Skip to content


Ram Harakh and Others Vs. Hanwant Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPrivy Council
Decided On
Case NumberPrivy Council Appeal No. 28 of 1928 (From Oudh: Oudh Appeal No. 13 of 1925)
Judge
AppellantRam Harakh and Others
RespondentHanwant Ram
Advocates:A.M. Dunne and S. Hyam, for Appellants; A.M. Talbot, for Respondents. Solicitors for Appellants, Barrow, Rogers and Nevill; Solicitors for Respondents, The Solicitor, India Office.
Excerpt:
evidence act (1 of 1872) - section 115; (from oudh: air 1927 oudh 341) comparative citation: 1930 air(pc) 249 (1).....to be dismissed. the appellants must pay such small costs as have been incurred in the appeal by the representatives of the court of wards who appeared. appeal dismissed.
Judgment:

Viscount Dunedin:

Their Lordships see no reason to differ from the unanimous judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner affirming the judgment of the Court below. They think it is quite clear that these parties had complete notice of the existence of the charge in question, and as far as estoppel is concerned it is impossible to hold that something done by the respondent, Raja Hanwant Ram, as representative of his brother, is to create an estoppel on what is a personal claim by himself by a perfectly different arrangement and having nothing to do with the brother's debts.

Therefore their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed.

The appellants must pay such small costs as have been incurred in the appeal by the representatives of the Court of Wards who appeared.

Appeal dismissed.


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