Privy Council Court November 1944 Judgments

Govind Ram and Others Vs. Madan Gopal and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Russell of Killowen: The point for decision on this appeal from the High Court at Allahabad is short, but not free from difficulty. The relevant facts which gave rise to it must first be stated. One Seth Kashi Nath obtained a decree (in a Suit No. 42 of 1930) against the present respondents 2, 3 and 6, and one Lala Sagarmal. Lala Sagarmal is dead, and his sons the present respondents 4 and 5 were substituted for him on the record in the present suit. Respondent 6 has been declared insolvent and the Official Receiver, Aligarh, has also been brought on the record in the present suit. For convenience the original defendants to Suit No. 42 of 1980 or those representing their interests from time to time will all be included in the words "the debtors." Seth Kashi Nath having obtained his decree applied to attach certain immovable property as being the property of the debtors and liable to be sold in execution of the decree. He was met by an objection filed on behalf of the present appel...

Rajammal Alias Sundarammal and Others Vs. Sabapathi Pillai and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1945PC82

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 7th November 1941, which reversed the appellate judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, dated 21st November 1938 (which had affirmed the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Sankaridrug at Salem), and decreed the respondents' suit to recover immovable property forming part of the estate of one Annusami Pillai. Annusemi Pillai died in 1894 without issue, leaving him surviving two widows, namely, the senior, Akilandammal, who died in 1899, and the junior, Sundarammal, who died in April 1934. The present suit was filed by Subbaraya Pillai, as nearest reversioner of Annusami, at the time of Sundarammal's death, against the present appellants, who claimed to retain possession of the properties under a registered deed of gift dated 25th December 1899, executed a few days after the death of Akilandammal by Sundarammal in favour of her elder ...

Daniel Youth Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1945PC140

Lord Porter: Their Lordships have already indicated that they would humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed and that they would give their reasons for tendering such advice in due course. Those reasons are set out below. The appellant and his wife Amelia Youth were jointly charged on indictment in the Supreme Court of Turks and Caicos Islands before His Honour S. T. B. Sanguinetti and a jury of twelve with the murder of one Poland Smith in the Parish of Saint George at the Bight of Blue Hills. Both pleaded not guilty but were convicted and sentenced to death: the wife's sentence however was afterwards commuted to penal servitude for life. The husband alone appealed first to the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica and subsequently by special leave to His Majesty in Council. The appellant lived in a small settlement on Caicos Island called Thomas Stubbs Settlement which appears to have consisted of only three houses: one inhabited by the appellant and his wife, ...

M. Ethirajulu Naidu Vs. A. Ranganatham Chetti and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Goddard: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court at Madras in its civil appellate jurisdiction affirming with modifications a judgment of that Court in its ordinary civil jurisdiction in an action in which the appellant claimed possession of certain laud and the superstructure thereon and mesne profits. The case depends entirely on the true construction of cl. 4 of a lease dated 1st February 1923, made between the appellant and the predecessor in title of the respondents. The facts, which can be succinctly stated, are that on 18th October 1912, the appellant and his brother granted a lease to the father of the respondents of a plot of land in the City of Madras for a term of 10 years from 1st October 1912, at a rent of Rs. 50 per mensem, the tenant to be at liberty to erect a building on the land demised. The tenant built a theatre on the land, and shortly before the lease expired the appellant, who had become the sole owner of the land, agreed to gran...

Radha Krishen Vs. Sri Krishen and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1945PC79

Lord Russell of Killowen: The suit which gave rise to this appeal was brought by Radha Krishen (hereinafter called the appellant) for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Shankar Lal deceased and for delivery of possession of the property of Shankar Lal specified and described in the schedules to the plaint. Shankar Lal (who had no issue of his own) was the great-uncle of the appellant, who was a grandson of Shankar Lal's only brother Debi Sahai. Debi Sahai had two sons Hari Krishen and Sri Krishen. The appellant was the natural son of Hari Krishen, who had also two other natural sons by a wife whom he married after the death of the appellant's mother. The defendants to the suit were (1) Ganga Dei, the widow of Shankar Lal, (2) Sri Krishen and (3) and (4) the two other natural sons of Hari Krishen. Hari Krishen died in the year 1931. While the main issue in the suit was whether the appellant had been adopted by Shankar Lal, the decisive question in the case was, in their Lo...

Emperor Vs. Benoari Lal Sarma and Others

Court: Privy Council

The Lord Chancellor: This is an appeal by the Government of India from a judgment of the Federal Court (Varadaehariar C. J. and Zafrulla Khan J., Kowland J., dissenting) dated 4th January 1943, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta (Sir Harold Derbyshire C. J., Khundkar and Sen JJ.) setting aside a conviction of 15 individuals by a Special Magistrate purporting to act under ordinance No. 2 of 1942 promulgated by the Governor-General on 2nd January 1942. The ground upon which the conviction was set aside was that the Ordinance was ultra vires. The question is largely academic, for upon ordinance 2 being declared by the Federal Court to be ultra vires, Ordinance 19 of 1943 was promulgated to replace it. But in view of the elaborate argument that has taken place and the way in which the topic has been dealt with in the judgments in India, their Lordships think that the better course is to decide the question whether ordinance 2 is invalid, especially as this m...