Privy Council Cases

Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh Vs. Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR17

Reid, J.1. The appellant is the owner of the Jharia estate. In 1898 his predecessor granted a mining lease of a part of that estate to the predecessor of respondent No. 1. The terms of that lease are set out in a kabuliyat of October 22, 1898, which begins: 'This kabuliyat regarding Mourushi Mukarrari, i.e. permanent settlement on commission of coal land is executed to the following effect.' The provision, the meaning of which is in dispute in the present litigation, is as follows :1. That for the quantity of coal which I shall raise from the leasehold entire 1103 bighas 18 kathas of coal land of Ekra I shall pay commission, i.e., royalty on steam coal, rubble coal, hard coke and soft coke at the rate of 3 annas per ton and for rubble and dust for burning bricks at 1 anna 6 pies per ton. Be it stated that I shall pay royalty at the present fixed rate for the coals, which will be despatched by the East Indian Railway line, But in future if the Bengal Nagpur. Railway line is constructed ...

Vempati Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. R. Krishna Iyer Alias Krishna Rao and ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad593

ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether the right to recite sankalpams to such persons as bathe in the holy Pushkarani thirtham in Thirumalai Hills and want sankalpams will fall within the scope of Section 147, Criminal P. C., if there is a likelihood of the breach of the peace. The petitioner claims to have exercised that right exclusively since 1728 at least, and characterises the counter-petitioners as recent interlopers usurping his right. Once he and they are said to have fought over it. Later on, the counter petitioners are said to be taking to their heels whenever they see the petitioner and his men approach. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 147, Criminal P. C., when asked to rescind the orders of the Sub-Magistrate refusing to pass orders under Section 144 Criminal P. C., and pass orders under Section 144, Criminal P. C., and then dropped the proceeding on the ground that the cou...

Aditya Kumar Ray Vs. Dhirendra Nath Mandal and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal92

P.N. Mitra, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff under Clause 15, Letters Patent from a judgment of Blank J. in a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of khas possession of certain lands. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah, modified that decree by dismissing the plaintiff's claim for khas possession and giving him only a declaration of his title to the landlord's interest in the suit lands. Our learned brother has affirmed that decision of the lower appellate Court.2. The suit lands are C. S. Dag No. 2684, which is a tank, and C. S. Dag. No. 2683, which an adjoining garden. These plots formed part of a maurashi mokarari jama which belonged to one Harish Chandra Mondal. Harish executed a simple mortgage in respect of this jama in favour of the plaintiff. It was stated to us by the learned advocate for the appellant that this mortgage was made in 1921. In 1928, the plaintiff brought a suit upon this mortg...

Bibhuti Bhusan Vs. Surendra Mohan Lahiri

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal96

ORDERK.C. Chunder, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the tenant defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment in 1947 and, as is usual, though he claims the house for his personal use and occupation, he is being driven from pillar to post. The Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946 was then in force. The landlord got the permission of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller granted a conditional permission.2. The tenant filed an appeal to the District Judge, 24-Parganas under the Ordinance. The District Judge in deciding the appeal very rightly passed a legal order by granting the permission unconditionally. Had the original order of the Rent Controller stood, there might have been some justification for the contention raised before us that the permission was not legal.3. As regards the question that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, the jurisdiction is granted by Section 25 of the Ordinance. No question of Order 41, or anything analogous to it aris...

Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh, Deceased, Now Represented by Kali Prasad S ...

Court : Privy Council

Lord Reid: The appellant is the owner of the Jharia estate. In 1898 his predecessor granted a mining lease of a part of that estate to the predecessor of respondent 1. The terms of that lease are set out in a kabuliyat of 22nd October, 1898, which begins "This kabuliyat regarding Mourushi Mukarrari, i.e. permanent settlement on commission of coal land is executed to the following effect." The provision the meaning of which is in dispute in the present litigation is as follows : "1. That for the quantity of coal which I shall raise from the leasehold entire 1103 bighas 13 kathas of coal land of Ektra I shall pay commission, i. e., royalty on steam coal, rubble coal, hard coke and soft coke at the rate of 3 annas pet ton and for rubble and dust for burning bricks at 1 anna 6 pies per ton. Be it stated that I shall pay royalty at the present fixed rate for the coals, which will be despatched by the East Indian Railway line. But in rotate if the Bengal Nagpur Railway line is constructed an...

A. Veerayya Vandayar and Others Vs. Sivagami Achi and Another

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC319

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Madras dated 13th November 1944, modifying a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore dated 18th July 1941. [2] The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Receivers appointed by the Court to collect the dues upon a mortgage bond dated 19th April 1926. The mortgage was executed by appellant 1, who was defendant 1 in the suit, on behalf of himself and his minor sons appellants 3 and 4, who were defendants 3 and 4, and by defendant 2 and members of his joint family who were defendants 5, 6 and 7. The suit, which was to enforce the mortgage, was commenced on 6th April 1937 and the plaintiffs who are respondents in this appeal, were the persons interested in the mortgage money. The defences originally raised are no longer relevant. On 22nd March 1938, the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938 (Madras Act, IV [4] of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was passed with th...

Jaduram Vs. Ramdassi

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC304

Lord Morton of Henryton: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji dated 11th October 1946, on an originating summons in the matter of the estate of Nanhu deceased. [2] Until his death, Nanhu carried on business as a merchant in partnership with his brother Jagannath under the style of Jagannath Nanhu and Co. [3] Nanhu made his will on 21st August 1937, in the following terms: "This is the last will and testament of me Nanhu son of Birma of Labasa on the Island of Vanualevu in Fiji. Merchant. I hereby Revoke all former Wills and other Testamentary writings by me heretofore made And I Declare this to be my last and only Will and Testament. I appoint my brother Jagannath Son of Birma Merchant who is also my partner to be my sole executor and trustee. I Give Devise and Bequeath unto my said trustee all real and personal property of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate of or to which I may be entitled or over which I may have a disposing power at the time of my de...

Korath Illath Vallappil Mammadi Haji's son Kunheethu Vs. Vayyavinat Ma ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad24

Raghava Rao, J.1. On a careful scrutiny of the plaint, I am perfectly clear that the suit out of which this second appeal arises was one laid under Section 20 Clause (5), Malabar Tenancy Act. If, on the finding of the Courts below, the plaintiff failed to make out his right to evict on the allegations in the plaint made with reference to Clause (5) of Section 20 of the Act, the only course for the Court to adopt seems to be as conceded by Mr. Nambudiripad for the respondent to dismiss the suit. It will not, in such a case, be open to the plaintiff who has failed to make out the foundation for the suit with reference to the requirements of Clause (5) of Section 20, to fall back upon the consideration that two of the three requirements of Clause (5), which are the requirements of Clause (3), stand made out and that the suit must be dealt with as a suit under Clause (3) of Section 20 of the Act. So much has been ruled in this Court by the decision in Ammu Amma v. Kunnapadi Kalan Karnavan ...

Korath Illath Vallappil Mammali Haji's son Kunheethu Vs. Vayyavinat Ma ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ399

Raghava Rao, J.1. On a careful scrutiny of the plaint, I am perfectly clear that the suit out of which this second appeal arises was one laid under Section 20, Clause (5) of the Malabar Tenancy Act. If on the finding of the Courts below, the plaintiff failed to make out his right to evict on the allegations in the plaint made with reference to Clause (5) of Section 20 of the Act, the only course for the Court to adopt seems to be as conceded by Mr. Nambudiripad for the respondent to dismiss the suit. It will not, in such a case, be open to the plaintiff who has failed to make out the foundation for the suit with reference to the requirements of Clause (5) of Section 20, to fall back upon the consideration that two of the three requirements of Clause (5), which are the requirements of Clause (3), stand made out and that the suit must be dealt with as a suit under Clause (3) of Section 20 of the Act. So much has been ruled in this Court by the decision in Puthenveettil Thalasseri Veettil...

Kally Nath Dutta Vs. Shew Bux Mohata and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal87,54CWN355

G.N. Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by defendant 3 against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 15th March 1949 in which he gave certain directions in the matter of the ascertainment of mesne profits, to a Commissioner appointed for this purpose. In 1944 a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for recovery of possession was instituted against several defendants. Defendants 1, 2 and 6 were the trustees to the estate of one Sm. Sekheswari. Defendants 3, 4 and 6 were in possession of distinct plots under the trustees. On 20th March 1948 the suit was decreed, the plaintiff's title was declared and a decree for recovery of possession and for mesne profits was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Against the decree defendant 3 preferred an appeal to this Court and obtained Civil Rule No. 872 (F) of 1948 for a stay of the decree for delivery of possession and for ascertainment of mesne profits. This rule was heard on 23rd August 1948. An order was made by this Court dir...