Privy Council Court June 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.
Mitar Sen Singh Vs. Maqbul Hasan Khan and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-30-1930
Lord Atkin: This is a case which involves a question of the inheritance of a property in Oudh and it involves an important question as to the position of heirs of an ancestor who renounced his original religion of Hinduism and became a Mohammedan. The ancestor in question was a man named Jagardeo Singh, who was in 1843, at the date of his conversion to Mohammedanism, a member of an undivided Hindu family tracing their descent, so far as is necessary to this case, from a common ancestor, Babu Sangram Shah. Jagardeo Singh, as stated, was converted to Mohammedanism in 1843 and he died in 1844. He left two sons and two daughters, or at any rate he had two sons and two daughters, and one of the sons, who is the grandfather of the present defendants, was Agha Hasan Khan, who married and had a daughter, who married and whose children are the three defendants, 1, 2 and 3 in this case. On the death of the widow of Agha Hasan Khan the three children came into possession of the property which had...
T.H. Hancock Vs. Imperial Bank of Canada
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-30-1930
Viscount Dunedin: The appellant in this case is a gentleman who signed a letter of guarantee for advances to be made to the business of a Mr. Garlock. The action is one by the bank, in whose favour he signed the letter of guarantee for advances made. There is no question that the advances were made, and it cannot be disputed that upon the terms of the letter of guarantee itself those terms covered the advances. Now the defence of the appellant, who was the surety, is the old defence that he is relieved because there has been behind his back an alteration made in the form of the contract. He really puts his argument on four different grounds. He appeals to a certain letter which came into existence in this way : the debtor and the surety seemingly put their heads together, and the surety was not quite satisfied that he was in a position of complete safety as regards his relations with the debtor and, accordingly, he asked that a solicitor, who was the debtor's solicitor, should draft a ...
Rai Ram Pratap Chamaria Bahadur and Others Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-27-1930
Viscount Dunedin: This is a case which follows many other cases raising the question of the proper value to be allowed for certain compulsorily acquired land. The general principles on which the Board deals with these cases have been laid down particularly in two cases cited Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State (1) and Nowroji Rustomji Wadia v. Bombay Government (2). It is clear from those cases that their Lordships cannot interfere with the figures that have been settled by the High Court unless it can be shown there has been some real mistake in law or some palpable omission which would invalidate the valuation. Now here, the whole case for the higher valuation which is asked for depends upon the appellants being able to appeal to a certain contract for sale of part of the lands which fixed a very much higher figure. The learned Judges acquainted with the circumstances on the spot, have come to the conclusion that that contract, though it did exist on paper, did not in any way represen...
Rajendra Prosad Bose and Another Vs. Gopal Prosad Sen
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-26-1930
Sir Binod Mitter: This is an appeal from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 16th December 1927, which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Cuttack, dated 6th August 1933, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs. The following is the genealogical table of the family of Ram Prosad Bose, and the parties to the litigation claim to be his heirs. (For genealogical table see p. 244) Ram Prasad Bose executed a will and also an Anumatipatra in favour of his wife Alhadini Dasi on 16th February 1869. Alhadini Dasi, the widow, adopted one Krishna Prasad in the year 1885, and he died in 1909 leaving the respondent his only heir in possession of the properties claimed by the appellants. Alhadini died on 7th September 1920, and the present suit was instituted by the appellants against the respondent on 25th April 1921, praying for a declaration that the adoption of Krishna Prasad was invalid, and for the recovery of the properties in possession of the respondent...
Ram Harakh and Others Vs. Hanwant Ram
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-26-1930
Viscount Dunedin: Their Lordships see no reason to differ from the unanimous judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner affirming the judgment of the Court below. They think it is quite clear that these parties had complete notice of the existence of the charge in question, and as far as estoppel is concerned it is impossible to hold that something done by the respondent, Raja Hanwant Ram, as representative of his brother, is to create an estoppel on what is a personal claim by himself by a perfectly different arrangement and having nothing to do with the brother's debts. Therefore their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed. The appellants must pay such small costs as have been incurred in the appeal by the representatives of the Court of Wards who appeared. Appeal dismissed....
(Pandit) Shalig Ram and Others Vs. Bawa Charanjit Lai and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-26-1930
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal by the defendants in the suit against a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of the North West Frontier Province, dated 25th July 1927, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Peshawar dated 1st July 1926, and decreed the major portion of the plaintiffs' claim. The suit was brought by Hukam Chand and Charanjit Lal, alleging that they were the reversionary heirs of one Mul Chand and that on the death of his last surviving widow, Mt. Sahib Devi, they were entitled to recover possession of the properties specified in the plaint, which they alleged were in the possession of the defendants, and which were originally the ancestral property of the said Mul Chand. Hukam Chand died pendente lite and is now represented by Mt. Sitan Devi, respondent 2. The defendants claim title to the said properties by transfer either inter vivos or by will from the said Mt. Sahib Devi. Mul Chand was a Baba, a Hindu priest, who lived in Peshawar City, and the...
Bishnath Saran Singh Vs. Chandrapal Singh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-26-1930
Viscount Dunedin: The sole question in this case is whether the respondents are sub-proprietors or tenants. Their Lordships have before them the copy of the patta entered into by the old proprietor, and the wording of that patta certainly does more than suggest that they are to be under-proprietors and not tenants. They are not to pay revenue direct to the Rajah, but direct to the Government. Then we have the finding of the Court below, which is well summarized in this sentence of the Chief Court judgment: " There is a mass of evidence, which the learned trial Judge has rightly believed, to the effect that the plaintiff-respondents and their predecessors-in-interest have exercised rights in the manner in which under-proprietors would exercise rights and in the manner in which tenants would exercise rights. This evidence proves that they have managed the cultivated and uncultivated lands, exercised the rights of escheat, allowed tenants to settle in the village, to plant trees, to sink...
Mukhlal Singh and Another Vs. Kishuni Singh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-24-1930
Facts: The suit as instituted by one N only asked for declaration of title and possession in the alternative, valuing the claim at Rs. 6,500, the court-fee being paid on the same. The suit was decreed. During the pendency of the defendant's appeal against that decree N instituted a suit for mesne profits worked out at Rs. 3,890 and accruing subsequent to the institution of the suit. The High Court allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the main suit with the result that the suit for mesne profits was also dismissed. N then applied for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decree dismissing the main suit contending that the value of the subject-matter of appeal for purpose of S. 110. Civil P.C., was Rs. 10,390, i. e., Rs. 6,500 plus Rs. 3,890. The High Court rejected the application whereupon N obtained special leave to appeal to His Majesty. The appeal was dismissed on the preliminary point, Viscount Dune-din delivering the judgment. Viscount Dunedin: In this case...
Moti Lal Manucha Vs. Unao Commercial Bank, Ltd., Cownpore and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-20-1930
Lord Tomlin: Certain Cawnpore firms, in all or some of which Bisheshar Nath was a partner, drew during the years 1921 and 1922 a series of ten hundis upon a Calcutta firm of Motilal Bisheshar Nath. The partners in the firm of Motilal Bishashar Nath were the appellants and Bisheshar Nath of the ten hundis, eight were accepted in the name of Motilal Bisheshar Nath. by the munim of the firm. The remaining two hundis were drawn by way of renewal of and in substitution for two of the eight accepted hundis, but were never accepted. The eight hundis were discounted by one or other of the respondent banks, and all the hundis were dishonored at maturity. The banks in four suits sued Motilal Bisheshar Nath, and others on the hundis. All four suits were heard together. Three of the suits related to the six accepted hundis in respect of which there were no renewal hundis given. On 21st September 1923 the Subordinate Judge at Cawnpore made decrees is these three suits for payment by Motilal Bishesh...
Narayanaswami Ayyar and Others Vs. Rama Ayyar and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jun-19-1930
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 8 and 10 in the suit from a decree dated 15th October 1925, and two judgments dated 15th August 1924 and 15th October 1925, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, reversing a decree dated 30th September 1921, made by the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram. The first four respondents are plaintiffs in the suit and the remainder of the respondents are pro forma defendants. The suit was brought by five surviving sons of one Lakshmiammal. Since the institution of the suit one of the sons, Subramania Ayyar, died; plaintiffs 3 and 4 are his legal representatives. The two questions in this appeal are whether a transaction entered into by Thayammal, the widow of one Anathakrishna Ayyar, in the year 1867, constituted a valid "surrender" under the Hindu law, and if not what would be the proper compensation payable to defendants 1, 3 and 4 in respect of a building which had been erected by the vendees on part of the land. The suit was b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »