Privy Council Court January 1934 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.
Revati Mohan Das Vs. Jatindra Mohan Ghosh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Sir George Lowndes: The appellant in this case is the mortgagee under a mortgage for Rs. 30,000 and interest, dated 19th January 1916, upon an estate known as Taluk Raj Narain Sen. The mortgage was executed by one Raj Mohan Guha, who was then the common manager of the estate, appointed under S. 95, Ben. Ten. Act, 1885. It was duly sanctioned by the local Court, and there is now no dispute as to its validity or as to the amount due under it. The mortgage debt was repayable in January 1931. Raj Mohan Guha was then dead, and one Harihar Ghosh had been appointed in his place, but the affairs of the estate being involved, he was unable to redeem the security, though he seems to have made some payments on account. He died in September 1926, and his son, respondent 1, was appointed manager in his place. On 17th December of the same year the appellant instituted a suit on his mortgage in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, claiming the usual relief. The defendants to the suit were the...
Popuri Ramayya Vs. Putcha Lakshminarayana
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Lord Thankerton: This is a consolidated appeal against a judgment and 13 orders dated 11th October 1927, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which set aside a judgment and 13 orders dated 9th August 1922 of the Court of the District Munsif of Tenali. The appellants are the respective defendants in 13 suits brought by the respondent to recover rent or damages for use and occupation of agricultural holdings in the respondent's enfranchised inam village of Siripuram, and the only question in the appeal is whether the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts is excluded by virtue of S. 189, Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908. It is clear that, in the present case, the determination of that question will depend on whether the respondent's village is an "estate" as defined in S. 3 (2) of the Act. The District Munsif held that the village is an estate under the Act, and that he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The High Court held a contrary view and remanded the suits to be tried ...
Birendranath Singh and Another Vs. Mirtunjai Singh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-26-1934
Lord Blanesburgh: This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, made on 14th July, 1928, whereby a decree of the Additional District Judge of Bilaspur, made on 19th March 1926 was reversed. The question upon, which the two Courts in India differed and which remains for determination, upon this appeal is whether the Cbandrapur-Padampur zamindari consisting of about 225 villages, with an estate of seven villages in Bargarh Tahil, is impartible, descending to a single heir, according to the rule of Primogeniture. It is the view of the appellants, who are the legal representatives of the plaintiff in the suit, now deceased, that this question should be answered in the affirmative. If it be so answered, they would be entitled to make good their claim to the zamindari and estate in suit. The plaintiff in his plaint made an alternative claim to the properties in question. He set up a prescriptive title thereto of his father, R.B. Barihar S...
Western Power Co. Canada, Ltd., Appellant V. Corporation of the Distri ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-24-1934
Lord Wright: This appeal is from a portion of a judgment given against the appellant, who was defendant in the Court below, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and affirmed by the Court of appeal of British Columbia. The portion of the judgment appealed from is in these terms: "this Court doth declare that the defendant has committed a breach of the contract in the pleadings mentioned, dated 29th March 1913, and made between the plaintiff (now the respondent) and the Western Canada Power Company, Ltd., which contract was assigned by the Western Canada Power Company, Ltd., to the defendant on 1st November 1916, in that it has made charges for the supply of electrical energy to the plaintiff and to the inhabitants of the plaintiff Municipality greater than that paid by the District Municipality of Burnaby, in the province of British Columbia, and its inhabitants, for the supplying of electrical energy for similar services. And this Court doth adjudge that the defendant be and is her...
Secy. of State Vs. Rameswaram Devasthanam and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-16-1934
Sir John Wallis: This is an appeal from the concurrent judgments of a Bench of the Madras High Court modifying on second appeal, the decree of the lower Appellate Court which had dismissed the suit, and giving the plaintiff a decree for the principal relief claimed in the plaint. The question is mainly one of fact, and it is well settled that under S. 100, Civil PC, the High Court has no jurisdiction to reverse the findings of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate Court, however erroneous, unless they are vitiated by some error of law. Subsequently to the date of the judgments under appeal, the Board has had occasion to emphasise the fact that this rule is equally applicable to cases, such as this, in which the findings of the lower Appellate Court are based on inferences drawn from the documents exhibited in evidence. This question is dealt with in the third and fourth propositions laid down in the judgment delivered by Sir Binod Mitter in Wali Mohammad v. Mohammad Baksh (1)at p 92 (...
Maung Ba Thaw and Another, Insolvents Vs. Ma Pin
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-15-1934
Lord Thankerton: The appellant is Receiver of the estate of Po Thit and Ma Nyein E, his wife, who were adjudicated insolvents on 11th January 1929, and he appeals from a decree of the High Court of Judicature of Rangoon, dated 18th January 1932, which reversed the order of the District Court of Henzada, dated 30th March 1931 and directed that the respondent be added in the Schedule of Debts as a creditor of the estate in respect of certain sums, amounting in all to Rs. 18,691-9-0, claimed in respect of eight promissory notes. The respondent had also claimed in respect of a mortgage debt of Rs. 4,000, but it is now admitted that it had been satisfied. Prior to the application by the respondent to be added in the Schedule of Debts, which was filed on 30th January 1931, and out of which the present appeal arises, the appellant had made an application under S. 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, dated 6th April 1929, against the present respondent, asking that the payment by the insolvents to h...
Baraboni Coal Concern, Ltd. Vs. Deba Prasanna Mukherjee and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-15-1934
Sir George Lowndes: This appeal is concerned with the rights of the parties in a 5/16th share of certain coal-bearing lands known as Mauza Monaharbahal. The transactions out of which the litigation arises are complicated, and bring in at different stages other properties and interests with which the appeal is not concerned. They are referred to in detail in the judgments below, but it will be sufficient for the judgment of the Board to confine the narration to the 5/16th share of Monaharbahal. The second respondent is the present owner of the Searsole estate, in which the said share is comprised. On 10th August 1908, his predecessors in title executed a deed in favour of Mukhunda Lal Laik, by which they demised the said share to him on a 999 years' lease for coalmining purposes, upon certain terms and conditions including the payment of royalties at varying rates which were charged upon the leasehold interest. By the same deed the lessors, in consideration of the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 ad...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›