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
Gunamudayan Packianathan, Christian, Vellam Odi, Nelvely Desom, Nattal ...
Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1950Ker5; 1950CriLJ569
Govinda Menon, J.1. The first accused in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1123 on the file of the Nagercoil Sessions Court has been convicted for the offences falling Under Sections 469 and 473, Travancore Penal Oode, and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. This appeal is directed against the said convic tion and sentence. One Boothathan Padmana-bhan was the complainant in this case. He did not live to give evidence at the trial. His evidence before the Committing Magistrate'9 Court as P.W. 3 has been proved as Ex. 9. His son was examined as P.W. 9. Kali Booths-than waa the father of the complainant and to him belonged a sixth share in survey no, 5475 of Nattalam Pakuthy and it stood included in Ex. J, a joint patta, issued to him and Subra-manian Narayanan who owned a third of the property between them. Kali Soothathan left six sons and eaoh of them had an equal share in the one-sixth of the property owned by him. The complainant bad therefore l/36th share i...
Tag this Judgment!Palla Sanyasi Vs. Kayitha Guruvulu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad271
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen for the recovery of certain jewels or their value from defendant 1. His case was that his younger brother Pentayya married a lady by name Ramanna and that at the time of the marriage, the jewels now claimed were presented to Ramanna by the plaintiff out of his family funds. Pentayya, the younger brother of the plaintiff, died in October 1943 and his widow Ramanna married defendant 1 in or about May 1944. Ramanna died on 17th December 1944 having committed suicide. The present suit for recovery of the jewels presented by the plaintiff to Ramanna at the time of her marriage with Pentayya the plaintiff's younger brother, has been filed on the ground that according to the custom in the Golla community to which the parties belong, Ramanna was bound to have returned the jewels to the plaintiff on her remarriage with defendant 1. In other words, t...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Murugappa Mudaliar Vs. P.M. Desappa Nayanim Varu and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad314
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 44 of 1946 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor is the appellant. The suit was for a declaration of his title to certain properties described in schedule A to the plaint and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of some of the items in schedule A described separately in schedule B.2. The suit properties according to the plaintiff originally belonged to one Megavarnam Nayanim Varu, the father of defendants 1 and 2 and the grandfather of defendant 5. One K. L. Narasimhachari obtained a decree in O. S. No. 45 of 1940 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chittoor against the present defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendant 5 for the amount due to him under a promissory note executed by Megavarnam. That decree was passed on 19th June 1940. After two applications filed in 1941, E. P. No. 3 of 1942 was filed by the original decree-holder against the father of defendant 5, defend...
Tag this Judgment!Pulavarthi Lakshmanaswami Vs. Pulavarthi Sitaramamurthi and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad319
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Plaintiff 2 is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the settlement of accounts specified in Schedules A to E of the plaint and for a decree for such amount as may be found due to the plaintiffs. There was a preliminary decree in pursuance of which a Commissioner was appointed to go into the accounts and submit his report. He made an interim report on 30th April 1942 recording his conclusions on some of the points in dispute and asking for directions regarding the question of interest claimed by the plaintiffs. A general direction was given by the trial Court regarding interest by an order dated 15th September 1942 and the Commissioner was asked to submit a final report. An auditor was appointed and he submitted a final report on 21st December 1942, Objections were filed by both the parties and the Courts below have dealt with those objections.2. It is clear that defendants 1 and 2 are liable to account to the plaintiffs a...
Tag this Judgment!Adisesha Ayyar Vs. Pappammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad341
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether defendant 2, (judgment-debtor) was precluded from raising her objection to the attachment of the properties by reason of the orders made in previous execution petitions, i.e., E. P No. 1661 of 1936 and E. P. No. 1165 of 1940 on the file of the same Court. The appellant (decree-holder) obtained a decree in O.S. no. 621 of 1930 against defendant 1 'the mother of defendant 2, for Rs. 480 and for cost' and in E. P. No. 687 of 1933 applied for attachment and sale of certain properties, some properties were sold in execution of the decree and the decree-holder purchased the same. Defendant 1, who is the mother, died some time in September 1936, E.P. No. 1661 of 1936 was filed on 3rd November 1933 for the balance of the decree amount and the mode in which the assistance was sought in the execution petition was to implead defendant 2, who was her only daughter as her legal representative and for attachment and...
Tag this Judgment!Adisesha Aiyar Vs. Papammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ748
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the second defendant (judgment-debtor) was precluded from raising her objection, to the attachment of the properties by reason of the orders made in previous execution petitions, i.e., E.P. No. 1661 of 1936 and E.P. No. 1165 of 1940 on the file of the same Court. The appellant (decree-holder) obtained a decree in O.S. No, 621 of 1930 against the first defendant the mother of the 2nd defendant for Rs. 480 and for costs and in E.P. No. 687 of 1933 applied for attachment and sale of certain properties. Some properties were sold in execution of the decree and the decree-holder purchased the same. The first defendant, who is the mother, died some time in September 1936. E.P. No. 1661 of 1936 was filed on 3rd November, 1936, for the balance of the decree amount and the mode in which the assistance was sought in the execution petition was to implead the second defendant who was her only daughter as her legal ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. N. Lakshmi Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad410
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal was heard by the Officiating Chief Justice (Rajamannar O. C. J. as he then was) and myself on 4th February 1948, and as we felt that the decision of a Bench of this Court in Mrs. Evelyn Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras, I. L. R. (1938) Mad. 72: A. I. R. 1937 Mad. 775 which was followed by the learned trial Judge required reconsideration, we referred the matter to be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The order we then made is as follows :'We consider it desirable that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of three Judges. The appeal raises more than one question of general importance under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and in regard to one of the points the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Evelyn Popaly v. Official Assignee, Madras, I. L. R. (1938) Mad. 72 : A.I.R. 1937 Mad. 775, which has been applied to the case by the learned trial Judge in our opinion requires reconsideration.' The matter has accordingly been placed no...
Tag this Judgment!Tan Teck Neo Vs. George Tan and Others
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC7
LORD RADCLIFFE: The purpose of this appeal is to establish the rights of two classes of beneficiaries under the will and codicil of a Chinaman, Lee Choon Guan, who died at Singapore on 27th August 1924. One class consists of the appellant herself, the widow of the testator, and the defendant Lee Chim Tuan, a trustee of the will and codicil; the other is formed by four women whose names are given in cl. 4 of the codicil and to whom the testator directed his trustees to make certain monthly payments during their respective lives. All these beneficiaries may conveniently be referred to as "the annuitants." 2. By virtue of certain dispositions contained in the will and codicil which will be referred to in detail hereafter the testator's residuary estate fell to be finally divided among his grandchildren and remoter descendants at the expiration of 21 years from his death, namely, on 27th August 1945, At that date all the annuitants were still living. The construction of the will and codici...
Tag this Judgment!Provincial Treasurer of Manitoba Vs. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. Ltd.
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC53
LORD RADCLIFFE: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada dated 18th June 1947. The Supreme Court judgment had reversed a judgment of the Court of Appeal for the Province of Manitoba dated 19th September 1945, and by so doing had restored a judgment of the Court of King's Bench in Manitoba dated 10th March 1943. The purpose of the appeal to their Lordships therefore is to upset the judgment of the Court of King's Bench. 2. The proceedings originated with an appeal by the respondent under the appellate procedure provided by the Income Taxation Act of Manitoba. A part of the respondent's business being carried on in Manitoba and the respondent being a corporation or joint stock company, the head office of which was outside the Province, the appellant made assessments to income-tax upon the respondent in respect of the years 1936-1939 inclusive. The respondent objected to these assessments as being excessive in amount, and, so objecting, put in motion the procedure ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Savitri Devi and Others Vs. Ram Ran Bijoy Prasad Singh and Others
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC1
SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal from the judgment and decree of that Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated 26th August 1946, affirming a judgment and decree of the same Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, dated 4th September 1942, dismissing with costs the suit of the plaintiff which sought to set aside a compromise decree. No relief is claimed against respondents 2, 3 and 4 who have not appeared in the appeal. 2. The litigation relates to the title to an ancient impartible Raj known as the Dumraon Raj, which is said to be of the value of four crofts of rupees. The original plaintiff and defendant had a common ancestor in one Parbal Singh who died in the year A. D. 1672. Parbal had a grandson, Raja Horil Singh, who founded the Dumraon branch of the family, and a grand-son, Udwant Singh, who founded the Jagadishpur branch of the family. The last undisputed owner of the Dumraon Raj was Mahar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6767
- 6768
- 6769
- 6770
- 6771
- 6773
- 6774
- 6775
- 6776
- 6777
- Next ›
- Last »