Skip to content


Monoranjan Adya Vs. Bijoy Kumar Adya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in90Ind.Cas.729
AppellantMonoranjan Adya
RespondentBijoy Kumar Adya and ors.
Cases ReferredLakhi Narain Shaw v. Dhanada Kumar Ghose
Excerpt:
probate and administration act (v of 1881), section 86 - letters of administration with will annexed, application for--order holding that certain person has locus standi to oppose application--appeal, whether lies. - .....such an appeal. we think that it is not so and that the appeal by section 86 is subject to there being a right of appeal against an interlocutory order under the c.p.c. this is the view taken in the case of lakhi narain shaw v. dhanada kumar ghose 15 ind. cas. 686 : 17 c.l.j. 230 at p. 232 : 19 c.w.n. 1099. as pointed out in this case, the older cases to which we were referred were decisions founded on the provisions of section 588, sub-section (2) of the old c.p.c., which is not reproduced in the code of 1908. we agree with the view expressed in lakhi narain shaw v. dhanada kumar ghose 15 ind. cas. 686 : 17 c.l.j. 230 at p. 232 : 19 c.w.n. 1099, that there is no interlocutory appeal from the order that has been passed by the district judge.2. the appeal, accordingly, fails and is.....
Judgment:

Ewart Greaves, J.

1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge in Probate proceeding, holding that a certain person had a locus standi to oppose the application for the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. A preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lay and we think that the objection is well-founded. Apparently, there is some conflict of decisions in this Court and it is urged before us that by virtue of the provisions of Section 86 of the Probate and Administration Act there is always an appeal from an interlocutory order in Probate and Administration proceedings and it is stated that the reference to the C.P.C. in the section is merely referable to the procedure to be adopted in such an appeal. We think that it is not so and that the appeal by Section 86 is subject to there being a right of appeal against an interlocutory order under the C.P.C. This is the view taken in the case of Lakhi Narain Shaw v. Dhanada Kumar Ghose 15 Ind. Cas. 686 : 17 C.L.J. 230 at p. 232 : 19 C.W.N. 1099. As pointed out in this case, the older cases to which we were referred were decisions founded on the provisions of Section 588, Sub-section (2) of the old C.P.C., which is not reproduced in the Code of 1908. We agree with the view expressed in Lakhi Narain Shaw v. Dhanada Kumar Ghose 15 Ind. Cas. 686 : 17 C.L.J. 230 at p. 232 : 19 C.W.N. 1099, that there is no interlocutory appeal from the order that has been passed by the District Judge.

2. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed with costs, hearing-fee 2 gold mohurs.

Cuming, J.

3. I agree.


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