9911796707
TMI Blog1922 (1) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property. Out of the remaining half of the property these two persons, namely, (my) senior wife Sowbhagiavathy Kamatchi and junior wife Sowbhagiavathy Thulja shall take half and half. 2. In 1894 one acre and 74 cent. of the land so given, and then in the possession of Thulja Boyee, was acquired by the Government. The usual proceedings for determining the amount of compensation appear to have taken place, and no dispute arose as to the award, but a question did arise as between Ramajee Bavajee Pandit, the adopted son, and the widow as to the character and extent of the estate that she took under the will. If she took absolutely, the money could be divided forthwith; but if she took a limited interest, her share would have to be invested. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's estate or a heritable estate which she was incapable of alienating. What the actual proceedings were that ensued between them is not plain, but they must have come before the District Court of Tanjore, for the grounds of appeal from the order of that Court are before their Lordships, and from these it appears that the District Judge had held that the widow had an absolute estate. From this decision Bavajee brought the appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Judgment was delivered by the High Court on July 13, 1897, by Sir Arthur Collins C.J. and Mr. Justice Shephard. Their judgment is short, and, as it throws considerable light upon the whole proceedings, it is desirable that it should be reproduced in full. It is as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal has been brought. Both the judgments of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court depended upon the true effect of the deed of settlement, but, for reasons which their Lordships will shortly explain, they do not think that this question was open to either of the Courts. 4. Their Lordships do not, therefore, propose to embark upon the consideration of what the effect of the deed of gift in favour of Thulja Boyee might be correctly determined to be, but as some misapprehension appears to exist as to the effect of certain decisions of the Board, and notably one in Surajmani v. Rabi Nath Ojha; their Lordships think it desirable to remove this doubt, lest error should creep into the administration of the law in India with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ps' opinion the decision given on July 13, 1897, by the High Court at Madras is a clear and complete determination as between the parties to that suit and those claiming under them, which the present litigants cannot dispute. 5. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that the judgment cannot be so regarded because it arose out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and for the purpose of their arguments they rely upon the case of Rangoon Botatoung Company v. The Collector, Rangoon (1912) L.R. 39 IndAp 197. There appears to be some misapprehension in the Courts in India as to the effect of this authority which it is desirable should be removed. Under the Land Acquisition Act there are two perfectly separate and distinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rights of the persons together entitled to the money is to place the money under the control of the Court, and the parties then can proceed to litigate in the ordinary way to determine what their right and title to the property may be. That is exactly what occurred in the present case. How the proceedings were commenced is a matter that is not material provided that they were instituted in the manner that gave the Court jurisdiction, for they ended in a decree made by the High Court and appealable to this Board. It is true that in the case of Sreemati Trinayani Dassy v. Krishna Lal Dey 17 C.W.N. 935 following an earlier case, Balaram Bhramaratar Ray v. Sham Sunder Narendra I.L.R. (1896) Cal. 526 it was decided that an order under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given by another Court having jurisdiction to try the second case. If the decision was wrong, it ought to have been appealed from in due time. Nor in such circumstances can the interested parties be heard to say that the value of the subject matter on which the former decision was pronounced was comparatively so trifling that it was not worth their while to appeal from it. If such a plea were admissible, there would be no finality in litigation. The importance of a judicial decision is not to be measured by the pecuniary value of the particular item in dispute. It has been suggested that the decision was not in a former suit, but whether this were so or not makes no difference, for it has been recently pointed out by this Board in Hook v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
