AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This was an ex parte petition by the appellant for a direction by Her Majesty in Council, in reversal of an order of the High Court made herein on April 30, 1897, that only so much of the original record may be transmitted to the Registrar of the Privy Council as properly bears upon and may be material for the decision of the questions of law decided by the High Court which form the subject of appeal. 2. The petition stated that the appellant filed his suit in the District Court of Godaveri for a declaration that the minor respondent was not the legitimate son of the late Rajah of Pittapur; that a will dated March 17, 1890, whereby the late Rajah bequeathed to the minor his whole estate, was invalid as against the petitioner; and that he, as the adopted son of the Rajah, was his heir and was entitled to succeed to all his property. The respondents by their written statement admitted the appellant''s adoption, but alleged the legitimacy of the minor and the validity of the will. Numerous issues were recorded, of which the most important were as to the legitimacy and validity aforesaid. 3. The first Court decided both these issues in favour of the appellant. The High Court refused to go into the question of legitimacy, but found that the will was valid, and reversed the decree of the first Court on that ground. After an appeal therefrom had been admitted, the Registrar of the High Court forwarded to the pleaders on either side a list of the papers in the record for the purpose of selection, with a request that the papers to be omitted should be carefully marked, as the records were bulky, and the case had been disposed of on a preliminary point. 4. The petitioner''s list of documents to be printed was limited to those which, in his opinion, bore on the questions decided by the High Court. The respondents proposed printing the entire record, on the ground that, according to its practice, the Privy Council would go into the entire case if necessary without remitting it to India, and that evidence on the issues not decided by the High Court were material to their case. The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the additional papers called for by the respondents were unnecessary, and quite useless at this stage of the case. If the High Court''s decision is upheld, the remaining papers would be superfluous; if reversed, there would be a remand on the issues not decided by the High Court, and the remaining papers could be printed, if necessary, at some future time. The High Court, on the matter being brought before them, directed the registrar to follow his usual course, "and have the whole record transcribed by consulting the parties on both sides, and that he should decide what paper is part of the record." 5. Mayne, For the petitioner, contended that the order of the High Court could be of no ultimate advantage to the respondents, and that it amounted to a practical denial of justice to the appellant. As stated in the petition, the record was of enormous bulk, 75 witnesses having been examined for the petitioner and 125 for the respondents, 186 documents having been filed for the petitioner and 409 for the respondents. No part of the oral evidence, and very few of the exhibits, probably only the adoption deed and the testamentary papers, had any bearing on the questions of law decided by the High Court. If the record was limited to what was material to the only issues raised in appeal, it could be heard in six months at very small expense to either party. If the whole record is transmitted, the appeal will probably not be heard for eight or ten years, and then at enormous and unnecessary expense. 6. The Order of Her Majesty in Council, in pursuance of a report by their Lordships, was that the order of the High Court be reversed, and that the Registrar of the High Court be directed, to transmit to the Registrar of the Privy Council only so much of the original record as properly bears upon and may be material for the decision of the questions of law which were decided by the said High Court, and which form the subject of the present appeal. 7. Solicitors for the petitioner : Frank Richardson & Sadler.