Privy Council Court November 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.
Mount Royal Assurance Co., and Others Vs. Cameron Lumber Co. Ltd.
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Lord Blanesburgh: This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia affirming, by a majority, a judgment of the Supreme Court of the same Province whereby, following the verdict of a special jury, the sum of $24,679'07 was adjudged to the plaintiffs. The action in which these judgments were pronounced was one resulting from the consolidation into one action against seven defendant insurance companies of seven suits which had been brought by the plaintiffs against each defendant company separately. In that consolidated action the plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendants, the present appellants, the aggregate account alleged to be due under seven policies of use and occupation insurance, each policy, except as to the sum assured, being in terms identical with the others and one policy having been issued to the plaintiffs by each appellant company. On 25th February 1931, the saw mill, lathe mill, wharf and other buildings of the plainti...
Secy. of State Vs. Debendra Lal Khan
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
LORD MACMILLAN: The only question which has been argued before their Lordships in these consolidated appeals is whether the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta have rightly decided that Debendra Lal Khan, the plaintiff in the suit, "has right by adverse possession to the fishery" in a portion of the river Cossye. The Secretary of State for India in Council (hereinafter referred to as "the Crown"), who is the defendant in the suit, contests in his appeal the soundness of this decision. Debendra Lal Khan (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), besides supporting the decision of the High Court in his favour, raises in his appeal certain other issues which have been decided against him. His counsel however intimated that in the event of the decision of the High Court with regard to the fishery in question being upheld by their Lordships, the plaintiff did not propose to proceed with his appeal. The river Cossye, also known as the Kangsabati, rises in the hills of Chota Nagpur, and i...
Jonathan Edward David Vs. S.P.A. De Silva
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-28-1933
SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON: This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree of the Supreme Court of Ceylon dated 1st September 1930, which reversed a decree of the District Judge of Colombo dated 20th September 1929, made in favour of the plaintiff. The action was brought by the plaintiff Jonathan Eward David, against the defendant S. P. A. de Silva for damages for breach of a contract dated 10th December 1927 and for the recovery of certain sums advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. Among other defences the defendant alleged that the plaintiff could not maintain the action because he had not complied with the provisions of Ordinance 6 of 1918, called an ordinance for the Registration of Business Names. All the defences failed in the Trial Court and it was decreed that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff Rs. 10,015 with interest, and the costs of the action, and the defendant's claim in reconvention was dismissed. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the ...
Secy. of State Vs. Anant Krishnaji Nulkar and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-27-1933
LORA ALNESS: The appellants in this case were defendants in a suit at the instance of the respondents before the District Judge of Khandesh. He decided in favour of the appellants, but his decree was reversed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Hence this appeal. The first respondent had rendered certain war service, and in 1919 he applied to the Government for a grant of certain lands which are now in suit. On 21st May 1919, the Collector of the District of East Khandesh, Mr. Mohteath, made an order, granting him the lands in question, subject to two conditions. These were (a) that the lands should be held free from payment of occupancy price, and (b) that the lands should be free of assessment till they were brought under cultivation. The lands were Government lands within the meaning of S.37, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Act 5). Respondent 1 duly entered into possession of them. On 6th December 1921, the Commissioner for the District made an order, directing that the prope...
Kishori Lal and Another Vs. Collector of Etah
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-27-1933
Fact: Rao Maharaj Singh executed a registered mortgaged-deed on 21st March 1918, in respect of certain immovable property in Etah District for Rs. 85,000, in favour of appellants' deceased father agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum, compoundable with annual rests. The Court of Wards took over the management of the mortgagor's estate under the provisions of the United Provinces Court of Wards Act (1912) U. P. Act (4 of 1912). In pursuance of a notice issued by the Collector inviting claims against the estate, the appellants notified their claim under the mortgage. On 2nd April 1921 the claim was accepted by the Collector and on 15th March 1922 a notice was given to the plaintiffs under S. 19 (3) of the Act that from 2nd April 1921 upto the date of payment of the debt, or for two years (if the debt was not paid within two years), interest would be reduced to 6 per cent. On 26th February 1922 the plaintiff agreed with the Collector that the plaintiff would re...
Khalil-ur-raftman Khan Vs. Collector of Etah
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-24-1933
SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON: This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 24th June 1930, confirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of Etah, dated 22nd April 1929, in the matter of the execution of a final decree for sale dated 29th July 1922 in a mortgage suit. The appellant is the successor of Abdul Jalil Khan, a Zamindar of Aligarh, who died on 4th October 1923. The material facts are as follows: Abdul Jalil Khan in 1909 or 1910 borrowed money from various people, and several decrees were made against him. The decrees were simple money decrees, and the property, which was attached in execution of the decrees, being ancestral property, the execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector in accordance with the provisions of S.68, Civil PC On 29th August 1911, the Collector, as he was entitled to do, granted a lease to Habib-ur-Rahman Khan of the property belonging to the judgment-debtor, Abdul Jalil Khan, for a term of sevente...
Lim Charlie and Another Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-21-1933
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal by the defendants against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon in its Appellate Jurisdiction, dated 19th March 1931, reversing the decree of Das, J., pronounced on the Original Side of the High Court, dated 4th September 1930. The plaintiff was appointed in a civil suit in the High Court Receiver of the house and land which is the subject matter of this suit and which is alleged to be part of the estate of the late Lim Chin Tsong. The suit was brought to recover possession of the said house and land, of which the defendants were in possession. The defendants are the son and daughter of Ma Mya May and claim to be her heirs and legal representatives. The suit was brought against the said Ma Mya May, who died during the pendency of the suit: the above-mentioned son and daughter were then placed on the record as defendants. The question for determination was whether the property formed part of the estate of Lim Chin Tsong on his deat...
Govind Prasad and Others Vs. Kunwarani Bala Kunwar and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-17-1933
LORD THANKERTON: This appeal relates to the estate of Dushashan Singh, who died childless on 21st March 1912, leaving a widow, Lachmi Kuer, who died on 7th January 1921. The suit was brought on 21st November 1933 by Kunwarani Bala Kunwar, the niece of Lachmi Kuer, who claimed the estate by virtue of a written will, alleged to have been executed by Dushashan Singh in or about December 1911, some three months before his death, but which had been lost or destroyed and could not be produced. The defendants claim right to the estate as being entitled to the reversionary right on the death of the widow. The only issue in the suit was "Did Dushashan Singh make a will in favour of the plaintiff and is she owner of the property in suit by virtue of the will?" The Additional Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, before whom the suit was tried, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the alleged will and on 12th April 1924 he dismissed the suit. On an appeal by the plaintiff, the High Court of Judic...
Rajani Kanta Pal Vs. Sajani Sundari Dassaya
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
LORD MACMILLAN: This is a suit in which one Sreemati Sajani Sundari Dassya, widow of the late Jadu Nath, sues for maintenance and the recovery of certain ornaments, the defendants to the suit being her brother-in-law, Rajani Kanta Pal, and others who are called as representatives of her late father-in-law, Madan Mohan. In the first Court the plaintiff was held disentitled to any maintenance, though she recovered, their Lordships understand, the value of the ornaments which she claimed, but the learned Judge indicated that if there was any legal liability for maintenance, the appropriate allowance would be at the rate of 20 rupees per month. On the case being taken to the High Court the judgment of the Subordinate Judge was in part recalled and liability was held to be established against the defendants for the maintenance of this lady, and the rate of maintenance was fixed at 80 rupees per month. In the present appeal, counsel on behalf of the defendant, Rajani Kanta Pal, now the appel...
Mauladad Khan and Others Vs. Faizullah Khan and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
Lord Macmillan: This is an unusual and a most unfortunate case. It began ten years ago with a suit filed for partnership accounts. The suit was instituted in the Court of the District Judge of Dera Ismail Khan, but was transferred by him to that of the Subordinate Judge, by whom a preliminary decree was passed on 22nd October 1923, declaring the shares of the parties in the partnership and ordering accounts to be taken. There was no appeal against this decree. On 24th March 1924, the Subordinate Judge passed a final decree under which a sum of Rs. 19,991 was found due to the present appellant, Mauladad Khan (who was defendant 1 in the suit) by the other parties, who are the respondents before the Board. Appeals followed to the Judicial Commissioner. He set aside the decree of 24th March 1924, and by his order of 7th May 1925 remanded the suit to the District Judge for re-trial by him, but directed in effect that on the re-trial the respondents would only be entitled to dispute the liab...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »