Privy Council Court April 1936 Judgments

imperial Bank of Canada Vs. Mary Victoria Begley

Court: Privy Council

LORD MAUGHAM: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, dated 21st December 1934, reversing a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta, dated 24th March 1934, which allowed an appeal from the judgment of Boyle, J., the trial Judge. It may be mentioned here that there was a jury at the trial until the close of the evidence; but counsel for both parties agreed that the jury should be dispensed with and the decision of the case was left to the trial Judge who gave judgment in favour of the respondent for the full amount of her claim, viz., for $13,356 with costs. The judgment was reversed and the action was dismissed by the Appellate Division (McGillivray, J. A., dissenting). The Supreme Court of Canada restored the judgment of the trial Judge in respect of the claim for $8,500. The reasons for the judgment were delivered by Duff, C. J., Crockett, Hughes and Maclean, JJ., concurring; but there was a dissenting judgment by ...

Gopi Krishna Kasaudhan Vs. Mt. Jaggo and Another

Court: Privy Council

SIR SHADI LAL: This appeal raises a question which has an important bearing upon the law of marriage governing the Hindu community. It arises out of a dispute relating to the estate of one Nikku Lal, who died in July 1923. Nikku Lal was a member of the Vaishya caste of Gorakhpur in the United Provinces of India, and followed the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. The plaintiff Gopi Krishna, who is the appellant before their Lordships, is admittedly Nikku Lal's legitimate son; and his right to a moiety of the estate is no longer in dispute. He however claims the entire estate on the ground that the defendant, Sri Kishan, is not a legitimate son of Nikku Lal, and therefore has no interest in the property left by him. That Sri Krishna was born of a woman called Jaggo is not disputed, but the question is whether she was, at that time, a lawfully wedded wife of Nikku Lal. It appears that she was originally married to one Baijnath, while she was a minor; and that, after his death, she married h...

Rajah Kocherlokota Venkata Jagannatha Rao Garu (Maharajah Ravu) Venkat ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1936PC204

SIR SHADI LAL: The circumstances, which led to the action giving rise to these consolidated appeals brought by both the parties, may be shortly stated. One Krishna Rao, the late Zamindar of Polavaram in the Madras Presidency, borrowed, on different dates, from the Maharajah of Pittapur (to be described hereinafter as the plaintiff) large sums of money; and secured the payment thereof by executing three successive mortgages of his estate in favour of the creditor. The last of these mortgages was granted on 22nd October 1913, as a security for a loan of more than three lakhs of rupees; and it was on the strength of this mortgage that the plaintiff instituted, after the death of the mortgagor, a suit for the recovery of the debt, impleading as defendant the mortgagor's widow. She subsequently adopted a minor boy, Jagannatha Rao, as a son to her deceased husband, and the adopted son was then added as a defendant (to be referred to hereinafter as the defendant). The suit resulted in a decre...

(Nawab Major Sir) Mohammad Akbar Khan Vs. Attar Singh and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, N. W. Frontier Province, allowing an appeal from the Subordinate Judge of Mardan who had made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. By the decree on appeal the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. The suit was commenced by a plaint dated 25th July 1929, based upon a deposit receipt dated 1st April 1917, to recover the principal sum of Rs. 43,900 said to have been deposited with the defendants on deposit account with interest at the agreed rate of 5 per cent per annum. The alleged deposit receipt bore only an affixed stamp of 1 anna, and the Subordinate Judge in framing the issues stated as the first issue the question whether the document fell within the definition of a promissory note and was it therefore not admissible in evidence. Without hearing any evidence as to the circumstances in which the document came into existence he decided this issue as a preliminary point in favour of the defen...

Dennis RomaIn Renouf Vs. Attorney-general for Jersey

Court: Privy Council

LORD MAUGHAM: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and conviction of the Royal Court of the Island of Jersey dated 8th November 1934. The trial of the appellant was by way of an indictment presented by and on behalf of the respondent, the Attorney-General for Jersey, and took place on 8th November 1934, before the Full Court consisting of the Bailiff and eight Jurats with a Jury of twenty-four. The indictment charged the appellant with having, on 19th August 1934, driven his motor car in the town of St. Helier at a dangerous speed and to the danger of the public and with having by his criminal imprudence, carelessness, or negligence (par suite de son imprudence, son imperitie ou sa negligence criminelles) collided with Frederick William Whiting and having inflicted injuries upon him which caused his death. The appellant pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty by the unanimous verdict of the Jury and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour, and his drivi...

Shiv NaraIn Jafa Vs. Judges of High Court, Allahabad

Court: Privy Council

SIR SHADI LAL: This appeal has been brought by an advocate of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad from a judgment of that Court convicting him of professional misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of three months. The appellant, Mr. Shiva Narain Jafa, was practising as an advocate at Badaun, a district situated in the United Provinces of India ; and in the beginning of 1927 he was engaged to defend a suit instituted by one Bhagwant Singh, against two brothers, Bhau Singh and Lachhman Singh. On 22nd January 1927, he filed in the Court of the District Judge, who was hearing the case, a vakalatnama (power of attorney) signed by both the defendants. It appears that they were, at that time, undergoing imprisonment for certain offences, of which they had been convicted ; and the appellant, who had been paid only a portion of his fee, submitted on 8th March 1927, an application to the District Judge in these terms : In the above case it is submitted that I have been l...