Judgement

Appeal (No. 84 of 1925) by special leave from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (March 14, 1924) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow (July 25, 1922).

The appeal arose out of a suit for partition brought by the appellants (father and son) against the respondents (father and son), the first respondent being the brother of the first appellant.

The question for determination was whether the appellants were bound by certain admissions and denials made in the presence of a family deity, and before a commissioner appointed by the Court, in pursuance of an offer made by the first appellant at the hearing and accepted by the first respondent.

The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee;

The trial judge held that the plaintiffs were so bound, and his decree was affirmed on appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner.

1926. Nov. 29, 30. De Gruyther K.C. and Hyam for the appellants.

Dunne K.C. and Dube for the respondents.

The arguments sufficiently appear from the judgment. [Reference was made to the Indian Oaths Act, 1873. ss. 5-11; Omychund v. Barker ((1744) 1 Atk . 21.); Vasudeva Shanbog v. Naraina Pai (( 1