge of Jail.

59·

Yamethin, B.L.R. ( 1950) (S.C.) 130, referred to 56
_ . Htwe v. U Tun Ohn, (1948) B.L.R. 541, followed 268
_Kyu v. The Commissioner of Police. Rangoon,
(1949) B.L.R. (S.C.) 18, distinguished 93
_Sein Lin v. The Controller of Rents. Rangoon.
B.L.R. (.1950) (S.C.) 156, referred to 220
.V.E.R.M.A.R. Firm v. Ma Joo Tean, I.L.R. 11 Ran .
239 ... 113.116
V.P.R.V. Chokalingam Chetty v. Sethai Acha and
others, I .L.R. 6 R~n. 29 · 111
Vimlabai Deshpande, A.I.R. (1945) Nag_. 9, distingui-
shed... · · ... 88
.•

: J .

..·'I;

.-
·;.. :,
'~1~t~~ .;;.
~.'·~ ·
..;........... ..,.
~··

1. • ··t:~

.... ~. ;.:·• rr

..._.,.
GENERAL INDEX
OF
CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLCME
(SUPREME COURT).
ACTS:
BURMA ACT No. 1 OF 1898.
---CUsTOMS AND TARIFFS 'ACT. '
--LAws...\cT.
Bt:REAU OP Si'ECJAJ;. INVESTIGATION ACT, 1951.
cnv oF RANGOON .M uNiCIPAL AcT.
CiViL PROCED URE CODE.
CONSTl~liTION OF ':(HE .U NION OF BURMA.
CON1 RACT ACT.
CoNTROL oF hi PORTS AND ExPORTs - (TE~iP9RARY) ACT.
CooPERATIV:E sociETIEs AcT.
COURT FEEs Ac.T.
DEFE!'<.:E .O F Bt:RMA ACT. :' .
DrsPOSALOF TENANCY AcT AND RULEs.
ELECTION OF TH£ PHE~IOEN'l' OF' THE tiNiON OF BURMA ACT, 1949.
EVIDF.NCF. ACT.
GOVERN~JENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.
- HAGUE REGULATIONS.
HIGH CouRT HULES Al:ID ORDERS,,
·- - · TREASo.:-: ACT.
LAND NATIONAI,JZATJON ACT.
LHIITATION ACT.
LOCkL AUTHORiTIES (SUSPENSION) AcT., 1946.
LOWER ·B.U_RMA TOWN AND VILLAGE LANDS ACT AND RUI:ES.
MUN.ICIPAL ln;T ANI? RUX.ES.
- -- --- ELE.CTJON RULE$.
PARllAMENTARY · ~-~ECTJON RULES.
P:ENAL co·oE. .
PRESS (EMERGENC~ PoWE~S} ACT.
PUBLIC ORDER (PRESERVATION) ACT.
--
· -PROPERTY .(PROTECTION}. AcT. :

REQUISITION_ING (CLAIMS AND COMPENSATION} 0RDER,1949.
--- · - - - -·-(EMERGENC"'i
. . PROVISIONS)
. ACT, 1947.
~

SEA CUSTOl\JS ACT. .
SHAN S~ATES MANUAL.:.
SP.ECll<'·l C RELli!F ' A~T :_
. SUPREM~'COURT.l<UI.ES, ~948 ...
XVIII GENERAL I NDEX

ACTs :- \COilcld.)
TY.:<AxCY DtsPOSAL HULt:s, 1951
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AcT,
.,
TRvST ACT.
l;NIO" jUDI.CJARY ACT,
UPPER BURMA L(\ND Al"D REVENUE ReGULATIO~, 1$99.
{;!;BAN R~.N'f CO:>!TROL ACT.

AIISI:O~UJ'G OF CO•ACCOSEU NO GRo;;NO F O]J CONTINUED DETEN·
T I0!-1 OF APPLICANT UNDER P UBLIC PR;>PERTY PROTECTIO~!
A~T. s. 7 o ..• 55
Al:ISENCE' Ol' cANDJOATE o :~ His AGENT-WHETHER • NOWNKrioN
PAPEfl CAN 13E RE1ECTEP 1
A CCORD ANI) SATISFACTION 197
A OMINISTRATIVE OR EXEC UTI VE ACT-ORDER OIRECTlNG DEMOI.ITION
OR RIDIOVAL OF UNAUTHOlllSEn Sl"RUCTURE
- - - - - - - A C f AND ISSUE OJ' CERTIORARI .... • ..
AGENT IN ENF-'.!Y· t ccuPIED TERRITORY, PRINCIPAl, IN INDIA, Wli AT
LA\' APPLICAULE 2S
ALTERNATI

'E GROUND OF Sl.X;PICION WHETHER VITIATE ORDER OF
DE"IENTION 87 . .
AMENDMENT Olo'PLAINT • 2:'6
~- · --s. 7 (2) OF PUULIC PJJOPERTY PP.OTECTION Ac·r AND
HE·ARREST 5:0 . :
API'·"L ANU l~J::VISI0:-1, CONT ISUAT!ON AND NOT l\EW . PROCEED1NG i27
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF Clo:RTIORARI TO QUASH ORJ>EROF DISTRICT
j UDGE A~J"ING UNDER MUXICIPAL I~ULES ... S!l . _
API·:I.ICA"I'IO~ FOR SPECIAl. LEAV E--S, 6, U11i011 ]ttdicit~ry Act, 1948-
A t/V QII Ce w lu.tl£er loa11 or fo r f>t~rclur~e of 11 lmudi by way o f
tltSCOIIIJt-Fiurliugs of fn ct -Ca usr. of actiott Otl origi11al consi-
der11 h on wlreu e.~tiugui.~lled-Ac ·ord ·aud .~11lt11jact,on.
"The
Lower Cuurls•found th:~t the original tr;~nsnction belween the
pa lic:s was not one o f lnaol but of discounting a hundi. i.e .,
purchas" of a hnndi for le:-s tha n its face v:~luc On an applica
1ion f••r special leave : Heltl: That the finding of fact that the
origin<1l transaction was ~ot one of Joan but of discounting of
hundi r.anno.t be challenged on <~ppeal. Held fur/he r: :TJ1at Ute
cause o f action in the ori~nal consideration i~ extinguished if the
1e:1der by negotiating a negotiable instr.u..,•cnt has made the .HiU
hi$ own and thereby accepted Uie iriJ>lrumeuf as· aceor"a and
satisfadion .of the original con •ideration. viz., l.iabllitY of the
bor ower . . Maung Chit v. Ros/t,, N. /ol. A. Karuw Qomer &
Co.• 12 Ran 5120 · '
T N. ABOJA 1'- Co. t/. i\ llUOL LA T IFF ]AllAL & Co . 197.~
ARTICLE 9 1 OF :rHE L IMITM "ION AcT ·. Deed o!Jlaiued by .ntldue
iuftueuc~.;_Knf/IQledge of I h.~ couteuts <'f tll'c doc~ments i!xeC!.l tcd
by ager~ts-Suil· fi.led ttft er 4 years ,whether barred. Arpellant,
father of the J:~es'l>oudents , obtained Probate oi the tstate o f hi s
dc::niased wife w.!Jo was the mother o{ the He§ponden.ts. ·, :Respon-
dents t and 2 executed a I·Ow er·o£-atto:-nev in :ravour· o·f their·
uncle to execute a deed Of rtlea<e in ta·;ou r Of tl:le ·appellanf~,:lheir'
father, on the ground that they have. obtai.ned Rs .. 2f,OQO. o~t
GENER.At; INDEX xix
PAGE

of the estate. Acco•clingly u .e deed o f rel ease was execul<d by
the uncle and he stated th a t he informe:l the 1st : n :l 2nd
Responden ts about the execu1ion Of th:: deeds of relea: c:s ~nd
there was no cr?~s ex.::nin :n ion on the poin.t. The trial fudge
held that the cl . .im t o set '!\ ~ ide the rele~ se \'<IS .ba:ored t y
limitation. The Appellate Court set it aside. Hdtl: TJ1at w!Kn
the igent Of the 1st and 2nd · Hes;·ondents "in'ormed them
abo:tt t he execution Of the deeds of releases , if thev did not
beco:\ie aware o'('thei r rig!Wto impeach the releases it O)ltld only
have bt:en be,;ause they chose not to be en)ightened. Both the
Courts held that t:u:y l<new the true nature of the powers-of-
attorney. Tlle d :-.im to ha ve the deeds set aside was barred by
limitation. Dult v. Dutt, 9 Luck. 178 al189 ; Mitchell v. Homfray,
t1881i 8 Q.B.D. 587; Allcard ~. Skim~e1·,· (l887) 36 Ch. D. 145 ;
Knnwar v. Singls, 14 I A. 149, referred to. • •
CASSTM EBRAH1M :v!ALI~l 11. MAR I AM BIB! (a) HAJJ B I BI-
0

AND OTHERS ~ ~!it - 4
AUCTION PURCHASER, SUIT l!Y- 'W HETHE!t ORIGINAL ~tORTGAGOilS ARE
NECESSARY PARTIES . 108
BENEFIT OF D OUBT MUST BE GIVEN TO Accti~ED 44
BuREAU oF SPECIAL INVESTmATION AcT, 1951. s. 21 (2)-AMEND-
ME!\T OF SCR. 1 BY S. 24 WHETHER ultra t.'"es 222
BURMA CUSTOMS TAR-IF~ ACT, SCHEDULE I, ITE~"1 1 9 105
- 1 OF 1898, s. 3
-AcT· No. 135
- -LAws Acr, s. 13 (3) 25
BuRMESE BUDDHIST LAw-step-son claiming the estate of step-
mother-Law relatiug to cilildreu of divorced pnreut;- Maiu-
· 'twanceof filial relationshipwilhfatheraj!er tlte divorceofthe
morher-S. 145 of Evidwce Act- Prct:ious st11temeut us.-d f or the
f>ut·P.bse of impeachittg credit of n witness wltelher s u_l;stantive
evidence. U Mya! Nyein and Daw Thet were husband and
wife and.-!lppellant was a s.o n of the union and · afterwards they
divorced 9Y:mutual consent, U Myat Nyein ·married Daw Sein
hut had no c;hildreil by her. After the death of U Myat Nyein,
Daw Sein ."married U San Dur· •. U San Dun by his first wife
Daw Thein Hla had children who are the R.:spondenn> in the
appeal. Al'pepant maintained filial relations w1th his {ather
U Myat N)'ti n andstep-motller Daw Se'n. Held: That App~llant
is an heir .to the est::.te of Daw Sein when she· died without
natural issi:e. The law. relaliHg to ch•ldrenoof dh·orced parents·
is greatly misunderstood. As a consequence o£ incorrect
rendering .;,f ·M.miugy.t by Hicha~ds on at p. J19 (4th Edition; it
has b~ea held that wl1ere parents effected a divorce with partition·
.of properties an·d. a~rangements by mutual consent were made
· for :he custody: or disposal Of children after the divorce. the ,
children who. went with the father di d not retain any right to a '
share in the moth« 'S ~state and t•ice versa. The Manugye
translation in spcci{yihg " children for whom compensation has
bee'1 p:\fd .an.d children of parents, separated '' clearly referred
not to children of parents divorcing in normal course but to those
S•·ecial classes dealt with ins~ , ~3. 54 and 55 Of Volume X of.
M,,,,rgy:·. The deductions fr~m the right of the par&nts .to· "ive
aw~y children in adoption can be val ~ only in respect Of m~or.
children, for whatever the law miglit have been in early days ;
b y the time !he Ma!mgye came to .be · comple£ea it ~s s~ttled

·z
XX GENERAL INDEX

PAGE
law that only minor children could be given away in adoption
withoqt their wishes being cor:su!ted. The right of the children
so given away in infancy to return to its natural family on
attaining majority was recognised at pages 235 and 236 of
Ma11ugye (Rr:fereoce to 4th Edi tion). •
U AUNG K YWE v, MAUNG Po H LA W I N AND OTHERS

C ANCELLATION OF PKRMI'l" 6,2'
CAUSE OF ACTION ON ORIGINALCONSIDE RATION WHEN EXTINGUIS HE D 197
C E RTIORARI, DtRBCTION IN THE NATIH<E OF-AllolmeJ~ t by District
Tetwncy DisposaJ Committee seUi"g asit!e Vii/age ·committee's
order- Rule 13 (1) (f) of DisPosal· R'IAJes-District Committee not
aP1>l~ng mind to real questi01,- Findings of f act-Practice, how
fa r ca11 be Pro~ed by affidavits iu writ of certiorari. The Village
Committee allotted a 1)iece of land to applicant the owner in the
pre•ious year. ~n appeal-the District Committee set it aside.
For the current agricultural.sezson parties again applied. T he
Village Committee found that the 1st Respondent defaulted in
payment of rent and allotted t3e land to the owner tO cultivate
his own land. On appeal it was simpJy stated that the dispute
was exactly the same as in the previous year and tha£ the appeal
must be allowed as in the previous year. Upon an application
for a writ of certiorari. Held: That the District Committe-e had
not applied its mind to the real question at issue whether rent
was paid in the previous year by 1st respondent or not. Where
facts are at issue before Inferior Tribunals they should have been
thorcughly thrashed out there, and nellO'facts cannot be allowed
to be proved by affidavits on: the application for a writ. The
Supreme Court will not normally go beyond the record. The
fmding by the Village Committee, in the absenr:P. nf l'.nntr;iry
finding on appeal is binding on the Supreme Court and there was
nothing in that finding whereby the Village Committee acted
illeg~lly or otherwise.than in due course of law.
MAUNG KHO L AN fl. MA NGWE L WAI AND oNe ... 179
CBRTIORAlll, DIRECTION !N THR ~A1'URE OF-ProceedillgS Utlder
Urbau Re11t Cotllrol Act, s. 16cBB (2)-Allotiut; premises to ou~t~er
for occujlali~tl-Assumptioll bv Controller t hat npptiumt is the
ow11er-S. 16-AA (4) Ia) ilow f ar aj>p/icnblc- W/1en tfoere is
dispute as t o ow11ership-f;tateme11ls,in affidtlt•il~, loose at1d
irresjxmsible-Condemncd. U Ra Yi agreed to purchase House
No. 11, South Race Coorse Road from Mrs .. Malkhoo in 1939.
The purchaser was put in possession befqre the payment of full
purchase price. The p~mises were rented by U Ba Yi's widow
'Daw Kha and the previous owner sold· U1e premises iri 19~9 to
U Aung Thein who attempted to establish.title by applkation fqr
fixing Standard Rent. No notice was issued lo Daw Kha, the
Controller holding that U .Aung Thein was t.he landlord as
defined in the Act U A•.mg T hein Jatt:r issued notice to 1st and
2nd Applicants, the occupants, to vacate the premises .. They
applied to the Controller for t9ntinued oc.:cupation. The
Controller dismis~ed the application holding that they were
tenants of Daw Kha. Finally U ;\ung Thein · applied to the
Conb"oller for ~anction to prosec1,1te t~ 1st and 2~g 'apP.licants· for
vacating the premises. The Controller held that. U Aung 'DJein
was owner b); reason of bis title deed arid that tbe occupier~ were
liable to summary eviction onder s. 15-ss·(2) of-the. Urban Rent
Control Act. Later the Controller proceeded to allot~be premise~
·.as President of_the Advisory Board, ~o. tJ Aung Thein al! ow_net for:
GENERAL INDEX XXI

PAGE

his occupation. Upon an application for a \vdl to quash the
pr oceedings. Held: That the dispute as to ownership between
U Aung Tht:in and Daw Kha 1S a matter to be settled in a
compete.nt .Civil Court. The _applicants 1 and 2 came ~nto the
premises as Daw Kha's tenant~. The or.d er by the Control-ler
that it was imm<tterial as to w~ose ten;lnts the applicants were
so long as they are tenants of the premises is illegal and
unsustainable. In the present case t11e Controller's :~ction in
Proceedings under s. 16-AA, (4J (al of the Urban Rent Control
Act whereby the Controller could direct tile landlord to occupy
the premises when they become vacant is wholly irregular as
Daw Kha was landlord and no notice was issued to her. All that
the Co~troller could have done ~naer (he section was to direct
Daw Kha to let the !?remises to a specified person and wait for
compliance of the order. Statements in affidavits shou~d not b~
made loosely o, irresponsibly. An affidiwil is made on oath and
as such is a solemn state1nent and care should be taken that loose
statements are not made.
80 KYI MY.INT AND OTHERS 11. CONTROLLER OF RENTS,
RANGOON AND OTHERS 185
CERTIOR.lRJ-QUJ;;STION OF FACT HOW FAR CAN BE DECIDED 194
- - - - -,WRIT OF 40·
, APPLICATION FOR 69·
- -- - -,ISSUE OF-WHEN T HERE IS ALTERNATIVE RRMEDY 1

- - A N D PROHUllTION ... 266·
CERTIORARI-Grant of-Regarding trade dispute-Mistake in
deciding question of fact bY Court of Ind1tsfrial Arbitration
whether ground for writ. On 25thApril19.5J, R.E.T.&,S. Co .
.Ltd., transferred 16 of the workmen from the Boiler House
Department to .lhe underground department. On the 26th April
1951, ' 16 workmen were dismi~£ed im account of their refusal to
serve in the undergound department. The Court oi the Industrial
· Arbitration, Burma in C'\Se No. 5 of 1951 made <~n award for
r einstaten·.ent of 16 of. the discharged workers and granted other
reliefs. Upon an application for a writ of certiorari to qtash the
said aware!, Held :That the question w.hether ther.:: is a decision
or agreen~ent r~gardlng ·inter-departmenta l transfers was one of
{act which the Court of Industrial Arbitration was competent .to
decide. The mere fact that it made a rnista~e in decidinR such
question ca1mot ordinarily be a· ground for a . writ gf certiorari.
\Vhere there was already a d.ispute between tlie Company lm!l
th e Wo.Tkers' Association regarding the terms and conditions of
service rela ling to inter-departmental transfers and such dispute
had not been settled there was a case to gv before U1e Co:;r{ of !'
Industrial Arbitration and worktr.en could not be dismissed
because they . refused' to obey orders of transfer without the
decision of tbe S<)id ·question of transfer.
THE R~NGOON ELRCTRIC TRAMWAY & SUPPLY Co LTD.,
RANGOON v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAl. ARBI'TRA-
0
. TION, BURMA AND ONE · • 75

. CHIEF JUDGE OF CITY CIVIL . COUll~' :ACTS IN QUAS'l·J(/DICIAL
CAPACITY UNDE~ THE URBAN RENT,CONTRdL ACT •. : 69
CHILDREN OF DIVO~CED PARENTS . 1.
XXll GE"lSERAL INDEX

PAGE .

CIT.Y OF RANGOON -MUNICIPAL ACT 266·
CiviL PRocEDURE ConE, ORDER 47. Rur.Es 1 AND 2 62
--COURT WHE:-1 VESTED \"!Tli JURISDICpON TO DECLARE ORDER OF
RENT CoNTJWLLER NUf.L A :-.-D VOID ... ••. • .. 24'8
CLASS OR sECTION OF PERsONS RESIDENT IN BURMA, MEANING OF 158 ..
COERCION 65
COMFORT, MEANING OF ... 44 . ·
-coNFLiCT OF LAWS 25 ··.
. CONSTITUTION OF BUR"t.tA- Direction in tlte 11a.ture . of certiorari
against J,. rauting of a lease or licen$C to work a quarry-:-$. 219 of
til fonstitutio1~·· I.flri.' OJ certiorari against at~ a.imillistratrvc
act. Heltl !'That granting and cancellation Of a licer:ce o.r a
lease is an administrative ac~ anJ as st.:c~J the offic::r granting the
licenc~ or lease is net amenable to a direction in the nature of
certiorari in r.espcc'. of his action. Under s.· 219 of the Conslitu·
tion of Burma, minerals c11n be exploited by the Univn or Union
may . grant .the right to citizens of the Union o~ to Con~pat1ie"s
or Assoc!ation at least 60 per cen~ of . the capital of which is
owned by such citizens. As the 2nd Applicant was undoubte·d ly
not a citizen at the time wr.en the. lease wa~ granted to the
2nd . h~espondent and he obtained his certificlte Of citizenship
during· the pendency 0 o( his revision to the Financial Commis·
sioner, the subs~quent event cannot affec: the Validity of the
Deputy ·.commissioner's Order granting the lease to the 2nd
Respondent in p reference to that .of the 2nd AppEcant who w.as
ineligible: for the leas e at the time Of its _grant under the
Constitution. H"p For v. Tht . Deputy Can:missioner, Insein
and others. Ch~il Mi~c. Application No. 3 of 1950 ·(S,upreme·
Conrt) ; Nakhuda Ali v .. M. F. PeS. Jayaratne, {1951) A.C. 66.
referred to "and applied. ·

MoHAMED. HANIF AND ANOTHER v. THE FINANCIAL COMIII!S·
StONER, BURMA AND OTHERS ·: 11
.CONSTITUTJ0:-1 OF UNION OF .BURMA, S. 24 2i7
,;-· -· ·-~ Aoo:, s. 219 ": ~:1. .
. - .- · --
, - - - s. 23 (4), s. 222 (1) : ·i18
•. --·-·-...:.....-~ ss. 30.{2), 92 {1) ANri (2), THIRD ScHEDULE, ss. 151 liL
- . -· ____ . _ ._.s. 224.!• •
ss. 23 AND ~6 ·
iss ·
COi-{!RACT AcT; ..,J 5 :
__
.· ._ . - - s. 15 '65
:/.
-coNTRACT o .F AGENCY-Atcnt in
e1temy occupied territory, frrinci_pal
• iu 'liutia__;Effcct-Law aPtl,cdble-J)uYma Lqws Act, s. 13 (3J-
WJ~cther -f1der·nat~o11al . Law ,or laws. of Bu.rma applicaNe-
Defence "oj Burma Act-Contr,tct Act..::.Ss 23 and S6~Cot~ftict of
laws-Contract of agency if go:·erned by lite law where the
Prini;ipal· res:ides or carries on business-lntenfion:-Mixed.
ques~ionof law aud fact-New case 011 appeal- Wlretlter perniiS·
.sible. · The !\ppellants (Receives$ · in l11dia) appointed
Aru!ladlalamoas ' agtmt to contin.u e to carry on money tending .
&usiiless ·in '" Rang"oon. War broke out and Burma was oect~pied
by -th~ Japl.fllese. During occupation the · Respondent paid in
.. .Japan!':se · cu:rrency his .debt to ·the· agent Arunachalam .. The."
. . .Appellants . ~-:-n'ended that..tb.e .-contract of Agency ca.!ne_to· an
GENERAL INDEX xxiii
PAGE

end hy operat ion Of law and the agent had no authority to accept
the amottnt. Held : Under s. 13 (3) Of the Burma Laws Act in
c,tses not provided lor by sub-s. l, vs;., successio11, inher-itance,
marriage, etc., the orc'iuary law of the l:tud, if any, shoald apply
and if there is no such law. the case should be d<:cidcd according
to justice, equity and' good conscience. lntern;llional law deals
w:th the question of ·r~latiot:s between stnt(S a1: d not between
individuals. The laws of Burma applicable to the case a;e to be
found in. the Dcf.ence of Burma A:t and its Rul,s and the
Ccntract Act. The 'Dde ce ·of 'Burn:a Act is designed <•r
intended for protecti ng Burma during the W'ar. With this
object it was prvvi<!ed that no~e· son resident in Burma sh<:u'd
trade or ha,·e intercourse with the subje·ct of a•·Yenemy s ta~
or with any perspn resi:ling in enemy occupied cou~try. ThE
prohibition qid not apply to intercourse between 1 e S?ns lidng
.in Burma <.nd those living in othu pat·ts of th e British Empire.
The A~t ·never contemplated that Burma would be occ; pied or,
if occupied, there should be no intercourse between persons in
Burma and in other parts of the British Cmrirc T ile Defence
of Burma Act is therefore not applicable The p·cvisi<JJ!S 01
the Contr<tct Act that arc applicable are ~s 2J and 56 S. 56
deals with' s uperven ing illegalit,·. As intercourse be~ween
people living in ·enemy· CCC. pied Burma avd people in India
was not prohibited under the Defence of c.! urma Act, the c ontract
of agency did not b<come illegal under this section when Bu.ma
fell <!nder the ~ccupation of the enemv. S. 23 provides if the
Court regards t he C·) nsideration or object of an agreement as
opposed to public policy. the agreement is

Related Interests

Oid. Pub!ic poi:cy
is n~Jt defined in the ,\ct. It is used in such a way as to serve thE
interest of one's own country. Different policies .ha\ e been
adopted by England and other countries ful!owiog the Britsh
system and by continental countries on the efft ct of \var. on
. ·contracts. In England the givin)! of opr-ortnnily for the convty-
ance of information wh:ch n1ay hurt the conduct Qf war, or may
tend to inc~ease t he resot!l ces ·of the enemy or c :ipples the
reSOU!C~s of. the King's .subj.'cts, . is prohi bited t:nder the Act
Ertell Bieber Case, (1918)· A.C. 260 at 274,· referred to. T he
p!'inciple followed by German)', A'. stria-Hlinga.~:.y, H(.lland <. nd
Italy wa:; to allow inte:course and t•·ade between persons
residing in those· ·countries and persons re~iding in enemy
co.mtries even alter the outbreak of war udess it was prohibited
by special. en(\c".Jnent, the reason being that ~t wot:ld be in fheir
interest. OPPenhcims Iutfrnatiot,al Latv, Vol. II (S!h .Etln.)
263, refe:-red to.· By allowing trade and i~crcourse as in this
case, the inte:Es(s of Burma woald not only be r.ot injured
but be promoted- L:>oking on the question from the in:erestof
~.!!is country (and that alone must be taken into account) such
intercourse can net- be ht ld to be opposed to P~:blic Polley under
s . 23 of the Cpn_tract Act. I": rther, where the pril!Cipal
and ageut live in different count i.:S there is no presumption that
the contract \'il.l be snbjtct t >the law where the principal res! des
and not where he carries on business. The c-.mc1usion inay
some:irr:es be justified that they intended their contracts to be
govern-:d by the law of Hie country in which th~ a.e;ent i~
inteilded to .act. Dicey's Conflict of Laws (Mil Elf11.), 710--7-11
The intentic:.n· of 'the· parties · being a mixed question of la7.3!ld
f~.ct' and the point' not'having~been pleaded and r,.o·evidence
taken cannot be raised for the. first tim~ in appeal. .. . .....'
V. RAMASW:AMY J YENGAR ANQ OTHERS ' tl. S.V, K.V: ~ELA•
·. ·YUD~ CHETTIAR AND ONE ...· ·.. 2
xxiv GENERAL INDEX

I'AGE

C ONTROL OF IM PORTS ANI> EXPORTS (TEMPORARY) AcT, 1947 227
CO·OPERA'CIVE SOCIETIES' ACT, S. 44·A~Registrar dissolvi~Jg a
Committee of a Co-operatit·e Society a1&d declaring some
members to be dtsqtwlified for electio?' for 2 years- APPl icatiot'
for writ of rerl1orari-APPlicanl who 'leaS the Presirlwt of the
Society iu t ':e previous t erm also disqualified. Power of tlte
Registrar t1ndc r s. 44-A 11Jhetlzcr exlett.<ls to members of a Committee
whose term hasu pire&-Whether order judicial or administrative.
Hc/.d: Unc!er s. 4~-A of the Co-ope alive Societies Act t he
Registrar may dissolve the Committee and also direct that all or
any Of it:; m~mbe1 s shall be disquali~d from bein)! elected for a
p criog spedficd in the order. The Committee that can be
dissolved is tl~ Cotrmittee wh:ch has misu~anagcd the affairs of
the Society :~nd t!u: disqualiii.c;:.tion is "~gainst its members". 1'he
test in such ..:.tst:s must be whether applicant W OJS a tr.em ber of
the Commitltee which is d issolved. Since the applicant had
ceased to be a member of the Committe~ long before the proceed-
ings were i•·itialed against tile S:>dety s . 44 -A C.1'' have n o
application to hi on. Fm ther !he section cannot be invoked to
cover the case of past membe: of the Committee e\·en if the
mismanagement b :gan at the time the applicant was President.
Held jurtlle~: That the order in the case was cne expressly 1:nd er
s. 4-t-A of the Act an•d that is the only p~ovisio, under whi ch
an order of dissolution and disq",;tlification can be made-hence
it is not an admintstrative act b:tt liable to be quashe:d if in
excess of jurisdiction.
THAK:IN HLA K't'WAY fl. u NYI NYI ••• 19J..
COURT OF INDUSTRIA L ARBITRA1'IO~, M~STAKE 'OF 75
COURT·FEES, PAYMENT OF, REGULATED BY HIGH COURT RULES AND
ORDERS, NOT BX COURT FEES ACT 236

DECREE ON INCONSISTENT SET OF FACTS RAISED BY DEFENOANl'
WHETHER CAN llE GIVEN TO PLAINTIFF 236
DEFAULTER .. ,
• -
DELEGATION OF POWERS OF DETENTION AND ATTENDANT DANGERS
100
33
- -- -- -· POWER BY PRESIDENT TO BUREAU OF SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION WHETHER ~itra vires . ... 22~
0
... ...
DEPUTY· Co~IMISSIONER'S AC~JON. IN GRANTING LEASE WHETHER
JUDICIAL, QUASI• JUDJCIAL OR ADMiNiSTRATIVE... 214.
"-----DIKECTOR OF SUPPUES....-POWER TO GRANT Ill PORT LICENSE... 22~(

DIRBCTION IN THE NATURB OF C&RTIORARI-Burma Customs Tariff Act,
Scltedu/e I, Item 119-Prefirellfial rate for goo is from U11iterl
Kingdom, Briti~h Col61Jiis, India or Pakistan-Goods imPorted
from Singapare. Held : That under s. 3 .of .the Burma C<~stoms
Tariff Act cotton fabrics mariufachlT~d· in the Uni:ed Kingdom,
British Colonie, , I~dia or Pakistan; at:e to be pxed at a pre-
fer ential rate, Rule 3 provide!! that ~oods manufactured in the
Uni~ed Kingoom or ' Britis~ Colonies:. will be taxed at pre-
ferential rates only _wh'en import~~- direct from the United
Kingdom or: Colonies.. The rul e ·was made w'hen Bu: rna was
pad Qf. ·the Irirlian l';mgire: 'Aftet: separation and/or indepep.'
· dence of Surr_na no rule similar to _Rule 3 ·was made rega,rdin~
GENERAL INDEX XXV

!'AGE
goods' of Indian uri~in, A..:cordinl! to ss. 2 and 3 of Burma
Customs Tariff Act when good; are shown to have been the
produce vr manufacture of In.dia, the importer becomes entitled
to avail him~elf of the preferential rate ot duty even though it be
not imported dirt>ctly from India.
J. Knr'A'I'RI & Co. 11. ~llNISTER FOR F I NANCE AND REVENUF.
A~D .ANOTHER 105
D l ftECTlO NS l:-; THE NAl'URE OF·CERTIOilARI AND PROHI81TION-Cily of
Rangoon Municipa l Ar.t-CutzS/rucl ion a net lmp!icntion 1•f tTze
phrMc "ll<l:.~iug th~ duty to <Jet accortli"'g to lm11.'' Held: There
is no pro\·i$iOn in the Corpor;~tion of Hangoon Municipal Act
which requires the Engineer-in-charj!e, iu issninj.! a.n order
directing the demolition or remo\·al of :m unauthorised•stni<.:tur~,
to act in anything but an achnini~trati

Related Interests

e or executh•e capacity.
Held further: The test of "ha

Related Interests

i11g the duty to act according
to l.aw" taken by itself is not suffic:<:nt. Everyone is under:a duty
to act according to law but lail.1:·e to act accordinf.! to law will
not in every case gi\·e rise to a right in the injured p:uty to seek
directions in the'nature of certir.u ari and prohibition. U Hft;·e v.
U Tu11 o:w, {l94S) Jj.L.R. 541, followeci.
U Ko Ko GYI 11. ENGDI£I:.R·DI·CIIARGE, RANGOON CORPORA-
TION AND A.-.,OTRER ... • 266
D!RBCTIO:-IS !:S THE NATURE OF MANDAllOS-Requistio ning
{Emerge:tcy Pri)'IJisiotu/ Act ,l':J./7, :<. 2-Govrrnmeutof Burmn Act,
s. 145 tZ• C<mstJtt,fiotJ of the Uuiv" of Burma, s ..222 (1 1, -
E.,;isting law- W!Jetller RcqtliSttionitlg Act ultra \ires of s. 23 (4)
of tile Collslitutiot~-Requi~itioni11g whetfler ;u,!icia/, quasi-
judicial act -Rule 2 Cg), l?cqt~isitiming (Claims nud Comj>wsa-
tion} Order, 1949-"0wt~er" me<Tning of-Temwt how far
mom:r. The Co1lector of Rangoon hy order u1 der s. 2 of the
(Provisions) Act, t9n rcquisitionr::d a portion of lh<?, 4th floor of
Requisitioning (Emergency) No. 545-.547, Merchant .Street,
Rangoon, then in·tile occupatiO!! of the 2nd applic;ant as tenant and
employee under th~ ls~applicant . Requisition was challenged on
the !(round that the Reqaisitionin)! Ad, 19~7 was ultra v'ires in
view of the GoYernmcnt of Burma Act and of thr:: ConstUution .of
Bl!nna as no ,provision had heei1 made for payment of compensa-
tion in the rules fr:Jmed under the Act to tenants \'ho. had
substantial interest in U1e lan-:ls. Held : Thlt the Reqdsition-
ing Act, was not ultra vi1•ts · on accoun~ of s. 145 (2) oi the
Government uf Burma Act, 1935. It is not also ultra vires on
account of s. 23 (4) of th.e C ons~itution of Btlrma. The question
whether compensation is payable to any ·tenant in occupation
is covered by the decision in Charles R . Mmzasseh v. Tile
Collector. of Rangoo11, aud Dr. Kun Lt11i11, B.L.R.(1951) l?.C. :?01.
The tenant is included within the definition of owner of property.
· to whom compensation is payable. That the ~mount of compen-
sation and the principlt>s on which and the manner in which .the ·
comptnsation is to be dt:termined are sufficiently specijied'in s. · 6''
(1) a~d (2) of the Requisitioning Act. These principles are-:
(a) The owner must be compensated for any loss Sllstained'.
by h.im as a res:~lt ol requisitioning ; . • : ·. ..
. {b) The amount of compensati(ln mus t be fixed by agree~~nt
· . . if possible : • · . . • ...
(ci In default to s ;cb,agreem~!lt a~ount of compensation is ,
to be by arbitration by an arbitrator to be !IPP0jt;~l~d :
by the President, who by ll general or 6pecial order•tray
prescri~ the conditions t.o which · such .?rbitrator
XX:Vi GE~RAI1 INDEX

I' AGE
shall have regard in dete: mining the amount of
compensation.
Held al'so. Requisit:oning property under the Requisitioning
Act is not a judicial or quasi-judi..:ial act but a mere administrati\ e
act. No direc.\ion in the nature of certiorari can thertfore be
issued in such case. Carltona Ltd. ,., Commiss_i'ot1ers of Works
and others,. (1943) ·' II Er.g. Law Eeport~, Voi. U , 560; Province
of Bombay v. Kulsaldas S. Advani and others, (1950), S.C.R.
621, referred to.
VRAJLAL NARANDAS ANO ONE V. THE CoLLECTOR OF
RANGOON ... 118.
D IRRCTIOINS IN 'ffij': NATUHE OF CERTIO~AR! AND hfANDAMUS - R,quiSi·
tioni"g of house under s. 2 of Requisitioning (Emergwcy
ProvisionsI Act, 1947-Allegation I hal building rcquisitiot~ed is a
temPle and plac.: of religious 1oors!tip -S. 25 of the Comtitution
of tile Union of Burn:a--Disputed questions of fact-Pra-ctice.
The Masonic Hall in R:mgwn was requisitioned by the Co) lector
of Raugoo:t under s. 2 of Requisitioning !Emergency Pro\ isinns)
Act, 19~7. An application was filecl in the Sup· tme Com t for
issue of appropriate writ on the grounds;-
(a) Tbe Requisitioning Act was ultra vires on account or
s. 145' (2) of Go,-ernment of Burma Act. 1935 and also
of the Constitation of Burma, and
(b) the first Boor of the building is used as a temple and
phce of· religious worship and hence could 110t be
requisitioned.
The Collector in reply to the application dirl not specifically
deny that the building was not a place ~.f worship b;.f m~rdy
stated he was not ;o.ware 'of ~he aliegatious about the building
bein~. used as a t emple or that Freem:~sonry was a fo: m l.lf
religtoo s worship.. Held: The ques' ion as to whether tht: Act
was ·11Ura. vires on account nf the ·Go,·ernrnent of B·:rm ll Act or
Constitution o!f Bunn:~ has been d .;cid.:d in V,·ajlal Narayanda$
v. Colleclor of Rangoon, H.L.R. (1932) !S.C.) 118 and judicial
notice can be Ltken of the facts lhat-
(ti) Fre:z.masons have always been rcg;lt'ded as mo:mbers of
a Society the objects of wh:ch are mutual help and
p"Omotion o f brotherly f~eling among its members,
(b) that those, who prof,sg '<ljffe1ent rdfgioris and cannot
therefore haveo a commO!l place ,of wo:ship, ho.ve been:
members of thc;sarne Society, and
(c). lhat tbe Freem:Aon Hall has never ~een regai.d~d by the
public ~a place .o f pu.b,lic worship•.
As the activiti:s of FreernaSQns iu this coantry have been.
shrouded in my~tery, the Masonic Hall bas not been )pen to the
public and all Fr~emasons are under strict (laths or secrecy, no
adverse inference could be drawn from the Collector's failure to
deny specifically the allegation that t he Hall . was a place ~f
public wo~ship. Held fr~rtlter : That requisitioning is not a
judicial but an administrative act and therefo~e cannot be chal-
lenged by writ of prohibitioh· or eertiorari. Where. lhere are
disputed qnef>(i9.ns of fact . which cannot l:)e satisfactorily
adjudjeatc9 in proceedings, suits. should be.instiluted to obtain
the nece.sar~ relief. Ram r.rasad Narayin Sahi a1tdotlt~rs v.
TlteState .of Bihar ·andothers, NI.R (1952) Pat. l94.af i99-200,
followed,· · :i · · · ··
!>fAORrCE P.OWER.PADGEI'T:A~,;>·;AN~;~~R v. COLLE'CTOR OF
RANGOON AND ANOTkER : . ; • .. ,, • : l:.Z6--
GENERAL INDEX X~Vll

I' AGE
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF habeas ctwpz.t s-.lrre;l under S. 7
12-Al o} tile Public Property Protection Act, 1 ..J.I7-Delenli~n
for six moullts urtdcr s. 7 (6) arul t5l of the Ad-Altcrno/i;·c
gro~nd of susPtcion. In the present c;.se th.: a~re-;ling off.cer
has st.1ted in hi; order- •• Where;::. I have 1:eascn to Su$pect and
do in {act SPsped that....h;rs commit:ed and/or is committi•·g
a prejudicial ad ." Held: T.hat th:.: mer<: fact that the OJdt:r is
couched in al:eruative is not sut'icit-nt to vit'ate it when there is a
sworn l\ffida,itof the officer con.;ernl'd stating that he suspected
the detenu t·f having committe<l and of com•nittiug prejudicial
acts ;md th ot he merely failed to strik~ off the word" or".
Viml'abai Des!;paude, j\,I.R, ~1945) Nag. 9,distingt:ished. Where
the arre~ting· officer bas placs::ct illaterial~ en which he has .:lC!ld
Hn complia11ce with the dec;isions of thP. Supreme Court! a~d
materials so plac~d ~how sufficj, nt grot:nd fnr s aspicion, the
a1 r~st cannot be challeng.:cl. The law doc:s not require that the
arresting officer is !o be sati fied. Su~picicn of the; arresting
officer that the detenu hr s committed or is con~mitling a
prejudicial ad, is sdficient. In an applkation {ordiredion in the
n.lture of habeas corpus the S•1preme Court cannot go into the
plt:as of the detenu as a critr:inal court can do when tryir•g the
detenu fur prejudkiat acts . The Supren:e Cm•rt will not
interfere with the order of detentinn in any wav not even by
granting bail, wi}E:n the arresting c.fficer ha§ sufficient reason to
suspt>ct the d~tenu d ha\ing commilte.d pr<-judi.ial act. Kin
Ma ilia v: The Chairman, Public Prope,·ty . Pi·otectio•t Bo.1rd and
two,' il94Sl B.L.R. Si4; Tim a M11w 1

Related Interests

aing v. Tlie Commissioner
of Police. Raugoo>i a11d oue, (1950) 13.L.R. (S.C.) 17: Daw Khi~J
Tee v. U Glum Tha and 011! 1 11949) B L.R (S.C.\ 193, referred to.
u KYAW u (<1) MYOCIIIT KYAW u AND OTHERS v. BUth:AU
-OF SPJ;;CIAL. INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER 87
D I RECTION IN THE NATURE OF habca$ corpus-Order 19, Rule 1,
SuPreme Court .Rules, 1948-Public Order PreservattOII Act-
Dete"lio·t> llllde.·- ·Coml/lissiotJ nf .o/fc'tl<e of Hig/1 Treasoii-
Held: Th<~l Ord.e:· 19, Rde 1 providcslthat :1n applicaticn for
direction in the nalt!re Of a writ {or habeas oorpus s-:1all te m:1de
by the prP.se11ta•ion of a petiti(ln duly

Related Interests

e,rilled by an affidadt by
the person restra:ned and the appi!cation should contain a state-
ment that it is made at his insta.: ce and th'\t it sho:,Id also $el out
the nabrt: ci the rest! aint; when the ap;>lication is made by $(me
other l' er.S•' n it should st:tte thai the perso•ncstra:ned is un.tble
to make the affidavjt znd the a;,plkation is made at his instance.
Offences against the State are prej.•clicinl to pubrc saft ty and
maintenance 1( pub:ic order. Whe 1 a p~son is cl.~taincd under
s. S-A (1) (/')Of P .. blic Order Pre~erv ti.~n Act, the re?.l test is
whether the Dep:~ty Commissioner C·1ulcl •m mat:!ri~h b(·flll'e him,
ha\·e be_en satisfi,·d ~hat it w:ts necess:•ry to , etai.n the per~on
concernerl to pr ::\·ent him {rom acfng in >~ny tn<!nner. prejudi ~· ial
to the public s~rety <tnd the maintenance of p1;blic Nder. The
meee fac( tbat·the materials also show that th:: person detained
could and might also be p--o~ect:ted for high treason, would 110t
deprh·e-the Deputy Comn·: ssioner of h;s power to tnke preventive
action tinder s. 5-A (1) (b~ of the Act. A pe rson wh0 has
commi:ted the ,,ffen,;e· of j1!gh treason, might b; .:etained' to.
·pre'"ent him frqm corin1ittin~ f,1rU1er offences agamst the State:·.
Ma Iryin Hnin v: The Commissionlttr of 1:-olice, ~ngro17- and ·
·. another·, (19481 B.L.R .. 777; Z' Kyu v, The Commissioner ()!
Police, Ran'foo·,,, (1.949) B.L.R. (S.C.).18, distinguished, ·. " :·
.D AW KJ~###BOT_TEXT###quot;E . tl• . TB~ DE~UTY C O!OUSSIONER, PEGU'· .AND
· ANoTHER . .;. ~·· 9Z
.xxvi!ii GE}t{ERAL INPEX

PAGB
DIRECTIO~ IN THE NATURE OF M,~~DAMUS-Government of Burma
Act ,1935, s.16 (3) and (4)-Rules of executive busmess- Requisi-
tioning of prqperty agait1st such rules -Property in possession of
Hotwrary Magistrate w l1ether c.wt~ot be reqlliS'i tioned-J'ress
Comm%mique Tunu j,tr •·elP.:Jant.. The Collector of Ran!!oon
requisitioned No. 77, Signal Pagoda Road, Rangoon for the ###BOT_TEXT###quot;lar
Offi.:e. It was cont~nded by the owner that the req lisition was
not made through the Ministry of Public Works and Labour as
·required by Rules of Executive Bul;iness made under s. 16 (3)
and (4) ofthe Government of Hurm-1 Act, 1935, that the owner
being an Honorar.v Magistrate the~t his ho-..1se C•>u1d not be
requisitivnecl, that Utere was a Press .~c>mmuniqtie i~sue<i b.y the
Government of Burma that requisition w;\s to be res1rteci to only
Wh<:re'the pre~at ten:1.nt w.1s either willing to vacate or leaving
and that was not the c;u::e. Held: That rules relating to
-~ransactioris of .governineilt business have nothing to do with
therequi.;itioning _nf pr011er:y by tlle Coll ~ ctor. The peti ioner·
has failed to s:~tisl y the Court that the needs of the War Office
cannot be greater than thai of a mer<:: Honcrary Ma~istrate and
that it was iucu:nbcnt o:t the Colkctor to do or forbear from ·
a
doing specific act under s. 45 (3) of the Specific l~elief Act
and the petitioner f<~iled to satisfy these conr:itions. Held
furtlter :There is nothinl! in the Requisitioning Act to p;·c;vent the
house of an Hono··ary M ;t~btrate bei ng r(!q:. isitio:1ed. The Court
is concerned w>th adminis tering the Jaw as it is found in the Act
and the I<tt les th_erea nder but not with an y statement-in the
Prefs Cotrmunique, · ·
S~ HCIE .V, THE
. COLLECTOR OF R,\NGvON AND ANOTHER
. . . 131
DISPOSAL OF TENANCY ACT AND RULES-Laiid subject to allol111ent~
Land in possession of a Receiver 11ot exempted. Held ':· A
Receiver's ''.PO!?session" of land ca.Imot -in any way curtail the
po\v.er of :t Tenancy Hoard l.o al!<.t tlie same. · :rhe " possession··.
of a Ro::cdven:annot be on a.f':lo!ing more privileged than that of
an owne•· whose lands are subject to allotment by a Tenancy Board.
K . I{; DEV-ER v. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TENANCY DISPOSAL ..
C oMi.UTTEE, H~NTHA,WADDY, A:-;o TWO OTHERS .· 255'
-'IXSPOSAL oF TRN~NCY ACT AND RuLES-'-Revocatiot~ of allotmet~t­
ResumPt ioll of la11d a111l· setzttre qf stamli1~g cr{)Ps without 11ofice
Wegal-Sub~letting-Whether 1L disqzlalifies tenant of . prevt01£S
· yt{a.r· tronz· re-allotnzcll:t-Tct;auc)' Dispo,al Rules. /:leld ~ · The·
ordet:~Of a District Board rgvoking·tJ;le allotment and a subsequ~nt
-order. r~suming the land t~ether with the standing ~rops without .
notice totne·tenants are not _warrarited either by tM Disposal of.
Teli<!-ncie.s A~t qr· by the Tenancy Disi1osal R.tles. Held further:
S~.b-letting i; not a disqn_l)lifit·ati()n under Rule 10 of .the.:·Tenancy
Disposal R~11C_s so as to bar-re-allotment in the next tenancy yeat; .
._· _- :· U'E ·M~t;N~A:-<O ·O~Ev. UPoTHITAND.T\VOoTHF.RS . ·257-\·
-~:~_:;,t§ .G§d1 SSotS~~q~1cqCS <:l~S::n oo~§. ~w-:>:oo?:@t:-·.­
.... . o·e~~ ~~£:1 ~g4)'):'ljOO?:Gq:q>t§:euG~I ~~5- 00-· : ll·_:)5g4)'j$ '·'
_·..- ~ ~s81oS~o,e<;o ·<t~~~- ~:4)o:'lJ<th=·GG~:bac-5eoG~i, .ct5_~ . :r .
_· .. (JJ - ' :. ~:~1: ,, ~o)t§sn<i§~c?.o5~Cri')=©~$ct~:~§oa~~ :
._ d3:Q)?:~oo.:Glfro~o~~~~ ~~~oS .-,sa~..,..:..:F.~':~?~~-~:;o~.
~t.4)-=>: . otSOil~~§s~~ · ·.oooSro~~~f -·&9GC.'31?~:­
oo-=>~§E:_.:._rooo9 d3:4)~~~rf)§S:~So:>_~d,l@· . ~~~-
GENERAL INDEX XXI}

PAGI

Gg.~ oocfi9Sd)~cf§t.:-~oo:;8:~'Jt~ 83g~83G61:::Dt§ G§~t
§'lt~ !T.lG61:83g~ro:£ g~:g~$~8- oooo~ ::S:~"~ots?ii~'J o3:
Gro:>cfi~G0:6)~1 ~G<J?oS !T.lGGo:>5)G0:0006)~ qj~o)~~ Cjo::J'J
0316 ~oo::8:4>:>:x t§G§~@~®GJ~t::ot§n
~oon1 ~$ 4>£"02~~5 o3:4:>:>:~ro?:~:Gm5~c8o1 ri ~:1
4:>£GCJ6~ ... ... ... ... 261

0(!90 ~~£ 1 ::8:4:>-:>:~Gb): 83d3 eoGo qfig ? I ~C:Cjjd3 (~)-.-:J:l'):))')
G6):~§GOJ5qbot~cSG 61 :~§"&l5c,c: :pcfi~c:l)t§aa::of:oa~~
o:>~~tG@-~~o~t~o5J3m OJG:J:>'J::ocfio CGOJ~ ::o-:Jmq>'JGg~
C);lD1~:0il::ot§JSSoo~:oo.,S:quSotC11JC :n~:>o3¥:aa§S~ooo~~
ro:>:~c::ot§u O@~o ~~~ ::8:4:>'J:9jro:>:GE>(: q>t§:eoGs o-G ( o) n
. ~oo~t§'ltm C};lnW:4>'J@9 C);l~:g~G::o-:>G§'J§I cra<lJt:§SrouS"lp:
::ot§\ioo~t§lC ~cmuS~:p:83@~s:Gloib~@:J qc:~::ot§ CJilD1¥:Q'l:>02c
o1~GOJ'J ::b':>::Dp~6):cf3~;,p:!:ld02cf:xl'JOj!C xw-:>dl~:C)?~:"lp:
m c8~:0S~:G4:>:>§G§l'Jo5G)G:xl'J :xl'J:xJt:>.G§oo@S~ G@-:>t:~
G6pcfi~§Gu@u !Jd~O1X'J::D,J'OG61:J3~'=l!'J:~'Jrot§:l ot&p: o:>~
GOO?C~"lj'J:q§tGJ~I Go:pc:~d) ~£~cfi~@t&)}l Go:pb:~cfi
o:>~~· o5ro:>Go:>5~-:>:!Jd:>:J oilt§:Gro:o1:C);lo1¥:Gro-:>d3o6)~~§
o~wgJ::D-:>::Dq>-:>Goo5q oo'):Go:G@-:>cfiE>[~@£::ot§u ~oo02:£
~~JP::xlt§J~go~t~o5J3m::DG::r:>:>::Do5o CGo::J'J ::D-:>::Dq>-:>G~'j:
@~~§Go@u 6!m~:o5ro:>ooo1:u1:ro G6)1i>d39j~C){n1~:~ !:ldC);looro
G@-:>d3@ ::D:>::DpG§@So::Jt§ot Uilro§c:rot§J oo&p:eoGn ·oofi\
~'J:~b:x1t§n O'J~')Go:>5c8~: q~:~:p:::Df§l :Jt&p~ OO~GOO'JC:
0002cfiG:).). 5qC:J GCT.lf'JC:~cfi"lj'J:0002 cfiG::D5CjC :1 O~o:l~?J:>::Dq>'J
Goo5ooCJ6cfiG::D5qc:::D'J03JC rouSG@"lf:>:~ cB~::::SS:G$>?§G§1'Jd3
§GJGt§@~GOJ:>~;§?$1 ~oouSG@"lP~ O{&p:ooj:~G::D?o5ro?
Goo5"lf'J:oo'J: C)ilDW:@:§S::Dt§u oo&p:eoGDOOGJ C);ls1~~:xJt§J.
SSoo§:oot§:quSo5031t:n~:>CB~:oo@S~&~~ro'):C11JcfiC)ilo~~:
~G:xJ5 ();IS1~:~C::Dt§ii •·
§:a;>Goo?C~: ~§ §:::D~:(§c~§ c1:~: .. . 174
DISPOSAL OF TENANCY RULES, 13 (1) {fi 179 l?t)'
. .
DISPOSAL OF TENANCY RULEs-Rule 10-No default it~ payment of
retzt by tenant-His right to work .tllesamt; l,wdforthe·ne...:t
season. For 1951-51 the cbildrt:n of the owner oi the lands·
applied for permission to cultivate them as owners and' the leu ants
also i:lpplied. The ·applicatiQfl 9£ the children of the owner was
rejected in both the Ward and District Boards on II~ ground that
their title to ihe property had. AO~ been proved. .for ~!te · ·
year 1952-53 they · made a similar application. •rhe Ward · ·
Col'Illl?iltee rejected it on th e grot ncl that'there was ·no .default: in
•payment ·of rent or repayment of agricultural loan by t·he tenants,
they were lherefore·entitled to work tbe lands. The Committee
further hel9 that the· owne~s ne.ver eatned their Jiving · as
XXX GENERAL INDEX

PAGE:
cultivators. The District Board di::agreed on both counts ; upon
an application for a writ. of certi,rari : Held: The fact that
r espondents;? and· 3 are owners and wonld be in a position to work
the land has no bearing on the case. Under r~ule 10 of thr.:
Tenancy Disposal Rttles, if a tenant is not in clefault he is entitled
to work tl1e land in the next season. As there was no dispute
that rent had been paid and there wa$ no default in re payment of
agricultural loan, the order of the District Board should b e
quashed.
PONOYA AND TWO OTHERS v . THE SECRBTARY, DISTRICT
AGRICULTUR\L oOARD; PYAl'ilN AISD OTHERS 200 .
DISPOSAL (JIF TE-:>:A~CY-D,;/a11lt I y tmant 111 p .1yi1tg l'eut in pre'Vious
ycar.;....A/lolnre1•l to R ,sponde11ts by Village Committee- W!tdher
land could be re-alloltcrl ou teuder of rent in arrears. The
applicaticn for re. allo!ment of the land by applicant was rejected
by·the Village alld District Tenancy Disposal Committees on !be
ground that he had committed def:~ult in payment of rent; the
land was allotted to 3rd Respo .:den t. The applicant then offered
to pay the defaulted <~.mounl to·the Headman. Held: That the
land had been vnliJly allotted by the Village Committee and
accord in~ly t!1ere could be no re-allo!tuent of the land in
question as both the District Co•r.mittee and .the Village
Committee have acted in acc0rdance with law.
U PO TH!:-1 'II DIST~ICT AGRICULTURAL BoARi), MAUBIN AND
OTHERS 202~·
DISTRICT AGRICULTURA.L BOARt> RROCEEDED £x.parfe WI THO UT ANY
. RE,4.SON-SUPREMF: COU!~T CAN INl'ERFEI<E :·. . ' ,~ .. 96
- . - ]UD6E ACTS as A. 00URT UNDER ~lU.!'ICIPAL RULES 58

EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT GRANT OF LEASE BY R:,NGOON DEVELOP-
MENT TRUST .O N . LFASE BY HOLDER OF PERMIT ISSUED BY
OC.CUPYING POWER H6
o~9~ · y~£r ~CGGoo6 ::o0oo G§l:Gm-:>oSoocG~;rolt !T.)oSeo;o
., <(80 <; ~~ 7---:-::riiGt§ . oo~<:l68:9,p · mo3:o3:-m~t§
ooCqst:<:~p . OOG~-:>co:>c£~Go5? . lT.lGt§ oo£~'8:9:P"l)'Jio_2C
91§G::lJ-:> .rooS~oS"lp:~ · ~G01t:®· GGI>[O.Scb~C-mG::o:m~
gjo5~t:~r£0fcfi . Go?~-lT.l~t§ .~C~C:~-:>~~O.SC romljcfJ
~~cB~·.'Gtt§§loS~oS-§t§~~~o5Goo6· 8g:?go:lt§r sa.Gt§ ·
·ooS~t:~o)df. ·.@f89Go:~5 GGo:~5-BaoS.eoGo §~~41oS
~ = oo8g1<E@~§C:~im;>-:>l:lj'):~ ·_G@~§f:o · ··
·oo~t§ootqst:~'J ~~Go:>-:>cg£~ . Gpt§~ mGt§ooc~c:
.§c:flfi[Oj?d?GX~GC:I oo@-:>:Gt§~o:J~OOGo;>0cf.imGOJ·S3c;t:q:> GO>':>t
~t§:o1ot ~(;)1'313i~ ooGO)')coot§:~@~~Err ~~Bu~s')SoS ([>y_ot,&
Gt-:>(f)roS~.~~-:> Q:JcS~oS'=ll-:>:~ :~:iooSs8:9§ £JDGi&cr.6.~E::
.cjp~~m~~ p:i~oot;p~~oS.o)~:§8:::ot§· rn~02-:>f3::n:ut§
-~~~oS~~-:>o1~~~ £JD~d.>Q)~ud? ·oo~;:§roE~E:~-:> ::8:[3-:>:.
::§£o,)t§~QtB_02~ · ·~~fG;:9~6.(oS~m..S??t§:.r ::r.wt§o:iE~t:~'J.
R~oo§~oo~~~ ·Gf.l:::D-:>:G:u-:> ·da~-:>~rocm-:>:r rnGt§ooEqsE:~.,..
. GENERAL INDEX XXXI

PAGE

ENCOUR~GE, _ HAR?.QUR, 90MFORT-MEANING ·oF 44
xxxn ~E~ERAL INDEX.

PAGE.
ESTOPPEL-S. 116, Evidence Act-Permit granted by persons ad-
ministering Rango~ Dc:veloPme11t Trust duriog occupation period
and leuse by such Permit-lwlder-Assessment <Jf E1~croachment
Tax by lawful admmistratur of Rangoon DeveluPme.tJl Trust on
le;s.;ee-SubSH}uen! grant of lease by Raugoon Developmet~t Trust
-Effect of .s11ch lease on the lease by Jermil-hol{Jer-Hague
Regulation-Pou·er of Occupying Power-5.108 (d) (q), $. 111 (c),
Transfer of Pro.perty Act~Trust Act, ss. 86, 88, 90 aud 94- ·
Equit~·. ~ ot?lained a permit to occupy a piece of. land from the
authorities administering Rangoon Development Trust duri.pg
Japanese occupation, and built a house thereon. He let out the
house and land to the 2nd Respondent. After re-oc~upafioJl, the
administrator of l{angoon Development Trust, assessed the
Respondents with encro,achment taxes an~. later granted a lea~e
for 3Q. years to the Responde"nts, who filed a sui~ for declaration
of title to the.Jfbuse and land. The trial Judge gave a ~ecree · as
claimed on appeal to th e .1\ppellate Side of the High Court, the
decree was tnodified and house was declared to be that .of the
appellants, on. further appeal to the Suprem,e Court. Held :
Article 55 of Hagu~ _Re~ulaHons of i908, makes· the occupying
power only an adm1mst_rat'?r and usnfr1.1ctuary of land l.Jelongiog
to the State of the occupied country. The-refore the pennit
granted by the authorities administering Rangoo'n Development
Trust during the Japanese occupati?n could not give. any· title·to
endure beyond the peri·)~ o~ such occupation as against Rangoon
Development TrQst. The r~ght of the appellant under the permit
therefore came to an end when Rangoon D'evelopment Trust
assessed encroachment ta·xes an·d later granted lease. There
was no estoppel under s. '116 of Evidence Act. The seCtion
provides that a tenant cannot deny that t!J.e landlord had title to
the property at the date of creating teuancy. The section does
not prevent a tenant frdm pleading that the title. of lhe· origiria.l . .
lessor has come to· a~l end .. Krishna, Prosad Lal Si11gfra· Deo v.
Baraboui Coal Conccru, 64 LA. 3111 followe~. S111 : Bh(tigauia
Bewti.l1 v. Himmat /ladyahar, 20 C.W.N."133S, refeirei:l"io. -s.
108 (q) of Transfer · of Property Act provicle_s lila~ a lessee on lhe
determination of the lease is bound to pul the lessor i!lto
possession. But this sub-clause should be read aubject to the
opening words of the parag~aph, .'Ciz., that parties to lease
" ro~sess the r.ights and are subject.to the,liabilities· mentioned in
the rule· next followin·g or such of tlrem ns. arc aP#ica.blc to tlie
properly lea.<ed" e.g.. un<i;,t· s . lll (t:J whe tl th e interests of the
lessor has terminated or s.l08 (d) when th¢·interests of lessor·.anq
lessee have b·ecome ·vest~ .in the same .person, . no · question of ·
delivery. of possession, arises. Ss. 86, 88, 90 and 94 of .the Trust
Act have no application td>the fads· of !he present case. . Failure
of the Respondents to inform Rangoon Development Trust when
they ~vere assessed with encroachment tax about the perrnit 0 £.
the appellant did not amount to fraud or did not .raise <rny . equity
in favour o~ the Arpe1Jant. · :--.
HUSSEIN- BUKSH KHAN V. MUDALTA AND ANOTHER 146:/:
· EvioENcE Ac'l'; s. 116 ..,. 14&:·
- - -- - , ~- 145 ... ...... "15'_.('
~- OF WITNESS AS TO OPINl0:-1 O"tj TRAOE~MAR~. WHETHER

-
. ADMISSIBLE .. .•. :: . 204 ··.
....
0 . :.
·.·· ~

:ixr~TING LAW 0
ll8·"i'
OF
FILIAL RELATIONSHIP, MAINTENANCE
F·.i~ANciiAL oRoER.....::R~VIEW
··"· tS: '
. . CoMMissioNE-R's
. . o~ ~27·· .;
GENERAL INDEX xxx iii

P AGE

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, POWERS OF REVIEW 214
f'INDING OF FACT BY VILLAGE TENA!\CY CoMMITTEE WHEN BINDIISG
ON THE SUPREME CooRT , 174
GOVERNMENT OF .BURMA AcT, 1935, SS. 16 (J) AND (4) 13 1
----~----:---- . s. 145 (2) 118-

HABEAS CoRPus-Order of detentiotl, itJ sig11al-·l ndefinite deteuti011
of detetm~ j(1r 4 years- Validity-Delegation of powers of
detention nnd nttenrlaut dangers. An order of detention, 'in
signal' was received from the Deputy Commissioner, Shwebo
and the detenue kept in detenti'on since December 1947. The
original order produced before the Court showed that it r'as issued
on the 22nd December 1949 in supers e ~sion of the detention
'in signal •. '!'he Deputy Commissoner appH-ed to the Court for
time not less than 30 days to compile a History ~heet of the
App licant after · receipt of notice of an application for release;
Held: That an order of detention 'in signal' cannot be acted
upon and a citizen of the Union C:lnnot be kept in detention on
authority" of any such signal. Detention for a short period
pending investigation is entirely different from indefinite detention
for a period of nearly four yeat·s. Inspite Of the detenue having
been in CUStody for nearly f0ur years, 4aS the authorities
directing such detention were unable to state without further
enquiry the grounds of detention, the orc!er of detention should
be quashed. ·
T HETTUN v. DEPUTY COl.UUSSIONER, SHWESO AND ANOHIER 3~

HABEAS CouPos-APPlication for directiotts in the nnlnre of-Fir~t
arrest of detemte u11der s. 7 (2)-P1tblic Property Protectio·n
Act-.Release of del emu by Ccmrt-Ametzdment of s. 7 12) nt~d
re-arrest~Purpose of. On the 10111 Oclober 1951 Ute c!etenue
was arrested by an officer.. On the 20th October 1951 the.
President directed detention following the arrest. · The Supreme
Coi'rt directed his release on the ground fhat · there was· t;IO
authority to detain for the purpose of prosecution for a completed·
offence. S. 7 (2) of the Public Property Protection Act was
amended. during the proceedings and a!:lhori~td arrest ilnd
detention for purposes of investigation. The de(enue was
re~arrested. Held : There can be no question of legality Of the
subsequent arrest and detention under s. 7 (2j, Public Property
Protection A:cl, but the person detained shd'uld be-either sent up
{or trial or released since investigation is ~mp!eted and should
not be detaine<l for the maximum pericd Of six months prodded
for in the Act. The f<.ct that the co-accused of the detenue has
not been apprehended and his wtereabouts are net known, is
not a· grou.nd for continued detention as the case can proceed
against that co-accused under s . 512 of the Criminal Proce-
dure Code. Directions in the nature of habeas corpus may
issue not only to discharge a person illegally detained but also
to direct that the ·person detained be brocght up befor e the
approp~ia!e Court or Tribunal for hearing and determination of
the cl1arges against him. On~e the .investigation is completed,
the detenue· is entitled to be tried speedily in accordance with
law:. U Ba Yi and jJfhers v. The Officer-itJ-charge "of Jail
Yamethin, .B.L.R. (1950) (S.C.) 130, referred to. • . ·. '
L IM PWE H TIN v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC .PROPER~Y
PROTECTION COMMITTEE AND AN.OTHER ·55
XXXIV GENERAL INDEX

PAGE
I
HAI~t:r-. RI, GULATION 146
HAREO t" R, MEANING OF 44

.
•' HAVI:-;G THE DUTY TO ACT A'~CORD I:-\G TO LAW " -MEANING OF

H!GII C o URT, ORIGINAT. SmE - Cot~rt-fccs, paym ent of- Regulated by
266

Nulcs and Orders, 11ot bj Court Fa' Act - Amendment · of · plaint,
1/<tfu.r e rmd cxle11t of, .'>,·rmissi: 1- il' law-Limttat iou-Ame.nd-
mellt rt'lat : s back to da'e of origiwll f>lam t-Wi:etlta d.cree o~t
i11 cons~>tcn~ set of facts 1"<1islrf b_.> rlefwd.wt can b~ givetl. to
plaintiff-Set-off- Wizethcr 11C&es.<a ry to be specificall.y ple:rd.cd
to be at/owed. The 2nd D eputy l{egistrar called into que:;tion "1!1e
correctness of court-fees paid on a pbint filed on the lith Noven;ber
1948 for recovery of price of go·o os ;;Olu un three different occasions
endil").g the 8th ,\ovember 1945. An am ended plaint was riled on
the 2Jrd Noveftlber 1948 stating that th::: three different transactio ns
formed parts of a single contract. Deiei1dants conte.nded ttla1 the
transactio.n was an e~>trustmel)t 9£ goods to be sold for the plait;~ tiff
on a commission basis, and some J:!Oods unsold had b. en returned.
Held: Whatever thepo~ition might have been wh ere the proceed.-
ings are.rej!ulatecl by ,the Civil Procedure Code and theCourt.Fees
Act, the suit instituted on the Original Side of the Hil'(h Cou·rt
where neither Act applies.must be deemed to have been instituted
on the 8th November 1946, and the amendment which was allowed
of the plaint (Jn the 23rd November 1948 must he deemed to have
related back to the e<tflier date S. 6 of the Court F.:es Act
read . together with s. 8 l4l makes it clear that payments of
court-fees on the Original Side of .the High Court are regulated
not by the Act but h v t he relevant rules of the High Court in its
Rules and Orders. 1/cld: The variation between the first plaint
and the second plai11t is not of such impvrtance as to att~act the
r ule in Ma Shwe Mya v. · Maunf! Mo Hnaung. Ma S/l!f!~· Mya w. ··
Mm~ng Mo Hnaung, 4 U.B.R: p. 30 at'33, distin~uish.ed. · J{e/d
Obiter: There is no decision which goes to the length of permit-
ting the Court ~o reject t~e plaintiff's case and to grant the plaintiff
a decree on an "inconsistent set of facts set 11p by the defendant in
an~wer to the Naintiff's case. Held fudlter: There was a taci.t
understandjng l;lCtween !l>e parties-that th e value nf the jl.OOds taken
re-delivery of by the respondent wo.uld be treated as payment
towards the.,accou{lt of the original· sa le for ent!re lot of goods ;
appellants need not make a specific plea o£ set-off to hiwe the
claim of the respondent treated as pro ta11lo discharged by mutual
consent. · Hoe.]4oe v. Scerlot, 2 lbn. 349, applied. ·
A. C. ·AKHO'Ol!l ANDoONE v. A. HABIB
HIGH TREASON AcT, s. 4 (1b-Cirarge of abetting rebels-Enco{trageo ,
ltarbour, comfort, meaning of-Intettiion tof eucoura·ge, etc.;
a
nctessary-Preswnption of law of man intending tft.e 11atural
conseqllences of ·!tis· act rcouttable~Bct,efit of douht must be
given to accu~erl. The High Cou;t confirmed tJ.1eSpecial Tribunal's
,.judgment and ·sentence ag.+in·st the a.cc••sed on a cl~11rge that he
had encouraged, aided and comforted Naw Seng and his followers
by giving them mediCines and surgical instrun-ients ·and that
thereby he committed an offence under s. 4 (1) of ·the High .
Treason !\ct, 1948. · In sayingt_hat the giving away of instr.umepts
and.medicines .would be an ·<lid the High .Court asc;umed- that lhe.
appellant. P.lea&~d guilty to:·the s::tid charge.· "H etd : On ~_p.pea1·
. by . special; leave, 110 perS(\il shall be.presumed to h~'!_e-.'J)leaded
. guilty to a·cti.fr.ge and that What he says is within the misChief 0(
the charge. ·.what the appellant pleaded amounted Qnly fo ar-.
:admission .of ·facts. and not :o£ Ui~ offenc.e charged. · The . w?ra .
GENERAL INDEX XXXV

I'AGE

"aid" is ·n ot used in s. 4 fl) of the Hi gh Treason Act, the words
ustd are "enco•uage, h:lrbour or comfoJ t " . "(hey are not
defined in the Statute and no referenct can be made to a not her
Statute becat,se only the word "harbour " is found useci <i n the
other Statute. The words "encourage and comfort" must
tbereiore bear their ordinary meanin.l(. "Encourage •' has been
defined to mean "embolden, incite, instigate", "Comfort' as
mean in~ ''to strengthen, to encourage, to surport, to invigorate,
to aid, fo abet or to countenance." What the Court must find is
what is the ~ntention. The appellant gave a box of surgical
instruments and medicine. If it was not his intention to encour-
al!e, harbour or comfort the appellant would not be gl'illy. It is
a fundamenta l rrim iple of Jaw that a crime is not committed if
the mind of the person doing th e act is innocent. Rat ttla
Hariprasada Rao v. Tile State, A .I.R. (1951) Supreme CoT!rt I~ep.
322, followed. The s tate of the mind of the appellant should be
judged not by a single act of giving some instruments and medicine
but all tht> ciret mstanct:s of the case must be t:.ken into acco,mt.
The learned judges in the High Court in coming to a conclusion
on the charge went on U1e presumption that a man intends the
natural consequences of his act. But this inference cannot be
drawn where ?.n act is done by a person in subjection of the
power.oi oUlers especially if Ulat be a brutal enemy. The gumy
intent cannot be rre~un:ed and must be proved. If circunutances
showed that the act was done in subjection to• Ole power of the
enemy or is as consistent with an innocent intent as with the
crimin:>.J inlent or if there be a doubt in the matter the appellant
i s entitled to be acquitted. In Ole present case the necessary
inference is that the appellant wanted to save his property ; tak-
ing Ole worst view, giving of medicines and instruments was c on-
sistent with an innocent intent as well as with the criminal
intent ; the ];)enefit of the doubt must be ghen to the appellant.
Rex v. Stea11e, L·. R (1947) 1 K.B. at p. 1006, referred to. What
inference shoultl be drawn from prO

Related Interests

ed and admitted facts i3 a
question of law ; if a miscarriage of justice has resulted from a
wronginferen·ce the Supreme Court will interfere and put it right.
Dl~. GoRDON S. SEAG~AVE v. T HE UNIO~ OF BURMA 44

" I MPORT : 1 tt;EANING Ol? 227•
I MPORT OF GOODS l-VIT H INCORRECT DESCRIPTION .AND VALUE 194
I NJJEii'!NITE DETENTION FoR FOUR YEARS, VALIDIT~ 3J;

I NF ERENCE FRO:U FACTS IS QUESTION OF LAW • 65-
J NTENTION TO ENCOURAGE, ETC., NECESSARY #
I NT.ERPHETATJON OF STATUTES 79-
} URJS'OICTION, REF.tJSAL TO EXERCISE AND FAI LURE TO EXERCISE NO
DIFFERENCE 4(}
- -- OF. CIVIL COURT TO EXAMINE INTO CASES DECIDED B Y
UENT CONT-ROLLER 248

- - -- OF A'DVJSORY B OARD TO ALLvT PREMJSES AN,; TO EVICT .
UNAUTROiliSED OCCUPA!I:T • .. • 218

L AND I N. Pp$SESSio~· OF RECEIVER NOT EXI!.IPTF.D FROM OPERATION o ::;
DtsPosA,L oF ·TENANCY AcT ANt> RoLES ... ... ..: 255

3
:chffi.o!-<?~~jCOO??~ ~fue.c:cl6:ceccg"J~~ cee~o
3$ -~.~·~s~ .~~o2~§ee.G9gllegw:§:G~ ~~C.gc~~§ §:lee
G:~oc~~g, ,,§?.cc§~w~esg8~gro§t;e~a ~5 S:>~§?$o ·
g.>&ies~6~3g). ?g~ @gy-oo~§?§ ·c~s~~~o· 'rlb~pto~? ·G002
~ c~·&.~~i>l o:~ tfl~~~g~ggcroBe Cr!~ooeg~~ ~
~~e g>gcfe§~C:copcog1cc~68:pro~· ug:ce~~cccg~3§
f£-~'fccsa::e!l:g!e:§:G~;:<pg8g~ggcco§atpcc:g§~~3~3Se.
· ~:fl"':foeg>:clbcro§~ :f&roscccsolisoee~· 3§ {P ''Pee~§ .
.G~6~~eeeg>'lig?c:c§g§ g>:§,lh:§JG~<l<pg8ggcco§~ tpeecoocg,
· ' llf ··::rv (0£"6T) 's.tnuo. puv V!QUffllO:J 1JS!1FEl -tOj l1JA.:JU~f)
·iC~U.l011lf ·11. VpvUV:J .l!J{lVJ;aU'f)-iC111AOIHI ! £9~ ·~rV (Lf.61}
.,. .t~rJilvttv9 ·!ozg. ·o·v .t. ··u·'l rzs-tssn 'rt,n{J :111.L ·~~.
'z~u.-'1
· zm~H . 's3.i.tvq:J.. n§JccGe~§§Jmro · ·§?&ceo2~ ·~:scoosee&
:38~:Loe:>sR:oe:DR:o~g&rocwcro5~38§t'!eo2~~ec~G~o8:c§ec
. co:c~ro:c.lhw· gfusochel!:.6 :3&es~croce.G3839~~o8 ~ec.o.
. ~~~GMC t~ee~~eGeeeG ~SOW.eG 11peb~G~ ccctf~roeeec.
,. ~~u~ 1.sqns ?UI! tn_!tt ,,~a~qag, lgoochso§:~gbsC.O§:cc:pcJ:'&
ICo :goowccaJce.Gg8gg~ceo2 ~~ro~ceo8pcc§:le 1g:lcegbro
. Geo29-'eG ,;<:.?a:~~cccW,Qe.G:fCC:OeleG ~bGeg§g~e.Ge:f~~~
col!.cks§b1f>lgSCFP"SCC9~~:g§&l:gSc~~§ccclig:>:cl!<i&ccce~~
pj§g~g~ggeg>:cl!:lcco§e bro:c~:glb:pGgci-<!~ggcco~ceee
.:pesocc~g~~cce~:;(,&g§l!n:gtp~S§w:dbccoB~ "SC~~§Sbpe
pee~goeg§g>:db:g~:§:G~~g8g8cco§el:gb~oolsGeg~gge~
98:f'CX>g~pew~ g:fu:gmgo:c!h&ccc.eg5ogooccopcog?fsow
':go~oo bG~~a383Se3S. g. :cl!:l§eccop~ :cl!:l&cc_c~groacco
pco 3WSOW c~:fleSO~·SCbwge~:;~:gb 'fProeple~§3bwgec
·~ceo8:fle.G~'Pee:g§m:gsc~§FPQJ~fp:c!e§~soron u§:Jee
ggegg gfucccwb:~ec ?g!ce~§Ggccoe§:l§ 5otci!:l§eccosncQ
tea 6 f f ego G~OC~§~ro 9gJfeg~:sc<D~?3~ce.~§@gcC08p§
11!ee~oa chco~m 9Jfer3c!3§ _:s¢roff'es ~bGe§:Jcoecoocec
g&:~:g6m gg8c~§@gcco:;,sc§ l:§:lp:>cliceo2pes :begro!j.
gggg8§eccog:co ~~~e o.6e:lc np.ccg~~~§3coeccrocec goo:~
:g6co ~ce3§@gccoe§:l§ tglfuceeli~Lc:p!e:3c3@ :gooroeoro
gcroe§pcoe.cwcecFf~ gfugoceq:>eGfrSSa§:cc~mccrocro
g&:~:g6co gg~ce~§lDgccoe§:l§ :gb6e~:;G~o2:fro nc ego
IC GeOC:f>eG sco~?3~ce3§ ~~~e oeJoc-sf ,ego
<;§JiieG
( :g\S:ooe&:fb) s.c.o~~8e~:;g~§~ §3§ceA:fOOeG '~'e e> eJ oc
~~:pro so4-sc§:gl9-~e ~ccrocw sb~c5§ pooe.G:~so4sc§
fpGe!o2:feG :b~g<x>B3g?3~s~ccosoro ~~~e o6e:lc clise~~o
-6( ( 1cGc ego-:cco~COfPCO ceee:'3f2§3bgfu9:>:gb g~
(f) 1 (c) poego 1 re~ ego 1 (f) poago toe ego Ge!o8~§~ro
~gliegb.:§:l<D~-Ge!oapro :oogeu~gs?s~§eccoso~ ~ ~~e ooe>c
:iWVd

xamu "'V"HaNa!:> lAXXX
GENERAL INDEX xxxvii
PAGE

~cp:cfl D<~~oS03~?rboo~d5ooGn:l:lD'<I?:~~o:t~~~.,s ~:o-:>S
§!rbGo:~oo~Jt§ 03oSao~!m'~£o:>c§n 9c§~~:a;; ~?<'fY)
ro~o:>~a •
§~~~?:~~ f9t§~oo?c~g~~.,~cc~oo503~:61 t35
L EASE OR LICENSE 1'0 WORK QUAIIRY-GRANTING OF IS AN ADMINISTRA-
TIVE ACT ••• 11
L UJlTATl0:-1 PERIOD-WHETHER TIME SPENT I N PURSUING RI!VIF.W
CAN BE EXCUSED 182
LOCAL AUTHORJ'fiES (SUSPENSJO:-;) ACT, 1946-Effed on M11niciPal
Acts and Rules-- Military Adtninsitratiuti Proclamaliou 8 oJ
1949 and 7 of 1950-Etfcct OIJ MutJicipal Acl a11d Rftlcs. Ap-
plication cor directions in the nature of quo 'tflarranlo against
Respondents 3 (•1) to 3 (n) from holding office and a~ting as
members of tbe Maymyo Municipality on the ground that tlleir
election was null and void as the same were ordered without the
express authority 'lf the Supreme Commander. Held : 1'he
Local AuU1orities (S, spcnsion) Act, 1946 contains no express
provision in the Act or el sewhere that r ules made under the
Mun icipal Acts are S\lspended on coming into force of the said
Act. $. 8 contains internal evidence of the intention of the
Legislature to leave the rules untouched.• Helrl also: . That
Military Proclamation No.8 or 1949 was issued by the Supreme
Commander as the President of the .Union of Burma, in exercise
of powers granted under s. 2 of the Proclamation of Martial
Law Ordinance, l948 and had directed by proclamation that
Martial L:tw should be enforced in ilie Mandalay District. The
said Ordinance does not expressly provide that any law should be
suspended or deemed to be su~pended in such area and the
pr odamatio• s issued by the President and Supreme Commander
do not purport to suspend any law. So all laws remain in for.:e
i n such area except those which are inconsistent Of the Ordinance
3nd the primar-y O'bject thereof. Held also : That the Supreme
Commander had in Military P roclamation No.8 of 1941) directed
that the administration of all departm·t nts in the District , except
the Judiciary, should be under the ch:l!rge of a Commlttee and
delegated p:~wers of administration to s:;ch Comn•itlee but no
order or dir~clion about Municipal elections had been issued by
him after s :icb delegation. Conseq~.:ently, the Municipal elec-
tions held in accordance with Municipal Rdes and the Election
of the Respondents are not impeachabJ.e. Further by Notification
dated 5th March 1951 the President has de~ared that the said
Act (Local Authorities (Suspension) Act, 1946) shall no longer
be in farce from the 10th March !951 ; hence the Respondents
can bold office and function as usual
D ALSIR t/, THE SP.CRETARY, MINISTRY OF HE ALTH AND
LOCAL Go_veRNMENl' AND TWO O_T HERS · ... 28
L OW ER BURMA T<>WN AND VILLAGE LANDS AcT, S. 16 (a) AND
R UL E 9 ( b) . 214
M ANDAMUS, W RIT . OF, ' IN RESP ECT OF REQUISITIONING A HPUSE-
Question of rensonabletJess or 1~l!c_y of requisitit?n, if relevant -
A house in Rangoon was reqms•hqned by the Collector for u$e ·
as a Labour Wel[are Centre and amongst other content~ns it was
objected that it was not in the .public interestand thatthe centre:
could be accommodated elsewhere. Held: That th·e net was an·
administrati\e act and .that the Conr t cannot inquire into" the
reasonableness, policy or ilie sense or a'.'Y other aspect ?£ the .
XXX###BOT_TEXT###quot;iij G;El{ERAL INDEX

PAGE

transaction." Tlte Proviuce of Bombay v. Kul>afd<Js S. Adt.aui
and .>tilers, (1950) S.C. H. 621; Carlona Ltd. v. Commissioners of
~tTorks m~d otltcrs, (1943) All Eng. 1. H. V,;J. II, p. 560, referred
to. It is fo'' the gov.:roment to clec1d.e whether a Welfare
Centre is ner.cssary for a particular locality and how such a Centre
shoultl be a·ccommodatect.
STEEL lltW'l'HERS & Co. LTD. 'II. THE COLLECTOR 01.'
RA~GOON ••• 155
MANI>A:.t l:s- Direciion iu lite ttafure of Mandanws ~tgaiust ordet· of
City Court tmdcr s. 22 {I)-Urban Rcttl Co11lrol Acl-Allegfltion
/hr1l 1elcvaut section of the Act not CCn$1.-lered-Witelltcr
Sllfficiant-Time sperzt in imrstliuf ittfruclttous review without
tr. IIY ground tuftether cat~ be excused. The Controller Of Rents
nxecl Standard Rent on 30th 1.\l{ly 1950. A rc:rerence was taken
to the Chid Judge, City Civil Courts, l?angool', under s. 22{l),
Urban Hent Control Act and was dismissed. An application for
review was also di1missed. The applicants sought to move the
Supreme Court by. a writ Of mandamvs and alleged. ·that the
learned Chiet Juc'ge did not consider or apply the relev ~nt section
of the Urban Rent Con'rol Act and he should be directed to do so.
The application was sc-ught to be amended to include the prayer
{Or isst:e of certiorari Cor which . a period of limitation or
90 day:> has been fiJted by Supreme Court Rules. Held:
Thal inordinate delay in making appli~ation for direction in t,he
m\lure of mandamus should be explained. Time unnecessarily
spent without justifiable cause in ·pmsuing infn.ctuous pro-
ceedings for review cannot be- excluded for calcul:~ling the
period of 90 days wiUlin which an application for a writ of
certiorari should be made to the Supreme Court 1mder the rules,
The excuse that applicant :.cted under advice in making tile
review application was not a valid reason for enlargement of
time irr ·the case. · Held further: That no writ Of .mandamus
can be issned on the ground that the learned Chief J ustice did not
consider or apply relevant sections c..f the Act. This can be
cauv;~.~sed only in a court of appea l. ·
ISMAIL MOHAMEO ( AHMED) BOD! & SONS AND ANOTHRR v.
CHI£'F JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, nANGOON A:-ID OTHERS 18~

MILITARY AO~rll'ISTRATION PROCLAMATI0:-1 8 OP 1949 AND 7 OF 1950 ... .20
MISTAKE lN DECIDING QUESil0:-1 OF FACT \'NETHER GROUND FOR
WIUT OF CERTIOHA.Rl
0 . ·<·. 75
M ODE OF PRESENTATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF A WRIT FOR habeas corpus

<ftd:ORTGAGE BY DEPOSIT OF TITL'E DEEOS_;WHAT DOCUMENTS MUST BE
DEPOSITED

M UNICIPAL ELECTI ON RULES, RULES 63 ANO 65-District ] udpe
whet!.er pe1sona dtsignata-Revision to Hig/1 Court wfletllcr
lies-Wr:t of certiorari if am be made. Held: The! Dish·ict
J udge. jn declaring an election roid under Rt'les 63 and 65 Df the
1\iunici_pal Election Rules acls as a C..>!llrt and not a ·mere fu~rSOna
designata. Hi!f orders ·a-e thP.rero.re subject to revision· by the
High: .Court. · The ~unicipal ~~1.le~ have been anie9g~d a nd
·: Appeudix C t8 the new Rules makes it clear th;ot the. ·nistrkt
Judge acts. as .a <:Quit. -x:he prQc~edings are ' ' in the eourt of the
District Judge"; they are to be Ci\·i! Miscellaneous Cases and
n otices of hearing are to be giv~ under the seal of the ·Court.
GENERAL INDEX xxxix
I'A(;g

The Rules in 3 Ran. 500, 11 Ran. 1, distinguished as procc:eding
upon a consideration of different Ad s and Rules. Habi& S al, t h
v. Sheil!. Bwllzoo, A.i. R. (1931)) Ran. 143, approved.
YAYA PATEL v. THE DJSTIIJCT JUDGE, BASSEIN AND ANOTHER 5a
·~cc~oo50JQO')!Ji)"8l~6l~ !Jt)~t§ooc~c:~-:> ro"~-:>co:)(13~":))?829t§
roc~c:9Pti?=OJE o1~::l.:>-:>cooS~oS~-:>:~ Of"o1c:®Q"6106oS~c '?@
NEW CASE ON APPEAL, WHETHER PERMISSIBLE 25

•OccUPYIXG POWER, POWER OF 146
·ORDER OF DETENTION IN SIGNAL .~ • 33
0\VNF;RSHIP, DISPUTE TO BE DECIDED BY A
1 CO~fPETJlNT C!Vl'L
.COURT A!'D l:\OT HY THE HENT CO:-<TROLLER 185
0WNER-MEANIJ:\G OF ... 118

.PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION RULEs 46, 47 ANP 48- Wlzetlier Rduruing
Ojjice1· ar;tiiJg ll?tdet· Rule 47 exercises quasi judicial function-
WIIetller tzotninqtion p,rpct· c,w be rejected owing to t lze absC11ce
of tlze -candidate or his ,Jgen/-Whetlur .cer/iorclri ~flot~ld issue
whw· there is au altemalne remedy. He~d: That there c.outd
be no doabt that a Heturning Office· acting unde.r Rule 47 of
Parliamentar.v Rules exercises quasi-judicial function. According
to Rule .46; a candidate or his agent may attend the scrutiny of
nomination paper but the~e is no duly cast upon them to attend
such s~rntiny. The p.trpose of the attendance is to enable them
to take objection to the nomination papers of other candidates.
Nomfnationpgper of a candidate can be rejected only on l'(rou.n ds
specified in clause (a), (b), (c) and (dl of sub-rule. (lJ of Rule 47
and the Returning Officer h;-,d no r~ght to reject the nomination
paper of a candidate simply because the candidate or his agent
was nof present. · Ordinarily the direction in the nature of
certiorari will. be issued wlien an inferior. \ribunal exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted in excess of its power
but it is· not compulsory ori Court to issue ·such-directions in e~ery
·case of excess of jurisdicticn. W_here the applicant h:ts other
and better remedy available to him the. Court normally refuses
to exercise. its. power in certiorari. Again, where disputed
questions invohe protra0ted hearing of evide'nce, which could be
more completely examined in other proceedings open to the
applicant, the Court will normally refuse toJnterfere in certiorari.
But· in the present case there is no dispute ·that th.e Returning
Officer has exceeded his jnrisdiction. To relegate ·the applicant
to the alternative remedy by way of election petition after polls
haYe been taken, will mt>an, that not only the applicant but other
candidates fo Parliament from this particular constituency will be
put to unnecEssary expenditure and labo'ur, for the election
petition if .filed is bound to succeed and the polls wOich may b.e
taken will have to be declared null and void. The result will be
that fre;;h elections will have to be held. In these circumstances
though the a!Jplicant had an~ther remedy ~e Court \vould quash
the proceedings. · . · • · . ··
u BA Tu v. THE R~TURNiNG OFFICER; LASHIO ~ND OTHE_RS 1

: §t§Oi?.~05G~effi~O:>t§,ooQt§~8~S:~-=>~eEs~oo:~cl'QGo:~8 •~-· ·.
PARTIES-NECESS.\RY PARTIES IN A SUIT BY AUCTION PURCHASER
.:
xl GENERAL INDEX

PAGE

PASSING-OFF ACTIO':{-f'riuciples- E>idence of wilnes5 as to . opir;ion
wltelhcr admissible. Htld: The guiding principles applicable to
cases of passing-off actio ns a; e clear and beyond disrute. Ko
man can r~present his goods as being the goods of another man,
and no man is permitted to use an y mark,· sig:n or symbol, device
r)r me:~ns, whereby without making a direct false repre~entation
himseH to a purchaser who purchasts from him, he enables the
purchaser to inake a false representation to somebody else who is
the ultimate customer. Hights or property may be · acqtJired in
a trade-mark on the pr.:>ved a$sociation in tl~e market of the
device, name, sign, symbol or •>lher means in question with the
goods of the plaintiff. Use of the s:lme by the defendant, whether
intentional or otherwise, will amount to false representation.
Singer Manu[acturing Co. v. Loog, (18801 18 Ch. D . 39.5 at 412;
Thomas Bear & Sons (ltzdia) /.ttl. v . Praj'a{!. Narain, (1940} 67'
I. A. Zl2. at 216, followed. In the present ca~e the appellants have
established their ri~ht to the trade-mark" Chinthe ·• in re~pect of
diaries · and exercise books. Opinion is one thing and direct
evidence is another. Some of the witnestes examine,d were
llot experts and cannot conseqt!ently j!ive expert testimony by
opinio01. The Court is in possession of the same m;~.lerials a;s t he
w it nesses and their opinion cJn add nolliinJ! to the materials for
judgment by tlle .Court bt:t wil! only encumber the proceedings.
K. E. M OHAMED i!sRAfllM A':{D A~oT!lF.R v. THE TAJMAHAI.
STATIONEnY MART 204
PEN I\L COIJE, s. 417 RFAO wi1'H S. 109 WHETHER CAN BE TAKEN ...
C OGNISANCE oF BY THE SPECIAL JUDG.E ••• . 222
PE RMIT TO St:E. FOR EVICT!ON,ISSUE OF- VHE'f,HER APPLlCA'.flON I'oR
. CE~TI.oRARl ~IF;S . . .. .... ·. . 6C}
- - - -GRAN'lED DURING OCct•PATION PERlOO AND LEASE BY
SUCH PERMIT HOLI:ER 146
PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED OFFENCE OF .li!GH TRI!.\SON. ~¥H.ETHER
COULD BE DETAINED lNOER Plli:IL!C . ORDER P~ESERVATION. Ae·r 9~
. .
PRACTICE' OF SEEKING10 PROVE F ACTS BY AFFlDAVliS DEPR·ECATED;., , 179-
<PREF-ERENTIAL RATE FoR Go~os FRo~I liNITEo·· KiNGD{nr, . B~t;rsH ·
CoLONIES, (N DIA OR PAKISTAt<: 105
PR.ESS COMMUNIQUE ~OW F AR. RELEVANT . .... ..•. I31
• • • • •• 4 • • • •

PRESS (E~fERGENCY POWERS) ACT, s. (11 ' (d;'-..,.Mcauing .O.f the words
"c.las.s or s~.ctio1t of P&:rsons r~sfcfent iu. Burma. ''"-W1zether t!te
. Socfalists or tlu Socia{ist · ~arty . jqr.m a class or. sect'ion of
per50_1tS1v'ilhin t!te mea11iug of that . sedion.. Held : 1."h.e golden
:rule' of interpretation is that the .. words ·of a Statute must
. Primii -'/at;ie . be given thei.r · o_rdi.nary meaning. Nokes . v.
J;>oncaster Amolgamq:cd. ColUerie$, (1940) p,..C.. 1014 at .1022 ;
Raila Ram v. The Province pf. East .Fu;tjaf>, A.l.R. (1<;49) F.C.
81 ; R •. v. : Peters, {1886) .19 Q.B.D .. 636 at 641 ; Cp. Re R~pqn·
HousiJ/g Orqir, (193.9} 2 K.B. 83~,foiJowed . .·Thoughdictionaries·
:are not to ·be taken as authoritative expon·et.:ts .of tl)e meanings .
of wcrds in Acts e>f Parliament, s~ill the Court often has to
· determine the mea·nfng of .the words by · reference :to · ·u )e
' ·. dictionary..: A !'cJass"·or •.• ~ection ~· witJJin the meaning of.s-...4 (11'
. (d) of Press l1~n1e~g~n~.Y P.Qwers} A~t is.a definitely asc~rtain.able
body of numercus inc:lividuals with clearly defined characteristic
· Qr criteriil by which they n1aybe di.din~uished from a:n y·oth.et:
~ody C!r group. I ~ 'other words· "class ." ·or" secti0ri ~: is a..
GENERAL INDEX xli

sdof P<!JS'>nS alllilling one.: con:mon character and po3sc:~si•·g
common and exclush·e characte1 is tics and the tenr.s can·y
with th em the idea of a readily a~certainable group h:~vinl{
some ele n~ent of permanence, stability and sufficiently a~umerOl!S
and widespread. It cannot be laid down that the common
bond of e\·ery political puty is trnnsitory or that all political
parties are susceptible to rapid changes in their complexion
and composition and that no political party can ever have
any element d permanence or stability. If a political party is
well defined and the number of persons owing allegiance to it is
large enough, there is no reason why it should not te regarded as
a clas~ or at least as a section. Judged by the above tests, the
Socialist Party or the Sociali. ts in Burma are a class or sed ion of
pelsons re~1dent in Burma within tl:e meani ng gf the .A!Ct.
But mere criticism of the members or of its ideologies or
a poli•ical party, which comes within the definition of c l:~ss
or rection wilt not come within the mischief of s. 4 (1) (d) of
the Act unl ~ ss such criticism tends directly or indirectly to
bring the members or the party into hatred or conte mpt.
Raj Pal v. T/.·e Crawn, (1922) I.L.R 3 Lah. 405; Em p(ror v.
Jfiss !faniben L. Kara, 57 Born. 253 ; In the Mallr r of the
"Sun Press" Ltd., AJ.R. 11938) Ran. 417 ; Kamt~ l s ,:rkar
v. Emperor, 11938) I.L. R. 1 Cal. 455 ; Kumar Badri Nnrai1~
Si1z~h v, Chief Secretary to t!te Govtrnrvent of Bihar, A I R.
(1941) Pat. 122; Emperor v. Banomali Jfahara1zn, (1943) U-.R.
22 Pat. 48; "Daily Zamindar '' (Urdu), Lahore, A.t.R (19~7)
Lab. 340 ; ''Daily farbhat '' La1tore v. EmPeror, A.l.R. I19~8)
Lah. 366 at 371 ; DattafrayaSitaratn v. Enzjleror, A.l R. (1948)
T~om. 239 at 243 ; Ma Khin Tlta1z v. The Commissioner of
Pol'ice, Rangoou and one, (19~9) B.L R. 13 at 16, r<ferred to
and followed. "Nawai Wafqt Daily" v. TlteCrowu, (1947) I.L.R.
Zd Lah. 49 ; Ntwspaper ''Parlap " Urdu Daily af Laltore,
(1947) I.L.R. 28 Lah. 795, m'ljorily

Related Interests