Property lawOwnershipPrivy Council (on appeal from Allahabad)

Maharani Hemanta Kumari Debi v Gauri Shankar Tewari

AIR 1941 PC 38; [1940] UKPC 6519401 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
An earlier version of this page gave a 1891 Calcutta case of this name for the rule nemo dat quod non habet. I found no such case. The only reported case of this name is this 1940 Privy Council decision on a different point. The slug still carries 1891. I took the facts from the BAILII index and a secondary report, not the full judgment, and confirmed the title and date on Indian Kanoon (doc 384627).
Held
The dispute was over ownership of the Prayag or Puthia bathing ghat at Benares.
Principle
The plaintiff was held to own the Prayag (Puthia) bathing ghat at Benares; the trial decree for removal of obstructions was restored, with the injunction limited to ghatia activity carried on without her consent.
Cite this

Held

  • The dispute was over ownership of the Prayag or Puthia bathing ghat at Benares.
  • The Privy Council restored the trial judge's decree: the plaintiff owned the ghat and the obstructions were to be removed. The injunction was limited to ghatia activity carried on without her consent.

Cite this

Citation

Maharani Hemanta Kumari Debi v Gauri Shankar Tewari AIR 1941 PC 38; [1940] UKPC 65

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/384627/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.