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
Hira Lal and ors. Vs. Puran Chand and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All685
Misra, J.1. The question before the Full Bench is whether the word 'debt' in the second proposition laid down by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Brij Narain v. Mangala Prasad and Ors. A.I.R. (11) 1924 P.C. 60, refers only to a simple money-debt or also to a debt secured by a mortgage. The reference became necessary because of a conflict of views on this point between the majority opinion to which expression was given by Mukerji and Boys JJ. in Jagdish Prasad and Ors. v. Hoshyar Singh and Anr. : AIR1928All596 . and the decisions of the Avadh Chief Court represented by Nand Lal and Anr. v. Umrai and Ors A.I.R. (13) 1926 Oudh 321.2. The suit which gives rise to the appeal was for a declaration that a simple mortgage-deed of a house executed on 12th September 1930 jointly by Khairati Lal, defendant 1 and his son-Puran Chand, defendant 2, in favour of Puran Lal in lieu of Rs. 2000 and a decree for sale based thereon in favour of Puran Lal's successor, Mt. Janki, defendant 3 are...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Krishna Swami Vs. Parshottam Das and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All296
Desai, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decree of District Judge of Sitapur in a mortgage suit. Har Bux Singh owned the entire mahal Lalta Singh in village Bhilawan. In 1918, ho executed a mortgage EX. El, in favour of Sheo Dayal and Sheo Sagar for Rs. 2300. In 1921, he executed another mortgage, EX. B17, in favour of Mahant Basudeo Gir, defendant 2, for us. 16000. On 22/ 24-3-1922, he executed one more mortgage, EX. 3, in favour of Sheo Darshan Singh, defendant l, and Jagannath Singh, defendant 5, for Rs. 4000. This mortgage was for the entire mahal Lalta Singh. One Raghubar Singh owned zamindari property in village Tikara. In 1920, he mortgaged it with Sheo Darshan Singh and Jagannath Singh. Thus Sheo Darshan Singh and Jagannatb Singh were mortgagees of two different properties. The share of each was one-half in the mortgagee rights under each mortgage. Jagannath Singh has been paid off his dues and we have nothing to do with his share in the mortgagee right in this dispute. Sheo ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Khaitan Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1950CriLJ136
Harries, C.J.1. The appellant was convicted of an offence of criminal breach of trust and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs. 0,000. He was also convicted of an offence Under Section 81 (4), Defence of India Bales and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of us. 26,000. The sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently.2. The appellant together with B, h. Bhartia and Maniklal Pal were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge sitting with a jury upon a number of charges. All throe accused were charged with conspiracy to commit fraudulent breach of trust and offences under Rule, 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, The appellant was also charged on three counts Under Section 406, Penal Code, and on two counts under e. 81 U), Defence of India Rules. B. L, Bhartia and Maniklal Pal were charged' on three counts for aiding and abetting offences Under Section 406, Penal Code. They were also charged upon two counts with offences under Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Thota China Subha Rao Vs. Mattapalli Raju
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR181
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. These are two appeals from one judgment of the High Court of Madras, disposing of two appeals brought to it from two suits filed in the Court of Coconada. In the High Court the appeals were heard together. The material facts lie in a small compass. As the parties in the two suits and appeals are differently arrayed, it will be convenient to refer to them as the mortgagor, the mortgagees and the lesSections2. On January 2, 1914, the mortgagor acting for himself and as the guardian of his undivided minor son granted a mortgage of 51.20 acres of Inam lands along with other lands (which need not be hereafter referred to as they were later on disposed of by consent of parties) to secure a sum of Rs. 30,000 lent by the mortgagees. In respect of the suit lands it was a non-possessory mortgage. On November 27, 1915, he executed another mortgage with possession of the suit lands for Rs. 4,000, but as the lands were in the occupation of the lessees under a lease for 15...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Krishna Dei Vs. Governor-general in Council and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All1
Chandiramani, J.1. The plaintiffs, the Governor-General in Council and the Rohilkhand and Kumaon Railway through its Agent at Gorakhpur, sued Mt. Kishen Dei, defendant 1, the appellant, and Nawab Ali, defendant 2, and Jumman, defendant 3, for recovery of possession over two small plots of land marked A and B in the map attached to the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff 1, Governor-General in Council, was the owner of the metre gauge railway known as the Lucknow Bareilly State Railway; that under an agreement dated 8th September 1890, plaintiff l leased the working of the aforesaid State Railway to plaintiff 2. It was said that the railway line of the aforesaid railway crossed Canning Street near Mohalla Rakabganj in the city of Lucknow and there was a level crossing at that place. In order to avoid accidents at the railway crossing, plain-tiff 1 acquired certain lands in 1895 and built an over-bridge for road traffic, as shown in the map, and handed over the bridge...
Tag this Judgment!Mushtaq Ahmad and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1949CriLJ947
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The applicants Mushtaq Ahmad, Shahidey and Mursalin were convicted by a Magistrate, let class, Gonda, in a summary trial under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 and sentenced each to rjgorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500. They went up in appeal, but their appeal was also dismissed.2. The allegation against the applicants was that on 25th January 1947, in the morning they were seen carrying on carts two bales of ehhinfc cloth towards Koela Basa in Nepal on the Jarwa-Eoela Basa Eoad in the district of Gonda. It is said that the scene of occurrence is 1% miles from Eoela Basa but within the district of Gonda. The applicants denied that the cloth was being taken to Nepal territory for sale. They said that it was being taken to Jarws Bazar about 4& miles away for sale. The defence was not believed.3. It has been contended in this revision that it has been impossible to find out which order has been contravened by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mushtaq Ahmad and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All622
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The applicants Mushtaq Ahmad Shahidey and Mursalin were convicted by a Magistrate, 1st class Gonda, in a summary trial under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500. They went up in appeal, but their appeal was also dismissed.2. The allegation against the applicants was that on 25th January 1947, in the morning they were seen carrying on carts two bales of chhint cloth towards Koela Basa in Nepal on the Jarwa-Koela Basa Road in the district of Gonda. It is said that the scene of occurrence is 11/2 miles from Koela Basa but within the district of Gonda. The applicants denied that the cloth was being taken to Nepal territory for sale. They said that it was being taken to Jarws Bazar about 41/2 miles away for sale. The defence was not believed.3. It has been contended in this revision that it has been impossible to find out which order has been contravened by the...
Tag this Judgment!Meerut Municipal Board Vs. M. Samuel and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All750
Sankar Saran, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for demolition of certain buildings and for possession over their site. There was a further prayer for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to construct a certain drain.2. The plaintiff in this case is the Municipal Board of Meerut. It is their case that they are the owners of the public road which runs from the clock tower to Akhtar Masjid in the city of Meerut, and towards the east of that road there is a Municipal drain, beyond which are situate houses Nos. 334 to 348, which belong to the defendants.3. The defence was that there was no encroachment on any portion of the public road and that the plaintiff is not entitled to have the constructions demolished. It was further alleged that the constructions were not made illegally. The sanction of the Municipal Board was deemed to have been given to the defendants under Section 180, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Furthermore, when the Municipal Board gave no...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chandra Vs. Ruknuddaula Shamsher Jang Nawab Mohammad Sajjad Ali K ...
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All93
Seth, J.1. This Full Bench reference is the outcome of disagreement between the learned Judges composing the Bench, which heard an appeal against a decree of the Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar at Meerut, dismissing a suit for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land alleged to have been concluded on 7-2-1942. The learned Judges were agreed on some of the points requiring determination, but not on all. The points of disagreement are the subject-matter of the questions referred to us for decision.2. The case appears to have assumed importance, not because of its own merit, but because of the learning and ability, with which it had been presented before this Court. When so much learning and ability is bestowed upon a case, which does not possess any extraordinary feature, attention is apt to be diverted to side issues, which have hardly any material bearing on the crucial points involved but which only tend to cloud the issue. In such a case, it is necessary not to lose s...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Jit and ors. Vs. Chand Kiran and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All7
Seth, J.1. Plaintiff-respondent, Chand Kiran, is the next presumptive reversioner to the estate of one Harbans, who died leaving behind him a widow, Mt. Lado. On 4th September 1918, Mt. Lado executed a simple mortgage of the property in suit in favour of Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh obtained a decree on the basis of the mortgage, in Suit No. 1147 of 1930. Plaintiff-respondent, Chand Kiran, and his brothers then instituted a suit, being Suit No. 409 of 1931, in the Court of the Munsif of Meerut for a declaration that the decree in Suit No. 1147 of 1930 was not binding upon the reversioners of Harbans, after the death of Mt. Lado. The suit was dismissed on 8th January 1932 on the only ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 125, Limitation Act. Mt. Lado then executed a sale deed on 16th October 1948, to pay up the decree in Suit No. 1147 of 1930.2. The present suit was brought for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 16th October 1943, will not bind the plaintiff after th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6711
- 6712
- 6713
- 6714
- 6715
- 6717
- 6718
- 6719
- 6720
- 6721
- Next ›
- Last »