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
Vellingiri Naicken and anr. Vs. Sree Patteswaraswami Devasthanam by It ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ558
P. V. Rajamannar, J.1. There is no substance in this civil revision petition. The petitioners applied, for leave to file in forma pauperis a suit on their own behalf and on behalf of the public residents of Perur for certain reliefs including a relief of declaration that the properties in suit were communal lands available to the residents of Perur for public charitable purposes and for securing to the residents the benefits arising out of such user of the suit properties. The only question which arose before the learned Subordinate Judge was whether the petitioners could be held to be paupers within the meaning of Order 33, rule-I read with Explanation (iii) of the Civil Procedure Code. I entirely agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that if the suit is on behalf of the residents of Perur, it cannot be said that they are not possessed of sufficient means to enable the court-fee to be paid. Under Explanation (iii) when a plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Kshatriya Sandarare Nadar Uravinmurai at Usilampatti, Represented ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ608
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is the first defendant. He was sued by the plaintiff who claimed to be a reversioner to the estate of one Malayappa Nadar on the death of his daughter Thillaiammal who died in 1943. Malayappa in his lifetime sold a half share in the suit property which is a plot of land 266 acres in extent in the village of Usilampatti in Mathurai district. Subsequent to his death, the first defendant, which incidentally is a Nadar trust institution, purchased the other half share from Thillaiammal in 1919. It is this half share which the plaintiff as a distant reversioner seeks to recover. The District Munsiff held that he was entitled to file this suit on a court-fee of Rs. 2-3-0 paying ten times the assessment of Rs. 4 per acre as on land governed by Section 7, Clause v(b).2. The history of the case is rather extraordinary as the same learned Distric Munsiff returned a prior plaint filed in O.S. No. 335 of 1945 by this very same plaintiff for precisely the same relief as re...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Narayanaswamy Aiyar Vs. S.R. Muthurethnam Ayyar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ620
Rajagopalan, J.1. The facts are not in dispute. Sitaram Dikshitar, the father of the third defendant, owned S. No. 199/1. Sami Aiyar, the grandfather of defendants 1 and 2, owned S. No. 227/3 and 227/2. Sitarama Dikshitar and Sami Aiyar effected an exchange of their properties under Ex. P-2 in 1901. Subsequently, the father of defendants 1 and 2 sold S. No. 199/1 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was dispossessed of S. No. 199/1 under the decree in O.S. No. 53 of 1932 in 1940 by a person who claimed superior title. The plaintiff then laid this suit to recover possession of S. No. 227/3 and 227/2 from the 3rd defendant and his alienee, the fourth defendant. The learned District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that Section 119 of the Transfer of Property Act, as it stood at the time of exchange, evidenced by Ex. P-2 of 1901, did not entitle the plaintiff, who was himself not a party to the contract of exchange, to recover the property exchanged. The learned Subordinate ...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Fazal Ibrahim Rahimtoola Vs. Appabhai G. Desai
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom339; (1949)51BOMLR510
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Bhagwati making an order for the public examination of Sir Fazal Ibrahim Rahimtoola on a summons taken out by the official liquidator of the Associated Banking Corporation of India, Ltd., under Section 196 of the Indian Companies Act.2. The order is contested by Sir Jamshedji mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the order made was without jurisdiction. Now, jurisdiction of the Court to make an order for the public examination of a director-and Sir Fazal was a director of the company with which we are concerned in this case-is founded on Section 196 of the Indian Companies Act. That section provides that 'when an order has been made for winding up a company by the Court, and the official liquidator has applied to the Court stating that in his opinion a fraud has been committed by...', then the section goes on to state the class of persons who might be guilty of fraud, and then it goes on, 'the Court may, after...
Tag this Judgment!Ran Bejai Bahadur and ors. Vs. Ram AdhIn and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All550
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. On 27-10-1936, Ran Bijai Bahadur Singh and others, who have preferred this appeal, had filed an application,under Section 4, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. The application was, in due course, transferred to the Special Judge, II grade, Allahabad; and the notices prescribed under the Act were duly published. The respondents, Ram Adhin and Sridhar, filed claims in respect of debts, which the landlords-applicants owed to them. There was no claim to the property mentioned in the notice under Section 11 of the Act. The claim put forward by the respondents were investigated and decrees under Section 14 of the Act were passed in their favour on 13-1-1939.2. The landlords-applicants preferred an appeal to the District Judge of Allahabad, against the decree passed in favour of Ram Adhin. During the pendency of the appeal the landlords-applicants made an application, under Section 20 of the Act, to the District Judge praying that the proceedings under the Act be quashed. On 8-...
Tag this Judgment!Dhapal Singh Vs. Gopi Chand and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All471
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The only question involved and to be decided in the appeal is one of limitation. The trial Court, holding that the suit was within time, decreed it, while the lower appellate Court being of the view that the claim was beyond time dismissed it. This appeal is against the latter decree.2. The sale deed in question was executed by defendant 4 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 on 15th December 1943, in regard to an undivided share in certain specific proprietary plots for Rs. 4000. It may be mentioned at once that this amount was accepted as the actual pale consideration and is no more open to question in this appeal.3. Admittedly the property covered by the above sale is what is known as 'protected land' within the meaning of the U.P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act XIV [14] of 1940. As such, under Section 24 of the Act, the property could not be permanently alienated without the permission of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Kesho Ram Vs. Mt. Suraj Balli
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All751
ORDERWali-Ullah, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act directed; against an order passed by a learned Judge of the Small Cause Court allowing an objection raised by the judgment-debtor to the effect that the application for execution was barred by limitation.2. It appears that a simple money decree was passed on 22nd of November 1933, in favour of Sahdeo Kalwar, predecessor-in-interest of Kesho Ram, the applicant. The first application for execution was made on 2nd October 1936. It seems that there was some slight defect in this application inasmuch as the numbering of the suit was not correctly set out in the application. Next, we find that on 4th January 1937, an application was made by the decree-holder which contained a prayer that the decree be transferred to Deoria. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Gorakhpur thereupon, on 30th January 1937, passed an order directing the transfer of the decree to the Court at Deoria and...
Tag this Judgment!Jagroop and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All276
ORDERDesai, J.1. The applicants, who are a driver and a conductor of lorry owned by one Raj Kishore Verma, have been convicted under Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 79 (8), Motor Vehicles Rules, for carrying 52 passengers as against the prescribed maximum of 40, under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Act for not issuing tickets to passengers and under Section 112 read with Rule 162 for not equipping the lorry with a fire extinguisher. On appeal the conviction of the conductor under Section 42 read with Section 123 was quashed; the other convictions and sentences were maintained. 2. The only evidence produced in the case is that of the enforcement squad inspector and the head constable working under him. They deposed that there were 62 passengers in the lorry that there was no fire extinguisher and that the passengers stated that they were not given tickets. Neither the permit nor the registration certificate which must have been in the possession of the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Brajasundar Deb Vs. Binode Rout and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori240
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the District Judge, Cuttack, reversing the judgment of the Munsif, Cuttack, and dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for eviction of the defendants from certain plots appertaining to khata no. 197 in village Deulsahi and for other consequential reliefs.2. The plaintiff is the proprietor of Aul estate and village Daulsahi is within his zamindari. In the last settlement (1922 32), the said khata (ex. 6) was recorded in the names of defendants 1 to 4 as 'sthitiban' with a rental of Rs. 11-7-0 but it was further noted that the rental was fixed at a low figure in view of the tendering of 'chela' service by the tenants to the zamindar. In the Revision Settlement records-of-rights finally published in 1911 (Exs. 6 & 5-a) the same rental was shown as payable; but as regards the status of the tenants the following entry was made: 'Chela jagiri ghenan'.3. The plaintiff's case as set forth in the plaint was that t...
Tag this Judgment!Maheswar Naik and ors. Vs. Tikayet Sailendra Narayan Bhanj Deo
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori327
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Defendants 1 to 15 are the applta. in this second appeal. The pltf. is the Tikayet of Kanika, The defta. are the Bahar realdents of the Mouza called Chandrasekhacpur. The suit has been brought for an injunction restraining the defts. from entering into a forest belonging to the pltf. which may for convenience be called Patia forest & from cutting & appropriating any of the jungle produce therein. The trial Ct. dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate Ct. reversed it & granted the injunction & damages asked or by the pltf.2. Killa Patia in which the suit forest is a situated belong to Raja Dibyasingh Deb. On his death his brother Raghunath Deb succeeded to the Estate & on his death Maddan Mohan Dab. There was litigation relating to succession of the property between Mad'n Mohan & A .chyutananda. During the pondency of the litigation Mad an Mohan died & Achyutcanarda succeeded to the property. The estate was sold inexecution of a mtge. decree. during Achyutananda's...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6684
- 6685
- 6686
- 6687
- 6688
- 6690
- 6691
- 6692
- 6693
- 6694
- Next ›
- Last »