Privy Council Cases

Pitamber Mohapatra Vs. Lakshmidhar Mohapatra and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1949Ori64

Ray, J.1. This arises out of a petition by the defendant in a suit for recovery of loan due upon a handnote, executed by defendant 1, for a sum of Rs. 75 including the interest due thereon. The original creditor was one Baishnab Charan Mohapatra since dead. His son and father left behind are respectively defendants 3 and 4 (pro forma). Defendant 2 is the nephew of defendant 1 and is sought to be made liable, the debt being a family debt. The plaintiff comes to sue by virtue of an assignment of certain debts that belonged to Baishnab Charan including the present one effected by a deed of assignment executed on behalf of the legal heirs of Baishnab as well as the Karta of the then existing family, namely, defendant 4 (father of Baishnab). The defendants contest the suit on two grounds: (i) that the assignment does not bind the interest of Baishnab's widow who must have acquired an interest on the death of her husband in the property as she on her own account was not a party to the assign...

S.P. Thiruvengadasami Naidu Vs. Municipal Health Officer

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1949CriLJ823; (1949)1MLJ488

Govinda Menon, J.1. This case came to be heard before this Full Bench on a reference made by one of us (Govinda Menon, J.) and Govindarajachari, J., as the matter is of great importance and the authorities on the point are conflicting.2. The facts are simple and do not admit of any doubt. The petitioner was prosecuted before the Court of the Second Class Bench of Magistrates, Karaikudi, for an offence under Section 249 read with Section 313 of the District Municipalities Act, in that he, on 14th August, 1946, was running a rotary oil engine without a licence from the Karaikudi Municipality and 'despite the refusal by the said Municipality to issue a licence for the year 1946-47. A particular area within the confines of the Karaikudi Municipality had been declared a ' residential area ' under Section 89 (1) of the Madras Public Health Act and the same was published in the Ramnad District Gazette, on 24th March, 1943. The result of such a notification is that in that particular area the ...

Chiratla Venkatarayudu and anr. Vs. Chiratla Seshamma and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ552

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant to her late husband Venkatapathi is valid in law. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the lower Court, are admittedly the nearest presumptive reversioners, they being the uncle's son's sons of the last male holder Venkatapathi. In the plaint, even the factum of the adoption was denied, but at the trial it was not questioned. The first defendant, the widow, applied to the plaintiffs on 1st November, 1942, for their consent to adopt the second defendant to her husband. The second defendant was her sister's son's son. The plaintiffs refused their consent by their letter, dated 12th December, 1942 (Ex. D-13). Thereafter, the first defendant obtained the consent of four other persons alleged to be reversioners more remote than the plaintiffs. The evidence of their consent is furnished by Exs. D-14, D-15 and D-16. Under Ex. D-14, one Chiratla Satheyya gave hi...

Bodi Venkataswami and ors. Vs. Adada Mahalakshmi and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ602

Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Defendants I to 4 have preferred this second appeal from the appellate decree of the District Judge of Vizagapatam declaring the title of the plaintiff and granting her an injunction in respect of a plot of land of the extent of about 12 cents and a palmyra hedge situate therein in the village of Jannavaram in the Vizianagaram zamindari. The litigation which concerns property of a trifling value has had a long and sinuous course coming, as it does, for the fifth time for adjudication by a judicial tribunal. The melwaram in the land vests in the Zamindar of Vizianagaram within the limits of whose estate the property is situate. The Court of Wards had been in management of the Vizianagaram Zamindari during the period with which we are concerned in this case. The District Munsif who first tried the suit dismissed it on 26th October, 1943, on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved her title to the plot in question or her possession of it within 12 years of sui...

Chandana Satyanarayana and anr. Vs. Sri Venkatachalaswami Temple of Gu ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ615

ORDERMack, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question of court-fee. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 456 of 1938, in which they and their deceased elder brother were parties, was a nullity, and not binding on them, and for an injunction, restraining the plaintiff in that suit, which was a temple, from executing that decree against them. That suit was one to recover possession of about 24 acres of land, of which, it is averred in the plaint and it is also common ground before me, the plaintiffs are still in possession. On the plaint, the plaintiffs paid ad valorem court-fee on half the value of the immoveable property under the proviso to Section 7(iv)(c). Their suit was dismissed; and they filed an appeal, paying the same court-fee under this provision. The learned District Judge held that the correct court-fee payable by them on the plaint and the appeal memorandum was under Section 7(iv)(a) on the full value of the subject-matter of th...

In Re: R.B.S.S.N. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad835

Subba Rao, J. 1. This is a revision against the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Mathurai, in C. C. No. 7 of 1947 overruling the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners.2. The accused are the directors of the Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., Pasumalai, Mathurai. Accused 1, 4 and 5 are partners in Messrs. S. S. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar and company, who are the managing agents of the said mills. In G. O. No. 1629 (Development) dated 15th April 1947 the Government appointed an Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon the industrial disputes existing between the workers and the management of the textile mills in the Madras Province. After enquiry the tribunal gave an award increasing the emoluments of the workers and the same was accepted by the Government in G. O. No. 3080 (Development) dated 15th July 1947. A copy of the award was duly communicated to the management of the accused's mill for implementation. As they have not implemented the award the Government of Madras a...

Kartik Chandra Pal Vs. Dibakar Bhattacharjee

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal362

R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the J.-D. against an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Burdwan dismissing an objection filed under Section 47, Civil P. C.2. The plff.-respondent had brought a suit for specific performance of a contract against the defts. The suit was decreed on 21-2-1948 in the following terms: Claim for 'Properties mentioned in the Schedule below belonged to one Raman Dhara & defts. became owners of the same after the death of said Raman Dbara Defts. on different dates took Rs. 600 as earnest money from the plff. & executed a bainanama in favour of the plff. & promised to sell those properties to plff. by executing & registering s sale deed. A deed of sale was dratted on proper stamps on the advice of the deft. 1, But as defts. subsequently refused to execute & register the said deed, plff's claims are for a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of the said deed against the deft. & on deft, fail- ing to execute & reg...

Sm. Parul Bala Roy Vs. Srinibash Chowmal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal364

1. In 1938, the appellant Parul Bala Roy Choudhury purchased from the Calcutta Improvement Trust a plot of land No. 881 of Scheme No. 33 covering an area of 5 cottas 13 chataks & 25 sq. ft. While she was the owner of the whole of the plot, she submitted a building plan for sanction by the Calcutta Corporation. The plan was sanctioned by the Corporation on 15-5-1939, This plot viz: 381 is a corner plot abutting on two 40ft. wide streets made by the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The greater length of the plot is north to south. One face of the plot, namely, the northern one, abuts on one 40 ft. road & west face of the plot on the other 40ft. road. The plan which was submitted for sanction & which was sanctioned by the Corporation showed for the purpose of the building the frontage of the plot to be on the northern road. An open space was left at the farthest end opposite to this road & at the back of the proposed building, that is to say, the open land was shown to be the southern part of ...

Sasadhar Ghose Vs. Harihar Kar and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal378

ORDER1. This application in revision by the judgment-debtor is against orders passed by the Dist J., of Midnapure dismissing an appeal preferred under Section 174 (5), Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The decision in this appeal depends upon an interpretation of the proviso to Sub-Section (5) of Section 174, Bengal Tenancy Act, & more particularly of the concluding words namely 'no such appeal shall be admitted unless the appellant deposits such amount in Court'.3. The application filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 174 (8) of the Act was disposed of by the Subordinate Judge by an order dated 10-5-1948, dismissing the same. After allowing time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment, the last date for filing the appeal was 20 6-1948, On the day previous, namely, June 19, a, memorandum of appeal was presented on behalf of the judgment-debtor, in the Court of the Dist. J. along with a petn. stating that the applt. had not been able to collect the amount required to be deposited ...

Mukharam Singh Vs. the State

Court : Guwahati

1. This is an appeal against a conviction and sentence Under Section 5(a), Assam Prohibition Act, 1948. The appellant, Mukharam Singh, and one Koilosia Nunia were jointly tried by the District Magistrate, Nowgong, on a charge Under Section 5 (a), Assam Prohibition Act 1948. The case against him was as follows.2. On 3ist May 1948, members of the Excise Special Branch held up no, 5 Up-Train at Lumding and searched the same.) They found the female accused, Koilosia, in a third class compartment, and noticing a smell of opium near her insisted upon a search of her person, and they recovered from her person a packet containing 2 seers of opium. When the opium was seized, the woman stated that it had been given to her by a man who had persuaded her to take it with her to Sarupathar on payment of RSection 10. Thereupon she took the Excise S.I, along the train and pointed out accused 2, Mukharam Singh, who was sitting in another oompartment. The woman went up to him, addressed him by name and...