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
Chockalinga Mudali Vs. Subbaraya Mudali and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad133
1. The first and second defendants in this case are brothers living jointly and undivided in the house which is the subject of this suit. There were two other brothers, who separated from the defendants long ago. The minor sons of the second defendant are represented by their mother and guardian the third defendant. In the year 1872 the second defendant hypothecated the house in question to the plaintiff's father. Afterwards the plaintiff's father brought a suit upon the hypothecation against the second defendant alone (No. 458 of 1878); and as the remedy against the person of the second defendant was barred, the plain-tiff's father obtained a decree against the hypothecated house. In execution the house was attached. The first defendant and his brother's wife, the third defendant, on behalf of her minor sons, objected, and their shares were released from attachment, because they were no parties to the decree. The one-sixth share of the second defendant alone was sold in execution of t...
Tag this Judgment!Hurro Lall Shaha Vs. Kamona Soondury Dassee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal570
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff asks for the revocation of probate of a will alleged to have been executed by one Huri Mohun Shaha as far back as 27th Magh 1279 (8th February 1873). Huri Mohun Shaha, the alleged testator, died in the following month, that is Falgoon 1279. No application for probate of the alleged will was made until some four years after the testator's death; and probate was granted on the 22nd June 1877. The present petition for revocation of this probate was presented to the Court of the District Judge of Pubna on the 22nd May 1880; and the petitioner explains his delay in applying for revocation by saying that he had no information as to probate of the alleged will having been granted until a few months before making this application, when for the first time he became aware of the grant. Now the District Judge has dealt with the materials put forward by the petitioner and with the evidence produced as to the execution of the will in a way that is, to our mind...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhussa Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad28
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The appellant is satisfactorily identified as one of those who took' part in the robbery by the first three witnesses for the prosecution, and their evidence is corroborated by the wound on his finger. It appears further from the evidence that more than five men were concerned in the robbery. As to the sentence, we are inclined to think that it is not good in law, in so far as it directs transportation for three years in default of payment of fine. It appears to us that Section 591 only enacts a general rule to the effect that in the case of offences for which no transportation is specially mentioned as a punishment and which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or upwards, it is competent to the Judge to substitute a sentence of transportation as a substantive sentence for that of imprisonment.2. We think, therefore, the sentence requires to be revised, and we direct that the Sessions Judge do pass a revised sentence as to the punishm...
Tag this Judgment!Ayancheri Kovilagath Rama Varma Tambaran Vs. Acholathil Varikoli Raman ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad89
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. We cannot see our way to distinguishing this case in principle from Raja Varmah Raja v. Revi Varma Raja I.L.R. 1 Mad. 235 in which the Privy Council held that transfers of religious trusts were void.2. There seems to be no real distinction between the mischief of such a transfer in perpetuity and a transfer for the long period of ninety-six years.3. If the validity of the transfer is not made out, it follows that plaintiff cannot redeem and his suit for redemption must fail.4. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Shasti Churn Napit
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal331
Mitter, J.1. The conviction seems to be illegal. Assuming that Shasti Napit was legally arrested under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he was not lawfully detained in custody for any offence, and could not therefore be punished under Section 224 of the Penal Code; nor could he have been punished under Section 225A, as he had not failed to furnish security for good behaviour.2. The conviction must be set aside and She warrant for his imprisonment cancelled....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Teacotta Shekdar and ors. and Vs. Ameer Majee, Hafiz Paikar and ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal393
Mitter, J.1. The petitioners state that a criminal case, in which the petitioners were complainants, and Ameer Majee and others were defendants, was pending in the Deputy Magistrate's Court of Jungipore. This case was transferred to the Sub-divisional Officer of Lallbagh by an order of the Officiating Magistrate of the District, purporting to have been passed under Section 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners have applied to this Court to set aside the order of transfer, on the grounds (i) that it is not warranted by Section 48; (ii) that it should not have been passed without any notice to them, they being entitled to be heard in the matter; and (iii) that it would be extremely inconvenient to them to attend the Court at Lallbagh, which is at some distance from their homes.2. By the order of the Officiating Magistrate referred to above he directed that 'all criminal cases occurring in Chuckla Ramchundrapur, and all cases if there be any, or any shall arise occurring near...
Tag this Judgment!Leelanund Singh Vs. HamidooddIn and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal576
Cunningham, J.1. This was a suit for rent. The only question is, whether the claim was comprised in the deed of compromise, which was executed previously with reference to a former suit between the parties. The language of this deed is, in several places, somewhat general, and extends to claims of every description. In construing it, the view taken by the original Court is, that it deals with a particular claim, namely, the subject of the former suit, which was a certain account to be rendered as an agent, and certain sums of money to be recovered, for which the defendants, in the former suit, were responsible. I think the general expressions used in the deed of compromise must, according to the well-known rule of interpretation, be confined to matters of the same nature, and forming part of the transaction which the parties had in view. I, therefore, agree with the view taken with regard to the compromise by the original Court, and think that the appeal, so far as regards this part of...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Chunder Chatterjee Vs. Modhoosoodun Mookerjee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal395
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff, obtained a decree against the defendant No. 1 personally, with a declaration of a lien to the amount of the debt on the mortgaged property. In executing that decree he was opposed by the defendants, Nos. 2 and 3, who had purchased, before the institution of this suit, in execution of another mortgage-decree obtained on an unregistered bond, under which this very property was mortgaged. Their objection was allowed, and the plaintiff has, accordingly, brought the present suit to establish his right as against the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The date of the adverse order under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859 is 26th July 1877, and the present suit has been brought on the 29th March 1879. The lower Courts have held, that the plaintiff 's claim is barred by limitation under Article 11, Schedule ii of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877.2. It is contended in appeal that, inasmuch as, under the decisions of this Court in Matonginy Dossee v. Chowdhry Junmunjoy Mullick 25 W...
Tag this Judgment!Sadagopayyangar Vs. Dorasami Sastri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad214
Innes, J.1. This case is similar to that of Second Appeal 102 of 1880, which was referred by Mr. Justice Muttusami Ayyar and myself for the decision of the Full Bench with reference to the conflicting rulings of this Court and the High Court of Bombay with those of the High Court of Allahabad upon the question of the registration value of instruments which, while reciting a consideration within 100 rupees, may eventually operate to charge the property with a larger sum.2. The case was heard by a Bench of three Judges of whom the present Chief Justice was one.3. The question referred was not, however, considered, as the Court was of opinion 'that the terms ' I bind myself to pay within the 4th May 1876 Rs. 92 with interest at the rate of 9 pies per pagoda per mensem' left it open to the mortgagor to discharge the incumbrance at any time he thought fit before the day named. The deed did not therefore necessarily create an interest in land of the value of 100 rupees.'4. This view, if appl...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Ali Vs. JezuddIn and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal399
Richard Garth, C.J.1. If this were really a suit for a declaratory decree only, I should hold that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.2. The case of Ram Dhun Biswas v. Kefal Biswas 10 W.R. 141; s.c. 1 B.L.R. S.N. 10 decided by Sir Barnes Peacock and Mr. Justice Mitter, J., is perfectly good law at the present time. It has never, so far as I am aware, been seriously questioned; and the case of Nathu Ganesh v. Kalidas Umed I.L.R. 2 Bom. 365 is plainly distinguishable from it. Indeed, Sir Michael Westropp, in page 367, very carefully recognizes the distinction. A man whose goods have been taken and sold in execution has a right to bring a suit in the Small Cause Court for the recovery of those goods against any one into whose hands they have come. But a judgment-creditor cannot sue in the Small Cause Court to have it declared that goods are the property of the judgment-debtor. In the first case, the plaintiff sues to recover his own property; in the other, he asks f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- Next ›
- Last »