Privy Council Court June 1947 Judgments

Mt. Jaggo Bai Vs. Hari Har Prasad Singh and Another

Court: Privy Council

LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: This is an appeal, by one of the two defendants in an action, from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the present appellant was ordered to pay to the plaintiff in the action, the respondent Rai Bahadur Hari Har Prasad Singh (hereafter called the "respondent") the sum of Rs. 26,000, with interest thereon at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum from 16-12-1928, down to the date of payment. The other person named as a respondent, Seth Beni Chand, is not before their Lordships' Board and no question arises as to him. [2] The relevant facts are as follows: On 18-2-1921, one Babu Bindeshwari Prasad executed a mortgage of a village called Nayagaon in favour of the appellant and her son Seth Beni Chand to secure a total sum of Rs. 60,000 with interest. On 16-12-1928, the appellant signed a document whereby, after referring to the mortgage of 18-2-1921, she stated: "I, the executant, myself paid the entire amount of debt from my own pocket. As I...

Amar Nath Ghosh, Appellant Vs. Sukhraj Rai and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC213

LORD SIMONDS: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna of 18-12-1942, which dismissed the appellant's appeals and allowed certain cross-objections of the respondents from a judgment and mortgage decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur on 8-4-1940. [2] The relevant facts can be very shortly stated. The respondents are members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. The appellant's father had from the year 1918 onwards, from time to time borrowed substantial sums from the respondents. The first loan was on 10-7-1918, in the sum Rs. 51,000. Ultimately on the 19-5-1930, a mortgage bond was given by the appellant's father to cover not only all previous loans, but a large sum which was then freshly borrowed. This bond carried interest at the rate of Rs. 7-8-9 per cent. per annum with annual rests. [3] It is necessary to refer only to two provisions of the mortgage deed. It provided that the due date of paymen...

Sohan Singh Vs. Governor-general in Council

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1947PC178

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated 30-9-1943, varying a decree of the Court of the District Judge of Rawalpindi, dated 15-5-1941. The appeal arises in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 [I] of 1894). The question at issue is as to the title to the land upon which stands bungalow. No. 160 (formerly No. 56 and later No. 105) in Rawalpindi Cantonment. The appellant claims that he is the owner, not only of the bungalow, but of the land upon which it stands, whilst the respondent claims that the land was held by the appellant on Cantonment tenure under which the respondent was entitled to resume possession at any time upon giving a month's notice, and upon payment to the occupier of the value of the buildings upon the site, and that that right has been duly exercised. The respondent claims to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act only the bungalow. [2] On 15-6-1935, the appellant had granted to the Secretary of...

Malik Damsaz Khan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab and N.W.F. Pr ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD SIMONDS: The substantial question raised in this appeal which is brought from the judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North West Frontier Province, is whether an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Rawalpindi Range, of 18th January 1942, imposing on the appellant a penalty of Rs. 14,000 under S. 28, Income-tax Act 1922, as amended up to the relevant date, is a valid order. [2] The question arises in this way. The appellant during the years 1937 and 1938 carried on business as a supply contractor at Bannu in the North West Frontier Province, supplying livestock, wood and vegetables to the military units stationed in Waziristan. On 13th April 1938 a notice was sent to him under S. 22 (2) of the Act requiring him to furnish on or before 13th May 1938, a return for the year 1938-1939 of his income for the previous year 1937 1938. He did not do so. After two attempts to serve him with notice under S. 22 (4) of the Act to produce accounts or documents had fail...

Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Hormusji Manekji

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (N. J. Wadia and Sen JJ.) dated 8-8-1940, in a Letters Patent appeal, confirming a judgment and decree of a single Judge of that Court, Wassoodew J. dated 11-4-1938, in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, whereby a decree of the District Judge, Ahmedabad, dated 8-10-1934, was set aside, and the respondent's suit was, for the main part, decreed. The decree of the District Judge had confirmed a decree of the 1st Class Sub-Judge of Ahmedabad, dated 24-10-1933, under which the respondent's suit was dismissed. [2] On 13-10-1931, the respondent brought the present suit against the appellant praying for a declaration that the appellant was not entitled to recover from the respondent any assessment of certain land, of which the respondent was registered occupant, in excess of the amounts payable by him under agreements dated respectively 25-7-1906, 13-2-1915, and 21-12-1924, for repaymen...