Privy Council Court November 1946 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.
B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-07-1946
Lord du Parcq: The subject of this appeal is a complaint by the appellant company (the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company) in respect of the assessment to the consolidated rate of a piece of land, situated in the city of Calcutta, of which it is the owner. The complaint is that the land has been valued on a wrong principle and at an excessive rate. The plot in question is about 13 bighas in extent, and is known as No. 10B, Garden Reach Road. It was bought by the company in 1926, not for present use, but to be kept in reserve against the company's future requirements. It is described as follows in the petition for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council : "The said land is vacant and is occasionally used by members of Railway Officers' Club for practice of the game of golf. It is not a regular golf course, having only four holes upon it." [2] Before setting out the facts, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, in order that the point in dis...
S.S. Sv. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar, Since Deceased, Now Represented by ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Nov-07-1946
Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 10th December 1942, which affirmed with a slight modification the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga dated 21st November 1940, in O. S. NO. 11 of 1939. [2] The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff (the first respondent) for partition and recovery of a half share of the properties in the possession of defendant 1, the appellant before the Board, now dead, who is represented by Lakshmi Achi. Defendant 1 was the contesting defendant and will be referred to hereafter as "the defendant". [3] The plaintiff claimed the properties as the duly adopted son of the elder brother of the defendant. At the time of the adoption the adoptive parents of the plaintiff, that is, the elder brother of the defendant and his wife, were dead, and the adoption was brought about by the adoptive grandfather. It appears that it was done with the consent of the defendant also. Under the or...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›