https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285875 The Privy Council reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the alienations made by respondent 2 were valid and binding on respondent 1. The settlement deed was interpreted as a pure maintenance grant with no division in status between respondent 2 and his sons. The alienations were deemed binding as they were made for the benefit of the joint family. The principle of res judicata was not applicable due to differences in facts and lack of pleading. The Privy Council dismissed the suit, ordering respondent 1 to pay costs and allowing the appeal. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 1947 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:19:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285875 The Privy Council reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the alienations made by respondent 2 were valid and binding on respondent 1. The settlement deed was interpreted as a pure maintenance grant with no division in status between respondent 2 and his sons. The alienations were deemed binding as they were made for the benefit of the joint family. The principle of res judicata was not applicable due to differences in facts and lack of pleading. The Privy Council dismissed the suit, ordering respondent 1 to pay costs and allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Jul 1947 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285875