Privy Council Cases

Vanka Lakshminarayana Sastri Vs. Mangalappalli Sundaramayya and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad601

Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Dattatrayalu and for possession of the properties set out in schedules B and C to the plaint from the several defendants who were in possession of portions of them. Defendant 1 who died pending the suit was the widow of Dattatrayalu. Dattatrayalu left behind him his last will and testament dated 27th November 1896. In and by this will he gave his widow authority to make an adoption to him, but he indicated that she should adopt one Durgayya son of Venkatanarasayya, his nearest gnati and only in case the natural father of the said boy was unwilling to give him in adoption, she was given authority to take in adoption any boy of her choice. He owned an extant of 11 acres 75 cents in Indupalli and he disposed of these properties as follows: He gave absolutely 2 acres to his elder brother Subbayya Sastrulu, l acre 50 cen...

Rambandhu Misra and ors. Vs. Brahmananda Laik and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal524,54CWN586

Harries, C.J.1. These two applications are for revision of orders made by a learned District Judge in revision under Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act2. The decree-holders opposite parties had obtained against the petitioners or their predecessors a mortgage decree for Rs. 20,100 in mortgage Suit No. 75 of 1325 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bankura. By the decree the petitioners were jointly and severally liable. The decree provided that in default of payment by Bhadra 1335 B. S., interest would run at 9 annas per cent. per mensum until realisation. A preliminary decree was obtained on 3rd August 1927, which was made final on 22nd September 1928. In the year 1935, the decree-holders executed the decree for recovery of Rs. 31,534 which was the sum then due on the mortgage after adding the interest which had accrued to the decretal amount and execution costs. The mortgaged properties were put up for sale and purchased by the decree-dolders for Rs. 10,000 on 16th Mar...

Nrisingha Prosad Bose and ors. Vs. Nil Ratan Singha Roy and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1951Cal221,54CWN683

G.N. Das, J.1 These appeals are at the instance of the contesting defendants. The facts are not in controversy and may be stated as follows :2. There was an occupancy holding which was held by Ibrahim Sheikh and Sakina Bibi under the landlords. The interest of Ibrahim Sheikh passed later on to Ramswami Chatia. At that stage a suit for recovery of rent being Rent Suit No. 1654 of 1938 was instituted by defendant 1 against Ramswami Chatia and Sakina Bibi. The suit was framed under the provisions of Section 148-A, Bengal Tenancy Act, the co-sharer landlords being impleaded in the suit. On 3-11-1938 the suit resulted in a decree. On 5-12-1940 defendant 1 started execution of the said decree. The tenancy was brought to sale on 15-2-1941 and was purchased by the decree-holder, defendant 1. The auction-purchaser took delivery of possession through Court. Meanwhile in 1933 Ibrahim Sheikh mortgaged a portion of the occupancy holding in favour of Nilratan, plaintiff in the suit which gave rise t...

Autar Singh and Another Vs. Sir Mohammad Ejaz Rasool Khan and Others

Court : Privy Council

SIR LIONEL LEACH: 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 16th January 1934, the appellants mortgaged three houses in Lucknow to Raja Sir Mohammad Ejaz Rasul Khan to secure an advance of Rs. 32,000. Possession of the houses was given to the mortgagee, 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 propertie...

Kanda and Others Vs. Waghu

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1950PC68

SIR LIONEL LEACH: 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 17th December 1938, by Mt. Rajan, defendant 1, in favour of her grandson defendant 2, who is the respondent in the appeal. 2. Defendant 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 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 filed a suit in the...

Municipality of Hyderabad Vs. Mangharam Hukumatrai

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1950PC61

LORD RADCLIFFE: This is an ex parte appeal from a decree of the Chief Court of Sind dated 26th May 1942, which reversed a judgment of the first class Subordinate Judge, Hyderabad, dated 8th October 1938. The dispute to which the appeal relates arises out of a contract which the parties entered into on 15th February 1934, and the interpretation of that contract is the central issue of the case. There was a marked divergence between their respective submissions as to the construction of the contract, and a divergence not less marked in the evidence that they tendered on certain important issues of fact. The trial Judge interpreted the contract in a sense favourable to the appellant's contention, while the appeal Court took the opposite view. Nor did the two Courts agree as to the proper findings of fact to be made on the evidence available. But their Lordships think that, once the question is settled as to the interpretation of the contract, the treatment of the evidence presents no grea...

Shyam Sundar Padhi and ors. Vs. Indramoni Das and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1951Ori46

Panigrahi, J.1. The judgment debtors in a compromise decree for maintenance are the appellants before as.2. The decree provided that the judgment. debtors should pay maintenance to the decreeholder at the rate of Rs. 6 a month and in case of default of payment of the allowance for six consecutive months the judgment-debtors shall be liable to pay maintenance at Rs. 12 a month. The judgment-debtors defaulted payment for six months consecutively and the decree, holder assigned his decree to opposite parties 1 and 2 (respondents). When the decree was put in execution, the judgment-debtors (appellants) raised several objections one of which has been debated before as. The contention of the judgment-debtors is that the stipulation embodied in the compromise decree, to the effect that the judgment-debtors shall pay double the monthly maintenance allowance in case of default for six consecutive months, is in the nature of a penal class and cannot be enforced in execution.3. The Courts below o...

indramoni Mohapatra Vs. Nilamoni Moharana

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1950Ori169

Ray, C.J. 1. The petition ig directed against an order of remand passed by Sri B. C. Das, District Judge of Cuttaok-Dbenkanal, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 87 of 1948, reversing an order dated, 4th qetober 1948 of Sri B. S. Patnaik, Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, in Money Suit No. 8/342 of 1948/47. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 2193-12-0 being the sum borrowed with interest accrued thereon, under two handnotes executed by the opposite party in favour of the petitioner. The defendant resisted the suit, while accepting that the hand-notes were genuine and for consideration, with a plea of payment. The material date on which and since when the events giving rise to this application occurred is 3rd July 1948. On that date, the plaintiff was ready to go on with the hearing of the suit, and filed a list of witnesses. The defendant interposed a plea, as a barrier to the suit, by a petition purporting to be one undtr Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C. for recording as a compromise an aw...

Ghulam Kadir and anr. Vs. the Municipal Council Negapattinam Represent ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad460

Panchapagesa Sastry, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of a petition filed by defendants 7 and 10 in O. S. No. 355 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Negapatam, to set aside a court sale held on 23rd November 1948 and confirmed on 29th December 1942. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.2. The Municipal Council, Negapatam, respondent 1 herein obtained the aforesaid decree for recovery of Rs. 18-1-6 being the arrears of property tax for T. S. No. 155. The decree also gave a first charge over the properly. The property originally belonged to one Vanjoor Animal. Defendants 2 to 10 were impleaded as her heirs and as persons in possession and enjoyment. Defendant 11 was impleaded as he claimed some interest in the property. An ex parts decree was passed in the first instance on 19th April 1940. Defendants 7 to 10 were described as minors represented by guardian, defendant 2. They were, however, majors at the time of the i...

Subba Naidu and anr. Vs. Kannia Naidu

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad482

Chandra Reddi, J.1. C. M. P. No. 1065 is a petition for converting C. R. P. No. 1794 into a C. M. A. for reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the petition. The civil revision petition was filed in time and the requisite court-fee has been already paid. I therefore see no reason why this prayer for converting the C. R. P. into a C. M. A. should not be granted. I accordingly direct that the C. R. P. be converted into a C. M. A.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is brought from the decree and the judgment of the District Judge, Chingleput in A. S. No. 97 of 1948 by defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 226 of 1946. This litigation relates to a claim based on a promissory note executed by defendant 3 in favour of defendant 1 who assigned it to defendant 2. Defendant 3 executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 400 in favour of defendant 1 who assigned it to defendant 2. On the foot of this promissory note, a suit was instituted by defendant 2 in the Court of small causes at Madras and ...