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
Deg NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Ramphul Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal517
Field, J.1. Four points have been taken before us in this appeal. The first is concerned with the question of limitation.2. On this point we agree with the judgment of the Court below. We think that, having regard to the provisions of Section 31 of the Indian Majority Act, IX of 1875, the plaintiff No. 1, Deg Narain Singh, attained his majority upon completing his age of twenty-one years; and as this suit was instituted within three years after he so came of age, it is within time. We may observe that there is now no contention before us that this plaintiff was born on a date prior to that set forth in the plaint.3. The second point is concerned with the la. 2g. 21/2k. share, which the plaintiffs allege, though not very distinctly, to have been acquired out of the joint funds belonging to the family. The defendants, on the other hand, contended, that this was their self-acquired property. The Subordinate Judge has, in a very hesitating manner, disposed of the question thus raised. He d...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chunder Chowdhry Vs. Brojo Soondury Debee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal89
Morris, J.1. It seems to us that there is some difference between this case and the case referred to by the Judge, viz.; Bunsee Singh v. Mirza Nuzuf Ali Bag 22 W.R. 328. In the latter case, the decree was a decree for possession and a direction was given therein that the plaintiff do recover wasilat from the date of suit to the date of recovery of possession. In the present case, the decree was a decree for possession with wasilat from the date of dispossession to the date of suit. It is, therefore, argued that the award of wasilat is part of the decree. Admitting this for the moment, and without going to the length of the decision in the case of M.S. Fuzeelun v. Syud Keramut Hossein 21 W.R. 212 it seems to us, that even on this assumption the judgment of the lower Court must be upheld, and that the application for execution in the shape of determination of mesne profits is barred by limitation. The decree bears date the 10th February 1877, and the first application, which appears to u...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendro Coomar Dutt and ors. Vs. Heera Mohun Coondoo and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal723
Prinsep and Field, JJ.1. No. 108:-This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Parganas confirming a sale, and it is contended that this sale ought not to have been cofirmed--first, because there was material irregularity in publishing it; and secondly, because substantial injury had been sustained by the appellants in consequence of such material irregularity. The first material irregularity alleged is, that the sale-proclamation was not published in the mofussil. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the weight of evidence is in support of the sale-proclamation having been duly published in the mofussil.2. The next contention is, that as the amount of annual rent payable upon the tenure was not stated in the notification of sale, this is a material irregularity. We certainly are of opinion that the amount of rent payable upon the tenure ought, in the careful transaction of business, to have been set out in the sale-proclamation ; but we are not prepared t...
Tag this Judgment!Soodist Lall Vs. Bungsee Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal739
Prinsep, J.1. The facts of this case are somewhat complicated; but when these facts are understood, no real difficulty arises in dealing with the case. Four persons, who are in the suit termed the third party defendants, viz., Dukharun Lall Dobay, Baiju Lall Dobay, Gopal Dobay, and Lalji Dobay, were the proprietors of a 2a. 13g. 1c. 1cr. share out of 10 annas out of the entire 16 annas of Mouza Shazadpore Dumduma, alias Rohimpore, and also of 2a. 13g. 2c. 1cr. of Mozufferpore Thatha. Both these properties are wholly situate in the district of Bhagalpore. There were four mortgages affecting this property. The first mortgage was by Dukharun alone in favour of Rughoonath Prosad. This mortgage is dated the 19th September 1872, and it was a mortgage of la. 4p. share of Shahzadpore Dumduma. The second mortgage is dated the 20th September 1872. It was executed by Dukharun Lall, Baiju Lall, Gopal Dobay and Lalji Dobay in favour of the plaintiff in the present suit, Soodist Lall, and the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadaji Gopal Bakiekar Vs. Vithal Ballal and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom78
M.R. Westropp, Kt., C.J.1. Trimbak Krishna Soni's attachment was defeated in 1858 by the pretence that the defendants, Vithal and Gangadhar (who are undivided co-parceners), were holding the land as purchasers, and such was the capacity which certain of the exhibits represented those defendants to fill. Before 1862 the whole of the property had become vested in them ostensibly as purchasers; but exhibits 19 and 18, which are found to be genuine, show that their real position was that of mortgagees, and that in that capacity they had received two sums of Rs. 375 each, i.e. Rs. 750 in the aggregate. Assuming as above assumed, and as the Courts below have found, that the arbitration award, the decree founded thereon, and the sale to Bhikaji and transfer by Bhikaji to Vithal, were for the fraudulent purpose of shielding Gopal's equity of redemption in the lands from the execution of Soni, yet it is impossible for any Court of Equity to allow the defendants to pose as purchasers or owners, ...
Tag this Judgment!Muttu Samarapuri Chetti Vs. Shanmuga Chetti and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad47
Tarrant, J.1. In Original Suit No. 128 of 1878 the plaintiff in the present suit sued the present defendants for Rs. 3,805-13-3, alleged to be due from the defendants to the plaintiff, under a verbal partnership arrangement, said to have been continued down to the month of Karthigai of the year Dhatu (November 1877), when the defendants, in consequence of disputes between them, requested the plaintiff to carry on the business on his own account for a few months--which he did--a subsequent desire of the defendants to rejoin the plaintiff not being carried out on account of certain changes in the Government salt rules having had the effect of raising the price of salt and having made it inexpedient for the parties to continue the business. This partnership was entered into between plaintiff and defendants some time in the month of Ani, in the year Yuva (June and July 1875); for the carrying on of a business in the purchase and sale of salt, and which business, it was further alleged, the...
Tag this Judgment!Anund Moye Dabi Vs. Grish Chunder Myti and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal772
Wilson and Cunningham, JJ.1. This is a suit by a purchaser at an execution-sale of the right, title, and interest of one Goluck Chunder Myti under the will of one Shib Pershad Giri.2. [775] The only question before us is one of limitation. If the suit is properly a mere suit for a debt, and if, as was argued before us, the will amounted at most to an acknowledgment of the debt so as to give a new period of three years within which to sue, then, it is conceded, the suit is barred.3. If, on the other hand, the will validly charged the debt on immoveable property, or created a valid trust for its payment, then, it is conceded, the suit is in time. (His Lordship then read the will as above set out and continued).4. It has been decided in England that a charge of debts generally in a will upon the testator's personal estate, or any portion of it, creates no trust so as to exclude the Statute of Limitations: Scott v. Jones (4 C. and F., 382).5. The reason is, 'because it does not at all vary...
Tag this Judgment!Jan Ali and anr. Vs. Ram Nath Mundul and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal32
Prinsep, J.1. Now, the first and indeed the only question which we have to decide is, whether the plaintiffs were competent to institute and maintain this suit. They seem to have thought that the suit was within the provisions of Section 529 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and they made an application to, and obtained the sanction of, the Advocate-General before instituting their suit. Now, the first observation that occurs to us on this point is, that a considerable portion of the prayer of the suit is clearly outside the provisions of Section 539, and that, in so far as regards so much of the prayer as does not fall within the provisions of this section, for reasons to be given hereafter, the plaintiffs were not entitled to institute this suit. But it appears to us that, even so far as regards that portion of the prayer of the plaint which falls directly within the provisions of Section 539, the plaintiffs are not persons to whom the provisions of that section can be held to be appli...
Tag this Judgment!Hirbai Vs. Jan Mahomed Khalakdina and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom2295
West, J.1. It has been properly admitted on behalf of the defendants ia this case that Khalphanbhoy probably intended to settle a sum of Us. 5,000 upon the plaintiff Hirbai.2. He did settle Rs. 5,000 upon his other daughter Mulbai, and there is nothing to make the statement of Rahimbhoy incredible when he says that Khalphanbhoy repeatedly told him that he intended to bestow an equal bounty on each of his daughters.3. Rahimbhoy adds that, about a fortnight before his death, Khalphanbhoy said that he had bought a house for one daughter and a loan note for. Rs. 5,000 for the other. This is the most important piece of evidence, as being that of a disinterested witness, adduced for the plaintiff. It goes to show an intention to benefit the plaintiff entertained by Khalphanbhoy; but the question remains whether the benefit had actually been conferred, or whether the speaker, by the words deposed to, intended to confer it by declaring himself a trustee for his daughter, so that the equitable ...
Tag this Judgment!Jugul Kishore Bhuttachaji Vs. Mohima Chunder Dhur
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal736
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to have a kobala or bill of sale set aside and declared spurious. It appears that the defendant presented this bill of sale for registration, and, under the special procedure provided in the Registration Act, he succeeded in obtaining an order of the District Registrar for the registration of the document. The first contention raised before us on appeal is, that this suit is not maintainable; and, in support of this contention, the case of Ram Chunder Paul v. Becharam Dey (10 W. R., 323) is quoted. Now, that case we think to have been virtually overruled by the case of Prasanna Kumar Sandyal v. Mathurnath Banerjee (8 B. L. R., Ap., 26), which latter case has been since followed in several other cases in this Court. Most decidedly, if we had to form an independent opinion, our view would be the same as that taken by the learned Judges in the latter case; but we think that, whatever may have been the state of the law before the passing of the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- Next ›
- Last »