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
Ravi Varma Raja Vs. Narayana Bhatta and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad223
Innes, J.1. The suit was brought to remove first defendant from the management of certain temples to which he had been appointed manager by fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants and to the management of . which plaintiffs claimed an hereditary right.2. The other members of first defendant's family were not made parties, nor was there any indication that first defendant was sued in any other than his individual capacity for what was his single act of assuming management of the temples under the authority of the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants.3. The decree contains nothing from which it can be inferred that it was intended to render any member of first defendant's family but himself liable, and the appellant as representative of the first defendant can only be held liable to satisfy the decree to the extent of any assets of first defendant that have come to his hands and not been properly accounted for. The interest possessed by first defendant in his lifetime in the family property s...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Bengal Vs. Dinonath Roy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal166
Broughton, J.1. The Chief Presidency Magistrate has been called upon to show cause why he should not give to the Bank of Bengal copies of the depositions of the witnesses and the orders recorded in the matter of their complaint made against Dinonath Roy, who has been discharged by the Magistrate.2. This rule is moved for under the Specific Belief Act and under Section 170 of the Presidency Magistrates' Act.3. Two questions arise in this matter: first, whether, under Section 170 of the Presidency Magistrates' Act, the Bank of Bengal, as the prosecutor in the case, have a right to the copies; and second, whether, supposing that they have a right, and this right has not been acceded to by the Magistrate, the High Court can proceed, under Section 45 and the following sections of the Specific Belief Act, to order the Magistrate to fulfil his duty.4. Although the rule has been moved for under the Specific Belief Act, it appears to us to be beyond doubt that the provisions of Section 15 of th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Board of Revenue Under Section 46 of the General Stamp Act. Hil ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal254
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the instrument in question should be stamped as a mortgage only.2. The arrangement which it is intended to effect is partly a lease and partly a usufructuary mortgage. In consideration of the former loan being allowed to continue, and of the additional loan being now made by the proprietors of the Concern, the Maharajah grants a lease of the properties for twenty years, upon terms which secure to the lessees the repayment of the whole sum with interest by yearly instalments and at the same time secure to the Maharajah a very substantial share in the usufruct of the property. It seems clear to us, that, under these circumstances, the loan is the consideration for the lease and the lease is the consideration for the loan; and that neither part of the arrangement would have been complete without the other.3. We, therefore, think it impossible to say, that the instrument relates to two distinct matters within the meaning of the first Clause of Section 7 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Kali Churn Chunari and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal154
Prinsep, J.1. In my opinion there is no ground for our interference in this case. The objection raised is, that the Deputy Magistrate refused to require the Police officer to refresh his memory from a statement of the witness which he had recorded under Section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It does not appear that this Police officer, when examined as a witness, desired so to refresh his memory. I think that the accused was not entitled to insist upon the Police officer refreshing his memory by referring to his notes, because, under Section 126, he was not entitled himself to see these notes or any papers prepared in the course of a Police investigation; and Section 119 declares that [156] such notes shall not be treated as part of the record or be used as evidence. Reg. v. Uttamchand Kapurchand 11 Bom. H.C.E. 120 is not in point.2. As regards the other objection taken, I have not been shown that, in the procedure taken by the Deputy Magistrate, the accused has been any way mater...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dhunno Kazi and anr. and Vs. Dhunno Kazi and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal121
Wilson, J.1. We think there must be a new trial in this case. The first accused person is charged with knowingly and dishonestly using as genuine a forged document. The second is charged with abetting that offence. The using charged, was a using of the document as evidence in a civil suit. In that suit, which was in respect of certain land, the plaintiff derived his title from the sister of the accused by right of inheritance from her father. The document put in on behalf of the accused and which forms the subject of the present charge, purported to be a conveyance of the property by the father in his lifetime to the accused.2. The learned Judge appears to us, looking at his summing up as a whole, to have left the right issues to the jury, which were briefly stated, whether the document was forged, whether it was used with knowledge of that fact, and whether this was done fraudulently or dishonestly.3. But in dealing with the evidence bearing upon these issues, the learned Judge seems ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasekara Pillai Vs. Dharmaraya Goundan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad113
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We are unable to say the Munsif has misconstrued the law.2. The period of limitation for: an application of this nature commences to run from the date of the resistance, obstruction, or dispossession. The resistance, obstruction, or dispossession referred to can hardly be any other resistance, &c;, than that mentioned as forming the subject of the complaint. This is the plain interpretation of the terms of the Act, nor is the construction unreasonable, for a Court exercising ordinary care would not issue a second warrant for delivery of possession after an earlier warrant had been returned unexecuted by reason of obstruction, unless the decree-holder had at once taken action to question the propriety of the obstruction, or there had been some change of circumstances. On the other hand, if it be held limitation is to be computed from the date of first obstruction, the provision would take no count of cases in which an abstraction at...
Tag this Judgment!Vydianadayyan Vs. Sitaramayyan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad52
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made under Section 32, Act X of 1877. Appellant sued the first defendant upon a bond executed in his favour. The first defendant pleaded in substance that appellant and his uncle, the respondent, formed a joint Hindu family, that the bond was taken on behalf of the joint family, and that he had made a part-payment to the respondent. The respondent, supporting the statement made by the first defendant, sought to intervene. He had also brought suit upon the same bond against the first defendant. Appellant resisted the respondent's application to be made a defendant, on the ground that the money 'secured by the bond was his own. The Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam added the respondent as a defendant,, and it is argued in appeal that this is not a case within the scope of Section 32,. and reliance is placed on Norris v. Beazly L.R. 2 C.P.D. 80 Horwell v. The London General Omnibus Company L.R. 2 Ex. D. 365 Ex parte Smith L.R. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Baney Madhub Shaw and anr. Vs. Baney Madhub Shaw and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal207
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioners in this case are two servants of a licensed vendor of spirits, who have been convicted, each of them, for having, in breach of their license,--firstly, sold a bottle of brandy which was carried off and not drunk on the premises; and secondly, for having refused, on the demand of the Police Inspector, to produce their license.2. As regards the first breach, an objection is taken, that the master, the licensed vendor, was alone liable, and not the servants. Two judgments of this Court have been considered by us on this point: In re Ishur Chunder Shaha 19 W.R., Cr., Rul., 34, and the other, recently delivered by Mr. Justice Pontifex and Mr. Justice Field The Empress v. Nuddiar Chand Shaw I.L.R. 6 Cal. 832; S.C. 8 C.L.R. 152. These decisions are in conflict. Our opinion inclines to the decision in In re Ishur Chunder Shaha 19 W.R., Cr. Rul., 34; and having regard to the fact that that decision was not brought to the notice of the Judges who decided the more re...
Tag this Judgment!Dewan Ali Vs. Soroshibala Dabee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal297
Prinsep, J.1. The objection taken against the order of the District Judge, disallowing the application for execution of decree, is, that Section 230 of the Civil Procedure Code, under the last paragraph of which the Judge has acted, does not apply. The facts have not been stated by the Judge in his judgment, but, as represented by the decree-holder's pleader, they appear to be as follows:2. The decree was passed on the 29th May 1865, and was confirmed on appeal on the 9th December of the same year.3. The previous application for execution was made in September 1877, that is before the Code of 1877 came into force. The next application for execution was made on the 30th January 1880, but from the order passed on that application it would seem that it was not admitted, but rejected, because it was informal. The present application, which was made on the 11th September 1880, was, under such circumstances, not a second application within the meaning of the Section (230) of the Code. That s...
Tag this Judgment!issuridutt Singh and ors. Vs. Ibrahim and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal654
Mitter, J.1. We think that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is correct, although we do not agree with the Judge in holding that Article 126 of Act XV of 1877 applies to this case. This was not a suit to set aside a father's alienation of ancestral property. In the first place, it was a suit for partition; and in the next place, it was a suit not to set aside an alienation made by the father, but to obtain a share by partition of a joint family property, the interest of the father having been sold in execution of a decree. That being so, Article 127 would apply. Under that article, a person excluded from joint family property and bringing a suit to enforce his right to a share therein must bring that suit within twelve years from the date or time when the exclusion becomes known to him. Now, in this case, upon the finding of the District Judge, the plaintiffs became aware of the alleged exclusion on the date of the attachment. The District Judge was, therefore, right (under Art...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- Next ›
- Last »