Privy Council Court June 1937 Judgments

Rattan Lal Vs. Baij Nath and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR SHADI LAL: On 26th April 1909, one Basheshar Nath, a Vaisha Hindu, residing in the town of Delhi, died leaving him surviving a widow, Saraswati, and a minor daughter, Shamo. On 25th April 1909, he had made a will authorizing his widow to adopt a son, and appointed four persons, namely : Peare Lal, Peshi Mal, Mul Chand and Bashambar Nath, to be his executors. Peare Lal was the natural father of the testator, but other executors were only remotely related to him. The following pedigree table shows the exact relationship of the various persons who are interested in this litigation : It will be observed that; Basheshar Nath, who was the eldest son of Peare Lal, was adopted by Naneh Mal, and it is no longer disputed that after his adoption Basheshar Nath was separate in estate from Peare Lal, though some immoveable property was held by them in common and had not been partitioned by metes and bounds. The probate of Basheshar Nath's will was, after some contest among the executors, grante...

Christian Yao Kisiedu and Others Vs. Djorbua Dompreh and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: This is an appeal from a judgment of the West African Court of Appeal (Gold Coast Session) which allowed an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast Colony (Eastern Province) pronounced in two consolidated actions. Each of these actions was instituted in the tribunal of the Omanhene of the State of Akyem Abuakwa. The first in point of time (the writ being dated 29th March 1933) was an action in which one Christian Yao Kisiedu was plaintiff and one Kwao Dompreh was defendant, and in which the plaintiff claimed damages for trespass on the plaintiff's land and an injunction to restrain further trespass. In the second action (in which the writ is dated 28th April 1933) the said Dompreh as plaintiff claimed against the said Kisiedu as defendant damages for trespass on his land and an injunction. The two actions were consolidated and by an order of the Supreme Court dated 22nd June 1933, were transferred for hearing and determination to the Divi...

Kunwar Rajendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Rai Rajeshwar Bali and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: On 3rd November 1930, the appellant, acting under Chap. 7, United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 (herein called "the Act"), presented in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner of Bara Banki an application for partition to which the first respondent filed objections. The case was tried as a suit under S. 111, sub-s. (3) of the Act and on 16th November 1931, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application with costs. The appellant under S. 112 of the Act, read with S. 39, Oudh Courts Act, 1925, had a right of appeal from this decision either (a) to the Court of the District Judge within 30 days (Art. 152, Sch. 1 to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908), or (b) to the Chief Court within 90 days (Art. 156) according as "the value of the original suit" did not exceed Rupees 5,000 or was in excess of that amount. On 17th December 1931, he brought his appeal in the Court of the District Judge valuing the appeal at Rs. 1,000. At the hearing on 9th April 1932, objection wa...

Goswamini Shri Kamala Vahooji Maharaj of Kutch Mandvi, Vs. Collector o ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD MACMILLAN: On 26th October 1926, the Collector of Bombay addressed to the appellant a notification that the Government had been pleased to sanction, under S. 8, Bombay City Land Revenue Act of 1876, the assessment of certain property in Bombay belonging to her described as "Land at Bora Bazar Street, bearing N. S. [New Survey] No. 8841 and C. S. [Cadastral Survey] No. 1356." The notification indicated the scale on which the property had been assessed and stated that the assessment would come into force from 1st November 1926, and would be guaranteed for 99 years from that date. Availing herself of the provisions of S. 14 of the Act of 1876, the appellant instituted a suit against the respondent contesting the legality of the assessment. She prayed for a declaration: that there is a right on the part of the plaintiff in limitation of the right of Government to possess and hold her said land free from assessment and that the defendant has no light to levy any assessment. The learned...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. B.J. Fletcher

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE LOWNDES: The question for determination in this appeal lies in a small compass but it involves a question of considerable nicety under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax law. It is, in effect, whether a sum of money payable to the respondent on his retirement after long service with an Indian company is taxable as part of his income of the year in which his retirement took place. The learned Judges in the Madras High Court by whom the case was heard have-not unreasonably, as their Lordships think-differed in their conclusions and in the reasoning upon which those conclusions were arrived at. The facts may be stated shortly. The respondent was an employee of the Buckingham and Carnatic Company Ltd., and was paid a monthly salary with a half-yearly bonus, both of which were taxed in the ordinary course, and his liability in this respect was not challenged. He retired in February 1933 and was then entitled to receive from the company a sum of Rs. 36,794 which stood to his ...

Parmeshari DIn Vs. Ram Charan and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR SHADI LAL: This appeal, which has been heard ex parte, raises the question of the application of the doctrine of lis pendens to a transfer of immoveable property, upon which the appellant founds his claim. The facts bearing upon the question lie within a narrow compass. The plaintiffs, who are respondents before their Lordships, were mortgagees of the property in dispute, and commenced in 1923 an action for the foreclosure of the mortgage against the mortgagor, Nurul Hassan, and one Ram Narain. They obtained, on 30th September 1924, a preliminary decree for foreclosure, which, after an unsuccessful appeal by Ram Narain to the Chief Court at Lucknow, was followed on 28th July 1926, by a final decree for foreclosure. The decree-holders then made an application for the recovery of the property by executing their decree, and obtained symbolical possession from the judgment-debtors. The appellant, Parmeshari Din, was, however, in actual possession of it, and he based his title to it upo...

E.B.M. Company, Ltd. Vs. Dominion Bank

Court: Privy Council

LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: In this case E. B. M. Company Limited (a company incorporated by Dominion Letters Patent dated 8th May 1922, and granted under the Dominion Companies Act) appeals from a judgment and order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario which affirmed a judgment or order of Kelly, J. in favour of the respondents, the Dominion Bank. The relevant facts which led up to the litigation in which this appeal arises must first be stated; the appellant Company being referred to as the old Company, and the respondent Bank being referred to as the Bank. The old Company (whose name was originally "Carling Export Brewing and Malting Company Limited", the change of name being effected by Supplementary Letters Patent dated 24th October 1930), was formed for the purpose and with the object of carrying on the business of brewers and maltsters in all its various branches, and for other purposes and objects enumerated in the Letters Patent. It also possessed all the powers conferred by S. 32...

Omanhene KwamIn BassayIn Vs. Omanhene Bendentu Ii

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1937PC274

LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: This appeal arises in a litigation between the Stool of Aowin as plaintiff and the Stool of Upper Wassaw as defendant, the main question in the litigation being what is the boundary between Aowin and Upper Wassaw. Aowin says that the boundary throughout is the River Tano. Upper Wassaw, on the other hand, says that northward from the point where the River Anwia flows into the River Tano the boundary is the River Anwia up to its source, and thereafter northward from that point along a bush track up to the River Huro and then along the Huro for a short distance of half a mile or a mile. There is also in the action a subsidiary claim to damages for trespass by the defendant, or people claiming under the defendant, upon certain land which is situated within the boundary of Aowin, if the River Tano is the true boundary. The trial Judge, Gardiner Smith, J., has held upon the oral evidence adduced before him, that Aowin's claim is right; that is to say, that throughou...

Pradyumna Kumar Mulliak Vs. Kumar Dinendra Mullick and Another

Court: Privy Council

SIR SHADI LAL: On 13th February 1920, two persons, namely Kumar Dinendra Mullick and Kumar Ganendra Mullick, executed, in favour of Nandalal Roy and Pullin Krishna Roy, a mortgage of certain house property situated in the town of Calcutta, to secure the re-payment of a loan of Rs. 300,000 with interest thereon at 9 per cent. per annum. The mortgagors did not redeem the mortgage within the stipulated period of one year with the result, that on 26th July 1921, the mortgagees brought an action to recover the money due to them by a sale of the mortgaged property. They obtained on 12th April 1922, a preliminary decree for sale, which was followed by a final decree on 16th April 1923. In pursuance of the final decree, the mortgaged property was directed to be sold by public auction on 5th January 1924; but the sale was postponed for one year in accordance with an arrangement arrived at between the parties for the satisfaction of the claim of the decree-holders. One Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, w...

Kumar Krishna Prosad Lal Singh Deo Vs. Baraboni Coal Concern, Ltd. and ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: The plaint in this case was filed on 18th November 1927, and the claim of the plaintiff is for royalties due on coal raised during that year (up to the end of Aswin, 17th October ) from a colliery known as Monohar bahal under the terms of a lease dated 25th January 1912. The grantor of the lease is the Raja of Panchkote (defendant 3); the plaintiff, who is his son, claims the royalties due thereunder by virtue of a maintenance (korposh) deed dated 29th September 1926, which vests the landlord's reversion in him : no dispute arises upon this assignment. The original lessee, one Radha Ballav Mukherjee, has not been impleaded, the defendants being the Baraboni Coal Concern Limited, defendant 1 (" the defendant company ") and two others [defendants 2 and 2 (a)]. The defendant company are sued as assignees of the term, their assignment being by deed dated 14th February 1914 : the other defendants as persons claiming to have purchased the right, title and interest of the d...