Privy Council Court April 1948 Judgments

The English and Scottish Joint Co - Operative Wholesale Society Ltd. V ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD NORMAND: The appellant, a society incorporated in the United Kingdom under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, submits to review in this appeal a judgment of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal in a reference made under S. 28 (1), Assam Agricultural Income - tax Act, 1939. By that judgment the High Court answered in the affirmative a question of law submitted by the Board of Agricultural Income - tax in relation to the assessment of the appellant for the year 1939 - 40. The question is "whether the society is chargeable to Assam Agricultural Income - tax in respect of the cultivation and/or manufacture of tea at its Decakiajuli Estate in the Province of Assam, and sold to its members." The question is neither grammatical nor intelligible as it stands, and the statement of facts omits to state some of the facts regarded by the parties as material for the decision of the question which the Board seems to have intended to submit. [2] That question emerges clearly ...

Naim Molvan, the Owner of the Motor Vessel 'asya Vs. the Attorney - Ge ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Simonds: This appeal is brought by Naim Molvan, the owner of the motor vessel "Asya", from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Palestine, sitting as a Court of Civil Appeal at Jerusalem, which dismissed an appeal from an order of the District Court of Haifa, whereby that Court upon the application of the Attorney - General of Palestine under the provisions of S. 12, Immigration Ordinance, 1941, confirmed and ordered the forfeiture of the said vessel to the Government of Palestine. [2] The facts of the case are not in dispute. On 27 - 3 - 1946, the "Asya" was sighted by a British destroyer, H. M. S. "Chequers", on the high seas some 100 miles south west of Jaffa. She was flying no flag when first sighted but later hoisted a Turkish flag. Then the destroyer hailed her and asked her destination by signal to which she made no reply. A boarding party of 18 persons was sent from the destroyer and when it arrived on the ship the Turkish flag was hauled down and the Zionist flag was hoiste...

Nuzha Bint El-haj Suleiman Abu Khadra Vs. Haj Ibrahim Saleh El-helou a ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC45

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Palestine sitting as a Court of Appeal, Jerusalem, dated 30th January 1945, dismissing the appellant's appeal from a judgment of the Land Court, Jaffa, dated 23rd July 1944. [2] The appeal arises out of an action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land entered into between the appellant and respondent . [3] The Land Court, Jaffa, ordered specific performance of the contract in favour of respondent 1. [4] The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. [5] The only question arising for consideration before the Board is whether the appellant's appeal was filed out of time. [6] The Civil Procedure Rules, 1938, applicable to the case provide as follows: "Rule 207-The decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced or entered. Rule 321-The period within which notice of appeal against any decree .., may be lodged shall be- (a) 30...

Neelangouda, Adoptive Father, Limbangouda Patil Vs. Ujjangouda, Adopti ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 12 - 11 - 1942, affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge at Dharwar dated 26 - 6 - 1940. [2] The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant for a declaration inter alia that he is the validly adopted son of one Limbangouda deceased, and has thereby acquired the right to recover possession of one half share in the suit properties which are in the possession of defendant - respondent 1. The factum of adoption though raised in the issues was abandoned at an early stage, and does not arise for decision. [3] Only two questions remain for decision before the Board, these being: (1) Has the appellant by virtue of his adoption acquired the right to recover possession of one half share in the suit properties? (2) Had defendant - respondent 2, the adoptive mother of the appellant, lost her right to adopt to her husband in view of the maintenan...

Albert West Meads Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: This is an appeal, by the leave of the Federal Court of India, against the judgment of the Federal Court dated 20 - 11 - 1944, dismissing the appellant's appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 24 - 4 - 1944, whereby the said High Court dismissed the appellant's petition praying for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for his release from imprisonment. The appellant had been sentenced by Field General Court - Martial to be cashiered and to undergo two years' imprisonment with hard labour. [2] The appellant was, at the date of his conviction by Court - Martial, an officer of His Majesty's Forces, holding the temporary rank of Major in the Royal Engineers. He had enlisted in the United Kingdom in October, 1939, and had subsequently been commissioned and posted to India in the Royal Engineers in 1940. At the time, of the events which gave rise to his trial by Court - Martial, the appellant was attached to a unit of the Indian ...

Abdul Razaq Vs. Ali Bakhsh and Another

Court: Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 12th July 1944 which affirmed a judgment and decree of the Commercial Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, dated 28th June 1941. [2] Leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted by the High Court on the ground that substantial questions of law were involved. The only question of law which appears to arise is whether the father of respondent 2 who was mutwalli of a wakf, had power to appoint respondent 2 as his successor. The respondents have not appeared on the appeal but counsel for the appellant has placed before the Board the relevant arguments on both sides. [3] The facts giving rise to the appeal can be stated shortly. In the year 1855 one Sheikh Mohammad Taqi made a will by which, so far as relevant, he gave one - third of his property in charity and appointed Qutab - ud - Din as his executor. In or about the year 1872, Qutab - ud - Din received a sum of Rs. ...

Bharat Raj Vs. B. Parshottam Das and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1948PC204

Lord MacDermott: These are consolidated appeals from two orders of the Board of Revenue, United Provinces, Allahabad, dated 5th January 1943, and 28th August 1943, dismissing appeals from orders of 29th July 1949, and 19th April 1943, respectively, passed by the Additional Collector of Benares in a matter arising from an application by the respondents under S. 4, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 (hereinafter called the Act of 1934) and continued under that Act and the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act of 1940). [2] On 13th January 1932, one Har Kishan Das mortgaged certain lands to the appellant to secure a debt of Rs. 1,78,500. The mortgagor was the manager and head of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his sons and grandsons, and the mortgaged property, the subject of this appeal, was and has remained the property of this joint family. [3] In 1935, after the death of the mortgagor, the appellant instituted a suit against the then surviving members...

Mangibai Gulabchand and Another Vs. Suganchand Bhikamchand and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD NORMAND: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay reversing a judgment of the First Class Sub - Judge Thana. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff (now respondent 1) is entitled as an adopted son to a half - share and partition of certain joint family property in the Thana district, Bombay. The only question now in issue is whether the adoption of respondent 1 by respondent 2, the widow of one Bhikamchand, a member of the joint family, is valid. The Sub - Judge held it invalid because it was made without the consent either of the adopter's deceased husband or of the nearest male member of his family, his brother Gulabchand, whose heirs are the present appellants. The High Court held that the adoption was valid notwithstanding the absence of these consents. [2] The joint family are Marwari Jains of the Visa - Oswal community. The family migrated some generations ago from Jodhpur state to the Thana district. The two brothers, Gulabchand and Bhikamchan...

Beli Ram and Brothers and Others Vs. Chaudri Mohammad Afzal and Others

Court: Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 29 - 1 - 1945, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Lahore, dated 31 - 1 - 1942. [2] The question in the appeal relates to the validity of a deed of wakf or wakfnama, executed on 29 - 10 - 1917, by Ghulam Rasul. The respondents 1 - 4, the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises, are descendants of the wakif and claim a declaration that the wakf is valid and that alienations of the wakf property made by the wakif, and after his death by his sons, are null and void. The appellants, defendants in the suit, claim under such alienations or some of them. [3] The questions which arise for decision are: 1. Whether the present suit is barred by res judicata under S. 11, Civil P. C.? 2. If not, whether the deed of wakf of 29 - 10 - 1917, was an effective dedication of the property comprised therein as wakf, or was a mere pape...

Gouri Dutt Maharaj Vs. Sukur Mohammed and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD MACDERMOTT: This appeal is from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Port William in Bengal (Mukberjea and Pal JJ.) dated 27 - 8 - 1942 which substantially varied the judgment and decree, dated 24 - 11 - 1939, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol in a mortgage suit brought by the present appellant as mortgagee. [2] The facts material to the issues now calling for determination may be stated as follows - On 15 - 11 - 1931, Sheikh Sukur Mohammad, the first named respondent (hereinafter called the mortgagor), obtained a lease of some three - fifths of an acre in the town of Asansol for 3 years at a rent of Rs. 12 per month and with a right of renewal. The mortgagor proceeded to construct a cinema on this plot and, falling short of funds, took into partnership Oscar Gerald Birt and Pramatha Nath Mukherjee (hereinafter called the new partners) who were, it appears, the predecessors - in - title of the respondents other that the mortgagor. This transaction was effected...