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
Hamidoolla Vs. Faizunnissa
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal327
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues for restitution of conjugal rights. The defendant, his wife, pleads that, under the conditions of the kabinnama, which was entered into between herself and her husband before marriage, she received the power to divorce her husband under certain contingencies, and that, on their occurrence, she has exercised that power, and duly divorced him under the Mahomedan law.2. In second appeal it has been argued by Munshi Serajul Islam, who appears for the husband, the plaintiff, that the delegation of such power by the husband to the wife is contrary to Mahomedan law. We are unable to find any authority for this contention. The Mahomedan law on the subject which has been laid before us provides for the delegation of the power of divorce by the husband to the wife on certain occasions by word of mouth, but it in no way, so far as it has been laid before us, limits the exercise of that power to those occasions. It would seem rather that, by providing ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishtendra Roy Vs. Aena Bewa
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal675
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff in this case on appeal contends, that, having obtained a decree for arrears of rent, he is entitled to an order for ejectment within the terms of Section 52 of the Rent Act. The lower Appellate Court has held, that the defendant, having a transferable jote, is protected against ejectment, and that the only remedy which the plaintiff has, is under Section 59 to sell that holding.2. It is argued on behalf of the appellant, by Baboo Sreenath Dass, that, although the zamindar might have the right of sale, he is entitled, if he so desires it, to eject the ryot, and he maintains that Section 59 does not apply to a jote such as it has been found the defendant holds, she being a cultivating ryot, but to intermediate tenures between the zamindar and the cultivating ryots.3. It is a matter of some surprise to us to find that, although the present Rent Law has been in force for more than twenty years, this point should not have been determined by the High Court. The on...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chunder Roy Vs. Raj Bullubh Sen and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal279
Tottenham, J.1. The lower Appellate Court, confirming the order of the first Court, has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The Judge has applied the rule of one year, and has held that, because the suit was not brought within one year from 1869, when the claim to this property preferred in the execution department by the plaintiff's mother was rejected, the present suit is barred.2. It seems that, in 1869, when, in execution of a rent-decree, this tenure was attached as belonging to one Rohini Dossee, the plaintiff's mother preferred a claim under Section 246 of the Old Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that she had purchased the tenure from Rohini Dossee, and the Court found that the purchase had been made after the attachment had taken place, and that, therefore, the alienation was void, and accordingly rejected the claim. But it appears that no sale was held, because the judgment-debtor paid off the amount of the decree. The effect of that ...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Nath Mookhopadhya Vs. BepIn Behari Bundopadhya
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal357
Field, J.1. The facts of this case are a little complicated, but when they are understood, we think that no real difficulty will be experienced in disposing of the points which have been argued before us. Bhairab Chandra Haldar and Shib Chandra Haldar were uterine brothers. Bhairab Chandra died first, leaving a widow Lukhimoni, who died in Aughran 1271 (29th November 1864). Shib Chandra died after the death of Bhairab Chandra and before the death of Lukhimoni, and was succeeded by a son Doorga Coomar Haldar. This son subsequently died in Pous 1248 (12th January 1842), leaving him surviving two widows, Komal Padma Dabi and Prosonnomoyi. Doorga Coomar gave his widows a power to adopt a son; and in execution of this power Shukmoy was adopted by the younger widow, Prosonnomoyi. On the 16th September 1873, Sukhmoy Haldar borrowed Rs. 3,000 from one Radha Mohun Mondol, and as security for the payment of this amount, he mortgaged an eight-anna share of the property specified in schedule A ann...
Tag this Judgment!Chunder Coomar Mookerjee and ors. Vs. Shama Churn Dey and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal677
Garth, C.J., and Pontifex, J.1. In which they agreed with the Court below for substantially the same reasons, first, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a title to the soil of the lane, and could be considered as entitled only to a right of way over it; secondly, that the defendants had a right of way over the land and a right to use the lane for the purpose of carrying away nightsoil from their premises in such way as would least affect the plaintiffs in the enjoyment of their premises; and thirdly, that this suit had been rightly dismissed as against the defendants against whom it had been dismissed in the lower Court. But being unable to agree with the Court below as regarded the injunction granted against the appealing defendants, their Lordships reversed so much of the decree as granted the injunction, and dismissed the suit against all the defendants....
Tag this Judgment!Madhava Panikar Vs. Govinda Panikar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad4
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. Oridinarily a certificate would be issued to the Karnavan, but as the Karnavan is a debtor to the tarwad under circumstances which justify the tarwad in withholding their confidence from him, we do not consider the discretion of the District Court has been improperly exercised in this case.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Hari Vydianathayyan Vs. Minakshi Ammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad5
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The decree was a personal decree against the respondent's father for the payment of a certain sum of money. His widow was substituted as his representative after her husband, and sale of her right, title, and interest conveyed to the purchaser the interest which she, as representative, could convey for the payment of the debt of her husband. The decisions in The General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh 14 M. I.A. 605 and Ishan Chunder Mitter v. Buksh Ali Soudagar Marshall Rep. 614, though not passed under precisely similar circumstances, support the conclusion.2. The appeal is decreed, the decree of the Lower Appellate Court in respect of items 1-20 reversed, and the claim in respect of those items dismissed. The appellant, whose interest extends to these items only, will recover from the respondent costs on their value in all Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Bhatlu Vs. Narasamma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad6
1. We requested the District Judge to find whether the sale was complete, and what was the consideration for it.2. He has found that the consideration was a valuable consideration, and that the sale was not complete only by reason of possession not having been delivered.3. We have already decided that, under the law current in Madras, possession was not necessary to complete a sale. The cases upon this point will be found noticed in Mr. Mayne's work on Hindu Law and Usage, paragraphs 330-334.4. The provisions of the Evidence Act, Section 92, to which the District Judge refers, do not prohibit the disproof of a recital in a contract as to the consideration that has passed by showing that the actual consideration was something different to that alleged.5. As the sale was complete, the plaintiff had a right to recover the lands, and we must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Mobaruck and ors. Vs. Joytara Dassee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal976
Field, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sue to recover possession of 950 hals of land, consisting of two plots. Plot No. 1, according to the allegation contained in the plaint, comprises 850 hals, and is said to form the southern portion of Thak No. 2527, and to be known as Mouza or part of Mouza Rautpara. Plot No. 2 comprises 100 hals, and is said to form the southern portion of Thak No. 2581, and to constitute the Mouza or part of Mouza Bhoti Dowlutpore. The plaintiffs' case is, that these two plots and these two mouzas appertain to Taluk Mahomed Amzad and are their property, and they allege that they have been in possession thereof. The plaint does not set out the title of the plaintiffs in this property or the manner in which they came to acquire that title. With the plaint two thak maps were filed. One of these is the thak map of Gungadhurpore, and is apparently undated. The other is a thak map of Mouza Dowlutpore, and bears date 1861. The plaint gives no boundaries of these two p...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Raman Vathiar Vs. Paliyil Vittil Nanu Nayar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR5Mad9
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. The issue in the former suit was whether the whole of the lands were held under the letting alleged in the plaint. The letting was a letting to the first defendant in the former suit, and the other defendants were sued as sub-tenants under him.2. It was held, as regards some of the land in the possession of the third defendant in that suit who is the second defendant in this, that the paramba--the object of the present suit--was not held under the letting alleged in the plaint, and the suit was dismissed in regard to this property.3. The present second defendant had in that suit set up the present first defendant as the jenmi and the person under whom he held, but no issue was raised on that question, and the Court of First Instance expressly declined to discuss it. All that was decided was that the present second defendant did not hold the property now in dispute under the first defendant in that suit who was alleged to be the lessee of the plaintiff.4. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- Next ›
- Last »