Privy Council Court January 1933 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.
R.S. Rochi Ram Vs. Faizullah Khan and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-30-1933
LORD ATKIN: These are two appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, in which the plaintiffs were Faizullah Khan in the first suit and Mauladad Khan, since deceased, in the second suit, who were suing to recover their shares on a settlement of certain partnership transactions between them and the respective defendants. It appears that the plaintiffs had been partners in a contract for supply and transport, which had been obtained from the Commissariat Department, and which ran from September 1919 to March 1920. There was a second contract obtained afterwards in continuation of the first, but with that their Lordships are not concerned in these two suits. The accounts of the parties were not finally adjusted until the year 1924, and at that date it is alleged by each of the plaintiffs that a settlement was arrived at between all the partners under which each plaintiff became entitled to the amount of money for w...
Dwarkanath Varma and Another Vs. Emperor
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-27-1933
LORD ATKIN: These are two appeals against conviction and sentence by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The appeal of Gaya Prasad was brought by special leave of the Privy Council after an application for leave to appeal had been refused by the High Court. The appeal of Dwarkanath Varma was by leave of the High Court granted after the special leave had been given to the other appellant. Both appeals were consolidated by order of the High Court. The accused were tried before a Bench of the High Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Kulwant Sahay and Dhavle, JJ., and a special jury of nine persons, on an information exhibited by the Government Advocate by the direction and with the sanction of the Local Government pursuant to S. 17 of the Letters Patent, constituting the High Court and S. 194, Criminal P. C., 1898. The appellant Gaya Prasad, an Assistant Civil Surgeon, hereinafter called the doctor, was convicted of perjury and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment ; the...
(Thotapalli Sarvabhotla ) Venkata Chandikamba Vs. Indrakanti Viswanath ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-27-1933
LORD THANKERTON: The one point which is sought to be raised in this appeal by the appellant, who was plaintiff in the action, is a point which should, have been pleaded by him in his plaints and it has not been so pleaded. It has been pointed out that it required evidence to establish it, and no evidence has been called about it. It was not argued in the trial Judge's Court, nor was it argued before the High Court at the hearing of the appeal and cross-objections. The first time it was raised was on the application for review of the judgment of the High Court. Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that it is quite impossible to allow the appellant to raise the point without any pleadings and without any evidence before this Board, and, they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs and the decree of the High Court affirmed. Appeal dismissed. ...
Mahabir Singh Vs. Rohini Ramanadhwaj Prasad Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 12th February 1929, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh dated 2nd June 1925, and dismissed the suit. The suit was instituted by the appellant on 7th September 1923, claiming absolute possession of an estate called Biswan. The present respondent is now defendant as representative of his brother, the original defendant, who died pending the suit, and is in possession of the estate. The following table will conveniently show the alternative pedigrees maintained by the parties: The main question at issue turns on the true parentage of Matmatangadhwaj Prasad Singh alias Misrilal (hereinafter called "M"). The appellant maintains that he was the son of Shivbaran Singh and Mt.Ram Kunwar, while the respondent maintains that his parents were Thakur Garurudhwaja Prasad Singh (hereinafter called "G.") and Rani Basant Kunwar. On the death of his father. Gir Prasad Singh in 188...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Behar and Orissa Vs. Kameshwar Singh of Da ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
LORD MACMILLAN: Their Lordships have to dispose of two consolidated appeals from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 25th November 1929, dealing with certain questions referred to the Court by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, under S. 66, Income-tax Act, 1922. The questions all relate to the assessment for tax purposes of the income for the year 1926-27 of the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga, who died on 3rd July 1929, and is now represented in these proceedings by his eldest son. As regards two of the questions, the Commissioner of Income-tax is appellant ; as regards the rest, the assessee is appellant. By S. 3 of the Act of 1922, income-tax is chargeable in India "in respect of all income, profits and gains of the previous year."The assessee's practice was to make up his accounts for the Fasli year which ends on 30th September and consequently, under S. 2 (11) (a) of the Act, the "previous year"in the present case is the Fasli year 1332, which end...
Raghunandan Prasad Singh and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, B ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
LORD MACMILLAN: This appeal brings before their Lordships eight questions relating to the taxable income of the appellants for the year 1926-1927. The appellants carry on the business of moneylenders and are liable under S. 3, Income-tax Act, 1922, to pay income-tax for the year 1926-1927 in respect of the profits or gains of their business in the previous year, 1925-26, as computed in accordance with the provisions of S. 10 of the Act. Being dissatisfied with the assessment of the Income-tax Officer and with the result of an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, the appellants under S. 66 (2) required the Commissioner to refer to the High Court of Judicature at Patna a series of questions purporting to be questions of law arising out of the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Commissioner accordingly, as directed by the Act, drew up a statement of the case and referred it to the High Court with his own opinion on the eight questions which he formulated. The transactions which have giv...
Maung Maung Gyi Vs. Ma Nyi Ma Gyi
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
LORD TOMLIN: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the District Court of Myaungmya. The action is one by a sister and her husband against her brother and his wife in relation to property which the sister alleges formed part of their mother's estate, and is therefore divisible between her brother and herself, they being the only two children of their mother. The matter arises in this way. In the lifetime of the mother a site for a mill was obtained by exchanging certain property of the mother for the site required for the mill. On that site there were built a mill and other buildings, which have been since their construction in the possession of the brother. The property itself has always been recorded in the brother's name. The sister, who was married during the mother's lifetime, lived with her husband with the mother. The mother died in September 1925. Thereafter the sister and her husband we...
Ram Charan Das Vs. Naurangi Lal and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: The question for determination on this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The relevant facts must first be stated. In December 1909, one Rampat Das was the mahant of a mutt situate at Paliganj in Patna District. On 21st December 1909, he executed a mukarrari or permanent lease of some 70 acres of land to Munshi Naurangi Lal under which the latter paid a premium and an annual rent to the mahant. On 13th February 1911, he executed a sale-deed of the land subject to and with the benefit of the lease to Mt. Sampat Kuer in consideration of Rs. 900. Each document states that it is executed by the mahant for the expenses and necessities of the mutt, but in view of the findings at the trial these statements may be disregarded, and it must be taken that neither of these documents was executed for legal necessity or was for the benefit of the mutt or the deities installed therein. Mahant Rampat Das died in or about July 1913. On his death on...
Har Prasad and Others Vs. Fazal Ahmad and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-13-1933
SIR DINSHAH MULLA: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 19th March 1929, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pilibhit dated 6th July 1925. The question involved in the appeal is as to the effect of a wakfnama executed by a Mahomedan pardanashin lady under the following circumstances : On 29th August 1912, Manzur Ahmad, a Sunni Mahomedan governed by the Hanafi law, executed a document purporting to be a sale of two villages, one situated in Pilibhit District and the other in Bareilly District, in favour of his mother Rahim Bibi for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000. It was recited in the deed that Rs. 10,000 had been paid by Rahim Bibi. As to the balance of Rs. 1,90,000, it was stated in the deed that it was left with Rahim Bibi "with instructions that she should spend it at her discretion in charitable purposes for the eternal benefit of my (i. e., Manzur Ahmad's) soul." Manzur Ahmad die...
Kalawati Devi Vs. Dharam Prakash
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-12-1933
LORD THANKERTON: The appellant is a widow of Ram Saran Das, a Hindu, who died in December 1896, without issue, but leaving two widows, namely (1) the appellant, Mt. Kalawati, and (2) Mt. Basanti, and his mother, Mt. Bhawan Kunwar. He left considerable property, moveable and immovable, and shortly before his death he had executed a will on 6th December 1896, under which he made the appellant the absolute owner of his property and gave her full powers of disposal and alienation in any way she liked. He also fixed certain allowances for Mt. Basanti and Mt. Bhawan Kunwar and made provision for a residence for them. As regards adoption, he made the following provision, viz. : "I authorise Mt. Kalawati to adopt when she wishes, after my death, anybody whom she likes. After making an adoption, Mt. Kalawati or the (adopted) son shall have no power to make a transfer of my property till the life-time of Mt. Kalawati. Mt. Kalawati shall act as guardian of the adopted son so long as he does not c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »