Privy Council Court November 1936 Judgments

Kayastha Pathshala, Allahabad Vs. Mt. Bhagwati Devi and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: The question in the present case is whether a deed of trust executed by one Mahadeo Prasad as settlor on 9th April 1914, is or is not wholly invalid for the reasons alleged in para. 5 of the plaint as follows : 5. That the alleged deed of trust is wholly null and void, and did not in fact or in law create any valid trust and is not binding on the natural heirs of the said Chaudhri Mahadeo Prasad for the following, among other, reasons : (a) The said deed was a mere paper transaction. It was never enforced nor acted upon during the life-time of the said Chaudhri Mahadeo Prasad who continued to be the owner of the properties and to enjoy the profits thereof as owner as heretofore. (b) The alleged trust was not really created for any lawful purpose. The real purpose for creating the alleged trust was to prevent the devolution of the property on the death of the said Chaudhri Mahadeo Prasad according to law. The real purpose was to preserve and keep the property intact a...

Talluri Venkata Seshayya and Others Vs. Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao and O ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD THANKERTON: This is a consolidated appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 30th November 1927, whereby a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, dated 5th February 1925, was set aside and the appellants' suit was dismissed. The present suit was instituted on 21st August 1923, by the present appellants, along with plaintiff 5 who died during the trial, as representing the interested public, under O. 1, R. 8. Civil PC, with the requisite permission of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that five temples of the village of Vellatur, Guntur District, are public temples and that certain inam lands, situated in Kowthavaram village, form the endowment of these temples, and they seek to have set aside : (a) a permanent lease in respect of these lands executed on 6th December 1888, by the then managers of the temples, (b) a mortgage deed on the security of these lands, dated 3rd November 190...

Shaikh Shukrullah and Others Vs. Mt. Zohra Bibi and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1937PC35

LORD ROCHE: Their Lordships think that in this case they can approve of this compromise; but they desire to point out the difficulty in which they are placed in determining a matter such as this when they are without knowledge of the facts, which alone could be obtained by close investigation of the case itself. Their Lordships desire to intimate that they would be obliged if, in cases such as this, where a compromise which affects the interests of minors is proposed and submitted for their Lordships' approval, the Court from which the case comes upon appeal would take the matter of the proposed compromise into consideration and certify to their Lordships whether in their opinion the proposed compromise is or is not in the interests of the minor or minors. Their Lordships think that as much publicity as possible should be given to this intimation and that in future, when there is a case of a similar kind, the parties who desire to obtain their Lordships' approval to the proposed compro...

Alexander Perera Chandarasekera Vs. the King, Opposite Party

Court: Privy Council

LORD ROCHE: This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment and sentence of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon dated 1st May 1935, whereby, after a trial before a Commissioner and a jury, the appellant was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman named Salami Nadatchi on 15th May 1934. The jury had returned a verdict of guilty by a majority of six to one. The main point raised in the appeal was whether information given by the deceased woman before her death was a statement within the meaning of S. 32 of the Ceylon Evidence Ordinance No. 14 of 1895, and as such was admissible in evidence by virtue of that section. This information was admitted in evidence and directly implicated the appellant. The material part of the section is as follows : Statements by Persons who cannot be called as Witnesses. 32. Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence or whose attendance...