Privy Council Court May 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.
(K.B.Seth) Sorabjee Vs. (Seth) Dwarkadas Ranchhoddas and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-24-1932
Sir John Wallis: This appeal was originally before the Board on 12th February 1932, when, upon a preliminary objection taken by the appearing respondents, their Lordships agreed humbly to advise His Majesty that the certificate of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces admitting the appeal was wrongly granted but that special leave to appeal ought to be granted to the appellant upon lodging a petition for that purpose. This petition was duly lodged, and their Lordships' report was approved by Order in Council of 17th March 1932. The case, which comes here on appeal from a judgment and decree in second appeal, raises a question of some importance as to the right under the existing law in India of a mortgagor of proprietary rights to recover on redemption subordinate tenures acquired by the mortgagee during the subsistence of the mortgage. This question came before this Board in Rajah Kishendutt Ram v. Rajah Mumtaz Ali Khan (1)before the enactment in 1882 of the ...
Gafur Mohammad Vs. Mohammad Sharif and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-10-1932
Lord Blanesburgh: This is the defendant's appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, of date 22nd November 1927, decreeing the plaintiff' suit against him, and reversing a decree of 28th September 1925, of the Subordinate Judge at Balaghat who had dismissed it. The plaintiffs although served did not appear before the Board. The object of the proceedings was to obtain a decree, such as has been made by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, setting aside a lakh and parsadi lease of the mauza Saheki in the District Balaghat granted to the appellant on 2nd November 1916. Of that mauza Saheki, Mohammad Kasam, father of the respondents, had been up to his death the owner. It was his self-acquired property. By his will of 9th December 1915, made a few days before he died, Mohammad Kasam bequeathed Saheki in shares to his sons-three respondents and a fourth son Hasam, since dead and he appointed his eldest son the respondent Sharif, to be guardian of h...
Brij Indar Kuar Vs. Thakur Jai Indar Bahadur Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-09-1932
Sir Dinshah Mulla: Thakur Rajindra Bahadur Singh died on 18th October 1912, leaving a will dated 14th June 1907, and a codicil dated 4th October 1912. By his will he bequeathed the residue of his estate to his nephew, who is the respondent before this Board. By his codicil he left a monthly sum of Rs. 200 to the appellant, Rs. 500 to his widow, Rs. 300 to another daughter and Rs. 30 to a female servant, and charged certain properties with the payment of the annuities. All the annuities fell into arrears, and on 30th January 1920, the appellant, who was then a minor, brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises against the respondent to recover the arrears of the annuity due to her, for the administration of the estate of the testator, and for the appointment of a receiver. The other annuitants' were joined as defendants to the suit. Two other suits were also filed, one by the appellant's sister and the other by the servant, to recover the arrears of the annuities due to the...
Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. K.R.P. Shroff and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-06-1932
Lord Blanesburgh: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Bombay of 30th September 1930, made in its appellate jurisdiction, dismissing an appeal of the appellant from a decree of the same Court of 19th March 1930, made in its original civil jurisdiction. The main question for determination it whether a card or right of membership of one Virji Madhavji in the Bombay Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association or the proceeds of sale thereof, when sold, pass to the appellant as the assignee in insolvency of his estate and effects. By both Courts in India the question has been answered in the negative. The facts of the case are simple and are not in dispute. On or about 26th November 1910 the insolvent was, on his own application, admitted a member of the Association in the place of his deceased father. On 11th May 1917 a card was issued to him, certifying, that as such member, enrolled in 1910, he was entitled to enjoy all the rights and privileges and was subject to all th...
The Benares Bank, Ltd. Vs. Hari NaraIn and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: May-05-1932
Sir Dinshah Mulla: This appeal involves questions which frequently arise in suits to enforce a mortgage against property which belongs to a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara where the mortgage is executed by the father for himself and for his minor sons as their guardian. The family in this case consisted of two brothers, Jagdish Narain and Raghubir Narain and their respective sons. Jagdish Narain had five sons, two of them, Suraj Narain and Dip Narain, being adults, and the other three minors, Raghubir Narain had three sons, all of whom were minors. On 1st September 1911, the adult members of the family borrowed Rs. 28,000 from the Benares Bank, Ltd., the appellants before this Board, and executed a deed whereby they mortgaged six properties belonging to the family, one situated at Allahabad, another at Manjhiari, and the rest in the Fatehpur District, to secure the debt and interest, each father signing as guardian of his minor sons. The mortgage deed recited that the mor...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›