Privy Council Court February 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.
Lim Teck Kim Vs. Wee Hum Soon and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-13-1931
Lord Russell of Killowen: This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlement, allowing an appeal from a decision of the Chief Justice. The question involved concerns the true construction of the will of a testator, Khoc Boon Seng, who died on 5th November 1383. To make intelligible the question which were originally raised by this appeal, and those which ultimately survived for decision, it is advisable at once to refer to the provisions of the will. By the earlier clauses of his will, which was dated 23rd August 1883, the testator appointed executors and trustees, made divers pecuniary bequests and divers specific bequests and devises, directed divers payments out of the income of his residuary estate during the period of 21 years from his death, and directed his trustees to sell such part of his real estate as they might consider unproductive and out of the proceeds to pay his debts and legacies. By Cl. 21 the testator devised " al...
Krishna Rao Vs. Sundara Siva Rao and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-11-1931
Lord Thankerton: This appeal relates to the succession to the immovable property of the late Krishna Rao, a Brahmin and a karnam, who died on 20th April 1913, without issue, but leaving a widow. The suit was instituted on 16th December 1918, by Kruttiventi Surayya, who admittedly is the nearest reversioner to the estates after the death of the widow, against the widow, as defendant 1, Vempati Satyanarayanamurti, as defendant 2 and other defendants, who were the purchasers under two deeds of sale and the mortgagee under a mortgage deed executed by defendant 2 in the years 1914 and 1916. Defendant 2 is now dead, and is represented by the appellant. A few months before his death the late Krishna Rao, while he was ill, executed a document in favour of defendant 2, who was a son of his wife's sister, and whom he had brought up. The material part of that document (Ex. 1) which is dated 16th December 1912, is as follows: "As I have had no issue I have brought you up while you were young and h...
Pakala Venkanna and Others Vs. Sri Rao Swetachalapati Ramakrishna Rang ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-10-1931
Sir George Lowndes: The dispute in this appeal is as to the rights of the parties over an irrigation channel known as the Sayauna Batte in the Vizagapatam District of Madras. The plaintiff, the respondent before the Board, is the Raja of Bobbili within whose zamindari is situated the village of Regidi which is served by the Sayanna Batte together with other villages dependent upon the same supply. The plaintiff instituted his suit on 25th June 1917, against the appellants who are inamdars of the village of Amidalavalasa. They own 150 acres of cultivated land abutting on the south side of the Sayanna Batte. The Raja claimed a declaration that the appellants had no right to take water from the Sayanna Batte for irrigating their land, and a perpetual injunction. The array of defendants originally included also the inamdars of the neighbouring village of Rajayavalasa, but on objection that the suit so framed involved a misjoinder of parties, their names were struck off. The Sayanna Batte i...
(Moulvi) Zahirulsaid Alvi Vs. R.S. Seth Lachhmi Narayan
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-05-1931
Sir George Lowndes: This appeal was heard in November last and their Lordships took time to consider the form in which their humble advice should be tendered to His Majesty. It appeared at the hearing that the final judgment delivered by the Judicial Commissioners, before whom the case came in appeal, was a judgment by consent of the parties, and their Lordships enquired of counsel appearing for the appellants how, in face of this fact, he could ask the Board to interfere. Counsel did not then contest the consent, but contended that a point which had been the subject of decision at an earlier stage of the case was still open to him. When the case was set down for judgment a fresh application was made to their Lordships in connexion with this point, supported by an affidavit of the appellant which had been sent from India. In this it is alleged that there had in fact been no consent to the judgment above referred to, and that the statement to that effect by the Judicial Commissioners wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›