Privy Council Cases

Katragadda Bapayya (Died) and ors. Vs. Dokku Bhushayya and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad397

Rajamannar, C.J. and Mack J.1. We consider that this appeal should be heard by a Full Bench as it raises a question of some importance relating to the application of Order 32, Rule 7, Civil P. C.2. The plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6 are the sons of defendant 4. Defendant 1 obtained a decree in O. S. No. 88 of 1929 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, for the amount due under a promissory note executed by defendants 3 and 4. In execution of that decree, the properties in suit which were the ancestral properties of defendant 4's family were attached and brought to sale subject to a mortgage which had been executed by defendant 4 in favour of defendant 1. In the court auction, the properties were purchased by one Vajja Bapiraju, the brother of defendant 2. He is alleged to be the clerk of defendant 1. The properties were sold for a sum of Rs. 205/- subject to the mortgage in favour of defendant 1, on 29th February 1932. On 29th March 1932 an application was file...

The Governor-general in Council, Owning the Madras and Southern Mahrat ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad438

Govind Menon, J.1. The main and important point for consideration is whether the suit is barred under Article 30 or Article 31, Limitation Act. The plaintiff's suit was for recovery of the price of certain goods, namely, bales of cotton cloth which had been lost by the defendants who are common carriers during the course of the transit of the articles from Rajapalayam to Guntur. It is common ground that the goods in question were handed over to the South Indian Railway Company on 7th September 1944 at Rajapalayam for dispatch to Guntur. It is also proved beyond doubt that these goods reached the Tondiarpet Marshalling Yard in the Madras City on the midnight of 17th September 1944 and that sometime later the goods were lost. On enquiries made by the railway company, it was found that a gang of thieves had opened the wagon in the Yard and carried away the packages. Since the goods were not delivered at the destination to the plaintiff, who was the consignee of these goods in proper time,...

Menankandi Madhavi Amma Vs. Kannoli Kalathi Sucheela

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad612

ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. The only question in this revision is whether the suit transaction is a kanom within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. A kanom is defined in Section 3(1), Malabar Tenancy Act as follows; ' 'Kanom' means the transfer for consideration in money or in kind or in both by a landlord of an interest in specific immovable property to another (called 'kanamdar') for the latter's enjoyment, the incidents of which transfer include: (1) a right in the transferee to hold the said property liable for the consideration paid by him or due to him which consideration is called 'kanartham', (2) the liability of the transferor to pay to the transferee interest on the kanartham, (3) the payment of 'michavaram' by the transferee, (4) the right of the transferee to enjoy the said property for twelve years or any other period, and(5) the liability of the transferee to pay a renewal fee to the transferor, if the transferee is permitted to enjoy the said property for a further period ...

Balabux Darolia Vs. the King

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal353,54CWN286

ORDERSen, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the accused who has been convicted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 14, Bengal Motor Spirit Sales Taxation Act of 1941, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. This sentence was upheld on appeal and the accused has obtained this rule. 2. Several points were taken in the petition, applying for this rule. Only one point has been pressed, viz. that the accused has been prejudiced by reason of the refusal of the Magistrate to allow the accused to have copies of the statements made to the police by witnesses under Section 161, Criminal P. C. I have seen the learned Magistrate's reply to this ground. He says that the matter was not pursued on the date fixed. It seems however from the record that there were two applications; the first application apparently was a verbal one and it was rejected. Thereafter, there was a written application referring to the prior applicatio...

Sadhu Ram and anr. Vs. Mohammad Ali

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1950HP30

Bannerji, J. 1. These are, an appeal by Sadhu Bam and Bam Swarup, father and son, defendants 2 and 3 and a cross-objection by Mohammad Ali, the plaintiff, from a judgment and decree dated 29th June 1943 of Shri J.N. Bhagat C. J., High Court, Nahan, in civil Appeal No. 2 of 2005. 2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff sometime in Samvat 2003. Defendant 1, Mohammad Khan, had obtained a contract from the Department of Public Works, Nahan, for constructing a part of Bainka Road. Defendants 2 and 3, father and son, were intere9ted in this contract. As a matter of fact, sometime later on, defendant l applied for sanction to the Public Works Department, to assign the benefit of the contract to defendants 2 and 3 and such sanction, it appears from the record, was granted. 3. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that he had supplied labour, under instructions from the defendants, principally from defendant 1 and he had not been paid this amount either by defendant 1 or by defendants 2 an...

Lumbhardar Zutshi Vs. the King

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR480

Reid, J.1. On June 19, 1946, the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay. The charge against appellant No. 1 was that he, being a public servant, accepted a sum of Rs. 15,000 for forbearing to prosecute a metal merchant named Vakharia and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No. 2 was charged with abetting that offence. An appeal by appellant No. 1 to the High Court at Bombay was dismissed on March 20, 1947. It appears from the judgment of Stone C.JK that there were two grounds of appeal: first, that the whole proceedings were invalid because' no sanction had been given under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and, secondly, an appeal on the facts. Appellant No. 2 did not appeal to the High Court, but notice of enhancement of sentence was given to him and his sentence was increased on March 20, 1947.2. On April 21, 1947, a petition for special leave to appeal was lodged by appel...

Sripat Rai and ors. Vs. Narbadeshwar Prasad NaraIn Singh

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1950All384

Malik, C.J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of these six appeals on the ground that the other creditors have not been impleaded and the appeals cannot proceed in their absence.2. These six cases arise out of two applications under Section 4, United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act. Application No. 10 of 1936 was filed by Narbadeshwar Prasad Narain Singh alias Bachchu Babu son of Parmeshwari Prasad and the other application No. 15 of 1936 was filed by Chandreshwar Prasad Narain Singh, Dharmeshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Rameshwar Prasad Narain Singh, all sons of Ishwari Prasad Narain Singh. Ishwari Prasad Narain Singh and Parmeshwari Prasad were brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family. In the year 1922 Ishwari Prasad Narain Singh and Narbadeshwar Prasad executed three mortgages, Parmeshwari Prasad being dead. The first mortgage was dated 24th May 1922, and was for a sum of Rs. 9,999-15 0 and it was executed in favour of Inderdeo Rai. First Appeals NOS. ...

Budhu Mohan and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal188

ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the petitioners who have been convicted by the Municipal Magistrate and fined. The case against them is that they did not comply with a notice to vacate certain premises which were in a dangerous condition and that thereby they had committed an offence which was punishable under Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act.2. The facts briefly are these : The petitioners are tenants of certain premises. It came to the notice of the Municipality that the premises were in a dangerous condition and after inspection a notice was served both upon the landlord and the tenants under Rule 4, Sub-rule (2) of Schedule XVIII, Calcutta Municipal Act requiring the inmates of the building to vacate it. The tenants admitted that they received this notice. They applied under Section 511, Calcutta Municipal Act for a withdrawal of the notice. The matter was considered by the Administrative Officer and he was satisfied that the notice was necessary. In spite of this ...

Lumbhardar Zutshi and Another Vs. the King

Court : Privy Council

LORD REID: On 19th June 1946, the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay. The charge against appellant 1 was that he, being a public servant, accepted a sum of Rs. 15,000 for forbearing to prosecute a metal merchant named Vakharia and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 161, Penal Code. Appellant 2 was charged with abetting that offence. An appeal by appellant 1 to the High Court at Bombay was dismissed on 20th March 1947. It appears from the judgment of Stone, C. J., that there were two grounds of appeal: first that the whole proceedings were invalid because no sanction had been given under S. 197, Criminal P. C., and secondly an appeal on the facts. Appellant 2 did not appeal to the High Court, but notice of enhancement of sentence was given to him and his sentence was increased on 20th March 1947. 2. On 21st April 1947, a petition for special leave to appeal was lodged by appellant 1. In this petition no reference was made to ...

Pritam Singh and anr. Vs. the Crown

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1950P& H209; 1950CriLJ1005

Soni, J.1. On 20th October 1917, Maro, wife of Bhag Singh, Jat of village Dulesinghwala, an old woman of sixty years made a report at midday at police station Zira of an occurrence which had taken place at chhawela that morn-Ing in village Vakilwala. She said that she had come to village Vakilwala with her daughter's husband Eamail Singh since the last five at six days in order to see her brother Bhara Singh. That morning at about ohhawela she was preparing to go back to her village along with Karnail Singh, her son-in-law, and she went to the well to bid farewell to her brother and nephews who bad been working there. Accord-ing to her, her brother Bhura Singh was driving the gadi whereas her nephews Chanan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Kartar Singh were ploughing the fields nearby. She and Earnail Singh were yet talking to Bhura Singh when Mangal Singh eon of Bholla Singh, resident of Vakil-wala, accompanied by his sons Kehr Singh and Pritam Singh reached the well and told Bhura Singh to ...