Privy Council Court June 1949 Judgments

Jadunath Roy and Another Vs. Kshitish Chandra Acharjya Choudhury and O ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, dated 29th June 1944, affirming, with certain variations, the order, dated 25th August 1941 and the decree dated 10th May 1943 - in Misc. Case No. 18/40 - passed by the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. [2] The appeal arises from a petition made by the respondents for re-opening certain mortgage decrees obtained by the appellants respectively on 4th April 1929, 13th September 1929 and 13th December 1937 (in Title Suit No. 121 of 1927). The right to re-open the decrees was claimed under S. 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act (Bengal Act x[10] of 1940) herein referred to as "the Act". [3] The material provisions of S. 36 of the Act are these: "36. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if in any suit to which this Act applies. . . the Court has reason to believe that the exercise of one or more of the powers under this section will give relief to the...

Mt. Gomtibai Vs. Kanchhedilal and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC272

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated 29th September 1941, which set aside an order of the Additional District Judge of Jubbulpore, dated 20th September 1939. [2] The appeal arises out of an application made by respondent 1 for the grant of probate of a will (dated 3lst July 1938) executed by one Ganesh Prasad hereinafter referred to as the testator on 1st August 1938, in which he had been appointed as the executor [3] The testator died on 4th August 1938, and respondent 1, as the executor, applied for probate of the will on 29th August 1939. [4] The appellant Gomtibai is the widow of the testator. She filed a caveat under S. 284, cl. (4), Succession Act, 1925, on 15th September 1938. In her written statement she denied the testamentary capacity of the testator, alleged that he was "mentally and physically imbecile and infirm," and that the will had been executed under the undue influence of Maheshwarilal, the ...

Kumbhan Lakshmanna and Others Vs. Tangirala Venkateswarlu and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 28th September 1943, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dated 6th September 1941, and allowed the plaintiff's suit with costs. [2] The appellants before the Board were defendants 1 to 30, and will hereinafter be referred to as the "defendants." Respondent 1 was the sole plaintiff in the suit. He will be referred to hereinafter as the "plaintiff." The other respondents were defendants, and are said to have changed sides and now joined respondent 1. [3] The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, an Inamdar (holder of an inam), to eject a large number of cultivating ryots of lands, 20.28 acres in extent, situated in the village of Lellagaruvu, in the taluk of Bandar, Kistna District. [4] Inam is a well known word of "arabic" origin which means reward or favour. The word came into use after the Muhammadan conquest. In a...

Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi Gangadhara Rama Rao Bahadur, Yuvaraja ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 10th December 1945, delivered on a reference made to it under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act, (Act XI [11] of 1922), as amended by various amending Acts including the Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1939 (Act VII [7] of 1939). The appellants are the assessees. The assessment was made with respect to the year 1942-1943, the previous year being 1941-1942. [2] The question arising for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants are exempt from taxation in respect of a part of their income amounting to Rs. 7,612, derived from the sale of wood, bark, leaves, usufruct of trees, etc., on the ground that: (a) the income was derived from a permanently settled estate and (b) the income was agricultural income within the meaning of S. 2 (1), Income-tax Act, 1922. [3] Before stating the facts, it will be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulatio...