Privy Council Court November 1938 Judgments

Ram Kinkar Banerjee and Others Vs. Satya Charan Srimani and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Porter: In this case the original plaintiff has died since the institution of the suit and his interests are now represented by one Sreemati Saibalini Devi and others. Hereafter they will be referred to as the appellants. There were originally a large number of defendants, but three only are made respondents to this appeal and their interests alone remain to be considered. The others have either accepted the judgments given against them or have been dismissed from the case. The three remaining are Kripa Sankar Worah and Jatha Shankar Dosa, numbered 2 and 3 in the cases presented by the parties and Satya Charan Srimani, respondent 1, in those cases. The facts may be briefly stated. The appellants are the successors in title to the grantees of a patta or lease for 999 years dated 26th May 1908 in respect of certain underground rights in the District of Burdwan. This lease contained provisions (inter alia) for (a) the payment by the grantees to the grantors of all cesses levied by th...

Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Moti Chand Chowdhury and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1939PC20

Lord Macmillan: On 15th September 1932 the Corporation of Calcutta caused to be served upon the owners of certain premises within the Municipality, known as No.82, Nalini Sett Road, a notice assessing the premises at an annual value of Rs. 4460 for the purpose of the imposition of the consolidated rate which, by S.124, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (Bengal Act 3 of 1923), the Corporation is authorized to impose upon all lands and buildings in Calcutta. The premises having been newly erected had not previously been valued. On an objection by the owners the valuation was reduced by the Deputy Executive Officer to Rs. 4025. Being dissatisfied with his decision the owners appealed under S. 141 of the Act to the Court of Small Causes which reduced the valuation to Rs. 3168. From the order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes the Corporation in turn appealed under S.142 of the Act to the High Court which on 13th March 1936 dismissed the appeal. The High Court refused an application...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S.L. Mathias

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: This appeal is brought by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, from a judgment of the High Court at Madras upon a reference made under the provisions of S. 66, Income-tax Act, 1922. The year of assessment, in respect of which the dispute arises, is 1934-35 and the year of account or "previous year"is that which ended on 30th April 1933. The assessee respondent resides at Mangalore in British India and owns coffee estates in the Mysore State, which is no part of British India. The Income-tax Officer at Mangalore assessed him to tax on a "total income"of Rs. 29,160, of which Rs. 25,963 was computed as the assessee's profits of a "business"of growing, curing and selling coffee for profit. By appeal to the Assistant Commissioner the assessee disputed his liability in respect of any part of the sum of Rs. 25,963 and on his appeal being dismissed required the Commissioner to make a reference to the High Court. An agreed question having been stated and referred (24th Jul...

i.L.M. Cadija Umma and Another Vs. S. Don Manis Appu

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: The appellants on 16th and 25th April 1930 brought in the District Court of Colombo two actions to recover possession of two contiguous plots of land measuring in the aggregate 2 acres and 38 perches and forming a triangular area to the north of land which is admittedly theirs. The disputed land is known as Maha Ettambagaha Kumbura. In the first suit they impleaded four defendants as being in wrongful possession, S. Don Manis Appu being defendant 1. In the second suit he was the sole defendant. The District Judge dismissed both actions on 23rd March 1933, finding against the appellants on the issue as to title and also on the question whether defendant 1 had acquired a prescriptive title under Ordinance 22 of 1871. The Supreme Court on 22nd January 1936 affirmed the decree's of the District Judge. Without pronouncing upon the issue as to the appellants' title the learned Judges of the Supreme Court proceeded solely upon the ground of prescription under the Ordinance....