Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. The defendant seems to me right in saying that this article contemplates that the English rule as to special damage applies to India. On the other hand, the section does not say which are the cases in which special damage must be proved, and which not, and, accordingly, the precise point before us is left open.

22. But we feel great difficulty in following the above course suggested by counsel for the plaintiff. Our duty is merely to interpret the law. It is for the Legislature to alter it if necessary. Accordingly, we think it safer in this case to assume for the sake of argument that generally speaking, the parties before us are governed by the law of England, as there are no statutory exceptions in point in this particular case. But we hold that this must be subject to the qualification I have already mentioned viz., that English law is to apply as nearly as the circumstances of the place, and of the inhabitants, shall admit. I need not labour the necessity for this qualification. Other cases illusirate that the rule in Shelley's case : Mithabai v. Limji Nowroji Banaji [1881] 5 Bom. 506 the common law rule as to survivorship : Webb v. Lester [1865] 2 B.H. C. 52 ; the old ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matrimonial matters: Ardaseer-Cursetjee v. Perozeboye [1856] 6 M.A.I. 348 ; the operation of a decree against one of two joint debtors : Moot Chand v. Alwar Chetty [1915] 39 Mad. 548 ; the law of champerty and maintenance : Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mookerjee [1876] 2 Cal. 233 ; disentailing deeds : Naoroji Beramji v. Rogers [1867] 4 B.H.C. (O.C.) 1 ; and estate tail : Dadabhoy Framjee v. Rowasji Dorabji A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 177 will not be introduced into India, although in Bai Maneckbai v. Bai Merbai [1881] 6 Bom. 363 ; it was held by Mr. Justice West that Section 7 of the Statute of Frauds was applicable.