Privy Council Cases

The King Vs. Amir Hussain

Court : Guwahati

1.This is a reference under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal P. 0. The prisoner, Amir Hussain, was committed to the Court of Session on a charge of rape, the allegation being that he had sexual intercourse with a girl named Parida, aged about 4j years. He was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of the Upper Districts, with the aid of a common jury. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge felt unable to accept this verdict, which he regarded as perverse and contrary to the weight of evidence. He accordingly made this reference recommending that the accused be convicted of the offence of tape or, at all events, of an offence punishable under Section 864, Penal Oode, and punished therefor.2. The case for the prosecution was as follows: The girl Farida Begara is the daughter of one Mofizuddin Ahmed who was appointed temporarily to work as a fitter in Ouphulia Tea Estate, which is about 7 or 8 miles distant from his home at Moran. ...

Sri Krishna Chandra Gajpati Narayan Deo Vs. K. Hanumantha Rao

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1950Ori241

Jagannadhadas, J.1. These sis second appeals arise out of six suits in which a common judgment was delivered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The plaintiff-appellant in all these appeals is the Maharaja of Parlakimedi. These six suits along with two other suits arise is the following circumstances. The plaintiff-Maharaja in the coarse of administration of his estate and collection of rents, obtains decrees for arrears of rent as against defaulting tenants. One section of his office staff attends to the steps necessary to be taken for realisation of these decrees by execution in various Courts. Monies are drawn from time to time from the Estate Treasury for expenses in connection with these execution proceedings towards court-fees, batta memos, vakalats, etc., and entrusted to the clerk or clerks concerned for getting necessary steps taken in the Courts. In or about August 1938, the plaintiff's Dewan received an anonymous information that the money drawn in the y...

In Re: Padmaraja Shetty and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ428

Subba Rao, J.1. Accused 1 to 9 are the appellants. Accused 1 to 3 were convicted by the Sessions Judge of South Kanara under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. The first accused was sentenced to death, and the other two accused to transportation for life. Accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 were convicted under Section 201 of the Code and' sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years each. Accused 3 and 6 to 9 were convicted of the same offence but sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years each.For a correct appreciation of the facts and the contentions of the parties the following genealogy may usefully be referred to: Seshappa |__________________________________| | |Padmavathi Marudevi Nemiraja Shetty. | | | Chandravathi=Ramanna Semitha________________ (deceased).| |Amirthavathi Padmaraja.2. The second accused is a brother of Ramanna Semitha. The third accused is the brother-in-law of the first accused. Accused 4 ...

Padmaraja Shetty and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1951Mad746

Subba Rao, J. 1. Accused 1 to 9 are the applts. Accused 1 to 3 were convicted by the Ses J. of South Kanara under Section 302, I. P. C. & under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. Accused 1 was sentenced to death, & the other two accused to transportation for life. Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5 were convicted under Section 201 of the Code & sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years each. Accused 3 & 6 to 9 were convicted of the same offence but sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years each.2. For a correct appreciation of the facts & the contentions of the parties the following genealogy may usefully be referred to: SESHAPPA | ______________________________________________________________ | | | Padmavathi Marudevi Nemiraja Shetty | | | Chandravathi = Ramanna ________________________ Semitha (deceased) | | Amirthavathi Padmaraja3. Accused 2 is a brother of Ramanna Semitha. Accused 3 is the brother-in-law of accused 1. Accused 4 to a are connected with a...

Salagrama Subramanyam and ors. Vs. Salagrama Narayanamma and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ537

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The first defendant's husband was their undivided brother who died leaving him surviving the first defendant his widow. The suit relates to certain lands, which according to the learned Subordinate Judge's finding which has not been challenged, have been and are being used as salt pans for producing salt under licences granted by the Government. The licences in respect of the suit lands were issued in the name of the plaintiffs. and the first defendant's husband; but on his death the licences were renewed in the name of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The suit is for a declaration that the order of the Central Excise Collector dated 18th October, 1944, including the first defendant as joint owner of the suit property is illegal.2. The case of the plaintiffs rests entirely on the ground that the suit lands are agricultural lands in which the first defendant would not be entitled to any right under Act XVIII of 1937 because a...

Gannamaneedi Madhavayya and Another Vs. Gannamaneedi Achamma (Since De ...

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC325

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 27th November 1944, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur dated 27th October 1942. [2] The appeal arises out of a suit (O.S. 38 of 1941) instituted by the appellants for a declaration that a will dated 11th March 1939, alleged to have been executed by their stepbrother one Ramalingayya, the husband of the respondent Achamma (since deceased), is not genuine. Ramalingayya died on 12th March 1939. [3] The appellants also brought another suit (O. S. 25 of 1940) against Achamma, under S. 77, Registration Act, for a decree directing registration of a settlement deed dated 10th March 1939 said to have been executed in their favour by the aforesaid Ramalingayya. [4] Both suits were tried and disposed of together by the trial Court. The Subordinate Judge held that both the settlement deed and the will were not genuine documents. He ther...

Sumatibai Waman Kirtikar Vs. Anant Balkrishna Shirgaonkar

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1949Bom402; (1949)51BOMLR788

M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent appeal is whether a compromise decree which operates as a lease requires registration.2. The plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal arises executed a lease in favour of the defendant on April 1, 1943, which expired by efflux of time on March 31, 1944. As the defendant did not hand over possession, the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment on April 16, 1944, On April 16, 1945, a consent decree was arrived at between the parties and it is this decree which calls for an interpretation at our hands. By this decree the defendant agreed to continue to occupy the property which had been leased to him and the plaintiff agreed that the defendant should continue to occupy the property from April 1, 1944 to June 30, 1947. The defendant further agreed to give vacant possession to the plaintiff of the property in suit on June 30, 1947, and the defendant agreed that he would pay to the plaintiff the rent of th...

Mst. Fatma Bibi Vs. Sayed Ali Hasan

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All769

Seth, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the lower appellate Court, directing the memorandum of appeal to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. By the proper Court is intended the appellate revenue Court, namely, the Commissioner. The suit giving rise to this application in revision was instituted under Section 180, U.P. Tenancy Act. It was contested by two of the defendants on the ground, among others, that they were in proprietary possession of the disputed plots. An issue framed as follows was referred to the civil Court for decision:whether Mt. Basra Bibi and Mt. Fatima Bibi are in proprietary possession of the plots in suit.' The issue was re-framed by the civil Court in the following words:whether the defendants Mt, Basra Bibi and Mt. Fatima Bibi are proprietors of the plots in suit?The issue was decided by the civil Court and a finding returned to the revenue Court. Thereafter the revenue Court proceeded to decide the whole suit on merits. It...

The Province of Orissa and anr. Vs. Durjodhan Das Gaontia and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1951Ori342

Narasimhsm, J.1. These two appeals are by the defts. against tbe judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Bargarh & decreeing the pltf's. suit for a declaration that they have the sole and exclusive right to appoint & dismiss a Nariha who id a village servant & that the revenue authorities have no right to interfere in any way with the exercise of that right by the pltfs.2. Pltf. 1 is the Lambardar Gaontia of Mouza Guclesira which is a Gaontiahi village in Sambalpur district. Pltfs. 2 to 5 are the Punches of the said village who are elected by the raiyats for the purpose of assisting the Lambardar in the management of the village. In the last settlement deft, l was recorded as a Nariha in respect of 9'42 acres of land which were held by him rent, free (Ex. 2 a). In the wazib-ul-arz of the village (ex 2) it is recorded that the Nariha may be dismissed & deprived of his service lands by the Lambardar & the Punches for failure to render due se...

Mahalingam Asari Vs. Lakshmana Reddiar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ612

Mack, J.1. The petitioner in both these revision petitions is a goldsmith of Thirukkarangudi village in Tirunelveli District. They raise for resolution an interesting conflict of decision between the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in S.C.S. No. 92 of 1946, and the Village Panchayat Court of Kalakkad in a suit before them. On what appears precisely the same evidence they came to different findings of fact in the following curious circumstances.2. Lakshmana Reddiar, the respondent, it is common ground, gave this goldsmith a lump of gold weighing 15.9/4 kalanjis on 12th June, 1945, to make a pair of bangles for his daughter. This is also evidenced by a receipt admittedly signed by the goldsmith and produced from Lakshmana Reddiar's custody. Lakshmana Reddiar's case set out in a notice Ex. P-2, dated 20th June, 1946, was a demand on the goldsmith to make and deliver the bangles or to return the gold. This was countered by a reply, Ex. D-I, dated 28th June, 1946, by the goldsmith to the e...