Privy Council Court November 1943 Judgments

Sheth Maneklal Mansukhbhai Vs. Sheth Chimanlal Kalidas and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1944PC32

Lord Atkin: Their Lordships are unable to grant this application. They have, and always would have, every consideration for an applicant who came and said that, without any fault on his part, the case had been heard ex parte, and, wherever he could satisfy their Lordships that he could have put before them some considerations which might have affected their decision, they would no doubt, be willing to give him an opportunity of being heard again; but the present case is a case which turns upon construction and upon construction only. The High Court from which there was the appeal after going carefully into all the arguments, adopted one construction, and the Board had given a detailed judgment in which they had dealt with the points taken by the High Court and had come to an opposite conclusion. It is not suggested that there is anything which could be said to the Board, if they did grant a further hearing, which had not been considered by the Board in giving their judgment on the prev...

Chaudhary Paras Ram Singh and Others Vs. Babu Raja Mohan Manucha and O ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: The plaint in this case was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Agra on 11th August 1930, by one Moti Lal Manocha, a banker and moneylender, resident at Faizabad. He died in 1933 and respondents 1 to 4 have been substituted in his stead. He impleaded two sets of defendants. The first set are now respondents 6 to 9, who take no part in this appeal. They include two persons called Rup Narain and his son, Raj Narain, whose acts as borrowers and mortgagors come into question in this case. The other set of defendants are the present appellants sometimes referred to by their family designation as "the Chaudharys." The plaintiff sued to enforce a mortgage made by deposit of a title deed dated 26th February 1863, to certain land and buildings in the city of Agra. He alleged that early in September 1923, Rup Narain and Raj Narain, who carried on business at Delhi, arranged in August 1923, to borrow Rs. 30,000 from him upon a promissory note and upon the terms that ...

Mian Saleh Mohammad Shah Vs. Sayyad Zawar HussaIn Shah and Another

Court: Privy Council

Sir George Rankin: In this consolidated appeal the question is whether the appellant on the death in 1934 of his mother's sister, Sat Bharai, became entitled to the whole of certain extensive immovable properties in the Jhang district of the Punjab which had formerly belonged to his maternal grandfather, Hassan Shah, or only to a half-share therein, the other half-share having devolved on Sardar Bibi, the respondents' mother. In 1935 the appellant sued Sardar Bibi on the footing that he was in possession of one half for a declaration that he was entitled to the whole, and in 1936 Sardar Bibi brought a suit against the appellant claiming the whole in like manner. These suits were tried together and on 28th February 1939, the trial Court decided that the appellant was entitled to the whole of the property. Sardar Bibi had in the meantime died and was represented by her sons the two respondents before the board. On appeal the High Court at Lahore by decree of 27th May 1940, See ('40) 27 A...

Sardar Abdul Rahman Khan Vs. Sardar Mohd. Ashraf Khan and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1944PC27

Lord Clauson: This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, dated 20th January 1941, which reversed a decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hazara, dated 28th November 1939. The question for decision is as to the devolution, on the death on 8th January 1938, of Mir Abdullah, of the ownership of three villages, Koklia, Dingi and Jhar. It is contended on the one side by Abdul Rahman, the present appellant, eldest son of Abdul Jabbar (who was the eldest son of Mir Abdullah but predeceased his father) that the villages in suit have in the special circumstances of the case devolved on him, while the respondents, Ashraf and Ilahi, two younger sons of Mir Abdullah, and Begum Jan, widow of Mir Abdullah, contend that the villages have devolved upon them as the persons entitled according to the ordinary Muslim law of succession to the property of Mir Abdullah. In order to clarify the contentions of the parties, their Lordships find it ...

Sarala Sundari Dassya Vs. Dinabandhu Roy Brajaraf Saha (Firm)

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1944PC11

Lord Atkin: [1] This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal which reversed the judgment of the District Judge at Pabna on an application by the respondents for the revocation of the probate of a will of an alleged testator Haralal Saha, which had been obtained by his widow, who is the appellant, in the year 1933. The circumstances were that Haralal Saha was a man of some age and had been very successful in his business, which was principally that of a moneylender. He owned immovable property in several districts in Bengal and in one district outside. He died in 1927 and, upon his death; there can be no doubt, that his three sons who survived him took possession of the properties. In some instances they had joined in a suit with their mother and were substituted for their father in a partition suit. They got a certificate of succession to enable them to sue on certain debts which were due, no doubt, on the money lending business. They collected the rent...

In the Matter of Part Cargo Ex S.S. monte Contes Conservas Cerqueira L ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Wright: This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, Admiralty Jurisdiction-In Prize, condemning a part cargo of 3428 cases of tinned fish valued at approximately 10,000, shipped on board the Spanish steamship "Monte Contes" at Vigo for Barcelona. The shipment was made on 24th November 1941. On 16th December 1941, the goods were seized in Gibraltar, and on the same date a writ was issued and served on the vessel, claiming their condemnation on the ground (inter alia) of enemy destination. On 25th, February 1941, a claim was entered on behalf of the owners of the goods, now represented by the present appellants and the underwriters, on the ground (inter alia) that the goods were destined for Barcelona and were not going to an enemy destination. The Court rejected the claim and condemned the goods as lawful prize on the ground that they were conditional contraband destined for an enemy country, namely, Italy. The case is marked by a paucity of information. If i...