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
Debender Nath Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Ram Loll Mookerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal8
Field, J.1. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The two plaintiff's were co-sharers to the extent of four annas each in a darpatni taluk. The other eight-anna share belonged to the defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 2 holding this moiety benami for him. It appears that the rent of the darpatni fell into arrear, and that the patnidar brought suits, and recovered decrees for the rent so in arrear. The darpatni was brought to sale in execution of these decrees, and was purchased at the execution-sale by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs now bring this case to recover from the defendant No. 1 the moiety of the darpatni to which they were jointly entitled before the sale. The case made by them in their plaint, in paragraph six, was a case of actual or positive fraud. They there alleged that, after time had been given by the decree-holder to pay the sum due under the decree, the plaintiff's were prepared to pay their share on the date up to which time was given, and that the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Koylash Chunder Bhuttacharjee Vs. Rajkristo Moitro and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal25
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the purchaser of certain immoveable property under a registered conveyance, and he brings this suit to obtain a declaration of his title to the property, his possession and quiet enjoyment having been disturbed by certain acts of the defendants.2. The only point we have to decide is, whether the consideration for the conveyance is an unlawful consideration. The contention is, that the money for which the property was sold was used for the purpose of suppressing a criminal prosecution; that this was an unlawful object; and that the plaintiff being well aware of the unlawful purpose to which the money was about to be applied, is affected with this knowledge, and cannot enforce the contract which was made for this unlawful consideration.3. We think that this contention is not tenable. The plaintiff was no party to the criminal prosecution. His contract for the purchase of the property was entirely separate; and there is not sufficient evidence upo...
Tag this Judgment!Lawless Vs. the Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co., Ld.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal627
Wilson, J.1. These are cross-suits. The one is brought by the administrator of Captain Lawless for arrears of salary and commission due to Captain Lawless before his death as manager of the Calcutta Landing and Shipping Company. The other suit is for money for which the defendant is said not to have accounted. There is no dispute as to the amount of the administrator's claim. On the other hand, it is admitted, that Captain Lawless was bound to account for the money which came to his hands as manager. Two grounds of dispute were raised to the cross-claim: first, they claim to set off what is due, and in the cross action they claim the same relief. The objection to their claim is this: first, it is said the claim is barred by limitation. Now in the case of a person employed as manager the right of the employer is to have an account rendered by the person employed whenever he is called on to do so under reasonable circumstances. There is nothing to show that Captain Lawless was ever calle...
Tag this Judgment!Lokenath Mullick and ors. Vs. Odoychurn Mullick and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal644
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiffs ask to revive certain causes which have abated, and ask that the present suit may be taken as supplemental to the said causes, and that the plaintiffs may be declared entitled to the benefit of the various decrees and orders made therein from time to time.2. The original suit was instituted in the Supreme Court on the 26th October 1807, and then there have been a series of other suits by which the older suit has been revived from time to time. The original suit was for the administration of the estate of Nemyechand Mullick, and the parties to it were his grandsons, of whom two were defendants.3. The parties to the present suit all claim under one or other of those grandsons. In 1808, a decree was made, under which certain testamentary papers were established and the grandsons declared entitled to shares, &c.; Another decree was made in 1837, under which certain moneys were set apart for certain purposes which are said to have been sat...
Tag this Judgment!Futteh Ali Vs. Gunganath Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal114
Morris, J.1. This was a suit for contribution brought by the plaintiff (appellant) to recover from the defendants collectively the amount due by them as their aggregate quotas under a decree passed against them and the plaintiff jointly, which decree had been satisfied by the plaintiff alone, on the attachment of his property in execution thereof.2. The form of the suit was clearly wrong, for the plaintiff had no right to sue for a joint decree against all the defendants, although the decree passed against himself and them had wrongly made them jointly liable for the whole amount of it.3. The Munsif, however, determined the amounts of the several liabilities of the defendants, and made a decree in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.4. On appeal to the District Judge, the Munsif's decree was reversed, and the suit was dismissed. The findings upon which the decision of the Appellate Court was based were, that, under the decree obtained against him and the defendants jointly, he was legi...
Tag this Judgment!Joynath Roy Vs. Lall Bahadour Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal126
Maclean, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is a shareholder in Mehal Nowadabin, Pargana Arrah, in the Shahabad District. He alleges that he and his co-sharers, the defendants, 105 in number, are in separate possession of the land of their respective shares under a private partition made 'centuries ago,' but that some of the defendants brought the entire estate under regular partition, according to Reg. XIX of 1814, during his infancy, which terminated in Assin 1285 F (October 1876), and the proceedings were going on when he brought this suit on the 2nd July 1878. He prays that the partition may be stayed, and his possession of his share in the estate confirmed.2. Five of the defendants opposed the suit. They urged that the Munsif's Court, in which the suit was filed, had no jurisdiction, as the suit, on a proper computation, should have been valued at more than Rs. 1,000. They also alleged that the plaintiff himself was one of the applicants for partition, and they raised other objection...
Tag this Judgment!Alangamonjori Dabee Vs. Sonamoni Dabee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal157
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiff asks to have the will of one Chandranath Chowdhry construed, and to have certain provisions of that will declared invalid, and for other relief.2. The will was made in 1872. The testator died in 1873, leaving no sons but the plaintiff, his widow, three unmarried daughters, the defendant his mother, and other female relatives.3. By his will he appointed the defendant and others executrix and executors, of whom the defendant alone obtained probate. He gave monthly allowances in money to various female relatives, including Rs. 4 to the plaintiff, his widow, and Rs. 2 to each daughter while unmarried, which, on her marriage, was to go to the plaintiff; or if she lived elsewhere than in the family dwelling-house, Rs. 4 to the plaintiff for life. Certain Government papers he appropriated for the marriage expenses of his daughters, if necessary, and subject to this the plaintiff was to have the papers, but without power of sale, and to provid...
Tag this Judgment!Asmut Ali and anr. Vs. Ajgur Ali and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal110
Tottenham, J.1. (His Lordship having stated the facts above set out, continued): Regard being had to the findings of fact arrived at by the Subordinate Judge upon the evidence, the appellants' pleader has confessed himself unable to press this appeal upon any but one ground,--viz., that the fourth exception to Section 37 q. v. supra 8 Cal. 110. Act XI of 1859 protects from the operation of the section such portion of the defendants' land as may be occupied by holdings, tank, or garden; and that the lower Court was wrong in supposing that a ryot cannot have the benefit of the exceptions, or that the defendants are bound to prove that they have themselves effected the improvements in question. And for this contention he has referred to the authority of this Court and of the late Sadar Court.2. In the case of Bhagho Bibee v. Ramkant Roy Chowdry I.L.R. 3 Cal. 293 the previous decisions bearing upon this point are cited, and the Court was content to follow those decisions as having unquesti...
Tag this Judgment!Peary ChowdhraIn Vs. Protap Chunder Doss
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal174
Field, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows:2. There are two properties, named Rungmehal and Tripuli. Rungmehal was first in existence as a one-storied building. Tripuli was subsequently erected in the form of a two-storied house. The original eastern wall of Rungmehal was built, as many native walls are built in this country, receding inwards gradually from the basement or foundation. When the Tripuli building was erected, the western side wall of the Tripuli house followed this recession or inclination of the eastern wall of the Rungmehal building, so as to lean upon this and rest partly over the original site thereof, that is upon the top of the one-story, of which the Rungmehal building originally consisted. From that point, the western side wall of the Tripuli building receded gradually inwards towards the east, so that the top of this side wall of the upper story of the Tripuli building lay somewhat to the east of the bottom of the same wall, where it rested upon th...
Tag this Judgment!Gocoolmoni Dossee Vs. Koylashbashiny Dossee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal230
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is an auction-purchaser at a sale for arrears of Government revenue. He purchased a holding No. 123, which consists of some five bighas odd. He has brought the present case to evict certain persons who hold some three bighas of this holding under an alleged lakheraj title. The plaint has been framed in very wide language. The plaintiff alleges the fact of the purchase at a revenue-sale by her assignee. She then alleges that the right acquired by this revenue-sale was a right to hold the property purchased free of all incumbrances; and she concludes the plaint with a prayer that the defendant may be ejected, that khas possession may be given to her, and that she may be declared entitled to hold the land free of all incumbrances.2. Now, at one part of the argument it was contended, that this is really a suit to avoid an incumbrance, and is based upon the statutory right conferred by Section 12 of Beng. Act VII of 1868; but we think it would not be f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- Next ›
- Last »