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.
Raja Mohan and Others Vs. Nisar Ahmad Khan and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-12-1933
LORD WRIGHT : These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the Chief Court of Oudh, dated 15th October 1929, which affirmed two decrees of a single Judge of that Court dated 8th October 1928, passed on Suits Nos. 1 and 2 of 1928 respectively. The main point for decision in the appeals is whether appellants (plaintiffs) Nos. 2 to 8 were entitled to succeed as Sunni Mahomedans to a share in the property left by Mohammad Ewaz Ali Khan, Talukdar of Mahona who died on 24th July 1915. Appellant 1 who had a financial interest in the property and was financing the action may be disregarded herein as his claim was not pressed in this appeal, having been rejected by the Courts below. Respondent 1, who alone appeared on the appeal, claims the property as having descended to him as single heir of Ewaz Ali, either in virtue of Act 1 of 1869 or according to family custom. The relationship between the parties is shown in the following pedigree : Suit No. 1 related to the property left by Dost...
Bachchu Lal and Others Vs. Mohammad Mah and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-12-1933
SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON: These are two consolidated cross-appeals against a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 20th December 1929, which varied a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Unao dated 4th February 1929. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants in the first appeal, and the plaintiffs and defendant 4 are the respondents. In the second appeal the plaintiffs are the appellants and defendants 1 to 3 and defendant 4 are the respondents. Defendant 4 has not appeared before the Board. The appeals arise out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The mortgage deed was dated 21st September 1901, and was executed by Chaudhri Syed Mohammad Mah and his brother Chaudhri Syed Talib Ali in respect of their ten-annas share of the property specified in the deed. The former is one of the plaintiffs in the suit and the latter has since the date of the mortgage died. The other two minor plaintiffs are his representatives-in-interest. The plaintiffs are hereinafter described as the mortgagors. The m...
Mt. Bahu Rani and Another Vs. Thakur Rajendra Baksh Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-12-1933
SIR JOHN WALLIS: The plaintiff instituted this suit in the Chief Court of Oudh for a declaration that he was the adopted son of Mahabir Baksh Singh, and that the deed of gift executed by defendant 1 who is the widow of Mahabir's elder brother, Mahesh Baksh Singh, in favour of defendant 2 was not binding beyond her own lifetime. As the valuation of the suit proved to be under five lakhs of rupees it was insufficient to give the Oudh Chief Court original jurisdiction, and the plaint was amended by claiming reliefs as to other properties as well, but these claims are not the subject of this appeal as they failed before Pullan, J., the Trial Judge, and were given up at the hearing of the appeal in the Chief Court. Pullan, J., gave the plaintiff a declaration as to the adoption, and otherwise dismissed the suit. The Chief Court modified this decree by giving the plaintiff a declaration as to the deed of gift as well. From this decree the defendants have preferred the present appeal. The fol...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›