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
Ukha Vs. Daga and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom182
Melvill, J.1. We are of opinion that the present suit is barred by section. 43 of Act X of 1877. In 1861 the present plaintiffs sued the present defendants for a partition of certain debts due to the family. In their plaint they alleged that all the family property, with the exception of the debts, had already been divided. The suit was compromise and withdrawn, but without the permission of the Court. The present suit is brought for a partition of certain lands which are alleged to have been left for subsequent division at the time of the former partition. If this allegation be true, the plaintiffs were bound in their former suit to demand a partition of the whole property which remained undivided,--that is, of the lands as well as the debts; and having intentionally omitted to do this, they are barred from bringing the present suit by the provisions of Section 7 of Act VIII of 1859 equally with those of Section 43 of Act X of 1877.2. For these reasons we reverse the decrees of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Romaprosad Roy and ors. Vs. Shorup Paramanick
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal712
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case an objection has been taken by the respondent, that we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as it is for an amount under Rs. 100, and there is no question raised in it 'relating to a title to land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto.'2. We think that this objection is a good one. We have been referred to two cases Hurry Mohun Mozoomdar v. Dwarkanath Sen 18 W.R. 42 and Shaik Dilber v. Issen Chunder Roy 21 W.R. 42 with which we entirely agree, and which appear to be directly in point. This being a case between landlord and tenant, there is no question of title as between parties having conflicting claims thereto. If the third person whose title was set up by the defendant, had intervened in the suit and claimed the rent against the plaintiffs, we might have had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; but as it is, we think we have no such power, and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Stephen Vs. Stephen and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal714
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note signed by the three defendants for Rs. 1,700. Two questions were raised: 1st, How much did the plaintiff advance by way of consideration? 2nd, Is the third defendant liable on the note2. As to the first question, on one point no doubt is raised. The amount of Rs. 1,700 was made up in part by a sum of Rs. 440, deducted for future payment of premiums on a life policy effected as security for a loan. As to this it appears, that plaintiff only paid Rs. 220, and then let the policy drop; as to Rs. 220, therefore, the consideration has failed. The main question is, whether the rest of the consideration was paid. The plaintiff says, it was. Defendants say, only Rs. 270 were paid, and that, as to the rest, the note was given for a wholly different purpose. The plaintiff swears that he has paid the money, and he is confirmed by a witness, who says he chanced to be present. On the other side the two male defendants contradict him. The note itself ...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Nath Chuckerbutty Vs. Jibunti Nath Khan and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal820
White, J.1. (Who, having stated the facts and reviewed the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's case on the merits had been clearly proved. His Lordship then continued): But it has been argued for the defendants that the suit is barred by the third Clause of Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code, which prohibits the splitting of remedies. This clause apparently introduces a new provision into the Code. It is not to be found in the Original Procedure Code of 1859, the 7th Section of which prohibited the splitting of claims, but contains no provision, or at any rate no express provision, against the splitting of remedies. The circumstances under which it is sought to raise this defence are these: On the 25th January 1879, the present plaintiff, through his mother, brought against the present defendants a suit, in which, claiming under the same title to succeed to Promotho Nath's property, he prayed only for a declaration that he was the heir to that property. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Coomar Kur Vs. Jakur Ali
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal716
White, J.1. The present application for execution was made on the 4th of December 1880. The one immediately preceding was made on the 3rd of October 1877, consequently the present application is prima facie barred under Article 179, [q.v. supra 8 cal., 29.] Schedule ii, of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877). But it is contended by the vakeel on behalf of the judgment-creditor, that, under Section 19 of the Act, an acknowledgment of liability was made by the judgment-debtor on the 7th of December 1877, by virtue of which a new period of limitation has been given to his client starting from the latter date.2. It appears that, upon the application of the 3rd of October 1877, an order for attachment was made, under which certain properties of the judgment-debtor were attached; and that, on the 7th of December in the same year, the judgment-debtor, through his vakeel, presented to the Court a petition, which, after setting out the facts relating to the attachment, prayed that the judgment-debt...
Tag this Judgment!Viziaramarazu Virabahu Narendra Rau Bahadur Vs. the Right Hon'ble the ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad91
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, Viziaramarazu Virabahu Narendra Rau, son of Venkatapathi Razu, Zamindar of Palkonda, has instituted this suit to obtain an account of the rents and profits of the Zamindari from 29th September 1828, the date of his father's death, and for payment, with interest, of the balance which may be found due.2. To explain the grounds on which the claim is advanced and resisted and the action of Government which has given rise to it, it will be convenient to refer briefly to the history of the Zamindari.3. The plaintiff states that the Zamindari had its origin about three centuries ago in a grant made to his ancestor Sri Dhunnayanna Garu by a Maharaja of Jaipur.4. While the Northern Sirkars were held by the French, the Raja of Vizianagram established a feudal superiority over several neighbouring Zamin-daris, including that of Palkonda. The dependence of the estate on Vizianagram continued until 1793, when Viziaramarazu, the then Zamindar, took arms ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petition of Uttom Koondoo and anr. and Vs. Uttom Koondoo and an ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal634
Field, J.1. There is no finding or sentence under Section 413 of the Penal Code. The Sessions Judge erroneously speaks of the 'seven headings of the charge.' There were seven distinct charges, not seven headings of one charge. Upon conviction on a single charge under Section 411, three years is the maximum term of imprisonment that could have been directed. Regard being had to the provisions of Section 453 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prisoner could not have been charged and tried at the same time for more than three offences of the same kind. The Sessions Judge was, therefore, wrong in trying the seven charges together. The appellants do not, however, complain of this irregularity in procedure; and it does not appear that the irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice prisoners in their defence (Section 283, Code of Criminal Procedure). We, therefore, direct a new trial; but the conviction and sentence must be set aside, and the prisoners will be convicted upon the thr...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Pillai Vs. Ramasami Pillai and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad161
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We are opinion that the Judge has misconstrued this certainly obscure Section (Section 44, Civil Procedure Code), but we understand it prohibits not the joinder of several causes of action entitling a plaintiff to the recovery of immoveable property, but a joinder with such causes of action of causes of action of a different character except as excepted in the section. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside, and the case remanded for the disposal of the appeal on the merits. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Sripati Chinna Sanyasi Razu Vs. Sripati Suriya Razu and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad196
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. There is no doubt that a suit will not lie for a partial partition of undivided family property, but where one of two coparceners alienes to a stranger his interest in a piece of joint family property, the other co-parcener may either exercise his right of interdiction, or affirm the act and claim by partition to recover from the stranger that share to which the alienation cannot extend and which has now become his separate property.2. The decrees of the Courts below are set aside, and the suit will be remand-ed to the Court of First Instance for trial on the merits.3. The costs of the proceedings had hitherto will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Welds Vs. Khetter Mohun Dutt
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal719
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff, as a manager appointed under Section 243 of Act VIII of 1859, has sued for rent at an enhanced rate after service of notice of enhancement under the Rent Law. The objection taken has throughout been as to his power as a manager to issue such notice of enhancement. The Munsif properly held, that 'the Court that appoints this manager has no greater powers than those which the statute-law confers on it, so that the manager himself cannot possess more powers than this.' The Munsif accordingly held, that the plaintiff had no authority to issue the notice of enhancement. The District Judge, in appeal, considered that the manager stands exactly in the same position as a gomashta or administrator. In this view of the law he held, under the authority of two cases which apply to gomashtas, that the manager had rightly exercised his powers. It appears to us that the view taken by the Munsif is the correct view. A manager under Section 243 is, in our opinion, appointed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- Next ›
- Last »