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
In Re: Reference from the Board of Revenue Under Section 46 of the Gen ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad15
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Kernan and Kindersley, JJ.1. The instrument submitted to us is an assignment of rights created by certain leases. It is a conveyance, but it is also a transfer falling under Clause 60 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, namely, the transfer of interests secured by leases. The Stamp duty leviable is therefore regulated by the provisions of that clause....
Tag this Judgment!Muttammal Vs. Vengalakshmiammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad32
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. This Court, in Kumaravelu v. Virana Goundan Ante p. 29 assigned reasons for holding that a stepmother cannot claim the position of a mother in succession to a son.2. We are not prepared to dissent from that conclusion. If, then, the stepmother can, under any circumstances, succeed--and possibly she may do so as a bandhu--she is not entitled to do so in priority to the paternal grandmother whose place in the line of heirs is distinctly declared.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ratnasubbu Chetti Vs. Ponnappa Chetty
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad70
1. The respondent sued to recover a house from the appellant. The appellant relied on a usufructuary mortgage in support of his possession, but failed to establish it. The house in question belonged to one Subbaraya Chetti, who is now dead, and the appellant pleaded that the respondent, who is the grandson of the maternal uncle of Subbaraya Chetti's mother, was not his heir, and that one Ammani Murugappa, who went abroad about six years ago, was his undivided paternal uncle's son and as such his heir-at-law. Both the Lower Courts held that it was not proved at all that Murugappa was alive, and the District Munsif further observed that the defendant's witnesses said that they did not know how Murugappa was related to Subbaraya, and that the relationship set up by the respondent was not proved.2. It is urged on second appeal that the Lower Courts are in error in holding that, as a bandhu, the respondent is Subbaraya's heir under the Mitakshara law.3. We have the authority of the Privy Co...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Singh Vs. Thakur Doyal
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal375
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the plaintiff who is the zamindar of an estate, claims on the ground that, on the 16th March 1854, a service jagir was granted to one Bhola Bhandari; and that the grantee subsequently executed an ikrarnama setting out that the grant was an ordinary service jagir. The plaintiff further states that the grantee has since died, and accordingly claims to resume.2. The defendant, who is admittedly the lineal descendant of Bhola Bhandari, set up the case that he holds under his sanad, which, he contends, departed from the ordinary terms of a service jagir, inasmuch as it contained the word auladad,--i.e., descendible to heirs generally, both male and female.3. This sanad has not been produced, and the Court below has found that no satisfactory evidence has been given to account for its non-production. This being the case, the Judge has held that the onus lay upon the defendant to show the special terms of the sanad which he sets up, and in the absence of the sana...
Tag this Judgment!Kattamuri Jagappa Vs. Padalu Latchappa and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad119
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. The respondents, admitting a liability to the appellant to the amount of Rs. 95-14-0, gave him a bond on the 24th September 1873 and hypothecated immoveable property to secure the repayment of that sum with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. : the debt was to be paid in four instalments, three of the amounts of Rs. 23-5-4 on the 26th October in the years 1874, 1875, and 1876, respectively, and the fourth of Rs. 25-14-0 on the 26th October 1877.2. It was declared that these instalments should be accepted on account of principal, and that the whole of the interest should be paid on the date of the last instalment. There was no provision that the debtor should be at liberty to anticipate the payment of any instalment; and consequently the lowest sum he could compel the creditor to accept was considerably in excess of Rs. 100. The Judge has held that the interest created by the deed was in excess of Rs. 100, and that, as a mortgage, the i...
Tag this Judgment!Luchmee Chund and anr. Vs. the Bengal Coal Company
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal317
Richard Garth, C.J. and Pontifex, J.1. We think that the appeal should be dismissed. Without going into the grounds upon which the Court below disposed of the application, we think that, in the exercise of our discretion, we ought not to order the Bengal Coal Company, under Section 34 of the Indian Companies Act, to register the transfer. That transfer was made in the absence from this country of Colonel Mowbray Thomson, who was the registered owner of the shares. It was made by a Mr. Thompson, a member of the firm of Nicholls and Co., who held a power-of-attorney from Colonel Mowbray Thomson: and it is conceded, that not only was the transfer made in blank, but that the Company knew it. It was made, moreover, by Mr. Thompson very shortly before [326] Messrs. Nicholls and Co., became insolvent: and it was brought to the Company to be registered on the very day when the insolvency took place.2. The Company were then served with a notice by Messrs. Grindlay and Co., on behalf of Colonel ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa and anr. Vs. Venkatramana Bhatta
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad121
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. It is found that there was no authority to adopt, although a form of adoption under colour of an alleged authority may have been gone through.2. The first and second defendants had, therefore, no authority to make alienations in favour of third defendant binding upon plaintiff, except for adequate family need or other purposes recognized by the law. Upon this point, it is found that, for the debts contracted, no such purposes existed.3. It is contended in this second appeal that plaintiff is barred as to his claim to a declaration of the invalidity of the adoption.4. But the question to be considered upon the Act for the Limitation of Suits is not whether a particular relief applied for is barred, but whether the suit is barred.5. The suit is substantially a suit to declare the invalidity of the alienations so as to enable plaintiff to recover as reversioner on the death of the first and second defendants, and, as ancillary to that claim, he asks for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Protap Chunder Dass Vs. Arathoon
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal455
Field, J.1. In this case one Baboo Protap Chunder Dass, the plaintiff, entered into an arrangement with Mr. Arathoon, the defendant, under which the former was to purchase rice on behalf of the latter, and was to receive one per cent. on all moneys actually advanced, and also a commission of one rupee eight annas of the transactions. After the execution of this agreement, rice was, on several occasions, purchased by the plaintiff and forwarded to the defendant. Disputes arose in consequence of its being alleged by the defendant that the rice so forwarded was not of a quality which had been contracted for. Other disputes, to which it is unnecessary to refer in detail, also arose in connection with consignments of rice and other matters concerned with the transactions had under the agreement; and the result was a suit by the plaintiff in which he claimed the sum of Rs. 2,920 odd. Upon the 30th of April 1879, he obtained, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, a decree for a port...
Tag this Judgment!Ekanat Thayu Kunji Ama and ors. Vs. Ekanat Shungunni Valia Kymal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad71
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The Judge is of opinion that, where the members of one branch of a tarwad have private means of their own, the Karnavan is not bound to make them the same allowance as he does to other [72] members of the tarwad. On the other hand, it was held in P. Teyan Nair v. P. Ragavan Nair I.L.R. 4 Mad. 171 that 'the circumstance that a member of the tarwad has other property is not an element in the consideration of his right to share in the enjoyment of the joint family funds,' and that, if it were, 'a man's own individual industry and exertions might be the means of depriving him of his rights in the joint property.' These rulings, though apparently contradictory, are not, in our judgment, irreconcilable. Prima facie the members of a tarwad have equal rights to support out of family funds, but they are not entitled to definite shares in the income (Kunigaratu v. Arrangaden 2 M.H.C.R. 12 and the Karnavan is not accountable if he gives to so...
Tag this Judgment!Viraragava Ayyangar Vs. Varada Ayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad123
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The 295th Section of the Civil Procedure Code entitles all holders of decrees for money, who, prior to realization, have applied to the Court holding the assets for execution of their decrees and have not obtained satisfaction, to share in the distribution. The decree held by the petitioner for mesne profits was a decree for money. Although the amount was still uncertain, the petitioner had applied to the Court to execute that decree. He had not only petitioned that the mesne profits should be ascertained, but he had applied on April 1st, 1881, to attach certain immoveable property under Section 255. He came within the purview of Section 295. Mr. Ramachandra Rau Saheb, however, argues that there wore no assets in the hands of the Court, because the Court having granted his client, the rival decree-holder, leave to bid, was bound to set off the amount of his bid against so much of the judgment-debt. It is true that Section 294 is awkwardly expressed, but i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- Next ›
- Last »