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

1918 Supreme(SC) 45

SIR JOHN EDGE, AMEER ALI, SIR WALTER PHILLIMORE, LORD BUCKMASTER
NAFAR CHANDRA PAL – Appellant
Versus
SHUKUR – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant: W. W. Box & Co.

Judgement

Appeal by special leave from a judgment and fourteen decrees of the High Court (February 4, 1910) reversing decrees of the District Judge of Nadia.

The question for determination was whether the High Court, in allowing an appeal under s. 109A, sub-s. 3. of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, had acted without jurisdiction in that it had decided the appeal upon a ground not open for it to consider.

The material facts and the terms of the relevant statutory pro visions appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

1918. April 19. Dunne K.C. for the appellant. The only ground of the decision, namely that the finding of the District Judge as to the standard of measurement applicable was wrong. was a question of fact. The right of appeal under s. 109A, sub-s. 3, of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, was subject to s. 584 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882; the High Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal upon a question of fact Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir Singh (( 1890) L. R. 17 I. A. 122.); Ravi Veeraraghavulu v. Bomma Devara. (( 1914) L. R. 41 I. A. 258.)

[Lord Buckmaster. Was the present objection made to the High Court?]

The record does not show whether the poi
























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