Privy Council Court December 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.
Faqir Chand and Others Vs. Aziz Ahmad Khan and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-15-1931
Sir George Lowndes: This appeal is concerned with a tangle of mortgages made over a number of years by one Jamil ul-Rahman. He owned or had interests in a variety of immovable properties which were scattered over the different transactions. Some have been brought to sale by one mortgagee or another; some have been redeemed by puisne mortgagees for the protection of their own interests, and subsequently transferred to other parties subject to the rights of prior incumbrancers; in some cases arrangements have been made as to the contribution due by the purchaser of this or that property; but no final settlement as between all the parties concerned has ever been come to either in or out of Court. The mortgage with which the proceedings are directly concerned was dated 23rd September 1899. It was the sixth in the series in order of date and comprised ten different properties, eight of which were also included in one or other of prior or subsequent mortgages. In 1911 the mortgagee under thi...
Mohammad Ejaz HusaIn and Another Vs. Mohammad Iftikhar HusaIn and Othe ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-15-1931
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit against a judgment and two decrees of the Chief Court of Oudh, dated 18th October 1928, which reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge dated 17th January 1928, as amended by his order dated 8th March 1928. The suit was brought by Mohammad Ejaz Husain and his sister Khaliqunnisa against their full and half-brothers and sisters, their mother Faiyazunnissa and Hamidunnisa, the wife of Amir Hasan, defendant 4. The relationship between the parties to the suit appears from the pedigree which was attached to the judgment of the Chief Court, and which is as follows: The suit was brought for a declaration that an agreement dated 25th March 1912, and an award dated 2nd April 1912, were null and void and inoperative, and for a partition of certain properties alleged to have been the properties of the plaintiffs' father Mohammad Husain. The learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, made a decree in the plaintiffs' fav...
Rajkumar Sen Choudhury and Others Vs. Ram Sundar Shaha and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-15-1931
Sir John Wallis: Disputes about the dispositions and contracts of people of advanced age and failing powers are always difficult cases to decide, and the difficulty is greatly increased when, as in the present case, the record has swollen to enormous size owing to the way in which the examination of the witnesses on commission was protracted, assuredly not in the interests of the parties. A scandalous instance of this abuse is to be found, as observed by the learned Judges of the High Court, in the examination of Ananda Roy, the principal witness for the plaintiffs, which takes up two hundred and twenty-six pages of the record, and contains twelve hundred and fifty questions and answers, most of which, as admitted at the trial by the vakils on both sides, were quite irrelevant to the suit. In another appeal with an enormous record from the same High Court it was recently stated that the cross-examination on commission of a pardahnashin lady lasted for a hundred days. In their Lordships...
Hans Nath and Others Vs. Ragho Prasad Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-14-1931
Sir George Lowndes: The dispute in this appeal is as to the appellants' right to pre-emption in respect of a 2 1/2/16 share in each of two villages known as Mouza Khurma and Jungle Khurma. On 27th July 1921 the shares in question were sold by one Thakur Prasad to the respondent. It is admitted that at the date of the sale the vendor and all the appellants were cosharer in the villages, and that the respondent was not. Two suits were instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur on 15th and 26th July 1922 respectively by the different appellants against the vendor and the respondent, in which the right of pre-emption by village custom was asserted. On 2nd November 1922, during the pendency of these suits the respondent acquired, ex facie by gift, from another cosharer a small independent fractional share in the villages. If this transfer had been made before suit raised, and had admittedly been by gift, it could not have been suggested that the custom alleged by the appe...
Ghulam Mohammad Vs. Ghulam HusaIn and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-14-1931
Sir George Lowndes: One Khadim Husain, a Mahomedan, governed by the law of the Hanafi school, died on 21st August 1901, Two days before his death he made a will in the following terms : "I, Shaikh Khadim Husain, son of Munshi Aman Ullah, deceased, resident, jagirdar and talukdar of Ganeshpur, District Basti, declare as follows : " I own and possess movable and immovable property of every description (such as) houses, groves, etc., in the Districts of Basti, Gorakhpur and Fyzabad, and it is in my possession and enjoyment as a proprietor without the participation of anyone else. The immovable property consists of three kinds of property : one is that which is meant for maintenance of disciples and female slaves [under a will, dated 25th November 1866, my father, Maulvi Shaikh Aman Ullah, deceased, gave (this property) to me alone]. This property which he had, under a will, dated 13th June 1837, got from his father for maintenance of the disciples and the female slaves us proprietor, it t...
(Sri) Krishna Chendra Gaja Pati Narayana Deo Vs. Challa Ramanna and Ot ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-07-1931
Viscount Dunedin: This case is in a curiously unsatisfactory position. The plaintiff in it is Zamindar of the Parlakimedi in his capacity as trustee for two gods. The defendants are the occupying tenants of the village of Kosamala, 183 in number. The only relief asked in the plaint was as follows : " (a) For a declaration that the settlement of the Mokhasa Amaniya village of Kossmals made in or about 1869 by the Court of Wards acting on behalf of the plaintiffs late grandfather,the then trustee of the gods Sri Rimaswami and Sri Jagannadhaswami of Parlakimedi, and continued since about 1869, by which the said village has been annually leased out at a money rent determined according to fixed block rates, is beyond the powers of a trustee and is not binding on the plaintiff, who is the present trustee of the said gods ; (b) for a declaration that the plaintiff as the present trustee of the said gods is entitled to claim rent in kind from the defendants in respect of their holdings in the ...
CaptaIn A.R.H. Morrell and CaptaIn W.R. ChaplIn S.S. leopold L. D. Vs. ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-04-1931
Lord Merrivale: The litigation between the parties ensued upon a collision between the appellant's steel screw steamship, the "Leopold L. D.," hereinafter called the "Leopold," and the defendants' steel screw steamship, the "Hochelaga," in a narrow channel in the river St. Lawence, below Quebec, in clear weather, at about 2.42 a.m. on 17th November 1926. The "Leopold" is a vessel of 5,140 tons gross tonnage, 400 feet in length. She was outward bound with a cargo of grain for Naples. The "Hochelaga's" gross tonnage is 4,681 and her length 375 feet, and she was bound up river, laden with coal. The casualty occurred in fine, clear weather; the wind was a south-westerly breeze, "force 5," and the tide the last of the flood. At the place of collision the St. Lawrence has a width of many miles. The fairway of South Channel, where the vessels were being navigated, is however limited by shoals on each hand. It appears to be well lighted and buoyed, and is direct in course, so that vessels situ...
(Thakur) Bageshwari Charan Singh Vs. ThakuraIn Jagarnath Kuari and Ano ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-04-1931
Viscount Dunedin: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 9th January 1929, which affirmed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh, dated 25th April 1926, dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit. Thakur Jadu Charan Singh, the plaintiff's grandfather, was the owner of an impartible estate known as the Dhargulli Estate, in the District of Hazaribagh. He was heavily in debt, and by an order passed under S. 2, Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (6 of 1876) in 1894, the management of the whole of his estate was vested in a Manager appointed under that Act. The management of the estate continued under the Act until 15th May 1909, when the estate was released and made over to him according to the provisions of the Act. Section 12-A, paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Act, provide : " 12-A.-(1) When the possession and enjoyment of property is restored, under the circumstances mentioned in Cl. 1 or Cl. 3, S. 12, to the person who was the holde...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›