Privy Council Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Basant ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
LORD TOMLIN: This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 10th July 1931, upon a reference of questions made to the High Court by the Commissioner of Income-tax under S. 66, Income-tax Act, 1922. The question arises in this way: The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment in question was an assessment made for the year 1929-30. The assessee was assessed on an income of Rs. 57,979. Of this Rs. 14,425 were derived from property owned by the assessee and were assessed under S. 9, Income-tax Act. The remainder, Rs. 43,554, were assessed under S. 12 and were derived from the rents of buildings erected by the assessee upon land leased from the Agra Cantonment authority. The assessee appealed and his appeal was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. He then applied under S. 66 that certain questions of law alleged to arise should be referred to the High Court. The ...
K.S. Mian Feroz Shah Vs. Sohbat Khan and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: These are consolidated cross-appeals. Only the first of them has been seriously contested. In this, Mian Feroz Shah is the appellant, and Nawab Mohammad Akbar Khan the only appearing respondent, and they will be so referred to in this judgment. Of the second appeal, their Lordships need only say that there is no valid ground upon which the decision of the Judicial Commissioner can be attacked. The appeals arise out of a series of complicated transactions which are fully detailed in the judgments below, and it is not necessary to set them out again. It will be sufficient to state the main facts upon which the contentions of the parties turn. One Sohbat Khan, who is a pro forma party to both appeals, was the owner of a considerable area of land in the village of Sheiku in the Peshawar District. On 12th March 1917, he mortgaged 1,011 kanals 8 marlas to the appellant and his brother. It is not disputed that the appellant is now solely entitled under this mortgage. It wa...
Kumaravelu Chettiar and Others Vs. T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
LORD BLANESBURGH: At Tiruchendur in the Tinnevelly District, there is a temple dedicated to Subrahmanyaswami described by the appellants as a public temple of classic fame and great antiquity, open to and attended by all non-Panchama non-polluting Hindus from all parts of India, of all sects, including the appellants' "community of the Vaniya Vaisyas."In the suit, out of which this appeal arises, the appellants "for themselves and as representatives of all members of Tiruchendur Vaniya Vaisyas"set up a right to worship in the Inner Mayil Mahamantapam of the temple. The defendants were the trustees of the temple, certain sthanikars and servants under the control of the trustees and three members of the Vellala community of Tiruchendur. They were sued "for themselves, and as representative of all persons similarly interested in the subject matter of the suit."The suit was filed under 0. 1, R. 8, Civil P. C.a rule to which full reference must later be made, and the claim of the plaintiffs...
Kodoth Ambu Nair, Appellant Vs. Echikan Cherekere Kelu Nair, Responden ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: The only question in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to redeem a certain mortgage.. If this right, which has been affirmed by both Courts in India, is exercisable, it is not disputed that the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge on 16th August 1924, is correct. The mortgage in question was dated 8th December 1892, and was executed by members of the Beloor Maloor Tarwad in favour of the appellant. On 13th September 1897, the appellant brought a suit on the mortgage which was compromised, and a decree dated 2nd January 1899, was passed in accordance with the compromise. The terms of this decree were in effect that the mortgagors should pay to the appellant within three years a sum of Rs. 31,000, together with a yearly rent in kind: that in default of payment of the Rs. 31,000, or of the rent, the appellant should be entitled to obtain, by process of execution, possession of the property, and to retain the same as usufructuary mortgagee, the mortgag...
Kanhaiya Lal and Another Vs. Hamid Ali
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
LORD TOMLIN: In this case their Lordships, with reluctance, have come to the conclusion that they are not able to deal with the appeal in the absence of Sri Thakurji Maharaj, whose interest arises under the wakf, or his representative. In these circumstances, following the precedent in Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1), their Lordships think that the decrees below must be set aside and the case must be remitted to the Chief Court for directions as to a new trial with reference to the effect of the wakf with the appropriate parties added. So far as the costs are concerned their Lordships think that there should be no costs of this appeal, but that the costs which have hitherto been incurred below should be left to the discretion of the Chief Court to deal with after the new trial has been disposed of, whether or not there be an appeal after the new trial to the Chief Court. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly. Case remanded....
Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar and Another Vs. Sanatan Singh and Other ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-04-1933
SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: This appeal raises an important question with regard to the validity of an adoption by a Hindu widow The facts upon which the decision turns may be stated quite shortly. The issue involved is as to the right of succession (using the word in its widest significance) to the Dompara Raj, an impartible zamindari in Orissa. The early history of the Raj is dealt with at length in the judgments below, and it is unnecessary to refer to it for the purposes of this appeal. The parties are kshatriyas by caste, and are governed, apart from special family custom, by the Benares school of the Mitakshara law. The following pedigree will show the relationship of the persons to whom reference will have to be made, the successive holders of the estate being denominated by the title of Raja : On 20th July 1898, Raja Brajendra, being then without issue, executed a deed of which the following are the important clauses : "1. God forbid if I die without leaving any issue or if the son bo...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›