statement (see AIR 1930 PC 57 (1), Siddiki Mohammad Shah v. Mt. Saran). In the instant case no such plea was taken in the written
plaint. He relied upon the cases of Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, AIR 1930 PC 57 (1) (B) and Rajendra Prasad Singh v. Governor
their Lordships of the Privy Council in Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, AIR 1930 PC 57 (1).
5. In Bhageran Rai v. Bhagwan Singh
observed by the Privy Council in Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, AIR 1930 PC 57 (1), no amount of evidence can be looked into
made to the case of Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, AIR 1930 P.C. 57 (1), in which it has been laid down that
Board Of Directors, Y.M.C.A. And Anr. vs R.H. Niblett on 29
observation of Lord Dunedin in Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, AIR 1930 PC 57 (1), that 'no amount of evidence can be looked
onwards. In the judgment reported in Siddik
Mohamed Shah v. Mt.Saran, AIR 1930 Privy
Council 57 (1), the Privy Council held that no
amount
evidence would not be a substitute.
(See Siddik Mahomed Shah vs. Mt. Saran and others [AIR 1930
Privy Council 57] and Rosily Mathew vs. Joseph
court. Vide AIR 1930 PC 57 (1). Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran.
The trial Court went a step further. The plaintiff in the plaint