SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1921 Supreme(SC) 13

LORD BUCKMASTER, LORD DUNEDIN, LORD SHAW, SIR JOHN EDGE, AMEER ALI
BHAIDAS SHIVDAS – Appellant
Versus
BAI GULAB – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitor for appellant: E. Dalgado.
Solicitors for respondents: Hughes & Sons.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 123 of 1919) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 23, 1917) affirming a decree of the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction.

The suit was instituted in the High Court by the appellant who prayed for declarations as to the effect of a will.

The trial judge Macleod J. made a decree adverse to the plaintiff. Upon an appeal to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court the learned judges (Scott C.J. and Heaton J.) disagreed. The question upon which the learned judges disagreed was referred under s. 98, sub-s. 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and was heard by Batchelor and Shah JJ. who, agreeing with Heaton and Macleod JJ., decided the question referred adversely to the plaintiff. The present appellant had raised no objection to the procedure followed. An appeal to the Judicial Committee raising the whole question at issue between the parties came on for hearing in the ordinary course.

1921. Feb. 11. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellant. Under s. 36 of the Letters Patent the appellant was entitled to a decision in her favour upon the Chief Justice and Heaton J. disagreeing. That section is not affected by s. 98 of the Code of Ci
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top