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
Baij Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Faqirey Singh and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All190
V. Bhargava, J.1. These two connected second civil appeals arise out of two separate Suits Nos. 60 of 1943 and 61 of 1943 instituted in the Court of Munsif, East Hardoi for pre-emption of a sale-deed dated 23rd February 1942 executed by two persons, Becha Singh and Chotta Singh in favour of four persons, Anant Ram, Dhani Ram, Hira Lal and Mt. Gaya Kuer. In Suit No. 60 of 1943, the right of pre-emption was claimed by the appellants of these two appeals. In Suit no. 61 of 1943 the right of pre-emption was claimed by respondents 1 and 2, Faqirey Singh and Mang Din. It appears that the appellants and these two respondents had equal and concurrent rights of pre-emption. The trial Court held that Faqirey and Mang Din were estopped from pre-empting the sale on the ground of acquiescence and only the appellants were entitled to a decree for pre-emption. The lower appellate Court differed from the trial Court and held that Faqirey Singh and Mang Din were not estopped from claiming the preemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Jhagroo Khan Vs. Mohd. Ishaq and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All200
V. Bhargava, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants-respondents in respect of a permanent lease executed by respondent 3 in favour of respondents 1 and 2 on 1st October 1942.2. The pre-emption was sought on the allegation that the document mentioned above was in fact not a lease but either a sale of under-proprietary rights or a sale-deed creating under-proprietary rights in favour of strangers in the village while the appellant being a member of the under-proprietary village community had preferential right. The suit for pre-emption was decreed by the trial Court on a finding that the document in suit, though not a transfer of under-proprietary rights, amounted to a transfer of heritable and transferable tenure and such a deed could be the subject-matter of pre-emption. The lower appellate Court held that since the deed did not create or transfer under-proprietary right it could not be subjected to pre-emp...
Tag this Judgment!BadrinaraIn Vs. Chandanmal
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj2
Nawal Kishore, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals Nos. 10, 12/1948.49 as they have arisen out of the same case. The facts relating to them are stated in detail in a single bench judgment of this Court dated 14th September 1946 in Civil Appeal case no. 160/1942-43 and therefore only such facts will be set out in this judgment as are directly relevant to the points agitated by the learned counsel in this Court.2. This litigation between the parties arose out of a dispute relating to certain salt business done by them in partnership. It is common ground that at Pachpadra salt business was carried on by the Government of Jodhpur and the British Government separately and this consisted of transporting salt from the salt pits to the Pachpadra railway station. The work of transporting the salt in connection with the business carried on by the British Government was done by Messrs. Badrinarain Chandan Mal, whereas Messrs. Gangabnx Gulabrai were agents of the Government of Jodhpur, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamad Abdul Sukkoor Vs. Vallabhadas Kanji Firm
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad219
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This petition is by the plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in I. A. No. 169 of 1948 in O. S. N. 80 of 1946 on his file.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the respondents for damages for malicious and wrongful institution of insolvency proceedings against him by the defendants. I. P. no. 20 of 1942 was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and the same was dismissed on the ground that no debt was payable by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants thereupon filed two suits O.S. Nos. 132 and 133 of 1945 against the plaintiff for the recovery of the sum due under the contract. The two suits were dismissed on the ground that the contracts were of a wageriag character. The defendants have filed appeals against the decision in the two suits and they are A. S. Nos. 164 and 188 of 1948 pending in this Court. This suit, as already stated, is for recovery of damages for instituting the insolvency proceedings. One of ...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad AmIn Sahib (Died) Vs. Tiruvannamalai Co-operative Society by ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad234
Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this second appeal Mr. Arunachalam raised a very interesting point of law on which the only reported case is that of Karuppasami v. Krishnaswami : (1949)1MLJ199 , a decision of Satyanarayana Rao J.2. There was a mortgage decree passed by the District Munsif of Tiruvannamalai in favour of the Co-operative Society. The Society, instead of proceeding with the execution of the decree in the District Munsifs Court, applied to the Registrar to recover the money payable under that decree under Section 57A, Madras Co-operative Societies Act, VI [6] of 1932. Under that section, the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the local Government, recover the amount due under a decree or order of a civil Court by the attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of property of the person against whom such decree or order has been obtained or passed. Under Section 57B, the Reg...
Tag this Judgment!Sankati Pedda Chenniah Vs. Mahaboob Bee
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad236
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant who took on lease some land from the plaintiff for 1942-43. The plaintiff sued him to recover Rs. 190 as damages for use and occupation for the years 1943-44 and 1944-45 on the ground that the defendant continued in occupation and cultivation. The learned District Munsif found that defendant did not cultivate subsequent to the expiry of his lease and dismissed the suit with costs. The learned District Judge found that the land was not actually cultivated by anybody in 1944-45. He considered some evidence as regards cultivation in 1943-44 but gave no finding at all as to who actually cultivated it during this year. He decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour on the ground that the defendant failed to surrender possession after the expiry of his lease.2. I am quite unable to follow what kind of surrender of possession the learned District Judge contemplated. These are open fields on which there was no homestead or any movable property to be s...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamed Abdul Sukkoor Vs. Vallabhadas Kanji Firm and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ645
Somasundaram, J.1. This petition is by the plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in I.A. No. 159 of 1948, in O.S. No. 80 of 1946 of his file.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the respondents for damages for malicious and wrongful institution of insolvency proceedings against him by the defendants. I. P. No. 20 of 1942 was filed by the defendants against the plaintiff and the same was dismissed on the ground that no debt was payable by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants thereupon filed two suits, O.S. Nos. 132 and 133 of 1945 against the plaintiff for the recovery of the sums due under the contract. The two suits were dismissed on the ground that the contracts were of a wagering character. The defendants have filed appeals against the decision in the two suits and they are A.S. Nos. 164 and 188 of 1948 pending in this Court. This suit, as already stated, is for recovery of damages for instituting the insolvency proceedings. One of the...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad AmIn Sahib (Died) Vs. Tiruvannamalai Co-operative Society by ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ682
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. S.A. No. 1345 of 1945. In this second appeal Mr. Arunachalam raised a very interesting point of law on which the only reported case is that of Karuppasami v. Krishnasami : (1949)1MLJ199 , a decision of Satyanarayana Rao, J.2. There was a mortgage decree passed by the District Munsif of Tiruvannamalai in favour of the Co-operative Society. The Society, instead of proceeding with the execution of the decree in the District Munsif's Court, applied to the Registrar to recover the money payable under that decree under Section 57-A of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, VI of 1932. Under that section, the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the local Government, recover the amount due under a decree or order of a Civil Court by the attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of property of the person against whom such decree or order has been obtained or pa...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Munusami Reddi and ors. Vs. C.N. Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar and an ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad764
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The appellants in this case are defendants 2 to 13, who are the transferees from the registered pattadar, defendant 1 and who are aggrieved with the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput, who reversed the decision of the District Munsif of Poonamallee. The material facts that led up to the present litigation may be briefly stated. Plaintiff 1 who was a receiver appointed in O. S. No. 440 of 1917 on the file of this Court and who got himself registered as a landholder brought the holding of defendant 1 to sale for arrears of rent accrued due for Fasli 1348 under Section 112, Estates Land Act, and he himself purchased the property in auction for Rs. 177 and took symbolical possession thereof, Plaintiff 2 is a person claiming under plaintiff 1 as a lessee of the suit holding. Defendant 1 is the widow of the vendor of the holding to the two branches of the defendants' families, defendants 2 and 6 being the managers of the respective families. As def...
Tag this Judgment!Boto Krishna Ghose Vs. Akhoy Kumar Ghose and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal111,54CWN660
P.N. Mitra, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent, from a judgment of Chakravartti J. It is on behalf of defendant 1 in a suit for partition of a dwelling house and certain other properties. Our learned brother in concurrence with the Courts below has rejected the appellant's prayer under Section 4, Partition Act, to buy up the plaintiff's share in the dwelling house, and it is the propriety of this decision that is in question before us in this appeal.2. The facts, which are not now in dispute, are these. One Fakir Ghose and his three brothers Dwarik, Tarini and Ambika held a raiyati holding under a ganti tenure which was owned by one Kalidhan Debi, and their dwelling house stood on a portion of this holding. The ganti tenure was purchased by Fakir. He thereafter died leaving two sons Upen and Nabin as his heirs, who obtained by inheritance each an eight annas share of the ganti and a two annas share of the holding including the homestead. On 12th June 1920, Upen sold...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6754
- 6755
- 6756
- 6757
- 6758
- 6760
- 6761
- 6762
- 6763
- 6764
- Next ›
- Last »