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
Arunachala Pillai Vs. Ponnusami Naidu and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad404
Raghava Rao, J.1. It is objected for the respondent that this appeal does not lie. This appeal is one preferred against an order of the learned District Judge of Salem declaring a certain temple non-excepted, the order was made on 13th March 1946, and on 2nd April 1946, Section 84 of Madras Act II [2] of 1927 came to be modified by Section 40 of Madras Act X [10] of 1946, which abolished the distinction made by the former Act between excepted and non-excepted temples.2. The order would doubtless be unappealable under the original Act, but, it is urged for the appellant, that the right of appeal given by Sub-section (3) of Section 84 as amended covers the order. This, in my opinion, is not a correct way of reading the sub-section of the amended section. The right of appeal given by the sub-section must be understood in the context and setting of the amended section only as referring to an order, as such declaring or not declaring a trustee, a hereditary trustee. It cannot obviously refe...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Datta Vs. Mst. Ram Raji
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All256
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The suit was for possession of certain tenancy plots by the ejectment of the defendant. One Ram Charan was a tenant of holding situated in village Khamaria Chak Rakhauna in the district of Bahraich belonging to the Kapurthala estate. He died about the year 1895 and was succeeded by his widow, Mt. Radha. Under the Oudh Rent Act (22 of 1886) a widow was entitled to remain in possession of her husband's tenancy for the unex-pired portion of seven years for which the tenancy was created. Mt. Eadha, however, continued to remain in possession of the property right up to 1912. In the year 1912, there was a fresh contract of tenancy and Mt. Eadha and Bhagwati Prasad, her brother's son, became tenants under a contract with the landlord. From time to time this contract has been renewed and the amount of rent fixed has been enhanced. Bhagwati Prasad died in 1927 and Mt. Eadha in 1940. The defendant, Mt. Ram Raji, as widow of Bhagwati Parasad, continued to remain i...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhulal Vs. Parwatibai
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1952CriLJ868
ORDERRege, J.1. Mt. Parwatibai wife of Prabhulal instituted proceedings against her husband for maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The husband resisted the petition on the ground of infidelity of his wife. The learned Magistrate Bhanpura, allowed the application and directed that maintenance at Rs. 30/- per month should be given to Parwatibai. The opponent went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge, Garoth who has reported the case with a recommendation that the order of the Magistrate should be set aside and the case remanded for further inquiry. The learned Magistrate found the allegation of infidelity improved and it cannot be said that the finding is without foundation. It is in evidence, however, that the petitioner Prabhulal Is a minor and his means to pay the maintenance consist only of his interest in the joint family property. The learned Magistrate appears entirely to have ignored the meagre evidence tendered by the applicant Parwatibai re...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Singh and ors. Vs. Rama and ors.
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj8
ORDERVerma, C.J.1. I have before me a recommendation by the District Magistrate of Nagaur that an order passed by a Magistrate of Parbatsar on 25th October 1943 be set aside.2. Kama, Sukha and Jetha filed an application under Section 147, Criminal P. C., in the Court of the Magistrate in question on 18 th September 1948 and alleged that they had a right of way across the field of Bhanwar Singh and Bhopal Singh, that the latter were interfering with their eight and that this dispute was likely to cause a breach of the peace. Bhanwar Singh and Bhopal Singh appeared before the Court in obedience to the process issued by it and submitted that there was a foot path across their field which could be used by Rama Sukha and Jetha, but that the latter wanted to take their carts across the field and this they were not entitled to do. Daring the pendency of these proceedings; Rama, Sukha and Jetha presented an application praying that an ad interim order be issued enabling them to carry their man...
Tag this Judgment!Adinaranappa Vs. Mallamma
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1950Kant13; AIR1950Mys13
Mallappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 105 of 47-48 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, confirming those of the II Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 131 of 1946-47 on the file of this Court.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit against the defendant-appellant for recovery of the Rs. 513 due on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 3rd September 1997 in favour of the deceased husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied on an endorsement on the promissory note dated 7th September 1940 for the payment made towards interest. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act and he has pleaded discharge. This has not been believed by both the Courts and the suit is decreed as prayed for.3. The only point that was argued in this appeal is that the courts below erred in the view that the suit is not barred by limitati...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All232
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision by Sita Ram who was found guilty of an offence under Rule 81, Defence of India Rules read with Section 11, U. P. Gur Control Movement Order 1945, and whose appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four mouths and a fine of Rs. 100 with two months' R. I. in default by the Magistrate but the learned Sessions Judge has mposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 1000 in lieu of the sentence imposed by the Magistrate.2. On 28th August 1946 one Nand Kishore, father of Sita Ram applicant, obtained a permit for carrying 92 maunds of Gur Shakkar from Ghaziabad to Farrukh Nagar, a village situated to the west of river Hindan within the district of Meerut. Ghaziabad is to the east of the river. After crossing the Hindan bridge, at a short distance, a kutcha road leads to the north of the bridge to village Farrukh Nagar. A pucca road runs between Hindan bridge and Shahadra in the province of Delhi...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Vs. Rex, Through WahajuddIn and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All274
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision by Shankar against an order made under Section 145, Criminal P. C. by a Magistrate of the first class of the district of Allahabad declaring that the opposite party is entitled to possession of the plots in dispute until evicted therefrom in due course of law.2. It appears that the plots in dispute were within the zamindari of two persons, Mt. Jannatunnissa Bibi and L. Manmohan Das, and were in the occupancy of a tenant Durga. On Durga's dying heirless, the plots were taken possession of by certain persons who were, however, ejected on a suit being filed by the two zamindars.3. Jannatunnissa Bibi gifted her share of the property to her daughter Khairunnissa, wife of one Wahajuddin. On 29th December 1947, Wahajuddin lodged a report at the police station, Phulpur, alleging that Shankar along with some others was interfering with the possession of Mt. Khairunnissa over the plots in dispute and that there was a great danger of the brea...
Tag this Judgment!Basudev Moharan Vs. Ogadhu Ponda
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori99
Ray, C.J.1. This reference arises in Second Appeal NO. 60 of 1945. One Baaudev Moharan, Secretary of Hathotto Co-oparative Society, (defendant-appellant) preferred this appeal against the confirming judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur upholding the decree of the Munsif in a suit for declaration of title and either confirmation or recovery of possession of the disputed Inam lands. The same lands had been the subject of attachment and sale at the instance of the appellant-Society in execution of a decree against a member of the Society, a brother of Ogadhu Pooda, the trustee of Sri Jaganuath Mohaparabhu of Hathotto village. The decree was passed against the former, qua, an individual as distinguished from a trustee. Admittedly, the endowment was not bound by the debts, far lees, by the decree, the execution, the attachment, the sale and the proceeding for delivery of possession that followed. The contention, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue, wa...
Tag this Judgment!Penumetcha Annapurnamma Vs. Polisetti Jagannadham
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad298
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition is againt the order of the District Munsif of Narasapur dismissing the petitioner's application for execution as barred under Article 182, Clause (5), Limitation Act.2. The petitioner obtained a decree in a small cause suit on 9th March 1936. He filed an execution petition, E. P. No. 903 of 1936, on 21st September 1936 for issue of a warrant for arrest of the judgment-debtor. On 23rd September 1936 an order for arrest was passed, returnable on 20th October 1936. On 21st October 1936 the following order was passed by the learned District Munsif of Narasapur. 'Judgment-debtor not found for arrest. Struck off.' The present E. P. was filed on 31st March 1947, more than 11 years after the order referred to was passed on the previous E. P. prima facie the petition is barred under Article 182, Clause (5), Limitation Act.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order made on 23rd September 1936 in the terms referred to and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Appat Krishna Poduval Vs. Lakshmi Nathiar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad751
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. Defendant 10 in O. S. No. 543 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ottapalam is the petitioner. O. S No. 643 of 1938 was filed by the respondents who are jenmies for recovery of Michavaram against some of the defendants who are the kanomdars. The respondents represented two thavazhis, the tarwad consisting of three branches. The other thavazhi is represented by the other defendants. A simple mortgage decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on 9th August 1934. The final decree was passed on 27th July 1936. E. P. No. 1277 of 1935 was filed by the plaintiffs for bringing the property to sale and a Commissioner was appointed to report as to the survey numbers and the property that was sought to be sold and in his report it is stated that the parties are not at issue in respect of items 1 and 4 of the schedule to the decree. In E. P. No. 1277 of 1935 an order was made directing the plaintiffs to have the survey numbers given in the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6770
- 6771
- 6772
- 6773
- 6774
- 6776
- 6777
- 6778
- 6779
- 6780
- Next ›
- Last »