AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 117 words
Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.—A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of these two appeals. (Nos. 69 and 74 of 1899), namely, that no appeals lie; and in support of this contention the case of Raja Pudmanund Singh Bahadoor v. Doorga Pershad Doobey (1899) 4 C.W.N., 39, recently decided in this Court has been cited.. We think that the facts of the present appeals are similar to the facts of that, case, and on the authority of this ruling and also of the rulings Ningappa v. SangawaI.L.R (1885) 10 Bom. 433 and Raja v. Strinivasa I.L.R (1888) 11 Mad., 319, we dismiss these appeals with costs, which we assess at two gold mohurs in each case.