AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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. Walmsley, concurred in this decision and hold that the Plaintiff''s 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, one gold mohur in each case.
Chitty, J.
I agree.
Shamsul Huda, J.
I also agree.