Privy Council Court March 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.
Sahebrao Narayanrao Deshmukh Vs. Jaiwantrao Yadaorao Deshmukh and Anot ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-31-1933
SIR JOHN WALLIS: Their Lordships have heard arguments in two appeals from the Central Provinces arising out of two suits between the same parties and connected with the same watan or hereditary endowment and will now proceed to dispose of them together. The first of these appeals is from a judgment in second appeal of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in a suit filed in 1918 by the head of the junior branch of the watan family and his son to recover a one-half share of an annual payment of Rs. 768-8-0, made by Government to defendant 1, the head of the senior branch. The other appeal is from a judgment of the same Court on first appeal in a suit filed in 1924 by the head of the senior branch of the family to recover from the head of the junior branch possession with mesne profits of a one anna four pice share of the watan village of Lakhanwadi, of which it was alleged he had taken wrongful possession. In this case the Court affirmed the judgment of the District Judge decreeing the...
Raja Ranbahadur Singh and Another Vs. Nagarseth Kasturbhai Mani Bhai a ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-30-1933
SIR JOHN WALLIS: The subject of this appeal is the Pareshnath Hill in the Hazaribagh District of Chota Nagpur, which has for many hundred years been held sacred by both branches of the Jain religion, the Swetambaris and the Digambaris, and has unfortunately been the subject in the last 20 years of no less than four suits, of which two, Hukum Chand v. Ran Bahadur Singh (1)and Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. Hukum Chand (2), have already been dismissed by His Majesty in Council affirming the decision of the Courts below, while the appeals in this and the remaining suit now await decision. The present suit was instituted on 24th June 1920, by the Raja of Palganj and the Digambaris, who had obtained from the Raja a permanent lease of the Hill on 4th January 1919, to recover possession and mesne profits from the Swetambaris, in whose favour a deed of sale had been executed on 9th March 1918, by the Manager of the Palgauj estate under S. 18, Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, 1876, on the ground ...
Sultan Begum and Others Vs. Nawab Qamar Ara Begum
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-28-1933
LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh, dated 6th November 1929, which varied a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow, dated 23rd May 1928. The respondent instituted the present suit on 29th March 1928, for partition of the estate left by Nawab Abida Begum, a Shia Mahomedan lady, who died on 25th September 1924, aged about 80 years, and leaving three step-sisters as her heirs. The respondent is the grand daughter of one of the three sisters, since deceased, and she claims one third of the estate left by Abida Begum The appellants are defendants in the suit. Appellant No. 1 is the purchaser of the right, title and interest of the two other sisters of Abida Begum in her estate, and, as such, is entitled to two-thirds thereof. The remaining appellants are the husband and children of appellant No. 1. The appellants hold several properties which are claimed by the respondent to belong to the estate of Abida Begum. Abida Begum was twice ...
Chaturbhuj Piramal Vs. Chunilal Oomkarmal
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-23-1933
LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay, in its appellate jurisdiction reversing a judgment of Kemp, J., who had made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, the present appellants. The question is one of competing claims to a debt owed by the defendant in the action, the respondent Oomkarmal, to one Shankarrao. The plaintiffs are judgment-creditors of Shankarrao, and they claim to have effectively attached the debt; the defendant alleges that at the time of the attachment the debt had already been seized by the State of Indore. The plaintiffs do not claim that they acquired any right in respect of the debt until late on 15th May 1924, or the morning of 16th May 1924, when a warrant of attachment before judgment was served on the defendant. The material facts appear to be as follows, and have to be considered in reference to the date just mentioned: Shankarrao was a Court official in the service of the Maharajah of Indore, a State which for the present p...
Official Assignee of Madras Vs. T. Krishnaji Bhat
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-14-1933
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: On 5th October 1919 one T. Sivasankar Bhat, the father of the respondent, instructed his uncle Sadasiva Tawker by letter to invest in his firm, T. R. Tawker and Sons, a sum of Rs. 10,000 lying with the firm, such investment to be made in the name of the respondent, who was then a minor, the money to be handed over to him on attaining 21, and the interest in the meanwhile to be paid to the father. On 22nd October following the firm gave him a receipt in the following terms: "Received from Mr. T. Sivasankar Bhat, the sum of rupees ten thousand only through Mr. T. Sadasiva Tawker, as fixed deposit in the name of his minor son T. Krishnaji Bhat as per instructions contained in Mr. Sivasankar Bhat's letter, dated 5th instant, carrying interest at 9 per cent per annum. "Rs. 10,000. T.R. Tawker and Sons. The interest was duly paid to the end of 1923, when apparently the firm, which carried on business as jewellers in Madras, got into difficulties. On 22nd November 1923 a s...
Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-10-1933
LORD MACMILLAN: This appeal relates to the assessment of the taxable income of the appellant for the year 1924-25, under the Income-tax Act, 1922. On the death of his father in 1894 the appellant succeeded to the family ancestral estate. His stepmother, who had survived his father, subsequently brought a suit for maintenance against him in the High Court at Calcutta. The suit was compromised and a decree was by consent pronounced directing the appellant to make a monthly payment of Rs. 1,100 to his stepmother, which he has since regularly done. It is unfortunate that the decree has not been made available to their Lordships. The Chief Justice (Rankin) however in the judgment now under review states that "it was not disputed that the lady's maintenance was a legal liability of the Raja (the appellant) arising by reason of the fact that the Raja is in possession of his ancestral estate, that it is payable out of such estate and that this Court had declared that the maintenance was a char...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›