Privy Council Court January 1949 Judgments

N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and Another Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowmen ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC156

Sir John Beaumont:: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 6th November 1944 which revised a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madras dated 7th August 1943. [2] The only matter which arises for determination in this appeal, and upon which special leave to appeal was granted, is whether the learned Judges of the High Court had any power to interfere in revision with the said order of the District Judge. [3] On 1st July 1907, one Narayana, the grand, father of the appellants, made a will by which he founded a temple and directed his male heirs to act as trustees of the temple. Narayana died in 1910, and in 1915 the family became divided. Thereafter each branch of the family managed the temple for one year in rotation. [4] In 1927, the Madras Hindu Endowments Act, 1926 (Act 3 of 1927) (hereinafter with its amendments referred to as the "Act") was passed. The Act authorised the creation...

Promode Kumar Roy and Others Vs. Nikhil Bhusan Mukhopadhya and Others

Court: Privy Council

Lord Morton of Henryton: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 15th June and 28th August 1945, which affirmed, subject to two modifications, the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Rangpur, of 21st July 1943. The appeal raises certain questions as to the true construction of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940 (Bengal Act, X [10] of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). [2] It is necessary to state the history of the case in some detail, in order to show how these questions arise, and it will be convenient to refer to respondents 1 to 7 and their predecessors-in-interest as "the mortgagors" and to respondent 8 as "the Bank." [3] On 10th February 1927, the mortgagors borrowed Rs. 1,20,000 from the Bank and executed a mortgage of the Tushbandar Estate to secure that sum, with compound interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, with half-yearly rests. The loan was repayable on 31st Decembe...

Sri Raja Yarlagadda Siva Rama, Prasad Bahadur Vs. Majeti Potharaju and ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC187

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 13th September 1944, which set aside the judgment and decree of the District Court of Kistna at Chilakalapudi, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the Court of the Deputy Collector, Bandar. [2] The defendant is the appellant before the Board, and the plaintiffs are the respondents. The latter do not appear before the Board, but Mr. Pringle the learned counsel for the appellant has stated all the necessary facts fully and fairly. [3] The appellant and the respondents will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant and the plaintiffs respectively. 4. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the three plaintiffs under S. 55, Madras Estates Land Act (I [1] of 1908) to compel the defendant to issue a "patta" to them in respact of about 35 acres 86 cents of land comprised in survey Nos. 205 and 63. The plaintiffs belong to a village situated in the esta...

Chief Kwame Asante Vs. Chief Kwame Tawia

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC171

Lord Simonds: This appeal, which is brought from the West African Court of Appeal, relates to the ownership of a considerable tract of land in the Kumasi State or Division of Ashanti, which is claimed on the one hand by the appellant the Chief Kwame Asante Tredehene on behalf of his Stool and on the other by the Chief Kwame Tawia on behalf of the Asafu (or Akwamu) Stool of Kumasi. The latter Chief was in the course of the proceedings substituted for his predecessor Chief Asafu Boakyi II Akwamuhene, by whom in the year 1936 they had been commenced. [2] The dispute, since it related to the ownership of land in the Kumasi State of Ashanti, was properly and solely cognisable by a Native Court, the Asantebene's Divisional Court, a Court of the "B" Grade, which was constituted under the Native Courts (Ashanti) Ordinance 1935 and will be referred to as "Court B." This Court, in which the Chief Asafu preferred his claim, on 1st April 1936 decided in his favour against the appellant. After an u...

Tumahole Bereng and Others Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC172

Lord MacDermott: This was an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Basutoland of 25th October 1947, whereby the seven appellants were convicted of the murder of one Katse Phatela on 25th December 1945, at Phatela's in the District of Qacha's Nek, and sentenced to death. [2] The case for the crown was that the killing of Katse was a ritual murder committed by ten persons for the purpose of obtaining human blood to be used by a witch-doctor named Molume Kaphe in connection with a dispute about land. Of these ten, the witch doctor died in gaol while awaiting trial and two others, Jan Gat and Maama Molahlehi, gave evidence for the prosecution. The remaining seven are the appellants. It is unnecessary to recite the evidence adduced at the trial in detail. At this stage, it will suffice to say that the Crown testimony in support of the, charge was to the effect that Katse was chosen by appellant 1 as the victim whose blood was required; that a feast previously arranged by appellant 1 w...

Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia and O ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC143

Sir Madhavan Nair: These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 3rd April 1941, confirming in the first appeal (A. No. 211 of 1938) the decree of the first class Subordinate Judge of Thana dated 30th April 1938, in suit No. 207/36 (hereinafter called the "Vile Parle suit" from the village to which it relates) and in the second appeal (A. No. 216 of 1938) reversing the decree of the same date of the said Subordinate Judge in suit No. 115/34 (hereinafter called the "Juhu suit" from the village to which it relates). [2] These appeals arise out of two suits which were brought against the Secretary of State for India now represented by the Province of Bombay, hereinafter called the Government (appellant in the first and respondent in the second of these appeals-defendant), by Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia (respondent 1 in the first of these appeals and appellant in the second Plaintiff 2) and the other trustees of a trust (plaintif...

Ranshah Bapu Vs. the Government of the Central Provinces

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC140

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated 28th August 1944, confirming a decree of the Additional District Judge, Chanda, dated 18th September 1939, and dismissing the appellant's suit. [2] The questions arising in this appeal are : (1) Whether the appellant has the right to levy bazar dues in Kurkheda market; (2) If not, whether the respondent is estopped from contesting such right. The Courts in India answered both questions in the negative. A question of limitation was also raised in India, but has not been raised before the Board. [3] The said market, held every Saturday, lies within the mauza of Kurkheda, which is a part of Palasgarh zamindari in Chanda District of the Central Provinces. The appellant is proprietor of the zamindari. In pre-British days the zamindars of Chanda District exercised a wide but ill-defined jurisdiction in different parts of the District subject to rendering tribute and services to the...

Hubert P. James Vs. Gulam HusseIn Pakseema

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC151

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed in its appellate jurisdiction dated 4th October 1945, in part reversing and in part confirming a decree of that Court passed in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction on 22nd December 1944. [2] The main question in this appeal is whether the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit, and the respondent, who was the defendant, were partners in a restaurant business, or whether the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff in the business entitled to a share of the profits as remuneration for his services. The appellant also claimed from the respondent a sum of over Rs. 8,000 alleged to be due in respect of food and other necessaries supplied to the respondent and his family from the business. This last claim failed in both the Courts in India and has not been raised before the Board. At the trial Bhagwati J. held that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff ; the...