Privy Council Court March 1946 Judgments

Rani Provabhati Saheba and Others Vs. Secretary of State and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Macmillan: This appeal comes before their Lordships from the Calcutta High Court in a suit in which the respondent, the Secretary of State for India in Council, is the plaintiff. He claims a decree in his favour declaring his title to seven jalkars or fisheries which in his plaint he describes as "component parts" of his fishery known as Jalkar Gangapath Islampur (southern portion). His claim was originally to nine jalkars but has been restricted to seven. [2] It is not disputed that the respondent as in right of the southern portion of Jalkar Gangapath Islampur is entitled to the fishings in some fifty miles of the river Ganges, which is a public navigable river. Nor is it disputed that he is entitled to all subsidiary fishings which the law recognises as "'adjuncts" of his fishery in the Ganges. But it is denied by the appellants, who are certain of the original defendants in the suit that the respondent has any right to the seven jalkars now claimed by him whether as "adjuncts"...

Swaminarayan Jethalal Chimanlal and Others Vs. Acharya Shri Devendrapr ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC100

Sir John Beaumont: These are consolidated appeals from the judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its appellate jurisdiction, both dated 10th October 1934, the first modifying a decree of the Joint Judge of Ahmedabad dated 30th June 1927, and the second a decree of the first class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad dated 3rd January 1929. The appeals relate to the affairs of the Northern Diocese of the Swaminarayan sect, the head of which is the Acharya of Ahmedabad. The appellants are members of the said sect who have been substituted for the original plaintiffs in the suit who died pending the hearing of this appeal. It is common ground that the Swaminarayan sect was founded in the early part of the 19th century by a religions reformer of northern India, named Sajanand. He built a number of temples, the principal of which were the Nar Narayan temple at Ahmedabad, and the Lakshmi Narayan temple at Vadtal in the Kaira district. In 1827 three years before his...

Vander Poorten and Others Vs. the Settlement Officer

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC135

Lord Du Parcq: The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the Supreme Court of Ceylon was right in holding that no appeal lay to that Court against the dismissal by a District Judge of a petition which, for the purpose of dealing with the preliminary objection that the appeal could not be entertained, the Court treated as a "claim" made under S. 20, Waste Lands Ordinance, 1 [1] of 1897. [2] The facts relevant to this single question are few, and may be shortly stated. The Ordinance of 1897 empowered the Government agent to declare by a notice duly published that any lands which appeared to him to be waste lands should be deemed the property of the Crown unless a claim was made to them within three months from a date specified in the notice and further enacted that if no such claim were made the lands should be declared to be the property of the Crown. On 21st September 1928, such a notice was published in respect of the lands which are the subject of the present suit...

Shankarlal Narayandas Mundade Vs. the New Mofussil Co. Ltd. and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Du Parcq: In the suit which has given rise to this appeal, the plaintiff (now the appellant) claimed against the defendant company specific performance of an oral agreement made by the company through its liquidator, Sir Shapurji Bomanji Billimoria, for the sale to the plaintiff of a Pressing and Ginning Factory at Dhulia. He claimed the like relief against the remaining defendants, in accordance with S. 27, Specific Belief Act, as persons claiming under the defendant company by a title arising subsequently to the contract. It may be said at once that if the plaintiff is entitled to the relief which he claims against the defendant company, no question arises as to the liability of the other defendants. It is common ground that a contract for the sale to them of the factory was entered into after the date of the contract alleged by the plaintiff, and they made no attempt at the trial to prove that they had paid the purchase money in good faith, and without notice of the original co...