Privy Council Court November 1949 Judgments

Narayan Jivaji Patil in Substitution for Shankar Dyamangouda, Patil, D ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 17th January 1938, which affirmed a judgment and decree, dated 23rd December 1936, of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. 2. The question for determination is one of limitation and their Lordships think is governed by a decision of the Board in a kindred case. The facts can be stated very shortly. There were three brothers, Nilkanth, Khandappa and Jivan, who were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mayuka school of Hindu law. Khandappa separated, but Nilkanth and Jivan continued joint. Nilkanth died in 1916 leaving an adopted son who married Tungava. The adopted son died in 1919, and Tungava adopted Dattatraya, who died on 6th February 1920. Jivan died in 1915, and his widow in 1919 adopted Narayan, who attained his majority in March 1920. The adoption of Narayan, as the law was then understood in Bombay, was invalid, since the adoptive mot...

Chandu Lal Agarwalla and Another Vs. Khalilur Rahaman and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD SIMONDS: In this appeal, which is brought ex parte from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Jalpaiguri, it is necessary for their Lordships to deal only with one of the many questions which have in the course of the proceedings been debated in the Courts of India. Upon all other questions it has been properly conceded by learned counsel for the appellants that the judgments under appeal cannot seriously be challenged. 2. The single question argued before the Board was as to the validity of the plea raised by the appellants that the claim of the plaintiffs in the present suit to be lawful heirs of one Safiquddin, who died intestate on 11th March 1924, was res judicata in a previous suit, namely Suit no. 1 of 1922 which had been heard and determined by the Subordinate Judge of Jalpai-on 23rd August 1924. If that plea was valid, there was no question but that the appeal must succeed:...

Nagarmel and Others Vs. Bajranglal and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC15

LORD SIMONDS: This appeal is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna of 8th February 1944, which affirmed (save for a certain modification in regard to interest) a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur of 9th November 1938. 2. At all relevant times the appellants carried on business as traders at Sambalpur as a Hindu joint family under the name and style of Ramanand Ganpatrai. Appellant 1 was the managing member ; appellants 2 and 3 are his nephews and appellant 4 is the son of appellant 3. 3. The respondents are the sons and heirs of one Thanduram, who was plaintiff 1 in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises bat has since died. At all relevant times these three persons carried on business as a Hindu joint family as dealers in rice and money-lenders at Bambalpur under the name and style of Thaanduram Bajranglal. 4. It is not disputed that between these two firms there had been prior to 8th November 1934, a course of comm...

Ramkrishna Krishnarao Kulkarni Vs. Ramchandra Shriniwas Kulkarni and O ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC20

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 23rd March 1943, allowing the respondents' appeal against a judgment and, decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar dated 27th July 1940. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed on 10th January 1936, by the appellant as plaintiff in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar wherein be claimed as the adopted son of one Krishnaji to be entitled to a half share of the coparcenary property described in the schedules to the plaint. 3. The facts giving rise to the suit are these Shrinivas and his two sons Ramachandra, who was defendant 2 in the suit and is respondent 1 in this appeal, and Krishnaji were members of an undivided joint Hindu family. Ramchandra had two sons who are respondents 2 and 3, and a daughter who is respondent 4. Krishnaji died on 6th January 1930, leaving a widow, Radhabai, but no issue. On 16th December 1932, Radhaba...

Dhondu Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC30

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated 4th November 1947, whereby the High Court allowed an appeal against the acquittal of the appellant by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Buldana on 11th June 1947, on a charge of murder. The High Court convicted the appellant of murder and sentenced him to transportation for life. At the conclusion of the argument their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal be dismissed and they now give their reasons. 2. Special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted because it was suggested that the High Court had failed to give proper weight to the views expressed by the Board in the case of Sheo Swarup v. Emperor, 61 IA 398 : (AIR (21) 1934 PC 227 : 36 Cr. LJ 786). In that case the Board rejected the view which had prevailed in some High Courts in British India that in appeals against acquittal the powers of a High Cour...

Basangouda Vs. Yellappagouda

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC24

LORD SIMONDS: This appeal which is brought from a judgment and decree, dated 31st March 1938, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, raises a question which has become increasingly familiar to their Lordships in recent years; it is whether the appellant is entitled to a share in certain joint family property, in respect of which he claims to be entitled to a half share with the respondent. 2. The facts are not now in dispute. One, Jammangouda, had three sons, Danappagouda, Doddakallangouda and Sannakallangouda. The first of these sons, Danappagouda, who died in 1872 had a son, Shiddangouda, who died in 1878, having married one Neelavva. She adopted to her late husband Basangouda, who was the plaintiff in the suit and is the present appellant. 3. The second son, Doddakallangouda, died in 1899, and he drops out of the picture altogether. 4. The third son, Sannakallangouda, died in 1898. He had a son, Shankargouda, who died in 1918, having married one, Yamnavva. She adopted in the yea...

Sanmukhsingh and Another Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC31

LORD SIMONDS: Their Lordships, having at the conclusion of the hearing intimated that they would humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss this appeal, now give their reasons. 2. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Chief Court of Sind, in its Appellate Criminal Jurisdiction, dated 18th July 1945, which summarily dismissed the appeal of the appellants from the conviction and sentences passed on them on 24th March 1945, by a Judge of the said Court, exercising Sessions Court jurisdiction, who, in accordance with the majority verdict of a jury, found (1) both of them guilty of being parties to a criminal conspiracy to cheat one Rochiram Asoomal Canser (S. 120B read with S. 420, Penal Code); (2) the first appellant guilty of having, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged two documents (referred to in the Record as exs. A and b) purporting to be an agreement in duplicate executed at Lahore by a fictitious person called Dr. S. C. Rao, described therein as "General Manager...

T.A. Menon Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC19

LORD REID: In 1934 the appellant was appointed to the Indian Civil Service. During 1943 he was employed as Additional District Magistrate at Midnapore and while so employed he was concerned in the investigation of a charge of bribery against Dr. Panda a sub-assistant surgeon of the Bengal Nagpur Railway. While the case against Dr. Panda was still under investigation the appellant was transferred from Midnapcre and he went to Calcutta where he stayed for a time. It was alleged that on 20th December 1943, while in Calcutta he received a bribe from Dr. Panda and he was suspended. On 6th July 1945, the following Order was made by the Governor of Bengal: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) (b) and sub-s. (2) of S. 197, Criminal P. C. (Act V [5] of 1898) the Governor is pleased to accord sanction to the prosecution of Mr. T. A. Menon of the Indian Civil Service under suspension in respect of (a) an offence under S. 161, Penal Code. (b) an offence under S. 165, Penal Code. (c)...