Skip to content


Jaikaran and ors. Vs. Janki Sahu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in33Ind.Cas.369
AppellantJaikaran and ors.
RespondentJanki Sahu and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 110(2) - privy council appeal--leave to appeal, grant of. - .....value of the suit in the court of first instance was less than rs. 10,000, and the value of the proposed appeal to his majesty in council is less than rs. 10,000 the facts of the case fully appear from the judgment of this court,' dated the 23 of march 1915, note.-the judgment referred to is produced in the statement of facts given above ed. and we certainly do not feel in a position to certify that the case is 'otherwise a fit one for an appeal to his majesty in council.' it is contended, however, that clause (2) of section 110 applies, because, although the value of the original suit or of the proposed appeal does not exceed rs. 10,000, nevertheless the decree directly or indirectly involves some claim or question to or respecting property of more than rs. 10,000. it cannot for a.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. This Court reversed the decision of the Court of first instance. The value of the suit in the Court of first instance was less than Rs. 10,000, and the value of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council is less than Rs. 10,000 The facts of the case fully appear from the judgment of this Court,' dated the 23 of March 1915, Note.-The judgment referred to is produced in the statement of Facts given above Ed. and we certainly do not feel in a position to certify that the case is 'otherwise a fit one for an appeal to His Majesty in Council.' It is contended, however, that Clause (2) of Section 110 applies, because, although the value of the original suit or of the proposed appeal does not exceed Rs. 10,000, nevertheless the decree directly or indirectly involves some claim or question to or respecting property of more than Rs. 10,000. It cannot for a moment be suggested that the value of the applicants' interest is over Rs. 1(sic),000. It is, however, urged that the opposite side admitted in the Court below that a very large amount of money has been expended on the garden and that, therefore, the decree of this Court affects property of upwards of Rs. 10,000. In our opinion, the case does not come within the meaning of Section 110, Clause 2. The proposed appellant has no concern whatever with the money which the opposite side expended upon the garden. We reject the application with costs.


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