Privy Council Cases

Budaraju Venkatarathna Rao and ors. Vs. Budaraju Venkata Subbaiah and ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad136

Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, directing the sale of the properties that fell to the share of the appellants in a partition. The material facts may be briefly stated.2. One Buddaraju Venkata Subbayya and his sons instituted O. S. No. 106 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bapatla, against defendant 1 and his sons for partition and possession of their half share in the family properties and also for an amount and recovery of the amounts pertaining to their share. Deferdant 1 to that suit is Budaraju Hanumantha Rao, defendant 2 is his son, Ramakoteswararao and the other defendants are the other sons of Hanumantha Rao. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Under the decree, a sum of Rs. 4635 7-9 was directed to be paid by defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also obtained a charge on the shares of defendants 1 and 2. The appellants are the sons of defendant 2, Ramakoteswararao. They were born subseque...

The Province of Madras Represented by the Collector of Tanjore Vs. Sri ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ454

Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam at Vedaranyam for a declaration against the Province of Madras represented by the Collector of Tanjore as the first defendant that a portion of the Sannadhi Street in the village of Vedaranyam had been wrongly assigned by the first defendant to the second and for recovery of possession of the street property from the second defendant after removing the structures built upon it by him pursuant to the assignment. The plaintiff claimed to be the grantee of the entire village in inam from a Tanjore King of old under a grant which has not been produced but which, as appears from the inam title deed, was confirmed by the British Government in 1863. The plaintiff accordingly urged that the reversionary title to the street which was one dedicated to the public including the villagers was all along vested in it.2. The second defendant based his title on an assignment made to him by the first def...

Budaraju Venkatarathna Rao (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. Budaraju Venk ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ539

Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, directing the sale of the properties that fell to the share of the appellants in a partition. The material facts may be briefly stated:2. One Budaraju Venkata Subbayya and his sons instituted O.S. No. 106 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bapatla, against the first defendant and his sons for partition and possession of their half share in the family properties and also for an account and recovery of the amounts pertaining to their share. The first defendant to that suit is Budaraju Hanumantha Rao, the second defendant is his son, Ramakoteswara Rao and the other defendants are the other sons of Hanumantha Rao. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Under the decree a sum of Rs. 4,635-7-9 was directed to be paid by the first and second defendants to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also obtained a charge on the shares of the first and the second defendants. The appellants are the sons of...

Sree Meenakshi Mills, Ltd. Vs. Provincial Textile Commissioner, Madras

Court : Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated 23rd April 1946, which affirmed a judgment and order of the said High Court in its original civil jurisdiction, dated 29th March 1946. [2] The appeal arises out of an application to the High Court of Madras made by the appellant, the Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited, under S. 45, Specific Relief Act, 1877, against the respondent, the Provincial Textile Commissioner, Madras. It concerns the validity of certain seizures made by the respondent of yarn belonging to the appellant. [3] The material provisions of S. 45, Specific Relief Act, are as follows : "45. Any of the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William, Madras and Bombay may make an order requiring any specific act to be done or forborne, within the local limits of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, by any person holding a public office, whether of a permanent or te...

Damji Javerchand and ors. Vs. Province of Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1950Bom227; (1950)52BOMLR138

Shah, J.1. The plaintiffs appellants filed Suit no. 396 of 1940 in the Court of the First Glass Subordinate Judge of Thana against the Province of Bombay seeking to obtain a declaration that the levy of non-agricultural assessment at full rate on the entire area of the plaintiffs' survey NOS. 219, 220 and 281 of Ghatkopar ad-measuring 14,883 square yards was illegal and that the proper amount of assessment leviable should be calculated on the area actually built upon by structures and that it should be levied at concession rates. The plaintiffs prayed for a refund of the amount of RS. 72-6-3 alleged to be wrongfully and illegally recovered 'from him and also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from charging or recovering anything more than RS. 74-13-0 per year as non-agricultural assessment.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they were occupants of survey Nos. 219, 220 and 22l of Ghatkopar and that those lands were originally agricultural lands; that under the permission obta...

The Bank of India Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1950Bom375; (1950)52BOMLR587

ORDERTendolkar J.1. This is a summons taken out by the Bank of India Ltd., (hereinafter called the claimants) for an order against the Official Liquidator as the liquidator of the National Security Bank Ltd., (hereinafter called the bank) to pay to the claimants an aggregate sum of Rs. 5,000 on the ground that such sum was held by the bank in trust for the claimants. The amount represents the proceeds of three cheques for RS. 1000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 2,000 respectively drawn on the Talod branch of the bank, which the claimants sent to the head office of the bank in Bombay for collection. The cheques were duly forwarded by the bank to their branch at Talod. The Talod branch debited the amounts to the account of its customer and credited them to the account of the head office and forwarded two credit notes in respect thereof to the head office. These credit notes are dated 15th and 21st February 1947, respectively; but they did not reach the head office until after they suspended payment ...

Ghulam Mohammad Vs. Rex

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1950All91

Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. Ghulam Mohammad, aged twenty-five years, resident of the city of Muzaffarnagar, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to death. He appeals against that conviction and there is also the reference by the learned Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the death sentence.2. The prosecution case was that on 7th January 1948, Ghulam Mohammad appellant, Mohammad Ayub deceased and Laiq Ahmad, a boy of fourteen, came out of the Novelty Talkies at about 9 P. M. Mohammad Ayub was demanding from the boy Laiq Ahmad to repay Rs. 3,000, but Laiq Ahmad stated his inability to pay the amount. Ghulam Mohammad is said to have intervened and to have asked Mohammad Ayub not to tease the boy. This intervention by Ghulam Mohammad was not liked by Mohammad Ayub and he gave a shoe beating on the face of Ghulam Mohammad. Upon this, Ghulam Mohammad took out a knife from his pocket and struck Mohammad Ayub with it. Kalu Ram constable ...

Bengalimal and anr. Vs. Rex Through Municipal Board

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1950All92

ORDERMalik, C.J.1. The facts of this case are not disputed. On 4th August 1948, the applicants sold some milk which was said to be adulterated. The Medical Officer of Health of the Municipal Board of Agra sanctioned the prosecution of the applicants under Section 12, U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act on 13th October 1948. Section 15 (1) of the Act requires that'no summons shall issue for the attendance of any person accused of an offence under Section 4 or Section 10, unless the same is applied for within thirty days from the date upon which the order or consent referred to in Section 12 shall have been made or given.'2. For some reason or other the Municipal Board did not apply for summons within thirty days or the date of the order. When the Board discovered this error they got a fresh sanction from the Medicial Officer of Health on 17th November 1948, and filed the complaint on 19th November 1948.3. The learned Sessions Judge has held that there was nothing improper in getting a ...

Ram Asrey and anr. Vs. Rex

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1950All150

ORDERKaul, J.1. These two criminal revisions were filed in the Chief Court of Avadh on 15th December 1947. Application No. 154 is made by Ram Asrey and Gaya Prasad while No. 155 is made by Ram Asrey alone.2. The material facts are as follows: On 6th January 1947, the applicants were taking two consignments of grain by boats from district Lakhimpur to the adjoining district of Bahraich. They were convicted for having contravened an order dated 26th August 1946, passed by the Regional Food Controller prohibiting export of grain from Kheri district to another district without a permit authorising such export. In each case, the person convicted was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- and all the grain which was being exported was confiscated to Government. Dissatisfied with this decision Ram Asrey and Gaya Prasad preferred appeals which were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kheri. He noticed that there was no copy of the Regional Food Controller's order for the contravention of whic...

P. Venkatachala Udayan Vs. Executive Officer, Rasipuram Panchayat Boar ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad38

ORDERPanchapakesa Atyab, J.1. The petitioner, a ryot living within Rasipuram Panchayat limits, has been convicted under Sections 212 and 194 (1) (b), Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, for installing a five horse power motor and a pump set in R. S. No. 25/5 (Moolai well) in Koneripatti village within the Rasipuram Panchayat limits without having been granted a license by the Panchayat and has been fined Rs. 100. Mr. V. V. Srinivasa Aiyangar, for the petitioner, urged six reasons for quashing the conviction. I need consider only two of them as either of them ia enough to quash the conviction. The first is that S. 194(1) (b) will apply only to installations in premises for the purpose of industries and factories, the minor head under which this section comes, and will have no possible application to a pump installed in a field-well for irrigation purposes. The learned Crown Prosecutor agreed. On this ground alone the petitioner's conviction must be quashed. All the considerations of inconven...