Judgement

Appeal (No. 39 of 1943) from a decree of the High Court (May 15, 1942) which had modified a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi (January 29, 1940).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The suit out of which this appeal arose was initiated on November 1, 1938, for the partition of the estate of Pandit Basheshwar Nath Shivpuri, who had recently died. The appellant was one of his nephews. There were four defendants, and the relationship of the parties one to the other is shown by the table following —

Law. Rep. 71 Ind. App. 197 ( 1943- 1944) Pandit Shambhu Nath Shivpuri V. Pandit Pushkar Nath

86

JAWALA NATH

|

| | | | |

Bishambar Niranjan Basheshwar Mussammat Amar Mussamm

Nath Nath Nath = Radhika Rani Nath = at Tej Rani

| | (died on (died in 1930) (died in

| 22-7- 1938 1919)

| |

|

| | | Autar Nath | Tirbhawan | Shambhu Ram Nath | Mussam

| | | (defendant 2) Nath (defendant 3) Nath (plaintiff) | (dead) = mat Janak Dulari

| | | |

Hirdey Mussammat Pushkar Dina Nath

Nath = Iqbal Rani Nath |

(died on (defendant

28-4- 1938 No. 1)

|

Brij Mohan

Nath

The fourth defendant, Pran Kishori, was a niece (the daughter of the deceased mans wifes sister).

Among the assets left by the deceased were the following — (1.) Fixed deposit receipt of the Central Bank of India, Limited, for Rs. 48,500, in the joint names of the deceased and the first defendant. (2.) Ditto for Rs. 7,000 in the joint names of the deceased and the second defendant. (3.) Five postal cash certificates of Rs. 1,000 each, in the joint names of the deceased and the second defendant. (4.) Four ditto, in the joint names of the deceased and one Hirdey Nath, elder brother of the first defendant, then deceased. (5.) Hundred shares in the Central Bank of India, Limited, value Rs. 3,130-4-0, in the joint names of the deceased and the first defendant. (6.) Fixed deposit receipt of the Punjab National Bank, Limited, for Rs. 4,000, in the joint names of the deceased and the fourth defendant. (7.) Rs. 279-10-6 in the Home Saving Safe Account of the Central Bank of India, Limited, in the joint names of the deceased and the first defendant. (8.) Rs. 450 in cash (spent on funeral expenses). (9.) A pucca house, No. 1550— Ward No. 9, in Delhi.

As appears from that list certain of the assets were held in joint names, and the question which the Board had to determine was whether the Subordinate Judge was right in saying that those assets were nevertheless the absolute property of the deceased man at the time of his death, or whether his object was that they should be so held for the advancement of those whose names were joined with his in the several instances.

The first court held that all the joint holdings stood in the names of the parties to the suit as nominees, except that in the name of the fourth defendant, Pran Kishori. The High Court (Tek Chand and Beckett JJ.) agreed in the last result, but held that all the joint holdings, like hers, were for the advancement of those whose names were joined with that of the deceased and should be excluded from the partition.

Law. Rep. 71 Ind. App. 197 ( 1943- 1944) Pandit Shambhu Nath Shivpuri V. Pandit Pushkar Nath

87

1944. June 28, 29. Bagram for the appellant. Ritson for the first respondent.

July 27. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Lord Porter, who stated he facts set out above and continued The law in India in this matter is not in doubt, and is authoritatively stated by their Lordships in Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta (( 1928) L. R. 55 I. A. 235.) in the words " the deposit by a Hindu of his " money in a bank in the joint names of himself and his wife " and on terms that it is payable to either as survivor d6es not " on his death constitute a gift by him to his wife. There is a " resulting trust in his favour in the absence of proof of a " contrary intention, there being in India no presumption of an " intended advancement in favour of a wife.” The rule, however, is not confined to asse