Skip to content


Pritam Gir Vs. Mahant Basdeo Gir - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921All348(1); (1921)ILR43All55
AppellantPritam Gir
RespondentMahant Basdeo Gir
Excerpt:
act no. xx of 1863 (religious endowments act), section 5 - order appointing the collector to take charge of a math--appeal. - .....proceeding started by an application under section 5 of the said act is a miscellaneous proceeding and not a suit, and the order passed by him under that section is in no sense a decree, nor does the act make any provision for an appeal from an order under that, section. in our opinion, therefore, no appeal lies from the said order. we are fortified in this view by the decision of their lordships of the privy council in the case of minakshi naidu v. subramanya sastri (1887) i.l.r. 11 mad. 26, which has of course been followed ia subsequent cases. this appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Sulaiman, J.

1. This appeal has been filed from an order of the District Judge of Ghazipur, dated the 14th of December, 1917, purporting to be under Section 5 of the Religious Endowments Act (No. XX of 1863). The proceeding started by an application under Section 5 of the said Act is a miscellaneous proceeding and not a suit, and the order passed by him under that section is in no sense a decree, nor does the Act make any provision for an appeal from an order under that, section. In our opinion, therefore, no appeal lies from the said order. We are fortified in this view by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Minakshi Naidu v. Subramanya Sastri (1887) I.L.R. 11 Mad. 26, which has of course been followed ia subsequent cases. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //