Privy Council Court July 1948 Judgments

Chandra Kishore Tewari and Others Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Lucknow i ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC207

Datee of decision: 28/07/1948(Part I) and 01/02/1949 (Part II). PART I: Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Full Bench of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 10th May 1846, which, on appeal by the defendant, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow dated 21st March 1940. After the appeal had been filed in the Privy Council respondent 2 was made a party. [2] The appeal relates to the right of succession to a taluqa known as the Sissendi Estate and to other moveable and immovable non-taluqa properties left by Raja Chandra Shekhar and his widow Rani Subhadra Kuer. [3] The main question for decision is whether the adoption of respondent 2 by the late Rani Subhadra Kuer after the death of her husband is a valid adoption. [4] The following genealogical table will explain the relationship of the parties. Pedigree No. 1 is the pedigree of the Taluqdars of Seasendi (Sessendi Pedigree), and Pedigree No. II is the pedigree of the fami...

Walli Mohammad and Another Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC103

Lord Porter: In this case, their Lordships have already stated that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the verdict of murder recorded against the two appellants could not stand and that they should be acquitted of the charge made against them. At the same time, their Lordships indicated their intention to set out the grounds for tendering such advice. In fulfilment of which promise they now give their reasons. [2] The two appellants were jointly accused of murdering one Lachmi Prasad on 8th September 1945. Undoubtedly, Lachmi Prasad was murdered on that day, but the only direct evidence adduced by the prosecution against the prisoners was that contained in six statements made to the police by Walli Mohammad and six separate statements made by Ali. The statements were taken between the 9th and the 19th September and in those made by himself each of the accused gave contradictory accounts of his movements on the evening and night of the 8th and 9th September. Each began by denying...

Samuel Seward Toddings Vs. Edmund Graham Gibbons

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC30

Lord MacDermott: This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of Bermuda (C. Brooke Francis, C. J.) made on 27th October 1947, for a new trial of an action for damages for libel brought by the respondent against the appellant. [2] The respondent is the proprietor of a number of shops and stores in Bermuda and elsewhere. At one of these establishments known as "Gibbons Company" and situated in Queen Street in the City of Hamilton, he carried on business as a retailer of footwear and other goods. The appellant was at all material times the proprietor and publisher of a daily newspaper circulating in Bermuda called the "Mid-Ocean news". The words complained of by the respondent in his action appeared in the issue of this newspaper of 20th January 1947. They took the form of an editorial which is fully set out in the Statement of Claim. It reads thus : "THE GOLDEN RULE IN BUSINESS Being strongly opposed to misleading advertising, not only because it is unethical but because we beli...

The Union Trustee Co. of Australia Ltd. Vs. Lena Ethel Bartlam and Oth ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC62

Lord Simonds: This appeal by the Union Trustee Company of Australia, Ltd., which will be called "the Trustee Company," from a judgment of the High Court of Australia raises a question of some importance upon the construction and effect of S. 17, Victorian Trustee Companies Act, 1928. [2] The relevant facts are not in dispute. [3] Robert Ernest de Little, who was domiciled in the State of Victoria, died on 1st October 1926, having by the joint effect of his will dated 30th July 1924, and a codicil thereto dated 17th December 1925, appointed the respondents Ethel Ludlow de Little, his wife, and John Ernest de Little, his son, and the Trustee Company to be executors and trustees thereof. They duly proved his will on 24th February 1927, in the State of Victoria. [4] It is unnecessary to state the terms of the will beyond saying that the testator bequeathed his residuary estate upon trusts (through the medium of a trust for sale with a power to postpone it) under which the respondents took...

Balasubramania Raghunatha Rangaswami Singapuliar Vs. S.T. Nagappa Chet ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC25

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22nd March 1945, which varied a judgment and order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore dated 15th December 1942. [2] The only matter for consideration in the appeal is the correctness or otherwise of the accounts of a receiver as a preliminary to his discharge following upon the final determination of the dispute between the parties to the litigation. 3 It is well established that in matters relating to accounts the Board will determine any question of principle involved but will not consider mere items of account : see Practice Note in 69 IA 172. The present appeal appears to involve no question of principle. [4] The original respondent 1, S. T. Nagappa Chettiar (hereafter referred to as "the receiver"), who has died pending the hearing of this appeal, was originally appointed receiver in the year 1924. The suit in which he was so appointed raised the question o...

The Bank of Bihar Ltd., Vs. Sarangdhar Singh and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC8

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 20-4-1942 which set aside an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Patna, dated 29-11-1941 dismissing a petition of the respondents under S. 47, Civil PC. [2] The appeal arises in an execution proceeding of the money decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Patna, in money suit No. 5 of 1939, dated 22-8-1940. [3] The appellant before the Board is the decree-holder (plaintiff) the Bihar Bank Limited. The respondents are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. [4] The order passed by the Subordinate Judge in the suit was as follows : "Suit decreed against defendant 3 in the presence of defendants 4 to 6.....The suit is dismissed as against defendants 1 and 2 with costs. . . ." [5] In the execution of the decree which was for Rs. 15,718-7-0 with interest and costs, one-third share in certain joint family property called the Khadga Vilas Press held to belong to ...

Muthuswami thevar Vs. Chidambara thevar

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC18

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 12th January 1945, reversing a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad dated 11th August 1943. [2] By an Order in Council dated 19th February 1946 the appellant was granted special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, leave to appeal having been refused by the High Court on the ground that the case did not fulfil the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure as to value. On the hearing of this appeal the respondent took the preliminary objection that the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal did not amount to Rs. 10,000 and that leave to appeal should not have been given. The respondent had appeared on the petition for leave to appeal when the question of value was fully debated. The Order in Council did not reserve liberty to the respondent to raise this matter again at the hearing, and in their Lordships' opinion the preliminary objection i...

Maharaja of Pittapuram Vs. Province of Madras

Court: Privy Council

Lord Normand: These are consolidated appeals from three decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Madras affirming three decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coconada in suits instituted by the appellant, the Maharaja of Pittapuram, against the respondent, the Province of Madras, in which he claimed the ownership of certain alluvial islands called "lankas" in the bed of the river Godavari. [2] The facts of the case may be conveniently stated at this stage in broad outline. On 5-5-1803, a sanad or deed of permanent property was granted by Lord Clive, then Governor-in-Council of Fort St. George, to the appellant's predecessor- in-title, settling in perpetuity the assessment of the zamindari of Pittapuram and authorising the appellant's predecessor-in-title to hold the zamindari in perpetuity to his, heirs successors and assigns on condition of his performing certain stipulations specified in the deed and the duties of his allegiance to the British Government. The sanad did n...

Shrinivasrao Vs. Vinayakrao

Court: Privy Council

Lord Simonds: These consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur arise out of two suits brought by the respondent claiming a share of the income of certain Jahagir villages which are registered in the name of the appellant and they reveal a conflict of judicial opinion upon a matter of substantial importance in Berar. [2] Before stating the facts which are peculiar to this case it will be convenient to refer briefly to the background of history and law in which they are set. [3] By a Treaty made in the year 1853 the territory of Berar was ceded by the Nizam of Hyderabad to the British Crown. At once (as was contemplated by the Treaty) the work began of investigating claims, briefly to be called Jagir and Inam claims, to hold lands free of revenue under or by virtue of sanads granted by the Nizam or his ministers and it may be regarded as significant that the Government of India deemed it necessary in view of the fact that conditions in ...

Mustafa Ali Khan Vs. the Commr. of Income-tax, U. P. Ajmer and Ajmer- ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Simonds: This consolidated appeal results from the consolidation of four appeals from the Chief Court of Oudh, all of which relate to assessments of income-tax under the Income tax Act, 1922. [2] Two appeals relate to the income of Raja Mustafa All Khan of Utraula, who will be referred to as "the assessee," for the year of assessment 1939-40 and two appeals to his income for the year of assessment 1940-41. ln each case there is one appeal by the assessee and one by the Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces, who will be referred to as "the Commissioner." The same questions are raised in regard to each year and it will be necessary to state and consider the facts in regard to one year only. [3] By an assessment order dated 18-9-1939, the Income-tax Officer, Gonda, made an assessment for the year 1939-40 on the assessee which included as income from "other sources" (as defined in S. 12 of the Act) three separate items as follows : (1) Forest: Rs. 25,144. (a) Malikana: Rs. 6,96...