Privy Council Court July 1939 Judgments

Nadimpalli Narayanaraju and Another Vs. Yennamsetti Suryanarayudu and ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree of the High Court of Madras (16th October 1937), dismissing a suit brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Vizagapatam to recover possession of certain agricultural lands in the village of Thagarampudi. The trial Court's decree (17th December 1927), had been in favour of the plaintiffs. Of the defendants to the suit (who numbered 15) five are respondents to this appeal : the first three respondents (defendants 3 to 5) being the persons in possession of the suit lands, while respondents 4 and 5 (defendants 14 and 15) are impleaded as persons claiming title thereto as against the plaintiffs. Much of the detail of the case has for the purposes of this appeal become unimportant; since the decree appealed from did not decide the question of title disputed between the plaintiffs and respondents 4 and 5, but dismissed the plaintiffs' claim to eject the first three respondents on the ground that the plaintiffs were l...

Atisukhlal Bhaidas and Others Vs. Natvarlal Ichharam Desai

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1939PC238

Mr. Jayakar: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction dated 27th September 1935, reversing a decree of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat dated 1st July 1929. The facts relating to the suit out of which this appeal arises are as follows : One Lalbhai Gulabdas, member of the Visa Modh Gaubuja Bania caste of Surat, resided in Bombay until his death on 25th March 1908. He left a widow Gangabai, a daughter Chandrabhaga, and a will dated 19th March 1908, whereof he appointed Gangabai and his two friends, Maganlal Modi and Ichharam Desai (the father of the defendant) as executrix and executors. After providing for a few legacies, the will contained the following provisions about the residue : As to the moneys that may remain over, my executors shall invest the same in substantial securities during the lifetime of my wife and as to the interest that may be received therefrom, and as to the pension for wh...

Keolapati and Another Vs. Raja Amar Krishna NaraIn Singh and Another

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: Their Lordships have already intimated in their opinion that the questions for decision upon this appeal are concluded by concurrent findings of fact on the part of the Courts in India. They have reported accordingly to His Majesty in Council advising that the appeal should be dismissed and they have directed the appellants to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. It remains to state the reasons for their report. The claim is to the taluqdari estate of Ramnagar in the district of Bara-Banki in the province of Oudh and to other property, moveable and immovable, left by Raja Sarabjit Singh, who died on 20th December 1899. The claimant is Kurshed Jahan Begum, who will herein be referred to as "the plaintiff" though her financier has joined with her as co-plaintiff: her suit was brought on 7th February 1931, in the Chief Court of Oudh. It has been dismissed by the trial Judge whose decree has been affirmed by an appellate Bench, and she now appeals. The defendants (r...

Bhupendra Mohan Roy and Others Vs. Smt. Purna Sashi Debi and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Romer: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated 20th May 1935, reversing the judgment and decree of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Dacca dated 17th June 1932, whereby he had dismissed with costs a suit brought by respondent 1, Srimati Purna Sashi Debi, (hereinafter called the respondent) against the appellants and others. The respondent is the widow of one Bhabendra Mohan Roy (hereinafter called the testator) who died on 11th January 1915, having made his will on the day preceding his death. He left a daughter surviving him but no son. He also left him surviving his three brothers (who are the appellants) and a stepbrother one Rajendra Mohan Roy. Inasmuch as the questions to be determined upon this appeal are concerned with the proper construction and effect of the will the material portions of it must be set out in full. They are as follows: 2. If no son be born to me of my loins or if such a son dies after birth, ...

Sah Mauji Ram Vs. Sah Chaturbhuj

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: This is a consolidated appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 3rd December 1935, embodied in two decrees of the same date, by which two decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, dated 1st August 1931, were set aside and the respondent was granted damages amounting to Rs. 5313 and Rs. 5300 respectively in respect of malicious prosecutions by the appellant. The appellant seeks the restoration of the decrees of the Subordinate Judge, who had dismissed the suits. The consolidated suits were both filed by the respondent on 16th December 1930, claiming damages for malicious prosecution : (1) in Suit No. 41 of 1930, in respect of proceedings instituted in April 1929, under S. 107, Criminal PC., on the complaint of the appellant, against the respondent and others, in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Mainpuri, and (2) in Suit No. 42 of 1930, in respect of the prosecution under S. 506, I. PC., instituted in May 1929, on the compla...

Haji Maula Bux Vs. Abdul Latif

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1939PC242

Lord Macmillan: In this appeal the point for decision arises on a few simple facts. It appears that Mohammad Raza and Haji Maula Bux were in partnership under the firm name of Whitfield and Co. The partnership was dissolved on 5th May 1926, and on 14th November 1927, Messrs. Bevis and Co., who were creditors of the dissolved firm, instituted through Babu Bhagwan Das a suit in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Cawnpore against the dissolved firm, Whitfield and Co., and its two partners, Mohammad Raza and Haji Maula Bux. The claim of the plaintiffs in that action was for a decree for Rs. 8548 with interest and costs. After the action had proceeded for some time a compromise was arrived at and a decree was passed which forms the subject of the present controversy. The material part of the decree is as follows : The parties have compromised on the terms that the claim of the plaintiff be decreed for a lump sum of Rs. 8000 with future interest at 6 per cent. per annum with the con...