Privy Council Court July 1947 Judgments

Vathyam Balarama Sastri Vs. Vavilala Vasudeva Sastri

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC7

LORD SIMONDS: This appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur, raises a pure question of fact and it appears to their Lordships that the only matter for their consideration is whether the appellate tribunal was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Judge who had had the advantage, denied to it, of seeing and hearing the witnesses. 2. The suit in which this appeal is brought was instituted by the present respondent, who claimed against the present appellant to be entitled to two - thirds of the cash standing to the credit of one Vathyam Verri Janikamma, then lately deceased, at certain banks. This claim was based on an agreement made between the parties dated 7 - 3 - 1940, which in fact recorded a compromise arrived at between them for the settlement of outstanding disputes in relation to the estate of Janikamma. 3. The claim was resisted by the appellant on ...

Medapati Surayya and Others Vs. Tondapu Bala Gangadhara Ramakrishna Re ...

Court: Privy Council

MR. M.R. JAYAKAR: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 24 - 1 - 1944, of the High Court of Madras, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 17 - 12 - 1941, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Rajahmundry. 2. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by respondent 1 for partition of the plaint properties and for the recovery of a share therein, after setting aside certain alienations made in respect of them by his father, respondent 2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding the alienations to be binding on respondent 1. The High Court reversed his decision. The main question in this appeal is therefore whether or not the alienations in question are valid and binding on respondent 1. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: 4. The respondents are members of a Hindu joint family. Respondent 2 (defendant 1) is the father, and respondents 1 and 3 (plaintiff and defendant 2 respectively) are the sons. The family became indebted and respondent 2, as father and...

Bishan Singh (Deceased) Vs. Mahbub Ali and Another

Court: Privy Council

LORD SIMONDS: This is an appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore reversing a judgment of the Single Bench of the same Court which had affirmed an order of the Subordinate Judge at Amritsar. 2. The appeal presents a somewhat unusual feature in that it is necessary for their Lordships to determine an issue of fact without the advantage of a direct finding upon it by the Judge who saw and heard the witnesses. 3. The relevant facts appear to be as follows. In November 1935, B. Bishan Singh, the deceased appellant, now represented by his sons the present appellants, who will be referred to as "the decree - holder," agreed to sell to the respondents certain parcels of land for the sum of Rs. 19,600. Under the sale deed which was dated 10th January 1936, there was left unpaid the sum of Rs. 11,600, which was to be charged on the property and it was agreed that the whole sum with interest was to be paid off within 2 years. It was not so paid off, ...

Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan Vs. Mt. Motai and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North - West Frontier Province, dated 28th April 1941, affirming a judgment of the Additional Judge of Peshawar dated 17th January 1941, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Class, Mardan, dated 11th June 1937. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant against the respondents for possession of certain lands by redemption of a mortgage on paying the amount due upon the mortgages which is claimed to be Rs. 8. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, which are not in dispute, are as follows: The mortgage for the sum of Rs. 8 which the appellant seeks to redeem has not been produced, and there is no evidence that any written mortgage ever existed. The evidence that the respondents are in possession of the lands in suit as mortgagees consists of: (a) An entry in the Jamabandi (Register of owners holding) for the year 1885 -...

Khuda Bakhsh and Another Vs. Sardar Budh Singh and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC45

LORD MACDERMOTT: By a sale - deed dated 16th September 1940, the defendant - respondent, (Sardar Ajit Singh, purported to have sold to the appellants at the price of Rs. 26,000 certain agricultural land in the district of Shahpur. The plaintiff and respondent, Sardar Budh Singh, thereupon claimed a right of pre - emption in respect of this land and sued for possession. 2. The Subordinate Judge of Sargodha held in the plaintiff's favour and his decision was affirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore. It is from this affirmance that the defendants, other than Sardar Ajit Singh, now appeal. 3. The only issue for the determination of the Board is whether the land in question was subject to the right of pre - emption at the time material to the plaintiff's claim. 4. The custom of pre - emption in the Punjab, its nature, extent and procedure were dealt with comprehensively by the Punjab Pre - emption Act, 1905. This Act has now been repealed and replaced by the Punjab Pre - emption A...

Lachhman Das Vs. Commissioner of Income - Tax, Punjab, N.W.F. and Delh ...

Court: Privy Council

MR. M. R. JAYAKAR: This is an appeal under the provisions of S. 66a, Income - tax Act, 1922, from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 8th April 1944, delivered and passed on a reference made by the Income - tax Appellate Tribunal Punjab under S.66 (1), Income - tax Act, 1922 (Act 11 [XI] of 1922), as subsequently amended, and hereinafter referred to as "the Act." 2. The year of assessment concerned is 1938 - 1939. The question referred to the High Court by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the "tribunal") was as follows: "Whether in the circumstances of this case, there could be a valid partnership between Lachhman Das as representing a Hindu undivided family on the one hand and Daulut Ram, a member of that undivided Hindu family in his individual capacity, on the other ?" This question was decided by the High Court in the negative-thereby reversing the decision of the Tribunal dated 8th September 1942. 3. A Hindu named Tulsi Ram ha...

R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar and Another Vs. R. Chandrasekhara thevar

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC12

LORD SIMONDS: These are consolidated appeals by special leave from two orders of the High Court of Madras, both dated 27 - 1 - 1912, the first setting aside in appeal an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated 25 - 7 - 1938 and the second setting aside in revision an order of the same Subordinate Judge made on 9 - 2 - 1939. 2. The substantial question for decision in these appeals is whether the respondent is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (4 [IV] of l938) hereinafter referred to as "the Act." But the appellant has argued as a preliminary point that, assuming the respondent to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, the orders of the High Court which are under appeal were incompetent and that this appeal should succeed on that ground. It will be convenient to deal with this point first. 3. The facts relevant to the determination of this question are these : 4. On 15 - 9 - 1925, a final decree was passed in a mort...

K. Kochunni Alias Muppil Nayar Vs. K. Kuttanunni Alias Elaya Nayar and ...

Court: Privy Council

MR. M.R. JAYAKAR: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Madras dated 9th April 1943, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam dated 26th February 1938. 2. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents, who are Malabar Hindus, for a declaration that the properties in the possession of the appellant (original defendant I) were Tarwad or joint family properties belonging to the joint family consisting of the appellant and the respondents (original plaintiffs). The appellant is the head of a family, and original defendants II and III are members thereof, but as their interest coincided with that of the plaintiffs they were transposed as plaintiffs x and XI. The appellant is in possession and control of certain properties, to which the plaintiffs' claim is related. The appellant denied the claim and asserted that the properties appertained to his Sthanam (sometimes spelt as Stanom) and belonged to him ex...

Mohammad DIn and Others Vs. Imam DIn and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC33

Lord Simonds: This appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore affirming a decree and judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Lyallpur raises questions of some importance in regard to the powers of the executive authorities under the Colonisation of Government Lands Act of 1912. 2. The facts are simple and not in dispute. The lands in question in the case, which are situated in the district of Lyallpur, were at some date not made known to their Lordships granted under the Colony Act, 1893, to one Mokham on what is described as the usual colony tenancy. He died and was succeeded by a son named Jhanda who died without issue and was in turn succeeded by his mother Mt. Hayat Bibi, the widow of Mokham. At some date, which also does not clearly appear, the widow made an oral gift of the land to her son Imam Din. If she had full proprietary rights, she was competent to do so. Her competence has been challenged by the appellants all of whom are collaterals o...

Paul Couvreur and Another Vs. M.G. Shapiro

Court: Privy Council

LORD NORMAND: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Palestine allowing an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Jerusalem and inter alia decreeing for payment of 3,100 against the appellants. There is also a cross - appeal by the respondent, the purpose of which is to enable him to claim a larger sum than that awarded by the Supreme Court. [2] By an agreement dated 22 - 12 - 1934. as modified by subsequent letters of 12 and 24 - 1 - 1935, the appellant Father Couvreur (hereinafter called the appellant) on behalf of the second appellant agreed to sell to a nominee of the respondents certain land at Latrum in two parcels, one of 863 dunams or thereby at a price of P.13,823 or thereby, and the other of 148 dunams or thereby at a price of p.2,371 or thereby. A deposit of 2.000 was paid by the respondent, and the appellant agreed to accept the balance as follows: - p.5,000 on 1 - 6 - 1935, and p.1,000 monthly thereafter. The respondent was not able to fulfil hi...