Privy Council Cases

C.S. Nataraja Pillai Vs. C.S. Subbaraya Chettiar

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR474

Greene, J.1. This is a re-hearing of an appeal by the appellants from a. decree dated November 15, 1938, of the High Court of Madras in its appellate civil jurisdiction dismissing the appellants' appeal from a decree dated December 1, 1936, of the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. The present appeal was dismissed by Order in Council dated June 22, 1948, which gave effect to the humble advice given in the judgment of the Board delivered on June 17, 1948. The appellants subsequently presented a petition asking that the Order in Council should be recalled and leave be granted for the appeal to be re-heard, alleging in support of the petition that their Lordships in coming to their conclusions had been misled with regard to a certain matter to which reference will presently be made. The prayer of the petition was granted and this re-hearing was ordered.2. In the suit out of which the appeal arises the respondent (plaintiff) obtained a declaration that he was entitled to the pr...

Misri Lal Nayak Vs. Surji

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR477

John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated May 15, 1945, reversing in second appeal the judgment and decree in first appeal of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dated August 14, 1943, and dismissing the appellant's suit.2. The contention of the appellant is that the learned Judge who heard the second appeal in the High Court reversed decisions of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court, and that in so doing he acted contrary to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is settled law that in view of that section a High Court has no power in second appeal to question findings of fact reached by the first appellate Court which there was evidence to support.3. The property in suit originally belonged to one Bihan Paswan, who, on February, 24, 1908, by a sale deed, ex. A, sold the property to Mukh Lal. The deed provided that part of the purchase money should be appl...

Gabdulal Tulsiram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1950All302

Malik, C.J. 1. The two questions of law raised in this case are similar to the question raised in Misc. case No. 221 of 1947. As a matter of fact no separate arguments were advanced by learned counsel in this case. The questions referred to us for answer are as follows:'(1) Whether in circumstances of the case the benefit of Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act is admissible on the income, profits and gains of the assesses from all sources for the period from the end of the 'previous year' to the date of succession, namely 8th October 1941.(2) Whether in the circumstances of the case the benefit of Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act, is admissible on the income, profits and gains of the assesses from the cloth business at Kanpur, for the period from the end of the 'previous year' to the date of succession, namely 8th October 1941.'2. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, was carrying on business of (1) pawn brokers and sharrafa business at Farrukhabad, (2) cloth business at Kanpur and (3) shar...

Har Tirath Singh Vs. the Crown

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1950P& H222; 1950CriLJ1237

ORDERKapur, J.1. This was a rule directed against an order of detention of Har Tirath Singh who had been detained under the provisions of East Punjab Public Safety Act of 1949.2. On 8th June 1949, the petitioner Har Tirath Singh was arrested under an order dated 80th May 1949 passed by the Superintendent of Police Mr. N. B. Sahney. On 10th June 1949, the Superintendent of Polios passed an order in which he stated that the petitioner had been arrested under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act under his directions and that he had directed that Har Tirath Singh be committed to sub-jail, Hoshiarpur, until 7tb July 1949 and should be classified as 'B class' detenu and on the same day he made a report to the Government. On and July 1949, the Provincial Government made an order whereby it directed the detention of the petitioner in the custody of the Inspector General of Prisons, East Punjab till further orders. This order is signed by the Home Secretary to the East Punjab Government, Mr....

M.A. Davar Vs. Ahmad Ali Khan and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal219

ORDERR.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The opposite party No. 4 was reported to be dead by the serving peon in his report dated 22-5-1949. No application for substitution having been filed for a period over 90 days from the date of the peon's report the Registrar recorded an order on 26-8-1949, that there had been abatement so far as opposite party N. 4 was concerned. On 10-11-1949, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner with notice to the surviving opposite parties that on the death of opposite party No. 4, opposite parties 1 to 3 were the heirs of the said deceased opposite party No. 4 & that a note might be made to that effect. An objection was raised on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to the effect that opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 had been on the record previously in their personal capacity; on the death of opposite party No. 4, their mother, they were representing her interest in a different capacity. It was contended that an application for substitution in such a case ...

Radha Govinda Dutta and anr. Vs. Saila Kumar Mukherjee

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal343

ORDERSen, J.1. This rule has been obtained by two persons who were tried foe having defamed the Chairman of the Howarh Municipality. They were convicted and sentenced to pay certain fines, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for certain terms. Out of the fines compensation was directed to be paid to the complainant. The decision of the trial Court was upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge and it is with respect to the last decision that the present rule has been obtained.2. The facts briefly are as follows : The accused Radha Gobinda Dutta was the Editor and the accused Lakshmi Kanta Bhattacharjee was the printer of a Bengali daily newspaper known as the Paschim Banga Patrika. On 8th July 1948 an article was published in that paper in the form of a questionnaire. This is Ex. 1. It is the case for the prosecution that this article defamed the complainant Saila Kumar Mukherjee, the Chairman of the Howarh Municipality and that the accused committed an offence punishable under Secti...

Misri Lal Nayak Vs. Mt. Surji and Others

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1950PC28

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT : This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 15th May 1946, reversing in second appeal the judgment and decree in first appeal of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dated 24th August 1943, and dismissing the appellant's suit 2. The contention of the appellant is that the learned Judge who heard the second appeal in the High Court reversed decisions of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate Court, and that in so doing he acted contrary to the provisions of S. 100, Civil P. C. It is settled law that in view of that section a High Court has no power in second appeal to question findings of fact reached by the first Appellate Court which there was evidence to support. 3. The property in suit originally belonged to one Bihari Paswan, who, on 24th February 1908, by a sale deed, Ex. A, sold the property to Mukh Lal. The deed provided that part of the purchase money should be applied in remitting a ...

C.S. Nataraja Pillai (Now Deceased) and Another Vs. C.S. Subbaraya Che ...

Court : Privy Council

LORD GREENE: This is a re-hearing of an appeal by the appellants from a decree dated 15th November 1938, of the High Court of Madras in its appellate civil jurisdiction dismissing the appellants' appeal from a decree dated 1st December 1936, of the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. The present appeal was dismissed by Order in Council dated 22nd June 1948, which gave effect to the humble advice given in the judgment of the Board delivered on 17th June 1948. Reported in AIR (36) 1949 PC 48. The appellants subsequently presented a petition asking that the Order in Council should be recalled and leave be granted for the appeal to be reheard, alleging in support of the petition that their Lordships in coming to their conclusions had been misled with regard to a certain matter to which reference will presently be made. The prayer of the petition was granted and this re-hearing was ordered. 2. In the suit out of which the appeal arises the respondent (plaintiff) obtained a declar...

Zakka Pattalhirami Reddi Vs. Menakur Balarami Reddi and Others

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1950PC48

LORD MACDERMOTT: This appeal is by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Madras, dated 6th September 1944, affirming a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge at Nellore, dated 28th November 1942, which varied a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nellore, dated 30th August 1940. 2. The present respondents are the representatives of the plaintiffs who brought the suit in which these judgments and decrees were pronounced, the appellant being the first-named and principal defendant therein. 3. Before referring to the nature and history of this litigation it will be convenient to indicate, in chronological order as far as possible, the events and circumstances out of which it arose. 4. Many years ago, the village of Jonnavada was granted as an endowment to two temple deities. In 1860 the Inam Commission confirmed the grant and the Government granted a title-deed in the following year. In 1924 the Court of the Subordinate Judg...

N. Subramania, Pillai Vs. A. Draviyasundaram Pillai

Court : Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24th January 1945, reversing a decree dated 25th August 1943, of the District Judge of Tinnevelly which affirmed a judgment and decree dated 26th September 1942, of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin. 2. On 29th April 1934, one Kanakasabapathi Pillai (hereinafter called "the testator"), made a will whereby he appointed the appellant and the respondent executors to carry out the trusts of the will. 3. The testator was murdered on 13th August 1940, and disputes at once arose between the appellant, who was his nephew and heir, and the respondent, who was the brother of his second wife, as to the effect and validity of the will. 4. On 31st October 1940, the respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Tuticorin, against the appellant to recover possession of the properties set out in Schs. 1 to 4 and 6 of the plaint. Of the ma...