Privy Council Cases

Narayan Jivaji Patil in Substitution for Shankar Dyamangouda, Patil, D ...

Court : Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 17th January 1938, which affirmed a judgment and decree, dated 23rd December 1936, of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. 2. The question for determination is one of limitation and their Lordships think is governed by a decision of the Board in a kindred case. The facts can be stated very shortly. There were three brothers, Nilkanth, Khandappa and Jivan, who were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mayuka school of Hindu law. Khandappa separated, but Nilkanth and Jivan continued joint. Nilkanth died in 1916 leaving an adopted son who married Tungava. The adopted son died in 1919, and Tungava adopted Dattatraya, who died on 6th February 1920. Jivan died in 1915, and his widow in 1919 adopted Narayan, who attained his majority in March 1920. The adoption of Narayan, as the law was then understood in Bombay, was invalid, since the adoptive mot...

Ganpatrai Agarwalla Vs. the State

Court : Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J.1. This order will dispose of Revn. petns. (cri.) Nos. 28 and 30 of 1949. The petitioners were committed to the Court of, and tried by the Political Officer, Sadiya, who was also the Sessions Judge for the area. Ganpatrai was tried for an offence under Section 376, Penal Code, and Radhakissen for its abetment. The petitioners were acquitted of the charges against them. It was found that though Ganpatrai had committed sexual intercourse with Bimola and Radhakissen had abetted the act, no offences had beenn committed as the evidence in the case did not disclose that sexual intercourse had been committed without Bimola's consent. While acquitting both the petitioners of the charges, the Political Officer ordered externment of the petitioners from the Mismi Hills district holding that their presence in the area constituted a menace to society. In his opinion the petitioners were undesirable persons and therefore deserved to be externed.[2] The petitioners have applied to th...

Joynal HussaIn Vs. the State

Court : Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J.1. Petitioner, Joynal Hub-Bain was convicted Under Section 6 (a), Assam Opium Prohibition Act, 1947, by a Magistrate of the First Class. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed. He asks for a revision of the orders of the Courts below. It has been contended on his behalf that the trial is vitiated by an illegality. The petitioner had been, discharged when he was first prosecuted by an order of Mr. Oarvalho, Assistant Commissioner dated 7-9-1918, This order of discharge was later set aside by the Additional District Magistrate but without giving any opportunity to the accused to show cause why the order of diaobarga be not set aside and further inquiry ordered. It is urged that the failure to issue notice to the accused as required by Section 436, proviso, criminal P.C. is an illegality which vitiates the order directing further inquiry, as also the subsequent proceedings culminating in the conviction of the accused.2. This contention has considerable force. The ...

inayat and ors. Vs. Rex

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1950All369

Seth, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an interlocutory order in a pending criminal case. Ordinarily, this application should have been dismissed on this ground alone. We, however, decided to consider it on merits and to decide the question of law raised by it, because there is an order by the learned Judge, who issued notice upon this application, stating that the question of law raised in this application is of some importance and deserves to be considered by a Bench of two Judges.2. The applicants are on their trial for an offence under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act. During the course of the trial, was tendered in evidence a report from the Inspector of Explosives. It was received in evidence and exhibited without any objection on the part of the defence, the result of which was that the trial proceeded further on the assumption that that document was not required to be formally proved. It seems, that at the time when this document was received in evidenc...

Hinga Vs. Ali Sher and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All628

ORDER1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by Mr. Gopal Chandra Sinha Additional Civil Judge, Hardoi, in a proceeding initiated by an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. It arises on the following facts: Durga Prasad, Gaya Prasad & Nand Ram owned a 10 biswas zamindari share in village Jalalpur in Hardoi district. By a deed dated 20-10-1904, they sold this share to Sardar Khan, Turab Khan, Kaley Khan, Ahmad Khan, Munir & Karim for a conaideration of Rs. 1000. Two preemption suits were filed in reapect of this sale, one by Imami, grandfather of the present petitioner Hinga, & the other by one Bhagga. Both the pre-emptors were held to be equally entitled to pre-emption. It was agreed that pre-emption of half of the property Bold be decreed in favour of Imami on payment of Rs. 500 & the other half in favour of Bhagga on the same terms. Imami did not deposit the pre-emption money in Court. On the other hand, he created a usufructuary mortgage over t...

Rangulal Ram Vs. Makhan Lal and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1951Ori183a

Panigrahi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit for recovery of possession of a house has been dismissed.2. The plaintiff is the son of one Jainarain who had a brother Rup Ram and mother named Achchunari Bewa. The plaintiff, his uncle Rup Ram and his grand mother Achchunari were living joint. They own some homestead lands in Khurda and paddy lauds in the adjoining villages. The plaintiff's case is that in or about the year 1924 there was an oral partition of the joint family properties between him and his uncle and that plot No. 533 consisting of 5.379 acres of land and the suit house and plot No. 534 which is the adjoining bari, were allotted to his share. The plaintiff further alleges that he was in possession of these plots, allotted to him, but that the properties stood jointly recorded in the settlement khatian in the names of the plaintiff, Rup Ram and Achchusnari. On 13-8-1.928 Rup Ram and Achehunari executed a 'nadabi deed (Ex. 2) in favour of t...

Nath Mal Vs. Daulatram Baijnath

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1950Raj25

1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money. 2. One Thakur Dass Khim Raj of Beewar filed a suit for recovery of money against Tejmal Shankerlal in the Court of District Judge Jodhpur which was compromised by an agreement by the defendants in that suit to pay Rs. 5800. Tejmal Shankerlal borrowed Rs. 2000 from the plaintiff as a part of the amount to be paid to Thakurdass Khimraj. It was alleged that Daulat Bam and Baijnath respondents by an agreement Ex. P. 1 dated Migsar vad 12 Section 1998 agreed to pay this amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 2000 principal and Rs. 680 by way of interest thereon. 3. The respondents admitted having executed the agreement but, it was alleged that according to the terms agreed upon, the amount was realisable from the proceeds of the decree held by the respondents against Shah Daudasa and Mb. Chandrabhaga under execution in the Court of the District Judge Jodhpur (Execution case NO. 7 of 1940-41) and further...

In Re: Guli Venkataswami

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad309

ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition for setting aside the order of the District Magistrate, Anantapur, setting aside the discharge of the petitioner, who was accused 1 in P. K. C. No. 6 of 1948 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate's Court, Anantapur, under Section 209, Criminal P. C., and directing the petitioner to be committed to the Court of Session. Anantapur, under Section 437, Criminal P. C., to stand his trial for offences under Sections 302 and 380, Penal Code, or, in the alternative, for an offence under Section 201, Penal Code.2. The prosecution case was briefly this. Komati Thimmakka, a lonely Vysya widow of sixty years, was eking out her livelihood by running a petty shop in Atmakur village, Anantapur district. She was wearing a gold nanu (necklace) worth Rs. 250 for years and had it on her even on the night of 27th February 1948, according to P. Ws. 3 and 9 her brother and his wife. That night, after she had closed her shop and gone to bed, five person...

In Re: M. Subramaniam Detenu No. 1169 in the Central Jail

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad405

Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an application by one M. Subramaniam who had been repatriated from the Federated Malay States, by an order of that Government, as he was a citizen of the Indian Union. Arriving in Madras by 'S.S. Rajula' on 26th December 1948, he was arrested after disembarkation and kept in remand till 7th January 1949, on which day an order of detention dated the previous day, was served on him and he was detained under the provisions of Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act. The reasons for detaining him, dated 19th January 1949, were served on him on 12th February 1949. He files his application on 26th March 1949 and it comes up for final disposal before us now.2. Belying on certain observations in two judgments of the Bombay High Court reported in In re Krishnaji Gopal : (1948)50BOMLR175 , and In re Pandurang Govind, : AIR1949Bom84 the learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the activities of the petitioner in a foreign country should not be taken into consid...

In Re: Ramakudumban and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad408

ORDERPachapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The three petitioners have been convicted under Section 160, Penal Code, of affray, and sentenced by the First Class Bench, Tenkasi, to pay fines of RS 5/- each, or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three days each. The facts are simple. At 1.30 P.M. on 15th July 1948 the petitioners beat in a public place one Masilamani, a washerman, who tamely submitted to the beating without the least retaliation, and simply howled in pain. Mr. Vedamanickam for the petitioners, relies on the wording of Section 160, Penal Code and on the ruling of Pandrang Row J. in Rami Reddi v. Narasa Reddi, A. I. R. 1938 Mad. 924 : (1938) Cri. L. J. 86 and urges that the petitioners ought not to have been convicted under Section 160, Penal Code as there was no fight, so essential to an affray, which is only a 'little war', whatever the case might have been if the petitioners had been charged under Section. 352 or 323, Penal Code. I agree. A war and an affray both require ...