The parties disputed ownership of various valuable properties. The father asserted that they were held under trusts following the Mitakshara Hindu code, under a common intention constructive trust. The son said that properties held in his own name were his own.
Held: The considerable evidence did not establish an intent that the family property should be held under the terms of the Mitakshara Code: ‘the requisite intention is to be deduced objectively from the conduct of these two persons and this involves a survey of the whole course of dealing between them, taking into account any conduct which throws light on the question. Carrying out that wide-ranging survey I am unable to find that there was such an understanding.’ The gift said to have shown that the father had acquired an interst in trust of a hotel acquired by the son was in fact a loan and had been repaid. It had been shown in the accounts as a loan, and the father had signed his approval of them.
Sir William Blackburne
[2014] EWHC 1060 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gokal Chand v Hukam Chand-Nath Mal PC 1921
While training for the ICS, the family member had been supported out of joint family resources it was held that the income earned by him from an appointment in the ICS was property of the joint family. This was a strict interpretation of the Hindu . .
Cited – Surjit Lal Chhabda v Commissioner of Income Tax 1976
(Indian Supreme Court) The court defined the idea of coparceny: ‘A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property and these are . .
Cited – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
Cited – Abbott v Abbott PC 26-Jul-2007
(Antigua and Barbuda) The parties disputed the division of the family assets after a divorce. The family home was registered in the sole name of the husband. There being no provision for property adjustment, the court had to decide the division on . .
Cited – Gissing v Gissing HL 7-Jul-1970
Evidence Needed to Share Benefical Inerests
The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it.
Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a . .
Cited – Jones v Kernott SC 9-Nov-2011
Unmarried Couple – Equal division displaced
The parties were unmarried but had lived together. They now disputed the shares in which they had held the family home. It had been bought in joint names, but after Mr Kernott (K) left in 1993, Ms Jones (J) had made all payments on the house. She . .
Cited – Crossco No4 Unltd and Others v Jolan Ltd and Others CA 21-Dec-2011
The common intention constructive trust expounded in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott (and similar cases) does not apply in a commercial context. . .
Cited – Geary v Rankine CA 29-Mar-2012
A couple, who had previously lived together, disputed the ownership of a property held in the name of one of them and of the business that had been run from it.
Held: Lewison LJ pointed out that where the claim related to a property which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.523663