Resulting trust governs joint bank deposits funded by one spouse absent proof of gift in Indian law.

Where money for a joint bank deposit is supplied by the husband, Indian law does not apply the English presumption of advancement in favour of the wife merely because the deposit stands in both names or is payable to either or survivor. In the absence of proof of an actual gift, the deposit is treated as subject to a resulting trust in favour of the person who provided the funds. On the facts noted, the deposit and interest remained the husband's property and formed part of his estate. The decree was also varied so that relief was confined to a declaration on the deposit, leaving wider partition issues to final proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a bank deposit made from the husband's funds in the joint names of husband and wife, payable to either or survivor, gave rise in Indian law to a presumption of advancement in favour of the wife or remained subject to a resulting trust in favour of the person who provided the money; (ii) whether the decree could be varied to avoid determining wider questions of partition and limit relief to a declaration concerning the deposit.

Issue (i): Whether a bank deposit made from the husband's funds in the joint names of husband and wife, payable to either or survivor, gave rise in Indian law to a presumption of advancement in favour of the wife or remained subject to a resulting trust in favour of the person who provided the money.

Analysis: The money standing in deposit was found to have been supplied by the husband from his own resources. The governing principle was that, in Indian law, a voluntary transfer without declaration of trust ordinarily attracts a resulting trust in favour of the person providing the consideration unless an actual gift is proved. The English presumption of advancement in favour of wife or child was held not to apply under Indian conditions. The deposit note itself did not displace the resulting trust, and the alleged surrounding evidence was not accepted as establishing a gift.

Conclusion: The deposit did not become the sole property of the wife by gift or advancement. The money and interest remained the property of the husband and, on his death, formed part of his estate. The finding was against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree could be varied to avoid determining wider questions of partition and limit relief to a declaration concerning the deposit.

Analysis: The Court treated the dispute over partial partition as unnecessary to decide for the present appeal. It considered that complete justice could be done by confining the decree to a declaration on the ownership of the deposit, while leaving other questions to be dealt with in the final partition proceedings.

Conclusion: The decree was varied so that relief was limited to a declaration regarding the deposit, and the broader partition questions were left open.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the substantive ownership question, the decree was modified in form, and the decision of the courts below was otherwise affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In Indian law, where property is purchased or deposited with money provided by one person, no presumption of advancement in favour of a wife arises merely because the deposit stands in joint names or is payable to either or survivor; absent proof of an actual gift, a resulting trust in favour of the provider of the money is presumed.

---