Skip to content


Kallyan Singh Vs. Kanhiya Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All893(1); 40Ind.Cas.110
AppellantKallyan Singh
RespondentKanhiya Lal
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act of 1908), section 110 - appeal to privy council--'substantial question of law'--construction of document. - .....property was bequeathed took it 'as an adopted' son and on that condition, or that he was entitled to the property under the terms of the will irrespective whether he was adopted or not, it is difficult to say that the construction of any particular document is a substantial question of law, that is, a question of law of general public importance. no doubt some portions of the will closely resembled the terms of a will which was considered by their lordships of the privy council in the case of lali v. murlidhar 28 a. 488 : 3 c.l.j. 594 : 8 bom. l.r. 402 : 3 a.l.j. 415 : 10 c.w.n. 730 : 33 i.a. 97 (p.c.) but the terms of the whole will are far from identical. the will which their lordships of the privy council were considering, was embodied in the wajib-ul-arz and their lordships seem to.....
Judgment:

1. The value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council is less than Rs. 10,000. Furthermore this Court confirmed the decision of the Court of first instance. The case prima facie does not comply with the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We are, however, asked to certify that the case is 'otherwise a fit one' for appeal on the ground that a substantial question of law is involved. The question of law, if any, is the construction of a Will as to whether the person to whom the property was bequeathed took it 'as an adopted' son and on that condition, or that he was entitled to the property under the terms of the Will irrespective whether he was adopted or not, It is difficult to say that the construction of any particular document is a substantial question of law, that is, a question of law of general public importance. No doubt some portions of the Will closely resembled the terms of a Will which was considered by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Lali v. Murlidhar 28 A. 488 : 3 C.L.J. 594 : 8 Bom. L.R. 402 : 3 A.L.J. 415 : 10 C.W.N. 730 : 33 I.A. 97 (P.C.) but the terms of the whole Will are far from identical. The Will which their Lordships of the Privy Council were considering, was embodied in the wajib-ul-arz and their Lordships seem to have thought that one of the objects of the testator was to establish a particular custom. We think that the two documents are quite capable of being distinguished and we are unable to certify that any substantial question of law of general importance is involved. We accordingly reject the application with costs.


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