CHINNASWAMI ALIAS NARAYANA REDDIAR Vs. NALLAPPA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against our judgment and decree in App. No. 55 of 1945. The appeal was dismissed and the decree of the trial Court was affirmed. The value of the suit in the trial Court was over Rs. 10,000 and the value of the subject -matter of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council is also above that sum. We are asked to certify that this case fulfils the conditions of Section 110, Civil P.C. on the ground that the proposed appeal involves a substantial question of law.

(2.) THE point for consideration in the Court below and in this Court was whether the petitioner had blended the properties (immovables and outstandings) that had fallen to his share at the family partition with the immovable property and outstandings bequeathed to him under the will of his father -in -law and whether his subsequent acquisitions were his self -acquisitions or: belonged to the family consisting of himself and his only son, the respondent. The decision of the trial Court affirmed in this Court was that the petitioner had blended the two sets of properties and that the subsequent acquisitions were from the amalgamated fund. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that we relied on the fact that separate accounts were not maintained with regard to the two sets of properties and only one Income Tax return was submitted, and the question whether these circumstances would justify an inference of "blending" is, in view of the decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Nutbehari v. and Sellamani Ammal v. a substantial question of law.

(3.) IT has been settled that the test to be ap. plied in such cases is the intention of the person dealing with the properties and the various matters which may legitimately be considered by the Courts in order to determine what the intention of the person concerned was, have been indicated by their Lordships in more than one decision. It is' not stated that the proposed appeal could furnish an occasion for the enunciation of any fresh legal principle. Relying on Mathura Kurmi v. : AIR1928All61 which was followed by the Lahore High Court in Mt. Umrao Bibi v. Ram Kishen, A.I.R. 1931 Lah.753 it is contended for the respondent that no substantial question of law arises in this case. We consider that this contention has to prevail. In these decisions it (was held that where the principles of law on a point are well settled and the only question is the application of those legal principles to a particular set of facts, it cannot be said that a 'substantial question of law arises. We, with respect, agree with this view and consider that this case does not fulfil the requirements of Section 110, Civil P.C. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs.