Privy Council Court February 1932 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.
Prag NaraIn Vs. the Collector of Agra
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-29-1932
Lord Russell of Killowen: This appeal is brought from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad relating to the compensation payable to the appellant under or by virtue of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) which will be referred to as the Act. The facts require to be stated in some detail for the proper appreciation of the points which are involved. On 9th July 1923, the Land Acquisition Officer of Agra (called hereafter the officer) issued a general notice under the Act for the acquisition of a block of land in the city for the purposes of a new police station. The block measured just over 1 acre, and included certain land and houses belonging to the appellant, which were known by the name Katra Nandram, and which amounted in area to some 4,109 square yards. There were 18 claimants to compensation in respect of the entire block of lands, including the appellant and one Dau Dayal. The appellant's claim (as finally amended) was for Rs. 3,34,598, made up of Rs. 2,46,780 ...
Bechu Singh and Another Vs. Kamakhya NaraIn Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-29-1932
Sir Dinshah Mulla: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated 4th December 1928, of the High Court at Patna, which reversed a decree, dated 25th May 1926, of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, and restored a decree, dated 14th April 1924, of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the defendants-appellants are raiyats having a right of occupancy within the meaning of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, in a village forming part of the Ramgarh estate situated in Hazaribagh. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, who is the proprietor of the estate, against the defendants in March 1923, to recover possession of the village. The village contains about 212 acres. The ground of the plaintiff's claim was that the defendants were tenants from year to year and they were liable to be ejected after due notice and that such notice was given. The defendants by their written sta...
Tuan Man and Another Vs. Che Som and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-19-1932
Lord Russell of Killowen: This appeal is brought by the defendants to an action which was tried by Burton, J., at Ipoh in the State of Perak. The action was dismissed ; but an appeal by the plaintiffs to the Court of Appeal of the Federated Malay States was allowed, and an order was made by that Court, which is set out hereafter, and from which the defendants have appealed to His Majesty in Council. For the proper appreciation of the cause of action which the plaintiffs seek to enforce, and of the methods and procedure which they adopted for that purpose, and of the relationship of the parties, it is necessary to embark upon considerable detail. Tuan Kundor was a Rajah of Raman, in the kingdom of Siam, who died in the year 1867. He was the owner of a tin mine at Khan Hitam in Siam. He had nine children, five sons and four daughters, all of whom, according to one witness, survived him. His eldest son was Tuan Timoon, who became Rajah and entered into possession of the mine on his father...
Raymond Lincoln Vs. Mrs. Alice Poupinel De Valence
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-16-1932
Lord Macmillan: Their Lordships on this occasion find themselves in the unusual position of being the first Court of appeal from the trial tribunal. Any disadvantage however which might otherwise have arisen from the absence of any intermediate review is compensated by the fact that the Court of first instance was composed of three Judges of the Supreme Court of Mauritius, at whose hands the case has manifestly received prolonged and careful consideration. The action is one of damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a motor accident, such as is commonly tried in this country by a Judge and jury, and resulted in a unanimous judgment for the defendant. Inasmuch as the appeal is not from the verdict of a jury, their Lordships have conceived it to be their duty to review the whole case on its merits and not merely to consider whether there was evidence before the Court below on which the judgment pronounced could proceed. At the same time, in a case such as this, in whi...
Raja Baghunandan Prasad Singh and Another Vs. Raja Kirtyanand Singh Ba ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-12-1932
Lord Tomlin: On 22nd December 1917, a decree was obtained in a suit to enforce a mortgage against the mortgagor and a puisne mortgagee, who is respondent here. The decree was in the ordinary form of such decrees in India ; that is, six months were given for redemption, and at the end of that time in default of redemption the property was to be sold. The decree did not contain, and having regard to O. 34, Civil P. C., could not contain, a personal judgment against the mortgagor for the mortgage money. An appeal to the High Court against the decree was duly taken by the mortgagor. On 31st August 1918, the decree was made absolute. On 25th October 1918 an application was made to the Subordinate Judge by the decree-holders to bring the property to sale. On 2nd April 1919, an order of the High Court was made by consent for a stay, and the order was in these terms : Let the respondents' petition for execution"-the respondents means the decree-holders : "now pending be stayed for the period ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›