Privy Council Court April 1944 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.
Andiappan Ambalam and Others Vs. V.E. Meyyappan Servai and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-24-1944
Lord Russell of Killowen: The contest on this appeal lies between the respective successors in title to two lessees to each of whom a lease was granted by the same grantors on 24th January 1908. The dispute concerns 2 plots of land, the question being whether they were leased by the lease to the appellants' predecessors in title (which will be referred to as the appellants' lease) or by the lease to the respondents' predecessors in title (which will be referred to as the respondents' lease). If they are not included in the respondents' lease, they are without doubt included in the appellants' lease. Before considering the two documents it is necessary to state some preliminary facts. The land in both leases is land in the Sivaganga Zamindari. The zamindar at the date of the leases was a minor, and his estate was under the management of the Madras Court of Wards. Zamindari was in lease to lessees. In or about the year 1894, the ryots of Karaikudi village sought to evict certain persons...
Mohindar Singh Vs. Ramindar Singh and Another
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Apr-19-1944
Lord Justice Goddard: This appeal is from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Lahore upholding the award of an arbitrator dated 11th December 1937. The circumstances under which the arbitration came to be held are that in the year 1931 the present appellant took proceedings in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Amritsar claiming possession of 132 kanals of land which he alleged were sold to him by respondent 1 who was originally the sole defendant. His case was that the land had been bought for him by Ujagar Singh, as benamidar, for the sum of Rs. 15,500, and this person was subsequently added as a defendant 2. The defendant's case was that he had never sold anything to the plaintiff; he had sold the occupancy but not the proprietary rights in his land to Ujagar Singh who was a real purchaser and not a benamidar for the plaintiff but who had practised a fraud upon him. Then he said that under a threat of criminal proceedings Ujagar had cancelled the sale deeds and the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›