Privy Council Court December 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.
(Firm) Radha Kishan Jaikishan and Others Vs. Municipal Committee, Khan ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Lord Thankerton: The appellants in these consolidated appeals are the plaintiffs in two suits in January 1924, and August 1925, respectively, in which they challenge the validity of a tax imposed on the trade of ginning and pressing cotton by means of a steam or mechanical process by the respondent, the Municipal Committee of Khandwa, in November 1922. In the first suit the appellants seek an injunction to restrain the respondent from recovering from them the amount of the tax assessed upon the appellants for the year 1922-1923. In the second suit the appellants seek repayment of the amount of the tax paid by them in respect of the year 1923-1924. These consolidated appeals are from one judgment and two decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, dated 20th November 1928. The decree in the first suit confirmed in second appeal a decree of the District Judge of Nimar, dated 15th July 1924, which had confirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Khandwa, dated ...
Jogannath and Others Vs. Shri Nath and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Sir John Wallis: This is a suit of the usual character to set aside a sale of joint family property by one Mathura Prasad, from whom the plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5 are descended, as shown in the following pedigree : It was alleged in the plaint that Jagannath, defendant 1, had induced Mathura Prasad, who was blind and deaf and a very old man, to execute a sale deed in his favour on 13th September 1910, of zamindari property belonging to the joint family, and worth Rs. 10,000, without any lawful necessity, for an inadequate consideration of Rs. 6,000, which was in great part fictitious. It was also alleged that he had cleverly induced defendants 4 and 5, Ram Pratap, one of Mathura's sons, and Bhairon Nath, one of his grandsons, to witness the sale deed by tempting and misleading them. Defendant 1 in the written statement filed on behalf of himself and his minor sons, defendants 2 and 3, denied that the property was joint family property, and alleged that the sale deed had been e...
Mt. Allah Rakhi and Others Vs. Shah Mohammad Abdur Rahim and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal by defendants, and the representatives of defendants who have died since the institution of the suit, against the judgment and decree dated 24th July 1930, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, confirming the decree of the First Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur dated 19th January 1927. The question which falls for determination in the appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit to recover possession of certain lands from the defendants is barred by limitation. Both the Courts in India held that, in view of the provisions of S.10, Lim. Act, 1908, the suit was not barred. The result was that the Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit, and the defendants' appeal therefrom to the High Court was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff's case is that: "the entire village Piran Kalliar Sharif, pargana and tahsil Rurki, district Sahanpur, has been made wakf of generation after generation and womb after womb from the time of the rule of the Moghal...
Bhup NaraIn Singh Vs. Gokul Chand Mahton and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Lord Thankerton: The appellant, who is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain immovable properties, appeals against a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, dated 12th June 1930, which reversed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Patna, dated 31st March 1928, and dismissed the suit. In the suit, which was filed on 27th January 1927, the appellant seeks specific performance of an agreement dated 26th November 1926, under which he alleges that defendant 1 (now respondent 2), as karta of his joint family, which consisted of himself and his two sons, defendant 2 (now represented by respondents 2 and 4) and defendant 3 (now respondent 4), agreed to sell to him certain property of the joint family at the price of Rs. 13,000. The present respondent 1 who was impleaded as defendant 4, claimed the property in suit by virtue of a registered sale-deed, dated 22nd December 1926, by defendant 1, for himself and as gu...
Karapaya Servai and Others Vs. Mayandi
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-15-1933
Sir George Lowndes: The question for determination in this appeal is as to the respondent's right to share in the estate of one Karapaya Servai, a Madrassi Hindu, who seems to have acquired a considerable fortune in Burma. He died a lunatic in 1923. The respondent is the son of Karapayi (or Karupi), who is now admitted to have been the first wife of Karapaya, and the defence to his claim is a denial of his paternity. The appellants are two minor sons of Karapaya by his second wife, Nachiamma, and one Chellaya, a brother of Nachiamma, who had been appointed guardian in the lunacy, and was at the date of the suit in effective possession of the estate. The suit was instituted by the respondent in the District Court of Pyapon, and the main issue formulated for decision was, "Is the plaintiff the son of the deceased lunatic Karapaya, begotten in lawful wedlock with Karapayi ?" The District Judge answered this question in the negative and dismissed the suit. The High Court on appeal took the...
Bharat Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-15-1933
Sir John Wallis: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore on a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore, under S. 66 (2), Income-tax Act, 1922, on the question whether the appellant, the Bharat Insurance Company, was liable to be assessed under that Act to income-tax in respect of the profits allotted to participating policy holders who were entitled under their contract to 90 per cent. of the profits made in the participating branch of the business. The Bharat Insurance Company was incorporated under the Companies Act in 1882, for the purpose of making and effecting assurances on lives and carrying on other insurance business. Under the provisions of Ss. 5 and 6, Life Assurance Act, 1912, the company's life assurance business has to be kept entirely separate from its other businesses, if any, and under S. 8(1) it is obliged to have a quinquennial valuation made by an actuary and to cause an abstract of the report of such actuary to be...
Clifford B Reilly Vs. Emperor
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-13-1933
Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, which affirmed a decision of Maclean, J., in the Exchequer Court of Canada, dismissing a petition of right in which the present appellant, Mr. Reilly, was the suppliant. The suppliant's case was that, in pursuance of the Pensions Act, he had on 16th August 1928, been appointed a member of the Federal Appeal Board for a term of five years; that, in breach of contract, he had been dismissed in October 1930, and he claimed damages. There is no dispute as to the facts. By an Act to Amend the Pensions Act, Chap. 62 of the Statutes of Canada, 1923, there was constituted a Board under the title, "The Federal Appeal Board," consisting of not less than three nor more than seven members appointed by the Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. One of the members was to be appointed by the Governor-in-Council Chairman of the Board, " and shall hold that office during pleasure, and any member may be remov...
(Nawab Major) Mohammad Akbar Khan Vs. Court of Wards and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-13-1933
Lord Thankerton: In the present suit the appellant claims pre-emption of certain agricultural land, which forms part of the estate of Khan Fateh Mohammad Khan of Mardan, which has been under the management of the Court of Wards since 1927. The appeal is taken from the decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, dated 13th January 1931, affirming a decree of the District Judge, Peshawar, dated 22nd April 1930, which dismissed the appellant's suit. The appellant's claim of pre-emption was based on a registered sale deed of the lands in suit dated 15th January 1929, executed by the Manager, Court of Wards of the estate of Fateh Mohammed Khan, in favour of respondents 2 and 3 as vendees, who, along with respondent 1, were impleaded as defendants in the suit. The appellant claimed to have a right of pre-emption on the grounds stated in the plaint. On behalf of the Court of Wards it was stated in reply to the plaint that the sale had been cancelled by the ...
Kamakhya Dat Ram Vs. Khushal Chand
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Lord Macmillan: Their Lordships do not think it necessary to call upon counsel for the appearing respondent. In these consolidated appeals from the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow the sole question for decision arises with regard to the terms of a paragraph in the will of Rai Bahadur Sri Ram. The will is dated 22nd May 1911, and the paragraph to be interpreted reads as follows: "Besides the villages comprised in Taluka Rasulpur entered in list 3 other villages and shares in villages entered in list 4 given at the foot of this deed, shall pass to the said Sitapat Ram and after him to his eldest son under the rules of succession laid down in Act 1 of 1869." The question is whether by this provision the testator conferred on his son, Sitapat Ram, an absolute right of property in the villages and shares in villages comprised in list 4 or only a life interest: The question has become of material importance because during his lifetime Sitapat Ram apparently incurred debts to a large amount an...
Mahomedally Adamji Peerbhoy and Other Vs. Akberally AbdulhusseIn Adamj ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Dec-12-1933
Sir Lancelot Sanderson: This is an appeal from a decree dated 18th August 1930, made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction, affirming (with some variations which are not material to this appeal) a decree dated 12th March 1929, and made by Madgavkar, J., sitting in the said High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. The plaintiffs are members of the Dawoodi Borah Community and, having an interest in the trust, which is the subject matter of the suit, they obtained the consent of the Advocate-General at Bombay to institute the suit in pursuance of S. 92, Civil PC of 1908 on the basis that the trust was created for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature. The first plaintiff is a grandson of the late Sir Adamji Peerbhoy, who created the above-mentioned trust. The first five defendants are sons of the said Sir Adamji Peerbhoy, defendant 6 is the Official Assignee and assignee of the estate of the said five defendants, and defendant 7 is a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »