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
Purusottam Das and anr. Vs. S.M. Desouza and anr.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori213
Jagannadhadas, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. It arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands which has been dismissed by both the Courts below.2. The suit lands admittedly belonged to the plaintiff's family. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint is that the father of plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 allowed defendant 2, some years ago to occupy the suit-lands by some arrangement with her and that defendant 2 has allowed her son, defendant 1, to cultivate the lands since she is unable to take care of herself; that they are not aware of the arrangement under which the defendants wore let into possession, but that if it is found that the lands are charged with any sum, they are willing to pay up the same The case of the defendants is that between the years 1927 and 1930, the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 borrowed from time to time various sums of money aggregating to Rupees 1061 12-0 from defendant 2 on the security of the suit-lands; that ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhiya Lal Vs. Jamna Lal and ors.
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj47
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs Kanhiya Lal and Prahlad against the appellate decree of the learned District Judge Bhilwara upholding the decree of the learned Town Munsiff Bhilwara dismissing the plaintiff's suit for redemption of two Nohras and three shops situated in the town of Bhilwara, Jamna Lal, defendant 1 was made the principal defendant and Chhagan Lal and Panna Lal were also made defendants 2 and 3. The defendants Ganesh Ram and Andi Ram were also made defendants 4 and 5 on the allegation that defendant 1 had given the possession of one of the shops in dispute to them. It would be convenient to give the pedigree given by the plaintiffs in their plaint before proceeding any further. SANWAT RAM | Jagannath __________________________________|____________________________ | | | Kojodi Mal Janki Das Kishan Lal _________|______________________ ____|_____________ | | | | | Chhagan Lal Shivkaran Barwakaran Ramkaran Panna Lal (Defendant 2) | | (died Issueless) (Defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Velu Padayachi Vs. Sivasooriam Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad444
Horwill, J.1. This civil revision petition has been referred to a Full Bench, because of a supposed deep cleavage of opinion in the decisions of this Court on the sole question of law that arises in this civil revision petition, i. e., whether a partner in a partnership entered into for the purpose of vending arrack can file a and for the balance due on settlement of accounts when only one of the partners has obtained a licence under the Abkari Act for the vending of arrack. It was found by the District Munsif that the suit did not contravene the provisions of the Madras Abkari Act (I [1] of 1886); and so he decreed the suit i for a sum of Rs. 56-19 9 with further interest at six per cent. per annum and costs. The matter came in revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before Subba Rao J. who in view of a conflict of opinion referred the matter to a Bench. When the matter came before Satyanarayana Rao and Govinda Menon JJ., many cases other than those cited before S...
Tag this Judgment!Marla Subrahmanyam Vs. Chelikani China Soorayya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad514
Rajamannar, C.J.1. I agree entirely with my brother Viswanatha Sastri J, both in his reasoning and in his conclusion. I only wish to add a few words about the decision of the Judicial Committee in Magniram Sitaram v. Kasturbhai Manibhai, 46 Bom. 481 : (A. I. R. (9) 1922 P. C. 163), because we made the reference to the Full Bench on account of certain observations in it which were understood in a particular way by the Division Bench in Govindu v. Venkatapathi, I. L. R. (1947) Mad. 105 : (A. I. R. (33) 1916 Mad. 427). In my opinion, that decision did not lay down any presumption of law which could be applied without reservation to the care of an alienation by a Hindu widow. The essential difference between an alienation by the trustee of a religious or charitable endowment and an alienation by a limited owner like a widow is that in the former case the alienation is either valid or invalid whereas in the latter case an alienation per se would not be invalid in so far as it is a transfer ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. K. Ondipiliya Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad643
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Defendant 1 is the petitioner herein. The question involved in this revision is one under the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. The plaintiff filed the suit in the Sub-Court, Madura, for a mandatory injunction for the demolition of some structures made by the petitioner in a lane claimed to be common between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff valued the relief under Section 7(iv)(d), Court-fees Act at Rs. 3100 The defendant has taken objection to this valuation and contends that this has been deliberately overvalued for the purpose of filing this suit in the Sub-Court. The Subordinate Judge returned the plaint holding that the right of the plaintiff under Section 7(iv)(d) to value his claim at his discretion has been taken away by the notification issued by this High Court under Section 9, Suits Valuation Act, and relies for this purpose on the judgment of Krishnaswami Iyengar J., In re Ghosh Beevi, 1944 1 M. L. J. 340 : A. I. R. 1944 Mad. 406. He...
Tag this Judgment!Vummethala Rama Rao Vs. Mukta Appayya and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad651
1. The question in these second appeals is whether the plaintiff is entitled to any and what trees on the suit holding. It is now conceded that the lands are situate in an estate under the amended definition introduced in 1936. The rights of parties are governed by Section 12, Estates Land Act. Section 12 Clause (1) as it now stands is as follows :'Subject to any rights which by custom or by contract in writing executed by the ryot before the passing of this Act are reserved to the landholder, every ryot shall have the tight to use, enjoy, cut down, carry away or otherwise dispose of all trees now in his holding and in the case of trees which after the passing of this Act may be planted by the ryot or which may naturally grow upon the holding, he shall have the light to use, enjoy, cut down, carry away or otherwise dispose of them notwithstanding any contract or custom to the contrary.'In the present case the finding is that all these trees have grown on the holding after 1st July 1908...
Tag this Judgment!The Coimbatore Kamala Mills Ltd., by Its Managing Agents, R.V. Lakshmi ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad725
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The facts which led up to the suit out of which this appeal arises are not in dispute. Defendant 1 is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The plaintiff purchased from defendants 2 to 12, who were shareholders of the company, a total number of 172 shares and applied to the company to register the transfer of the shares in his name in the books of the company. On 9th January 1945, the company wrote to the plaintiff that the Board of Directors of the company had refused to register the shares purchased by the plaintiff in his name at a meeting held on 5th January 1945. The share certificates and the transfer deeds were therefore returned to the plaintiff On 19th January 1945 the plaintiff wrote to the company alleging that the Directors' refusal to register the transfers was arbitrary, unjust and opposed to law and gave them notice that unless they recognised the transits in his favour and registered them he would seek...
Tag this Judgment!R. Muniswani Goundar (Died) and anr. Vs. B.M. Shamanna Gouda and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad820; (1950)IIMLJ163
Subba Rao, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot in O. S. No. 7 of 1945, a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The facts are rattier complicated, but it is necessary to give a resume for a correct appreciation of the contentious of the parties. One B. S. Muniswami Appa filed O. S. No. 125 of 1920 on the file of the District Court of C. and M. Station, Bangalore, to enforce his money claims against one China Muniswami Goundar and obtained a decree therein. The suit properties were brought to sale in execution of the decree and the decree-holder himself purchased the properties and took possession on 6th May 1924. Manioka Goundar, the son of China Muniswami Goundar preferred a claim in regard to his share in the suit properties. As the claim was allowed, Muniswami Appa filed O. S. No. 12 of 1924 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore for a declaration that he was entitled to attach ...
Tag this Judgment!Basanta Lal Vs. Comrs. for the Port of Calcutta and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal460
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. The pltf.-applt. had despatched on 14-4-1943 a consignment of goods consisting of 264 tins of cocoanut oil from Sahebbazar, a station on the Calcutta Port Rly. to Bankura a station on the Bengal Nagpur Ry. On April, 23, delivery was obtained by the consignor as the goods had been booked to self & it then transpired that 44 of the tins had been cut open & were completely empty. The total quantity of oil of which delivery could not be obtained was assessed before delivery of the remaining tins. On 6-4-1944, the present suit was filed claiming damages for the loss of the quantity of oil which had not been delivered. Before the suit was filed notice under Section 77. Railways Act, had been served on 15-1-1944. The claim was preferred against the Comrs. for the Port of Calcutta as also the Bengal Nagpur Rly. Administration & during the pendency of the suit the Governor-General in Council was also brought on the record as it was stated that the administration of the Beng...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Homeopathic Medical Association and ors. Vs. Kanai Lal Pal and ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal263,54CWN389
G.N. Das, J.1. The above cases were heard together. They arise out of applications under Section 115, Civil P. C., hereinafter called the Code. The Orders complained of in these Rules were passed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta hereinafter called the Chief Judge, modifying on appeal the orders made by the Additional Rent Controller fixing the standard rent of certain premises under the provisions of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act.2. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that this Court has no power to interfere with the orders complained of under Section 115 of the Code. His contention is that exercise of this power under Section 115 of the Code has been excluded by Section 37 (6) and (7) of the Act.3. It has not been disputed by Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Provincial Legislature may, by appropriate legislation, take away the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6805
- 6806
- 6807
- 6808
- 6809
- 6810
- 6812
- 6813
- 6814
- 6815
- Next ›
- Last »