JUDGMENTBY: PRETHEROE, AG CJ

In this case the plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant held 14/64 interest in the estate of M. Shaik Adam (deceased) in trust for the plaintiff. After hearing the arguments the Court dismissed the appeal and stated that its reasons would be given later. Three witnesses gave evidence to the effect that defendants late husband bought a plot of land for $ 400 and that "it was his intention to hand it back to the widow at some future date". The learned trial Judge found as follows:--

"In the first place I consider it most likely that defendants husband

did intend when he purchased the share in the estate to do something

for the plaintiff and her children, even perhaps as understood by Mr.

Peace, to the extent of ultimately handing it back to the plaintiff."

Mr. Mahendran, for the appellant, argued that on this finding of fact the learned Judge should have found that the existence of the trust was proved. We were unable to accept this submission. The learned Judge merely found as a fact that the defendants husband had expressed a certain intention; he also found as a fact that no trust had been created. We agree wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document