9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Hundis and their presentation. 2. Entitlement to raise new points on appeal. 3. Determination of whether the appellant's earnings are partible under Hindu law. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Hundis and their Presentation: The judgment notes that sundry points regarding the validity of the Hundis and their presentation were raised by some defendants but not by the appellant. It was held that the appellant was not entitled to avail himself on appeal of points not raised in the lower courts. This decision was faintly contested before their Lordships, who saw no reason to doubt or review it. 2. Entitlement to Raise New Points on Appeal: The court upheld the practice that points not raised in the lower courts cannot be availed on appeal. This principle was affirmed, and the appellant's faint contestation of this procedural rule was dismissed. 3. Determination of Whether the Appellant's Earnings are Partible Under Hindu Law: The primary issue in the appeal was whether the appellant's earnings, derived from his position in the Indian Civil Service, were partible under Hindu law. The appellant belonged to a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, which traditionally considers the acquisitions of family members as joint property unless exceptions apply. The court discussed the rule that the acquisitions of family members are generally partible, with exceptions for property acquired through special "science" or "learning." The judgment elaborated on the concept of "science" and its implications, noting that if the education or training was acquired at the expense of the family, the resultant gains are considered joint property. The court examined whether the appellant's education in England, which qualified him for the Indian Civil Service, was funded by the family. It concluded that since the appellant spent seven years in England acquiring a comprehensive and costly education, it must be presumed, in the absence of contrary evidence, that his gains are partible. The court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the appellant to show that his case was an exception to the prevailing rule of partibility. The court referred to several precedents where gains from specialized education funded by the family were held to be partible, including cases involving a Prime Minister, a dancing girl, and a pleader. It also noted that the principle has been consistently upheld in various judgments and that no distinction in principle could be found between the appellant's official position and the decided cases. The judgment addressed the appellant's contention that his gains were acquired by his own personality, integrity, and learning, and therefore should be considered impartible. The court rejected this argument, stating that the gains of specialized education enjoyed at the expense of family funds are partible, regardless of the personal element involved in the ultimate gains. The court acknowledged the potential incongruity of applying ancient rules to modern occupations but emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in the established laws governing family rights and duties. The judgment concluded that the appellant's liability is in respect of his share in the family property, including his earnings deemed partible under the rules explained. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the court advised that the appellant's earnings from his position in the Indian Civil Service are partible, as they were acquired through specialized education funded by the family. The judgment underscores the principle that gains from specialized education funded by family resources are considered joint property under Hindu law.
|
