Privy Council Court February 1930 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.
Raoji and Others Vs. Kunjalal Hiralal Agarwala and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-27-1930
Sir George Lowndes: Balmukund Thakurdas, a Vaisya by caste, died in 1904 possessed of property of the value of from 12 to 15 lakhs of rupees. He left surviving him two widows and three sons by a Kolatin concubine named Chunna. The widows inherited his estate, the three illegitimate sons being entitled only to maintenance. After his death there was litigation between the widows, which was eventually settled by a division of the estate between them. It appears to have been part of the arrangement then come to that Champabai, the senior widow, should be responsible for the maintenance of the illegitimate sons, and on 18th March 1906, by a deed of that date, she transferred to them absolutely certain lands of the estate valued at Rs. 5,000, in full discharge of their maintenance rights. Champabai died in 1912, and her co-widow in 1913, and Balmukund's estate then passed to his reversionary heirs now represented by the respondents in this appeal. In 1921 they sued to recover the lands the s...
Khoo Hooi Leong Vs. Khoo Chang Yeok
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Lord Russell of Killowen: This appeal is brought from a decree of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements dated 11th August 1928 by which an appeal from a decree (dated 22nd February 1928) of Sproule, J., was dismissed. This last mentioned decree was made upon the further consideration of an action and upon a summons to vary a certificate made therein by the Registrar in answer to an enquiry which had been ordered by the judgment in the action. The enquiry was framed in the following terms : '' An enquiry whether the said Khoo Hun Tea was a legitimate son of the settlor." The settler was one Khoo Thean Tek, and he is referred to hereinafter as the settlor. By his certificate the Registrar had found that Khoo Hun Tee was a legitimate son of the settlor. Sproule, J., reversed that finding and declared that Kheo Hun Tee was not a legitimate son of the settler. The Court of appeal affirmed the decision of Sproule, J. The effect of the decision of Sproule. J., and the Court of appeal i...
Sitalakshmi Ammal Vs. Venkata Subrahmanian
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a suit in which the infant plaintiff suing by his next friend, his father, Gopalkrishna Ayyar, claimed from the defendants possession of the properties of Sitarama Ayyar, who died in January 1922. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of Sitarama Ayyar and also to be devisee under a will of Sitarama Ayyar, said to have been made on the day of the adoption and confirming the adoption. The defendants are the widow of Sitarama, the mother of Sitarama, and one Seeni Nadalwar, a lessee of the property. They deny that there ever was any adoption or any will and upon those two issues of fact the case turns. The suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigal. The Subordinate Judge after several days' hearing found against the adoption and the will : the High Court reversed these findings and decided in favour of the plaintiff in both issues. The defendant widow now appeals. Sitarama, a man of ...
Mayasankar Bhagwanji Vs. Sachindra Mohan Ghosh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-20-1930
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: These are two appeals (consolidated) from one judgment and two decrees dated 27th April 1928, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which reversed two orders dated 7th January 1928, and 3rd March 1928 of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad. The appellant is a decree-holder, and the above mentioned orders of the Subordinate Judge were made on two applications by the appellant for the execution of a consent decree dated 15th February 1926, and made in a suit No. 72 of 1924, which was brought by the appellant against the respondent, Raja Shri Shiv Prasad Singh (hereinafter called "the Raja)". The respondent, S.M. Ghosh, was appointed on 22nd December 1927, Receiver of the Jharia Raj by the High Court of Calcutta in a suit brought by the Ranees of the late Raja against the Raja. On 7th March 1916, the Raja succeeded to the Jharia Raj. On 6th March 1919, the widows of the late Raja (hereinafter referred to as the Ranees) sued the Raja in the Court of the Subordinate...
M. Aditya Prasad Vs. Ram Ratan Lal and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-13-1930
Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from the Chief Court of Oudh in a redemption suit brought by the appellant against the respondents. The Chief Court had reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda, and the question turns upon whether the plaintiff is obliged in order to get redemption to redeem a debt which was created by him by a document in writing of 10th November 1881. It appears that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff was the zamindar of the village of Parsapur, and that on 11th July 1881 he executed a usufructuary mortgage of the village to the respondents for Rs. 5,500, and the terms of the mortgage were that the mortgagor was to have no power of redemption for a period of 15 years; after that he was to pay off the entire mortgage money. The respondents entered into possession, in the ordinary course, of the village. On 10th November 1881, the zamindar executed a further document and the question is whether or not this document created a charge upon the village. ...
Khan Bahadur Mehrban Khan Vs. Makhna and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-13-1930
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal from the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, Peshawar. The Judicial Commissioner has reversed the Divisional Judge, who, on his part had affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge. The point is a short one. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. He is the assign for value of the interest of a mortgagor in property comprised in a mortgage dated 6th May 1898. Under the mortgage the mortgagees were entitled to possession for 19 years. At the end of that period, if the mortgagor paid off the mortgage money, the property was to belong as to a limited interest therein only, to the mortgagor, and as to the major interest therein to the mortgagees. If the mortgagor failed to pay off the mortgage money at the end of the 19 years the property was apparently to belong to the mortgagees absolutely. After the expiration of the 19 years the appellant, as assign of the mortgagor, brought a redemption suit. The Subordinate Judge and t...
A Pleader Vs. the Judges of the High Court of Madras
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-10-1930
Lord Thankerton - This appeal is from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 3rd May 1928, by which the appellant, a vakil of 12 years' standing, was found guilty of professional misconduct and was struck off the roll of vakils. Under S.9, Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 28th December 1865, the High Court is empowered to approve, admit and enrol vakils to plead and act according to the rules and directions of the Court, and under S.10 of the High Court is empowered to make rules for their qualification and admission and to remove or suspend them from practice "on reasonable cause." R.8 of the Madras Court Appellate Side Rules provides: "Every enquiry under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of 1865 shall ordinarily be heard and determined by a Bench of three Judges." On 17th August 1927, Srinivasa Ayyar, a retired Accountant-General, filed a petition in the High Court making complaints against the appellant's professional conduct in relation...
(Sri) Thakurji Maharaj and Another Vs. Mt. Ram Dei
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-03-1930
Lord Thankerton: This appeal raises what appears to be mainly, if not entirely, a question of fact. The facts found in both Courts below disclose that there was a relation of confidentiality between the two patties mainly concerned in the execution of the deed in question, and, further, those findings establish what appears on the face of the deed itself, that the deed was clearly harsh and unconscionable as regards the interests of the respondent, That being so, it was clear that it was essential for the appellants to excuse themselves from what would otherwise be the necessary implication arising on those facts. Both Courts below have found that there is no evidence on the part of the appellants which can afford such an excuse, and their Lordships are not prepared to disturb these concurrent findings, Accordingly they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›