LexASRUMATI DEBI versus KUMAR REPENDRA DEB RAIKOT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' • s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1159 are applicable only to disqualifications to which a 1953 member beccrmes subject after he is elected as such, Election 0 01,.. and that neither the Governor nor the Commission mission, India has jurisdiction to enquire into the respondent's dis- v. qualification which arose long before his election. 8 ~",;,h~';!:ta As, however, we have held that the High Court was , . . . not competent under article 226 to issue any pre- 1 ata.nJali 808"' rogative writ to the appellant Commission, the appeal is allowed and thewrit of prohibition issued by the learned Judge is quashed. We make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. Agent for the appellant and the Intervener : G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent for the respondent: S. Siibramaniam. ASRUMATI DEBI v. KUMAit ItUPENDRA DEB RAIKOT AND OTHERS. [PATANJALI SASTRI C. J., MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE and BHAGWATI JJ.] Letters Patent (Calcntta High Court), els. 18, 15-0rder for tmnsfer of suit 1mde>· cl. 18-Whetlier "jiul,gment"-Appealability -Meaning of "judgment". An order for transfer of a suit, made under clause 13 of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court is not a "judgment" within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent and no appeal lies therefrom under the Letters Patent, as it neither affects the merits of the controversy between the parties in the suit itself, nor terminates or disposes of the suit on any ground. [Meaning of the word "judgment" rliscussed]. Khatizan v. Sonairam (I.L.R. 4 7 Cal. 1104), Jttstices of the Peace for Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Co. (8 Beng. L.R. 433), Dayabhai v. Mui·ugappa Chettiar (I.L.R. 13 Rang. 457), 'l'uljarain v. Alagappa (I.L.R. 35 l\fad. 1), Matlmra Sundari v. Haranchandra (I.L.R. 48 Cal. 857), Chandicharan v. Jnanendra (29 C.L.J. 225), £e,, Badin v. Upendra l'>fohan RmJ Chowdhry (39 C.W .N. 155), Kunwar Lal Singh v. Uina Devi (A.I.R. 1945 Nag. 156), Smikrw Deo v. Kalyani (A.LR. 1948 Nag. 85), Sha/lzadi Begum v. Alaknath (I.L.H. 57 All. 983), Shaw Bari "· Sonalwwl Beli R"m (I.hR. 23 • a.J. 1153 li'eb. 27 ' • 1160 SUPREME COUR'I' REPORTS [1953) 1953 Lab. 49l), Sonebai v. Ahmedbhai (9 Born. H.O.R. 398) and Vaghoji v. Gmnaji (I.L.R. 29 Born. 249) referred to. kri.1hna Reddi v. Asrnmati Debi 1'hanikachala (I.L.R. 47 Mad. 136) disapproved. Kumar;;,pendra CIVIL APPELLA'rE JURISDIC'l'ION: Civil Appeal Deb Roikot No. 92 of 1952. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 16th May, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Harries C. J. and Das J.) in Appeal from Original Order No. 136 of 1949 arising out of Judgment and Order dated the 25th April, 1949, of the said High Court (Banerjee J.) in Extra- ordinary Suit No. 2of1948. N. 0. Chatterjee (B. Sen, with him) for the appellant. S. P. Sinha (A. K. Dutt, with him) for the respondent. 1953. February 27. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MuKHERJEA J.-This appeal, which has come be- fore us on special leave, is directed against a judgment of an Appellate Bench of the Calcutta High Court, dated the 16th May, 1951, by which the learned Judges dismissed an appeal taken against an order, made by a single Judge on the Original Side of that Court, under clause 13 of the Letters Patent, on the preliminary ground that the appeal was not competent in law. There is no dispute about the material facts of the case which lie within a short compass. On 7th August, 1947, a suit was filed by the respondent Kumar Rupen- dra Deb Raikot in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jalpaiguri in 'Vest Bengal,-being Title Suit No. 40 of 194 7 ,-·for recovery of possession of a large estate known as Baikunthapur Raj situated in that di8triut, on the allegation that he, being the eldest son of late Prosanna Deb Raikot, the last holder of the estate, be- came entitled to the properties on the death of his father under a custom of the family which excludes all females from inheritance and follows the rnle of lineal • • ' • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1161 primogeniture jn matters of succession. Prosanna 1953 died in December, 1946, and Asrumati Debi, the appel- . . I ant before us, is admittedly his widow. There was no ,i,,rumati Debi son born to her and her only child is a daughter namedKnnuir;~pendra Prativa. According to the plaintiff respondent, his Deb Raikot mother Renchi :Qebi, who is a Lepcha by birth was an- an'l Other." other lawfully w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.