Skip to content


Privy Council Cases Home > Privy Council Court: punjab and haryana Page 1 of about 171 results (0.029 seconds)

Mar 11 1905 (PC)

Hira Lal Vs. Emperor

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.638

ORDERChatterji, J.1. The previous proceeding's show that the attachment was set aside first by the Magistrate and at all events by this Court on the report of the Sessions Judge on 1st August, 1908, and the goods released. The liability of the petitioner is Conditional clearly on the attachment being maintained. He had custody of the property as attached property, i.e., property which the Committee could sell for realization of their dues. If the attachment falls through, the petitioner's liability necessarily terminates. It has no independent foundation.2. I am also inclined to agree with the Sessions Judge that no proceedings under Section 201 for attachment can be taken by the Committee against the accused. I think Din Muhammad v. Municipal Committee; Amritsar 23 P.R. 1903 Cr. shows that under the section claims of this nature, which are hot for any arrears of tax, or fee or for money claimable under the Municipal Act, cannot be realized through the agency of a Magistrate. A fortior...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1906 (PC)

Jhanju and anr. Vs. Ram Dial and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.668

1. The pedigree table of the family of the pre-emptors and vendors according to the Settlement Record of 1891-92 is as follows:Khushala.____________|____________| |Dhari Bishen_______|_______ _________|_________ | | | | |Gobind Gokal Jhanju Sundar 2 other| (died with out (plff.) (plff.) sons. Descendants issue) vendors. 2. Plaintiffs sue for pre-emption in respect of a sale of some 57 kanals of land made by the descendants of Gobind in favour of the other defendants. They allege that the land in suit is 'ancestral' qua themselves inasmuch as it has descended to the vendors from Khushala, the common ancestor, and that consequently they as yah jaddis, are entitled to pre-emption, by virtue of Clause 29 of the wajib-ul-arz., In further appeal before us it has, also been contended that even if the land is not ancestral in the sense above indicated, plaintiffs are entitled to claim pre-emption by reason of the fact that they are land-owners, in the village, whereas the vendee is a total str...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1907 (PC)

Mahan Kaur Vs. Sundar Das

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.483

1. The parties to this appeal are Sikh Jats of the sect of Sadh Udasis of the Muktsar tahsil of the Ferozepore District. One Ram Dass left four sons, Narain Dass, Sadanand, Hari Das and Sunder Das. Narain Das died about fifteen years ago, and left a widow, Musammat Mahan Kaur, the defendant in this case. The share of Narain Das in the holding held jointly by all the brothers was mutated on his death in favour of Mahan Kaur. About five years ago Sdanand died without issue, and his share was mutated in the names of Sunder Das, the plaintiff, and Musammat Mahan Kaur, in equal shares, the fourth brother having apparently died prior to the mutation proceedings.2. The defendant, Musanunat Mahan Kaur, applied recently to the Revenue Authorities for partition of her share in the joint holding, both as regards the land which had been left by her husband, Narain Das, and in respect of the land to which she had succeeded on the death of Sadanand. The plaintiff, Sunder Das, objected to the partiti...

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1907 (PC)

Dhirta Vs. Kesri

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : IIIInd.Cas.484

Lal Chand, J.1. The facts are given in full in the order referring the case to a Division Bench for decision. The suit is for custody of wife, and, when instituted on 26th October 1005, was valued at Rs, 510 for the purposes of jurisdiction under the rules then in force. It was dismissed under Section 97, Civil Procedure Code, on 6th December 1905, and was re-admitted on 4th -January 1906. On 19th January 1900 the plain, was returned for amending the names of certain defendants, and the amended plaint was re-filed on 22nd January 1906, valuing the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 520.2. Meanwhile the rule relating to valuation of such suits had been superseded and a new rule fixing the valuation of such suits at Rs. 1,000 for purposes of jurisdiction was issued with the sanction of the Local Government on 4th December 1905.3. The question raised is, whether under the circumstances, a further appeal is admissible in the case as of right under Section 40, Punjab Courts Act. We fe...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1911 (PC)

Emperor Vs. Ganda Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.109

ORDERKensington, J.1. The Additional District Magistrate, when sentencing Ganda Singh on the 19ih April 1910 (Case No. 24-7 of 1910), overlooked the application of Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code.It is only in case of separate convictions at one trial that the question arises whether sentences should he concurrent or consecutive. In all other cases, Section 397 is imperative.2. Ganda Singh had been previously convicted by the same Magistrate on 30th March 1910 and sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment, since reduced to two years on appeal. The Magistrate was not competent to direct that the fresh sentence of 19th April 1910 should run from the date of his order and that portion of his order is set aside.3. It seems to have been the Magistrate's intention that Ganda Singh should undergo a total period of 4 years' imprisonment. To give effect to this intention, as near as may be, it is hereby ordered on revision that the second sentence of 19th April 1910 be so far reduced that the peri...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1911 (PC)

Bishna and ors. Vs. Musammat Rattani and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.92

1. The parties to this case, as finally arrayed, are Bishna, Nikka Singh, and Dhanna Singh, sons of Samand Singh plaintiffs, and Musammat Ratni, Musammat Rani and Shera, minor defendants. The claim was for a declaration that a certain decree obtained by Shera against the two other defendants by collusion should not affect plaintiffs' reversionary rights. The suit having been instituted in December 1907, a compromise in writing was put in on 24th February 1908. Bishna did not sign that compromise or appear in Court to assent to it, and the first Court, therefore, while holding the other two plaintiffs bound by the compromise, found Bishna not brand and then on the merits granted him the declaration prayed for. Both Dhanna Singh and Bishna had given a special power of attorney for the case to Nikka Singh, but the first Court finally ruled that the powers given did not include authority to compromise, and further that it was more than doubtful whether Nikka Singh purported to set for Bish...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1947 (PC)

Sardarni Chanan Kaur and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal Goela and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1948P& H14

Achhru Ram, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of a Subordinate Judge of Delhi dismissing the appellants' suit to pre-empt a sale of certain landed property by the Court of Ward of the estate of the heirs of R.B. Buta Singh of Rawalpindi. The land sold was situate in: Delhi and was sold to Mohan Lal respondent for a sum of rupees one lac and fifteen thousand. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the sale sought to be pre-empted had been effected by means of public auction and that in view of the notification issued by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi on 26-11-1943 and published in the Gazette of India dated 4-12-1943 it was not pre-emptible.2. In arguing this appeal, Mr. Harnam Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the notification issued by the Chief Commissioner was not authorised by the language of Section 8, Punjab Pre-emption Act under which it purported to have been issued and that in promulgating it the Chief Commissioner had exceeded his legal po...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 1947 (PC)

Ramji Lal and ors. Vs. Pitam Chand

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1948P& H18

Bhandari, J.1. The short point for decision in this case is whether the defendant who is a pujari of a temple, has been guilty of breach, of trust and misappropriation of trust money or of mismanagement of trust property. On 27th June 1937, Ramji Lal and Durga Das, who are residents of the mohalla in which the temple known as Mandir Kanhaya Lal Bhola Nath or Shivala Dina Nath is situated, brought a suit against Pitam Chand Pujari for a declaration that the temple in dispute together with the land attached thereto is a public wakf and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from asserting his private ownership and from applying the income of the temple to his private use. The trial Court held (a) that the temple and the land attached thereto are public wakf properties; (b) that the said temple and land have been in the exclusive management of the defendant and his ancestors for about a century; and (c) that the defendant is a hereditary pujari of the said temple and propert...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 1947 (PC)

Lukshmi Shud Khadi Bhandar Vs. Bhagat Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1948P& H36

1. The only question involved in this second appeal is whether the suit was within time because of an alleged acknowledgment of liability made by the defendant.2. It is not denied that in order that an acknowledgment may fall within the purview of Section 19, Limitation Act, and give a fresh start to the period of limitation the acknowledgment should be of a subsisting liability. The acknowledgment upon which the plaintiff relied in the present case is said to be contained in Ex. P-1, a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff on 4th April 1940 and a statement of an account attached thereto. The letter itself does not contain any admission of liability. On the other band, it is mentioned therein that it is the plaintiff that owes something to the defendant. After referring to a previous letter that the defendant sent to the plaintiff, by which he was asked to appoint an arbitrator to settle his account, it went on to say that the plaintiff should nominate his arbitrator on the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1947 (PC)

Sant Ram Vs. Atma Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1948P& H8

Teja Singh, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption based on a mortgage of 21-2-1936 made by Sant Ram son of Rala in favour of Atma Singh. Sant Ram, who was the plaintiff in the case, contended that though the mortgage was for Rs. 90 he was entitled to redeem the house on payment of Rs. 10 only, because the defendant had removed the malba of the house which was worth Rs. 8o. Atma Singh defendant admitted the factum of the mortgage but denied the plaintiff's right to redeem. The position taken up by him was that the house had been sold at a court-auction in execution of & money decree against Rala, to whom it originally belonged and since the sale had been knocked down in his (Atma Singh's) favour the equity of. redemption no longer remained vested in. Bant-Ram. He also raised a technical objection that. Sant Ram being a party to the suit in which the decree in question was passed his proper remedy was to object under Section 47, Civil P.C., and that the suit for red...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //