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
Vithalbhai Gokalbhai and ors. Vs. Shivabhai Dhoribhai and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom289; (1950)52BOMLR301
Chainani, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to certain properties which originally belonged to Gokalbhai Bapuji Patel. He had no issue. On 8th October 1895, he made a will with regard to these properties. They are referred to as lots Nos. 1 to 6 in the will. He stated in the will that his wife should take possession of all his properties after his death and should meet the expenses of his funeral ceremonies from lots Nos. 4 and 5. He further directed that his wife should maintain herself from the income of the remaining properties and that after her death, these properties should go to his two sisters, Jijiben and Raibaben. One of these properties, lot No. 6, had been mortgaged with possession, and in regard to that property he stated that it should be redeemed by his two sisters. At the end of the will, he stated that if his wife gave birth to a son or daughter after his death, he or she was to be the owner of all his properties. Gokalbhai died on 26th January 1897, leaving behi...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan Krishnan and ors. Vs. Sirkar Prosecutor
Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1950Ker20; 1950CriLJ833
Koshy, J.1. The accused twenty two in number were charged before the Sessions Court, Quilon, with the offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons, for haying caused the death of two persona Mahamad Sha and Alim Khan and for having attempted to cause the death of one Azim Khan (P.W. 6) in furtherance of their common object. Charges were laid against each for the offences punishable under aSection 140, 801 and 307, Travancore Penal Code. Excepting accused 1 and 12 who have been acquitted, the others have been convicted and sentenced a3 follows, Accused 2 to 11 and 18 to 22 have been convicted for the offence of murder and in respect of the conviction for each of the two murders committed by them they have each been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted Under Section 140, Penal Code, and they have each been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Accused 2 to 10 and 17 and as have been found guilty Under Section 307, Penal Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Penujuri Govindappa Vs. D. Chayappa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad277
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits instituted by a landlord, one for rent and the other for acceptance of patta by the ryot. S. S. No. 1 of 1911 from which S. A. No. 1474 of 1946 arises was a suit by the landholder, an Inamdar, for recovery of rent for fasli 1349 instituted under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act. S. S. No. 3 of 1943 from which S. A. No. 2113 arises was a suit instituted by the same landholder against the same ryot as in S. S. No. 1 of 1941 for enforcement of acceptance of patta by the ryot. There was a second appeal to this Court (S. A. No. 1033 of 1943)* from S. S. No. 1 of 1941 in which it was held by Byers J. that the landholder was not entitled to charge water cess in addition to the rent payable by the ryot, because the water that was used by the ryot was not the landholder's water but that of the Government. S. S. No. 1 of 1941 was remanded to the trial Court by the learned Judge for determining the dry rate of rent payable...
Tag this Judgment!Amaravathamma Vs. Chinna Venkat Reddi and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad334
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 53 of 1940 which was a suit for partition instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor. The petitioner is the widow of one Anjaneyalu Reddi. She claimed one-third share of the joint family properties against her father-in-law defendant 1, defendant 2 who was her husband's minor brother and defendant 3, the mother of defendant 1. On 6th August 1940 a compromise decree was passed but defendant 2 being a minor the Court sanctioned the compromise. It was found later that the required certificate by the advocate as to the reasonableness of the compromise was not filed. A suit was filed on behalf of defendant 2 by his next friend for setting aside the compromise decree which is O. S. no. 44 of 1942 on the file of the same Court. In the plaint in that suit the present defendant 2 prayed for a declaration that the compromise decree in O. S. No. 63 of 1940 was invalid, inoperative and void and not binding on the p...
Tag this Judgment!Penjuri Govindappa Vs. D- Chayyappa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ770
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits instituted by a landlord, one for rent and the other for acceptance of patta by the ryot. S.S. No. 1 of 1941, from which S. A. No. 1474 of 1946 arises was a suit by the landholder, an Inamdar, for recovery of rent for fasli 1349 instituted under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act. S.S. No. 3 of 1943 from which S. A. No. 2113 arises was a suit instituted by the same landholder against the same ryot as in S. S. No. 1 of 1941 for enforecement of acceptance of patta by the ryot. There was a second appeal to this Court (S.A. No. 1033 of 1943) from S. S. No. 1 of 1941 in which it was held by Byers, J., that the landholder was not entitled to charge water cess in addition to the rent payable by the ryot, because the water that was used by the ryot was not the landholder's water but that of the Government. S. S. No. 1 of 1941 was remanded to the trial Court by the learned Judge for determining the dry rate of rent p...
Tag this Judgment!Mathuradas Vassanji and anr. Vs. Tulsidas Damodar Ganatra
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom321; (1950)52BOMLR349
Rajadhyaksha J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Small Cause Court, Bombay, which has been referred to a Division Bench by Shah J. The applicant in this case was a trustee of the late Rao Bahadur Seth Karamsey Damji Sanatorium which is situated near the Wilson College, Chowpatty. The sanatorium has certain rooms which are let out for a period of one month at a time, and according to the rules of the trust no occupant of the room may remain on the premises for more than three months. The opponent Tulsidas applied for one of the rooms on the ground of illness and produced a medical certificate in support of his application. He was thereupon assigned Room No. 26 for one month from 11th July 1948. The period of occupany was extended first up to 10th September and then up to 10th October 1948. As the opponent failed to vacate the premises on 10th October inspite of his undertaking and the conditions for the use of the sanatorium, a notice was served upon h...
Tag this Judgment!Balia and ors. Vs. Sarkar
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj16
1. These are three connected appeals, NOS. 1.3 of 1949, and all of them will be disposed of by this judgment. Balia, Moolia and Ramla have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, Penal Code, to rigorous imprisonment for life each for causing the death of Lalia, and under Section 894, Penal Code to 7 years rigorous imprisonment each for robbing him of his money and ornaments. Both the sentences have been made to run concurrently. The three appeals referred to above have been filed by them.2. Lalia deceased, a young man of 94 years of age, was resident of Mirpur in Bind and came to Aimer in search of a match for himself. He was wearing a few silver ornaments and had RS. 500 with him, He knew Balia of Gola in Ajmer Merwara and therefore visited him. Balia brought him to Sumel in Marwar and they stayed with Ramla for 5 or 6 days. Moolia who cultivates a bera in this village also joined them and the deceased is alleged to have eaten 'Makkias' from his field a day before the occurren...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Menon Vs. K.P. Parvathi Ammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad373
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition raises, among others, an important question of jurisdiction for a petition under Section 6, Madras Marumakkatayam Act (XXII [22] of 1933). The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the wife. They are persons governed by the Marumakattayam law of inheritance. They were married on 22nd March 1941. The marriage was celebrated at Behala, in West Bengal. The husband is a member of the Indian Civil Service permanently employed in West Bengal. The parties entered into a deed of dissolution of marriage on 10th October 1947, the validity of which is however not admitted by the petitioner. On 6th January 1948, the husband filed Title Suit No. 10 of 1948 on the file of the Third Court of Munsif of Alipore, 24 Parganas, against his wife and mother-in-law for restitution of conjugal rights and for a decree declaring that the deed of dissolution of marriage dated 10th October 1947 was obtained fraudulently and was not binding on the partie...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Sugars and Refineries, Ltd. Vs. V.M.P. Malaiperumal Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad755
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are two connected petitions filed by the Indian Sugars and Refineries Ltd., Hospet, the first being a petition against Malaiperumal Pillai the plaintiff in O. S. No. 50 of 1947 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bellary. The suit was filed against the petitioner, claiming damages of 21/2 lakhs of rupees, in respect of an alleged contract in January 1949 relating to the sale of molasses. Malaiperumal Pillai was originally adjudicated insolvent in the Sub-Court, Negapatam, in I. P. No. 2 of 1932, and was subsequently adjudicated an insolvent by the High Court in I. P. No. 18 of 1936. The Negapatam insolvency was annulled in November 1938, and the claims therein were transferred to the Madras insolvency. One of the pleas taken by the petitioner in the suit was that the suit could not have been filed or continued by Malaiperumal Pillai as he was an insolvent. But the Court held that as the insolvency in the Negapatam Court, under the Provincial Insolvency Act...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Indra Devi Vs. B. Pirag Nath
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All210
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order passed by the Court below by which certain objections raised by the judgment-debtor were allowed and it was held that the decree in favour of the appellant was not capable of execution.2. It appears that a decree for maintenance was passed in favour of Mt. Indra Devi, the decree-holder-appellant, against Babu Pirag Nath, the judgment-debtor. It was a decree for maintenance at the rate of RS. 70/- per mensem and a charge was created on the property of Babu Pirag Nath for future maintenance. Mt. Indra Devi has applied for execution of her decree for the total amount of maintenance that has fallen due, The judgment-debtor put forward the objection that the decree in favour of Mt. Indra Devi was only a declaratory decree and as such it was not capable of execution. This objection has found favour with the learned Civil Judge, who has, in his order, relied upon two cases decided by this Court : (1) the case of Alla Bak...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6763
- 6764
- 6765
- 6766
- 6767
- 6769
- 6770
- 6771
- 6772
- 6773
- Next ›
- Last »