Privy Council Court June 1939 Judgments

Hari Chand and Others Vs. Secretary of State

Court: Privy Council

Lord Macmillan: Their Lordships are invited in these 12 consolidated appeals to reconsider a number of awards made by way of compensation for the acquisition by the Government of certain bungalows in the Cantonment of Peshawar. In the Courts below a large number of questions were raised and debated in relation to the awards, but before their Lordships, Mr. Dunne, on behalf of the appellants, confined himself to two or three main issues. As a matter of history the Cantonments are regulated, so far as regards grants to individuals, by an Order of the Governor-General in Council dated so far back as 1836. That Order appears to have been carried forward to date by a series of subsequent Orders more or less identical in their terms. Where the Government grant any rights to individuals within the area of the Cantonments, one of the cardinal conditions of the grant is that the Government retain the power of resumption at any time on giving one month's notice. If they give that notice they are...

Lola Chuni Lal and Another Vs. Udai Prakash and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: The appellants on 5th January 1929 sued the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut to enforce their security under a mortgage bond dated 15th September 1922, over certain property situate in mousa Shikohpur. The bond had been executed by respondent 1, Udai Prakash, for himself and as guardian of respondent 2 Om Prakash, his minor brother, in favour of Chunni Lal, appellant 1, and Ratan Lal (now deceased) father of appellant 2. It was for Rs.6000 with interest at 2 per cent. per mensem with half-yearly rests. Rs. 200 was expressed to have been paid before registration of the bond and Rs. 250 at the time of registration. The rest of the loan was made up of four items: Rs.1200 and Rs.1600 for interest due under prior bonds dated 4th July 1921, and 19th February 1920; Rs.1350 to discharge a promissory note dated 28th June 1922, given to one Sundar Lal, and Rs.1400 for deposit in Court under a decree dated 3rd July 1922, in Suit No. 566 of 1919. One H...

Tan Ma Shwe Zinand Others Vs. Khoo Soo Chong and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought on 7th March 1934, by respondent; 1, Khoo Soo Chong, in the High Court at Rangoon in its original civil jurisdiction. The purpose of the suit was to establish that the plaintiff is the sole heir to the estates of his uncle, Khoo Boon Tin, and of Tan Ma Thin, this uncle's widow, either (1) as their adopted son, or (2) as the former's nephew. It has been held in the High Court, both at first instance and on appeal, that the plaintiff failed to prove that the alleged adoption was in fact made, and though this issue has been raised again before the Board, their Lordships see no reason to disturb the concurrent findings on this point. The facts which bear upon the plaintiff's claim as nephew may be shortly stated. His uncle, Khoo Boon Tin, was the eldest of four sons of a Chinaman who lived in Burma. The family professed the Buddhist religion, and Khoo Boon Tin married Tan Ma Thin, also a Chinese and a Buddhist. He ...

Baba Kartar Singh Bedi Vs. Dayal Das and Others

Court: Privy Council

Mr. Jayakar: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated 30th April 1934, which varied a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Saharanpur dated 29th April 1929. The appeal arises out of a suit by respondent 1 suing as the chela and successor under the terms of a will, for a declaration of his title and for possession and mesne profits of a certain immovable property, being a building situated in the Hindu Shrine of Hardwar, called Haveli Buriawali and certain rooms or outhouses appertaining to it. It appears that there was a gift of this property at some ancient time to one Atma Ram who apparently held it as his own property. After his death it went to his chela, Ashtabakar (it is not clear whether by will or by operation of law). After him it descended to his gurubhai or brother disciple Dhian Das and after his death it again went to the latter's chela Kishen Das. During his lifetime, Kishen Das held and enjoyed the property as his private and perso...

Trustees of Tribune Press, Lahore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punj ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: The trustees of the Tribune Press, Lahore, appeal from the decision given on 4th June 1935, by the majority of the Judges composing a Full Bench of the High Court at Lahore upon a reference made to that Court under S.66 (2), Income-tax Act, 1922. On 31st January 1933 the Income-tax Officer, Lahore, for the year of assessment 1932-33 assessed the appellants to tax upon an income of Rs. 61,629, calculated upon the figures for the previous year. No question now arises as to the amount of the assessment or the computation of the tax. The sole question is whether the income of the appellants is not exempt from tax under Cl.1 of sub-s. 3 of S. 4 of the Act. (3) This Act shall not apply to the following classes of income : (i) Any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes, and in the case of property so held in part only for such purposes, the income applied, or finally set apart for application there...

Dawson's Bank Ltd. Vs. Maung Mya ThwIn and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1939PC219

Lord Russell of Killowen: This appeal is against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon (dated 12th January 1938) which affirmed a decree of the District Court of Pyapon. It is necessary to state the relevant facts which led up to the litigation out of which this appeal arises. In the year 1926 a mortgage deed in favour of the present appellants, Dawson's Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) was executed and registered. The persons described in the deed as mortgagors were ten in number, viz. a mother, her daughter, and the eight children of the latter. Of these eight children, four (including the three present respondents), were minors. They did not execute the deed, but it is stated therein that they were represented by their guardian. He was their eldest brother and he executed the deed. He had no authority to bind the infants, and it is clear, and is admitted by the Bank that the mortgage deed in no way binds the respondents or affects their shares in the mor...