Bombay High Court
Mukhal Singh vs Kishuni Singh on 24 June, 1930
Equivalent citations: (1930)32BOMLR1576
JUDGMENT Viscount Dunedin, J.
1. In this case the question has been raised as to whether the appeal is competent. Special leave to appeal was granted on an ex parts application ; but it has been settled in a judgment of this Board that that does not preclude the Board, when the true facts are brought before it, from going into the question of whether the appeal is competent or not: Zahib Husain v. Mohammad Ishmael No. (2)(1930) L.R. 57 I.A. 186 : s.c. 32 Bom. L.R. 1150. Upon that question the present case seems to be entirely covered by another decision of the Board in Gudivada Mangamma v. Maddi Makalakshmamma (1929) L.R. 57 I.A. 56 : s.c. 32 Bom. L.R. 517 Under these circumstances their Lordships will humbly advice His Majesty that the appeal is incompetent and should be dismissed with costs.