cover image: The Law Reports. Under the Superintendence and Control of the Incorporation Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales  Indian Appeals: Being Cases in the Privy Council on appeal from the East Indies  1925-1926

Premium

20.500.12592/k7705n

The Law Reports. Under the Superintendence and Control of the Incorporation Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales Indian Appeals: Being Cases in the Privy Council on appeal from the East Indies 1925-1926

1926

The difficulties in this case have all arisen from the fact that the arbitrators (misled it may well be by the attitude of the parties at the time of their appointment) have not fully appreciated the importance of the fact that some of the questions consensually submitted to them were already the subject matter of a pending suit to which one of the persons appointing them was not even a party. [...] In a case of disclaimer by the widow at the time of the death of her husband or of relinquishment properly so called afterwards the title of the heir would undoubtedly arise by operation of law and in my opinion s. 60 of the Court of Wards Act would not operate to the prejudice of the heir assuming that at the date of the relinquishment the widows were a ward of the Court. [...] E. commonly called the Sonbarsa estate now in the charge and under the management of the Court of Wards to and in favour of the second party Rao Bahadur Gobind Singh and Rudra Pratab Singh the next heirs of the said Maharaja Bahadur under the Hindu law and in pursuance thereof the first party do hereby make over the entire property aforesaid to the second party in full extinction of their righ [...] In February 1919 Gobind Singh applied to the Court of the Deputy Collector of Bhagalpur for mutation of names in his favour in respect of an eighth share in the estate on the ground that he had a right to the moiety of the estate his contention being that the deed of December 18 1918 operated as a surrender of the interests of the widows of their interests in the estate. [...] 144 whether the period ran from the date of the alienations or from the death of the preceding mahant since upon the evidence adduced by the plaintiff himself his predecessor died in 1892 ; it was therefore not necessary to determine whether the onus of proving the date of death was upon the plaintiff or the defendants.
law
Pages
297
Published in
United Kingdom
SARF Document ID
sarf.100079
Segment Pages Author Actions
Frontmatter
i-xiii Frederick Pollock view
Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from The East Indies
1-276 Frederick Pollock view
Index
277-284 Frederick Pollock view

Related Topics

All