Skip to content


Kanhaiya Lal and Another Vs. Hamid Ali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPrivy Council
Decided On
Case NumberPrivy Council Appeal No.23 of 1931 (From Oudh: Oudh Appeal No. 4 of 1930)
Judge
AppellantKanhaiya Lal and Another
RespondentHamid Ali
Advocates:L. DeGruyther and W. Wallach, for Appellants; Dawson Miller and J.M. Pringle, for Respondent. Solicitors for Appellants, Hy. S.L Polak and Co.; Solicitors for Respondent, Watkins and Hunter
Excerpt:
.....which have hitherto been incurred below should be left to the discretion of the chief court to deal with after the new trial has been disposed of, whether or not there be an appeal after the new trial to the chief court. their lordships will humbly advise his majesty accordingly. case remanded.
Judgment:

LORD TOMLIN:

In this case their Lordships, with reluctance, have come to the conclusion that they are not able to deal with the appeal in the absence of Sri Thakurji Maharaj, whose interest arises under the wakf, or his representative. In these circumstances, following the precedent in Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1), their Lordships think that the decrees below must be set aside and the case must be remitted to the Chief Court for directions as to a new trial with reference to the effect of the wakf with the appropriate parties added.

So far as the costs are concerned their Lordships think that there should be no costs of this appeal, but that the costs which have hitherto been incurred below should be left to the discretion of the Chief Court to deal with after the new trial has been disposed of, whether or not there be an appeal after the new trial to the Chief Court. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.

Case remanded.


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