Privy Council Court April 1947 Judgments

Srinivas Mall Bairoliya and Another Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

LORD DU PARCQ: The appellants were convicted on 4-11-1943 by the Deputy Magistrate of Darbhanga, under the Defence of India Rules relating to the control of prices and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and the sentences. Applications to the High Court of Patna for the revision of the judgment of the Sessions Judge were dismissed. The appellants obtained special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court to His Majesty in Council. [2] Srinivas Mall Bairoliya (hereafter called appellant 1) was at the material time acting as Salt Agent for part of the district of Darbhanga. He had been appointed to this office in October, 1942, by the District Magistrate. It was his duty to sell to licensed retail dealers the supplies of salt which were allocated by the central Government to his part of the Darbhanga District. Sitaram Prasad, who will be referred to hereafter as appellant 2, was employed by appellant 1, who had entrusted him wit...

Bhagwat Ram and Others Vs. Ramji Ram and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC140

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: These are consolidated appeals by the plaintiffs, defendants 2 and 5 from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna dated 8-5-1941, which varied a decree and judgment of the third Subordinate Judge of Patna dated 10-4-1937, decreeing the partition of the joint family property. [2] The appeals arise out of a suit for partition instituted by plaintiff 1 (hereinafter called the plaintiff), and his son, plaintiff 2, against defendant 1 (hereinafter called the defendant) and defendants 2 to 4, the other members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. Defendant 3 was a minor at the time of the suit but became a major subsequently. Defendant 5 was born more than 3 years after the suit began, and was made a party to the suit. [3] The following question's raised by the plaintiffs, defendants 2 and 5, respectively, in their appeals, arise for determination before the Board: (1) Whether items 27, 28, 59, valuable articles of jewellery, mentioned in the am...

Dalsukh M. Pancholi Vs. the Guarantee Life and Employment Insurance Co ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC182

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal by the plaintiff-appellant against a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated 29th March 1944, which reversed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Lahore, dated 30th November 1943, and dismissed the suit. [2] The appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of property situate in the town of Lahore, known as the "Cinema property." The agreement was executed by Ram Jas defendant 3 (respondent 4) for himself, and as proprietor, Pahlad Das and Bhagwan Das, in favour of the appellant through his broker Dina Nath Sodhi, and was dated 12th July 1942. The property was to be sold for Rs. 6,50,000. [3] The material terms of the agreement are found in the letter written by the broker to Ram Jas. The terms mentioned in that letter are as follows: 1. That the property will be conveyed to my customer free of all encumbrances, charges, liens, attachments and all other defects of ...

Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya Garu Vs. Province of Madras

Court: Privy Council

Appeal [No.35 of 1945], by special leave, from a judgment and decree of the High Court [Kunhi Raman J.] [November 19, 1942], which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Kistna [February 10,1940] which had affirmed a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada [November 18, 1937]. This appeal arose out of a suit brought by the appellant against the respondent for the repayment of water-cess charged and collected by the Government in respect of the suit lands. The sole question for determination was whether in the circumstances of the case the appellant had established that, by virtue of an engagement with the Government, he was entitled to irrigation free of separate charge to such an extent as to preclude the Government, under the first proviso to s. 1 of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act, 1865, as amended by later Acts, from charging the cess in question. The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. 1947. Mar. 17, 18....

Ghanta China Ramasubbayya and Another Vs. Moparthi Chenchuramayya, Min ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 22-4-1941, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, dated 31-1-1939. The plaintiffs are the appellants before the Board. The appeal arises out of a suit to set aside an adoption. The following genealogical table shows the relationship of the persons concerned in the appeal : [2] The parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law as administered in the Andhra country, in the Madras Presidency. Moparthi Venkayya, their common ancestor, had two sons, Perayya and Pitchayya. Pitchayya was divided from Perayya. The respondents are the descendants of Perayya while the appellants are the descendants of Pitchayya. Pitchayya, who had three wives, died in 1884, leaving surviving him a widow Pullamma and a daughter by his first wife, Punnamma (predeceased) who has two sons-the appellants before the Board. On 22-8-1937, Pullamma a...

Commissioner of Income-tax Central and United Provinces Vs. Mt. Bhagwa ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: This is an appeal by special leave by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces (hereinafter called "theappellant") from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 15-10-1940, passed on a reference made under S. 66 (2), Inncome-tax Act (11 [XI] of 1922) which set aside an Order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax dated 7-9-1938. [2] The assessee (hereinafter called "the respondent") was assessed to income-tax for the year 1935-1936 on the allowance of Rs. 12,000 per annum which she was receiving for maintenance as the widow of one Kalyan Singh. The tax payable comes to Rs. 875. [3] The question of law referred to the decision of the High Court was "Whether the sum of Rs. 1,000 per month received by the petitioner (meaning the respondent) in the account year 1934-1935 was received by her as a member of a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of S. 14 (1) of the Act." That section reads as follows : "The tax...