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
Gauri Shanker Lal Vs. Tulshi Singh and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All47
Mootham, J.1. In my opinion this appeal must be dismissed.2. The relevant fasts can be stated very-shortly. Three persons mortgaged sixteen villages to the appellant to secure an advance. In 1932 the appellant obtained a mortgage decree, but before any steps were taken to execute that decree the Co-operative Bank obtained a simple money decree against one of the mortgagors and in execution of that decree the interest of that mortgagor in eight of these sixteen villages was sold. The other two mortgagors (who are the present respondents) then applied under Section 8,. United Provinces Debt Redemption Act, 1940, for amendment of the mortgage decree. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the mortgagors' liability for the repayment of the advance had, by virtue of the sale in execution of the decree obtained by the Co-operative Bank, been transferred to another person, and that therefore there was no loan within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of that Act. There...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal and ors. Vs. Kali Prasad
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All108
Chandiramani, J.1. This is the defendant's appeal against the appellate decree of Mr. Harish Chandra Asthana, Civil Judge, Lucknow, dated 20th July 1949.2. The plaintiff alleged, the defendants appellants to be his tenants on a monthly basis at the rent of Rs. 17-8-0 per month. He stated that the tenancy commenced on 9th of each calendar month. On 17th December 1948 the plaintiff gave to the appellants a notice to vacate on 8th January 1949. On 30th November 1948 the plain, tiff had previously applied to the District Magistrate for permission to file a suit for ejectment. This permission was granted on 4th January 1949. Thereafter a suit was instituted for recovery of arrears of rent for 5 months and for ejectment. It was contended in the trial Court that there was no wilful default in the payment of rent and that the permission obtained for filing the suit was not valid. The learned trial Court held that there was no wilful default in the payment of rent, but held that the permission ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranga Bewa Vs. Raju Lenka and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori64
Panigrahi, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are rather complicated, but the question of law arising is extremely simple. 2. The plaintiffs deceased husband, Danei, was the adopted son of Kelu. Kelu and Pira were uterine brothers. Subsequent to the adoption of plaintiff's husband a son, Kalindi, was born to Kelu, and as Kalindi died issueless when he was joint with Danei, Kelu'a 8 annas share in the joint family properties devolved on him. Pira brother of Kelu, died leaving him surviving his widow, Sadhabani. The admitted case of the parties is that by a registered deed of partition, dated 15th June 1913, the plots in disputes were divided between Kelu and Pira. The present dispute relates to possession of the properties allotted at the partition. During his lifetime Kalindi (the natural born son of Kelu) executed a deed of gift dated 30th January 1917, in favour of Banambar, son of Pira, conveying the 8 annas share of Kelu in the suit properties ignoring the interests of Dane...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ganapathia Pillai Vs. N. Somasundaram Pillai and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad213
Mack, J.1. Petitioner is a defendant who seeks to revise an order by the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram declining to decide first an issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner, as a preliminary issue, and directing the suit for reasons he gave to be disposed of once and for all on all issues. The issue of jurisdiction appears to be one of mixed law and fact, namely, whether the suit filed under Section 92, Civil P. C. with the consent of the Advocate General does not also come within the scope of Section 73, Hindu Religious Endowments Act requiring sanction of the Hindu Religious Endowment Board, There are said to be both secular and religious trusts mingled in a general trust being administered by the defendant who has been acting as a trustee of a long-standing family trust. Under Order 14, Rule 2, Civil P. C., a Court has ample discretion to try an issue of law if it is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on issues of law only and for that pur...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. Ponnu Kannammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad269
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. In this revision petition the main point that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Judge who decreed the suit against the defendant had committed an error of law in not having adverted himself to the available records on file in the suit, viz. the vakalat and the plaint, when coming to the conclusion as to whether Ex. D. 1 in the suit did or did not contain the thumb impression of the plaintiff. 2. The suit was for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 200 being the balance refundable from out of a sum of Rs. 300 entrusted to the defendant by the plaintiff. The defendant denied having had any transaction with the plaintiff and denied liability to refund any amount to the plaintiff. The decision in the case rested mainly upon the oral evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant. The lower Court believed the version of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for the sum of Rs. 112-13-0. While believing the version of the plaintiff, the trial Court did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnammal Vs. R. Lakshmi Ammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ647
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1.This is an appeal by the respondent in O.P. No. 142 of 1948, against an order of Subba Rao, J., granting a succession certificate to the petitioner in the original petition in respect of the Government securities, more particularly specified in the schedule attached to the petition.2. The securities originally stood registered in the name of one Subramania Ayyar. He died on the nth December, 1911, leaving behind him his father, Anantarama Iyer, his widow Ammani Ammal, and two daughters, Krishnammal and Rajammal. The respondent in. this appeal, who was the petitioner in the original petition is Lakshmi Ammal, the daughter of Rajammal. On the 26th September, 1912, Anantarama Iyer executed a deed of settlement whereunder he provided that after his death his daughter-in-law, Ammani Ammal should enjoy the securities for her life and after her death they should be possessed and enjoyed in equal half shares by his grand-daughters, Krishnammal and Rajammal for life. On t...
Tag this Judgment!Kottan Vs. K.V. Kannan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad632
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. The point for determination in this revision petition is whether an endorsee of a simple on demand promissory note will be entitled to a decree against an endorser without proof of presentment for payment to the maker and without notice of dishonour to the endorser.2. The suit was on a promissory note for Rs. 240 executed on 12-8-1944 by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2. On 14-4-1944, defendant 2 endorsed in favour of the plaintiff for consideration. The suit was filed on 13-2-1947. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendants failed to pay the amount on several oral demands and the registered notice sent to the defendants by the plaintiff on 10-2-1946 proved of no avail and hence the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit. Defendant 1 was ex parte. Defendant 2 pleaded that the moneys paid under the promissory note belonged to the plaintiff and that he was a name lender to the promissory note and that at the request of the plaintiff it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Mangapathi Naidu Vs. M.K. Krishnaswami Naidu and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad762
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff whose suit on a mortgage (Ex. P-1) dated 5th June 1909, was decreed by the trial Court and dismissed by the lower appellate Court has preferred this second appeal. The only point argued before me is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The suit was instituted on 27th July 1944 to enforce the mortgage (EX. P-1). There are two endorsements of payments on the mortgage bond, EX. P-1 (a) dated 30th July 1920 and EX. P-1 (b) dated 29th July 1932. It is common ground that Ex. P-1 (a) is a valid acknowledgment of liability under Ex. P-1 and is & fresh starting point of limitation. Exhibit P-1 (b) is in these terms: 'The amount of Rs. 100 paid and endorsed (sellu vaithadu) by us five persons.'Then follow the names and signatures of the debtors. The appellant contends that the Tamil expression ' (sellu vaithadu)' implies that there is an outstanding balance still due under the mortgage and that the endorsement, Ex. P-1 (b), therefore, operates as an ack...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Lal Laduram Vs. Agarwal Brothers
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal267
Chatterjee, J.1. This is an application by Bajranglal Serowgee who carries on business under the name and style of Bajranglal Laduram for having the effect of an arbitration agreement determined by this Court. The application is really for an adjudication that an arbitration agreement between the parties is still subsisting.2. By contract No. 1633 dated 28th July 1948 the petitioner alleges that he agreed to purchase from the respondent 80,000 heavy cees bags in 200 bales at the rate of Rs. 140/4/- per 100 bags, delivery August 1948. The terms of the agreement appear from a copy of the Bought Note included in the annexure to the petition.3. Clause 13 of the said contract contained an agreement for arbitration in very wide terms.4. The petitioner's case is that on 16th August 1948 he sent shipping instructions to the respondent to bring 50 bales, that is, 20,000 heavy cees bags, and on 18th August 100 bales, that is, 40,000 heavy cees bags alongside the vessel 'Kutsang.' The respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Binapani Devi Vs. Surendra Nath Haldar and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal532
R.P. Mukerjee, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and arises oat of Title Suit No. 20 of 1944. The plaintiff had brought the suit on the plea that the defendant had taken settlement of the tank in suit for three years from Agrahayan 1346 B. S. to Jaista 1349 B. S. after executing a kabuliyat. After the expiry of the lease the defendant had continued in possession, though the plaintiff had not assented to such possession. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, is a trespasser and the prayer is for an ejectment from the demised property. The defence raised various points but the one material for the purpose of the present appeal is that the tenant had paid rent up to 1350 B.S. and that there had been a further agreement by the landlord accepting fresh tenancy after the expiry of the lease in Jaistha, 1349 B. S. 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge has on a consideration of the evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6742
- 6743
- 6744
- 6745
- 6746
- 6748
- 6749
- 6750
- 6751
- 6752
- Next ›
- Last »