Privy Council Court February 1940 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jagat Singh and Others Vs. Sangat Singh and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-26-1940
SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal is brought from a decree of the High Court at Lahore dated 31st January 1936, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Lyallpur, dated 31st January 1935, and dismissing the appellants' suit. The subject-matter of the dispute is some 6 3/4 squares of land in the district of Lyallpur in the Punjab, which (as is now admitted) belonged to one Ishar Singh who died childless on 6th October 1905, leaving him surviving a widow Bishan Devi; also a brother's son Sundar Singh who died on 10th January 1922. On 7th February 1929, the widow purported to make a gift of one portion of the land to Sangat Singh (respondent 1) and of another portion to a certain Gurdwara (respondent 2). The present suit was brought on 7th August 1933, by the appellants, who are three of the four sons of Sundar Singh. The fourth son was made a defendant and is now respondent 3. The claim of the plaint is for a declaration that the gifts of land to Sangat Singh and to the Gurdwara have no...
Rama Shah Vs. Lal Chand
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal raises questions as to the true construction and effect of S. 20, Limitation Act (9 of 1908) as amended by the Limitation Amendment Act (1 of 1927). Conflicting decisions in India have made it desirable that their Lordships should construe the Section, and as in the present case the High Court has differed from the trial Court on the facts, the evidence must be examined. The plaintiff appellant Rama Shah is described as a banker and carries on a business at Jhelum which includes the lending of money. The defendant Lal Chand is a timber merchant of the same town who on various occasions between 17th October 1929, and 17th July 1931, took a loan from the plaintiff, giving to him a promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at twelve percent. per annum. Two small loans not covered by promissory notes were alleged by the plaintiff to have been made and were disputed by the defendant, but five promissory notes are admitted by the defendant and a ...
Arthur John Mellor and Others Vs. Australian Broadcasting Commission
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This is an appeal from a judgment of Nicholas J. in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in its equitable jurisdiction. By the judgment which was delivered on 10th December 1937, the learned Judge dismissed the action which was brought by the appellants against the respondents and was founded on alleged infringements of copyright in Australia during the years 1932 and 1933. By S. 8, Australian Copyright Act, 1912 (No. 20 of 1912) it is provided that the British Copyright Act (the Copyright Act 1911), should subject to any modifications provided by the Australian Act be in force in the Commonwealth and should be deemed to have been in force therein as from 1st July 1912. So far as affects the action and this appeal no modifications are material. The appellants carry on in partnership a business in England under the name of Wright and Round as publishers of band music, and they were at the material time owners of the sole right of performing in public within the Commonw...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›