Privy Council Court July 1936 Judgments

Purnananthachi Vs. T.S. Gopalaswami Odayar and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1936PC281

SIR SHADI LAL.: On 25th November 1895, the male descendants of one Sepperumal executed a deed, by which Balasubrahmanya, a grandson of Sepperumal, separated from the other members of the joint family on receiving one-fifth share of the family estate. In lieu of that share, the immoveable properties specified in list B mentioned in the third clause of the deed were allotted to him. There was admittedly a complete partition between him on the one side and the remaining members of the family on the other side, both in title to, and in physical possession of, the property. What was the status of the other members inter se Did they constitute a coparcenary, or were they divided in estate Now, Cl. 3 of the deed provided that they were to get the immoveable properties specified in list A and the outstandings detailed in list C. But these properties were not partitioned amongst them. The rule is, however, well established that : When the members of an undivided family agree among themselves wi...

Murugesam Pillai Vs. Minakshisundara Ammal

Court: Privy Council

LORD MAUGHAM: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22nd August 1934, affirming the order of The Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated 22nd August 1930. The orders were made in proceedings for the execution of a compromise decree dated 20th March 1919, on a petition presented by the legal representative of one, Muthukumara Pillai, deceased, which was dated 20th November 1928. The respondent does not appear, and Mr. Parikh, for the appellant, has said everything that can properly be said in support of the appeal, but their Lordships are unable to accept the view that the judgments of the Courts in India are incorrect. The facts are comparatively simple. In or about the year 1912, one Narayana Pillai and his two minor sons, whose first names were Murugesam and Muthukumara, formed a Hindu joint family. On 26th February 1912, the father, Narayana, partitioned the joint family properties amongst the three co-parceners, namely, himself an...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden and Others Vs. ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: In this case two appeals from the High Court at Bombay have been consolidated. Both appeals are brought by income-tax authorities and both arise out of proceedings to assess a company registered outside British India called the Hong Kong Trust Corporation, Ltd. (herein referred to as the Hong Kong company) to income-tax in respect of the year of assessment 1928-29. The income-tax authorities have claimed to be entitled to assess the Hong Kong company in the name of the Bombay Trust Corporation, Ltd. (herein called the Bombay company) as its agent under the provisions of S. 42 (1) and S. 43, Income-tax Act, 1922, that is, upon the footing that in the year 1927 profits and gains accrued or arose to the Hong Kong company through its business connexion with the Bombay company. The Income-tax Officer having on 29th March 1930 made an assessment upon this footing the matter came on appeal from him before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, on 12th July ...

Alluri Venkatapathi Raju and Another Vs. Dantuluri Venkatanarasimha Ra ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR SHADI LAL: These are two consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by which that Court set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dismissing the plaintiffs' suit, and granted a declaration that the plaintiffs would be entitled to succeed, on the death of their mother, to a portion of the estate claimed by them. The principal question, on which elaborate arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, is whether the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather was, or was not, joint in estate with the ancestors of the contesting defendants. The relationship of the persons concerned is indicated in the following pedigree: The common ancestor of the parties, Alluri Venkataraju, and his four sons constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. They originally resided in Gudimellanka in the Godaveri District of the Madras Presidency, but in or about 1839 the eldest son, Pattabhiramaraju, severe...

Sat NaraIn and Another Vs. Sri Kishen Das and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD THANKERTON: These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated 20th January 1926, which, subject to some modification, affirmed two decrees of the District Judge of Delhi, dated 13th April 1916, dismissing two suits instituted by the present appellants, who are the two sons of Lala Sri Kishen Das, originally respondent 1 to these appeals. Sri Kishen Das, along with the appellants, formed a joint Hindu family, of which he was the managing member. The joint family owned considerable immoveable property, and a business, the headquarters of which were at Delhi. On 5th April 1913, Sri Kishen Das mortgaged to respondents 3, the Bank of Upper India Limited, a large part of the immoveable property owned by the joint family, in security of his indebtedness to the Bank. On 26th September 1913, Sri Kishen Das was adjudicated insolvent by the High Court of Bombay under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. On 14th April 1914, the Bank institu...

Frederick Emmanuel Abeyesundera Vs. Ceylon Exports, Ltd. and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1936PC259

LORD MAUGHAM: This is an appeal from the decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon dated 23rd October 1933, setting aside a decree of the District Judge of Kurunegala, dated 29th April 1932. The latter decree dismissed the action wherein the original plaintiff was one John de Silva Rajapakse and the original defendant was the present appellant. The original plaintiff instituted the action as long ago as 30th November 1926, for a declaration that he was entitled under a deed of gift No. 1294 of 21st September 1908, executed in his favour when a minor aged five years by his father W. Benjamin Rajapakse (who was added as defendant in the course of the proceedings but has not appeared before this Board), to a property called Raigam-watte consisting of six specified lots of land of the aggregate extent of about 250 acres. The problems that arise for decision in the proceedings are due to the circumstance that the added defendant whom it will be convenient to call Benjamin Rajapaks...