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
Sreenath Gooho and ors. Vs. Yusoof Khan
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal556
Prinsep, J.1. It is admitted that the decree under execution in this case was passed more than twelve years ago. On the 20th Septemher 1880, the decree-holders made an application under Section 235 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1877 to execute the decree, and simultaneously, by a separate petition, they filed a schedule of the properties which they wished to proceed against, in order to realize the amount of their decree. On the 12th November 1880, they put in a fresh application, asking, as the District Judge says, 'not that certain errors in the last preceding application for execution be corrected, but that the whole of the properties attached conformably thereto be released, and certain other property specified in the form be attached in their stead,' If this application of the 12th November be regarded as a fresh application to execute, it is barred under Section 230 of the Code. If, however, the application of the 20th September be regarded as the application under which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Thakoor Mahatab Deo and ors. Vs. Leelunund Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal613
Prinsep, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpore refusing to set aside a sale. The Subordinate Judge proceeded mainly upon a petition presented by the judgment-debtors on the 27th September 1879, asking for a postponement of the sale fixed for the 6th October following, on the ground that they had not been able to close their negotiations to raise money to pay off the debt. The Subordinate Judge considered that it was clear from that petition that the judgment-debtors had, before the sale, acknowledged and admitted the publication of the attachment and sale-proclamation.2. We find nothing in that petition in any decree amounting to such an admission, or to a waiver on the part of the judgment-debtors of any objection to any irregularity. In fact, had the application been granted, it would have been necessary to issue a fresh proclamation, unless the judgment-debtors had consented by some subsequent act of theirs to waive such formality.3. The othe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdool Sobhan
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal63
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This was an application made to me by Mr. Branson on Tuesday last, in the case of The Empress v. Moulvie Abdool Sobhan.2. The prisoner is charged with bribery; and his case stands for trial at the nest Criminal Sessions at Patna. A rule had been obtained on his behalf in this Court, calling upon the Crown to show cause why his case should not be transferred for trial, either to the High Court in its original criminal jurisdiction, or to any other Court of Sessions where the jury system prevails.3. The ground upon which this rule was obtained (stated shortly) was, that there was such a strong feeling and prejudice existing against the prisoner in the Patna district, that he could not secure a trial there by fair and unprejudiced jurors or assessors.4. This rule came on to be heard before the Criminal Bench on the 27th instant (last Monday). Mr. Jackson appeared in support of it, and I find from the affidavits that he stated to the Court the nature of his applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Hursee Mahapatro Vs. Dinobundo Patro
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal523
Cunningham, J.1. This case comes before us in the exercise of our powers of criminal revision.2. The facts, as set out in the petition of Hursee Mahapatro, are asfollows :A complaint was preferred to the Raja of Mohurbhunj, charging the petitioner and two others with libel. Thereupon the Raja issued summonses and warrants through the Magistrate of Midnapore for the attendance of the accused, who are residents of that district. The accused petitioned Mr. Price, the Magistrate of Midnapore, that the case should not be tried by the Raja. The Magistrate forwarded the petition, on the 30th June 1880, to the Superintendent of the Tributary Mehals (a post occupied by the Commissioner of Cuttack); and on the 12th July 1880, he addressed the Raja, requesting him to make over the papers of the case to the Magistrate of Midnapore; 'who,' it was observed, 'has the powers of an assistant to the Superintendent of the Tributary Mehals.' This officer, under his usual official seal, summoned two of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kissen Singh and ors. Vs. Dhurrum Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal767
Maclean, J.1. This is a suit instituted under the provisions of Act XX, 1863, entitled 'an Act to enable the Government to divest itself of the management of religious endowments.' Leave to institute the suit was given under Section 18 of the Act. The plaintiffs are members of the Nanuk Shai sect of Sikhs resident at Patna, and the defendant is the superintendent or mohunt of the temple of Guru Gobind Singh, called Harmandir, at the same place. The temple is said to be on the site of the Guru's birthplace, and it contains his cradle 'Pangura' and several copies of the Granth, a sacred law of the Sikhs. One of these Granths purports to have been sent by Guru Gobind Singh to the temple more than a century ago, and to contain a gold leaf on which the Guru himself inscribed some words. This cradle and book are, therefore, objects of great veneration to the Sikhs, and the temple is visited by the chiefs of the Sikh nation and others.2. It appears that the Maharaja of Jhind, a leading Sikh C...
Tag this Judgment!Obhoy Churn Sircar and ors. Vs. Huri Nath Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal72
Tottenham, J.1. I am compelled, with regret, to confess, that I have not succeeded in bringing myself to take the same view of this case as my learned seniors; and feeling that, under the circumstances, my opinion must be erroneous, I should be glad to let it remain unexpressed. But as Section 5761 of the Code of Procedure seems to require me to state in writing the decision which I think should be passed on the appeal, I think it more respectful to the majority of the Court to state my reasons at the same time.2. The position of the parties appears to me to be this; the plaintiffs are prim facie entitled to the lands assigned, and this is, I think, sufficient to start their case in seeking to disturb the existing arrangement to them under the butwara. But the defendants plead a special agreement of a permanent nature which entitles them to retain possession as against the plaintiffs of portions of those lands, although admittedly those portions no longer belong to their lessors. It se...
Tag this Judgment!Madary Vs. Goburdhun Hulwai
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal694
Mitter, J.1. The first objection taken before us is, that the District Judge was not authorized by law to hold his cutcherry in the Munsif's Court but we do not think that there is any force in this objection. We find that this course was taken with the consent, if not express, yet implied, of both parties. The Judge says, he took the opportunity of his visit to Aurangabad to direct the parties to be present, in order that the cases might be decided, and then we find that the plaintiffs were represented by their pleaders, and probably this course was to the advantage of the plaintiff's, as they had probably already engaged their vakils in the Munsif's Court, where this suit was originally instituted.2. The next objection taken to the Judge's judgment is, that he is not right in holding that the plaint discloses no cause of action. We think that the view which the Judge has taken of the plaint is correct. Taking all the allegations stated in the plaint as established by evidence, we are...
Tag this Judgment!Chunder Mun Misser and ors. Vs. Sumrun Thakoor
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal17
Mitter, J.1. The only question which we reserved for consideration is, whether, under the Mitakshara law, a share is allotted to a wife in a partition of an ancestral property between a father and a son.2. The question we find is no longer an open one, having been decided on several occasions: see Mahabeer Persad v. Ramyad Singh 12 B.L.R. 90; Laljeet Singh v. Raj Coomar Singh 12 B.L.R. 373; Jodoonath Dey Sircar v. Brojonath Dey Sircar 12 B.L.R. 385 and Pursid Narain Singh v. Honooman Sahoy I.L.R. 5 Cal. 845.3. Upon an examination of the Mitakshara itself, we have come to the conclusion that though there is no express text upon the point yet the decisions are in accordance with the principle upon which express texts upon kindred subjects are based. In some of the cases cited above, v. 8 Section 1 chap. I and vv. 1 and 2 Section 7 chap. I are relied upon in support of this proposition of law. ut the first text refers to paternal or father's self-acquired property, and the other texts app...
Tag this Judgment!Gunga Prosad and anr. Vs. Ajudhia Pershad Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal131
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit to recover the money due under a mortgage-bond and for an order for the sale of the mortgaged premises for the satisfaction of the mortgage-debt. The bond was executed on the 29th March 1873, by the defendant Sheodyal, and the claim for the sale of the whole of the mortgaged property is resisted by some of the sons of Sheodyal.2. The lower Court holding the defence valid, decreed only the sale of Sheodyal's interest. The plaintiffs appealed; and this Court, on the 7th July 1879, decided that the decision of the lower Court would be right if the property mortgaged was not the self-acquired property of Sheodyal. It appears that the plaintiffs alleged that the mortgaged property had been acquired by Sheodyal alone, and therefore the sons of Sheodyal could not claim any share in it. This point was overlooked by the lower Court. Hence the case was remanded to try the issue 'whether the property mortgaged was the self-acquired property of Sheodya...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sahye Bhukkut Vs. Lalla Laljee Sahye and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal149
Maclean, J.1. (who, after setting out the facts of the case, continued): There can be no doubt that, at first sight, Dindyal's case L.R., 4 I.A., 247; S.C., I.L.R., 3 Cal., 198 strictly applies. We have the rights and interests of some members of the family seized and sold in execution of a decree against them. The decree resulted from a mortgage of property not covered by the sale, and the sale would, under ordinary circumstances, on the principle of Dindyal's case L.R., 4 I.A., 247; S.C., I.L.R., 3 Cal., 198, pass no more than the rights of the debtors themselves. But we also have twenty-three years' undisturbed possession by the original purchaser and his assignee, the second purchaser, the defendant Laljee Sahye; and we shall, therefore, require to be satisfied in the strictest manner that the sale is one which can be invalidated after such a lapse of time. Owing to the continuing disability of the plaintiff there can be no question of limitation, but the circumstances of the condi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- Next ›
- Last »