Porter, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Lahore, dated May 15, 1942, Which modified in favour of respondent No. 1 a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi. The suit was initiated for the partition of the estate of Pandit Basheshwar Nath Shivpuri who had recently died. The appellant is one of his nephews. There were four defendants, and the relationship of the parties one to the other is shown by the table following : Jawala Nath _____________________________|_________________________________ Janak Dulari || ||Bishambar = Mussammat Niranjan | |Basheshwar = Mussammat | | Amar Nath Nath Nath Radhika Rani Nath Tej Rani|in | (died on (died in 1930) (died |||||= Mussammat | 22-7-1938)_|____________________________| | || | |Autar Tribhawan Shambhu 1919)|||Ram Nath | Nath Nath Nath (dead) | (defendant 2) (defendant 3) (plaintiff) _____________________________________________________________ | | || | |Hirdey Nath = Mussammat Pushkar Nath Dina Nath (died on Iqbal Rani (defendant No. 1) |28-4-1938) |BrijMohan Nath.
(2.) DEFENDANT No. 4, Pran Kishori, was a niece (the daughter of the deceased man's wife's sister). Among the assets left by the deceased were the following : (1) Fixed deposit receipt of the Central Bank of India, Limited, for Rs. 48,500, in the joint names of the deceased and defendant No. 1. (2) Ditto for Rs. 7,000 in the joint names of the deceased and defendant No. 2. (3) Five postal cash certificates of Rs. 1,000 each, in the joint names of the deceased and defendant No. 2. (4) Four ditto, in the joint names of the deceased and one Hirday Nath, elder brother of defendant No. 1, then deceased. (5) Hundred shares in the Central Bank of India, Limited, value Rs. 3,130-4-0 in the joint names of the deceased and defendant No. 1. (6) Fixed deposit receipt of the Punjab National Bank, Limited, for Rs. 4,000, in the joint names of the deceased and defendant No. 4. (7) Rs. 279-10-6 in the Home Saving Safe Account of the Central Bank of India, Limited, in the joint names of the deceased and defendant No. 1. (8) Rs. 450 in cash (spent on funeral expenses). (9) A pucca house No. 1550Ward No. 9, in Delhi. As appears from this list, certain of the assets were held in joint names, and the question which their Lordships have to determine is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in saying that these assets were nevertheless the absolute property of the deceased man at the time of his death or whether his object was that they should be so held for the advancement of those whose names were joined with his in the several instances.
(3.) THE first Court held that all the joint holdings stood in the names of the parties to the suit as nominees except that in the name of defendant No. 4 Pran Kishori. THE High Court agreed in the last result but held that all the joint holdings like hers were for the advancement of those whose names were joined with that of the deceased and should be excluded from the partition. The law in India in this matter is not in doubt and is authoritatively stated by their Lordships in Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditto (1928) L. R. 55 I. A. 235 S. C. D. 30 Bom. L. R. 1384 in the words (head-note): The deposit by a Hindu of his own money in a bank in the joint names of himself and his wife, and on the terms that it is to be payable to either or the survivor, does not on his death constitute a gift by him to his wife. There is a, resulting trust in his favour in the absence of proof of a contrary intention, there being in India no presumption of an intended advancement in favour of a wife.;