Privy Council Court March 1948 Judgments

Gurunatharudhaswami Guru Shidharudhaswami Vs. Bhimappa Gangadharappa D ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC214

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 31 - 8 - 1939, affirming a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Dharwar, dated 5 - 8 - 1937. [2] The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent and three others under S. 92, Civil P. C., for a declaration that a certain institution known as Shri Sidha Arndha Swami Math was a public trust of a religious or charitable nature, for the framing of a scheme in connection with the institution, and for the removal of the appellant from his position as the head of the institution on the ground that he is unfit to occupy that position, and for consequential relief. The Shri Sidha Arudha Swami Math would be more accurately described as a Temple than as a Math, but it has been referred to as a Math throughout the proceedings, and will in this judgment be called "the Math." [3] The facts relating the the foundation of the Math and the acquisition of the properties belongin...

Raja of Venkatagiri Vs. Sri Krishnayya Rao Bahadur, Zamindar

Court: Privy Council

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree dated 3rd March 1941, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which in its appellate jurisdiction, affirmed a judgment and decree dated 27th April 1939, of the same High Court in its original jurisdiction. [2] The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by plaintiff 1 to enforce payment of money due under a promissory note dated 29th March 1933, executed by the respondent in his favour for Rs. 1,50,000 which with interest amounted to Rs. 1,58,725 at the time of the suit. By this instrument the respondent promised to pay on demand a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at 2 per cent, per annum, "in consideration of the amounts advanced from time to time for the Gollaprole litigation." [3] The only question for decision in the appeal is whether the promissory note is supported by "consideration." The High Court in its original jurisdiction as well as on appeal answered the question in the negative. The questi...

The High Commissioner for India and Another Vs. I.M. Lall

Court: Privy Council

LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Federal Court of India dated 4 - 5 - 1945, Which varied a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 27 - 3 - 1944. [2] The respondent, who had been a member of the Indian Civil Service since 1922, instituted the present suit on 20 - 7 - 1942, against the Secretary of State for India, challenging the validity of an order by the latter dated 10 - 8 - 1940, which purported to remove the respondent from the Indian Civil Service. 3 The Secretary of State for India was the original appellant in this appeal, but, after the hearing before this Board in July last, the Indian Independence Act, 1947, came into operation on 15 August 1947. By S. 15 (1) of the Act, the present appeal by the Secretary of State was abated, and by S. 15 (2) the appeal was continued by the High Commissioner. By sub - s. (3) of that section, the expression "the High Commissioner" is defined for the purposes of the section. The High Com...

The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co - Operative Society Ltd. Vs. Government ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC207

Lord MacDermott: This is an appeal by the Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co - operative Society Limited (hereinafter called the Bank) and a cross - appeal (by special leave) by the Government of Palestine (hereinafter called the Government) from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Palestine (Edwards and Rose JJ.), sitting as a Court of Appeal, Jerusalem, dated 27 - 7 - 1944, which allowed in part an appeal by the Government from a decision of the Land Settlement Officer, Haifa, of 15 - 3 - 1943, concerning 'the ownership of a parcel of land in a locality known as Khirbet Yunis in the neighbourhood of the village of Tira. [2] In addition to the Bank and the Government there were 22 other parties to the suit who appear on the record as respondents. For reasons not now material they took no active part in the appeal and were not represented before the Board. [3] The events out of which the present dispute between the Bank and the Government arose may be shortly stated. In 1882 the Turkish Governm...

United Provinces Vs. the Lower Ganges - Jumna Electricity Distributing ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC159

LORD MORTEN OF HENRYTON: This is an appeal from a decree of a Divisional Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 22 - 8 - 1941 dismissing a petition presented by the appellant, in the course of the winding up of the respondent company, that the official liquidator might be ordered to pay certain bills delivered to him by the appellant and might be further directed to entertain and pay all future bills which might fall due under the provisions of cl. 9 of an agreement for the supply of electricity in bulk. The agreement in question was dated 24 - 7 - 1929 and was made between the Secretary of State for India in Council of the one part and Messrs, P. L. Jaitly and Co. therein called the "distributor," of the other part. It recited the grant of a distributing licence to the distributor, and provided for the bulk supply of electricity to the distributor in two districts in the United Provinces. Clause 9 of the said agreement provided as follows: "During the first and secon...

Joseph KleIn and Others Vs. Eliahu (Leo) Heiman and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC53

Lord Simonds: This appeal, which is brought from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Palestine reversing the judgment of the District Court of Tel Aviv, raises a number of questions, upon only one of which their Lordships think it necessary to express an opinion. They desire at the outset to emphasise this point in order to preclude the possibility of a plea of res judicata being raised by reason of their decision in respect of any other matter which may be in dispute between the parties. [2] The single question upon which their Lordships propose to express their views is whether the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were right in deciding that the case was not one in which a declaratory order should have been made by the District Court. [3] For the purpose of determining this question, they can state the relevant facts very shortly. The appellants as vendors and the respondents as purchasers on 3rd October 1937, entered into one or more contracts for the sale and purchase of certa...

Margaret Line Vs. the Electric Wire Co., of Palestine Ltd.

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC51

Lord Simonds: In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the Supreme Court, sitting as a Court of Appeal, Jerusalem, affirming the judgment of the District Court of Haifa, a number of questions have been raised which their Lordships do not think it necessary to discuss. They concur in the view of the Supreme Court that the appellant's case can be shortly disposed of and, agreeing as they do with that Court's reasons and conclusion, do not propose to examine at length facts and contentions which are not strictly relevant to the question now to be considered. [2] The respondent is a public company registered in Palestine in October, 1934. By Cl. 4 of its Memorandum of Association, its capital was L. P. 25,000 divided into 25,000 shares of L.P. 1 each. In April 1935, one of such shares had been issued to each of the eight subscribers to the Memorandum. [3] On 12th April 1935, the eight shareholders purported to pass a resolution which provided that of the unissued share capital o...

Ratti Ram and Sons (a Firm) Vs. Moti Lal and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC68

Lord Normand: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Allahabad reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge at Farrukhabad. The High Court granted decree to the respondents Moti Lal, Ram Kunwar and Kashi Prasad, against the appellants for rupees 10,994-11- 9 in name of damages with interest thereon, and made a declaration that these respondents were entitled to remain in possession as lessees of factory premises owned by the Indian Glass Factory Limited, who are the fifth respondents, until such time as they should be ejected by process of law. The original plaintiffs in the suit were Dwarka Prasad and the respondent Kashi Prasad. Dwarka Prasad died during the dependency of the suit and the respondents Moti Lal and Ram Kunwar were substituted in his place. It is not necessary for the purposes of the appeal to distinguish between the original and the present plaintiffs, and for the sake of brevity they will be called hereinafter the respondents; respondent 5 will be r...

Pethu Reddiar and Others Vs. Rajambu Ammal

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC97

LORD MACDERMOTT: The litigation from which this appeal arises was commenced on 20 - 4 - 1932, by one Somasundara Reddiar against some 18 defendants for the purpose of setting aside a power - of - attorney and 14 sale deeds all of which had been executed by Somasundara, the plaintiff, in favour of one or other of the defendants. The power - of - attorney was dated 21 - 9 - 1931. The sale deeds were executed on various dates ranging from 16 - 11 - 1931 to 5 - 3 - 1932. Somasudara sued as a person of unsound mind and a pauper, by his wife and next friend Rajambu Ammal, the present respondent, whom he had married in 1927 when he was about 17 years old. The relief sought was that all the documents mentioned should be set aside and possession given of the properties the subject of the sale deeds. In their substance the grounds of this claim were (1) that Somasundara was not of sound mind within the meaning of S. 12, Contract Act, 1872, at the dates of the transactions in question, and (2) th...

Peter Cosquieri Vs. Magdalena Formento and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC46

Lord Simonds: This appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, raises a short question of construction arising upon an obscure passage of the will of Angel Costa, a native of Gibraltar and British subject, who will be referred to as "the testator." [2] The testator, who died on 29th August 1945, was at his death possessed of certain premises known as 127, Main Street, Gibraltar, which consisted of a shop on the ground floor with living accommodation above. By a lease dated 18th June 1927, these premises had been leased to a firm named Cosquieri and Co., for a term of 14 years from 18th June 1927, at a rent of L 30 per month, the lessees paying in addition all Sanitary Purposes Rates and Water Rates which might during the term be assessed, charged or imposed upon the premises. After the term had expired the firm remained in occupation of the premises paying the said rent (subject to a wartime deduction pursuant to Ord. No. 20 of 1941) up to the death of t...