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
Dadi Appala Naidu and ors. Vs. Kolluru Bhimalingam and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad186
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of Patanjali Sastri J. and it raises a question of subrogation.2. On 6th August 1924, one Jagandhara, the husband of defendant 7, executed a mortgage deed Ex. D-1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in respect of item 4 of Sch. B annexed to the plaint for a sum of Rs. 1000. On 6th September 1924 he executed another mortgage deed, Ex. P 1, in favour of defendants 4 and 5 in regard to items 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 750. He again mortgaged items 1, 3 and 4 to defendants 2 and 3 under Ex. D-2 dated 29th June 1930 for a sum of Rs. 500. On 11th July 1930 he borrowed another sum of Rs. 1670 and executed a mortgage deed, Ex. P-2, mortgaging items 1 to 5, On 9th September 1933 by Ex. D-10, defendants 2 and 3 transferred their interest under Ex. D-l to defendant 6. Under Ex. D-11, dated 7th October 1933, Jagandhara's wife Mahalakshmi, being minor represented by her father, executed a sale-deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 for a s...
Tag this Judgment!Bammidi Nagula Alias Nagula Vs. A.V. Bhanoji Row
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ532
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioner before Sri T. Srirangam Naidu who was the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam and Election Commissioner. The petition was filed for a declaration that the election of the respondent was void and for a declaration that the petitioner had been duly elected. The grounds on which the petition was filed were (1) that the respondent was disqualified for election as Councillor under Clause (2) of Section 49 of the Madras District Muncipalities Act in asmuchas he is a partner and director of the General Engineering and Trading Corporation, Ltd., Vizagapatam, interested in a subsisting contract with the Municipal Council, Vizagapatam, (2) that he was also disqualified under Section 49 (2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act since the respondent being a hereditary member of the Managing Committee of the Mrs. A.V.N. College is the Official Superior of the Sitting Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniswami Goundan Vs. Ramaswami Goundan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ829
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises two points of law, (1) whether the suit was maintainable and (2) whether it was barred by limitation.2. The facts of the case have been fully and accurately set out in judgments of the lower Courts and also in that of Wadsworth, J., in the second appeal. We need not restate them except to the extent necessary for appreciating the contentions of the parties. One Sinnayya Goundan executed a mortgage deed, Exhibit P-1, dated 12th July, 1922, in favour of one Periya Goundan for a sum of Rs. 500. On 24th June, 1924, the same Sinnayya Goundan executed a second mortgage deed in regard to the same property in favour of one Rama Boyan. On 24th September, 1928, Sinnayya Goundan for himself and as guardian of his then minor sons executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of Periya Goundan, that is, the mortgagee under Exhibit P-1 and also another by name Sinnammal for a sum of Rs. 1,300. The consideration for the mortgage was made up of two items; (1) a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniswami Goundan Vs. Ramasami Goundan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad802
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises two points of law, (1) whether the suit was maintainable & (2) whether it was barred by limitation.2. The facts of the case have been fully & accurately set out in judgments of the lower Cts. & also in that of Wadsworth, J. in the second appeal. We need not restate them except to the extent necessary for appreciating the contentions of the parties: One Shrinayya Gounden executed a mtge. deed, Ex. P. 1 dated 12-7-1922 in favour of one Periya Gounden for a sum of Rs. 500/-. On 24-6-1924 the same Sinnayya Gounden executed a second mtge. deed in regard to the same property in favour of one Rama Boyan. On 24-9-1928 Sinnayya Gounden for himself & as guardian of his then minor sons executed a usufructuary mtge. in lavour of Periya Gounden, that is, the mtgee. under Ex. P. 1 & also another by name Sinnammal for a sum of Rs. 1,300/-. The consideration for the mtge. was made up of two items : (i) a sum of Rs. 650/- due to Periya Gounden under Exs. P. 1 & (ii) a...
Tag this Judgment!Kallampudi Narayanappa Vs. Kaligotla Suryanarayana and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad46
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition is defendant 1 in O. S. No. 85 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Yellamanchilli, instituted for redemption of two usufructuary mortgages executed by defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1. The plaintiff claimed to be the purchaser of the properties subject to two mortgages having purchased the same from defendant 2. Defendant 2, mortgagor filed a written statement in person on 7th July 1948. Defendant 1's contention is that in pursuance of an agreement of sale executed by defendant 2 in his favour agreeing to sell the property he came into possession of the property and that by virtue of Section 53A, T. P. Act his title to the pro. perty had been perfected and that the plaintiff is not entitled to redeem the properties. Defendant 2 in his statement filed on 7th July 1948 which was filed in person had stated that he had executed on 25th December 1945 an agreement to sell on a stamped paper and had ta...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Varadadesikachariar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad93
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Varadadesikachari to set aside his convictions under Section 161, Penal Code (in respect of two counts) by the Sub divisional Magistrate, Tiruvallur, confirmed by the Sessions Judge of Chingleput on appeal. The facts are briefly these :2. The petitioner, Varadadesikachari, aged 42, was living in Royapuram and was working as a Clerical Supervisor, Control Office, Return Stores Depot, Alamadhi on a daily wage of Rs. 4.8.0. The workshop of the Return Stores Depot, Alamadhi, was under the control of a European Officer by name Lt. C. J. Wince, who has been demobilised and has returned to England now. The petitioner used to put up papers for orders, to Lt. Wince and was, in the eyes of illiterate coolies, like P. Ws 3 to 9, a man of great influence with that officer. Lt. Wince received an anonymous petition against the petitioner which finally started the enquiry against the petitioner. The sum and substance of the charges against the p...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sundararajalu Naidu Vs. Natesa Mudaliar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad154
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition arises in execution proceedings. The petitioner who is the decree-holder in S. C. S. No. 173 of 1947 filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 148-7-0 due on a promissory note dated 29th March 1944 executed by one Ramiah Mudaliar, the undivided son of defendant 1 and brother of defendants 2 to 5 and father of defendants 6 to 8, for the benefit of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the defendants, in his capacity as the managing member of the family. Defendant 1, the father, raised a plea that there was an oral partition by division in status in 1929 and that the estate in his hands was not liable. The learned District Munsif passed a decree directing the defendants to pay Rs. 145-10-0 with interest and costs out of the properties and assets of Ramiah Mudaliar in their hand. The petitioner filed E. P. No. 8 of 1949 for attachment of the standing crops and by an interim order the standing crops on the lands were a...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sundararajulu Naidu Vs. Natesa Mudaliar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ593
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition, arises in execution proceedings. The petitioner who is the decree-holder in S. C. S. No. 173 of 1947 filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 148-7-0 due on a promissory note dated 29th March, 1944, executed by one Ramiah Mudaliar, the undivided son of the first defendant and brother of defendants 2 to 5 and father of defendants 6 to 8, for the benefit of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the defendants, in his capacity as the managing member of the family. The first defendant, the father, raised a plea that there was an oral partition by division in status in 1929 and that the estate in his hands was not liable. The learned District Munsiff passed a decree directing the defendants to pay Rs. 145-10-0 with interest and costs out of the properties and assets of Ramiah Mudaliar in their hands. The petitioner filed E.P. No. 8 of 1949 for attachment of the standing crops and by an interim order the standing craps on t...
Tag this Judgment!C.T. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. A.R.L.N.L.N. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ751
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1.The plaintiff appeals against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, dismissing his suit for declaration of his title to a quarter share of a large residential house in Devakottai and for setting aside an adverse order of the Subordinate Judge dated 26th March, 1943, in E.A. No. 510 of 1942. This litigation has had an antecedent history to which a brief reference is necessary in order to appreciate the contentions in this appeal.2. The parties to the suit belong to the Nattukottai Chettiar community. Ramanathan Chettiar the grandfather of the plaintiff was an affluent person owning considerable property and a money-lending business conducted through agents in several places in South India' and also in Rangoon and Saigon, with the vilasam of ' RM. M. ST. ' There was a branch of the business at Madras which received deposits, lent out monies and cashed hundies. Ramanathan Chettiar died leaving two sons, Chidambaram Chettiar and Vairavan Che...
Tag this Judgment!Hazi Mahammad Ekramal Haque Vs. Province of Bengal Through the Land Ac ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal83
K.C. Chancier, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the arbitrator in a proceeding in connection with the assessment of compensation for a building requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, Section 19, read with Defence of India Rules 81 (2) (bb) and Section 75A of the Rules.2. Briefly, the facts are that premises No. 9 Chittaranjan Avenue used to be occupied by the Central Government under a lease which expired on 29th July 1943. The lease had been granted on 28th July 1940, the rent reserved being Rs. 1950 monthly. On the expiry of the lease, the owner refused to renew the tenancy. Therefore on 30th July 1943, a requisition order was served requisitioning the building for the Controller of the Army Factory Accounts. The Collector offered Rs. 2200 as the monthly rent inclusive of the Corporation rates. This was refused by 'the landlord who claimed Rs. 3988 as the monthly rent inclusive of rates. He asked for a reference to arbitrator. The arbitrator came to the conclusion ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6731
- 6732
- 6733
- 6734
- 6735
- 6737
- 6738
- 6739
- 6740
- 6741
- Next ›
- Last »