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
Googlee Sahoo Vs. Premlall Sahoo and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal148
Cunningham, J.1. The plaintiff sues Raghoonath, his tenant, for the rent due on a 5-anna 2-pie share amounting to 4 rupees 5 annas. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the whole of this share, and stated that the plaintiff's brother, was a co-sharer, and he asked that the brother might be made a defendant.2. The Munsif, instead of making the brother a defendant, added him as a co-plaintiff, notwithstanding the protest of the original plaintiff. He has dealt with the matter in dispute between the two brothers in a very summary way, and has refused to determine the issues which would necessarily arise between them if they complained an antagonism; but he has, nevertheless, given two brothers, plaintiffs, a decree.3. The Subordinate Judge has affirmed this decision.4. A preliminary objection is raised to the hearing of this special appeal. It is urged that the matter for our decision is really an appeal against an order passed under Section 32 The Court may, on o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdhani Sahai Vs. Rajrani Kooer
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal337
Mitter, J.1. Who, after stating the facts as above, continued. The respondent's pleader objects in limine to the hearing of the appeal, on the ground that the original suit was one of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and supported his objection by reference to Soorjo Coomar Surma Roy v. Kristo Coomar Chowdry (2 B.L R., 224; S.C., 14 W. R., P. B., 30).2. It is in our opinion unnecessary to express any opinion on this point as the case is a very clear one on the merits.3. We think that the contention of the appellant's pleader, that Section 293 only applies to cases of resale under Section 309, cannot stand examination. We do not pretend to explain why the Legislature adopted the expression 'resold' and 'resale' in Section 293 and Sections 308 and 309, while the expression in Section 297 and Section 306 is 'put up again and sold;' but it is quite clear that the second sale, whether held under Section 297, Section 306, or Section 308, is a resale, and that Section 293 app...
Tag this Judgment!Hoolash Kooer Vs. Kassee Proshad and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal369
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the Judge of Patna rejecting the appellant's petition for a certificate for managing the property of her minor son. Her husband, Joymungul, and Kassee, one of the respondents, were two uterine brothers, sons of one Byjnath, who left by another wife, Mussamut Larawun Koer (the other respondent), two other minor sons. The mother of Joymungul and Kassee is not alive. The present application was made after the death of Joymungul. It was opposed principally by Larawun Koer, on the ground that her minor sons, Kassee, and Joymungul, were members of a joint Hindu family of which no separation has yet taken place. It was, therefore, contended that, under the Mitakshara law, the minor son of Joymungul was not possessed of such property as could be taken charge of under the provisions of Act XL of 1858. The Judge, in accordance with this objection, has refused the application.2. It appears that, after the death of Byjnath, the whole of his prop...
Tag this Judgment!Macnaghten Vs. Gopal and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal751
Mitter, J.1. The first question that has been argued before us is, whether an undivided fractional shareholder of a mouza can enhance the rent of a holding of a joint tenant. But whether he can or not, we are clearly of opinion that such a suit as this is not maintainable in the absence of the other shareholder or shareholders. Conceding that a single shareholder can raise the rent of a joint tenant without the consent of his coparceners, it is clear that he can only do so in a suit to which all the sixteen annas proprietors must be made parties, otherwise the rent of the same holding might be raised to two or more different amounts at the instance of the several coparceners.2. We are, therefore, of opinion that the decree of the lower Courts is not sustainable, and we dismiss the suit with costs in all the Courts.3. This decision will govern Appeals Nos. 2665 to 2763, 2861 to 2870, and 2880 to 2885 of 1879, in which the plaintiff's suit is likewise dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Lackersteen and ors. Vs. Rostan and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal32
Wilson, J.1. I cannot make an order as regards the defendant Joseph Polycarp, as he has not been served or entered appearance, but the order may run that the Receiver do convey, on behalf of all parties other than Joseph Polycarp....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Grish Chunder Nundi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal87
Morris, J.1. It appears to us that there is no legal foundation for the trial of Sokhina Bibi under Section 211[Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having commited an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both ; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted, on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, transportation for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. False charge of offence made with intent to injure,] of the Indian Penal Code. Sokhina Bibi lodged a complaint under Sections 354[Whoever assaults or uses...
Tag this Judgment!Sadasivayyar Vs. Muttu Sabapathi Chetti
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad106
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We are unable to agree with the Judge that under the circumstance the sale made in pursuance of the order contained in the decree' should not be set aside when on appeal that order was reversed.2. The purchaser was no other than the plaintiff in the suit who, averring that the interests of appellant, the second defendant, were bound by a mortgage executed by his brother, sued to enforce the lien, and, although he obtained a decree in the Court of First Instance and caused the sale to be carried out, he was aware that the appeal had been instituted and purchased subject to the result, the reversal of the order for sale.3. The order of the Lower Appellate Court is reversed and that of the Court of First Instance restored with costs in all Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Gunga Bishen Bhugut and ors. Vs. Raghoonath Ojha
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal381
Mitter, J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of five bighas of land under the following circurstances. The plaintiff alleges that it was the property of one Phagoo Dobey, and that, in execution of a decree against him, it was sold and purchased by him on the 4th of June 1874, and possession was delivered by the execution Court on the 27th of June following; but the defendants having resisted the plaintif' in taking possession, he is obliged to bring this suit. It is also stated in he plaint that the defendants had brought a suit against the plaintiff for converation of their possession over, and declaration of their title in respect of, the land in suit, and that that suit was dismissed from the first to the final Court of appeal. The plaintiff, therefore, contends that the question of title has been decided conclusintely in a previous suitagainst the defendants and in his favour. The defendants deny that the question of title was finally decided in the previous suit. Then upon th...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Proshad Wasti and ors. Vs. Esuf and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal414
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the District Judge has, unfortunately, made a nistake. According to the view which he has taken of the law, the plaintiffs, (sic)however just their claim may be, cannot possibly obtain redress except by a (sic)artition.2. Their case is, that they are the twelve annas shareholders of a certain (sic) taluq, the remaining four annas share belonging to the defendant No. 4. (sic) say that the Collector of Noakhali unjustly dispossessed them of this (sic) ; whereupon they and the defendant No. 4 brought a suit against him (sic) Section 15, Act XIV of 1859, and obtained a decree for possession.3. (sic) (sic)anthile, the principal defendants, Nos. 1 and 2, had been let into (sic) through the Collector, of four kanis of land within the taluq ; and as (sic) or himself was a trespasser, the plaintiffs say that these defendants are (sic) They, therefore, bring this suit to obtain khas possession of the (sic) the land to the extent of their twelve annas share join...
Tag this Judgment!Chundee Churn Roy Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Womes Chunder Chatterjee and a ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal293
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I have had considerable doubt as to whether we ought not to remand this case for retrial.2. The plaintiffs sue to recover possession of certain land which they say belongs to their zemindari.3. The defendants, on the other hand, contend, that the land in question forms part of certain property which they hold under a nimhowla, subordinate to the howla of one Parbut Sirdar.4. Both the lower Courts have found in favour of the plaintiffs; but it has been contended on appeal to this Court, that the Subordinate Judge has based his judgment upon certain documentary evidence, which was not legally admissible against the defendants. One document is a written statement filed in this suit by Sidam, one of the defendants, the son of Parbut Sirdar, in which he says, that the disputed land does not appertain to the howla of his father. This statement of Sidam, the Subordinate Judge appears to have treated as evidence against the other defendants, which he clearly had no right ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- Next ›
- Last »