Privy Council Cases

Bissen Singh Vs. Prameswari Singh and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal99

Harries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Magistrate acquitting the opposite parties under Section 258, Criminal P. C.2. The learned Magistrate held that the whole of the trial was illegal and he did not enter into the merits of the dispute.3. It appears that a complaint was made to a learned Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 448 and 341, Penal Code. On 6th December 1947, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:'O/C Watgunge, P.S--to make an enquiry and take cognizance if any cognizable offence is made out and send a report by 6th January 1948.'4. The police apparently reported, as an order of 6th January 1948, reads: 'Seen report. Complainant absent--file.' There is another order of the same date: ' Complainant appears by petition. Seen police report. Summon Balai Lal Das and Parmeswar Singh under Section 488 and 341, Penal Code for 4th February 1948.'5. The proceedings continued after the evidence of the prosecution had been taken an...

Haroo Vs. Man Dass and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1949HP4

ORDERBannerji, J.C.1. This is an application in revision under the provision of para. 35 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order 1948, against a judgment and decree dated 25th May 1949, of the District Judge, Mahasu, reversing a judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Jubbal, dated 28th December 1948, and thereby decreeing the suit.2. Man Dass, Kesru, Jhina and Jhia are four brothers, owning the field Khasra No. 4808. They commenced the suit for a declaration of a right of way over the land Khasra No. 4799, belonging to the defendant, Haroo. They claimed this right founded on prescription.3. The defendant denied this right and resisted the suit mainly on the ground that no right of way was either granted or came into existence by long user.4. This suit was brought on 17th January 1946. This date is important because it is previous to the date when certain enactments wera put in force in Jubbal State. On 17th September 1946, it is admitted by the parties that the Limitation ...

Benoy Bhusan Chakravarty Vs. Government of Assam

Court : Guwahati

Thadani, Ag. C.J.1. [Facts: This was a case of a de. tention Under Section 2 (1)(a), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. The grounds of detention furnished to the detenu were stated in these terms:(a) That you are an active member of the Communist Party of India in Lakhimpur District, the present aim and object of which is anti-Government activity subversive of law and order.(b) That you threatened public peace and tranquillity in Lakhimpur District by urging violent methods specially among the labouring cUeses.(c) That your activities, e, g., speeches at publio meetings and demonstrations etc., are prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order in Lakhimpur District.(d) That you profess Communist ideology and have actively engaged yourself to put Communist directives into effect for a 'political struggle' by bringing a revolution,2. In holding that the grounds furnished were sufficient to enable the detenu to make a representation to the Provincial Gove...

Doddamadiah and ors. Vs. Mallappa

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1953Kant6; AIR1953Mys6

Ramaiya, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for possession of a house conveyed by them under a registered sale deed to theplaintiff. Out of the consideration of Rs. 800/-mentioned in the sale deed Rs. 400/- was paid onthe date of the document. Towardsthe balance of Rs. 400/- Rs. 185/-was payable at the time of registration and Rs.215/- had to be paid to one Nanjundaradhya aprior mortgagee of the property. Exhibit E is thesale deed dated 19/2/1944 and Exhibit E (1) isthe consideration receipt for payment of Rs.400/- executed by the defendants on the sameday.Possession of the property was not delivered to the plaintiff and one of the terms of the sale deed is that the defendants could remain in possession of the same for 3 months within which they had to construct a new residence. The defendants while admitting the execution of the sale deed and the consideration receipt pleaded that the sale was cancelled by means of the document, Exhibit I, dated 8/5/1944 wherein the pl...

N.V. Vakharia Vs. Behari Lal Batra and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1949P& H372

ORDERKapur, J.1. This is a revision from the order of the learned Commercial Sub-Judge of Delhi passed in a suit for accounts.2. The plaintiff in this case, Vakharia, brought a suit for rendition of accounts and valued the suit at Rs. 5100. In para. 7 of the plaint the plaintiff stated as follows:That the plaintiff does not know the precise amount that will be found due to him upon a proper rendition of accounts and considers that a sum of about Rs. 10,000 will be found due to him on rendition of accounts.An objection being taken by the defendant as to the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee a preliminary issue was raised in the following words: 'Is the plaint properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?'3. The learned Judge relied on a correction slip which relates to the manner of determining the value of the suit for the purpose specified in Section 9, Suits Valuation Act and which is in the following words:Suits, in which the plaintiff in...

Saraswathi Madthi Vs. Rama Shetty and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad39

Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this second appeal questions the correctness of the decisions of the lower Courts on the ground that he is entitled to recover possession of the properties from the defendants' family because there have been a number of chalgeni chits executed by defendants 1 and 2 who are the ejaman and the senior Anandravan in the family and as such the defendants' family had admitted that they were in possession of the property under the plaintiff's family. Whatever might be the original title which the plaintiff's family had, we find that ever since 1809 the property was not in its possession. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the chalgeni chits executed by defendants 1 and 2 were collusive, nominal and champertous transactions and did not intend to create any leasehold right so far as the property is concerned. In more than one place the learned Judge finds that the documents on which the plaintiff relied as showing the admission...

T.G. Varadarajulu Naidu and ors. Vs. K.G. Narayanaswami Naidu Alias La ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad40

ORDERHorwill, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of defendant 1 and the plaintiffs are the sons of defendant 1's deceased brother. The plaintiffs claimed in their plaint that a certain house belonged to their father and that a room in that house had with his permission been occupied by the defendants. Quarrels having arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants, this suit was filed for the recovery of possession of that room and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession of other portions of the house. The defendants claimed that they had an equal share in the house. After perusing the written statements the plaintiffs thought it desirable that a fresh suit should be instituted in which wider questions could be raised; and so made an application to the Court under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P. C. to withdraw the suit, praying for liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. That application was allowed.2. Order 23, ...

Pentakota Naryudu and ors. Vs. Yellapu Venkata Ramanamurthi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad158

Viswanatha Sastri, J.1 This civil revision petition has been filed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam in A. S. No. 145 of 1944 affirming the decree of the District Munsif in a suit for rent for 1939-1940 and 1940-1941 in respect of certain lands situated in the zamindari village of Madgole. The amount of the claim was less than Rs. 500/- and hence the case comes to this Court by way of a civil revision petition. The contention of the defendants, here petitioners, is that the lands in respect of which rent is claimed are ryoti lands, that they are tenants with a permanent right of occupancy and that the suit for rent was cognizable only by a revenue Court. The respondents' case, accepted by the Courts below, is that the lands are his private lands and the suit for rent was, therefore, rightly filed in the civil Court. It is stated for the petitioners that this finding is erroneous and that the lower appellate Court has misdirected itself in law in arriving at t...

T.G. Varadarajulu Naidu and ors. Vs. K.J. Narayanaswami Naidu Alias La ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ457

Horwill, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of the first defendant and the plaintiffs are the sons of the first defendant's deceased brother. The plaintiffs claimed in their plaint that a certain house belonged to their father and that a room in that house had with his permission been occupied by the defendants. Quarrels having arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants, this suit was filed for the recovery of possession of that room and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession of other portions of the house. The defendants claimed that they had an equal share in the house. After perusing the written statements the plaintiffs thought it desirable that a fresh suit should be instituted in which wider questions could be raised; and so made an application to the Court under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the suit, praying for liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. That application was ...

Krishna Charan GuIn Vs. Governor-general in Council, Representing B.N. ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal100,54CWN154

G.N. Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by the petitioner Krishna Chandra Guin. It is directed against the decision of Mr. D. N. Chakladar, Munsif, 3rd Court, Midnapore, exercising Small Cause Court powers, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's suit for recovery of a sum of Rupees 152, alleged to be the price of goods consigned for carriage by the B. N. Railway administration represented by the defendant opposite party, and not delivered to the consignee.2. The facts of the case are that Joseph Herber & Co., Calcutta self-consigned a package for carriage by the B. N. Railway from Esplanade, Calcutta, to Midnapore. In the forwarding note, the consignor described the package as containing Gramophone Records and declared the value to be Rs. 99 only. The plaintiff petitioner purchased the goods from the consignor and took an open delivery of the package at Midnapore Railway Station. A part of the contents of the goods was not delivered by the B. N. Railway. After service of the requisite not...