Privy Council Court January 1946 Judgments

Punjab Province Vs. Daulat Singh and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Court of India, dated 8th May 1942 by which the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated 27th February 1941, dismissing appeals by the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 respectively from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Class, Sialkot, dated 22nd July 1940 were set aside and the case sent back to the High Court with a direction for the framing of proper issues and the remittal of the case to the trial Court for further trial and decision. The only question in this appeal is whether, and, if so, to what extent, S. 5, Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938, Punjab Act 10 [X] of 1938 is rendered invalid by S. 298, Government of India Act, 1935, as being ultra vires of the Punjab Provincial Legislature. The Punjab Act of 1938, which may be conveniently referred to as the impugned Act, by S. 5 purported to insert a new S. 13A in the Punjab Alienation...

Chhabba Lal Vs. Kallu Lal and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 8th September 1939, which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore dated 3rd November 1933, passed in a partition suit and sent the case back to the Subordinate Judge with directions to re-admit it under its original number and to decide it in accordance with law. The question for decision is whether a reference to arbitration made in this suit, and an award made thereon, were valid as the Subordinate Judge held, or invalid as the High Court of Allahabad held in appeal. The question arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiff brought this suit for division of the property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara. The plaintiff was the son of one Mukta Prasad, and the first three adult defendants, Kallu Lal, Sohan Lal and Sewak Lal were the sons of the only brother of Mukta Prasad, whilst defendants 4 and 5 Ram Lal and Jainarain, were the minor sons of Kallu ...

Abdul Hameed Sitti Kadija and Another Vs. Frederick John De Saram and ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: This appeal arises out of an action of ejection by the first two respondents against the appellants and the other four respondents. The action was dismissed by a judgment and decree of the District Court of Colombo, dated 23rd March 1942, which were set aside by a judgment and decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, dated 26th May 1944, whereby decree of ejection and for damages were granted in favour of the first two respondents, by a majority of three Judges to two. The question at issue arises on the proper construction of the will, dated 12th December 1872, of one Isboe Lebbe Idroos Marikar, who died on 8th May 1876, and whose said will was admitted to probate on 29th May 1876. The relevant portions of the will are as follows : [2] "I do hereby will and desire that my wife Assenia Natchia, daughter of Seka Marikar, and my children Mohamadoe Noordeen, Mohamadoe Mohideen, Slema Lebbe, Abdul Ryhiman, Mohamadoe Usboe, Amsa Natehia and Savia Umma, and my fa...

Attorney-general of Ontario and Others Vs. Canada Temperance Federatio ...

Court: Privy Council

Viscount Simon: On 1st June 1939, the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario in Council referred to the Supreme Court of Ontario under the provisions of the Constitutional Questions Act, R. S. Ont Cap. 130, the following question : "Are Parts I, II and III of the Canada Temperance Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, Cap. 196, constitutionally valid in whole or in part, and if in part, in what respect ?" On 26th September 1939, the Supreme Court by a majority (Riddell, Fisher, McTague and Gillanders JJA.) answered the question as follows: "This Court is of opinion (Henderson J. dissenting) that Parts I, II and III, Canada Temperance Act, Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, cap. 196, are within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada." Against this judgment, the Attorney-General for Ontario and the Moderation League of Ontario have appealed to the Judicial Committee and their appeal has been supported by the Attorneys-General of Alberta and New Brunswick who were admitted as int...

M. Samiullah Vs. Collector of Aligarh

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC75

Sir John Beaumont: These are two consolidated appeals from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 3rd September 1940, modifying the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Aligarh dated 18th August 1936, which in turn modified the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh, dated 7th November 1933. The land to which the first appeal relates consists of twelve bighas and nine biswas, which were held by the appellant as the mutwalli of waqf property. The land to which the second appeal relates consists of one bigha which was the appellant's personal property. These lands were acquired, together with other adjacent lands belonging to other owners, for the Co-operative Housing Society, Ltd., Aligarh, under Government Notification dated 29th May 1930, and issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. At that time the whole area held by the appellant was occupied by two tenants, Abdul Karim and Karu. During the proceedings before the L...