(Bengal) The appellant sought to claim a substantial inheritance. From many years before it had been thought that he had been buried after dying of syphilis. He claimed he had been resuscitated, taken away and brought up by sanyasi. His identity appeared to be subsequently accepted. The committee could not reverse a finding of fact save in the case of a manifest blunder by the lower court, or where there were concurrent and contradictory findings of separate lower courts, or in exceptional cases. The court should be careful to respect the traditions and systems of the countries from which appeal was made. The appellant had been in possession of the estate for many years. However in Hindu law, her possession could not be adverse to that of her husband even though he might be presumed to be dead.
Held: The Board will only in exceptional circumstances review evidence for a third time. Exceptional circumstances might include a miscarriage of justice or violation of a principle of law or procedure: ‘That miscarriage of justice means such a departure from the rules which permeate all judicial procedure as to make that which happened not in the proper sense judicial procedure at all. That the violation of some principle of law or procedure must be such an erroneous proposition of law that if that proposition be corrected the finding cannot stand; or it may be the neglect of some principle of law or procedure, whose application will have the same effect. The question whether there is evidence on which the courts could arrive at their finding is such a question of law.’
Judges:
Lord Thankerton, Lord du Parcq, Sir Madhavan Nair
Citations:
[1946] AC 508, [1946] UKPC 1
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Mudhoo Soodun Sundial v Suroop Chunder Sirkar Chowdry PC 1849
‘Both the Courts below have decided against the validity of the instrument; a fact which, considering the advantages the Judges in India generally possess, of forming a correct opinion of the probability of the transaction, and in some cases of the . .
Cited – Naragunty Lutchmeedavamah v Vengama Naidoo PC 1861
The Board restated its power to reconsider all points including the facts of an appeal brought before it. . .
Cited – Tareeny Churn Bonnerjee v Maitland 1867
When hearing a cae, the Board may itself reconsider the whole case including the evidence. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mak v Wocom Commodities Limited PC 11-Nov-1996
(Hong Kong) The appellant had placed foreign exchange transactions with the respondents. He claimed that they were acting as his agents, and claimed that they had made undisclosed profits. They claimed to have been acting as principals. He now . .
Cited – Gilrose Finance Limited v Ellis Gould PC 23-Mar-2000
PC (New Zealand) An investor had agreed to invest in a tour by a sports star. The tour failed, and the propmeter turned out to have criminal convictions for dishonesty. He had asked his solicitor to look into the . .
Cited – Lewis v Henry St Hillaire and others PC 22-May-1996
(Saint Vincent and The Grenadines) A writ was issued, but little progress was made. The respondent applied for a declaration that the action had been abandoned and was incapable of being revived.
Held: The provision was one local to the home . .
Cited – Kwasi Bekoe v Horace Broomes PC 31-Oct-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant defendant was an attorney-at-law, and the respondent a senior magistrate who was said to have accused the claimant of having given a bribe. The appellant challenged the . .
Cited – Marshall and Others v Deputy Governor of Bermuda and Others PC 24-May-2010
marshall_dgPC10
(Bermuda) The claimants challenged their recruitment by conscription to the Bermuda Regiment on several different grounds. The issues now were whether conscription was lawful only where volunters were insufficient, and whether the acceptance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Wills and Probate, Limitation, Commonwealth
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159146
