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
Arumugha Konar Vs. Sanku Muthammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad487
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These two appeals arias out of a suit, O. S. No. 437 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat instituted by a landlord to evict a tenant. The tenant came into possession under an earlier lease, but the lease which was concerned in the suit was Ex. P. 1 dated 17th December 1934. The contention of the tenant was that he was entitled to purchase the landlord's right in the kudiyiruppu under Section 33, Malabar Tenancy Act (Act XIV [14] of 1930) and he applied under that section for the necessary relief. The landlord resisted this application on the ground that for three years from 1943 to 1946, the date of the suit, there was no residential building at all on the site though there was one prior to 1943 and that, therefore, Section 33 had no application. The learned District Munsif found as a fact that there was no house on the site for three years prior to the date of the institution of the suit, and this finding was accepted also by the l...
Tag this Judgment!Bava C. Gopalaswami Mudaliar Vs. the Abhisheka Kattalai Attached to Sr ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad504
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1.The main point for determination in this second appeal is whether Section 48, Civil P. C. applies to and bars a decree of the Presidency Small Cause Court when it is transferred for execution to a mofussal civil Court. The facts are briefly these :2. The appellant here is the assignee decree-holder in S. C. S. No. 10554 of 1932 on the file of the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Madras. The decree was obtained on 8th November 1932 on the foot of a promissory-note executed by respondent 1, Vaidhyalinga Pandarasannadhi, as trustee of the Abhisheka Kattalai of Sri Thiagaraja Temple, Tiruvarur, in favour of one Sabapathi Mudaliar and endorsed to one Ratnasabapathi Mudaliar. The said decree was got amended on 23rd August 1933 by directing the said Vaidhialinga Pandarasannadhi to pay the decree amount out of the assets of the Abhisheka Kattalai and Annadhana Kattalai of Sri Thyagarajaswami temple of Tiruvarur, in his hands, instead of its being a personal decree...
Tag this Judgment!King Vs. Alfred D'Cruz and Ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal317,54CWN321
J.P. Mitter, J.1. In this case, the three accused persona--Alfreed D'Cruz, Shiral D'Cruz and one Lakhi Dasi--have been charged under Section 363 and 366, Penal Code. The two charges relate respectively to abduction and kidnapping from lawful guardianship of a girl called Teresa Gomes. 2. The jury were empanelled on the 8th and after the opening of learned counsel for the prosecution, Dr. Kabir Hossain, Professor of Medical Jurisprudence, Medical College, Calcutta, and one Dr. A. K. Chakravarty, radiologist, Calcutta Police Hospital, were examined. The evidence of these witnesses was concerned with the age of the girl in July this year. The next and the third witness for the prosecution was the girl said to have been abducted and kidnapped, that is, Teresa Gomes. 3. At the conclusion of the last named witness's evidence I asked the gentlemen of the jury if they had any questions to put to the witness, whereupon the foreman of the jury, instead of putting any question, expressed the view...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Shatranjai Vs. Raj Raj Bahadur Singh and Another
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC70
LORD SIMONDS: This appeal, which is brought against a decree of the Judicial Commissioners of Oudh dated the 4th June 1918, as varied by an order of the Chief Court of Oudh dated the 18th November 1941, modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mohanlalganj of the 18th March 1916, raises the question what upon the true construction of the will of Raj Gobardhan Singh is the interest of the appellant thereunder in certain villages in the Kheri District in Oudh and whether it was proper for the Court to make a declaration in regard thereto. 2. Raj Gobardhan Singh who will be called "the testator" was a taluqdar owning large estates in Oudh including ten villages with which the present appeal is concerned and which will be referred to as "the ten villages". He executed his last will on the 13th November 1903. At that time he had 3 Ranis and one child only, a daughter named Mt. Raj Kunwar who was then childless. His nearest male collateral was his nephew Raj Bachan Singh. 3. On 24th Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Gajambal Ramalingam and Others Vs. Ruknul Mulk Syed Abdul Wajic and Ot ...
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC64
LORD SIMONDS: This appeal is from a judgment dated 5th July 1944, of the Court of the British Resident in Mysore affirming a judgment dated 22nd November 1943, of the Court of the District Judge, Civil and Military Station of Bangalore, by which it was ordered that probate of the will dated 10th September 1942, with a codicil dated 24th September 1942, of one V. Ramalingam Mudaliar should issue to certain persons who are respondents to this appeal. 2. At the original hearing of the appeal counsel for the respondents took the preliminary point that His Majesty no longer has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the Court of the British Resident in Mysore. Their Lordships having heard this point twice argued, first at the original hearing and then a second time at the request of the appellants, who asked for that indulgence on the ground that there was further matter to put before the Board, are of opinion that the objection is well founded for the reasons which they will now give. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Das Vs. Babu Daya Sarup and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All324
Malik, C.J.1. The fasts of the case have been set out in the referring order. The landlord-applicant Daya Swamp filed an application Under Section 4, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, in the year 1985, which was, in due course, sent by the Collector to the Special Judge, 2nd Grade, Bijnor. Tue learned Special Judge decided an objection which had been filed Under Section 11 on 12th August 1938. Thereafter, on 26th April 1940, he decided the claims and passed decrees Under Section 14 of the Act. It was not till the year 1944, that a fresh objection was preferred by Mt. Tarawati, daughter of the landlord-applicant Under Section 11, claiming that certain items of property mentioned in the notice belonged to her which had been gifted to her by her father before he had filed the application Under Section 4. This objection was dismissed by the learned Special Judge on 11th November 1944. Within one month of this dismissal the landlord applicant filed an application Under Section 20, U. P. Encumbe...
Tag this Judgment!Khurshed Ali Khan Vs. Ram Saran Das and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All378
Malik, C.J.1. An application under the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act was filed on 21st October 1936, by Lutuf Ali and the applicant Khurshed Ali. On 20th September 1937, Ram Saran Das, opposite party No. 1, objected to the maintainability of the application by Khurshed Ali and the Board of Revenue held on 13th November 1941, that Khurshed Ali had no right to apply under the Encumbered Estates Act. The result, therefore, was that Khurshed Ali's name was removed and Lutuf Ali remained the sole landlord applicant.2. On 28th July 1924, Lutuf Ali had executed a mortgage deed in favour of Narain Dass for a sum of Rs. 21,250 and had mortgaged his share in a village known as Shadipur Jhadol. Lutuf Ali sold a half share in the equity of redemption to Shib Charan and others for Rs. 24,000 on 18th July 1925, and left a part of the sale consideration or payment to the mortgagee. The payment was not, however, made and ultimately on Slat December 1934, Shib Charan and others returned or re...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Lal Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All366
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur recommending that an order passed by a Magistrate amending a charge against Amrit Lal accused be set asice and the accused be acquitted.2. The facts show that Amrit Lal was prosecuted in that Court on a complaint filed by one Tika Chamar. During the trial of this case, charges under Sections 374 and 323, Penal Code, were framed against Amrit Lal. After the charges had been framed, further cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses took place and then on 12-6-1918, the evidence of medical officer was recorded under Section 256, Criminal P. C. Thereafter Amrit Lal accused moved an application in Court saying that the case had been compromised and requesting that it may consequently be dismissed. Tika, the complainant, verified this application on that very day and the learned Magistrate then fixed 23-6-1948 for orders. On 2-6-1948, before orders could be passed on the compromise application, two appli...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Lachman Das Mohan Lal and Sons Ltd.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All563
ORDERMootham, J. Shri Kirpa Ram Bajaj, who admittedly resides in New Delhi, was examined on commission at the instance of the petitioner. The commission has been duly executed & returned to this Court together with evidence taken under it, but Mr. Sanyal for the petitioner states that be does not propose to read it: & he objects to Mr. Bhargava, who appears for the company, doing so. He contends that evidence taken on commission must be tendered as evidence before it becomes evidence in a suit, & that it can be tendered only by the party at whose instance the commission was issued. Mr. Bhargava argues that in a case such as the present, in which it is not in dispute that the witness is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, Rule 8 of Order 26, Civil P. C. has no application, & that accordingly evidence taken on commission forms part of the record of the suit under the preceding Rule 7 & as such can be relied upon by either party.2. Now Rule 7 of Order 26 provides that where a commission...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Debi Vs. Raghunath Ray
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori207
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the District Magistrate of Puri rejecting the appellant's claim for compensation.2. The appellant is the widow of one Parikhit Panda who had been engaged as a motor driver by the respondent in September 1946. The respondent had a temporary permit to plya bus (O. R. P. 265) for hire between Khurda and Banpur in Puri District. On 24th September 1946, while the appellant's husband was driving the said motor bus he met with an accident inconsequence of which he sustained severe injurieswhich resulted in his death. The bus dashed against a tree while proceeding at a somewhat high speed and the driver and some other passengers sustained fatal injuries. The police nude the usual investigation and submitted final report to the effect that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver but that in view of his death no could be taken.3. The learned District Magistrate, relying ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6802
- 6803
- 6804
- 6805
- 6806
- 6808
- 6809
- 6810
- 6811
- 6812
- Next ›
- Last »