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
Korada Atchanna Vs. Jayanti Seetharamaswami
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad387
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was filed by a landholder for ejectment of his tenant on the expiry of the term of his lease and for rent. The appellate Court passed a decree in ejectment, but dismissed the claim for rent on the ground that it was cognizable only by the revenue Court. The tenant has preferred this second appeal against the decree in ejectment while the landlord has preferred a memorandum of cross-objections regarding the disallowance of the claim for rent. The land which is the subject-matter of the suit is part of and situated in a whole inam village which became an 'estate' by reason of Madras Act, XVIII [18] of 1936. In O. S. No. 197 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vizianagaram, the landholder obtained a decree dated 5th July 1933 for ejectment of the tenants then occupying the land without any contest on the part of those tenants, The defendant was let into possession of the land by the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Vedakumpprath Pillai's son Muthu Vs. Kulathinkal Kuppan's son Narayana ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ804
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This appeal raises a question of Hindu Law of particular interest to the Ezhuva community in Malabar. This is how the question comes up. The properties which form the subject-matter of this litigation belonged to an Ezhuva woman Called Kalu. She died issueless in 1936. Chathu, her husband, then took possession of the properties and subsequently sold them to the first defendant in the suit. The plaintiff is the brother of Kalu and he claimed that the marriage of Kalu to Chathu had been in the asura form, that he was therefore in law the real heir of Kalu and as such entitled to the properties. On this basis he sought to recover possession of the properties from the first defendant, the vendee from Chathu. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal took the view that the marriage of Kalu had been in the asura form and decreed the suit. In second appeal Patanjali Sastri, J., held that the marriage was not an asura mar...
Tag this Judgment!Janaswami Venkataseshamma Vs. Sri Prativadi Bhayankaram Ranganaryakamm ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad769
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 61 of 1946 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur. She obtained a decree on 7th December 1946. On 15th April 1947 the respondent to this application who was defendant 1 in the Court below, presented to this Court an appeal which was valued at Rs. 25,305. The proper court-fee payable thereon was Rs. 1342-7-0. The appeal was presented however with a court-fee of Rs. 10. The memorandum of appeal was returned by the office on 1st May 1947 inter alia for payment of the deficit court-fee. On 3rd January 1949 an application was made by the respondent herein to excuse the delay in payment of the deficit court-fee. The delay was of nearly two years. On 5th January 1949, a learned Judge of this Court sitting in the Admission Court excused the delay without directing notice to the other side, that is, the petitioner before us. The petitioner on coming to know of the facts after a stay of execution had been obtained by the r...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Shakoor and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All223
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, recommending that the conviction and sentence of Abdul Shakoor and Bashir foe various offences under the Motor Vehicles Act may be set aside and either the case be remanded for fresh trial or they be acquitted of the charges preferred against them.2. The case of Abdul Shakoor and Bashir was tried by the Magistrate summarily. The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out in his order of reference that in this summary trial the Magistrate did not comply with the require, meats of Section 263, Criminal P. C., and that the judgment does not amount to a judgment at all so that the conviction of these two persons cannot be upheld. I entirely agree with the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge. The record of the summary proceedings prepared by the Magistrate shows that he only mentioned the sections under which the persons had been prosecuted. He did not anywhere mention the particulars of those offen...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Adhar Misra Vs. Parshottam Misra and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All226
Malik, C.J.1. This purports to be an appeal Under Section 10 of our Letters Patent and it has-been put up today for admission. A suit was filed in the Court of Munsif, being original Suit No. 77 of 1944. There was an appeal filed against the decision of the learned Munsif in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, at Gorakhpur. The appeal was decided on 7th January 1946. An application was filed to set aside the ex parte appellate decree and this application* wag also dismissed on 27th April 1946. Against the order refusing to set aside the ex parte appellate decree an appeal from order wag. filed in this Court under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. This appeal was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 10th March 1949. The learned Judge did not grant leave to appeal-Under Section 10 of our Letters Patent. An appeal could be filed under the Letters Patent, only when the learned single Judge, hearing the appeal, had granted leave, if the case before him was against a judgment passe...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Rukmani Bai Vs. Joshi Ram Kishan Joshi Bhawani Shanker
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All242
Malik, C.J.1. This is an application tinder Sections 109 and 110, Civil P. C., for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.'2. One Joshi Bhawani Shankar died in the year 1931 leaving a son Joshi Ram Kishna and a widow Shrimati Rukmani Bai. Joshi Ram Kishan became the owner of the property and we are informed that he has got a son, who has now attained majority, a daughter and a wife. Joshi Ram Kishan has been in possession of the property ever since his father's death in the year 1931. On 18th December 1942, Shrimati Rukmani Bai filed an application under Section 63, Lunacy Act, for an inquisition to be made that the appellant was of unsound mind and was incapable of managing his affairs, and praying for the appointment of a guardian of the latter's person and property. This application was heard by the then District Judge, Mr. Atma Charan, who granted the application and on 27th August 1943, authorised the Court of Wards to manage the property of Joshi Ram Kishan. Against that order Josh...
Tag this Judgment!B. Lalji Tandon Vs. Mrs. F.G. Rufus
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All289
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 28, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against the decree of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Allahabad, by which his suit was decreed in part and dismissed in part.2. The suit was brought to recover arrears of rent and the dispute before me is confined to a claim for as 50 only. This sum of Rs. 50 represents the difference between the rent that had become due to the plaintiff according to the agreement between the parties, and the rent which the plain, tiff claimed at an enhanced rate. The plaintiff served two notices upon the defendant, enhancing the rent, the former of the two was sent on 14th September 1946, and the latter on 12th October 1946. The agreed rent was a sum of Rs. 22-8-0 per month. According to the notice dated 12th October 1946, the plaintiff informed the defendant that he had enhanced the rent by Rs. 5-10-0 per month, namely, that he had enhanced the same to Rs. 28-2-0 per mo...
Tag this Judgment!A.E. Rama Kurup, Editor malayali Vs. the United State of Travancore-co ...
Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1950Ker83; 1950CriLJ1536
ORDERKrishna Pillai, C.J.1. The reference arises under Section 9, Travancore Newspapers Act (V [5] of 1101) upon a petition presented by the printer and publisher of the newspaper called the Malayans questioning the legality of an order passed by Government whereby the license granted to the said newspaper wan cancelled. The notice given Under Section 6 of tha Act indicated fourteen different articles of several dates, which were said to be seditious and lively (i) to excite disaffection against, and to bring into hatred and contempt, the Government of Travancore, (ii) to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between the several classes of the people in Travancore, (iii) to involve habitual publication of defamatory matter punishable Under Section 603, Travancore Penal Code, (iv) dissemination of false information, and (v) publication of matter which is obsoene in character These, if correct, would bring the publications within the miachief Section 5 of Sub-section (i)(a), (i)(a), (ii)(...
Tag this Judgment!Kuthiravattath Kottayil Kotharayan Alias Nallapata Nayar Alias Prabaka ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad355
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant, who is the present second stani of Kuthiravattath Swarupam, brought the suit, out of which the second appeal arises, for recovery of possession with mesne profits of the suit properties from defendant 1. It is necessary to set out in brief outline the previous transactions regarding this property. By Ex. P-2 dated 7th June 1905, one Kunhunni Thamban, who was then the second stanom-holder of Kuthiravattath Swarupam, executed a karipanayam deed in favour of one Alu alias Karumankutti for a sum of Rs. 1500. On 31st July 1920 under Ex. P-1, the same Kunhunni Thambam granted a registered kanom over the same properties to defendant 1 and defendant 1 is now admitted to be in possession of the properties after having redeemed the previous mortgage under Ex. P.2. This Kunhunni Thamban became the first stani in 1927 as a result of which, the person who succeeded to the second stanom was one Appu Thamban. This gentleman lived till 1942 when the present plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Avudainayagam Pillai Vs. Pitchiah Chettiar Alias Pitchiah Pillai and o ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad358
Pachapagesa Sastri, J.1. These two second appeals raise questions relating to the validity of rent sales of ryots' holdings under chap. VI, Madras Estates Land Act of 1908. S. A. No 915 of 1946 is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly in A. S. No. 112 of 1945 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif's Court, Tenkasi in O. S. No. 205 of 1944. S. A. No. 981 of 1945 is filed by defendant 1 in O. S No. 206 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tenkasi, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge in A. S. NO. 113 of 1945 reversing the decree of the District Munsif. 2. In Kottayur village of Sivagiri Estate one Sundaram Pillai was a ryot holding patta NO. 406. It comprised amongst others S. No. 220 of the extent of 16 acres and 52 cents. The land-holder was the zamindar of Sivagiri. Sundaram Piliai had two daughters. In 1913 he gifted S. No. 220 to his son-in-law, one Kosalaram. There appears to hav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6769
- 6770
- 6771
- 6772
- 6773
- 6775
- 6776
- 6777
- 6778
- 6779
- Next ›
- Last »