Privy Council Court July 1946 Judgments

British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. the King on the Informa ...

Court: Privy Council

Viscount Simon: This is an Appeal by special leave from a Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada dated 11-2-1946, which allowed the Appeal of the present respondent from a Judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, dated 25-5-1946. The action was brought by the present respondent to recover the amount of a tax and interest thereon, which it was alleged that the present appellant should have with, held from dividends paid to such holders of its 5 per cent. Cumulative Perpetual Preference Stock as were non-residents of Canada during the period between 1-4-1933, and 29-4-1941. The Supreme Court of Canada (Rinfret C. J., Kerwin, Taschereau, Band and Kellock JJ.), reversing the Judgment of the President, held that the action, which took the form of an Information of the Attorney-General of Canada filed on 1-4-1943, succeeded. [2] Chapter 41 of the Statutes of Canada, 1932-83, added the following provisions, inter alia, to the Income War Tax Act, and these are the Sections upon which the co...

Sellamani Ammal Vs. Thillai Ammal and Another

Court: Privy Council

Lord Simonds: This appeal which is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras reversing in part the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly raises a question of some difficulty arising under the will of Subbaraya Pillia who died on 28-9-1916, and will be hereafter called the testator. Some facts concerning the testator's family must first be given. He was the adopted son of Subhapathi Pillai of Achalpuram in the Tanjore district and Swarnathammal, his wife, who had no other children. Swarnathammal was the daughter of Kandaswami Pillia who was the son of Thiruvarasu Pillai. The latter was the owner of an estate known as the Kudapalli Estate in the Trichmopoly district. Kandaswami predeceasing his father, upon the death of the latter this estate descended to Swarnathammal who managed it until her death in 1904 or 1905, She was succeeded in the estate by the testator who managed it until his death in 1916. Sabhapathi had in the meanti...

Sm. Bibhabati Devi Vs. Ramendra Narayan Roy and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal by special leave from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 25-11-1940, dismissing an appeal against a decree of the First Additional District Judge, Dacca, dated 24-8-1936. The present suit was instituted in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Dacca on 24-7-1930, by the respondent Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the present appellant and others. In the plaint, as subsequently amended on 15-4-1931, the plaintiff sought (ka) a declaration that he is Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy, the second son of the late Rajah Rajendra Narayan Roy of Bhowal and (ka I), that his possession should be confirmed in respect of the one-third share of the properties described in the schedule, or, if from the evidence and under the circumstances plaintiff's possession thereof should not be established, then possession thereof should be given to him. He further asked for injunctions against...

Chhaterpati Pratap Bahadur Sahi and Others Vs. Lachmidhar Prasad Singh ...

Court: Privy Council

Mr. M.R. Jayakar: These are two consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 9-5-1939, confirming a judgment and two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, dated 5-6.1984. [2] The family with which this litigation is concerned is governed by the Benares School of the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. It consists of two branches winch have been settled for many years at Rusi and Kaira respectively. The annexed pedigree of the family is taken from one which was proved to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and was undisputed in the High Court. [3] The only question in these appeals is whether Sarabjit (a near cognate or bandhu) or Sia Prasad Singh (a more remote agnate or gotraja) was entitled to the property left by Ram Dulari Koer. Both Courts in India have held that Sia Prasad Singh was so entitled. [4] The facts, out of which these appeals arise, briefly stated, are as follows: [5] Jagatpati and Kailashpati were joint. They had...

Amar Ahmed Vs. Durgah Committee, Ajmer

Court: Privy Council

Lord Simonds: This appeal concerns a question of great importance to sections of the Muslim community in India and has been anxiously considered by their Lordships. In the year 1941 the appellant, Syed Asrar Ahmed, instituted a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Ajmer-Merwara, against the respondents, the Durgah Committee Ajmer, whose status will be explained, claiming a declaration that the office of Mutawalli of the Durgah Khawaja Sahib Ajmer was hereditary in his family and that the respondents were not competent to question his status as a hereditary Mutawalli in succession to the last holder of that office. The District Judge on 31-7-1912, made a decree in his favour but upon appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, Merwara, this decree was on 23-2-1944, reversed. Hence this appeal. [2] The background of historical fact can be conveniently taken from the careful judgment of the Judicial Commissioner. From this it appears that the Durgah Khawaja Sahib Ajmer, ...

Munnalal, Minor and Others Vs. Mst. Kashibai and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC15

Sir John Beaumont: This is a consolidated appeal by special leave from two judgments and two decrees dated 16-12-1937 and 22-12-1937, respectively of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur, which reversed two judgments and two decrees dated 21 6-1934, and 15-6-1934 respectively of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Khandwa. The two appeals which are consolidated arise out of two suits in ejectment. The suit to which the first appeal relates was brought by the appellants, or their predecessors in title, claiming possession of a house and certain land in a town and the house thereon. In the suit to which the second appeal relates the appellant claimed possession of three muafi fields. The Subordinate Judge decreed both suits but, on appeal the High Court dismissed them. The title of the plaintiffs in both suits is traced from one, Balwant Singh, who died in the year 1907. The respondents claim through one, Bahadur Singh, the younger brother of the father of Balwant Singh. I...

Mt. Dan Kuer Vs. Mt. Sarla Devi

Court: Privy Council

M. R. Jayakar: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 12-3-1942, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Etah dated 31-7-1935. The main questions to be determined in this appeal are:- (1) Whether a registered partition award dated 8-1-1921, created a valid charge in favour of the respondent, Sarla Devi, on the property (the two villages of Quazipur and Mai) allotted to her husband Nidhan Singh; and (2) whether Drigpal Singh, the predecessor in title of the appellant, Dan Koer, had notice (actual or constructive) of the said award and charge, when he took a usufructuary mortgage of the said two villages on the following day, 9th July (sic January) 1921, wherein a reference was made to the said award. The pedigree of the family, so far as it is material to the case, is as follows:- CHART The family was subject to the Mitakshara Law of the Benares School. It had considerable property....

Kumar Singh Chhajor and Others Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, made on the 24th August 1943. By its order the High Court directed that the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants by Mr. S. Chaudhury, acting as a special magistrate under the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942, be set aside, and that the appellants be retried in the district of Hooghly. [2] The facts leading up to the appeal can be stated shortly. In January, 1943, the accused were tried on a charge of dacoity under section 395 of the I. P. C. by Mr. Chaudhury acting as such special magistrate as aforesaid. On 19th January, 1943, they were acquitted on the charge under section 395, but were convicted under section 403 of the offence of misappropriation and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. Subsequently, the High Court at Calcutta, of its own motion, called for the record of the case, and on the 24th August, 1943, a bench consisting of t...

Lala Duni Chand and Others Vs. Mt. Anar Kali and Others

Court: Privy Council

M. R. Jayakar: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated the 29th August 1941, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the Court of the First Civil Judge of Saharanpur, District Saharanpur, dated the 10th January 1938. The parties are Hindus subject to the Mitakshara Law of the Benares School, and this appeal involves the construction of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 (Act No. 2 of 1929) which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day. It received the assent of the Governor-General on the 21st February 1929, and under the provisions of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. 10 of 1897) it came into operation immediately on the expiration of 20th February 1929. The description and preamble of the Act make it clear that the object of the Act is to alter the order of succession of certain persons therein mentioned, namely, a son's dau...

Mt. Dilafroz and Another Vs. Raja Gauhar Zamir Khan and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1946PC165

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, dated 22nd November 1941, which set aside a judgment and decree of the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hazara, dated 14-10-1940. [2] The principal question to be determined in the appeal is as to the right of the grantees to alienate lands granted by a robkar, or order of Government, dated 26-11-1872, and issued by Captain Wace, Settlement Officer of the Hazara District. The question depends upon the construction of the robkar, and it will be convenient at the outset to notice its material provisions. [3] The robkar recites that orders dated 1-9-1872, from the Secretary to the Punjab Government embodying the proposals of the Financial Commissioner regarding restoration of the estate of the Khanpur tract to the Ghakhars, the descendants of Diwan Fateh Khan, etc., Guzarakhors and Serikhors (persons enjoying grant for services rendered) had been r...