AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.—The only real question for our decision is whether the terms of Section 317 of the CPC bar the suit. As against the appellant''s contention there are to be found at least three reported cases of this Court, Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das I.L.R Cal. 204 Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry 1 W.R. 329 and a third case, not so much in point, Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan 8 W.R. 130. There are also against the appellant''s contention two Allahabad cases, Sohun Lall v. Lala Gya Pershad 6 N.W. 265, and Puran Mal. v. Ali Khan ILR All. 285.
It is true that the appellant has in his favour a very recent case--Rama Kurup v. Sridevi I.L.R Mad. 290 in which the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the case of Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das ILR Cal. 204 was wrong; but in that case the learned Judges do not seem to have been referred to any of the other decisions.
Before we could give effect to the appellants'' contention we should have to refer the case to a Full Bench : but as we agree with the judgment of Mitter and Macpherson, JJ., in Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das ILR 12 Cal. 204 which supports the cases of Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry 1 W.R. 329 and Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan 8 W.R. 130 we decline to refer this case to a Full Bench, and dismiss the appeal with costs.