Privy Council Court June 1944 Judgments

Rai Bahadur Madhoram Sand and Others Vs. Raja Bahadur Kirtya Nand Sinh ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 19th March 1937, which affirmed granting additional relief to the plaintiffs (respondents before the Board) the decree dated 28th March 1933, passed in their favour by the Subordinate Judge of Purnea. The appeal is by defendants 1st party. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed the suit property which consists of a 2 annas 8 pies share of a certain mahal bearing tauzi No. 1298 in the District of Purnea, as purchasers in execution of a mortgage decree. The facts are somewhat complicated, but are not in dispute and may be summarised as follows: The suit property was originally part of an estate known as the Srinagar Raj, and the lands in tauzi No. 1298 were originally in an estate which bore the No. 1273. The proprietors of the tauzi were three brothers, two of whom Kalikanand and Kamalanand, the sons of Rani Jagrama, held a two-third share of it jointly, while the third share was owned separate...

All India Spinners Association of Mirzapur, Ahmedabad Vs. Commissioner ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Wright: This is an appeal from an order dated 8th April 1941 of the High Court of Bombay (Sir J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J. and Wadia J.) answering adversely to the appellant a question contained in a reference under S. 66 (3), Income-tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter called "the Act") made by the respondent dated 20th March 1941. The year of assessment concerned is the year 1936-37 the relevant accounting year being the year ended 3lst December 1935. Throughout the accounting year and the year of assessment the appellant was an unregistered and unincorporated association of individuals. Its activities consisted in the acquisition of yarn, and also raw cotton, which was then given out to various poor people to be spun by them into yarn all of which yarn was then given out to other poor people for hand-weaving into cloth. The cloth so produced for the appellant was then sold by the appellant. During the relevant accounting year these activities resulted in a profit to the appellant. The appellan...

Zafrul Hasan and Other Vs. Farid Ud-dIn and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC177

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 21-4-1935, which set aside a decree of the District Judge of Badaun dated the 6-11-1929 under which the suit of the plaintiff-respondents had been dismissed. No appearance has been made for the respondents in this appeal. [2] The principal question is whether a wakfnama dated 28-6-1915, is valid and operative. It was executed by Chaudri Salah Uddin, who was original defendant 2, and was the father of the present respondents 1, 2 and 3, who now represent him. Before the Board the validity of the deed was challenged by the appellants on 2 alternative grounds, viz., that it was a fictitious and colourable deed, never intended to be operative, but made with the intention to avoid payment of debts, or alternatively, that Chaudri Salah Uddin, who may be conveniently referred to as the settler, had become a Shia prior to the making of the deed, and was not authorised by the Mussalman Wakf Vali...

Batey Krishna Vs. Parsotam Das and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1944PC85

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 1st April 1937, which affirmed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore dated 5th September 1932, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, and by an order of the Court, his son, the appellant before the Board, was brought on the record as the plaintiff appellant in his place. The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 45,765-6-3 as a charge against the properties specified in the plaint in the circumstances mentioned below. The sole question for decision is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The provision of the Limitation Act (Act 9 of 1908) applicable, is Art. 132, which prescribes a period of "twelve years" for a suit "to enforce payment of money charged upon immoveable property," and time begins to run "when the money sued for becomes due." Th...