TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal partially granted with award of specific house proceeds, costs split equally.</h1> <h3>Sankaran Govindan Versus Lakshmi Bharathi and Ors.</h3> Sankaran Govindan Versus Lakshmi Bharathi and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the lower court's findings regarding Ex. LVI.2. Domicile of Dr. Krishnan at the time of his death.3. Conclusiveness of Ex. LVI as a foreign judgment.4. Applicability of English law (lex situs) to the sale proceeds of the immovable property in England.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Lower Court's Findings Regarding Ex. LVI:The lower court disallowed the contentions of the 1st defendant and directed the partition of the assets in Schedule C. The appellant contested the correctness of this decision. The lower court's findings regarding Ex. LVI were challenged on the grounds that the administrators (defendants 22 and 23) were not given notice in the suit, Ex. LVI is final and conclusive, and the suit does not lie in the Court at Trivandrum. The court rejected the contention that the administrators were necessary parties to the suit, stating that the money was already in deposit within the jurisdiction of the lower court and the administrators had handed over the amount to defendants 1 and 2.2. Domicile of Dr. Krishnan at the Time of His Death:The court examined whether Dr. Krishnan was domiciled in England at the time of his death. Evidence showed that Dr. Krishnan had expressed intentions to return to India, as indicated in several letters. The court found that Dr. Krishnan did not abandon his domicile of origin and acquire a domicile of choice in England. The evidence was insufficient to establish that Dr. Krishnan chose England as his permanent home.3. Conclusiveness of Ex. LVI as a Foreign Judgment:The lower court held that Ex. LVI was not a final judgment of a foreign court due to several reasons: it was not a judgment as only two out of six prayers were disposed of, it was opposed to natural justice as minors were not properly represented, and it was obtained by fraud. The court found that the proceedings were opposed to natural justice because the minors were not represented by their natural guardians but by the Official Solicitor as guardian ad litem. The court also found that Ex. LVI was obtained by fraud, as the 1st defendant made fraudulent representations to the English High Court regarding Dr. Krishnan's domicile.4. Applicability of English Law (lex situs) to the Sale Proceeds of the Immovable Property in England:The court considered whether the sale proceeds of the house in England should be divided according to English law (lex situs). The court referred to Dicey on Conflict of Laws and Cheshire's Private International Law, which state that succession to immovables is governed by the law of the country where the immovable is situated. The court found that the house in England was an immovable property for the purpose of Conflict of Laws and that English law of succession should apply to it. The subsequent conversion of the immovable into money did not alter this position.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed except regarding a half of the net proceeds of the sale of house No. 75-Wood House Road. The appellant (1st defendant) was awarded this half for himself, and the other half was to be divided among all the other sharers. The decision of the lower court regarding the other assets of Dr. Krishnan in Schedule C was confirmed. All parties were to suffer their respective costs before the court, with the direction regarding costs of the lower court standing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
