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
Sheikh Akbar Vs. Sheikh Khan and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal256
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We have taken time to consider our judgment in this case, not because we had any doubt as to the result of the decision in the lower Court being correct, but because several points and authorities have been dealt with there, which appear to require some explanation.2. In the first place we think it clear that the document in question was not admissible in evidence. It was a copy of a lost promissory note, which was itself inadmissible as being insufficiently stamped; and the copy, of course, could not be received in evidence any more than the original.3. Whether evidence of the consideration for the note was admissible, depends upon the circumstances under which the note was given; and it is upon this part of the case that we think the Judge in the Court below has not quite understood the meaning of the authorities to which he refers.4. When a cause of action for money is once complete in itself, whether for goods sold, or for money lent, or for any other claim, a...
Tag this Judgment!Wood Vs. the Corporation of the Town of Calcutta
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal322
Mitter, J.1. After stating the facts as above, continued---Mr. O. C. Dutt refused to hear the evidence that was tendered on behalf of the petitioner, on the ground that the Chairman's assessment having become final under the last para, of Section 79, the question, whether he was liable to take out a license under Section 75, could not be re-opened. One of the grounds upon which the conviction has been questioned is, that this view of the law is not correct.2. The other ground upon which the conviction has been questioned is, that Mr. O. C. Dutt, by reason of his connection with the Corporation of the town of Calcutta, as their collector of taxes, was incompetent to try this case.3. I am of opinion that the proceedings and the ultimate conviction are illegal. In the first place it seems to me that Mr. O. C. Dutt was not right in convicting the petitioner without allowing him to substantiate his defence by evidence. The construction put upon the word 'final' in the last para, of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Parbath Chund Deb Vs. Ain-ud-deen and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal577
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a partition, and the facts are these: Monwar Ali is the owner of an undivided twelve annas share in a mouza, and Ali Kasim and others are entitled to the remaining four annas. The defendants have obtained a patni of the four annas share, and the plaintiff has obtained from Monwar Ali a mokurari of a small portion of the twelve annas share. Under this mokurari, he has an undivided twelve annas share in a small area of a mouza. The entire mouza held in joint possession consists of upwards of 100 droues of land; and the portion in which the plaintiff has a twelve-anna share is less than two drones. Under there circumstances, the plaintiff sues the defendants for a partition,-that is to say, he prays to have the small area in which he has a twelve-anna share divided as between him and the four annas patnidar, Neither of the zemindars is made a party to the suit; and the defendants object that, in point of law, the plaintiff is not entitled to th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohabeer Pershad Singh Vs. Mohabeer Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal591
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that, in a case of this kind, where the plaintiff is dispossessed by a person who is found to have no title, and to be a trespasser, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that he was in quiet possession at the time when he was so dispossessed. It seems to me, that this ought to be sufficient to establish a prima facie case as against the defendant. I am aware that there is some difference of opinion in the Court upon this point; and that some learned Judges consider, that the remedy by a possessory action, which is now provided by Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, and which was formerly given by the Limitation Act, has the effect of doing away with the English rule, that possession is prima facie evidence of title. I do not see why that should be. The rule seems to me a very wise and convenient; one, and I should be sorry to see it abolished. I think, therefore, that the Court below is right, and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.McD...
Tag this Judgment!Nilratna Bose Vs. Kasumunnissa Bibee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal79
Pontifex, J.1. In this appeal both the parties claim under the representatives of one Ashutosh Dey. The plaintiff claims under a mortgage made by Ashutosh's representatives on the 11th January 1865. The mortgagee instituted a suit upon that mortgage, making a second mortgagee, whose mortgage was dated the 12th January 1865, a defendant in that suit. He also made the representatives of Ashutosh Dey defendants. And on the 13th November 1865, he obtained a decree on the Original Side of this Court, directing that, unless the defendant paid his mortgage-debt within a time therein named, the property should be sold. Under that decree the property was sold on the 30th March 1867, and purchased by the present plaintiff. A conveyance was made to the present plaintiff on the 6th November 1868; and on the 13th March 1879, he instituted this suit against the defendant, claiming khas possession of the property which he purchased.2. The defendant's title, also under the representatives of Ashutosh,...
Tag this Judgment!Bibee Syefun Vs. Rudder Sohay
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal582
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the lower Appellate Court has made a very serious mistake in this case in finding in favour of the defendant upon the plea of payment, without any evidence whatever to support that finding.2. It was not denied that a certain sum for rent had become due to the plaintiff from the defendant for the year 1283, but the defendant's plea was that those sums had been paid. The onus was entirely upon the defendant to prove this plea, but instead of going into the witness-box himself, or at any rate calling his agent in order to prove the payments (which, if the pleas wore true, they could readily have done), what the defendant did was this: He called the plaintiff's agent as his own witness, and ho produced certain receipts of sums which had been paid in 1283; and the plaintiff's agent was then asked, whether those sums were not received. The plaintiff's agent acknowledged that they were received, but not in payment of rent for the year 1283. He stated that t...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusami Chetti and ors. Vs. Samurti Chinna Mannar Chetti and Sadasiva ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad37
Innes, J.1. These cases were heard on the 6th January. On the 8th we were prepared to give judgment, but we thought it desirable to hear argument upon a point which had been apparently overlooked. We accordingly heard Counsel again on the 15th March.2. The plaintiff in each case got a decree against Viraragava (the father of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants in the present suit), and, on proceeding to execute against some of the property assumed to be that of Viraragava, was met by a claim made by the present 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants--Viraragava's sons--on the property attached.3. Plaintiffs were eventually required to institute regular suits against the claimants and the attached property was released. Plaintiffs brought the suits 452 and 503 of 1878, out of which the appeals arise.4. The question in appeal in each case is whether the learned Judge was wrong in finding that the interest of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants in the house No. 9, Armenian Street, is liable to be seized unde...
Tag this Judgment!Harry Vaningen Vs. Dhunna Lall Lallan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad108
Innes, J.1. The questions in this appeal have relation to three promissory notes (Exhibits A, B, C) executed by defendant on the 1st November 1876, the 5th September 1877, and the 21st September 1877, respectively. The notes Exhibits A and C were executed in favour of Alfred Arathoon; but the note, Exhibit B was executed in favour of Augustus Arathoon and by him on the same day endorsed to Alfred Arathoon. The notes were all endorsed to the plaintiff long after their execution.2. The defence was that on the 21st February 1878 defendant had sold his business; carried on under the style of Taylor and Co., to Augustus Arathoon and Willoughby Van Ingen for and on behalf of themselves and of Alfred and Samuel Arathoon, and that it was one of the terms of the said sale that defendant should be discharged from the debts and liabilities then due from him in respect of the said business, and that these liabilities included the said promissory notes, which were then in the hands of Alfred and Au...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Riasat Ali, Alias Babu Miya, Alias Bodiuzzuma
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal352
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The prisoner in this ease was charged with an attempt to commit forgery, and the facts proved were that he gave orders to the Burdwan Press to print one hundred receipt forms similar to those which were formerly used by the Bengal Coal Company; that he corrected one proof of those forms, and was suggesting further corrections in a second proof in order to assimilate the form to that now used by the Company, when he was arrested by the police. The jury found him guilty of an attempt to commit forgery, 'in that he dishonestly and with the intent to commit fraud caused a document to be printed with the intention of making such an addition to it as would make it a false document.2. Assuming this finding of the jury, as to what the prisoner actually did, to be correct, the question is, whether he could be legally convicted of an attempt to commit forgery? The definition of forgery in Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as it is necessary to refer to i...
Tag this Judgment!NobIn Krishna Bose and anr. Vs. Mon Mohun Bose and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal573
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 225 from the defendants under these circumstances:2. The plaintiffs had sued the defendants to recover possession of four annas of a patni estate, of which the defendants claimed the whole, and were admittedly entitled to the other twelve annas. The real question in that suit was, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the four annas as patnidars, or whether they held them as darpatnidars, the defendants being the holders of the whole patni.3. In that suit the plaintiffs got a decree as patnidars in the first Court; but on appeal the case was remanded for some further evidence to be taken. In that state of things, and whilst the plaintiff's bond fide believed themselves to be entitled to the four annas, they paid into the zemindar's sherishta Rs. 225 on account of the revenue for that sharo. But as it was eventually decided that the plaintiff's held the four annas, not as patnidars, but as darpatnidars, it turned out that th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- Next ›
- Last »