Privy Council Court November 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.
Kusum Kumari Vs. Debi Prosad Dhandhania and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-28-1935
Sir George Lowndes: The suit out of which these consolidated appeals arise was filed before the Settlement Officer of the Sonthal Parganas praying for the enforcement of a mortgage dated 27th February 1911. The plaintiffs were in effect the mortgagees, and the principal defendant the representative of the mortgagor. A number of other parties were joined as interested, or possibly interested, in the mortgage, but none of them seem to have taken part in the proceedings in India nor are they represented before the Board. The suit was duly transferred for trial to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, who passed a preliminary mortgage decree, dated 20th June 1927, in the usual form. He assessed the mortgage debt including costs payable at the expiry of six months from the above date at Rs. 4,12,662-13, and allowed the mortgagees further interest on this sum at the rate of six per cent. per annum until realisation. It is not disputed that the suit fell to be determined in accorda...
Bhojraj Sita Ram and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-22-1935
Lord Roche: These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 26th March 1930, which reversed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The dispute was as to the property of one Tej Raj, a wealthy Brahman landowner, which was situated at Kusyari and elsewhere in the district of Mainpuri. Tej Raj died in 1855 leaving surviving him three widows and a deceased son's widow to whom Tej Raj's widows give a portion of the property in lieu of her right to maintenance. These four ladies at various dates from 1873 onwards alienated the property in favour of the predecessors in title of the defendants and by 1924 when Mt. Bakht Kunwar, the youngest widow of Tej Raj and the last survivor of the four ladies died, all the property in question in the suit was in the possession of the defendants. In 1890 a declaratory suit had been brought by plaintiffs other than the present plaintiffs p...
National Mutual Life Association of Australasia, Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 27th February 1933, whereby the Court answered adversely to the appellants two questions of law, which had been referred to the Court by the Commissioner of Taxes, Bombay Presidency, on his own motion, under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act (11 of 1922). The appellants are a mutual life insurance company, whose head office is in Melborne, Australia. They have branches all over the world, and in India they have two branches, one of which is in Bombay and the other in Calcutta. The questions of law arise out of a dispute as to the method of computation of the income, profits or gains of the appellant Company in the business of its Indian branch offices for the purpose of its assessment to income-tax for the financial year ending on 31st March 1932. The facts are set out in the letter of reference and may be summarised as follows : The Company is limited by guarantee and has no share capital, the ...
Bindeswari Charan Singh Vs. Bageshwari Charan Singh
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 29th July 1932 which reversed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh dated 31st March 1928 and decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit with costs. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties : CHART: Thakur Jadu Charan Singh was the owner of an impartible estate in the District of Hazaribagh. On his death intestate in 1924 the respondent succeeded to the estate, his father having died in 1920. The management of the estate was vested in a manager appointed under S. 2, Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (6 of 1876) from 1894 until 15th May 1909 when it was released and made over again to Jadu Charan, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The estate was again vested in a manager under the Act on 24th July 1921 and it is still under management. On 17th November 1909 Jadu Charan executed a maintenance grant in favour of the appellant, transferring to ...
Montreal Trust Co.Vs. British Columbia Land and Investment Agency, Ltd ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-15-1935
Lord Maugham: In the months of January and February 1926 one T.R. Nickson, who resided in the City of Vancouver, found himself in a position of considerable difficulty. He controlled and managed two companies, the Prudential Holdings, Limited and the Nickson Construction Company, Limited, in which he was practically the sole share-holder, and he was being pressed by the Royal Bank of Canada to discharge the sum of $15,500 which was owed by the Construction Company to the bank. There had been a loan made to the Construction Company the security for which proved to be worthless, and early in February Mr. B.L. Mitchell, the manager of the Royal Bank in Vancouver, sent for Nickson and told him that the loan must be repaid immediately. Nickson applied to a friend of his, the late C.V. Cummings of Vancouver, for assistance, and Cummings thereupon called upon Mitchell at the bank, and after verifying certain statements made by Nickson, informed Mitchell that he was ready to make an advance up...
Dhanu Lal Suchanti Vs. Hukum Chand and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-15-1935
SIR JOHN WALLIS: This is an appeal from an order and decree of the High Court at Patna affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of Patna in execution of a decree obtained by the plaintiffs, who represent the Digambari sect of Jains, against the defendants, who represent the Swetambari sect, in a suit instituted pursuant to O. 1, R 8, Civil PC in respect of the rights claimed by the Digambaris in three ancient temples at Pawapuri and Pokharpur in the Patna District. The dispute which is the subject of this appeal arises out of the centuries old differences between the two sects of Jains as to whether the wearing of clothes or adornments is prohibited by their religion. The Digambaris who are necessarily debarred from fully observing this prohibition are under no such restriction as to the images which they venerate or worship. It is alleged in the plaint that images which do not represent the natural figure of man as born without any clothes or adornment are not "worshipable" by the ...
K.C. Mukerjee, Official Receiver Vs. Mt. Ramratan Kuer and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-12-1935
Sir George Rankin: This appeal has been heard ex parte there being no appearance on behalf of any respondent. Their Lordships are much indebted to Mr. De Gruyther for the care and candour with which he has explained the considerations arising upon the appeal. The suit was brought on 30th June 1927, by the Official Receiver of the High Court at Calcutta who represents the landlord's interest in a village called Majhauli. Defendant 1 Mt. Ramratan Kuer was sued on the footing that she had taken a transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding in this village by deed dated 28th September 1916. The case made against her was that the transfer of the holding attracted certain principles of law laid down in the well known case of 42 Cal 172 (1), and that the landlord was entitled to re-enter upon the holding as upon an abandonment by the tenant. The deed of 28th September 1916, purported to be a relinquishment by one Ram Kishen and the heirs of one Ganpat of the tenancy right including the r...
N.H.M. Abdul Cader and Others Vs. S.L. Ahamado Lebbe Marikar and Other ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Lord Roche: This is an appeal from two decrees of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon dated 14th October 1931, affirming a decree of the District Court of Colombo dated 25th August 1930, in an action wherein the first two respondents were plaintiffs and the appellants and the other respondents were defendants. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows : There is and has been since the year 1818 an important Mosque in the City of Colombo known as the Maradana Mosque. At the times material to the present action and appeal the affairs of this Mosque were regulated by an Ordinance entitled "The Maradana Mosque Ordinance of 1929.' This Ordinance incorporated persons named in a schedule thereto and their successors as a corporation under the name and style of "The Board of Trustees of the Maradana Mosque." The Ordinance also provided that the rules and regulations set out in another schedule should be the rules of the corporation reserving certain powers to the c...
Surendra Krishna Roy and Another Vs. Mirza Mohammad Syed Ali Mutawali ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal arises out of a suit brought on 30th January 1918, for declaration of title to and for possession of a parcel of land at Kidderpore now known as 18, Kaila Sarak Road. On the side of the plaintiff and on the side of the defendants there have been various devolutions of interest, to which however it is not now material to direct attention. The plaintiffs case was that in 1903 he purchased the lands in Sch. Ka to the plaint from a Commissioner of Partition who was selling them under an order of the Court made in a partition suit having reference to the Bhukailash Raj estate. The property which he purchased was lakheraj and it is now admitted that the plaintiff has the title which he claims and that it covers the land in suit. The suit lands were at one time described as measuring about 1 bighas but according to later measurements it would seem that they amount roughly to an acre, being about 2 bighas 13 cottas. The case for the plaintiff is that the defendan...
Pratapmull Agarwalla and Another Vs. Dhanbati Bibi and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-04-1935
SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON: This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in Suit No. 561 of 1933 from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal in its appellate jurisdiction dated 5th June 1934, which reversed a decree passed by the said High Court in its original civil jurisdiction dated 21st November 1933, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs. The plaintiffs carry on business under the name and style of Pratapmull Rameswar as money-lenders. Chunilal Johury and his son, Motilal Johury, constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law and from time to time the plaintiffs lent them money which they alleged was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the borrowers and their family on the security of properties belonging to them. On 21st December 1927, plaintiffs lent Chunilal and Motilal Rs. 25,000 at 8 per cent. interest on mortgage; on 12th October l928 they lent them a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000 at 7 per cent. interest on mortgage, and on 11th M...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »