GODAVARTHI PERIA ALIAS, ETHIRAJAYYA MINOR BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND MAHALAKSHMAMMA Vs. GODAVARTHY LAKSHMI DEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question is whether the order of the High Court of 9th August 1912 which is in the following words the costs will abide the result" left the District Judge any discretion in awarding costs. Fani Bhusan Roy Chowdhury v. Bama Sundari Debi 4 C.W.N. 343. is cited.to show that no discretion was left.

(2.) The words "costs would abide the result" do not mean, in my opinion, the costs will follow the result. The order of the High Court of the 9th August 1912 did not, in my opinion, deprive the lower Court of the discretion ordinarily vested in any Court to decide how the costs shall be borne.

(3.) The lower Court, therefore, had in its discretion to award costs as it seemed most proper. I do it see any ground to interfere with the exercise of the discretion which, so far as I can judge, was not wrongly exercised. It may well have appeared to the learned Judge (1) that the respondents having been appointed trustees had not done-anything to, be mulcted in costs, (2) that the testator by the form of his Will had caused the litigation and that the proper order was that the costs should be borne by the estate of the testator.