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
Mohammad Ismail Vs. Nurul Hasan and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All553
Agarwala, J.1. This is an appeal against an order directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court.2. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for a declaration that the trees situated in a grove in a certain mahal had been planted by him, that he was their owner and that the defendants had no share or right in them. He alleged that his mother, Musammat Faiyazunnissa was the original owner of the mahal and that she had given him permission to plant the grove in question on the clear understanding that on her death the grove will be allotted to him as a part of his share. That Musammat Faiyazuunissa bad died and defendant 1, plaintiffs brother, was claiming the grove as belonging to him on account of a deed of sale alleged to have been executed by Musammat Faiyazunnissa in her life-time. According to him this deed of sale was not binding on the plaintiff and he was entitled to be declared as the owner of the trees of the grove.3. The defence was that there was no s...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh S/O Thakar Singh and ors. Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ794
ORDERHarnam Singh, J.1. This Order disposes of Criminal Revisions Nos. 440 and 596 of 1948. Amar Singh, Vir Singh, Mehnga Singh, Gurdit Singh and Gura were convicted in the Court of Sardar Lai Singh Kang, Magistrate First Class Putbankot, under Section 411, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal of the convicts was dismissed and they have come to this Court in revision through Mr. Panna Lai Sabi.2. The facts are that on 27th August 1947 several non-Muslim families of village Gharota apprehending danger from Muslims left the village carrying their valuables and essential clothes. It was raining and the party took shelter in the garden of Gauri Shanker. From the garden, they went to a maize field and hid themselves in that field. Seven Cr eight Sikhs who were armed with Kirpana attacked them and took away all their valuables and clothes. When the Muslims left Gharota for Pakistan the party of these looted non- Muslims came back to Gharota. Now as the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Madda Peda Brahmayya Alias Satyanandam
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ8; (1949)1MLJ386
Subba Rao, J.1. The accused was convicted Under Section 302, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to transportation for life. The accused and P.W. 7 are husband and wife, P.W. 7 being his third wife. The husband and wife lived together happily and had a numbar of children. One Narayanamurthi (the deceased) wag a neighbour of the accused, and it is in evidence that he led a wayward life. Somehow he was able to seduce P.W. 7 and there is evidence that there was illicit intimacy between P.W. 7 and the deceased Narayanamurthi. The husband discovered her in a compromising position twice, and on the second occasion as the accused threatened to put an end to their lives, the wife left the husband for her parent's house. On the morning of 80th March 1948, Narayanamurthi was found dead in his house, and the prosecution case is that he was murdered by the accused. That there was sufficient motive for the accused to commit the murdec admita of no doubt. P.W. 7, See. tama, the wife of the aocu3ed, a...
Tag this Judgment!Amina Alias Beepathumma and anr. Vs. B. Ahmed BIn Chayabba
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ465
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for recovery of possession of the suit property with building standing thereon together with profits, past and future.. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and was confirmed on appeal by the lower appellate Court. Hence this second appeal.2. The plaintiff's predecessor-in-title let the suit property on 6th May, 1903, to one Hamed Beary, the predecessor of the defendant. The lessee died and the property came into the possession of his sister Kunhi Pathumma. The plaintiff's predecessor-in-title instituted a suit, O.S. No. 155 of 191 7 against Kunhi Pathumma and another for recovery of possession on the strength of the lease in favour of Hamed Beary. That suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no apportionment of rent. After the death of Kunhi Pathumma, the defendants who are her daughters continued in possession of the property. In 1930, the plaintiff's p...
Tag this Judgment!JainaraIn Vs. the Governor-general of India Representing the B. and A. ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal462
ORDERChakravartti, J.1. The complaint in this rule is that the Cts. below have wrongly thrown out the pltf's. suit on the ground of limitation. The facts are extremely simple & are as follows:2. On 6-5-1944, the petnr. handed over a bundle of cloth at the Burra bazar Booking Office of the B. & A. Rly. for carriage from Calcutta to a station called Jogbani. The handle was never delivered. Some correspondence followed in the course of which by a letter dated 13-3-1945, the Rly. informed the petnr. that one bundle belonging to his consignment was lying undelivered at the destination & that he must make arrangements for taking delivery within a certain time. The letter reads as follows:'Dear Sir,Sub : Calcutta Burra Bazar to Jogbani P. W. B. 963712 of 6.5.44. one bundle of cloth.With reference to your letter No. nil dated 2/8/44, I beg to inform you that one bundle of cloth belonging to the above consignment is lying undelivered at destination at your sole risk & responsibility & incurring...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Yarlagadda Siva Rama, Prasad Bahadur Vs. Majeti Potharaju and ...
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC187
Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 13th September 1944, which set aside the judgment and decree of the District Court of Kistna at Chilakalapudi, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the Court of the Deputy Collector, Bandar. [2] The defendant is the appellant before the Board, and the plaintiffs are the respondents. The latter do not appear before the Board, but Mr. Pringle the learned counsel for the appellant has stated all the necessary facts fully and fairly. [3] The appellant and the respondents will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant and the plaintiffs respectively. 4. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the three plaintiffs under S. 55, Madras Estates Land Act (I [1] of 1908) to compel the defendant to issue a "patta" to them in respact of about 35 acres 86 cents of land comprised in survey Nos. 205 and 63. The plaintiffs belong to a village situated in the esta...
Tag this Judgment!Paramban Mammadu and ors. Vs. the King
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ544
Horwill, J.1. The four appellants and three others who were acquitted by the lower Court were charged by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar under Section 120-B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, of conspiring with P.W. 10 to commit the murder of one Ramasimhan. There was also a charge under sectioii 148 of being armed with dangerous weapons and rioting. They were further charged under four separate counts for the murder of the said Ramasimhan, his brother Narasimhan, the wife of Narasimhan, and one Raju Iyer, a Brahmin cook of Ramasimhan. These four persons will be referred to during the course of the judgment as deceased Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The learned Judge found the first accused only guilty of conspiracy and the four appellants guilty under Sections 147 and 34, read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, on all the four counts. He sentenced the four appellants to death and, as already stated, acquitted the other three.2. The motive for the offence is said to have been t...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliappa Goundan Vs. Valliammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ248
Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge, Coimbatore, appointing the respondent, the mother of the minor girl, aged about two and a half years, as the guardian of her person, giving the appellant, the father, only the right to visit her at all convenient times, and expressing the hope that the appellant and his first wife, the minor's mother, would again join together in spite of the appellant's having taken for himself a second wife.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the lower Court's order cannot be sustained as the parties are Hindus governed by the Mitakshara law and the father's right to be the guardian of his minor children cannot be taken away unless he is proved to be unfit to be the guardian. He relied on the ruling in In the matter of the petition of Prankrishna Sarma I.L.R. (1882) Cal. 969. That was a criminal case, and there the learned Judges were unable to find any authority for the proposition that the mother can ev...
Tag this Judgment!M.V.P. Paramanandaswami Alias Pichumuthu Pillai Vs. A.K. Shanmugham Pi ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ318
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the lower Court directing the arrest of the appellant in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 72 of 1946, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The respondent obtained a decree in the above suit against the appellant for a sum of about Rs. 5,800. In execution of the decree the properties of the judgment-debtor were attached. His sons filed a claim petition. It was dismissed. The sons then filed O.S. No. 22 of 1947 for setting aside the order on the claim petition and for a declaration that the properties belonged to them. In that suit on 24th July, 1947, a consent order was passed to the effect that on the plaintiffs depositing into Court a sum of Rs. 300 the suit properties should not be sold till the disposal of the suit. On 18th December, 1947, the decree-holder filed another E.P. No. 138 of 1947 for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. On 17th February, 1948, one month's time was granted to the judgment-...
Tag this Judgment!Tirumalai Aiyangar Vs. Arunachala thevar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ436
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of their title to item No. 2 of the plaint schedule and for an injunction or alternatively for possession of the same. The said item is an extent of 68 cents in the southernmost portion of the northern half of S. No. 455/1, the total extent of which is 4 acres and 8 cents. One Narayana Rao and his. two brothers owned the northern portion of S. No. 455/1, to the extent, of two acres and 5 cents. It is not quite clear whether the extent really is 2 acres. 4 cents, or 2 acres 5 cents. In 1921 there appears to have been a partition, in and by which the southernmost portion was allotted to Narayana Rao. There was an attachment before judgment of Narayana Rao's interest in 2 acres and 5 cents belonging to himself and his brothers in common in O.S.. No. 248 of 1932. The attachment was apparently on the footing of an undivided coparcenary interest of Narayana Rao in the family propertie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6663
- 6664
- 6665
- 6666
- 6667
- 6669
- 6670
- 6671
- 6672
- 6673
- Next ›
- Last »