Privy Council Court December 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.
Wali Mohammad and Others Vs. Mohammad Baksh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-16-1929
SIR BENOD MITTER: The following genealogical tables will show the relationship of the parties to this litigation, and will be helpful in understanding the disputes between them: CHART The facts out of which this present appeal arises are shortly as follows : By a registered deed dated 15th March 1880, and executed by Sultan and Mohammad Bakhsh, certain lands and wells were mortgaged to the aforesaid Chaudhri Miran Bakhsh in consideration of the sum of Rs. 1,200. The mortgagees went into possession, and it was a term of the mortgage that the mortgagers would not be competent to redeem the mortgaged premises until after 20 years from the date of the mortgage. About the year 1891, Miran Bakhsh transferred his interest to Wali Mohammad, Ali Mohammad, and Mohammad Bakhsh, sons of Dare Khan, all named in the above-named genealogical tables, and they went into possession after their purchase. It is alleged by the defendants that the mortgagors Mohammad Bakhsh and Sultan sold their equity of r...
(Shah) -ahid HusaIn and Others Vs. Mohammad Ismail and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-16-1929
Order: The Lords of the Committee having taken into consideration an humble petition of the appellants setting forth the course of this litigation down to His Majesty's Order in Council dated 30th July 1923 granting special leave to appeal: that subsequent to His Majesty's Order several respondents died and owing to the necessary revivor proceedings the record was not received by the Registrar of the Privy Council until 16th May 1927 : that during the pendency of the appeal respondents 1, 9, a legal representative of respondent 9, respondents 23, 28, a legal representative of respondent 28, respondents 53, 82, 84, 98, 109, 113, 140 a legal representative of respondent 140, respondents 147,150 and 184 have died and in various supplemental records the High Court certified the proper persons to be substituted for the deceased ; that by two orders of His Majesty in Council dated respectively 20th December 1927 and 15th August 1929 the appeal was revived as against the substituted responden...
A Pleader of Agra Vs. Judges of the High Court of Judicature, Allahaba ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
LORD TOMLIN: This an appeal from an order dated 23rd January 1928, of the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad whereby the appellant, a pleader practising at Agra, was suspended from practice for four years from the date of the order on the ground that he was guilty of professional misconduct in respect of three out of six matters charged against him. The order was made after enquiry and report by the District Judge of Agra under S. 14, Legal Practitioners Act (18 of 1879). This jurisdiction of the High Court to suspend or otherwise punish a pleader practising in any subordinate Court arises after report by the presiding officer of such subordinate Court that the pleader has been guilty of any of the offences mentioned in S. 13 of the Act. These offences include fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. Of the six charges made against the appellant, the three upon which the High Court found him guilty were as follows : "(1) That having been standi...
Hukamchand Kasliwal and Another Vs. Radha Kishen Moti Lal Chamaria and ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON: This is an appeal by Sir Hukamchand Kasliwal, who was one of the plaintiffs in the suit, and Deokissen Bhattar, who was brought on the record on the death of father. Harkissondas Bhattar, the other plaintiff in the suit, against a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh, dated 29th November 1926, which varied a decree, dated 30th April 1925, of the Subordinate Judge of Unao. The suit was brought against 4 defendants , viz.: (1) The Pioneer Mills, Ltd.; (2) The Tata Industrial Bank Ltd.; (3) Bilas Roy Hurdut Roy, a firm which is now represented by the respondents Lala Ram Narain, Lala Radha Kissen, Lala Ganga Prasad and Lala Hari Prasad and (4) the firm of Radha Kissen Moti Lal Chamaria. The suit was brought or 10th February 1923, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Unao. By an order of 4th June 1923, the High Court of Calcutta directed the Pioneer Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) to be wound up, and by a subsequent order the High Court granted sanction...
Hunsraj and Oithers Vs. Bejoy Lal Seal and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
SIR JOHN WALLIS: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Calcutta, reversing the decree of Page J. in a suit tried before him under the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Court. The suit was brought to enforce a forfeiture of an alleged breach of a covenant against assignment contained in a lease fur a term of 61 years of premises in Halliday Street Calcutta, made on 23rd August 1910. On 7th May 1923, defendants 1 and 2 who are the owners of the leasehold interest, executed a mortgage by way of sublease of the leasehold premises, subletting them for the unexpired residue of the term, and on 25th January 1924, the plaintiffs, who are the representatives of the original lessor, instituted the present suit to enforce a forfeiture. Both the Courts below held, following the English decisions, that an absolute demise by sublease for the un-expired residue of the term would operate as an assignment of the term and be a breach of a covenant against assignment, but the trial Jud...
(Lala) Ram NaraIn and Others Vs. Radha Kishen Moti Lal Chamaria
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON: This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of Oudh, dated 29th November 1926, which partly affirmed and partly reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Unao. The plaintiffs are the representatives of Bilas Rai Hardat Rai, a mercantile firm of Nayaganj, Cownpore. The defendants were the Pioneer Mills, Ltd., and the respondent firm Radha Kishen Moti Lal Chamaria. The Pioneer Mills, Ltd. (hereinafter called the company), was registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and carried on the business of sugar manufacturers; the factory was at Unao and the head office was in Calcutta. Radha Kishen Moti Lal Chamaria (hereinafter called the defendant firm) carried on their business in Calcutta. The main question in this appeal is whether a mortgage dated 31st August 1922, executed by the company in favour of the defendant firm, ever took effect as a valid security, the plaintiffs alleging that there was no co...
Harry Kempson Gray and Another Vs. Mian and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: The only question raised for determination in this appeal is as to the basis upon which mesne profits should be ascertained in respect of the wrongful possession of agricultural land. The appellants, who were the owners of an indigo factory, had for a number of years leased certain lands from the predecessors-in-title of the principal respondents, and had utilized the lands in growing indigo for the purposes of their factory. The lease having expired in or about November 1919, the respondents became entitled to possession of the major portion of the lands. The appellants subsequently obtained a new lease of a small portion, which did not belong to the respondents, and refused to give up possession of the respondents' portion, alleging themselves to be occupancy tenants. The respondents sued to establish their title and were successful, a decree being passed in their favour for joint possession with the appellants and for mesne profits of an area of some 23 bighas. A...
Gangabai and Others Vs. Fakirgowda Somaypagowda Desai and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
SIR BINOD MITTER: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 15th September 1925, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, dated 25th June 1923. The following pedigree will show the relationship of the parties to the litigation and their ancestors : Dod-Baswantrao died in 1893. He left two sons, Somappagowda (hereinafter referred to as Somappa) and Baswantrao. Dod-Baswantrao owned and possessed considerable watan land in the villages of Hallikeri and Annigeri, Bhadrapur and Basapur. Somappa died on 28th February 1911, and Baswantrao on 11th October 1911. Baswantrao left two widows, Gangabai, defendant 1, and Basaya, defendant 2. Gangabai is said to have adopted either defendant 3 or 4: in litigation between them a compromise was effected by which the adoption of defendant 3 was upheld. Only two questions have been debated before the Board, and they are: (1) was there a partition between Somappa and Baswantrao between the years 1898 an...
(Gudivada) Mangamma Vs. (Maddi) Mahalakshmamma
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
VISCOUNT DUNEDIN: The case turned upon whether the widow, whose heir the respondent is, took an absolute interest in certain properties of the husbands or only a life-estate. If the latter, the respondent had no right. The Subordinate Judge held that the widow had only a life-estate. The High Court reversed. The losing parties then applied for leave to appeal to the King in Council, which was refused upon the ground that the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit was less than Rs. 10,000. The appellant now asks for special leave to appeal on the ground that the decision of the High Court was wrong in the respect that the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit was more than Rs. 10,000. The point arises in this way. Part of the property in question consisted of promissory notes. The promissory notes in the plaint were described as of their face value, and, so valued together with the other subjects in dispute, the amount of Rs. 10,000, cannot be reached, but if to t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›