Privy Council Cases

Purnamal Agarwala Vs. the King

Court : Guwahati

Ram Labhaya J.1. The petitioner was found guilty of a contravention of Section 12 (1), Assam Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1946, and in consequence was convicted Under Section 7 of Act sxiv [24] of 1946. He was sentenced to pay a fine of BS, 1000, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. On appeal, the conviction and the sentence were maintained. The accused has come up on revision.2. The prosecution case was that on 22nd February 1947 the petitioner was found standing by the side of a truck near the Deopani Tea Estate on the Barpathar-Dimapur Road. The driver of the truck, a Maaipuri, was also there. The truck at that time was not in working order, Dambraudhar Hazarika (P.W. 1) came there in a Jeep, The owner of the Jeep was with him, Dambraudhar is President of the Vigilance Committee of Sarupathar. He examined the contents of the truck and found that it contained IS baga of yarn and 42 boxes of matches. He asked the driver of the truck to take those art...

Raghunath Sarma Vs. Manan Singh

Court : Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J.1. This is a petition of revision aria-ing out of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The proceedings started on an application put in by the petitioner in the Court of Mr. A. C. Nandi, Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilohar. The learned Magistrate was satisfied from police report that there was danger of a branch of the peace. After necessary enquiry he came to the conclusion that the property in dispute, was in possession of Manan Singh respondent on the date of the preliminary order. He, therefore, deolared that respondent was entitled to remain in possession till evicted in due course of law, and forbade all disturbances of his possession. He further directed that the sale proceeds of the crop shall go to the respondent and that the 1st party, viz., the petitioner, shall pay Es. 10 as compensation to the 2nd party, viz., Manan Singh respondent. Eaghuuath Sarma, the petitioner, put in a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, A. V. D. He rejected the ...

Devi Prasad Vs. Municipal Board

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All741

Malik, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and, as the parties had agreed that the case should be heard without preparation of a paper book, it has been listed out of turn.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge of Parrukhabad for an injunction to restrain the defendant Board from attaching certain properties belonging to him for realisation of Rs. 1,000 which had been levied as a circumstance and property tax under Section 128, Sub-section (1), Clause (ix), U.P. Municipalities Act (II [2] of 1916). The plaintiff's case was that he does not reside or carry on business within the limits of the Kanauj Municipality and the Municipal Board had, therefore, no right to assess him to this tax. The plaintiff further alleged -that the assessment beyond Rs. 50 was illegal and void. In defence, the Municipal Board asserted that the plaintiff did carry on business within the municipal limits and was liable, therefore, to pay the tax. The Board, further, alleged that t...

theruvath Vittil Muhammadunny Vs. Melepurakkal Unniri and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ452

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal originally came on before Horwill, J., who considered it desirable that it should be heard by a Division Bench in view of the conflict between decisions of this Court.2. The appeal is against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam remanding a suit to the District Munsiff of Chowghat for disposal on the merits. The suit was filed by the first respondent for eviction of the appellant (first defendant) from a building that had been leased to him by the first respondent's predecessor in 1936. There were also prayers for arrears of rent and for recovery of damages in respect of an annexe to the building constructed by the first respondent. The appellant deposited into Court the entire arrears of rent and interest claimed in the suit, and therefore that part of the plaintiff's claim was satisfied. Following the decision in Mahmood v. Kerala Corporation Ltd. : AIR1945Mad181 the District Munsiff held that the suit, so far as it related to eviction, w...

Nataraja Pillai (Died) and anr. Vs. Appasami Naidu

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ523

Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff, who originally filed the second appeal and died during its pendency, are the appellants. The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was filed for a declaration that a decree obtained by the defendant against one Alamelu Ammal, widow of Kothandapani Pillai, was not binding on the estate of Kothandapani to which the plaintiff had succeeded as reversioner on the death of the widow. Kothandapani died on 12th February, 1925, leaving landed properties to which his widow Alamelu succeeded as his heir. On 25th December, 1926, she executed a promissory note (Ex. D-1) for Rs. 600 in favour of one Krishnaswami Naidu who endorsed it on 18th September, 1934, in favour of the defendant in the present suit who sued Alamelu, the maker of the note, and obtained an ex parte decree against her in O.S. No. 367 of 1934,. on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Negapatam for the amount due under the promissory note. The rele...

Govt. Advocate Vs. Lakhi Kanta Medhi and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Thadani, C.J.1. This is an appeal made by the Government Advocate of Assam on behalf of the Province of Assam under Section 417, Criminal P. C, in a ease in which 9 accused persons, viz., (l) Lakhikanta Medhi, (a) Bahiram Medhi, (3) Subharam Das, (4) Hargovinda Medhi, (6) Khili-ram Medhi, (6) Hansaram Medhi, (7) Naroram Medhi, (8) Bapuram Medhi, and (9) Panimal Medhi, were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Assam Valley Districts, with the aid of a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury brought a verdict of acquittal and the learned Judge, agreeing with the unanimous verdict of the jury, acquitted the accused. The present appeal has been brought against the acquittal of these accused persons.2. The grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal ate these : l) That the learned Sessions Judge misdirected the jury in not marshalling the facts and law in an intelligible way enabling the jury to come to a just verdict. (2) That the learned Judge should have placed the eviden...

Puzhavakath Madathil Gopala Pattar's son Subramanya Iyer and Anr. Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ785

Viswanatha Sastry, J.1. In order to understand the contentions of the several parties in these two second appeals the earlier history of these-litigations has to be set out in brief outline. The suit of which these two second appeals arise was instituted as early as 12th February, 1937, by the plaintiff, the youngest of five brothers, against his elder brothers for a partition of the family properties some of which are situated in India and spine in Cochin State. The family was of a humble origin but later on, through the exertions of some of the brothers, acquired considerable landed properties. There was also a lucrative Coffee Hotel business carried on at Trichinopoly by some of the brothers. Misunderstandings arose between the brothers which resulted in a demand for partition by one of them On 8th September, 1936. All the brothers then met together and after some deliberation settled their disputes in a way. On 15th September, 1936, they entered into an agreement evidenced by Exhib...

Alla Subba Reddi Vs. Vanga Koti Reddi and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ425

Raghava Rao, J.1. I am of opinion that these civil revision petitions must fail. The point raised is one with reference to the power of the Court under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, which the leaded Subordinate Judge of Tenali refused to exercise by his orders under revision.2. I shall state a few facts in order to make the legal position arising for decision clear. There were two suits each one of which was by different plaintiff against the same two defendants, for damages for malicious prosecution. It was alleged in the plaint in each suit that the two defendants had conspired to initiate a criminal prosecution. The cause of action alleged in each suit was, it may by taken, identical. The suits were decreed by the trial Court and two sets of appeals were taken to the appellate Court by each of the two defendants in the suit. One set of appeals. that is by the petitioner before me was dismissed for default and the C.M.A.s preferred to this Court against the order of refusa...

Dr. Edward Mathuram and ors. Vs. G.T.S. Abdul Latiff Sahib and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ447

Govinda Menon, J.1. When this petition was taken up for hearing it was noticed that the order of the lower Court is appealable under Order 43, Rule (1)(j) of the Civil Procedure Code and when that was discovered, Mr. Venugopalachari for the petitioner filed an application for leave to convert the civil revision petition into a civil miscellaneous appeal. As the civil revision petition itself was filed before the expiry of the period of limitation and as no question of bar of time arises and since the court-fee in the civil revision petition was more than what would have to be paid in a civil miscellaneous appeal, I allowed the petition and the civil revision petition was converted into a civil miscellaneous appeal, the jurisdictional value of which being below Rs. 5,000 it is permissible to have the civil miscellaneous appeal disposed of by a single Judge. It is on the basis that the proceedings before me are in the nature of a civil miscellaneous appeal that I dispose of the case now....

Puzhavakkath Madathil Gopala Pattar's sons Subramanya Iyer and Anr. Vs ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1951Mad742

Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. In order to understand the contentions of the several parties in these two second appeals the earlier history of this litigation has to be set out in brief outline. The suit out of which these second appeals arise was instituted as early as 12-2-1937 by the pltf. the youngest of 5 brothers, against his elder brothers for a partition of the family properties some of which are situated in India & some in Cochin State. The family was of a humble origin but later on, through the exertions of some of the brothers, acquired considerable landed properties. There was also a lucrative coffee hotel business carried on at Trichinopoly by some of the brothers. Misunderstandings arose between the brothers which resulted in a demand for partition by one of them on 8-9-1936. All the brothers then met together & after some deliberation settled their disputes in a way. On 15-9-1936 they entered into an agreement evidenced by Ex. XX to divide the properties in the manner set out...