PLD 1947

P L D 1947 Privy Council 222 (PLP)

SANTHAPURAM VENKIAH and another-Appellants Versus SANTHAPURAM UMAKRIPA DUTT alias UMAPATHI and others-Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Privy Council Appeal No. 99 of 1945, decided on 4th Decem ber 1947, from Hyderabad Deccan.
Honorable Judges
Lord Uthwatt, Lord Oaksey and Sir John Beaumont
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1947 Privy Council 222 (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Lord Uthwatt, Lord Oaksey and Sir John Beaumont
Parties SANTHAPURAM VENKIAH and another-Appellants Versus SANTHAPURAM UMAKRIPA DUTT alias UMAPATHI and others-Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1947 Privy Council 222 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1947 Privy Council 222 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Lord Uthwatt, Lord Oaksey and Sir John Beaumont.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1947 Privy Council 222 (PLP) (SANTHAPURAM VENKIAH and another-Appellants Versus SANTHAPURAM UMAKRIPA DUTT alias UMAPATHI and others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100-Finding of fact--Compromise-Courts in India found that compromise was vitiated by fraud of appellant-Plea of appellant was that there was no evidence of fraud-Facts showing that compromise could not stand-Inference of fraud be disregarded-Appeal should be dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

LORD UTHWATT.'-In this case both the Courts in India have held that the compromise, the validity of which is in issue, was vitiated by the fraud of the appellant. Before their Lordships, the appellant sought to establish that there was no evidence to support the finding of fraud. Their Lordships find it unnecessary to express any opinion on this point, for, taking into review only the facts as to which there is no dispute and disregarding the inference of fraud, it is abundantly clear that the compromise cannot stand. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.