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
The Queen Vs. Suppi and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad159
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. First defendant is a servant of a licensed vendor. Neither of the two defendants is liable under the Arms Act, as the manufacture or possession of fireworks without a license is not contrary to that Act. The manufacture or possession of fireworks, including rockets which are mere fireworks, does not come within the prohibition of Section 5 of the Arms Act.2. The rockets referred to under the definition 'ammunition' are war-rockets.3. The conviction must be set aside and the fine refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Nilakant Banerjee Vs. Chunder Nath Mullick and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal690
Cunningham, J.1. It is conceded that, for the purposes of the present argument, the decree against Ashutosh's estate, of the 29th August 1866, did not constitute a charge on the property, and consequently that the commencement of the defendant's title cannot date earlier than 24th December 1866,--i.e., subsequent to the plaintiff's mortgage, and that consequently the interest which the defendants purchased was subject to the plaintiff's mortgage; and, therefore, that the independent title set up in the mortgage-suit, which led to its being dismissed as against them, cannot be made out.2. The question therefore is, whether the original Court is right in considering that the defendants, having got themselves struck out of the plaintiff's mortgage suit on the strength of a title independent of the mortgagors, and not having chosen to assort their rights as holding under the mortgagors, are at liberty in the present suit to set up those rights and to claim to retain the mortgaged-property ...
Tag this Judgment!Jonmenjoy Mullick Vs. Dassmoney Dassee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal700
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We thought it right in this case to grant a review of judgment in consequence of the Full Bench decision in another suit between the same parties and upon the same subject-matter. The Full Bench case is reported in I.L.R., 7 Cal., 714, and the circumstances under which this suit was brought will be found stated at length in the report of the former judgment in I.L.R., 3 Cal., 363; s. c., 1 C.L.R., 446.2. On the 26th August 1868, the ancestor of the defendant No. 2 borrowed money from the husband of defendant No. 1, upon a simple money-bond. On the 10th January 1869, the same person borrowed money from the plaintiff upon a specially registered mortgage-bond, which hypothecated two estates for payment of the loan. On the 22nd February 1871, the plaintiff obtained a money decree only on this mortgage-bond. On the 25th February 1871, the husband of defendant No. 1, in execution of a decree which had been previously obtained by him for his debt, bought at auction the r...
Tag this Judgment!Woopondra NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Brojendra Coomar Bhoomick and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal705
Field, J.1. These are appeals from orders of the Officiating District Judge of Nuddea, remanding four cases under the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiffs sued for rent in respect of certain land that had accreted to the tenures or holdings of the defendants. The Munsif was of opinion that these were really enhancement suits, and that the service of the notice required by Section 14 of the Rent Act was necessary. The District Judge on appeal held that notice was not necessary; and he remanded the cases to be tried on the merits. The decision of the District Judge is opposed to the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramnidhee Manjee v. Parbutty Dassee I.L.R. 5 Cal. 823. In the view there taken we agree. We think that, although the Alluvion Regulation (XI of 1825) entitles a tenant to hold, as part of his jama, additional land which has accreted thereto, yet, as regards the question of rent, the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Shurroop Chunder Gooho Vs. Ameerrunnissa Khatoon
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal703
Field, J.1. In this case the property, in respect of which execution was sought, consisted of a single revenue-paying estate, part of which lies within the district of Backergunge and part within the district of Furreedpore. The decree, affecting the whole of this property, was obtained in the Backergunge district: and the suit having been instituted after the new Civil Procedure Code, Act X of 1877, came into force, Section 19 of that Act was applicable to the case. The decree-holder applied to have the whole of the revenue-paying estate sold in execution of his decree. The Subordinate Judge rejected this application in so far as that portion of the revenue-paying estate situate within the Furreedpore district is concerned, and he apparently allowed the execution to proceed so far as concerns that portion of the property situate within the Backergunge district. It is now contended in appeal before us, that the Subordinate Judge ought to have allowed execution to proceed in his Court a...
Tag this Judgment!Nocury Lall Chuckerbutty Vs. Bindabun Chunder Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal707
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to have a building removed, which had been erected at very considerable expense upon a piece of land, which has been found to be the joint property of Hindu co-sharers. There is a considerable number of decisions connected with or bearing upon the question at issue in this ease. Some of these decisions are directed, to define what are the rights of a Hindu co-sharer as regards the use of land which is the joint property of himself and other co-sharers. Others of these decisions are concerned with the proceeding by injunction, and the circumstances, under which an injunction should be granted when the rights of other co-sharers are infringed. A third class of these cases consists of decisions in suits brought to remove permanent buildings erected by one co-sharer upon land forming joint property, and in the alleged infringement of the rights of the other co-sharer. The observations which have been made by the learned Judges of this Court in ma...
Tag this Judgment!Korapulu Vs. Monappa and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad160
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.1. The provisions of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872, are inapplicable as is pointed out by the referring officer. When the complainant is required to pay fees for summoning witnesses under Section 361, and fails to do so, the Magistrate must deal with the case on such evidence as he may have before him. We set aside the order under Section 205, and direct the Magistrate to fix a date and dispose of the case accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Duli Chand and ors. Vs. Rajkissore
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal88
Mitter, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs for the cancellation of a mokurari lease. It was based upon the terms of the mokurari lease. These terms are to the following effect: 'If the said mokuraridar and her heirs fail to pay the mokurari rent for any year in full, then we, the proprietors, and our heirs, shall have the power to deduct the rent due to us from the nuzarana-money, and after paying the balance of the nuzarana-money to the mokuraridar and her heirs, and cancelling the mokurari patta, take seer possession of the share in the said mauza.' It was stated in the plaint that, for seven successive years, this condition of the lease was broken, and the full amount of rent for each of these years remained in arrear at the end of each year; that the plaintiffs' predecessor in title obtained a decree for rent on the 31st May 1877, which, up to date of suit, had not been satisfied. That decree was for Rs. 4,444-5-4. The prayers of the plaint were: first, that the mokurari ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhunput Singh Vs. Shoobhudra Kumari and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal620
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, Rai Dhunput Singh Bahadoor, sues Rani Shoobhudra Kumari, a lady whose estate is under the management of the Court of Wards, and he seeks to recover Rs. 9,100, being Rs. 6,000 principal and Rs. 3,100 interest, due upon a bond dated 3rd February 1876, which is found to have been executed by the Rani. He also seeks to have certain property (which is specified in the schedule annexed to the plaint) declared liable to be sold in execution for the realization of the amount claimed by him. Three questions arise for our decision in the case. The first is--Was Rani Shoobhudra Kumari duly constituted a ward of Court under the law relating to the Court of Wards at that time in force? The second is--If she was duly constituted a ward of Court, was she thereby incapacitated from contracting on any account whatever? The third question, which must be decided in order to dispose of this case, is--Whether Rani Shoobhudra Kumari, if duly constituted a ward of Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Bunnomali Nundi Vs. Hurrydass Byragi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal710
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff was charged by the defendant, in the Criminal Court of Burdwan, under Section 147, with rioting, and Section 504, with intentional insult likely to cause a breach of the peace, and was acquitted. Under the orders of the Joint Magistrate he received Rs. 20 as compensation. He now sues the defendant for damages, Rs. 500 on account of injury to his reputation, and Rs. 313-7-5 as the costs incurred in the Criminal Court.2. The first Court assessed the damages for the loss of honour and mental anxiety at Rs. 79, and allowed him also the pleader's fees in the Criminal Court, Rs. 121, making a total of Rs. 200. The lower Appellate Court reduced this amount to Rs. 50.3. There is much in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court that does not meet with our approval, but as the defendant has not appealed, we must take it that it has been rightly held, that he is liable to damages on account of having maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause falsely charged...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- Next ›
- Last »