Skip to content


The Chairman of the Commissioners of Navadwip Municipality Vs. Gour Chandra Goswami and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in49Ind.Cas.16
AppellantThe Chairman of the Commissioners of Navadwip Municipality
RespondentGour Chandra Goswami and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal municipal act (iii b.c. of 1884), section 321 - 'dwelling house,' meaning of--thakur bari where pilgrims are allowed to stay, whether dwelling house. - .....is sufficient to decide on the facts placed before us (and on this i am of the same opinion as mr. justice chatterjee) that holding no. 754 is not a dwelling house or contains a dwelling house.2. this, appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.3. with regard to appeal no. 3 the lower appellate court held that holding no. 754 was not a place exclusively used for public worship. on appeal to the high court, both mr. justice chatterjee and mr. justice walmsley concurred in this decision and held that the plaintiffs' cross-appeal must be dismissed. it may be a question whether or not there is a right of appeal here. it is not necessary, however, to discuss that question, because on the merits i hold that there is no substance in this appeal.4. the appeal is dismissed with costs.charles.....
Judgment:

John Woodroffe, J.

1. I deal firstly with Appeal No. 2 in regard to which it is not necessary to define the meaning of the term 'dwelling house.' It is sufficient to decide on the facts placed before us (and on this I am of the same opinion as Mr. Justice Chatterjee) that holding No. 754 is not a dwelling house or contains a dwelling house.

2. This, appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

3. With regard to Appeal No. 3 the lower Appellate Court held that holding No. 754 was not a place exclusively used for public worship. On appeal to the High Court, both Mr. Justice Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Walmsley concurred in this decision and held that the plaintiffs' cross-appeal must be dismissed. It may be a question whether or not there is a right of appeal here. It is not necessary, however, to discuss that question, because on the merits I hold that there is no substance in this appeal.

4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Charles Chitty, J.

5. I agree.

Syed Shamsul Huda, J.

6. I also agree.


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