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
M.S.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad506; [1950]18ITR586(Mad); (1950)2MLJ353
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. Under section 66 (i), Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal referred to this Court the following question :'Whether in the circumstances of the case the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that there has been no partition within the meaning of Section 25-A is right.'The applicant who is the assessee is the karta of a Hindu undivided family which consisted of himself and his two minor sons, Chocka-lingam and Meyyappan. Daring the assessment year 1940-41, the assessee applied under Section 25-A, Income-tax Act, for an order recording a partition which had taken place among the members of the family. The family was assessed till that date as an undivided family. In December 1941, another son was born; but thepartition claimed was long before that date and even before the period of gestation. According to the applicant the partition was on 22-2-1940 which was reduced to writing on 5-4-1940, as evidenced by the partition deed of that date. The property of the family ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: E.B. Nagaratnammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad432
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The conviction of the petitioner was undoubtedly correct. An exchange of buildings by two persons inevitably involves the vacancies of both buildings. A vacates building A, B vacates building B then A occupies building B, and B occupies building A. The mere naming of such a double vacancy and double occupation as an exchange cannot alter the facts. So the petitioner was bound to notify the vacancy of the Rs. 35/- building to the Controller and take his permission to occupy it instead of quietly occupying it herself.2. I have held already in two recent cases that 'rent' under Section 3 (2) means the 'actual rent' paid or payable, and not a 'fair rent' when none has been fixed. Surely, a person receiving from another Rs. 35/- as rent in hard cash cannot be allowed to quibble and say that the actual rent will be much less. The rule that a person cannot approbate and reprobate or blow hot and cold in the same breath will apply here also.3. So, I confirm the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Sayyed Usman Saheb and ors. Vs. Vegisena Sivaramaraju and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad463
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. C. M. S. A. No. 37 of 1946, C. R. P. No. 822 of 1945 and C. R. P. No. 149 of 1946 all arose oat of C. M. P. No. 846 of 1944 in O. P. No. 57 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Amalapuram, and were all dismissed by Govindarajachari J. who, however, granted leave to appeal in C. M. S. A. No. 37 of 1946 from which this Letters Patent appeal has been filed.2. The facts are these. On llth October 1922 Viswanatharaju created a simple mortgage over his lands in favour of two brothers, Venkataraju and Sooraparaju for Rs. 2500/- repayable in eight annual instalments with interest at RS. 1-0-6 per mensem. Sometime later, the hypotheca was sold to Sayeed Oosman, the original appellant in the Letters Patent appeal since dead, and now represented by his legal representatives. Sayeed Oosman paid several instalments of principal and interest during the years 1925 to 1927 and deposited in the District Munsif's Court of Amalapuram a sum of Rs. 997/- being the bal...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Commissioners of Howrah Vs. Jagabandhu Banerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal201
ORDERAmarendra Nath Sen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the Municipal Commissioners of Howrah against an order passed by the Munsif, 3rd Court, Howrah, acting as a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Howrah, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for the recovery of certain rates on the footing that the subject-matter of the rates was a bustee.2. The learned Munsif has held that the subject matter with respect to which the claim has been made is not a bustee and on this ground he has dismissed the suit.3. The principal question for decision is whether the learned Munsif's judgment on the question whether the subject-matter is a bustee or not is in accordance with law. The learned Munsif has hased his decision on two grounds. First he says, that upon the evidence before him he is satisfied that the area is not a bustee within the meaning of Section 3 (10) read with Section 3 (36), Calcutta Municipal Act, as extended to Howrah. His second ground is that the Municipality of Howrah was bound...
Tag this Judgment!Dominion of India Vs. R.C.K.C. Nath and Co.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal207
Banerjee, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the defendant Dominion of India asking for a revision, under Section 115, Civil P. C., of an order made by the learned First Munsiff at Sealdah. By that order, he held that the Sealdah Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The facts of the case are very simple and may be shortly stated: The plaintiff sued the Governor-General of India-in-Council for damages for short delivery of goods which, he alleges he entrusted to the Railway Administration for carriage from Aligarh (UP.) to Khulna Railway station, which is now within the Dominion of Pakistan.3. After due notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. the plaintiff filed the suit on 7th December 1945, in the Munsiff's Court at Khulna.4. On 15th August 1947, two Dominions were set up in what previously was British India. One was the Dominion of India and the other the Dominion of Pakistan. There is a Governor General for the Dominion of India and there is a Governor-General fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Autar Singh Vs. Sir Mohammad Ejaz Rasool Khan
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR482
Lionel Leach, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh, dismissing an appeal from an order passed by the Civil Judge of Lucknow in execution proceedings. The questions which arise are whether the Court's equitable jurisdiction to grant relief against penalties and forfeitures extends to the granting of relief in proceedings taken for the execution of a final decree for foreclosure, the decree having been passed by consent, and, if so, whether this is a proper case for the exercise of the jurisdiction.2. On January 16, 1934, the appellants mortgaged three houses in Lucknow to Raja Sir Mohammad Ejaz Rasul Khan to secure an advance of Rs. 82,000. Possession of the houses was given to the mortgage, who had the right to collect the rents from the tenants and, after providing for repairs, to appropriate the balance of the money received by him as rent in satisfaction of interest on the amount advanced. The mortgagors undertook to redeem the properties ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanda Vs. Waghu
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR498
Lionel Leach, J.1. The parties in this appeal are Dadra Rajputs, an agricultural tribe of the Montgomery District of the Punjab. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Montgomery, challenging the validity of a deed of gift, executed on December 17, 1938, by Mussammat Rajan, defendant No. 1, in favour of her grandson, defendant No. 2, who is the respondent in the appeal-Defendant No. 1 is the widow of one Amira, who died in or about the year 1913. The respondent is the son of a daughter of Amira and defendant No. 1. On the execution of the deed of gift the respondent applied for mutation of names in the records kept by the land revenue authorities, but the Assistant Collector refused the application on the ground that 'a female has, under no circumstance, a right to alienate property by sale or by way of charity under a will, oral or in writing,' and his decision was upheld by the Collector on appeal. Thereupon the respondent fil...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhiku Ramchandra Shinde
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom330; (1950)52BOMLR223
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, acquitting the accused, who was convicted under Section 2 (6), Bombay Public Security Measures Act of 1947 by the City Magistrate of Poona. The order was served on the accused by the District Magistrate, Poona, on 6th March 1948, under Section 2(1) (b) and he wag directed not to remain in the Poona District. The accused obeyed the order and went out of the Poona District, but he came back on 3rd May 1948. Thereupon he was arrested and charged as before. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused largely because in his opinion the prosecution had failed to establish all the ingredients of the offence with which the accused was charged and in coming to that conclusion he followed a decision of this Courts and indeed of this Bench, in Emperor v. Abdul Majid 51 Bom. L. R. 568: A.I.R 1949 Bom 387 : 51 Cri. L. J. 47. The Advocate General, who appears on behalf of Government, has argued ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap Vs. Indrajit and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All320
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of his suit for the recovery of possession of a one-half portion of the property left by one Kedar Misra without payment of any sum or in the alternative, upon payment of such sum as may be found due by the Court. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff and the lower appellate Court has also dismissed the appellant's appeal from the decree and judgment o the trial Court. He thus came to this Court in second appeal.2. The appeal was heard and decided as far back as 8th January 1942 by Collister, J. who allowed the appeal and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court directed that Court to proceed to determine whether the appellant was entitled to possession of the property in suit with or without payment of any redemption money. This decree was however, subsequently set aside on 13th May 1948 as it was found that one of the respondents, namely, Inderjit Misra was dead at the time when the second appeal was heard and...
Tag this Judgment!Sham NaraIn Rai Vs. Nagesar Ram
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All360
Wali Ullah, J. 1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order passed by the Court below by which his objections were partly allowed and partly dismissed.2. It appears that a simple money decree was passed against the appellant on 27-10-1930. An application for execution of this decree was made on 16-3-1933 and eventually it was struck off, after part satisfaction of the decree, on 30-8-1933. Later, the judgment-debtor appears to have made an application under Section 5, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (Act 37 of 1934) with the result that the decree was converted into one payable by four instalments. The first instalment was payable on 5-9-1937, the second on 5-9-1938, the third on 5-9-1939, and the fourth on 5-9-1940. It was provided that on default of payment of any two instalments, the whole amount due under the decree was to become payable. It appears that no instalments were paid till 16-12.1941 when the second application for execution was made. This second applica...
Tag this Judgment!