Privy Council Court May 1935 Judgments

Gopal Saran NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Ori ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Russell of Killowen: The appellant appeals from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna on a reference under S. 66 (2), Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question for decision may be stated to be whether the appellant is assessable to income-tax and super tax in respect of an annual sum of Rupees 2,40,000 payable to him during his life pursuant to a covenant contained in the indenture hereinafter mentioned. The appellant was the owner of an estate in British India known as the Nine Annas Tekari Raj. He had a daughter who had married a son of Rani Bhubaneshwari Kuar (hereinafter referred to as the Rani). By an indenture, dated 29th March 1930, and made between the appellant of the one part and the Rani of the other part, the appellant conveyed the greater portion of his said estate to the Rani for the valuable consideration therein appearing. The indenture recites among other facts that the appellant was absolute owner of the estate, and tha...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. P.R.A.L. Muthukaruppan Chettiar

Court: Privy Council

Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from the High Court at Madras on a reference under S. 66, Income-tax Act, 1922. The question is whether a sum of Rs. 38,305 was a receipt of capital or a receipt of profit assessable under S. 4 (2), Income-tax Act. The facts are simple. The respondent is a Chetti carrying on business in Madras where he resides and in various other places within and without British India. He was up to May 1930, one of three partners in a money-lending business S.P.K.A.A.M. at Colombo in which he had a 6 3/4 share. On 31st May 1930, he severed his connection with that firm, and an account was taken of the amounts due to him by way of capital, surplus capital, share of profit and interest thereon : and a sum of Rs.2,09,670 was found due to him which included Rs. 23,500, share of profits from 26th October 1926 to 31st May 1930, and Rs. 38,305 interest on capital. The Rs. 23,500 was paid to him by hundis drawn by the remaining partners and cashed at Colombo. The Rupees 38,305 t...

(Babu) Sheonandan Prasad Singh and Others Vs. Hakim Abdul Fateh Mohamm ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from the High Court of Patna and raises a question as to the validity of an alleged compromise on appeal of a suit in which the present appellants were plaintiffs and the respondents who were not represented before the Board were defendants. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the case. The relevant facts appear to be that before the transaction in question the appellants were owners of an eight annas share in the mauza Alapur and defendant 2 Imdad Ali owned a two annas share in the same mauza. By registered deeds dated 12th July and 27th October 1921, defendant 2 conveyed a two annas share in the mauza to the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs. 10,896. The plaintiffs subsequently discovered that on 25th June 1921, defendant 2 had executed a mortgage in favour of defendant 1 of the whole of his interest for a loan of Rs. 2,500. There was some dispute as to the registration of this mortgage but it was finally registered on 29th July 1922. On...

Basant Singh and Others Vs. Brij Raj Saran Singh and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: These are consolidated appeals from four decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated the 16th January 1929, which substantially reversed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Meerut, dated 2nd March 1925. The property in suit is the Sahanpur estate situated in the District of Meerut, and the last male holder was Kunwar Khushal Singh, a Hindu Jat, who died on 6th August 1879, leaving surviving him a Widow, Rani Raghubir Kunwar, who died on 24th November 1920. The present suit was instituted on 1st May , 1923. The right of succession to the estate lies between the plaintiff-appellants 1 to 5, who are now admitted to be the nearest reversioners, and the original respondent in the leading appeal, Kunwar Brijraj Saran Singh, defendant 1 in the suit, who is now deceased, and whose representative is now respondent. Defendant 1 was in possession, and claimed as adopted son under an adoption made by the said Rani on 13th April 1903. The fact of the ado...

Tarakdas Acharjee Choudhury and Others Vs. Secy of State and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1935PC125

Sir Shadi Lal: The dispute in this consolidated appeal relates to the ownership of large tracts of land formed by the recession of the river Padma, which is the name given to the branch of the Ganges flowing between the Dacca and the Faridpur districts of Bengal. The plaintiff-appellants are admittedly co-sharers in estate No. 4002 of the Faridpur Collectorate, otherwise known as Taluk Kunwar Bishvanath, which comprises, inter alia, three villages, namely Mouza Harirampur, Mai Parchar and Bhati Bishvanathpur (the villages to be described hereinafter shortly as Mouza Harirampur). It is common ground that in 1793 the estate was permanently settled with the predecessors in title of the appellants, and the question, which their Lordships have to determine, is whether the lands in dispute formed part of Mouza Harirampur at the time of the permanent settlement. The river Ganges, in its course through the district of Dacca and the neighbouring districts, frequently changes its channel, throws...