Privy Council Court March 1947 Judgments

Thiagaraja Bhagavathar and Another Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: These are consolidated appeals by special leave from a judgment of the High Court at Madras in its appellate criminal jurisdiction dated 29-10-1945, which affirmed a judgment of the same Court in its original criminal jurisdiction dated 3-5-1945. [2] The appellants were tried by the said High Court, with certain other persons, for conspiracy under S. 120B, Penal Code, and abetment to commit murder under S. 302, read with S. 109, and were convicted on both charges, and sentenced to transportation for life. They appealed to the High Court and by an Order dated 12 7-1945, the Appellate Court allowed them to appeal on matters of fact as well as of law under S. 411A (1) (b), Criminal PC. [3] The appeal raises an important question as to the scope of the powers of the Court under S. 411A of the said Code which was introduced into the Code by Act 26 [XXVI] of 1943. In order to appreciate the effect of the new section, it is desirable to notice the provisions of the Code rel...

Mohamed AmIn Vs. Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated 1-2-1945, in appeal from its original jurisdiction, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that High Court dated 31-3-1943, in its original jurisdiction, dismissing the appellant's suit for damages for malicious prosecution. [1a] The question arising in this appeal is: At what stage will criminal proceedings instituted falsely and maliciously before a Magistrate under the provisions of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, lay the foundation for a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. [2] Before dealing with the facts of the case, it will be convenient to notice the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 190, so far as relevant enacts that except an thereinafter provided, any Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate or other Magistrate therein mentioned may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon ...

Kunwar Sri Niwas Vs. Chaudhri Jui NaraIn Singh and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC105

LORD UTHWATT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 8-1-1942, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14-5-1934, of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarb. The point at issue is whether certain alienations by two Hindu widows of inherited immovable property bound the estate. The respondents - the plaintiffs in the suit - contend that they did not. Their contention was accepted by the High Court and possession of the property in dispute was ordered to be given to them. [2] For the purpose of the determination of the case in the Courts below, it was necessary to consider many transactions upon which the widows from time to time embarked and to arrive at a conclusion as to their legal effect. In the course of the hearing before their Lordships it became apparent, and indeed it was properly conceded by the respondents, that the judgment of the High Court could not be upheld if upon their true construction, two mortgage deeds of 19-6-1879,...

M.A. Rajagopala Ayyar Vs. M.A. Venkataraman(Minor) and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC122

LORD THANKERTON: The present appeal arises out of a suit brought in December 1937, by respondent 1 through his mother, as his next friend and guardian, against his brother, the appellant, as defendant 1 and other defendants who have not appeared in the appeal. [2] Ayyaswami Ayyar, a Hindu of Mannargudi in the Tanjore District, who may be referred to as the testator, was married twice. By his first wife be had a son, who is the appellant, and a daughter, who was defendant 3, her husband being defendant 2. After the death of his first wife, he married again in 1919, and by his second wife he had a son, the plaintiff, respondent, who was born in 1926, and a daughter, defendant 4, who was born in 1922. [3] It is no longer disputed that, as from 2nd May 1927, the undivided Hindu joint family, then consisting of the testator, the present appellant and the respondent, was disrupted by a document of that date, in the following terms: "We, the undersigned who have been up till now members of an...

K.S. Mahomed Aslam Khan Vs. Khalilul Rehman Khan and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC97

LORD THANKERTON: Their Lordships do not find it necessary to hear counsel for the respondents. [2] Counsel for the appellant has based his appeal on two alternative grounds which are set forth in the reasons at the end of his case. The first one is: "Because the estate of the Khan of Garhi Habibullah is attached to his office." That is, the appellant's office. "Alternatively, because the Khan had made a complete gift of his estate to the defendant who is in possession of the estate by virtue of that gift." [3] With regard to the first point, Mr. Khambatta agreed that unless he could call in aid the three Sanads referred to in the certified history which is on p. 33 of the 2nd part of the Record, where their Lordships find this: "They hold three Sanads of that time" -unless he had that then his case must rest on custom only, and that would be of no use to him now because of the recent Shariat law. [4] With regard to the three Sanads it simply says: "They hold three Sanads of that time."...

Jan Mohammad and Others Vs. R.B. Karm Chand and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: These are Consolidated Appeals by the plaintiff, defendants 4 to 8, and Mohib Ali, a transferee from defendants 13 and 14, from the judgment and decrees dated 29-5-1941 of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner North-West Frontier Province, Peshawar, varying the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1939, of the Court of the District Judge, Peshawar, which in turn varied a judgment and decree dated 3-12-1938, of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Peshawar, as a result of which the plaintiff and defendants 13 and 14, were given decrees for the redemption in specified "sharesinthepropertyindisputewiththeexceptionofthesiteleasedbygovernmenttoParmaNand(fatherofdefendants4to8)in1934," on payment of specified sums of money. [2] The appeals arise out of a suit for the redemption of mortgages executed by a Muhammadan Chaudhri Nathu. Broadly stated, the questions arising for determination relate to who are the representatives of the mortgagor, he being dead, entitled to redeem the prope...

Maganlalji Gordhanlalji Maharaj Vs. Purshottamlalji Wagheshlalji Mahar ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC96

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay dated 3-11-1943, made in its appellate jurisdiction reversing a judgment and decree of that Court dated 9-4-1943, made in its original jurisdiction decreeing the appellant's suit with costs. [2] The subject matter of this appeal is thirteen shares in the Tapti Valley Railway-Company Limited (which are hereinafter referred to as "the railway shares") which stood in the name of one Narsinglalji Maharaj (who is hereinafter referred to as "Narsing") in the share ledger of the said company for the years 1902-1904. [3] The only facts which it is necessary to state in order to explain the advice which their Lordships propose to tender to His Majesty are these: [4] Narsing died on 22-3-1903, leaving a widow, Shri Rukshmani Vahuji (hereinafter referred to as "Rukshmani") and a son by a former wife, Shri Goverdhanlalji Maharaj (hereinafter referred to as "Goverdhan"). On 2-9-1903, Rukshmani and Goverdhan ...

Kapalavayi Kasi Rama Rao and Another Vs. Kotta Venkataratnam

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC88

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 1-12-1943 which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, dated 31-3-l942. [2] The question in the appeal is whether certain property described in the plans to the plaint is the private property of the appellants or dedicated to the public for charitable purposes. On 27-6-1935, the respondent who was formerly in the employ of the original plaintiff, Kapilavi Mallayya (hereinafter called "the plaintiff") made an application by Original Petition No. 73 of 1935 to the District Judge of Guntur, under S. 3, Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 14 [XIV] of 1920, alleging that the said property was public charitable trust property and praying for a direction to the plaintiff to furnish particulars as to the nature and object of the trust, the value, condition and management and the application of the trust property and of its income. [3] On 29-11...

Joseph Connell Vs. the. King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC186

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leave from a conviction and sentence, on 9-10-1945, of the appellant by His Majesty's Criminal Court for the Island of Malta and its Dependencies (Sir George Borg C. J., and E. Ganado and W. Harding, JJ.) sitting with a jury, whereby the appellant was convicted of complicity in the wilful homicide of his wife, Carmela Connell, and was sentenced to death, under Arts. 43, 44 and 218 of the Criminal Laws for the Island of Malta and its Dependencies, which may be conveniently referred to as the Criminal Code. [2] The appellant was tried together with two other persons, namely John Connell the (appellant's brother) and Edward Burnell on an indictment charging John Connell and Edward Burnell with maliciously and with intent to kill causing the death of Carmela Connell, the appellant's wife, between 10th and 11-9-1944, and charging the appellant with commissioning and inciting the other two accused to commit the crime. The joint ...

Hamid Hasan Nomani Vs. Banwarilal Roy and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at fort William in Bengal, made on 19-7-1944. [2] On 14-6-1944, the High Court, on the application of the respondents, issued a rule nisi calling upon the appellant to show cause why an information in the nature of quo warranto should not be exhibited against him "astobywhatauthorityheisexercisingandperformingorclaimingtoexerciseorperformthepowersanddutieswhichmaybeperformedorexercisedbytheChairmanandtheCommissionersoftheHowrahMunicipality." By the said order of the 19-7-1944, the High Court made absolute the rule nisi. On 14-12-1944, the High Court ordered that the appellant's appeal to His Majesty in Council against the said order of 19-7-1944, be admitted. [3] The facts leading to the issue of the said orders of the High Court are simple. On 9-6-1944, His Excellency the Governor of Bengal, purporting to act under the powers conferred on him by R. 51F, Defence of India Rules, made an order superseding ...