Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Saiyid Muzhar Hossein vs Mussamat Bodha Bibi And Anr. on 8 December, 1894

K.M. Venkatachala Chetty vs V.D. Natesa Chetty on 17 November, 1936

and Saiyed Muzhar Hossein v. Bodha Bibi (1895) 5 M.L.J. 20 : L.R. 22 I.A. 1 : I.L.R. 17 All. 112 (P.C.). But both these cases were decided with reference to the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 in which the wording of the relevant sections differed materially from that of the Code of 1908. Special leave to appeal was given in each of these cases on the ground that the suit had been fully tried in the lower Court, and the 'cardinal point' decided, leaving, in the one case, only a reference for accounts and, in the other, only subordinate points for decision, should have been dealt with by the appellate Court.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N. Venkataranga Row Garu vs Raja K.V. Narasimha Rao Garu And Ors. on 18 September, 1913

and Saiyid Muzhar Hossein v. Mussamat Bodha Bibi (1895) I.L.R., 17 All., 112, where appeals were held competent, issues on the merits on which the decision of the disputes depended had been decided, and in the latter case their Lordships distinguished the case before them from cases in which the decision reversed had proceeded upon a preliminary point, and observe with reference to such cases that the practice of the Allahabad High Court in treating orders of remand as interlocutory was probably quite correct.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Baijnath Dass And Ors. vs Sohan Bibi on 10 July, 1909

In support of this contention the learned Advocate relied upon the case of Saiyid Mazhar Hossein v. Musammat Bodha Bibi 17 A. 112 (P.C.) : 22 I.A. 1 That was. a casein which this Court had refused leave to appeal and the petitioner applied to Her Majesty in Council and leave was granted. Their Lordships pointed out that the case before them as put by the plaintiff was that one Ibin Ali had given the property in suit to certain persons who conveyed it to the plaintiff. One of the defences raised was misjoinder, which was overruled, but the next went to the foundation of the plaintiffs' claim being a denial that Ibn Ali made any valid gift to the grantors of the plaintiff. The other defences were all of a subordinate character. The Court of first, instance decided against the plaintiff on the question of Ibn Ali's Will and did not give judgment on other issues. The plaintiff appealed from the decree and this Court decided that Ibn Ali made a valid gift and remanded the case to be disposed of on the other issues. Their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the Will of Ibn Ali was the cardinal point in the suit and after the decision of the High Court that could not be disputed again and in consequence held the order to be a final order. In our opinion the present case is clearly distinguished from the one just cited. In the case before us the question of the adoption of Parsotam Das, whether it was valid or not, can hardly be called the cardinal point in the case. Other points have been taken which affect the eventual decision quite as much as the question of adoption. One of these points is the question whether or not after his adoption Parsotam Das relinquished all his rights under a receipt dated the 29th March, 1881. If it is found that he did relinquish his rights, then the suit brought by Musammat Sohan Bibi must fail quite as much as if the finding had been that Parsotam Das had never been legally adopted by Musammat Manki Bahu. The result is that the case as it now stands is still an open case and it can nowise be held that it has been so far decided that the matter cannot be made subject to further appeal. In the grounds maintained in the application for leave to appeal the order quoad order has not been attacked. It is nowhere said that this Court should have passed an order of a different kind or that it had no jurisdiction for any reason to make the order as it did and so forth. It is not the formal order which is attacked. The object of the attack is the judgment leading up to the order and the matters contained in that judgment, if open to appeal now, will still be open to appeal when this Court, again called upon to do so, hears an appeal from the case n>s it will eventually stand decided by the Court below in obedience to its order of remand. It is worth noting in connection with this matter that, while Act XIV of 1882 defined the word "decree" as used in Chapter XLV as including judgment and order, no such definition is to be found either in Sections 109 to 112 or in Order 45 of Act V of 1908.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Surendranath Sarkar And Ors. vs Sree Sree Iswar Laksmi Durga And Ors. ... on 29 June, 1942

6. In our judgment, these observations do not mean that an order cannot be regarded as 'final' if it does not completely dispose of the suit. It would not be considered as 'final' if the rights of the parties were left still to be determined. If the rights of the parties to the suit had been determined and the suit was not 'finally' disposed of in the sense of its being finally terminated in the Courts of India, because certain subordinate matters of detail have not been disposed of, (points of the nature which were not disposed of in Syed Muzhar Husein v. Bodha Bibi ('95) 17 All. 112 above referred to) the order would still be regarded as final. But in the view that we have taken that the proposed appeal is against a decree of this Court, it is not necessary to rest our decision on the ground that the order proposed to be appealed against was a final order. We, accordingly, allow this application for leave and grant the certificate.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jivanlal Vrajrai Desai vs Vrajlal Pochalal Patel on 23 September, 1932

155, F.C. In Saiyid Muzhar Hossein v. Mussamat Bodha Bibi the order of the High Court remanding the case to the lower Court was under Section 562 of the old Code which corresponds to Order XLI, Rule 23. When acting under that section, the Court reverses the decree of the trial Court and remands the suit to that Court with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number and proceed to determine it. The appellate Court, therefore, when passing such an order, washes its hands of the matter, and directs the Subordinate Court to dispose of it according to law. That is not what happens when an order is made under Order XLI, Rule 25, nor has it happened in the case before us, because the order of the High Court of January 14, 1931, left the decree of the trial Court standing, which was in favour of the applicant. It would be a most anomalous position if a party were bound to go in appeal to His Majesty in Council when he had a decree standing in his favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Kerala And Ors. vs Annam And Ors. on 1 April, 1968

In Syed Muzhar Husein v. Bodha Bibi (1895) 22 Ind App 1 (PC) the plaintiff based his claim under a will whose validity was challenged by the defendant. The High Court upheld the will and sent back the case for decision of other issues. The Privy Council held an appeal from that order of remand entertainable because the cardinal point in the case was about the will and that had been decided by the High Court leaving only certain subordinate enquiries to be made thereafter.
Kerala High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 11 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Firm Mohammad Sana Ullah And Sons vs Firm Haji Rahim Bux And Sons on 8 August, 1963

This remand order was distinguished from the remand order passed in the case of Saiyed Muzhar Hossein, ILR 17 All 112 (PC); on the same reasoning the remand order passed by this Court is to be distinguished from that passed in Saiyad Muzhar Hossein's case, ILR 17 All 112 (PC). Their Lordships held that the remand order was not a final order and on the same reasoning the remand order passed by this Court must be held to be not a final order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Savitri Devi vs Rajul Devi And Ors. on 10 October, 1960

18. The next case to be noted is that of Syed Muzhar Husain v. Bodha Bibi, 22 Ind App 1 (PC) In this case the plaintiff's suit rested on the validity of the Will of one Ibn Ali which was the cardinal point in the suit. There were other pleas also raised by the defendant. The trial court decided the question of the validity of the Will against the plaintiff. It, therefore, considered it unnecessary to give judgment on other issues. The plaintiff having appealed, the High Court decided in favour of the validity of the will, and remanded the case to the trial court to be disposed of on other issues according to law. In his judgment Lord Hob-house again made the following observations :
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next