Privy Council Court October 1929 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dal Bahadur Singh and Others Vs. Bijai Bahadur Singh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-31-1929
LORD BUCKMASTER : Their Lordships do not desire to hear the appellants further, for in their opinion, this appeal must succeed. It is brought against two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 23rd December 1926, both of which involve the only point that is now open for consideration, namely, whether or not power was conferred upon Mt. Sultan Kunwar by her husband Ajit Singh, to make an adoption to him. The facts of the case are these ; Ajit Singh died in 1860, leaving Mt. Sultan Kunwar his widow. It is stated that he had anxiously hoped for heirs, but that hope had been disappointed and his widow was left without any son or daughter to comfort her. She continued in her loneliness until 1914, and on 6th October of that year she purported to adopt to her husband one Amar Bahadur Singh. It is that adoption that is in dispute. So far as documents and ceremonies are concerned it is not now impeached, the challenge is against the power to adopt and not the process by wh...
Mt.Fatma Bibi and Others Vs. Saadat Ali and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-31-1929
Lord Buckmaster: The question on this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to specific performance of a contract dated 25th October 1920, for the sale to them by respondents 2 and 3 of certain property in Mauza Sanwalpur Newada, Pargana Saharanpur. Respondent 1 is a purchaser from the other respondents under an alleged contract of 22nd October 1920. He undoubtedly obtained a conveyance of the property on 28th October 1920, and was entered on the register, but the appellants say this contract was not made on 22nd October, and that he obtained registration with full knowledge of the appellants' rights. This claim was supported by the Subordinate Judge, but rejected by the High Court. Anexamination of the facts has satisfied their Lordships that the judgment of theHigh Court is correct. At the material dates the vendors were subject to adecree for the sale of the property, and a compromise decree had been passeddirecting them to lodge in Court Rs. 17,182-10-0 on or before 26th Oc...
(Mir) Safdar Ali and Another Vs. Mirza Maksudali Beg
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-29-1929
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is to be regretted that the ingenuity of counsel persuaded the Board to advise His Majesty to giant special leave to appeal in this case; for, in fact, when the matter comes to be examined, there is no fit subject matter for the consideration of this Board at all. The question arises in proceedings taken to recover possession of land, and the whole point which is now before their Lordships for determination is whether the plaintiff was disentitled to maintain his suit because he claimed through a female as one of the lineal heirs of the inamdar, Mir Akbar Ali, who was entitled to the inam grant of lands in dispute. That these lands were inam lands, that Mir Akbar Ali held them as the inamdar, and that they had descended from him, is beyond question. The real point is whether or not the rules that were laid down by the Government for the regulation of these inam grants entitle female representatives to claim equally with the males. The rules that are relevant are the...
Ma Yait and Others Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-28-1929
LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon in a suit which was brought originally by one Ebrahim Moolla, who was the assignee of one Maung Chit Maung. The plaintiff claimed to have a declaration of the interests of the assignor under a settlement made by the assignor's father in the year 1908. The defendants, who are the present appellants, are the trustees of the settlement, and the defence to the suit was an allegation that the assignment was invalid by reason of its being in breach of S. 6, T. P. Act, Act 4 of 1882, which applies to the dispositions of this particular settlor. The clauses relied on are Cl. (a), S. 6, which says : "The chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on the death of a kinsman, or any other mere possibility of a like nature, cannot be transferred ;" and Cl. (e), which says that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred. The question at issue was whether the rights that were...
Siddik Mahomed Shah Vs. Mt. Saran and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-25-1929
VISCOUNT DUNEDIN: This is a hopeless appeal. A certain Hote Khan is alleged by the appellant, who is in possession of certain lands which belonged to Hote Khan to have given these lands to him. That story is not accepted, and there are concurrent findings as to the fact by both Courts. After Hote Khan's death there was a transference of the lands in question by mutation of names effected upon the application of Hote Khan's widow. The Judicial Commissioners think it very probable that Hote Khan's widow being an ignorant person and with no one to help her, transferred the lands in that way in order that her spiritual adviser might hold them as trustee. The spiritual adviser, who is the appellant wishes to keep them first upon the ground already specified which their Lordships have already disposed of and, secondly upon the ground that it was a gift made by the widow herself but that claim was never made in the defence presented and the learned Judicial Commissioners therefore, very truly...
Nallaparaju Mirja Atchutharamaraju and Others Vs. Kruttiventi Perraju ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-21-1929
VISCOUNT DUNEDIN: The suit in this case was a suit as regards a mortgage, and the real point at issue between the parties was whether one rate of interest was to be allowed or another. The suit was filed before the Government Agent at Godavari. He had power to transfer the case, and he did transfer it to the Assistant Commissioner, Agency Division Vizagapatam and he was in favour of the plaintiff. Under the Agency Rules which in this part of India prevail to the exclusion of the general Civil Procedure Code, with certain exceptions which it is immaterial to mention there was an appeal to the Agency Commissioner, and he decided against the plaintiff. The plaintiff then applied to the High Court. His right to apply depended upon R. 13. R. 13 of the rules in question, was this : ''All decrees passed by the Agency Commissioner on appeals from decree of his subordinates."and this particular decree was such a one : "shall be final, the High Court having the power on special grounds to requir...
Henrietta Muir Edwards and Others Vs. Attorney General of Canda and Ot ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
LORD CHANCELLOR: By S. 24, British North America Act, 1867, it is provided that: " The Governor-General shall from time to time, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified persons to the Senate; and subject to the provisions of this Act, every person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator." The question at issue in this appeal is whether the words "qualified persons" in that section include a woman, and consequently whether women are eligible to be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada. Of the appellants, Henrietta Muir Edwards is the Vice-President for the Province of Alberta of the National Council of Women for Canada; Nellie L. McClung and Louise C. McKinney were for several years members of the Legislative Assembly of the said province; Emily F. Murphy is a police magistrate in and for the said province; and Irene Parlby is a member of the Legislative Assembly of the said province and a member o...
Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd., Vs. Fada Radio Ltd.
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
LORD WARRINGTON OF CLYFFE: The action in which the present appeal arises is one for the infringement of the Canadian Patent No. 208,583, the application for which was made on 17th September 1920. The application was made by the inventor, Ernest Alexanderson. The Patent was dated 15th February 1921, and was granted to the present appellants as assignees of Alexanderson. That the patent was infringed by the respondents is admitted, but they dispute its validity on several grounds, including those hereinafter specifically mentioned. The trial Judge Maclean in the Exchequer Court of Canada held that none of the grounds of defence was established, and on 14th April 1927, he pronounced a decree whereby it was declared and adjudged that the patent was valid and that it had bad been infringed by the respondents, and an injunction with ancillary relief, including an enquiry as to damages, was granted. The respondents appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, who on 7th February 1928, made an ord...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›