Privy Council Court March 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.
Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Ali Ahmad
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-31-1930
Sir Binod Mitter: These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and 47 decrees, dated 7th August 1923, of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, affirming decrees of the Special Judge of Noakhali, dated 17th September 1919, which, in their turn, affirmed the decrees dated 6th October 1917, of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Noakhali. The zamindari with which these appeals are concerned is known as the four annas share of Fergana Dandra. In 1792 the zamindar of the four annas share was one Mahammud Ali, and by an order dated 7th December of that year he was imprisoned for life as a rebel and his zamindari was confiscated by the Government in February 1793. It has been suggested before this Board that there was in reality no confiscation, but in the view that their Lordships take of this case the question is immaterial. The zamindari consisted of 45 taluks belonging to different talukdars and one nij taluk of the zamindar which was split up into 35 tuppahs and certa...
Suleman and Another Vs. Abdul Latif and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Lord Russell of Killowen: The action in which these appeals arise is a partnership action in which the plaintiffs claimed (a) a decree for dissolution, and (b) that the accounts of the partnership be taken. Other relief was claimed in the following terms: "(c) That sums found due to the plaintiffs by the defendants be ordered to be paid by them." Up to a point the facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs, or their predecessors-in-title, had for some years before 1902 carried on a business in Karachi, as partners, in the firm name of A. Haji Dossal and Sons. In the year 1902 the firm acquired a business of dealing in arms and ammunition, which originally belonged to one A. Haji Tar Mahomed and which in 1902 was being carried on by his son Haji Hamad. The firm having acquired the said business, carried it on as a branch or department of their general business which they continued to carry on in their firm name, A. Haji Dossal and Sons. At the time the arms and ammunition business was ac...
Raja Bahadur Raja Bishnath Saran Singh Vs. Rawat Sheo Bahadur Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-25-1930
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal by Raja Bahadur Bishnath Saran Singh who was the plaintiff in the suit, against a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 13th December 1926, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rai Bareli dated 31st August 1925. In the suit (No. 33 of 1925) the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that " the defendant has no proprietary or under-proprietary right in village Sijni, pargana Mohanganj." The above mentioned village lies within the taluqa of Tiloi, in the district of Rai Bareli, and the plaintiff is the owner of the taluqa. In his right of taluqdar the plaintiff is the superior proprietor of the village. The defendant, Rawat Sheo Bahadur Singh, is in actual possession of the village, and at the time of the suit he was paying to the plaintiff a yearly rent of Rs. 2,019. The plaintiff served a notice of ejectment upon the defendant ; the date of the notice is not clear : but it must have been shortly after the plaintiff came of age, whi...
John Agabeg Vertannes Vs. James Golder Robinson and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Lord Russell of Killowen: The matter under appeal before their Lordships is a decree dated 19th June 1928, of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon, affirming a decree of the District Court of Insein, dated 8th March 1928. The last-mentioned decree was dismissed, on a preliminary issue, a suit brought by the appellant to establish against the respondent 1 his title as absolute owner to a quarter of two thirds (or an undivided one sixth share) in certain lands. The appellant claimed to be entitled to such share as one of the four children of Sarkies Vertannes who had died intestate as to the land on 18th May 1897. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's action on the ground that a judgment of this Board on appeal in an action to which the present appellant and respondent 1 were parties, had finally dealt with the question of the ownership of the said share. The High Court affirmed this dismissal on the same grounds. The said judgment of the Board was delivered on the occasion of ...
Ganeshi Lal and Another Vs. Thakur Charan Singh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad which reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh. In the suit the respondents, before their Lordships' Board, being the representatives of the purchaser of one property (which may be called K) sued for contribution from the appellants, the purchasers of a second property (which may be called M), on the ground that the purchaser of K had paid off a mortgage which covered both properties. Now the section of the Transfer of Property Act which deals with the right of contribution is S.82, and it is in these terms : "Where several properties, whether of one or of several owners, are mortgaged to secure one debt, such properties are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, liable to contribute rateably to the debt secured by the mortgage after deducting from the value of each property the amount of any other encumbrance to which it is subject at the date of the mortgage."...
Shah -ahid HussaIn and Others Vs. Mahomed Ismail and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Lord Blanesburgh: In this case, on 23rd July 1923, as the result of an ex parte application by the appellants, their Lordships humbly advised His Majesty that special leave should be granted to the applicants to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decree which had been made against them by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 22nd February 1916. The leave was so advised upon special terms as to the costs of the respondents, who are a very large body of holders of small properties in the abadi of the zamindari belonging to the appellants. The application was made by the appellants upon the ground that the decree against which they desired to appeal not only directly affected the properties claimed by the respondents, which did not themselves exceed in aggregate value the sum of Rs. 5,100, but that it indirectly affected the title of the appellants to other properties in the abadi, the aggregate value of which was far in excess of Rs. 10,000. An application for leave to ap...
Mt. Nawasi Begam and Another Vs. Mt. Dilafroz Begam and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Lord Blanesburgh: The property which is the subject-matter of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen belonged to one Abdul Shah, who died on 9th October 1881, leaving him surviving his widow -amani Begam and his cousin Mansur Shah. According to the Mohammedan law, one-fourth of the property of the deceased devolved upon his widow and three-fourths upon Mansur Shah, while the widow being so entitled took possession of the whole of the estate in lieu of her dower which, as she claimed, amounted to Rs. 50,000. Thereafter Mansur Shah, having assigned a one-half share out of his three-fourths interest to Usman Shah and -amani Khan, joined with them in April 1892, in filing a suit against the widow in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Farrukhabad, alleging that her dower amounted to no more than Rs. 1,000 and that it had long ago been discharged from her usufruct of the estate and claiming (1) that possession should be delivered to them unconditionally of a three-fourths share of t...
M.M. Ispahani Vs. Societa Veneziana Di Navigazione a Vapore
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-04-1930
Lord Blanesburgh: This was an action for damages for breach of a contract made on 2nd February 1925 to ship 2,000 tons of rice from Rangoon to the Mediterranean and Black Sea ports by any of the respondents' steamers in March or April, 1925, at steamer's option. The action was brought by the respondents, the shipowners, against the appellant, the shipper, in the High Court of Calcutta in its original jurisdiction. The contract was admitted, and performance of it was not set up. The appellant's answer to the claim against him was that the contract had before breach been duly rescinded by mutual consent. Separately, if the contract did remain in force, the amount claimed was excessive. The respondents had not minimized their damage, as it was their duty to do. These two issues, raised by the appellant, were substantially the issues at the trial. All the evidence on both sides had before the hearing been taken on commission and for the most part at Rangoon. This was probably inevitable. T...
Attorney General of British Columbia Vs. Mcdonald Murphy Lumber Co., L ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-04-1930
Lord Macmillan: The controversy in this appeal relates to the validity of an enactment of the legislature of the Province of British Columbia imposing a tax on timber cut within the Province. The tax was originally imposed in 1903 in substantially its present form by a provincial statute of that year, and was subsequently re-enacted with unimportant alterations until in S.58, Forest Act, being Chap. 93, Statutes of British Columbia, 1924, it assumed the form in which its legality is now for the first time challenged. The section roads as follows: "58. There shall be due and payable to His Majesty a tax upon all timber cut within the province save and except that upon which a royalty is reserved by this Act or the "Timber Royalty Act," or that upon which any royalty or tax is payable to the Government of the Dominion, which tax shall be in accordance with the following Schedules." The first schedule deals with "timber suitable for the manufacture of lumber and shingles," which it classi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›