Law:

Section:

(a) Estoppel------- -----Plaintiff receiving costs awarded against de­fendant for permitting latter to amend her written statement--­Plaintiff precluded from objecting that permission to allow amendment of written statement was invalid or improper­--Deciding factor in applying principle. Where the plaintiff accepted the costs awarded against the defendant, before the amended written statement was put in. Held it does not lie in the plaintiff's mouth to turn round and say that the amendment was not in order. A party which has adopted an order of the Court and acts under it, cannot after enjoying a benefit under the order, contend that it is valid for one purpose and invalid for another. The deciding factor seems to be whether the costs were received by the party concerned unconditionally and without protest or not. It would be a different matter if the costs were accepted under protest or a counsel acting on behalf of the party without express authority on his own initiative, 'receives such costs. Sodhi Lal Singh v. Firm Lala Bihari Lal-Lakshari Mal A I R 1937 Lah. 8.5 ; Ghulam Qadir v. Mst. Fateh Bano A I R 1934 Lah. 974 ; Sohan Lal v. Dhari Mal-Ishar Das A I R 1928 Lah. 813 rel. Federal India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Anandrao Pandurang­rao Dixit A I R 1944 Nag. 161; Mani Lai Guzrati v. Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhury 8 I C 79 (D. B.); Seth Kunj Lal v. Shankar A I R 1943 Nag. 492 distinguished.s (b) Benami, doctrine of------ ------Whether applicable to transactions between parties of non-Asiatic domicile-English Law-Doctrine of advancement. The plaintiff, husband described as an Irishman, admittedly had non-Asiatic domicile, and the defendant wife was said to be a Chaldean. There was not enough mentioned on file to justify application of doctrine of Benami. Held, in respect of sums deposited by plaintiff husband in Bank in the name of wife, that as it had not been shown that residents of Ireland were not governed by the rules of English common law, presumably the rules of English Law must be deemed to be the personal law of the plaintiff unless he estab­lished the contrary. Kerwiek v. Kerwiek I L R (1921) 48 Cal. 260 rel. Lakshmiah v. Kothandarama A I R 1925 P C 181…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492