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
Shri Ram Janki and anr. Vs. Mt. Maktoola and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All633
Wanchoo, J.1. This is a second appeal by Sri Ram Janki through Baba Tribeni Das & another. The appellants were defts. in the suit which was brought by the plff. resps. The plffs. sued for cancellation of a deed of gift & for possession of the property comprised in that deed. This deed was executed by one Ram Nandan on 2-7-1942. in respect of certain property situate in village Daunri. The properties were gifted to the idola of Sri Ram Janki installed in a temple in village Daunri which is under the management of Baba Tribeni Das. The donor provided that Baba Tri beni Das would take possession of the property, manage it in the way he liked & after meeting the expenses of management, would spend the profits on the expenses of the idols. The property consisted of fixed-rate tenancy, a grove, a house & some occupancy tenancy. The deed was assailed on a number of grounds. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal on the ground that in view of...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Kulsumunnisa Vs. Mohd. Ramzan
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All673
Harish Chandra, J. 1. In this case a decree for arrears of rent and ejectment was passed against the respondent with respect to a house before the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (U.P. Act in [3] of 1917) came into force. The date on which this Act came into force was according to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of that Act 1-10-1946. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and a conditional decree for ejectment was passed, the condition being that if the defendant did not deposit in Court a certain sum of money within two weeks, the ejectment was to take effect. The plaintiff-appellant went up in appeal and the Civil Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment. He, however, attached a condition that it was open to the execution Court to consider the question of default on the part of the defendant and the applicability of the District Magistrate's order in the light of a ruling reported in Makhanlal v. Shankerlal, 1944 ALL. L.W. 591. It appears th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramamohan Das Vs. Basudeb Dass
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori28
Das, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit relates to an institution called Sri Biranshi Narayan Muth at Buguda, Ghumsur Taluk, Ganjam District. As appears from the connected civil Revisions Nos. 169/47 and 8/48 which have been heard with this appeal there appears to be some reasonable doubt whether this institution is a Muth or a temple. But so far as this appeal is concerned, it has proceeded on the assumption put forward by the plaintiff in his plaint that it is a Muth. This has not been traversed by the defendant in his written statement. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant is the Mahant of the Muthand that he is his duly constituted Chela and that his residence in the Math has been made impossible by the wrong conduct of the defendant and that he is denied even food and raiment and that he has had to leave the Muth in 1930. He accordingly asserts a right to be maintained out of the Muth funds and brings the suit against the defendant as the hea...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhu Kumbhar Vs. the King
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori354
Narasimham, J.1. Applt. Sudbu Kumbhar was convicted for the murder of his own father Pahalu Kumbhar & satenced to transportation for life by the Ses. J. of Sundergarh, Sambalpur.2. The offence was said to have been committed on 31-8-1947 in village Hamirpur P S, Eaghunathpaii in Gangpur State. That day was a day of of festivity for the villagers being the Rakhi Purnima & it appears that most of the males of the, village including the applt. & his father Pahalu took considerable quantities of rice beer (Handia). At about noon Pahalu after performing the usual worship & taking Khichiri meals lay clown for rest on the verandah of one of the rooms of his house. The females went to neighbouring-houses for taking their food. Just then the applt returned from somewhere, went inside the kitchen & finding (sic) to why no food or drink was kept for him. Thereupon Pahalu rebuked him for being a glutton (Ranka). This remark was said to have so much enraged the applt that he ran towards his father,...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataswami Naidu and anr. Vs. Muniappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad53
Govinda Menon, J.1. The learned Additional District Judge of Salem, disagreeing with the decision of the District Munsif of Sankaridrug at Salem, held in A. S. No. 395 of 1943 out of which this second appeal arises, that, Ex. P-1, dated 26th December 1931, related to the purchase of the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs' vendor not as benami for defendant 1 but in order to enure for the benefit of the plaintiffs' vendor himself. Exhibit P-1 was a sale-deed for a consideration of Rs. 800 executed by one Muthuswami Konar in favour of one Duraiswami Naidu, by which the property mentioned therein was sold with absolute rights to the latter. On 7th June 1941, Duraiswami Naidu sold the property purchased under Ex. P-1 to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 1500. On the strength of this purchase under Ex. p-12, the plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration of their title to the suit house and possession of the same with damages for past use and occupation from the defendants. Defend...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Muni Samappa Vs. Kolala Gurunanjappa (Dead) and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad90
Bajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 in O. S. No. 50 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Anantapur against a decree granting specific performance of an agreement to sell executed by the appellant and respondent 2 (defendant 2) on 3rd July 1944. There is no dispute as to the execution of the agreement. The two defences in the lower Court were (1) that as there were four sons of defendant 1, he-could not convey anything more than his share and (2) that the breach was on the part of the plaintiff, as time was of the essence of the contract. The learned Subordinate Judge held that as the agreement did not make any reference to the sons of defendant 1 or the binding nature of the -alienation such pleas need not be gone into in this suit. He also held that time was not of the essence of the contract and the breach was by the defendants. He, therefore, held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance.2. The learned counsel for the appellant has pressed ...
Tag this Judgment!inder Singh Vs. Bishambhar Sahai and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All635
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment & decree of the Second Civil Judge of Meerut by which the plff.-respondent was given a decree against the applt., who was a deft, in that suit, for a sum of Rs. 11,067-13-0 on the foot of a simple mortgage bond, dated 30-10-1981. The appellant claimed the benefit of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act (U. P. Act XIII [13] of 1940) & certain provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, (U. P. Act XXVII [27] of 1934). The learned Civil Judge relying upon the provisions of Section 4, Debt Redemption Act, did not give him the benefit of that Act. Section 4 provides that the provisions of that Act will not apply to a suit for the recovery of a loan from an agriculturist where the creditor declares that if a decree is passed in his favour either for the whole or a part of the claim, such decree shall not be executed against the land, agricultural produce or person of such agriculturist. It would appear that the plff.-respondent had, i...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Munna Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, East Punjab and ...
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1949]17ITR394(P& H)
This is a petition under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act for requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court the following question of law :-'Whether the expense incurred by the assessee are an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) ?'The facts giving rise to these proceedings may be briefly stated as follow : The assessee, namely, the firm Messrs. Ram Chandra Munna Lal is a joint Hindu family firm who carry on the business of cloth merchants and also of money-lending in Delhi. The assessee firm through Mahabir Prashad entered into an agreement with three others for promoting a limited company to be styled as Shahdara Delhi Iron Works, Ltd. According to the term of the agreement the assessee firm land two of the other three were to contribute a sum of Rs. 15,000 each to the capital of the company while a sum of Rs. 3,000 was to be contributed to the said capital by the fourth party. It was also agreed that during the period of the promotion o...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Ram Chandra Munna Lal Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H348
1. This is a petition under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, for requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer to this Court the following question of law:Whether the expenses incurred by the assesses are an admissible deduction under Section 10(2)(xv)?2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings may be briefly stated as follows: The assessee, namely, the firm Messrs. Bam Chandra Munna Lal, is a joint Hindu family firm who carry on the business of cloth merchants and also of money-lending in Delhi. The assessee firm through Mahabir Prasad entered into an agreement with three others for promoting a limited company to be styled as Shahdara Delhi Iron Works, Ltd. According to the terms of the agreement the assessee firm and two of the other three were to contribute a sum of Rs. 15,000 each to the capital of the Company while a sum of Rs. 3000 was to be contributed to the said capital by the fourth party. It was also agreed that during the period of the promotion of the Compa...
Tag this Judgment!Sreeman Madabusi Vadi Matheba Kanteeravam Satagoparamanujacharyulu Vs. ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad88
Mack, J.1. This second appeal and these batches of civil revision petitions raise the same point for determination, namely, whether Medupalli Agraharam is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2), Estates Land Act. It has now two landlords who originally belonged to the same family, Venkatarangacharyulu and Ramanujacharyulu. S. A. No. 2235 of 1946 arises out of a suit for rent filed by the latter claiming nearly Rs. 585 as rent from three tenants. The District Munsif holding that Medupalli Agraharam was not an estate decreed the suit. The civil revision petitions arise out of batches of suits for ejectment by these landlords in which on a finding that this agraharam was an estate and that the tenants had occupancy rights, the plaints were returned for presentation to the Revenue Court. The learned Subordinate Judge of Ellore heard all the resulting appeals along with other batches of appeals arising out of two other villages, Pentapadu Agraharam and Devaracheruvu Kandrika in a com...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6705
- 6706
- 6707
- 6708
- 6709
- 6711
- 6712
- 6713
- 6714
- 6715
- Next ›
- Last »