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
Sourobinee Dabee Vs. Uma Sundari Dabee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal288
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the widow and heiress of the late Paramata Lall Gossami sues his mother, who is also administratrix with the will annexed, praying that the administratrix be directed to make over to her the estate of her deceased husband, to render an account of the administration, and to pay what sums may, on taking such accounts, be found due to the deceased's estate. On the part of the defendant it is contended, that, by the testator's will, the defendant was placed in charge of his property; that the intention of the will was to oblige the plaintiff to adopt, and to exclude her from management of the estate and from her rights as heiress; and that she is, accordingly, not entitled to the possession of the property.2. The will in dispute directs, that the widow being enciente, if a son be born, the mother should be guardian.3. His Lordship then set out the will as above, and continued;--4. Letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed were obtained by the m...
Tag this Judgment!Obhoy Churn Coondoo and anr. Vs. Golam Ali, Alias Nocoury Meah
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal410
Pontifex, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case having obtained a decree in the Court of the Second Munsif of Barisal, attached certain property within the jurisdiction of the Second Munsif. That attachment was made in September 1877. But one Golam Ali had obtained a decree in the Court of the Additional Munsif of Barisal, and had, under such decree, directly attached the same property prior to the plaintiffs' attachment, viz., in August 1877. A sale took place under the plaintiffs' attachment first, and the plaintiffs purchased on the 4th December in execution of their own decree. Subsequently, a sale took place on the 6th December under Golam Ali's attachment, and he purchased in execution of his decree. The plaintiff afterwards brought several rent-suits against the ryots occupying the land, and Golam Ali intervened in those suits. Two of those suits have now come on appeal before us, and the question to be decided in these appeals is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanks and ors. Vs. Savage
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal177
Wilson, J.1. Such adjournments are most inconvenient, and would not be listened to for a moment in England. I will grant an adjournment for a fortnight, on condition that the plaintiffs bear the whole costs of the hearing....
Tag this Judgment!Brojendro Lall Roy and ors. Vs. Nobodeep Chunder Chowdhry
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal406
Pontifex, J.1. The compensation case under the Land Acquisition Act, out of which appeal No. 14 of 1879 arises, was tried by Mr. Verner, who had to decide as to the manner in which the sum of Rs. 99 should be apportioned amongst certain persons claiming to be joint mourosidars. Mr. Verner decided that only one of these persons was entitled as mourosidar to compensation for the particular land taken under the Act in that case; and he directed that the amount should be paid to him. Against that decision, appeal No. 14 of 1879 has been preferred. The cases of compensation, out of which appeals Nos. 121, 122, 123, and 124 of 1879 arise, were tried by Mr. Tottenham for apportioning compensation in those four eases, amounting respectively to Rs. 9, 18, 20 and 37, between the same mourosidars as claimants. He came to the conclusion that the person to whom Mr. Verner had directed, in appeal No. 14 of 1879, that the compensation should be paid, did not prove his exclusive title to the money, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Kalytara ChowdhraIn Vs. Ramcoomar Gopta
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal466
Prinsep, J.1. Having found in concurrence with the lower Court that a copy of the proclamation of sale was not affixed to some conspicuous place within the property attached and to be sold, and that the very inadequate price realized may be fairly attributed to this omission, it becomes necessary to consider the point taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant that this was a formality not required by the law then in force. The proceedings were taken on the 30th July 1879, and were therefore to be regulated in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act XII of 1879. Section 289, as it now stands amended by Act XII, is to the following effect:The proclamation shall be made in manner prescribed by Section 274 on the spot where the property is attached, and a copy thereof shall be fixed up in the Court-house; and in the case of land paying revenue to Government, also in the Collector's office.2. It is contended by Mr. H. Bell, that the manner in which the proclamatio...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmadhub Shaha and ors. Vs. Srinibash Kurmokar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal442
Pontifex, J.1. It is admitted in this ease, on the findings of the lower Courts, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless he is barred by Section 27 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 from suing. That section gave him a limitation of one year, and the plaintiff instituted the suit after the expiration of eleven years from the date of the alleged dispossession. Now, taking the words of that Section by themselves, and putting, what I think is, a reasonable construction upon them, it seems to me they do not apply to this case, and the defendants are not entitled to insist upon them. The facts of the case are, that the defendants claim that immediately prior to the dispossession of the plaintiff, adarpatni was created in their favour, and upon its creation they at once proceeded to dispossess the plaintiff from his holding. Now the words of the section are: 'All suits to recover the occupancy or possession of any land, farm, or tenure from which a ryot, farmer, or tenant has been illegally...
Tag this Judgment!Patterson Vs. Manly
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal339
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Pontifex in the Privy Council Department, refusing leave to appeal to the Privy Council upon the ground that there was no point of law, and that, on the facts, the High Court had agreed with the judgment of the Court below.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the Standing Counsel that no appeal lies under such circumstances; and there is no doubt that this is an attempt to reopen a question which was decided by this Court in the year 1876. See Mussamut Amirunnesa v. Baboo Behary Lall (25 W. R., 529).3. The sections in the Civil Pro (sic) lure Code, under which Mr. Bell says he has a right to appeal, are contain .(sic)a in chap, xlv; but these sections present no new phase of the law upon this subject since the above case was decided, because at that time the Privy Council Act, VI of 1874, was in force, and the sections in that Act upon the subject are identically the same as those in chap, xlv of the Civil P...
Tag this Judgment!Damodur Biddyadhur Mohapatro and anr. Vs. Syamanund Dey
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal385
Hitter, J.1. In a proceeding under Section 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code between the petitioner and the oppose party regarding the possession of 1,100 mans of jnlpai lands, the Deputy Magistrate of Balasore, on the 14th February last, confirmed the opposite(sic) party m possession. The record shows that no preliminary, proceeding, stating the grounds upon which the Magistrate was satisfied that a dispute likely to induce a breach of the peace existed, was recorded. Probably on this ground, at the final hearing, objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and he deals with this question in the final judgment.2. One of the grounds upon which this rule was obtained was, that the Magistrate having omitted to record the preliminary proceeding referred to above, the whole proceeding was ultra vires, and therefore should be set aside. It has been contended on behalf of the opposite party that, as the final judgment shows that the Magistrate was satisfied of a dispute likel...
Tag this Judgment!Lokessur Koer Vs. Purgun Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal418
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that as the plaintiff was put in possession under that decree by the officer of the Court, the form in which execution was given was quite immaterial. All that was necessary was for the officer of the Court to go upon a portion of the land, and give the plaintiff possession of that portion in respect of the whole ; and any formal mistake which may have been made by the officer in the mode of giving possession could not prejudice the plaintiff. It does not appear that the defendants resisted the officer when he gave possession, or that it become necessary to turn them out by main force.2. The Subordinate Judge has, unfortunately, fallen into the common error which prevailed in the Mofussil Courts a few years ago, that the formal possession which the Civil Court gives under an execution is not actual possession ; whereas, as between the parties, it operates, in point of law and in fact, as a complete transfer of actual possession from the one party...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chunder Shaha and ors. Vs. Manick Chunder Banikya and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal428
Pontifex, J.1. In this case the parties, or their respective ancestors, (sic) together in carrying on a joint karbar, or partnership, which continued for many years down to the year 1280. The plaintiffs, on the 15th September 1876, within three months after the termination of the business, instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, whereby they claimed that, on an adjustment of accounts between the parties, they would be entitled to a very considerable sum. The defendants, by their written statement, insisted, on the other hand, that, on an adjustment of accounts, they would be entitled to a still more considerable balance. The parties being thus at issue, the Subordinate Judge, who tried the case, framed seven issues, to be found in his judgment. Now, assuming for a moment that the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to try the case, the course which he ought to have pursued is clearly pointed out in Forms Nos. 132 and 133 of schedule iv of the Code of Civil Proc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- Next ›
- Last »