ANNADA MOHAN ROY Vs. GOUR MOHAN MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three points have been argued on these appeals, one by Mr. de Gruyther, the leading counsel for the appellant, and two others by Dr. Abdul Majid, the junior counsel.

(2.) The plaintiff, the present appellant, had agreements with three persons, who are the respondents, only two of whom, however, appear, by counsel, under which he purported with great elaboration to purchase from them their expectations under the will of their uncle, or alternatively their rights as his nephews expectant upon the termination of the surviving widows rights in the property of the uncle, and among many other purposes which are recited in this agreement, for which advances are agreed to be made, one, and apparently the principal one, was that an appeal might be prosecuted ultimately to His Majesty in Council for the purpose of establishing a will which the deceased was said to have made. Unfortunately their Lordships, affirming the decision in the Court below, found that that will was a forgery. That therefore reduced the expectations of the three respondents to their interest in the property after the widows rights should come to an end, and as a matter of fact after a time one widow died and a compromise was entered into with the approbation of the Court in respect of the rights of the other widow, the effect of which was to accelerate the time when the nephews became entitled to the inheritance.

(3.) In the present suits in India the trial Judge stated ten issues. The first four of those issues were argued and dealt with by him. The point in substance upon which those four issues turned was whether or not the agreements were illegal or void on the ground that they dealt with an expectancy. There were a number of others-as a matter of fact, eleven in all-but the remaining seven were not dealt with by the learned Judge. An application was made to him that he should pronounce a decree giving effect to his determination of the first four issues, which he declined to do upon the ground that there remained some issues in the case which had not been dealt with, one of them, for example, being an issue whether the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the amounts which he had in fact paid or any of them, and another whether his rights were barred by limitation.