Privy Council Court May 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.
Raja of Ramnod Vs. Mangalam and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-30-1930
Lord Tomlin: Their Lordships need not trouble the respondents' counsel. This is an appeal which deals with the settlement of puttahs under the Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908. Before the subject matter of the appeal is dealt with one preliminary observation can properly be made. This litigation has lasted from 1909 until the present time. Partly no doubt on this account; the record has assumed substantial proportions. Their Lordships are indebted to Mr. De Gruyther for the lucid and concise way in which he has presented the case to them, thereby, in their Lordships' opinion, saving a great deal of public time. Now, under the Act in question, where a difference arises between the landholder and the ryot as to the form which the patta should take, procedure is provided by which the difference can be determined by the Collector. Ss. 55, 56 and 57 of the Act contain the relevant provisions. S. 55 relates to the case where the landholder fails to grant a patta in such terms as the ryot is...
Sunitibala Debi Vs. Manindra Chandra Roy Chaudhury and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-30-1930
Lord Blanesburgh: This appeal will, it is to be hoped, bring to its close a prolonged litigation between near relatives, carried on at enormous expense for nearly 27 years, that is to say, since shortly after the month of November 1903, when one Sarat Chandra Roy Chowdhury died leaving him surviving the appellant, his daughter by a predeceased wife, and two widows, of one of whom the respondents, cousins of the appellants, are the successors-in-interest. The litigation has been concerned with the property of Sarat Chandra Roy. His widows propounded a will in their favour, alleged to have been executed by the deceased on the day of his death. Their application for probate of that will was opposed by the appellant, who claimed to have succeeded to her father's property under an earlier will of his, dated 21st September 1892. The District Judge to whom the widows application was made rejected as a forgery the will they put forward, and refused to admit it to probate. The widows appealed t...
Probhat Chandra Barua Vs. Emperor
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-26-1930
Lord Russell of Killowen: The appellant is zamindar of the Permanently Settled Estate of Gouripur, and he appeals to His Majesty in Council in the circumstances herein set forth. By an assessment note of the Income-tax officer of Dhubri dated 28th August 1925, the appellant was assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1929, to income-tax in respect of income arising from his said estate. On appeal the assessment was confirmed by order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22nd December 1925. At the request of the appellant the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, acting under S. 66 of the said Act, submitted certain questions for the decision of the High Court. The question so submitted were three in number, and (as amended in the course of the hearing) they were in the following terms "1. Whether the following sources of income are agricultural and therefore exempted from assessment to Income-tax under S.4 (3) (viii) of the Act. [Then follow ten Items which it is unnecessary to set out here.] ...
(Baba) Jwala Das Vs. Pir Sant Das and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-20-1930
Sir George Lowndes: The question in this appeal is as to the right to appoint a successor to one Kan Das, the bairagi mahant of a mutt in Hardwar, who died in 1923 leaving no chela and having made no appointment to the gadi. On his death the appellant took possession of the mutt, claiming to be entitled thereto as the mahant of a neighbouring institution at Sainwal from which he asserts the Hardwar mutt was founded. The moveable property was locked up in a room by the police. The respondents then came forward with a rival claim as representing another mutt at Koh Kerana. The matter was investigated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who held that the appellant had made out a prima facie title to the succession, but ordered the moveables to be kept under lock and seal for a further period of six weeks to enable the respondents to take proceedings in the civil Court, failing which the property was to be made over to the appellant, who was left in possession of the immovable property value...
(Maulana) Mohammad Ibrahim Riza Malak Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-19-1930
Lord Tomlin: In this case the appellant seeks to displace an assessment to income-tax made upon him in respect of property vested in him as the head of a community which is a sect of the Dawood Borah tribe, located at Nagpur. The community have, apparently, a common stock all the property being vested in the head of the sect. The property is utilized in part in carrying on a series of shops, the profits of the trade being treated as part of the income of the community. In the Courts below the appellant rested upon certain trust deeds executed, one on 25th August 1917, and the other on 25th November 1922. By the first deed the then head of the community declared the trusts of the property vested in him, and by the second deed the trusts of the same property were explained and expanded. Their Lordships think that the short point which this appeal raises is, whether, having regard to the terms of those deeds, the income of the property vested in the head of the community is exempt from in...
BenjamIn Knowles Vs. Emperor
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-10-1930
Viscount Dunedin: This appeal, for which special leave was granted by His Majesty in Council is against a conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Mrs. Knowles, by the Acting Circuit Judge of Ashanti on 23rd November 1928. The case was tried by the Judge without a jury and the appellant was not allowed the assistance of either solicitor or counsel. The grounds of appeal are first, no jurisdiction, and second, that there was no evidence on which a conviction of murder could be maintained. The Court of Ashanti by which the appellant was tried was established by the Ashanti Administration Ordinance No. 1 of 1902. The sections of the Ordinance, as amended by subsequent ordinances which bear on the method of trial in criminal cases are the following: Section 5. "Where not otherwise provided by some other statute, ordinance, or other law for the time being in force in Ashanti, the Court shall in causes and matters brought or arising before it, be guided by the law in force in ...
Sagarmull Nathany Vs. John Carapiet Galstaun
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-05-1930
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal in two consolidated suits (Nos. 1136 and 1138 of 1920) brought by the assignor of the appellant against the respondent. The consolidated suits were tried before Chotzner, J., in the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, Original Civil Jurisdiction, with the result that a decree in favour of the plaintiff was made on 24th January 1927. The respondent appealed, and on 16th January 1928, the High Court Civil Appellate Jurisdiction reversed Chotzner, J., and dismissed the consolidated suits. The appellant thereupon appealed to His Majesty in Council. The story of the transactions out of which the suits arise is somewhat intricate, but for the present purpose is sufficiently stated in what follows. One Pity owed the appellant money and in March 1910, the appellant obtained a decree against Pity for Rs. 1,40,000. Pity was the owner of property in Wellesley Street, Calcutta. An arrangement was entered into and carried out between Pity, the appellan...
Ahidhar Ghosh Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-01-1930
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated 23rd May 1927, of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, by which a judgment and decree dated 18th March 1925, of the Special Land Acquisition Judge at Alipur was varied. The nature of the case is this: The Municipality of Calcutta required certain land in Michael Dutt Street in Calcutta, and accordingly invoked the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of securing the property. Under that Act anybody seeking to acquire land sets the Government Collector in motion by means of a number of declarations and notifications which need not be specifically referred to. Under S. 11 of the Act, on a day which the Collector fixes, the Collector proceeds to inquire into the objections, if any, raised by the persons interested. He inquires into the value of the land and the nature of the interests therein. It is his duty to make an award as to the true area of the land, the compensation which in...
(Chaudhuri) Abdul Rahman Khan Vs. (Lala) Parsotam Das and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-01-1930
Lord Thankerton: By deed dated 25th April 1919, which in form was a deed of hiba-bil-ewaz, Syed Ali Haider transferred to the sons of respondent 1, Lala Parsotam Das, a village called Mundka or Murka. The deed was registered on 9th May 1919, and the donees obtained possession on 17th October 1919. Respondent 1 and his sons are members of a joint Hindu family. The appellant brought the present suit on 12th September 1925, against the whole members of the joint family, claiming possession of the village of Mundka by right of pre-emption. Three questions were debated before their Lordships. viz., : (1) Whether the transaction was of such a nature as would fall within the provisions of Ch. 2 of the Oudh Laws Act 18 of 1876, whereby a right of pre-emption would vest in the appellant ; (2) whether, assuming the right to pre-empt, the true nature of the transaction was fraudulently concealed so as to prevent the appellant from knowing that his right of pre-emption had arisen, thus deferring t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›