Skip to content

(Sri) Thakurji Maharaj and Another Vs. Mt. Ram Dei - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPrivy Council
Decided On
Case NumberPrivy Council Appeal No. 106 of 1928 (From Allahabad: Allahabad, Appeal No. 24 of 1927)
Appellant(Sri) Thakurji Maharaj and Another
RespondentMt. Ram Dei
Advocates:A.M. Dunne and B. Dube, for Appellants; W. Wallach and B.B. Joshi, for Respondent, Solicitors for Appellants, T.L. Wilson and Co.; Solicitors for Respondent, Watkins and Hunter.
contract act (9 of 1872) -section 16 - contract - deed; comparative citation: 1930 air(pc) 139 (1).....are not prepared to disturb these concurrent findings, accordingly they will humbly advise his majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. appeal dismissed.

Lord Thankerton:

This appeal raises what appears to be mainly, if not entirely, a question of fact. The facts found in both Courts below disclose that there was a relation of confidentiality between the two patties mainly concerned in the execution of the deed in question, and, further, those findings establish what appears on the face of the deed itself, that the deed was clearly harsh and unconscionable as regards the interests of the respondent, That being so, it was clear that it was essential for the appellants to excuse themselves from what would otherwise be the necessary implication arising on those facts. Both Courts below have found that there is no evidence on the part of the appellants which can afford such an excuse, and their Lordships are not prepared to disturb these concurrent findings, Accordingly they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

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