Kolkata Court March 1893 Judgments

SayiduddIn Alias Nawab Mean and anr. Vs. MohiuddIn and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal810

Tottenham and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The Advocate-General, who appeared for the appellants, contended in the first place that the plaintiff's have no right to bring this suit in respect of the Moulabagh endowment, and. that;he suit as regards both the endowments was bad, inasmuch as leave under Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code was not obtained. He further contended that Section 539, under which the consent of the Advocate-General had been obtained in respect of both the endowments, did not apply to a contentious proceeding, and in support of the last contention he has relied upon the reasoning given in the judgment of Ayyar, J., in the case of Subbaya v. Krishna I.L.R. 14 Mad. 186, who dissented from the other Judges. No doubt, as pointed out by Ayyar, J., the wording of Section 539 is in many respects analogous to that of the English Act known as Lord Romilly's Act (52 Geo. III., Cap. 101). But it must be remembered that in Lord Romilly's Act a special and so-called summary proceeding...