Back
1925 Supreme(SC) 49
Privy Council
Sir John Edge, Blanesburgh , Justice Phillimore , JJ.
Dadabhoy Framji Cama -Appellant
Versus
Cowasji Dorabji Panday and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 112 of 1924
Decided On : 24-07-1925
T.L. Wilson and Co, Turner and Sons, E. B. Raikes, Cecil Turner, A.C. Clauson
A person claiming through a party to a settlement cannot impeach that settlement if the party had voluntarily executed a deed releasing their interest, particularly when the deed does not bind non-signatories.
Headnote:(A) Statutory Construction - Interpretation of section - Where lower courts have arrived at a specific construction of a section, the appellate court will not differ from such construction if it finds no reason to do so.
(B) Settlement Deed - Release of interest - Impeachment of settlement - A claimant seeking to impeach a settlement deed in the capacity of a widow of the party to the settlement has no title to do so if the husband had deliberately executed a deed releasing his interest under a previous deed, especially where the deed on its face does not bind persons other than the parties to it.
Facts of the case:
The principal appeal concerned the construction of a specific section as interpreted by the courts below. In the cross-appeal, a claimant, acting as the widow of a party to a settlement, sought to impeach said settlement. The husband of the claimant had signed a deed which released his interest under a previous deed and did not bind any parties other than those who were signatories to it.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to differ from the construction of the section adopted by the lower courts. Regarding the cross-appeal, the court found that the claimant had no title to impeach the settlement because the husband had voluntarily released his interest through a deed that did not bind non-parties.
Issues: Whether the construction of the relevant section by the lower courts was correct and whether a widow could impeach a settlement deed when the husband had executed a deed releasing his interest.
Ratio Decidendi: A person claiming through a party to a settlement cannot impeach that settlement if the party had voluntarily executed a deed releasing their interest, particularly when the deed does not bind non-signatories.
Result: Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
settlements
- construction of deeds
-
settlements
-
equity
-
trusts
- trustee costs
-
trusts
-
practice and procedure
- appeals
Lord Phillimore. -
Their Lordships have followed with care and with interets the very careful auguments put before them on both sides in this case, and in the circumstances they do not think it necessary to reserve consideration of the case in order to write an elaborate judg ment. They think that the same conclusion which the Courts below have arrived at might possibly have been reached by simpler methods" but however that may be they see no reason to differ from the construction put upon this section in both Courts below, and therefore their Lord ships will humbly advise His Majesty that the principal appeal should be dismissed.
As to the cross-appeal : there are many answers to make, but the one which is sufficient is that it is an appeal by a lady claiming as the widow of the party to the settlement sought to be impeached and having no title except as widow of that party. Her husband deliberately put his hand to a deed which on its face did not bind others than those who were parties to it, and by it he in substance though not exactly in those words, released all his interest under the previous deed, and for that reason, if for no other, the cross-appeal must be rejected.
With regard to the costs : the trustees should certainly have their costs, and upon the whole their Lordships are of opinion that the costs, as between solicitor and client of all parties, including those of the cross-appeal, should come out of the estate in the manner provided in the judg ment of the High Court of Bombay, which will be followed in this mater.
Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
