Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1936PC259
LORD MAUGHAM: This is an appeal from the decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon dated 23rd October 1933, setting aside a decree of the District Judge of Kurunegala, dated 29th April 1932. The latter decree dismissed the action wherein the original plaintiff was one John de Silva Rajapakse and the original defendant was the present appellant. The original plaintiff instituted the action as long ago as 30th November 1926, for a declaration that he was entitled under a deed of gift No. 1294 of 21st September 1908, executed in his favour when a minor aged five years by his father W. Benjamin Rajapakse (who was added as defendant in the course of the proceedings but has not appeared before this Board), to a property called Raigam-watte consisting of six specified lots of land of the aggregate extent of about 250 acres. The problems that arise for decision in the proceedings are due to the circumstance that the added defendant whom it will be convenient to call Benjamin Rajapaks...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD ATKIN: This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, N. W. Frontier Province, allowing an appeal from the Subordinate Judge of Mardan who had made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. By the decree on appeal the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. The suit was commenced by a plaint dated 25th July 1929, based upon a deposit receipt dated 1st April 1917, to recover the principal sum of Rs. 43,900 said to have been deposited with the defendants on deposit account with interest at the agreed rate of 5 per cent per annum. The alleged deposit receipt bore only an affixed stamp of 1 anna, and the Subordinate Judge in framing the issues stated as the first issue the question whether the document fell within the definition of a promissory note and was it therefore not admissible in evidence. Without hearing any evidence as to the circumstances in which the document came into existence he decided this issue as a preliminary point in favour of the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1935All1023; 159Ind.Cas.561
Bennet, J.1. This case against Mr. B, advocate of Ghazipur, was sent to the Bar Council for an enquiry and the Bar Council framed the following two charges : (1) That you, Mr. B, carried on a business in partnership with others, but took steps not to disclose your connection as a partner and thereby committed professional misconduct. (2) That in the suit, out of which F.A. 481 of 1929 arose, you denied that you were a partner, which denial was held not to be true both by the Subordinate Judge and the Hon'ble High Court, and your conduct in the said suit disclosed that you took steps to make out that you were a creditor, which was also found to be untrue, and by such action you were guilty of professional misconduct.2. The Bar Council conducted an enquiry and heard evidence on both sides and have come to a conclusion as follows:Our conclusions therefore are that Mr. B was never a partner but had advanced Rs. 2,000 as a loan to Harnandan Prasad, that his defence in suit No. 85 of 1928 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Sir John Wallis: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Patna affirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga and giving the plaintiff, the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga, a mortgage decree against the five defendants: (1) Babus Homeshwar Singh, (2) Kuleshwar Singh (3), Chiteshwar Singh and (4) and (5) Padmanandji Singh and Taranandji Singh, the minor sons of Kuleshwar Singh, on a mortgage executed by defendants 1 to 3 in the plaintiff's favour on 20th February 1923 for Rs. 5,40,506. The consideration for the mortgage was Rs. 2,29,214-10-4 owing to the plaintiff as shown in Sch. 3; Rs. 2,21,129-10-9 to be paid by the plaintiff to set aside a Court sale of the defendants' properties which were the subject of a babuani maintenance grant made by the plaintiff's grandfather to the grandfather of defendants 1 to 3, and were stated to be worth 40 lakhs of rupees; and the balance of Rs. 90,000 odd as shown in Sch. 4 to be paid by the plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1935)68MLJ348
ORDERCronish, J.1. The Petitioners were convicted of offences under the Madras City Police Act, Sections 45 and 46 Accused 1 of keeping or permitting to be kept and Accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 of using a common gaming house, and Accused 6 and 7 of being found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming house, and Accused 6 and 7 of being found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house.2. The premises in question were occupied by Accused 1 who conducted a printing business there, known as the All-India Printing Works, and in the course of his business printed race-books and other racing intelligence. Accused 4 and 5 were clerks employed by him.3. The evidence is that on the day when the premises were raided by the police a number of persons were found on and around the pial of the building; that accused 2 and 3 were on the pial taking betting slips from accused 6 and 7; and that betting slips were found on these accused persons. These betting slips were pieces of pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 154Ind.Cas.741
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioners were convicted of offences under the Madras City Police Act, Sections 45 and 46; Accused No. 1 of keeping or permitting to be kept and accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of using, a common gaming house, and accused Nos. 6 and 7 of being found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house.2. The premises in question were occupied by accused No. 1 who conducted a printing business there, known as the All India Printing Works, and in the course of his business printed race-books and other racing intelligence. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were clerks employed by him.3. The evidence is that on the day when the premises were raided by the Police a number of persons were found on and around the pial of the building; that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were on the pial taking betting slips from accused Nos. 6 and 7; and that betting slips were found on these accused persons. These betting slips were pieces of paper with the names of race horses written thereon a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1935Cal484,157Ind.Cas.374
Costello, J.1. On 29th December 1933, a complaint was made to the Court under Section 10, Bar Councils Act, by Mr. J.C. Galstaun concerning the conduct of an advocate whom he had instructed to file an appeal against a decision of the Additional District Judge, Alipore, which had been given on 10th September 1932, in an appeal in a suit brought by Raja Janaki Nath Roy against Mr. Galstaun, in the Court of the first Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas at Alipore, the suit having terminated on 13th December 1930, in favour of the plaintiff. The matter of the complaint was referred to by this Court for inquiry to the Bar Council under the provisions of Section 10, Sub-section (2), Bar Councils Act, 1926, and the case was duly inquired into by a committee of the Bar Council, that is to say, by a tribunal constituted under the provisions of Section 11, sub-S.-(2), Bar Councils Act. The findings of the tribunal were forwarded to the Court through the Bar Council in accordance with the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal824,153Ind.Cas.1055
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1, 2 and 4, and is directed against a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dacca on 28th January 1930. The property which forms the subject matter of the partition suit belonged to one Keru Subhasundar who died in 1319 B. S. leaving behind him five sons Gourbari, defendant 1, Hari Charan, defendant 2, Abhoy, who is now dead, the husband of the plaintiff, Naba Kishore, defendant 3 and Nagarbashi, defendant 4 as well as his widow who is now dead. Keru rose to a position of affluence from a very humble position and left fairly considerable properties. The plaintiff who demanded a partition from the other cosharers did not find any response to her demands and has instituted the present suit for partition of immovable properties which were left by her father-in-law, Keru. The substantial defence to the suit, which was made by defendants 1, 2 and 4 who filed a joint written defence is that there had been a previous p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad634; 152Ind.Cas.64
Walsh, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question of considerable difficulty. Defendant 1 in the suit who was heavily indebted executed a trust deed on 29th November 1929 and appointed defendants 2 to 6 who were five of his creditors as trustees. They were directed to discharge all his debts to his creditors, who were mentioned in the document together with the amounts due to them. On the same day another consent deed was entered into which is noted in the trust deed itself, by which the plaintiff and a certain number of other creditors compounded the debts due to them by defendant 1 with the trustees for lesser amounts. The plaintiff sued defendant 1 for the full amount due to her and defendants 2 to 6 (trustees) were impleaded as co-defendants. The plea of the defendants was that the suit is not maintainable on account of the consent deed which the plaintiff had signed. The plaintiff's case was that she put her thumb-impression on soma paper on which she was told that the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad587; 155Ind.Cas.17
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was to set aside an order dismissing a claim petition. The defendants were the decree-holders. They obtained a decree in O.S. No. 204 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Coimbatore and attached the properties of the judgment-debtor Pachianna Pannadi. The plaintiff then preferred his claim under a sale deed Ex. A dated 13th May 1925 from Pachianna Pannadi. This sale was after the decree but about two months before the date of the attachment. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit but its decree was reversed in the lower appellate Court which however gave the plaintiff a charge with regard to a certain mortgage Ex. C, which it held that he had discharged. Against this decree the present second appeal is filed.2. The trial Court found that the land purchased comprised the whole property of the judgment-debtor. The purchase price was Rs. 3,500. It is not contended that this was an...
Tag this Judgment!