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
Kumar Chandra Bajpai Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All376
Malik, C.J. 1. These are three applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C. filed on behalf of Kumar Chandra Bajpai, Shaukat Ali Khan and Ram Bharosey Lal. Kumar Chandra Bajpai and Shaukat Ali Khan were detained for fifteen days under orders passed by the District Magistrate on 19th February 1949, under the U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act 1947. On 28th February 1949, the U. P. Government passed an order under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act detaining them for a period of six months. ON 21st June 1949, the District Magistrate purported to pass an order under Section 3, Sub-section 1 (f) preventing them from taking part in any activities subversive of law and order and requiring each of them to execute a bond for Rs. 500 under Sub-section (3) of Section 3. The facts are exactly similar; in the case of Ram Bharosey Lal only the dates are different. Hs was detained by an order of the District Magistrate dated 21st February 1949, the order of the Provincial Government was...
Tag this Judgment!Baiju Singh and ors. Vs. Kanh Kumar and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All626
1. One Akber Singh owned a 2 bis was & 10 biswansis' share in Patti Rohan Singh, in village Bhawanipur, district Hardoi, & 4 biswas, 3 biswansis & odd share in Patti Akber Singh in the same village. On 29-5 1905, Akber Singh mortgaged 2 biswas & 10 biswansis of Patti Rohan Singh to Pancham Singh. He delivered possession over 15 plots measuring 22 Bighas 2 biawansis in order to satisfy the interest on the principal sum, namely, Rs. 1700.2. On 25-8-1908, he mortgaged 2 biswas & 10 biswansis out of his share in Patti Akber Singh to the same person for a sum of Bs. 1800, Interest was to run at the rate of 6 per cent per annum & the property was not to be redeemed within ten years. It was further provided that if there was a default in payment of interest the mortgagee would be entitled to obtain possession, & it is agreed, that he did obtain possession in 1915. Other debts also were incurred & then Akber Singh died leaving a widow Mt. Sheo Rani & two sons, Bhudhar Singh & Bhola Singh. On 2...
Tag this Judgment!Debendranath Mittra Vs. Gourisankar Sankhanaria and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori198
Ray, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal in a suit for partition of plot No. 763, Khata No. 360 bearing an area 190 in the town of Cuttack. The plaintiff claims eight annas interest by virtue of his purchase. The Khasmahal is the landlord and the interest of the tenant is shown as Patadari with an annual rent payable. The terms and conditions of the tenancy are incorporated in periodical leases and kabuliyats which are renewed from time to time. In the Khatian papers, Chowdhuri Ramahari Das and Chowdhury Jayahari Das and several other Chowdhuries (a)) members of Bhingarpur Chowdhury family) stand recorded. It is not controverted that in partition Suit No. 69 of 1924 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, the lands, in dispute, were allotted to the shares of Ohowdhury Bamahari and Chowdhury Jayahari, each having eight annas share therein, Jaihari's interest was sold in execution of a money decree in the Court of the Second Munsif of Outtack in Execution Case No. 991/36 and it ...
Tag this Judgment!Balkishan and anr. Vs. Prabhu and ors.
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj27
1. This is a second appeal of the plaintiffs who had filed a suit against the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balotra (Jodhpur). The appellants had claimed that they were the nearest relatives of Birdichand and entitled to succeed to his property of which they alleged the respondents had taken wrongful possession. The defendants in their written statement alleged that the plaintiffs were not entitled to succeed to the property in dispute and that they were rightfully in possession of the same under a will of the deceased Birdichand. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs suit and the plaintiffs have now come up in sec and appeal to this Court.2. The counsel for the appellants tried to raise the objection that it was not proved that the will had been properly executed inasmuch as Birdichand was not proved to have been in full possession of his senses at the time of making the will. As no such objection had been taken either in the written statement or in ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rachakonda Nagarathnam
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad629
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by Mr. M. Seshachalapathi, under Section 151, Civil P. C., for a direction to refund the court-fee of Rs. 149-15-0 paid by the petitioner, Nagaratnam, in an unnumbered Second Appeal, S. R. No. 40609 of 1948, sought to be presented to this Court against A. S. No. 310 of 1947 on the file of the Sub-Court, Guntur. The facts are briefly these. Nagaratnam, Mr. Seshachalapati's client, wanted to file a second appeal against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 310 of 1947, and, therefore, filed S. R. No. 40609 of 1948, with the correct court-fee of Rs. 149-15-0, due on the valuation given therein, on 22nd November 1948. That S. R. was returned to the petitioner on 10th February 1949 for the lodgment schedule receipt for Rs. 25 in two days. Nagaratnam did not file the lodgment schedule receipt at all. Instead, she negotiated with the other side, compromised with him, and settled the matter. She re-presented S. R. No. 40609 of 1948 only on...
Tag this Judgment!Jonnagadla Seethamma and anr. Vs. Jonnagadla Veerana Chetty and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad785; (1950)IIMLJ21
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the same suit O. S. No. 12 of 1945 originally instituted in the Court of the District Judge, Bellary, and thereafter transferred to the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bellary and numbered as O. S. No. 3 of 1947. A. S. No. 739 is by the plaintiffs and A.S. No. 758 by defendant 1. The suit was for partition of immovable and movable properties and connected reliefs. Plaintiff 1 is the widow of one Rao Bahadur Papayya Setty who died on 21st October 1937. She was his second wife. Plaintiff 2 is his son and defendants 2 and 3 are his daughters by plaintiff 1. He had also by her two other daughters, namely, one Saraswatamma (P. W. 3) married on the date of the institution of the suit and one Triveni who died before suit. By his first wife, Papayya Setty had two sons, namely the defendant 1 and one Seetharama Setty. After his death, the members of the family continued to be joint till the end of august 1940 when Seetharama Setty l...
Tag this Judgment!Mansad Mondal Vs. the King on the Complaint of Baidya Nath Choudhury
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal411
ORDERSen, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the petnr. who has been tried for contravening certain provisions of the District Board Bye Laws and who has been convicted for disobeying Section 46 read with Sections 2 & 3 of the aforesaid Bye Laws and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. The case against the petnr. briefly is that he encroached upon the District Board Road and in spite of notice did not remove the encroachment.3. The defence is that there was no encroachment upon the District Board Road but that the alleged obstructions were made upon the land of the petnr. The next point taken was that the prosecution was void ab initio by reason of the fact that there was no sanction by the Board for this prosecution.4. In view of the conclusion at which I have arrived it will not be necessary for me to go into the question whether or not there has been a disobedience of the Bye Laws. Section 141, Bengal Local Self-Govt. Act, 18...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath Vs. Manindra Nath and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal330,54CWN384
ORDERSen, J.1. This rule has been obtained by an accused person who has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 290, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of RS. 100, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. The facts alleged against the petitioner briefly are as follows: He is the tenant in respect of certain premises in Nabadwip. In these premises live a number of young women of immoral character. Men of bad character come to the house and disturb the neighbour-hood by singing obscene songs and having drunken brawls. The occupants of the premises also throw dirty rags on the road and near the premises occupied by the neighbours. The defence taken is that the petitioner is the Secretary of an institution known as the Nari O Shishu Ashram. The Society carried on philanthropic work by rescuing unfortunate women and giving them protection in the premises where it is alleged by the prosecution this public nuisance has been committed. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Anila Bala Devi Vs. the Chairman, Kandi Municipality
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal350
Acts/Rules/Orders: Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1898 - Sections 205, 349 and 500Cases Referred: Raj Rajeswari Debi v Emperor, 15 Cri. L. J. 281, 23 I. C. 489 Cal; In Re: Mrs. Sukhalata Gupta, 21 C. W. N. 168Order1. This rule was issued at the instance of Anila Bala Devi, who is a Pardanashin lady belonging to a very respectable family and is called the Rani of Jemo Rajbati Madhyam Taraf. On the complaint of the Chairman of the Kandi Municipality, she was summoned under S. 349/500, Bengal Municipal Act (ACT XV [15] of 1932, Bengal).2. Section 349 gives power to the Commissioners of a Municipality to require cleansing of sources of water used for drinking or culinary purposes. Section 500 deals with non-compliance with the orders of the Commissioners. The punishment in the present case at the maximum was a fine of Rs 50.3. This respectable Pardanashin lady applied before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kandi for permission to appear by a pleader. What has surprised us most is why the...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsan Das Vs. Ram Kirpal Das and Others
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC44
LORD RADCLIFFE: These are two appeals from the High Court of Judicature at Patna. They have been consolidated, and the central point upon which each appeal turns is the same: which of the parties is to be treated as the lawful owner of the piece of property in dispute That piece of property is a four annas undivided share out of a fourteen annas partitioned share of an estate called Touzi no. 7893 in Mouza Awari, Pargana Lautan. District Darbhanga, and it is hereinafter referred to as "the disputed property." 2. The two suits out of which the appeals arise were respectively a partition Suit (No. 89 of 1933) filed by the appellant on 16th September 1932, and a Title suit (No. 72 of 1933) filed by the respondents in the second appeal on 7th November 1933. The appellant, who is the Mahanth of a Math or Asthal called the Birpur Asthal, sought by the partition suit to obtain a declaration of his title to the disputed property and an order for partition of the lands of which that property wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6789
- 6790
- 6791
- 6792
- 6793
- 6795
- 6796
- 6797
- 6798
- 6799
- Next ›
- Last »