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
Poresh Mundul and anr. Vs. Imam Ali and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal468
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs and defendants are landholders of two jaghirs, co-terminus throughout their entire length of 20 bighas, and separated from each other by an 'al,' running east and west. The plaintiffs say, that the rain water from their lands used, from time immemorial, to pass over the defendants' land by flowing over the 'al' through certain passages (khurhi or nalla), but that the defendants have raised the height of the 'al' by 2 or 2 1/2 cubits, so as to form a new bandh for a distance of 11 bighas, have closed all the khurhis, and have laid two new pipes, a cubit high, through the 'al'; that, owing to these acts, rain-water accumulated on the plaintiffs' lands and occasioned damage to the crops of the plaintiffs in one suit amounting to Rs. 150, and of the plaintiff's in the other suit amounting to Rs. 180. The plaintiff's accordingly claim (i) a declaration of their prescriptive right; (ii) an order reducing the 'al' to its proper height; (iii) the op...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed AfsuruddIn Vs. Beer Chunder Manikya and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal471
Morris, J.1. In this case the District Judge holds the view that though a decision of the Collector under Section 77, Act X of 1859, is not final, and is liable to be set aside by a suit brought in a Civil Court, yet the decision of the Judge passed on appeal against an order passed by the Collector under Section 77, Act X of 1859, is final, because his Court is a Court of competent jurisdiction and is precisely the same Appellate Court as that in which an appeal is tried under Beng. Act VIII of 1869. This view appears to us to be erroneous. The decision of the Court on appeal against an order passed under Section 77, stands in no higher position than the decision of the lower Court, whether passed by the Collector or by the Deputy Collector in cases referred to him by the Collector. This point has been expressly determined by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dinanath Bose v. Kali Kumar Roy B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 364; s.c. 5 W.E. Act X Rul. 23. The judgment of the Full Bench, delive...
Tag this Judgment!Ashabai and anr. Vs. Haji Tyeb Haji Rahimtulla and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1885)ILR9Bom115
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the widow and infant daughter of one Haji Adam Haji Esmail, and they seek to recover from the estate of his father Haji Esmail:(1) The ancestral property which came to the hands of Haji Esmail from his grandfather Haji Joosub Bulladina and his father Haji Hubib.(2) A sum of one lakh and 90,000 rupees which, it is alleged, was held by Haji Esmail in trust for his son Haji Adam.(3) Ornaments and jewels belonging to the estate of Haji Adam.2. The first throe defendants are the executors named in the will and are now in possession of the estate of Haji Esmail, who died on 19th August, 1878, having survived his son? Haji Adam, who died on 17th May, 1878, without male issue.3. The fourth defendant Tyeb Haji Joonas is the grandson of Haji Esmail and a legatee under his will, and wag made a party at his own request by an order of 26th March., 1881.4. The first question of importance which presents itself for decision in this case is as to...
Tag this Judgment!Sonaya Pillai Vs. Kalamegham
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad130
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. We think the District Judge has placed a right construction on Sections 36, 371 and 382 of Madras Act II of 1864. If the balance of purchase money be not paid within the time prescribed, it is in the discretion of the Government to forfeit the deposit money, i.e, as it is expressed, the money deposited shall be liable to forfeiture. In the fourth paragraph of Section 36 the imperative force of the words 'shall be re-sold' must be referred to the words which follow 'at the expense and hazard of such purchaser,' the meaning being that, if the deposit money be forfeited and the land re-sold, the resale shall be at the risk and hazard of the first purchaser. It cannot have been intended to deprive the Government of an election to give credit to the person to whom the property is knocked down and to compel the Government in every case to proceed to a re-sale even where there may be no risk of eventual failure of payment.2. We must dismiss the second appeal w...
Tag this Judgment!Pulisanki Reddi and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad20
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The Second-class Magistrate tried 14 persons together and convicted Nos. 1, 4, 7, 9, and 13 under Section 291, and the remainder under Section 290, Indian Penal Code.2. The District Magistrate submits that in trying 14 persons accused of distinct offences at the same time, the Magistrate committed an irregularity calculated to prejudice the accused.3. We are of opinion that the accused persons must undoubtedly have been prejudiced by the several charges having been disposed of in one trial, and direct that the convictions be quashed and the fines levied refunded to the several accused persons.4. Ordered accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Bojjigan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad22
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The Second-class Magistrate convicted the accused of theft and escape from lawful custody.2. The sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment awarded for teh latter offence must be set aside.3. The custody of the fifth and sixth witnesses--a Talyari and a Totti respectively--from which the prisoner is said have escaped was not a lawful custody, as the offence of theft was not committed in the presence of either of them (Criminal Procedure Code, section 1051), and they are not Police officers.4. The Queen v. M. Sins/p>Order accordingly.1. Section 105 - Any private person may arrest any person who, in his view, eommits a non-bailable and cognizable offence....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Rammayya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad131
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. We are of opinion that Section 22(b) of the Abkari act must be read with Section 21(a). The latter section if it stood alone would no doubt raise a liability to fine in all cases in which a person was found in possession of a quantity of liquor larger than that allowed without a valid permit and would embrace the case of a licensed vendor whose license had expired and who still retained possession of spirituous liquor above the permitted quantity; but if this Section 22 were intended to apply to such cases the provision in Section 21 would not have been enacted, limiting, as it does, the liability of licensed vendors whose license has expired to the case in which they are found in possession of liquor kept for the purposes of sale.2. This provision must, we think, be read as an exception to the general provision in Section 22.3. We are of opinion, therefore, that the Second-class Magistrate's decision is sustainable and that there is no ground for our i...
Tag this Judgment!Muthayalu Venkatachala Chetti Vs. South Indian Railway Company
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad208
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant delivered to the respondents at the Trichino-poly Fort Station for carriage for hire to Bombay a box containing seven bars of silver valued at Rs. 4,296-10-9. The box was weighed by the Clerk and its weight ascertained to be 128 lb.2. The Clerk inquired and was informed of the nature of the contents, but no increased charge for the safe conveyance of the parcel was demanded or tendered.3. The parcel arrived in due course at Bombay and was again weighed, when its weight was found to be only 78 lb. A telegram was therefore sent to the Station Master at Trichinopoly apprising him of the circumstance, and he was asked to explain the difference. He replied that the correct weight was 128 lb.4. No information respecting the despatch of this telegram nor of the receipt of the reply was given to the Traffic Manager.5. The consignee was informed of the arrival of the parcel at Bombay, and went to the station to obtain it. It was delivered to him with...
Tag this Judgment!Bapu Daldi Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad23
1. In this case the prisoner has been tried and convicted of criminal breach of trust as a carrier under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and 500 rupees fine, or, in default, to be rigorously imprisoned for a further period of 15 months. The prisoner was originally tried for this offence in 1869, but the High Court, on the 10th January 1870, ordered a retrial. Prisoner however escaped as he was being brought back from the Cannanore Jail and has only lately been rearrested.2. The evidence for the prosecution tends to show that certain rice was entrusted at Mangalore to prisoner, who was the tindal of a pattimar, for conveyance to one Kesava Naick at Calicut. After prisoner got to sea, instead of taking his pattimar to Calicut, he went off to Goa and there sold the rice.3. In the case, as formerly tried, it was held by the High Court that, assuming that the deviation of prisoner from his course took place beyond a marine l...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Bommaya Chetti and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad26
Kernan and Kindersley, JJ.1. The Head Assistant Magistrate convicted the second, third, and fourth accused under Section 191 of Act XI of 1878, of going armed in contravention of Section 132 of Act XI of 1878, in that, being licensed to possess arms for the destruction of wild animals, they went armed for purposes of sport, and the sixth accused under the same section for being in possession of arms contrary to Section 143 of Act XI of 1878.2. The District Magistrate submits that the second, third, and fourth accused were authorized to drive a jungle for bison, inasmuch as bison are notoriously in the habit of injuring crops, for the protection of which the license to carry arms is granted, and that the conviction of the sixth accused is illegal, inasmuch as the Collector's sanction for the prosecution was not obtained under Section 294 of Act XI of 1878.3. The High Court, concurring with the District Magistrate, quashes the conviction against the second, third and fourth accused, and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- Next ›
- Last »