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
Robarts Vs. Harrison
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal333
Wilson, J.1. This was an application by the plaintiff to take off the file an award filed by the arbitrators who made it, on the ground that, under the Limitation Act, it was filed too late.2. The reference was in a suit. The award was made and published in due time on the 29th September 1880 It was filed by the arbitrators on the 29th April 1881. The plaintiff contends, that the filing was out of time under Article 176 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877), which prescribes a period of six months from the making of the award for an 'application under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 516 or 525, that an award be filed in Court.'3. In order to see whether this contention is correct, it is necessary to examine the sections of the Code relating to arbitrations. There are three kinds of arbitration dealt with in chap, xxxvii-references of matters in difference in suits already pending; references not in suits, but in which the submission is filed under Section 523, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jonmenjoy Mulliek Vs. Dossmoney Dossee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal714
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the first question should be answered in the affirmative.2. The plaintiff has clearly no right to sue for the restoration of the mortgaged property. His proper course, in our opinion, was that which he adopted in the first instance,---namely, to sue to have his lien upon the property declared.3. The High Court's judgment in Dossmoney Dossaa v. Jonmenjoy Mulliok (I. L. Rule, 3 Cal., 363; S. C., 1 C. L. R., 446), appears to us to be erroneous. The learned Judges in that case seem to think that because the plaintiff had obtained a decree for his mortgage-money, he had thereby lost his lien; but this is not so. There is ample authority in this Court to show that such a proposition is unfounded. A man who has an equitable lien for a simple contract-debt does not lose his lien by turning his debt into a judgment-debt. Under certain circumstances he may be restrained from pursuing both his remedies simultaneously; but having enforced one remedy without full...
Tag this Judgment!Gunesh Dutt, Alias Nanhoo Singh and anr. Vs. Khoshelal Mahton and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal690
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs instituted this suit on the 3rd December 1879 to recover arrears of rent for the years 1284, 1285, and 1286 F. S. (corresponding with the years 1876 to 1879). The defendants alleged, that the rents for the years 1284 and 1285 (1876-1878) had been paid in full, and that of the year 1286 (1878-79) having been deposited under the provisions of the Rent Act, the notice of such deposit was given to the plaintiffs on the 31st May 1879. They pleaded that the suit, not having been instituted within six months from the 31st May 1879, was barred under the provisions of Section 31 of the Rent Act.2. The Munsif held, that the suit was barred, while the Judge on appeal came to the contrary conclusion. The latter officer based his decision on the ground that the deposit of the rent of the year 1286 (1878-79) was not legal under the Act, because it had not then become due.3. It is contended before us that the Judge is wrong in assuming without evidence that the rent was no...
Tag this Judgment!Makund Lall and anr. Vs. Chaturi Sing and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal710
Mitter, J.1. It is found by the lower Courts, that the plaintiffs held the disputed land in jote, and were ousted by the defendants in April 1285 (1878) without any notice. It is also found, that they had not, before ouster, acquired a right of occupancy. The defendants are owners of a fractional share of the estate in which the lands lie, but they claim an exclusive right to them as their zerat. The suit was dismissed by the first Court, while the lower Appellate Court, reversing that judgment, has awarded a decree, on the ground that the plaintiffs could not be legally evicted without a reasonable notice.2. It has been contended before us, that a ryot not having a right of occupancy may be evicted at the end of the year without a notice. No doubt, a ryot holding under a patta having a fixed term may be evicted without notice at the end of the fixed term. But that is not the case here. The plaintiffs allege that their father obtained a patta for one year, viz., 1179 (1871-72), and the...
Tag this Judgment!Chuni Singh and anr. Vs. Wazeer Mahton and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal727
Mitter, J.1. This was a suit for arrears of rent for the years 1284 and 1285 (1876-1878), the rent being admittedly payable in kind. The plaintiffs claim to recover in the proportion of nine-sixteenths of the produce; the defendants allege that the proportion is half and half.2. It appears that there was a previous suit between the parties in respect of the rent of the years 1281 to 1283 (1874-1876). In that suit, also, they were at issue upon this point, viz., in what proportion the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the produce. The whole matter in difference in that suit was referred to arbitration, and the arbitrator submitted his award, deciding this question in favour of the plaintiffs. Certain objections were taken against the award, but the Gourt overruled them and passed judgment in accordance with it. The defendants appealed against that judgment, but failed, on the ground that the judgment being in accordance with the award was final under the law.3. The Courts below in this...
Tag this Judgment!Godadhar Dass Vs. Dhunput Sing
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal585
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the District Judge has taken an erroneous view of the rights of the parties. The amount in question is inconsiderable; but the principle upon which the case depends is an important one; and as we had some doubt whether the view which we were at first disposed to take was correct, we have had the case argued a second time.2. Under the Land Acquisition Act of 1870, the Government took a small piece of land, containing rather more than four bighas, in the district of Dinagepore, for the purposes of the northern Bengal State Railway. The agreed amount of compensation in respect of the whole of this land was Rs. 104-4-2; and three claimants only appeared-the Raja, who was the zamindar, the patnidar, and the darpatnidar. The District Judge held, that so long as the zamindar continued to receive from the patnidar his entire rent under the patta, without any abatement in respect of the land in question, his interests would not be affected; and as at the hear...
Tag this Judgment!Chuni Singh and ors. Vs. Hera Mahto and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal633
Maclean, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit, who are the appellants before us, are the proprietors of Mouza Kazibigha, in which the defendants cultivate 16 bighas 11 biswas 6 dhurs. The plaint alleges that this land was formerly held on a bhowli rent, then a cash rent was paid for it for some time, and now a bhowli rent has been reverted to. The claim is for a bhowli rent for 1285 F., and for a kabuliat for five years from 1286 F. The rent demanded is at the rate of nine-sixteenths of the produce, valued at Rs. 106-13-6, for the year 1285, and it is stated in the plaint that a notice was served on the defendants, under Section 14, Beng. Act VIII of 1869, calling on them to execute a kabuliat to pay nine-sixteenths of the produce as enhanced rent.2. The defendants plead that the notice served upon them was not according to law, inasmuch as it was served on the application of some of the proprietors only,---viz., 14 annas 15 cowri 18 bowri 1 bhowri shareholders. They also plead that cash r...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Sufdar Reza Vs. Amzad Ali and anr
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal703
Richard Garth, C.J.1. If the application of the defendants was accepted by the plaintiff by writing the word 'granted' in the margin, we think that the instrument in question was a lease and therefore required registration. Even if it was an agreement for a lease, it also, in our opinion, required registration; because, coupled with possession by the defendants, its effect clearly was to give the latter an interest in the property for the term mentioned in the doul; and it does not appear that any other document to complete the transaction was contemplated by the parties.2. This view seems to us perfectly consistent with the two decisions, which are mentioned in the reference-the cases of Choonee Mundur v. Chundee Lall Dass (14 W. R., 178) and Bibee Meheroonnissa v. Abdool Gunee (17 W. R., 509), because, in those cases, the application of the tenant was not accepted in writing. It was a mere proposal, which was accepted, if at all, orally, in which case the entire lease or agreement no...
Tag this Judgment!Lall Jha Vs. Negroo
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal717
Richard Garth, C.J.1. So far as we can see, the District Judge appears to have rejected the doul darkhast, which was offered in evidence in this case, upon insufficient grounds. In the case of Maharaja Luchmissur Singh v. Mussamut Dakho (Ante, p. 708), we decided in a Pull Bench of this Court that a doul darkhast, if it amounted to nothing more than a proposal by a tenant to pay a certain rent for certain land, does not amount to a lease or an agreement for a lease. If it is accepted in writing by the landlord, it is a different thing. In another case-Sped Sufdar Reza v. Amzad All (Ante, p. 703)---which we also decided in a Full Bench, the document was not only a proposal for a lease, but had the word 'granted' signed by the landlord himself upon it. In that case we considered, that if that word was written upon the document in token of the acceptance by the landlord of the tenant's proposal, it would require registration, because it would then amount to a complete offer by the tenant ...
Tag this Judgment!Wahari Lall Singh Vs. Greeman Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal12
Mitter, J.1. This suit was brought by one Wahari Lall Singh, for a declaration that certain deeds of sale, dated the 8th and 18th May 1874, executed by two Hindu widows, Pharichha Koer and Susti Koer, widows of one Balgobind, are void and inoperative as against the plaintiff, he being the presumptive heir to the estate of Balgobind after the death of the last surviving widow, Pharichha Koer. The object of the suit was, further, to have a declaration that the plaintiff, according to Hindu law, is the next reversionary heir to the estate left by the aforesaid Balgobind. The plaintiff alleges that he is the daughter's son of the aforesaid Balgobind by Susti Koer. The suit was brought after the death of Susti Koer against Pharichha Koer, the other widow, and the person in whose favour the aforesaid deeds were executed. It appears, that while this suit was pending, the appellants before us, Greeman Singh and others, intervened, and alleged that, upon the death of Pharichha Koer, they would ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- Next ›
- Last »