Privy Council Court July 1947 Judgments

Mazhar HusaIn and Others Vs. Rao Bahadur Adiya Saran Singh

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC42

LORD UTHWATT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 8 - 9 - 1941, reversing in part a judgment and decree of the District Judge of Cawnpore dated 4 - 10 - 1934. 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the suit giving rise to this appeal. In it they claimed the removal of the respondent, defendant in the suit, from the trusteeship of certain properties alleged to be wakf properties and consequential relief. The respondent denied that any wakf was ever created. The only question at issue in the appeal is whether the subject of the wakf was, as found by the High Court, a mosque only or was, as found by the District Judge, a mosque, a grove and imambara and two villages endowed for the upkeep of the mosque, grove and imambara. The appellants' case is that a wakf extending to all these properties was created by Haidar Bakhsh. The following pedigree shows the relation between the persons who figure in the history of the matter : 3. ...

Attorney - General of Alberta Vs. Attorney - General of Canada and Ano ...

Court: Privy Council

Viscount Simon: In this matter consolidated appeals by the Attorney - General of Alberta and the Attorney - General of Canada respectively are brought before the Board from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta (Appellate Division) to which, by the Order of the Lieutenant - Governor in Council of Alberta, the question of the validity of 'The Alberta Bill of Eights Act' (chap. 2 of 1946) had been referred. The Supreme Court decided that Part II of the Act was invalid inasmuch as the Alberta Legislature had no power to make a law in relation to the subject of 'Banking' which is part of head 15 of the enumerated classes of subjects which S. 91, British North America Act, exclusively assigned to the Parliament of Canada. The Supreme Court also held that Part I of the Act was intra vires of the Alberta Legislature and did not pronounce that the Act was invalid as a whole. The reasons for the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta were given by Hirvey C. J. A., and were concurred in u...

Prem Singh Hyanki and Another Vs. Deb Singh Bisht and Another

Court: Privy Council

LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad setting aside a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Almora and dismissing with costs the suit of the appellants for the balance of the price of wool sold and delivered. 2. On 14th April 1931 a contract was entered into between appellant 1 and one Deb Singh, of part 1 and the respondents of part 2. The terms of the contract were as follows : "We (1) Prem Singh Deb Singh, residents of patti Chaundas, have kept 1085 maunds, 25 seers and 4 chhatacks of new wool which has been weighed, at Tanakpur at the shop of Ram Lal Munna Lal commission agents, 372 maunds and 12 chhatacks, 995 'phanchas' (bundles) of wool of last year at Tanakpur, at the commission agency shop and 717 maunds, 9 seers and 1 chhatack, 1857 bundles at Haldwani at the shop of Hardeo Das Mohar Singh. We (1) Prem Singh, Deb Singh have sold the entire wool mentioned above, i. e., 1085 maunds, 25 seers and 4 chhatacks of new...

A.R. Ramaswami Ayyar Vs. Hariram and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC23

LORD SIMONDS: In the proceedings, in which this appeal is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, the appellant's father as plaintiff claimed against a defendant since deceased, who is now represented by the respondents, an injunction to restrain him from entering upon certain land of the plaintiff and cutting the bund of a watercourse so as to interfere with his rights to water. All the facts which were necessary for the determination of the rights of the parties were clearly brought out in the trial of the case by the District Munsif at Ambasamudram and are fully narrated in his careful judgment. It is in their Lordships' opinion unfortunate that in the appellate Courts in India the real issue should have been allowed to be obscured by what was, as they think, a mistaken view as to certain passages in that judgment and particularly in regard to an admission which was thought to have been made by plaintiff's counsel in the course of the trial. 2.T...

N. Sankaranarayana Pillayan and Others Vs. the Board of Commissioners ...

Court: Privy Council

MR. M.R. JAYAKAR: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 30 - 4 - 1943, setting aside a decree of the District Court of Tinnevelly dated 7 - 3 - 1941, whereby in a suit instituted for that purpose by appellants 1 to 4 a scheme framed by the first respondent Board under S. 57, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Madras Act 2 [II] of 1927) for the proper administration of the Sri Papavinasaswami Temple at Papanasam (hereinafter referred to as "the Temple"), and of certain endowments (called kattalais) for special religious services therein, was substantially modified. 2. In explanation of the nature of the dispute in this case, it may be stated at the outset that in the temple (as in similar other temples in South India) there are, inter alia, four or five well - defined periods of daily worship, for the due performance of each of which an endowment or kattalai exists, the name of the particular kattalai being indicative of the period of worshi...

Premraj Vs. Mt. Chand Kanwar

Court: Privy Council

LORD NORMAND: The parties to this appeal are Jains of the Khandelwal sect domiciled and resident in Ajmer. The respondent is the sonless widow of a certain Ratanlal and on 22 - 5 - 1919, she executed a deed by which she adopted or purported to adopt the appellant to her deceased husband. After the execution of this deed the parties lived in the same house, but disagreements arose into which it is not necessary to enter. Finally, the present suit was commenced in November 1930. The appellant, founding on his adoption, sought inter alia to restrain the appellant (respondent?) from wasting the family property, and the respondent in her defences challenged the validity of the adoption and alleged that Ratanlal had never given her authority to adopt a son to him. This allegation was made because under the general Hindu law adoption by a widow without the prior authority of her husband is not recognised (Mulla, Edn 7, p. 516), and because it is also an established principle that the rules of...

Rani Munia and Another Vs. Surendra Bikram Singh

Court: Privy Council

LORD UTHWATT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow dated 15th October 1943, which partly reversed and partly affirmed a judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Malihabad, Lucknow, dated 9th April 1941. 2. The appeal arises out of proceedings brought by the appellants in which they claimed inter alia possession of three villages, Mohammadpur Saraiyan, Jam Khanwan and Agasar. The title to these three villages is now the only matter in dispute. The rights of the parties depend upon the true construction of a deed of family settlement dated 4th October 1923, the appellants contending that under it Bhagwan Bakhsh Singh was either entitled to these villages absolutely or was entitled to dispose of them by will, and the respondent contending that he had no such interest or power. 3 The Civil Judge held that Bhagwan Bakhsh Singh was absolutely entitled to the villages. The Chief Court held that he was entitled to a life interest only and had no p...

Rao Bhimsingh Vs. Shersingh and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated 3 - 10 - 1939, Reported in 27 AIR 1940 Nag. 278. which affirmed the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Nimar dated 7 - 9 - 1936, which in turn affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Khandwa, dated 19 - 2 -1936. 2.The appeal arises in execution proceedings in the following circumstances. In the year 1908, Rao Kishore Singh had instituted a suit against two widows to recover possession of an estate known as Bhamgarh -emindary. In that litigation Kishore Singh was claiming that the Estate was an impartible one and had descended upon him under the rule of primogeniture as the eldest male descendant of the last holder. His claim, if successful, would clearly operate for the benefit of an eldest son who might succeed him Kishore Singh obtained a decree in his favour from the trial Court, but the decree was reversed by the Court of the Judicial Comm...

Brijlal Ramjidas and Another Vs. Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria and Oth ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD DU PARCQ: On 17th July 1935, the two appellants, four of the five respondents, and one other person who is now represented by his heir, the fifth respondent, entered into a deed of partnership. The partnership business was "thatofactingasthemanagingagentsandsellingagentsoftheIndoreMalwaUnitedMillsLtd." and was to be carried on "at Indore or at such other place or places as the partners shall or may from time to time agree upon." An arbitration clause in the deed provided for the reference of disputes to arbitration "in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force." So far as appears from the Record, the business of the partnership was always carried on at Indore. [2] By the end of 1940 there were disputes between the partners which appear to have become the subject of public controversy, and on 17th December 1940, the seven partners referred their differences to the arbitration ...

Vellayan Chettiar and Others Vs. the Government of the Province of Mad ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD SIMONDS: This appeal, which is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, raises a question of some importance upon S. 80, Civil PC. [2] The suit in which the appeal is brought was instituted by two plaintiffs, Al. Ar. Vellayan Chettiar and Rao Bahadur, D.A.P., R. M. Arunachalam Chettiar against the respondents the Government of the Province of Madras and the Municipal Council of Karaikudi claiming to have set aside the decision of the Appellate Survey Officer in regard to certain land in Karaikudi village by declaring that such land belongs to them with other appropriate relief. [3] Plaintiff 1 died while this appeal was pending and is represented by appellant 3 A1. Ar. Kalairaja. [4] The decision of the Appellate Survey Officer having been given on 19-1-1935, notice was on 30-6-1936, given on behalf of plaintiff 1 only to the Collector of Madura claiming that that decision was erroneous...