SIR JOHN WALLIS, SIR DINSHAH MULLA, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD BLANESBURGH
BISHUNATH PRASAD SINGH – Appellant
Versus
CHANDIKA PRASAD KUMARI (DEFENDANTS) – Respondent
Judgement
Appeal (No. 43 of 1930) from a decree of the High Court (March 2, 1926) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur (December 21, 1921).
The only question arising upon the present appeal was whether a registered deed of gift executed by a Hindu on September 16, 1862, in favour of his daughter-in-law conferred upon her an absolute or only a life interest in the immovable property which it mentioned.
The terms of the deed appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The High Court, affirming the trial judge, held that the donee took an absolute interest and that alienations made by her were valid after her death.
Law Rep. 60 Ind. App. 56 ( 1932- 1933) Bishunath Prasad Singh V. C handika Prasad Kumari
216
Lindsay J. referred to the following passage in the judgment delivered by Lord Davey in Lalit Mohun Singh Roy v. Chukkun Lal Roy (( 1897) L. R. 24 I. A. 76, 85.) " There are two cardinal principles in the construction of wills, deeds, and other documents which their Lordships think are applicable to the decision of this case. The first is that clear and unambiguous dispositive words are not to be controlled or qualified by any general expression of intenti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.