Privy Council Court April 1941 Judgments

Secretary of State Vs. Sardar Rustam Khan and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Atkin: This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Additional Judicial Commissioner in Baluchistan, in which in the respondents' suit he made a decree declaring their title to and granting them possession of the lands in suit. The appeal raises an important question as to the powers of the British Government over the sub-division of Nasirabad, part of the territory of the Khan of Kalat under a document dated 17th February 1903, purporting to be an agreement made between the Khan of Kalat and Colonel Yate, Agent to the Governor-General in Baluchistan. The agreement was expressed to be subject to the confirmation of the Viceroy and Governor-General in Council, and was duly confirmed on 14th May 1903. The circumstances in which the agreement was made appear to be that for many years part of this district had been irrigated by canals flowing from the Indus, and that arrangements had been made between the Khan and the British Government by which occupiers of land benefi...

international Railway Co. Vs. Niagara Parks Commission

Court: Privy Council

Lord Justice Luxmoore: On 29th August 1938 the International Railway Company (hereinafter called "the Appellant Company") instituted an action in the Supreme Court of Ontario against the Niagara Parks Commission (hereinafter called "the Commission") to recover $227,538.22 representing the unpaid balance of $251,322.08 claimed to be due in respect of interest at 5 per cent. per annum from 1st September 1932 to 3rd June 1937 on a capital sum of $1,057,436.00. The action was heard by Kelly J. who dismissed it and ordered the appellant company to pay the costs. The appellant company appealed from this order to the Court of appeal for Ontario. The appeal was heard by Riddell, McTague and Gillanders JJ.A. who dismissed it with costs. On 19th December 1939, McTague J.A. admitted an appeal by the appellant company to His Majesty in Council. The trial Judge dismissed the action of the appellant company on two grounds: first that the appellant company was not entitled to any interest in respect ...

Heirs of Prince Mohamed Selim Vs. Attorney-general of Palestine

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1941PC99

Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Palestine setting aside a judgment of the Land Court at Jaffa in favour of the appellants and directing a new trial. Special leave to appeal was given by His Majesty in Council, but in the order it was provided that the appeal was to be confined to the grounds of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Within this limited scope it will be possible to deal shortly with this appeal. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs, the heirs of Prince Mohammad Selim, himself one of the heirs of the late Sultan Abdul Hamid II of Turkey, to recover lands said to have been the private property of the late Sultan, and to have the Land Registry at Gaza rectified by inserting the names of the plaintiffs in respect of their share of the property in place of the High Commissioner for the time being in trust for the Government of Palestine. It would appear that land in question was registered in the land register for Gaza in the name of the l...

Sardar Nisar Ali Khan and Others Vs. Mt. Fatima Sultan and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Russell of Killowen: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector of Lahore, and dismissed the suit of three of the present appellants. The suit was brought by three sons of the late Sir Fateh Ali Khan against seven defendants, viz., Sir Fateh's widow and his five daughters. A fourth son who was absent in England was also joined as a defendant. The relief claimed was a declaratory decree to the effect that the plaintiffs and the defendant son were the heirs of Sir Fateh, and exclusive owners of the lands specified in the plaint; and that the defendants, the widow and daughters, had no right therein. The foundation of the claim was that by the custom of the family women did not inherit. The family are Shiah Mahomedans of the Asna Ashari sect. The alleged custom was admitted by the widow and all the daughters, except one, viz., Fatima Sultan. The Assistant Collector held that t...

M.M.R.M. Chettiar Firm Vs. S.R.M.S.L. Chettiar Firm and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1941PC47

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon, dated 8th March 1938, which varied a decree of the District Court at Thaton, dated 27th September 1937. By a registered sale deed dated 4th December 1928, the appellant firm purchased from the first respondent firm certain lands, of which respondents 2 and 3 are in possession, and in the present suit the appellant firm sues for possession. The only question in the appeal is whether respondents 2 and 3 have a charge upon the lands which is valid as against the appellant firm. On this point the only case made by respondents 2 and 3 in their pleadings and the only case that was tried by the District Judge was as follows: - that they agreed in March and April 1924, to buy the lands in suit from respondent 1 but that they found that the land in Kyagale Kwin was inferior to the lands in Ngotto Twin, and that, on their protest and after negotiation, it was agreed between them and respondent 1 on 30th ...

Maung SIn Vs. Maung Byaung and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Romer: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon made in a suit that was begun as long ago as 20th December 1912. A complete history of the proceedings in the suit and the events that led up to it would occupy many hundreds of pages of printed matter. But the question to be decided on this appeal is a short one, and the facts material to its decision can be stated with comparative brevity. They are as follows: One U Baw, a Burman Buddhist, died intestate on 28th December 1907, leaving surviving him a son (the appellant Ko Sin), two daughters, and the widow (respondent 4) and three children (respondents 1, 2 and 3), of a son, Ko Po Cho, who had predeceased him intestate by only 15 days. After some dispute, letters of administration to the estate of U Baw were granted to his son Ko Sin on 14th January 1910. At the time of U Baw's death there were properties both moveable and immovable standing in the joint names of U Baw, Ko Po Cho, and Ko Sin. There...

Jagat Narayan Singh Vs. Khartar Sah and Another

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: The appellant is the legal representative of one Madhusudan Singh, deceased. The appeal, which is brought in forma pauperis, arises out of proceedings to enforce a money decree dated 23rd March 1926, obtained against Madhusudan's brother Shyam Lal by one Soshi Bhusan in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jamtara in the Sontal Parganas. The execution case which has given rise to this appeal was brought in the same Court on 15th September 1930, by respondents 1 and 2 who had in 1929 purchased the rights of Soshi Bhusan in the decree. It is numbered Money Execution Case No.14 of 1930. It was the second case brought to enforce the judgment of 1926, the first (Money Execution Case No. 12 of 1928) having been brought in the same Court by the original decree holder Soshi Bhusan on 22nd May 1928. The main question raised before the Board is as to the effect to be given in the second case to certain orders passed against Madhusudan in the first. Shyam Lal was the owner of ...

Hoani Te Heuheu Tukino Vs. Aotea District Maori Land Board

Court: Privy Council

The Lord Chancellor: This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the Court of appeal of New Zealand, dated 22nd October 1938, which dismissed an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand (Smith J.), dated 2nd December 1937, whereby judgment was entered for the defendant, the present respondent board. The appellant is the Chief of the Ngatituwharetoa, a Maori tribe, whose members own lands in New Zealand, which were charged by virtue of S. 14, Native Purposes Act, 1935, with repayment to the respondent board of a portion of a sum of 23,500 which had been paid by the latter in terms of the said section to the Egmont Company Limited. The appellant instituted the present proceedings on behalf of the tribe and as representing the owners of the said lands against the respondent board in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Section 14, Native Purposes Act, 1935, which replaced a substantially similar provision in S.10, New Zealand Finance Act, 1934-35, so far as here mater...