Privy Council Cases

Ram Udar Das Chela Falhari Baba Garib Das Ji Vs. Baba Madho Das Chela ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All614

ORDERSeth, J.1. The sole question for decision in this application is whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or whether its cognizance was barred by Rule 35 of the Nayabad and Wasteland Rules in the Kumaun Division. In substance, the relief claimed in the suit was as follows: That an injunction be issued against the defendant restraining him from making any pathway, stairs, ghat, house, chhapper, chabutra or a resting place on plot No, 364. It was further prayed that the defendant should be restrained worn using the plaintiff's pathway No. 365.2. The two Courts below held that the suit was not cognizable by a civil Court and for this reason the lower appellate Court has upheld the Order of the Court of first instance directing the plaint to be returned to the proper Court. The decision of the case depends upon whether it is covered by Rule 35, Nayabad Waste Land Rules. The dispute with regard to the two plots Nos. 364 and 365 will have to be considered separatel...

Harit Krishna Deb Vs. Anil Krishna Deb

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1951Cal469

ORDERG.N. Das, J.1 This Rule was issued by my learned brother Mukherjea J. and myself for a review of the order passed by us on 5-3-1948, in appeal from Original Order No. 49 of 1946, The relevant facts are stated in our order and need not be restated.2. The question which arose for our decision in that appeal was one of limitation. We agreed with the trial Court in holding that the application for execution was barred by limitation. The main ground both in the trial Court and before us was thus stated in our order :'Both in the Court below and in this Court, it has been argued that under Article 182 (5), Limitation Act, time would run from 2-12-1943, when the final order was passed in the execution case.'This contention was repelled by us in the order sought to be reviewed.3. The judgment of this Court was delivered by me, and my learned brother Mukherjea J. concurred. As Mukherjea J. has ceased to be a Judge of this Court, the Rule has come up for hearing before me.4. Mr. Gupta who h...

B.A. Shervashidze Vs. Govt. of West Bengal and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1951Cal474

Harries, C.J.1. This is an appln. from a person who describes himself as a White Russian & is now confined at the Alipore Jail. He asks us to hold that his confinement is unlawful & that he is entitled to be released There is no formal petn. but the matter came to the notice of the Ct. as a result of a letter sent by the detained person to myself as Chief Justice of this Ct.2. In that letter the detained person states that he is a native of Georgia in Russia; but not a citizen of the U. S. S. E. He says that he is stateless & is what is commonly described as a White Russian.3. This detained person states that he arrived in India in the month of March 1942, as a volunteer of the British Army & has been in India ever since. Whether this statement is true or false we have no means of testing.4. On 22-7-1947, he states that he was arrested at his residence in Kalimpong & was taken to Kalimpong jail This detention he says was made under para 7, of the Foreigners Order of 1939. On 24-7-1947,...

In the Goods of Gagan Chandra Das

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal578

ORDERBanerjee, J.1. I regret I cannot accede to the prayer of the petitioner. I know what the refusal means. The applicant will have to make an application for a fresh certificate of succession Even though it is to collect the debt foe which a certificate had already been taken and the duty paid, the duty prescribed by the Court-fees Act must be again paid: In Re: Saroje Baehini, 20 C. W. N. 1125 at p. 1128 : (A. I. R. (4) 1917 Cal. 380). This means further depletion of a loan fund. The debt for which the certificate was taken is a small one2. I wish I could grant the prayer. If the point involved were a technical one, I would have ignored it, and granted the prayer.3. But, in my view, the point is not a technical one at all. It is one of substance. It touches the jurisdiction of the Court.4. The fact may be said in two or three sentences. The certificate was granted to several persons jointly. One of them has died. The survivors ask that the name of the deceased be deleted in the cert...

Quinn Vs. Keshab Chandra Mukherjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 1949CriLJ632

ORDERSen, J.1. In my opinion, this rule should be discharged. The facts giving rise to this rule briefly are as follows: One Hedayet Ali instituted a suit for ejectment in this Hon'bla Court and obtained an ex parie decree. The suit was instituted against the lessee. When the decree was being executed by the Sheriff, the subtenants' of the lessee refused to vacate and protested against the Sheriff's attempt to remove themThereupon the party seeking to execute the decree went away. On the next date, some of the sub-tenants o the lessee filed an application before Majumdar J. praying that Hedayet Ali and his servants or agents should be restrained by an injunction from executing the said decree. The learned Judge passed an order granting an interim injunction in terma of this prayer and there was a further observation that the Sheriff was to act on counsel's endorsement. The application was made returnable on the next Monday. The complainant's case is that this interim injunction was sho...

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...

N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowments Board

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR952

John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated November 6, 1944, which revised a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madras dated August 7, 1943.2. The only matter which arises for determination in this appeal, and on 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 July 1, 1907, one Narayana, the grandfather 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 Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (Mad. Act II of 1927) (hereinafter with its amendments referred to as the 'Act') was passed. The Act authorised the creat...

Ashutosh Hait Vs. Indra Hait

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal217

ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the accused petitioner who has been convicted of having committed the offence of hurt with a dangerous weanon, to wit, a gun and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. The case against the accused briefly is as follows: There was a certain piece of land which was in the possession of the complainant who ploughed it. On the day of the occurrence the accused Ashutosh Hait armed with a gun came on the land accompanied by others armed with spears and lathis and began to beat the complainant. The accused then said that he would shoot the complainant unless he left the land. On the complainant refusing to leave the land the accused fired a shot at him but missed. The complainant then began to run away when another shot was fired and it hit him on the leg. On these allegations the complainant charged the accused and others with having committed various offences punishable under the Indian...

Lateef Ahamad S/O Faiz Mohammad Vs. State

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1950MP34; 1950CriLJ902

Sanghi, J.1. On 24th December 1948, the petitioner Latif Ahamad made an application, to 'this Court alleging that the five person named therein were his relations and that they had been arrested in Indore by the Assistant City Superintendent of Police that day, that the arrests and their detention in custody were illegal and they should, therefore, Under Section 491, Criminal P.C., be set at liberty. The detenus named in the petition had in fact been under detention under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, V [5] of 1948, since September 1948, and had been ordered to be released by an order of this Court. They were released from custody on 24th December 1948, and were arrested immediately thereafter.2. The petition was heard on 11th January 1943. The Public Prosecutor appearing for the State produced four documents but did not file any statement in writing explaining their use to meat the petitioner's case. The first document is an affidavit made by Mr. Gappoolal. Assistant Oity...

Akloo Mia Vs. the State

Court : Guwahati

1. The appellant Akloo Mia has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, A. V. D., under Section 301, part 2, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with the aid of assessors who were divided in their opinion.2. The facts of the case are these: It appears that there was a dispute over the possession of certain charbharat land situated in the village of Peladahar, which had been taken on lease by Haji Hasan Mia and his sons and nephews and was in their possession for some 7 or 8 years. To the east of this land was the periodic pafcta land belonging to another Hasan Mia. Haji Hasan Mia and his sons and nephews grew paddy on the land leased by them.3. On 24th December 1917, the deceased Abdua Sattar and one Abdul Samad, Lalu Mia, Abdul Salam, and some other persons were gathering paddy in the morning over a certain area of the disputed land. In the afternoon, Abdul Samad noticed that one J...