AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
John Woodroffe, J.—I deal firstly with Appeal No. 2 in regard to which it is not necessary to define the meaning of the term "dwelling house." It is sufficient to decide on the facts placed before us (and on this I am of the same opinion as Mr. Justice Chatterjee) that holding No. 754 is not a dwelling house or contains a dwelling house.
This, appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
With regard to Appeal No. 3 the lower Appellate Court held that holding No. 754 was not a place exclusively used for public worship. On appeal to the High Court, both Mr. Justice Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Walmsley concurred in this decision and held that the plaintiffs'' cross-appeal must be dismissed. It may be a question whether or not there is a right of appeal here. It is not necessary, however, to discuss that question, because on the merits I hold that there is no substance in this appeal.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Charles Chitty, J.
I agree.
Syed Shamsul Huda, J.
I also agree.