Privy Council Court May 1937 Judgments

Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd. Vs. Singapore Improvement Trust

Court: Privy Council

LORD MAUGHAM: This is an appeal from an order of the Court of appeal of the Straits Settlements (Settlement of Singapore), dated 1st August 1935. By the judgments of the majority of the Court (Thomas, C. J., Federated Malay States, and Terrell, J., Burton, Ag. C. J. dissenting) the appeal of the respondents from the judgment of Sir Walter Clarence Huggard, C. J., dated 2nd April 1935, was allowed with costs and the order made by him was reversed. In the result a writ of prohibition which had been directed to issue by the trial Judge was set aside. The appellants, the Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Limited are the owners of a house known as Municipal No. 543, North Bridge Road, Singapore. The respondents, the Singapore Improvement Trust are a corporate body constituted by the Singapore Improvement Ordinance 1927 and entrusted (by S. 4) with the duty of carrying out the provisions of that Ordinance. The proceedings were commenced by the appellants by summons in the Supreme Court of the...

Secretary of State Vs. Midnapore Zamindary Co., Ltd. and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD MAUGHAM: In this case 14 appeals to His Majesty have been consolidated, 10 being brought by the Secretary of State for India in Council and four by the Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited. Six of the former group (Nos.6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 15 of 1931) will be first dealt with. They arise out of six suits which were brought in 1921 and 1922 by the Midnapur Zamindary Co., Ltd., (the plaintiff company now respondents) and were tried by the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi in 1927. The suits were numbered 21, 450, 451, 94, 95 and 454. In each, the plaintiff company's case was that in the suit lands they had the right of a permanent tenure-holder at a fixed rate of rent and their claim was for a declaration of the invalidity of certain proceedings taken by the revenue authorities in the course of which orders had been made purporting to enhance their rent. The facts as to the plaintiff company's title are not in dispute and it is unnecessary to refer to them in detail. All the lands in quest...

Lal Harihar Pratap Bakhsh Singh and Another Vs. Thakur Bajrang Bahadur ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD MACMILLAN: The previous history of this litigation is set out in the judgments of the Board delivered in 1930 and 1932 and reported in 59 IA 173 (1) et seq, The original plaintiff, Raja Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh, who has since died, claimed to be entitled to the taluqa of Gangwal in succession to Raja Suraj Prakash Singh, the last male holder, who died in 1899. The present respondents are the two sons of the original plaintiff and as his legal representatives have taken his place as plaintiffs in the suit. When the case was formerly before the Board the ground was cleared of various questions which are consequently no longer in controversy. The sole remaining question, which was then formulated, but not decided, was remitted to the Chief Court of Oudh and the present appeal is from the judgment of that Court pronounced in conformity with their finding on the question remitted to them. By the previous judgments of the Board it has been decided in law that the succession to the taluqa ...

Muhammad HusaIn Khan and Others Vs. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai

Court: Privy Council

SIR SHADI LAL: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 23rd January 1933 which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Banda, dated 17th January 1929 and allowed the plaintiff's claim for possession of a village called Kalinjar Tirhati with mesne profits thereof. One Ganesh Prasad, a resident of Banda in the Province of Agra, was the proprietor of a large and valuable estate, including the village in dispute. He died on 10th May 1914 leaving him surviving a son, Bindeshri Prasad, who was thereupon recorded in the Revenue Records as the proprietor of the estate left by his father. In execution of a decree for money obtained by a creditor against Bindeshri Prasad the village of Kalinjar Tirhati was sold by auction on 20th November 1924; and the sale was confirmed on 25th January 1925. Bindeshri Prasad then brought the suit, which has led to the present appeal, claiming possession of the property on the ground that the sale was vitiated by...

Dwarka Nath Singh and Others Vs. Mt. Raj Rani and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD MAUGHAM: The point for decision in this case is whether a will executed by one Thakur Shankar Bakhsh Singh (whom it will be convenient to call Shankar Bakhsh) bearing date 28th July 1904, was a disposition of his property made with the consent of the Court of Wards at Sitapur in the terms of S. 34, North Western Provinces and Oudh Court of Wards Act (3 of 1899). The appellants propounded the will in question and petitioned the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow for letters of administration of the estate of the ward with a copy of the will of 28th July 1904 annexed. A number of objections were raised to the alleged will; but they have all failed except on the point as to the lack of consent of the Court of Wards. As to this the Chief Court in its original jurisdiction has held that the consent of the Court of Wards was obtained. The Chief Court in its appellate jurisdiction has held the contrary. The relevant facts are as follows: On 1st August 1901, the estate of Shankar Bakhsh was t...

Commissioner, Lucknow Division Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1937PC240

LORD MAUGHAM: Out of respect to the Chief Court of Oudh, their Lordships think it desirable to state very shortly the reasons that have led them to approve the minutes substantially in the terms which have been settled by junior counsel in regard to which they will humbly advise His Majesty to make a final order. They will preface their advice with an expression of opinion that there is no general charitable intent shown in this case and that the subscriptions were paid to the committee for the purpose of fulfilling a specific and well-defined charitable purpose and that only. They think it right that they should in that respect express the opinion that they do, which agrees with that formed by the Chief Court of Oudh; and that, of course was a very important matter which had to be discussed on the appeal. It now remains to state why their Lordships have not been able to follow the decree which the Chief Court of Oudh made. The money; having been paid over to the committee, a complete ...