Privy Council Court January 1935 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.
(Rawat) Mangal Singh and Others Vs. Mt. Siddhan Kunwar and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Lord Tomlin: Their Lordships do not desire to hear counsel for the respondents. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated 7th May 1940. That decree affirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore dated 29th March 1927. By the decree of the Subordinate Judge the suit was dismissed. The nature of the suit is this: The original plaintiff, the first of the present appellants, and two persons who are appellants here with him, and are the purchasers or assignees of his interests claimed against the respondents an estate called the Aunha which is not actually in Oudh, but near its borders. The respondents are three ladies and a minor who represent the limited interest and reversioner's interest in the estate on that view of the title which the appellants are disputing. The point is this: It is alleged by the appellants that the estate is impartible, and that by custom women are excluded from the inheritance. Upon that basis the first appellant claims to be ...
Sailendra Nath Das and Another Vs. Saroj Kumar Das and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge in a suit in which the respondents (the plaintiffs) were seeking, against the two appellants and other defendants, certain declarations of title in regard to properties and to have a partition of the estate of which they alleged those properties were part. The state of the family, with the affairs of which this suit is concerned, is this: One, Haralal, who died in 1874, had three sons, Mahendra, Narendra (who was a defendant) and Kedar. Kedar died in October 1918, leaving two sons, who are the defendants in the suit and appellants before their Lordships. Mahendra died on 21st November 1902, leaving a widow, Anandamoyi, who was a pro forma defendant in the suit, but has since died, and a number of children of whom three were daughters and one was a son. The son was Kalipada. On the death of Mahendra Anandamoyi became the guardian of Kalipada. Kalipada died o...
S.T. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. Brahadambal Ammani Rajayee Sahiba and Anothe ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Lord Blanesburgh: This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a final judgment and decree dated 10th April 1928 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, modifying a judgment and a decree dated 17th September 1923 of the District Judge of West Tanjore. The appeals, like the suit out of which they proceed, are concerned with the validity of a sale to the appellant by the late zamindar of Kollakottai of 14 out of a total of 17 villages comprising that zamindari. The facts, in detail somewhat complicated, can be summarised with comparative brevity. The late zamindar, Vijia Ragunatha Tirumalai Dorai Raja, succeeded his father in the zamindari in 1891. He was then scarcely eighteen years of age. He was brought up and educated in Pudukottai in the house of his maternal granD/- other, the senior Rani He died in 1914, leaving his widow, respondent 1, surviving him with authority to adopt a son By deed of adoption, dated 31st May 1922 while the present suit was pending the widow adopted the seco...
Chandrika Prasada Vs. Bombay Baroda and Central India Ry. Co.
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Lord Tomlin: This is an appeal from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer-Merwara in a suit in which the respondents, the railway company, sought to recover certain land and buildings thereon in the possession of the appellant. Before the Subordinate Judge the railway company obtained an order for possession on certain terms which involved the payment to the appellant of a sum of Rs 2,446-8-0. On appeal, that order was reversed and the suit was dismissed by the District Judge. A further appeal was taken to the Judicial Commissioner when, in its turn, the judgment of the District Judge was reversed and an order for possession was made on terms which involved payment to the appellant of a sum of Rs. 5,000. The circumstances of the case are unusual and are shortly these. In 1891 the railway company, who occupy certain Government land for the purposes of their railways, formulated and put into operation a scheme for housing certain of their employees on part of such land. The idea...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›