Report No. 45
9. Privy Council decision.-
The Privy Council1 decision on the subject was concerned with a judgment of the Chief Court of Oudh. The Chief Court of Oudh had, after stating that the only question of law arising in that case was as to the true construction of a Will2 said:
"That, to our minds, is not a 'substantial question of law' though it is a question of law. It is not alleged that any recognised principle applicable to the construction of a document of the nature of the present Will has been misunderstood or misused by this Court, nor does our decision lay down any general principle of construction. The construction which we have placed upon the Will in question is of no interest to any person outside the parties to the litigation.3 The old Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, to which the Court has succeeded, consistently adhered to the view4 that the words 'substantial question of law' mean a question of general importance, and do not include the construction of a document in which the parties alone are interested."
The Privy Council rejected this approach.5 Viscount Dunedin, delivering the judgment of their Lordships, regarded it as quite clear,-and indeed it was conceded by Mr. De Oruyther-that "substantial question of law" does not mean a question of general importance, but it means a substantial question of law as between the parties in the case involved.
1. Raghunath Prasad v. Deputy Commissioner of Partapgarh, AIR 1927 PC 110: ILR 2 Luck 93 (96) (PC).
2. Observations of the Chief Court are quoted in 1927 ILR 2 Luck 93 (94).
3. Emphasis supplied.
4. A number of such cases were referred to, as well as the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in ILR 46 All 227.
5. Raghunath Prasad v. Deputy Commissioner of Partapgarh, AIR 1927 PC 110: ILR 2 Luck 93 (96).
Back
