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
Golap Soondory Dossee Vs. Golam Ali Mundul
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal612
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the plaintiff states that her husband had a permanent tenancy of seventeen bighas at a rent of Rs. 4-4; that, in 1286, the principal defendant (who is a tenant under the pro form defendants) dispossessed her, and she prays for possession of the property by declaration of her right.2. The first Court found (i) that there was no evidence as to any grant commencing the plaintiff's husband's tenancy, and that the plaintiff could claim occupancy rights only under Section 6 of the Rent Act; (ii) that no rent was paid to the owners from 1281 to 1285; (iii) and that, consequently, the plaintiff's husband had forfeited his occupancy rights.3. The lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff's husband had a right of occupancy and acquiesced, apparently, in the finding that no rent was paid for five years. But the Judge considers that, as the plaintiff's husband, and after his death, the plaintiff, were in possession of the property, the mere non-payment of rent fo...
Tag this Judgment!Rooplall Dass and anr. Vs. Krishtokishore Dutt and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal687
Field, J.1. We think there are no grounds for this appeal. The suit was brought to recover a sum of money which was secured by a mortgage. The decree declared that the amount claimed was due to the plaintiffs, and it further declared that, for the recovery of the amount, the property mortgaged could be made liable; in other words, it was a decree in the nature of a money-decree, which also contained a declaration of lien upon certain property. But the decree did not say in express language that the amount decreed was to be recovered in the first instance from the mortgaged property; and that any balance not recovered therefrom might be recovered from the other property belonging to the judgment-debtors. It is now contended before us that, although these express words are not to be found in the decree, it ought to be construed as if they bad been actually inserted. We think that we cannot accede to this contention. If the appellants were dissatisfied with the decree in the particular fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Dutt Vs. Harra Chand Dutt
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal420
Wilson, J.1. (Without calling on Mr. Bonnerjee to reply), held, that the application being one in a pending suit, the right to apply was a right which accrued from day to day, and therefore it was not barred by lapse of time....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petition of Ameruddin, and Vs. Farid Sarkar and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal481
Mitter, J.1. Farid Sarkar and Ali Sarkar and others were charged with the offence of rioting by entering forcibly into a zamindar's cutcherry. Against the first two there was a separate complaint by one Ameruddin, a peon in that cutcherry, of having caused hurt to him in the course of the rioting, which formed the subject-matter of the first-mentioned case. The Magistrate convicted the accused persons in both cases. He recorded one judgment, in which he says that he tried the riot-case regularly, and the hurt-case summarily. The punishment awarded in the latter case was a fine of Rs. 50 each. Both cases went before the Sessions Judge,--the former by way of appeal, and the latter by way of motion. The Judge, holding that, under Section 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there should have been one trial, treated the whole matter together, and reversed the conviction. Although we are inclined to agree with the Judge that, under Section 454, there could have been one trial, yet it does no...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Mortgage Bank of India Vs. Jassoda Kooer
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal916
Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of a decision of the Officiating Judge of Sarun, in the matter of the execution of a decree, which was obtained by the decree-holders, respondents before us, against the judgment-debtor, the appellant, in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Patna. The decree was transferred under the provisions of the Code for execution to the District Judge's Court of Sarun. The judgment-debtor raised various objections against the execution of the decree. All these objections have been disposed of by the District Judge of Sarun, excepting two,--viz., the objections relating to the plea of limitation and to the amount due under the decree. In this appeal the judgment of the lower Court is not questioned with reference to the objections which have been disposed of by the District Judge. As regards the plea of limitation, and the objections regarding the amount due under the decree, the District Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain them. He was of opinion ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sahye Bhugut Vs. Ram Soonder Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal919
Mitter, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly these:2. On the 18th January 1844 the plaintiff's son Abhilukh and defendants Nos. 10 and 11, two sons of Sheo Sohay, the plaintiffs brother, sold one anna five gandas of Mouza Ram Chawra, seven pies ten krants share of which is the subject-matter of this suit. The sale was made to Rungi and Sheo Ram, ancestors of defendants Nos. 7 to 9. Sheo Ram pledged his share as security for revenue payable by one Hera Mohun in respect of the ticca of an akheri mehal. For default in the payment of this revenue the pledged share of Sheo Ram was sold under the provisions of Act I of 1845 on the 17th December 1850, and purchased by defendants Nos. 1 to 4, the appellants before us. Rungi's share was sold by a private bill of sale, dated the 19th July 1870, to defendants Nos. 3 and 5: the latter again sold his share to defendant No. 6 on the 19th August 1872. The plaintiff seeks to recover a seven pies ten krants share of the mouza in dispute, being half ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidhun Chuttapadhya and anr. Vs. Shiba Nath Chuttapadhya
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal483
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In the year 1272, the plaintiffs brought a suit against their uncle, the defendant Shiba Nath Chatterjee, who had been the manager for many years of certain family property in which they were co-sharers. In that suit the plaintiff Kalidhun, who was of age, acted on behalf of himself and of his brother, the plaintiff Krishna Dhun, who was a minor. The object of the suit was to obtain from the defendant an account of the property from the year 1262 to 1277, Fasli; but from the form of the plaint it seemed doubtful whether the plaintiffs meant to sue for the account itself, or only for a declaration of their right to it. The stamp-fee on the plaint was Rs. 10, which would have been the proper stamp if the plaintiffs only sued for a declaration of right; but the defendant took the objection, that the stamp was insufficient, because the, plaintiffs had in their prayer apparently asked for an account.2. An issue was raised upon this point; but the Subordinate Judge cons...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal Roy Vs. Sharut Chunder Mozumdar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal593
Garth, C.J.1. I think that the question referred should be answered in the negative. Having regard both to the practice of the Courts and to the language of the Legislature, it seems to me, that, in this country, the policy of the law has always been to allow a plaintiff to enforce a claim for possession of land and for mesne profits, either in one suit or two, as he may think proper; but at the same time to induce him, if there is no reason to the contrary, to dispose of his whole claim in one suit, only.2. And there seems much good sense in this policy; because in the generality of such cases, the plaintiff's right to mesne profits follows his right to possession, in the same way that in a money claim, a right to interest follows the right to the principal sum. The Court which decides the question of possession has generally all the materials before it to decide at the same time the question of mesne profits; and it would be only entailing both upon the Court and the parties unnecess...
Tag this Judgment!Dataram Roy Vs. NaraIn Chunder Chuckerbutty
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal597
Prinsep, J.1. In the case before us, the plaintiff, after being for some years in possession of lands conveyed to him under an unregistered deed, the registration of which, owing to the small value of the lands, was optional, has been ejected. About three months afterwards his vendor has sold again to a third person under a registered deed of sale, and in suing to recover possession, plaintiff finds himself opposed by this second purchaser, who maintains that under his registered conveyance, his title is preferable to that of plaintiff under an unregistered deed of sale. The Subordinate Judge in appeal held that 'it was a settled point of law that an unregistered kobala supported by possession shall prevail over a registered kobala without possession.'2. The second appeal was heard originally by a Division Bench consisting of Cunningham J., and myself, and in consequence of a difference of opinion was re-heard by us sitting with Wilson, J. We had determined to remand the case for retri...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Keshub Mohajan and ors. and
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal985
Pontifex, J.1. The question whether the territory of Mohurbhunj is within the limits of British India is a question of evidence.2. There is nothing to show whether the Mahrattas exercised direct authority over this territory, or whether they treated it merely as tributary. From its situation and character, however, the probability would seem, to be that the Mahrattas only exacted tribute from it. Nor does the cession by the Mahrattas to the East India Company throw any further light upon the matter. If the Mahrattas had only the rights of a paramount power, the East India Company could, under the cession, gain no higher rights.3. In this state of circumstances the Regulations of 1804 and 1805 were passed, the Government being probably in doubt as to what rights they actually took from the Mahrattas. Nothing was done under the Regulation of 1804 (which applies only to the territory ceded by the Mahrattas) to this particular territory. And the Regulation of 1805 seems to me to show that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- Next ›
- Last »