Privy Council Court November 1931 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.
Prem NaraIn Vs. Ram Charan and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-30-1931
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal, by special leave, by Prem Narain, a minor, through his mother, Ms. Chameli, against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 12th April 1927, which varied a decree of the District Judge of Aligarh dated 15th March 1924, and decreed the major part of the plaintiffs' claim. The suit was brought in pursuance of the provisions of S. 92, Civil PC, by five persons, who were alleged to have an interest in certain property which was specified in the plaint, and which was stated to be endowed property and the subject-matter of a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. Prem Narain, the appellant, was the first of five defendants. The reliefs asked for in the plaint were as follows: a declaration that the property was an endowed property; that the defendants should be dismissed from the managership and trusteeship thereof; that a scheme for the management of the property should be drawn up by the Court, ...
Krishna Chandra Bhowmich Vs. Pabna Dhana Bhandar Co., Ltd. (In Liquida ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-30-1931
Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal against a judgment and decree, dated 23rd May 1928 of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, which affirmed a judgment and decree, dated 22nd July 1928, of the Subordinate Judge of Pabna, whereby a sale for arrears of revenue was set aside. There is an estate which forms Touzi No. 10 of the Pabna Collectorate. Respondents 2 to 11, who were the original co-proprietors of a share of this estate, opened a separate account for payment of their share of revenue, known as account No. 10/6, in terms of S. 10, Bengal Revenue Sales Act, 11 of 1859, Thereafter they mortgaged their interest in the separate account along with other property to the respondent company No. 1, who, on 19th November 1923, purchased the property along with others under a mortgage decree of sale obtained by them in 1918. Respondents 2 to 11 then instituted suits to set aside the mortgage sales, and these suits were finally disposed of by compromise on 16th June 1921; un...
Secy. of State Vs. Sannidhiraju Subbarayudu and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-27-1931
Viscount Dunedin: The original plaintiff in this suit is dead and the suit is continued by his legal representatives. The plaintiff owned land abutting on a branch of the Godavari called the Chilapa Kaiva. From that in exercise of what he considered his riparian rights, he took water. The Government, through the Collector of Godavari, charged a water-cess of Rs. 8-5-8 for his use of the water. He paid under protest and then raised the present suit against the Government to recover the money so paid. The sole question therefore is whether the water-cess was legally levied. The cess bore to be levied in virtue of the provisions of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act 7 of 1865. The preamble of the Act is in these terms : "Whereas, in several districts of the Madras Presidency, large expenditure out of Government funds has been, and is still being, incurred in the construction and improvement of works of irrigation and drainage, to the great advantage of the country and of proprietors and tenan...
Manmatha Nath Mullick Vs. Sheikh Hedait Ali and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-20-1931
Lord Salvesen: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 21st December 1928 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which varied a judgment and decree, dated 30th June 1927, of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack. The facts of the case which are not in dispute may be shortly stated as follows : One Nani Mohan Banerji was an owner of two taluks, which may be shortly described as Narendrapur and Krishnapur. These properties were mortgaged for a total sum of Rs. 1,49,000 and the appellant also held two postponed mortgages over the same properties for a sum of Rs. 35,500. On 9th December 1914 Banerji executed a lease of his two taluks in favour of defendant 1. Under this lease the lessee agreed to pay the lessor a yearly rent and, in addition, the Government revenue cesses and other public demands. The lease also contains the provision that in case of any breach of the covenants to be observed by the lessee he should be liable in damages. In 1917 the first mortgagees brought a suit...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Emdad Meah
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-20-1931
Lord Thankerton: These are two consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 12th June 1928, which reversed a decree of the District Judge of Chittagong, dated 27th June 1925, modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated 14th June 1924, and dismissed the suit, in which the appellant was plaintiff, with costs. The appellant is the owner of a Noabad taluk in the District of Chittagong. At the time of the cadastral survey operations of 1895 Homar Ali, the father of the respondent, was recorded as holding the tenancy of two jotes, Nos. 83 and 98, in the survey records. Homar Ali died in 1902, leaving a widow, a son (the respondent) and four daughters. In the present suit, which was instituted on 15th April 1920, the appellant seeks to recover from the respondent rent for the year 1326 B. S. (1919-20) under a kabuliyat dated 11th October 1917, which related to part of Jote No. 83, but it will be necessary to relate...
Maharaja Kumar Gopal Saran NaraIn Singh Vs. Sita Devi
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-19-1931
Sir George Lowndes: The question raised by this appeal is as to the right of the respondent to enforce the terms of a deed dated 18th July 1917, by which the appellant purported to grant to her, " her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, " a perpetual annuity of Rs. 15,000 charged upon specified immovable properties. The Subordinate Judge by whom the case was tried held that the deed was unenforceable on various grounds. The High Court came to the opposite conclusion. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya. It was founded upon two deeds, both admittedly executed by the appellant. By the first, dated 16th April 1913, he purported to settle upon her a life annuity of Rs. 36,000. The second was in the terms set out above, and in effect reduced the life annuity just referred to by Rs. 15,000 per annum. The plaintiff claimed a declaration of her rights under the combined deeds and the payment of arrears...
Saiyid Rashid Ahmad and Another Vs. Mt. Anisa Khatun and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-19-1931
Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated 1st February 1927, which reversed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bijnor at Moradabad, dated 15th December 1923. The dispute relates to the succession to the estate of Ghiyas Uddin, a Mahomedan, who died on 4th April 1920, leaving considerable moveable and immovable property. The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit, which was instituted on 28th June 1922, and are a brother and sister of Ghiyas Uddin, and, along with respondents 10 to 12, who were impleaded as pro forma defendants, would be heirs to Ghiyas Uddin according to Mahomedan law, if respondents 1 to 6 (who were defendants 1 to 6), are unable to establish their claim to be the widow and legitimate children of Ghiyas Uddin. The main controversy turns on four stages in the matrimonial history of Anis Fatima, respondent 1, viz. (1) her marriage to Manzur Husain in 1901; (2) her divorce by Manzur Husain early in 1905; (3) her ...
Giuseppe Bianco Vs. Giovanni Vincenzn Demarco
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-06-1931
Viscount Dunedin: On or about 8th January 1920, the respondent Demarco was approached by one Dendrinos to embark on the ventura of buying a yasht. Demarco and the appellant Bianco were well known to each other and Demarco communicated Dendrinos proposal to Bianco. He explained that it was proposed that she capital sum of 12,000 was to be contributed by three adventurers, himself, Dendrinos and another, whose name was not at that time known, but who ultimately turned out to be one Gasan, but the rest of the money necessary was to be raised by mortgage. He was himself contributing 4,000. He then asked Bianco if he would take a portion of his share, to which Bianco answered: "I will take 2,000," and on 8th January he paid 2,000 to Demarco. Bianco says he added the words, "and not a penny more." but as that is not admitted by Demarco it can be left out of account. The rest of the money necessary to meet the purchase price was to be raised by mortgagee and the idea was to pay off the mortga...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›