Skip to content


Sahu Jagdishwar Nath Vs. Sahu Gauri Shankar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1936)38BOMLR477
AppellantSahu Jagdishwar Nath
RespondentSahu Gauri Shankar
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
privy council - practice-appeal-question of fact-concurrent findings-incidental questions of law.;it is the common practice before the board of the judicial committee of the privy council not to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, however much incidentally there might have been questions of law involved. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j ..........stock with the ancestral property which he held. the second point is the issue as to whether the joint family had any interest in the business partnership, to use that phrase in a very broad sense, which had existed between the respondent and bisheshwar nath for some fifteen years from 1905. the third question raised by mr. de gruyther was with regard to whether the four deeds dated in 1920 by which the partnership was finished up and the various properties directly or indirectly concerned with the partnership were dealt with was a family settlement carried out, on the assumption that the joint family properties were involved.3. in their lordships' opinion, each of those three questions in the circumstances of this case is a pure question of fact, however much incidentally there might.....
Judgment:

Thankerton, J.

1. Their Lordships find it unnecessary to call on counsel for the respondent in the case or to enter in any detail into the facts.

2. Mr. de Gruyther, on behalf of the appellants, has raised three questions on the appeal. The first point is with reference to the suggested blending or throwing of property self-acquired by Bisheshwar Nath, the appellants' father, into the common stock with the ancestral property which he held. The second point is the issue as to whether the joint family had any interest in the business partnership, to use that phrase in a very broad sense, which had existed between the respondent and Bisheshwar Nath for some fifteen years from 1905. The third question raised by Mr. de Gruyther was with regard to whether the four deeds dated in 1920 by which the partnership was finished up and the various properties directly or indirectly concerned with the partnership were dealt with was a family settlement carried out, on the assumption that the joint family properties were involved.

3. In their Lordships' opinion, each of those three questions in the circumstances of this case is a pure question of fact, however much incidentally there might have been questions of law involved on particular points, and on those three questions of fact the Courts below have found concurrently against the appellants.

4. In these circumstances, their Lordships see no reason why they should depart from the practice that is common before this Board of not interfering with concurrent findings of fact, and they will accordingly humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //