PAULIEM VALLOO CHETTY Vs. PAULIEM SOORYAH CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been argued at considerable though not, unnecessary length, and in the course of the argument several questions of law of much importance have been raised; but, in the view which their Lordships take of the case, it ultimately resolves itself into one or two questions of fact attended with no great difficulty.

(2.) THOSE questions arise in this way: Chuckeray, the original Plaintiff, upon whose death the present Plaintiff, his son, was substituted on the record, was the son of Aroonachellum. Aroonachellum was one of four brothers, sons of Mauree. Chuckeray brought his suit for the purpose of setting aside the will of Aroonachellum, made in favour of his brothers, upon various grounds; but the only ground now necessary to refer to is that the property of Aroonachellum was joint, because it was ancestral--derived from his father--and therefore that Aroonachellum could not dispose of it by will, or, at all events, could not dispose of more than a part of it.

(3.) ON the part of the Appellants it was not denied that Aroonachellum had, in the ordinary sense of the word, made his own fortune, that the property which he devised to his brothers was acquired by his successful trading and by the exercise of his industry and intelligence; but it was contended that that property was to be deemed in point of law to have been derived from his father Mauree, firstly, because he had originally received a certain amount of property from Mauree, with which he had commenced his trading, and which became, as it has been termed, the nucleus round which his fortune gathered; and, secondly, because, even if he did not acquire anything from his father, nevertheless, inasmuch as he was educated out of the funds of the family, all his acquisitions became joint in contemplation of law.