Skip to content


Mohima Chunder Biswas Vs. Tarini Sunker Ghose - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR19Cal487
AppellantMohima Chunder Biswas
RespondentTarini Sunker Ghose
Excerpt:
appeal - guardians and wards act (viii of 1890), section 47--removal of guardian--order refusing to remove a guardian. - .....and wards act (viii of 1890); and the first question that we have to determine is whether an appeal lies to this court against the order of the district judge. section 47 of act viii of 1890 gives an appeal in certain cases; and what we have to see is, whether the order complained against falls within any of the cases mentioned in that section.2. we have examined section 47 and the other portions of the act; but we have failed to discover that the legislature has provided for an appeal to this court from an order of the kind with which we are now concerned.3. we may here mention that the question, as to whether an appeal lies to this court from the order complained of, was very candidly brought to our notice by the learned vakil, who appeared for the appellant, at the outset of his.....
Judgment:

Ghose, J.

1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Faridpur refusing to dismiss a guardian. The guardian had been appointed under Act XL of 1858, which has since been repealed by the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890); and the first question that we have to determine is whether an appeal lies to this Court against the order of the District Judge. Section 47 of Act VIII of 1890 gives an appeal in certain cases; and what we have to see is, whether the order complained against falls within any of the cases mentioned in that section.

2. We have examined Section 47 and the other portions of the Act; but we have failed to discover that the Legislature has provided for an appeal to this Court from an order of the kind with which we are now concerned.

3. We may here mention that the question, as to whether an appeal lies to this Court from the order complained of, was very candidly brought to our notice by the learned vakil, who appeared for the appellant, at the outset of his address; and we have come to the conclusion that no appeal lies.

4. The result is that this appeal will be dismissed upon that ground only, but without costs, as the respondent has not appeared.


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