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
Narsing Dass Vs. NajmooddIn Hossein
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal21
Mitter, J.1. This was a suit on a bond for Rs. 1,800, executed by Fahtemul Zohra, widow of Sheikh Eftakharuddin, hypothecating, amongst other properties, one anna fifteen gandas of Jhurja, of which the respondent is in possession under an auction-purchase of the rights of the aforesaid widow made on the 15th August 1877. The mortgage-bond is dated the 28th March 1874.2. It appears that Sheikh Eftakharuddin died between 1868 and 1872, leaving him surviving the aforesaid widow and two sons as his heirs. In the year 1866 he borrowed Rs. 546 by a bond, dated the 18th of October, from a person named Lalla Jha, who obtained a decree for the loan against the aforesaid heirs on the 20th November 1872.3. This decree was reversed by the Judge on the 8th April 1873, but was restored by this Court in Special Appeal on the 20th April 1874.4. It appears that Sheikh Eftakharuddin was possessed of four annas of this mouza, viz., Jhurja. After his death, by a Tukseemnamah, dated the 20th January 1871, ...
Tag this Judgment!NobIn Krishna Chakravati Vs. Ram Kumar Chakravati
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal605
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that, for the purposes of this reference, both the eases must be considered as governed by authority in this Court.2. The Full Bench case of Bam Bux Chittanjeo v. Moodhoosoodun Paul Chowdhry (B. L. R., Sup. Vol., 675; s.c, 7 W. R., 377) clearly shows, that, in the case of co-sharers of an estate, where one co-sharer pays the whole revenue, he cannot recover contribution in a Small Cause Court from his co-sharer; co-sharers paying revenue to Government are not co-contractors in any sense, and therefore the principle laid down in the Full Bench case and in other subsequent cases with regard to them, is perfectly plain.3. But the case of joint tenants who hold a tenure under a zemindar or other landlord at an entire rent, seems to fall within a different principle. Such co-tenants are to all intents and purposes co-contractors, as much so as persons who jointly purchase goods or borrow money; and if one should he compelled by the landlord to pay the whole re...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanath Dass and anr. Vs. Boloram Phookun and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal677
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case I think I cannot do better than adopt the statement of facts made by the Court below. (His Lordship then stated the facts as above, and continued):The Judge in the Court below has, in my opinion, dealt with the question with great care and judgment. He considers, and I think rightly, that, notwithstanding the observations made in the special appeal by the learned Judges of this Court, he was bound to determine the question, whether the plaintiff had purchased the mortagagee's rights at the execution-sale. He thought, in the first place, that those observations were not necessary for the determination of the special appeal; and in the next place, that the learned Judges had in fact declined to give any definite opinion as to what interest, if any, the present plaintiff had purchased. In this view I quite agree.2. Having then very fully discussed the leading authorities upon the question, and especially the Full Bench judgment in the case of Syud Emam M...
Tag this Judgment!Provabutty Dabee Vs. Mobendro Lall Bose
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal453
Wilson, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the owner of the house No. 56, Punchanuntollah Lane; the defendant is the owner of the house No. 63 in the same lane; and as to a portion of the two houses, No. 63 stands immediately adjacent to and north of the north wall of No. 56. Trio plaintiff complains that, in the course of certain building operations which took place in No. 63, the defendant has built a wall so as to block up altogether the light to a window of the north wall of No. 56, by which light was afforded to one of the rooms of that house, and has encroached laterally on the soil of No. 56, interfering with the cornice, which has been variously described by the witnesses as a brick band, a string course, and a sailing course.2. The first question is, whether the plaintiff has shown a right to access of light through that window: 2 idly, whether there has been a lateral encroachment; and 3rdly, what is the remedy.3. The first question is of great. (sic)-'rUnce to the plaintiff,...
Tag this Judgment!Narian Khootia Vs. Lokenath Khootia and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal461
Richard Garth, C.J.1. His lordship here stated the facts above set out, and, having gone through the evidence, found that, though there was sufficient proof that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Gobind, yet here was no sufficient proof of the plaintiff's title or possession. His lordship then continued.2. If the case, therefore, had rested on the plaintiff's evidence, we must have dismissed the suit, although not upon the grounds relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner.3. We think, however, that the case n(sic) us be decided upon the admission the defendant No. 1. He admits distinct y (sic) hat a putro putrodik grant was therefore, under Section. 2, the plaintiff was entitled to two years from the 1st October 1877 to bring his suit. He is, therefore, in ample time.4. We have some doubt whether, having regard to the fact that this is a Mitakshara family, and that the plaintiff and defendant appear to be now the sole male members of it, the plaintiff has not a right to a larger share ...
Tag this Judgment!Gogun Chunder Ghose Vs. Dhuronidhur Mundul and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal616
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this appeal must be dismissed. This suit is brought upon an instalment-bond against three brothers, the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that these three brothers executed the bond jointly. The suit has been dismissed in both Courts and the lower Appellate Court finds, as a fact, that two of the defendants never executed the bond, and that their names were not upon it as it was originally executed; and further, that the plaintiff, in whose custody the bond has been, has forged the names of those two defendants upon the instrument, and attempted to enforce it against them all. Upon that ground the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit.2. So far as I understand him, I think he also means to dismiss it upon another ground--namely, that he cannot trust the evidence even against the one brother; but it is not necessary to consider this point, because we are clearly of opinion that a fraudulent addition, such as has been made to this bond, is sufficien...
Tag this Judgment!Modun Mohun Pal Vs. NobIn Chunder Dutt and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal697
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think this appeal must be dismissed. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendants from certain lands, which the defendants and their father and grandfather before them had held for the performance of certain services. There does not appear to be any doubt as to what the services were, although the Subordinate Judge does not describe them; because both parties seem to agree, that they consisted in collecting the rents of certain debutter lands, and paying those rents, or applying them in some way, for the worship of an idol. The defendants' case was, that they had a permanent tenure which had its origin in a grant given to their ancestor in the year 1139, and the first Court having found this grant to be genuine, dismissed the plaintiffs suit.2. The Subordinate Judge took a different view. He considered, for the reasons which he gives in his judgment, that the document brought forward by the defendants was not genuine, and he believed it to have been fabricated wit...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Churn Baisack and ors. Vs. Protab Chunder Surma, Alias Rajendr ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal560
Prinsep, J.1. This case arose out of a proceeding under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under that proceeding the present plaintiffs were, as they allege, turned out of possession, and they have brought this suit to recover possession, alleging the following title: They say that the property originally-belonged to one Gopal Pershad Thakur, who granted a miras lease of it to his daughter, Fulkumari. In the plaint the date of this lease is not given, but from subsequent proceedings it appears that the date is Aghran 1244, corresponding with December 1837. They then say that Fulkumari was in possession of this property under this lease, and that, on the 7th Jeyst 1276, corresponding with 17th May 1869, she sol (sic) to the plaintiffs' father, who obtained possession, and that the plaintiff a succeeded him in possession, and remained in possession until they were (sic) by the proceedings under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The Subordinate Judge was of opin...
Tag this Judgment!Degamber Mozumdar and anr. Vs. Kallynath Roy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal654
Field, J.1. These two appeals will be governed by the same judgment.2. In No. 447, Kallynath Roy is the plaintiff, and in No. 448, Futtick Chunder Roy is the plaintiff. These two plaintiffs are co-sharers in certain properties: and they have brought these suits against Degamber Mozumdar and Mohima Chandra Sen, who, they allege, were gomashtas, or agents, employed on their behalf in making zamindari collections in the manner customary in the mofussil. The object of these suits is to obtain accounts from these agents; but according to an erroneous practice too common in the mofussil, the plaintiffs have asked a certain amount as damages if those accounts are not rendered.3. In a number of cases which have recently been before this Court, the practice which ought to be followed in this class of cases has been explained. The plaintiff should ask in his plaint that a proper account may be taken. If the defendant is found liable to render such account for a certain period, the Court should m...
Tag this Judgment!Gopee Nath Acharje Vs. Achcha Bibee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal553
Prinsep, J.1. Both the lower Courts have given the plaintiff a decree; and we are of opinion that this decree is correct. We do not concur in much that the Subordinate Judge has said in his judgment on the question of equity; and much of the law quoted by the Subordinate Judge has no application to a case of this kind. It may be proper to observe also that Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to a case of this kind That section applies only where the decree-holders have all applied to the same Court for execution of their decrees. Now, in this case, the plaintiff did not apply to the Small Cause Court Judge for execution' of her decree, seeing that that decree was a decree of the Munsif, and had never been transferred into the Small Cause Court for execution. Then, with reference to Section 272, we think that the Subordinate Judge has taken a proper view of the proviso, which is merely intended to mean that any.' question of title or priority is to be determine...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- Next ›
- Last »