Privy Council Cases
Colonial & appellate judgments
Browse Privy Council & House of Lords decisions
Search appeals from Indian High Courts decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and related appellate benches - foundational authority for constitutional and commercial law.
Colonial & appellate
Latest Privy Council judgments
Ram Saran and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All594
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Saran and five others from their convictions and sentences by the Sessions Judge of Meerut under Rs. 302,148 and 323, Penal Code. Ram Saran has been sentenced to death and there is the usual reference for confirmation of the sentence. The other appellants have been sentenced to transportation for life and imprisonment. Ram Saran, Nanwan and Teku appellants are first cousins of one another. Harpal appellant is an uncle of Gajju appellant. The remaining appellant Thana belongs to the family of Ram Saran etc. All the appellants are Gujars living in village Nagla Udairampur and are stated to be members of one party.2. The prosecution case is as follows: About a month before the occurrence, a canal distributary was cut by some persons in the village. The canal ziledar threatened to charge double rates from the inhabitants of the village unless they divulged who had cut the bank. One or two days before the occurrence Ram Chandar Gujar deceased and Bhajju ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1949CriLJ888
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Saran and five others from their convictions and sentences by the Sessions Judge of Meerut under Sections 309, 148 and 323, Penal Code. Ram Saran has been sentenced to death and there is the usual reference for confirmation of the sentence. The other appellants have been sentenced to transportation for life and imprisonment. Ram Saran, Nanwan and Teku appellants are first cousins of one another. Harpal appellant is, an uncle of Gajju appellant. The remaining appellant Thana belongs to the family of Ram Saran etc All the appellants are Gujars living in village Nagla Udairampur and are stated to be members of one party.2. The prosecution case is as follows: About a month before the occurrence, a canal distributary was out by some persons in the village. The canal ziledar threatened to charge double rates from the inhabitants of the village unless they divulged who bad cut the bank. One or two days before the occurrence Ram Chandar Gujar deceased and B...
Tag this Judgment!Akshoya Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Jagadish Misra and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori56
Ray, C.J.1. This second appeal is by defendants 3 and 4, the landlord auction purchasers of an occupancy holding in execution of a rents decree obtained by them, in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage executed by the occupancy ryot on 18th May 1929 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit, filed on 15th June 1942, seeks to enforce the mortgage not only against the mortgagor or his successors-in-interest but also the landlord-auction-purchasers mentioned above.2. The defence of the appellants is that they possess a superior right in respect of the occupancy holding and their purchase is free from mortgage. This contention is based upon two grounds: (i) that they are the sole landlords of the occupancy holding which was non-transferable at the time when this mortgage was executed and as such is not binding against them nor can it affect the interest acquired by them at the execution sale ; and (ii) that they have, by recourse to legitimate measures prescribed in Section 221, Ori...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Gajapati Narayan Deo Vs. Rokkam Venkatapparao Dora
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori268
Narasimham, J.1. This is the pltf's second appeal against the order of the Dist. J. of Ganjam Pun reversing She decision of the Special Deputy Collector, Chicacole Division & dismissing the phtf's suit; for recovery of arrears of rent for the three Fasli years 1342 to 1844.2. This litigation has had a chequered career. The pltf's suit was brought in 1936 & it was first dismissed by the then Deputy Collector on 27-10-1937 in S. S. NO. 782 of 1936. On appeal, the Dist. J. set aside the order of dismissal & remanded the suit for fresh disposal. The suit was then heard by a Special Deputy Collector who decreed the claim. On appeal, the learned Diat. J. revsd. the decision of the Special Deputy Collector & dismissed the suit. There upon, the pltf. preferred a second appeal to the Hon'ble H. C. who directed the rehearing of the appeal by the Dist. J. on the ground that the lower appellate Ct. misconcieved the scope of the previous litigation between the parties in the year 1902. After remand...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Kartar Kaur W/O Bela Singh Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1951CriLJ939
ORDERHarnam Singh, J.1. Hazura Singh, Basant Kaur, Ram Piari & Kartar Kaur were proceeded against under Section 109, Cr. P.C. It is stated that the said Hazura Singh is a badmash, which no ostensible means of subsistence & lives by trafficking in woman. Kartar Kaur is not in any way related to the said Hazura Singh & was found in the house of Hazur Singh on 30-11-1947.2. On 12-12 1947, Hazura Singh, Basant Kaur, Kartar Kaur & Ram Piari appeared in the Ct. of Mr. K. C. Grover, Mag., 1st Class, at Amritsar who on that date passed a joint preliminary order under Section 112, Cr. P.C. In this order all that was stated was that Hazura Singh aforesaid had no ostensible means of subsistence. There was no allegation in the preliminary order against Kartar Kaur within, the meaning of Section 109 (a) Cr (b), Cr. P.C. 1898.3. The Mag., however, accepted the testimony of Man Singh, P. W. 3 & Amar Singh P. W. 4 that Kartar Kaur was in the house of Hazura Singh for being sold to a customer who was e...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muruga Goundan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ887
Subba Rao, J.1. The accused has been charged under Section 302, Penal Code and has been sentenced to death.2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, along with two others (accused 2 and a), who have been acquitted, killed Unnamalai Ammal and removed the saradu that was worn by her. P. W. 3 is the sister of the accused, and V. W. 4 U the wife of the accused. They gave evidence before the Magistrate implicating the accused, but in the Sessions court they gave a different version altogether. The two witnesses were treated as hostile, and the learned Suasions Judge marked their depositions in the Magistrate's Court as substantive evidence under Section 288, Criminal P. 0. Exhisit p-4 is the deposition of P. W. 8 in the committing Magistrate's Court. She said that, four months ago, on a Monday, her younger brother, i. e., the accused, Came to her and took from her a kaiaruval saying that he wanted it for cutting pandal post. On Wednesday he returned it at lamp, lighting time. On T...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Ammal Vs. L. Sethurama Aiyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ290
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the landholder to recover possession of some Gramanatham land, which was occupied by the defendant sometime in 1936. The main defence to the suit was that the plaintiff who was one of the co-owners of the inam village in which the land was situated was not entitled to institute the suit in ejectment; secondly, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land and that it is communal property and he had, therefore, no title to eject; thirdly, that the plaintiff had no possession within 12 years prior to the date of institution of the suit. On all the questions both the Courts found in favour of the plaintiff negativing the contention of the defendant, and decreed the suit.2. In this second appeal, again the same contentions were repeated. On the first question apart from the fact that the plaintiff was recognised as the landholder under the Estates Land Act, he is ent...
Tag this Judgment!Kayambu Servai Vs. Karuppiah Servai and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ297
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before me. He filed a suit for an injunction against defendants 2 to 6 restraining them from taking water from Panikkananthal tank to their lands situated in the village of Kulanthapuri. He also wanted an injunction directing the defendants to restore a part of a channel which they were alleged to have destroyed and also an injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's taking water to his wet lands in Panikkananthal village through the channel A, A-1 to A-8. He claimed another relief about the defendants having put up a pipe at a point 'S' in the tank but both the Courts have found against the plaintiff in connection with that matter and the second appeal does not deal with this point. The learned District Munsiff found all the other points in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal by defendants 2 to 6 the Subordinate Judge reversed the rinding of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The pl...
Tag this Judgment!Sowcar Chinna Basamma Vs. Veeradhi Veerappa and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ398
Horwill, J.1. One Veerabhadrappa was a mortgagee; and he filed a suit for sale on his mortgage deed and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree he brought the hypotheca to sale on the 9th March, 1896; and according to the finding of fact which cannot be canvassed here in second appeal, it was purchased by him benami in the name of his father-in-law, Lingappa. Prior to the present Code of Civil Procedure, Section 317 of the Code of 1882 prevented any person from maintaining a suit against a certified purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made benami. The first defendant in this suit is not the certified purchaser herself, but a person who claims through him; and the question that arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs can put forward the benami nature of the transaction In the suit, in view of the wording of Section 66 of the present Code, which is wider than that of Section 317 of the old Code and runs:No suit shall be maintained against any person claiming title...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamurthi Naidu Vs. Ramakrishna Naidu and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ459
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal and his suit for recovery of possession of 1 acre 58 cents in S. No. 160/1 in the village of Melur described by boundaries in the plaint schedule was dismissed by the Courts below. Hence this appeal.2. One Muthukrishna had two sons, Srinivasalu and Ramakrishna. Ramakrishna is the first defendant in the present suit. His son Pothurajalu is the.second defendant. Srinivasalu had two sons Venkatakrishna and Krishnamurthi. Krishnamurthi is the present plaintiff. Venkatakrishna died in 1935. In 1917, Srinivasalu instituted a suit for partition, O.S. No. 190 of 1917, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Srirangam, and impleaded in that suit Muthukrishna also as a party. In that suit 2 acres 39 cents in S. No. 160/1 of which the present suit property forms a part was not included, presumably because the property was purchased by Muthukrishna in his own name. The suit was decreed. Later, Pothuraju, the present...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6659
- 6660
- 6661
- 6662
- 6663
- 6665
- 6666
- 6667
- 6668
- 6669
- Next ›
- Last »