Privy Council Court March 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.
U Pe Vs. U Maung Maung Kha
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-18-1932
Viscount Dunedin: This is a suit in which U Maung Maung Kha, the plaintiff seeks to set aside a conveyance of certain property gifted to U Pe, the defendant, by Ma Ma Gale, wife of the plaintiff, but now deceased. The plaintiff and his wife were Buddhists and their mutual rights depended on Burmese Buddhist law. They were married in 1892 having both been previously married and they had no children but adopted two girls Ma Khin May and Ma E Kyi. The father of Ma Ma Gale was U Pan ; he lived in Henzada. The plaintiff lived at Rangoon and his wife lived sometimes with her husband at Rangoon and sometimes at Henzada. She traded on her own account at Henzada. In 1910 U Pan died leaving two daughters, the said Ma Ma Gale and one Ma Ma Gyi a spinster, and some grandchildren the offspring of a deceased child. In 1912 U Pan's estate was divided between his two daughters. It consisted of two houses, one the pucca house and the other the little house and some paddy fields. The plaintiff then came...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal Vs. Shaw Wallace and Company
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-14-1932
Sir George Lowndes: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta delivered on a reference made to it under S. 66, Indian Income-tax Act, 11 of 1922. The reference arose out of an assessment to income-tax upon the respondents for the year 1929-30, in respect of an item of Rs. 9,83,361, part of a larger sum of Rs. 15,25,000 received by them in 1928 as compensation for the termination of certain agencies. The respondents carry on business in Calcutta as merchants and agents of various companies, and have branch offices in different parts of India. For a number of years prior to 1928 they acted as distributing agents in India of the Burma Oil Company and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, but had no formal agreement with either company. In or about the year 1927 the two companies combined and decided to make other arrangements for the distribution of their products. The respondents' agency of the Burma Company was accordingly terminated on 31st December 1927, and that of the...
Abdul Halim Khan Vs. Raja Saadat Ali Khan and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-10-1932
Sir George Lowndes: The appellant in this case is the claimant to and large and valuable talukdari estate in Oudh, known as Taluka Nanpara, the succession to which is governed by Act 1 of 1869. Respondent 1 was at the date of the suit in possession of the estate, and unless the appellant is able to show as better title in himself, it is admitted that he cannot succeed. The last full owner was Raja Muhammad Siddiq Khan, who died without issue on 30th December 1907. He left four widows him surviving, and by his will gave successive authorities to each of them to adopt a son. Respondent 1 is in as the adopted son of the second widow, Rani Saltanat. The appellant claims to oust him as the adopted son of the fourth widow, Rani Champa, on the ground that his (the appellant's) adoption was the only valid one. The other respondents are in possession of parts of the estate under a compromise with respondent 1. The main question in the suit was whether the adoption of the appellant, the factum o...
Lal Indra Shah Vs. Sheoshankar and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Sir Dinshah Mulla: The appellant is the zamindar and superior proprietor of Mauza Deosur in the Ambagarh Chowki zamindari situated in the Drug District in the Central Provinces. The respondents are inferior proprietors of the mauza. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the respondents in the Court of the Additional District Judge of Raipur against the appellant for a declaration that the respondents as inferior proprietors were entitled to all rights over the forest and banjar within the boundaries of the mauza as the zamindar himself had over the rest of his estate subject only to the annual payment of Rs. 90, and that the entries in the Wajibularz of 1925 which declared the zamindar to be entitled to those rights were not correct, and they prayed that those entries should be cancelled. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces reversed the decision of the trial Court, and decreed the respondent's claim. From...
The King Vs. the B.C. Fir and Cedar Lumber Co., Ltd.
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Lord Blaneaburgh: This by special leave, is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of 13th May 1931, whereby, in effect, judgment in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, pronounced at the trial by the Supreme Court of British Columbia and affirmed on 7th October 1930, by the Court of Appeal of the same Province, was discharged. The appellant now seeks to have these two earlier judgments restored. The broad question for decision is whether certain moneys received by the respondents under use and occupancy policies insuring them against loss of profit resulting from the cessation of business consequential upon fire are liable, under the British Columbia Taxation Act 1924, to be brought into account by them for assessment to income-tax. This question has led, in these proceedings, to an acute difference of judicial opinion. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court unanimously favoured a negative answer to the question and their view had the support of Martin, J., in the Cou...
DulahIn Jadunath Kuar Vs. Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Lord Thankerton: In accordance with the view expressed in the judgment of this Board dated 4th December 1930([This is reported in AIR 1931 PC 24-Ed.]), the issue raised in the third appeal has been reheard before a fuller Board. By that judgment it was decided that the succession to the Taluka Gangwal is governed by the Oudh Estates Act and in particular by S. 22 (10), which, as amended in 1910, is as follows: "(10) Or in default of or on the death of such mother, then to the nearest male agnate according to the rule of lineal primogeniture, subject as aforesaid." The last talukdar was Raja Suraj Prakash Singh, and the plaintiff's pedigree shows Bhaya Partap Singh as their common ancestor, and in accordance with the previous judgment the plaintiff must be held to have established that, in blood relationship, he is the nearest male blood relation according to the rule of lineal primogeniture of Raja Suraj, the last male holder of the taluka. It is clear from the context that this findin...
Shama Kant Lal and Others (Mahanth) Ramdhan Puri
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-04-1932
Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Patna dated 1st July 1927, which varied a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, dated 29th August 1923. The present suit was instituted on 30th November 1921, by Mohunt Dalmir Puri, in whose place the present respondent was substituted on 2nd August 1922, against eight defendants. Defendant 1 having died, his interest passed to his sons, who were defendants 2 and 3, and on 14th August 1923, the defendants were re-numbered. Defendants 1 to 6 are now represented by the present appellants, and defendant 7 was Babu Nageshwar Prasad, but service of the uramoos on him was not proved and he did not appear to resist the suit, and his name was removed from the record under the judgment of the subordinate Judge. The respondent is the proprietor of a 12 annas share in Mauza, Baghore, district of Gaya the remaining four annas being the property of one Kameshwar, who gave a mukarrari of his four annas to one Gyan...
The Official Liquidator of M.E. Moola Sons Ltd. Vs. PerIn R. Burjorjee
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Lord Tomlin: This appeal is concerned with the question whether a creditor's proof lodged by the respondent in the liquidation of the company whose liquidator is the appellant and rejected by the liquidator was properly so rejected. On 23rd December 1929, the trial Judge on the original side of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon held that the proof was rightly rejected. On 4th August 1930 this decision was reversed on appeal to the appellate side of the Court. The proof in question was for Rs.68,219-15-0, damages alleged to have been incurred by the respondent by reason of the failure of the Company to complete the purchase of property agreed to be sold by the respondent by an agreement dated 27th July 1921. The only question in issue or debated at the hearing before the trial Judge, or on the appeal was whether the agreement for sale (on the face of which the purchaser was one M. E. Moolla) had been entered into by Moolla on his own account or whether the Company was the undisclo...
Sheoprasan Singh Vs. Munshi Narsingh Sahay and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Lord Salvesen: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 29th May 1928, reversing a judgment and decree of the Second Subordinate Judge of District Arrah, dated 2nd August 1924, and decreeing in full the plaintiff-respondent's suit to recover Rs. 39,855-5-6 secured by a mortgage bond executed in favour of his benamidar on behalf of the defendant-respondent Mt. Dhanwanti Kuer on 3rd March 1908. The only compearing parties at the trial were the appellant who under certain deeds which it is not necessary to refer to has acquired all the rights of Dhanwanti Kuer in the mortgaged properties, and the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent.) The facts of the case may be shortly summarised: Dhanwanti Kuer is the widow of one Sukhdeo Singh, who died prior to the middle of the year 1900, leaving three unmarried daughters. His three brothers Jaideo, Namdeo and Sahdeo survived him, but the two latter had already lost their ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›