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
Tariny Kanth Lahiry Chowdry Vs. Chowdrani
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal546
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case purchased, on the 6th September 1871, the right, title, and interest of one Goloke Nath Chowdry in a twelve ganda share of an estate. Subsequent to his purchase, he applied under the provisions of Beng. Act VII of 1876 to be registered on the Collectorate as proprietor of this twelve-ganda share. He was opposed by the defendant in the present suit, Sreemutty Chowdrani, and the result of the registration proceedings was, that the plaintiff's name was registered for nine gandas only, and the defendant's name was registered for the remaining three gandas. In consequence of this order of the registration authorities, the present suit has been instituted, and the plaintiff asks in his plaint to have his title declared to the three gandas, for which the defendant's name has been registered, and to have the Collectorate register amended accordingly.2. In order to understand the merits of the controversy between the parties, it will be necessary to go bac...
Tag this Judgment!Nijabutoolla and ors. Vs. Wazir Ali
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal910
Cunningham, J.1. We think that the proper interpretation to be put upon Section 5 of the Limitation Act, considered along with Section 6, is that, except as defined in Section 6, the general provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to cases for which periods of limitation are specially provided by local or special loss; and that therefore Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been allowed to operate in the present case.2. We accordingly set aside the decisions of the lower Courts, and remand the case to the first Court for a decision on the merits.3. Costs will abide the result.Tottenham, J. 4. I desire simply to add that Section 5 is of general application to all suits notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6....
Tag this Judgment!Sree Lal Jha and ors. Vs. Forbes
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal365
Cunningham, J.1. As to the point of limitation, we are not prepared to hold that the lower Courts were wrong in deciding the point in favour of the plaintiffs. Looking to the course of decisions of this Court we think it is clear, that Section 27 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 applies only to such suits for possession as the Court is asked to decide irrespectively of any title, but simply on the ground that the plaintiffs have been ousted otherwise than by legal means. In the present suit, the plaintiffs allege a particular right, say that the defendant brought his ejectment suits without the knowledge of most of them, and pray for an adjudication of their right and for possession. We are of opinion that, under the rulings of this Court, we are bound to hold that this suit does not come within the rule of limitation contained in Section 27. [The rest of the judgment is not material for the purposes of this report.]...
Tag this Judgment!Muddon Mohun Lall Vs. Holloway
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal446
Cunningham, J.1. The position of things is therefore as follows:2. The plaintiff has, by purchase, become lessor, as to an eight-anna interest of a lease by which the lessees are entitled to grow indigo till October 1881, and the lessor is bound to assent to indigo being grown. As to a five-anna interest, the plaintiff has become lessor of a lease by which the lessee's right of growing indigo extends only to 1880.3. It is admitted that indigo can be grown on land, which is the subject of co-ownership, only by the consent of all the co-owners.4. It is urged in appeal that the plaintiff being bound as lessor of the eight-annas interest to assent to the cultivation of indigo and receiving consideration for that assent, cannot, in his capacity as lessor of the five-annas interest refuse his assent, and invoke the aid of the Court to have the cultivation stopped, and this assent given in respect of the eight-annas interest rendered unavailing.5. The Advocate-General, in support of the plain...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sreenath Kur. and Vs. Sreenath Kur.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal450
O'Kinealy, J.1. We have had some trouble in dealing with this case, owing to the manner in which it has been tried by the lower Court. On the preliminary inquiry before the Deputy Magistrate, the proceedings were allowed to cover a very large number of transactions. The prisoner was committed for trial on fifty-five charges, and with other parsons who were accused of having more or less assisted him in obtaining money from the Government treasury. These irregularities were perceived by the Sessions Judge; but instead of exercising the powers conferred on him by Sections 445 and 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and then proceeding to hold separate trials, he adopted the somewhat unusual course of informing the prisoner that he would acquit him of all the charges except those already mentioned, and that to these the trial would be confined. Having come to that determination, he failed, unfortunately, to act up to his own convictions; and, under the excuse of giving Government an op...
Tag this Judgment!Malan Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad11
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. The Sessions Judge, in answer to Proceedings of this Court, No. 36, dated 16th January 1882, reports that he did not fix a time as directed by Section 278, and that the prisoner was in jail.2. It is to meet such a case that the agent of the party is entitled to appear and that a day should be fixed.3. The Judge says that a general notice is posted in his Court stating that appeals will be heard for admission only on the first Court day next after presentation. This practice is not a compliance with the Act.4. There is no presumption that the lowest class of people who cannot read know of this practice. A time is by law required to be fixed in each case.5. The order passed is set aside. The Sessions Judge is directed to fix a time and to rehear the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Armugani Pillai Vs. Sabapathi Padiachi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad12
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. We think the Judge has disposed of this case quite rightly. 'The sale by Court auction could not pass to the purchaser more than the right, title, and interest of the defendant, and the process of execution, which placed the purchaser in possession of a larger amount of the property than was due to the defendant, gave a right of action to the plaintiff against the purchaser. The question of whether the debt was a debt binding on the family, and one for which, therefore, if the previous suit had been properly framed for the purpose, the plaintiff, the brother of the debtor, might likewise have been made liable, could not be entered upon in the present suit, in which the question is whether the defendant has not been, by an error in procedure in execution, placed in possession of property to which the sale proclamation and sale certificate could give him no title.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bhagabuti Churn Bhuttacharjee Chowdhry and Vs. Bisheshwar Sen a ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal367
McDonell, J.1. This case has been argued at very considerable length, and a large amount of irrelevant matter has, we think, been introduced into the argument. The facts are very simple. The appellant purchased, on the 21st July 1880, at a sale held in execution of a money-decree. That sale was not confirmed till the 19th February 1881. Meanwhile, the same property was sold, on the 20th January 1881, in execution of a decree obtained upon a mortgage-bond, by which the property so sold was pledged, that decree declaring the lien and authorizing the mortgagee to enforce it. The appellant claims to come in under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and he questions the regularity of the proceedings under which the sale of the 20th January 1881 took place.2. Now, the only question which has to be decided is, whether the appellant, who had been the successful bidder at the sale of 21st July 1880, but the sale to whom was not confirmed till the 19th February 1881, can be said to be, w...
Tag this Judgment!Muttyjan and ors. Vs. Ahmed Ally and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal370
Morris, J.1. This was a suit to set aside certain decrees on the ground of fraud. One Mahomed Wasil died in January 1878, leaving a widow, a daughter, and two married sisters. The two latter did not reside in the family-house, but the house with the other property of the deceased remained in the possession of his widow and daughter. Subsequently, and in the same year, three suits were brought by different plaintiffs against the widow and daughter to recover certain sums borrowed by the deceased, and in execution of the decrees obtained in them, the property left by the deceased was sold and purchased by the defendants Kamdar Ali and Asgar Ali. The sisters, the plaintiffs in the present case, were not parties to these suits, and the claim now put forward by them is--1st, that the decrees were fraudulent, and 2nd, that, even in the absence of fraud, their shares, amounting to six annas, could not pass to the purchaser. They ask for a declaration to this effect. The daughter also seeks to...
Tag this Judgment!Giridhari Singh Vs. Maharaja Luchmessur Singh Bahadur
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.646
1. The plaintiff respondent brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover from the defendants (one of whom only appeals) the sum of Rs. 19,665-13-75 with interest thereon to the close of the year 1879, that sum being the amount of Road Cess paid by the plaintiff on account of certain villages held by the defendants within the Raj of the plaintiff. The plaint alleges that these villages which in fact constitute the pergunndh Chandi were granted to the father of the defendants for his maintenance by a former Maharajah, and are in defendants' possession. It further alleges that the Maharajah or the Raj has hitherto paid the revenue due to Government on account of the villages, realising the same from the defendants or their father. It further alleges that the Raj has paid Road Cess on the villages ever since the introduction of that impost which was imposed under a Local Act No. X of 1871, Bengal Council, and that the defendants are justly liable for the amount now claimed.2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- Next ›
- Last »