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
Bradley Vs. Jameson
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal580
Cunningham, J.1. We think that the Magistrate, having, on the 25th August 1881, set aside his order of June 7th, 1881, and struck the case off the file, had no power to revive it (without a fresh proceeding) by his order of 6th September, and that he had no power, under Section 518 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to pass a perpetual injunction: see Gopi Mohun Mullick v. Taramoni Chowdrani I.L.R. 5 Cal. 7. Orders under Section 518 not being judicial proceedings, we have no power to deal with the present case under Section 297; but we infer from the judgment in In the matter of the Petition of Chunder Nath Sen I.L.R., 2 Cal., 293, that the order being, in our opinion, illegal, we can deal with it under the Charter. We, therefore, set it aside....
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Hanumantha Vs. Andukuri Hanumayya and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad232
Charles A. Turner. Kt., C.J.1. The 234th Section of the Code provides that the representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor may be made parties to proceedings in execution and declares that they shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which may come to their hands, &c.; The interest of the father in the ancestral property had not been attached in his lifetime and brought under the control of the Court for the satisfaction of the decree. It therefore passed, on his death, to his sons by survivorship and ceased to be his property.2. There is no difference in this respect between the right of a father and of any other coparcener--Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh L.R. 6 IndAp 88 and although it has been ruled that the interest of the sons in ancestral estate are liable to satisfy a father's debt, this liability does not attach to the property in their hands in their representative character: Zamindar of Sivagiri v. Alwar Ayyangar I.L.R. 3 Mad. 42.3. To enf...
Tag this Judgment!Kristo Mohinee Dossee and ors. Vs. Kaliprosono Ghose and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal402
Pontifex, J.1. The circumstances of this case may be concisely stated as follow:2. A and B were co-sharers in a share of an estate, with respect to which share the Collector had ordered a separate account to be kept. B failing to provide his quota of the revenue, A raised money on a mortgage to C of his own interest, and paid the revenue on the share and so saved the share belonging to A and B from sale under Section 131 of Act XI of 1859. Subsequently, both A and B failed to pay the revenue due on the share, and the share was sold under Section 13 to defendant Kaliprosono Ghose, who under Section 542, took subject to all incumbrances by A and B. Then Kaliprosono bought up C's mortgage. But before the sale to Kaliprosono, A had sued B for the amount, which A had on the first occasion paid as B's quota of revenue to save the share from sale; and in that suit A claimed to have a lien on B's interest in the share.3. At the time of Kaliprosono's purchase, A had obtained a decree in that su...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Tegha Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal473
Cunningham, J.1. With reference to Section 579 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the concluding heading of the fourth schedule ('offences against other laws,') and Section 19, Clause (f) of the Arms Act, XI of 1878, we are not satisfied that there has been any illegality in the proceeding's either of the Police Inspector in this case or in the conviction of the accused.2. Section 25 of the Arms Act appears to refer to cases in which the Magistrate considers that arms, whether under a license or not, are possessed 'for an illegal purpose,' or under circumstances such as to endanger the public peace, neither of which conditions is suggested as existing here. It is not clear from the Sessions Judge's reference whether the Police Inspector was specially empowered under Section 30. That section appears to contemplate the presence of some specially empowered officer besides the officer conducting the search.3. There is nothing in the Act to exempt the custodians of the temple from complying...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath Bysack and ors. Vs. Juggut Mohinee Dossee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal582
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues as reversionary heir of one Rajkisto Bysack to recover possession of a house and land in the town of Calcutta, to which he claims to have become entitled, on the death of the widow and heir of Rajkisto Bysack.2. The widow's estate in this property was sold under an execution against her so long ago as the year 1833, and purchased by a gentleman named Templeton; and from Templeton it passed into the hands of several persons in succession, the last of whom is the present defendant. One of those persons, many years ago, built a house upon this land, which is known by the name of 40, Shibtollah Street, and the only question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff, who is admittedly entitled to the land, is entitled to the house also.3. The defendant contends that the house is hers; and that she is entitled, at the option of the plaintiff, either to be paid by him a fair price for the house, or to be allowed a reasonable time, after the...
Tag this Judgment!Elayachanidathil Kombi Achen and anr. Vs. Kenatumkora Lakshmi Amma and ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad201
1. The first defendant is the Karnavan of the plaintiffs' tarwad and in Suit No. 1077 of 1877 suffered a money decree to be passed against him for money alleged to be borrowed for tarwad purposes. In execution of the decree property of the tarwad was put up to sale, a claim preferred by plaintiffs having been rejected.2. The plaintiffs then brought this suit to set aside the sales of the tarwad property.3. According to what we have always regarded as a most erroneous practice, the Courts below, in executing the decree, went into the question of what the decree meant beyond what it plainly said.4. The decree made the first defendant liable. The first defendant happens to be also the Karnavan of the plaintiffs' tarwad. The Courts, therefore, construed the decree as a decree against the tarwad, when, on the face of it, it was not so, and sold up the property of persons who were no parties to the decree. In the suit brought by these persons, they do not put their claim to recover expressly...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmanammal and anr. Vs. Tiruvengada Mudali
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad241
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Sabapathi Mudali, the last male owner of the property in dispute in this suit, died in 1846 without issue, but leaving a widow, a mother and three sisters. His widow died in 1861 and his mother in 1871, having successively enjoyed the property. After the death of the latter a dispute arose as to the succession between the respondent, a son of one of the sisters, and the appellants, the other sisters of the deceased. The appellants intermeddled with the property, and the respondent thereupon instituted this suit to vindicate his title and obtained a decree in the Court of First Instance. Although other objections were raised in the memorandum of appeal at the hearing, the argument was confined to the objection that the sister is a nearer heir than a. sister's son.2. In this Presidency, and in the north of India where the inheritance was governed by the law of the Mitakshara, English commentators and Judges for sometime refused to allow any right of success...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusami Sastrial and ors. Vs. Ganapathia Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad337
1. The appellant Gurusami obtained a decree in Original Suit 270 of 1875 in the Court of the District Munsif of Mayavarm for possession of a share in the village of Vaithinathan Pattavirthi, and, on the 2nd October 1876, he executed an agreement to sell the share to the respondent Ganapathia Pillai for the sum of Rs. 7,500. It was agreed that the sale should be com-pleted on the 30th December 1876, and that the seller should pledge a share held by him in the village of Ponnur to secure the purchaser from any loss he might sustain if a claim were made upon the property agreed to be sold, by the son of the seller then an infant aged 1l/2 years.2. On the same date the respondent paid Rs. 1,000 as a deposit and executed a counter-agreement binding himself to pay the balance of the purchase-money on the 30th December 1876, and, in the event of his failure to complete the purchase, to pay Rs. 1,000 in addition to the deposit money.3. On the 30th December 1876 the respondent tendered to Gurus...
Tag this Judgment!Luchmeeput Singh Vs. Sita Nath Doss
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal477
Field, J.1. In this case an order was made under Section 546 of the Code of Civil Procedure that security be given for the restitution of property, which was about to be taken in execution of decree. The decree was a decree of the Second Subordinate Judge of the 24 Parganas, and the execution was pending in his Court. Now the first point with which we have to deal is concerned with an objection made by the pleader for the respondent to the effect that no appeal lies in this case. Undoubtedly, this particular matter does not fall within the enumeration contained in Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Code; but we think that the question which has been decided by the order of the Subordinate Judge is within the meaning of Clause (c), Section 244--a question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed and relating to the execution of the decree; that it was a question decided between the parties is admitted; that it related to the execution of the decree is, we t...
Tag this Judgment!Kaminy Mohun Somoddar Vs. Gopal and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal479
Field, J.1. The question in this case is one of limitation. The original decree was dated 26th February 1877. An application for execution was made on the 20th April 1877. Within three years from this latter date,--that is to say, on the 9th April 1880,--a fresh application for execution was made; but this application was found not to be in the form prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsif, under the provisions of Section 245, directed that the application should be amended, and he fixed seven days as the period within which the amendment was to be made; but the application was not amended within this period of seven days, and subsequently,--that is to say, on the 11th of May 1880,--a further application for amendment was made and allowed. Now, the Judge of the Court below has held, with reference to the language of Section 245 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 'if the application be not so amended, it shall be rejected,' that it was compulsory upon the Munsif to reject the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- Next ›
- Last »