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
Hakim Khan Vs. Gool Khan and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal826
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, sued for possession of property which he said formed part of a joint family property. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff, and asserted that the plaintiff 's claim was barred by the law of limitation, In the first Court, the Munsif, it seems to us, dealt with the case on a proper basis. He said: 'It must be borne in mind that the parties to the case are Mahomedans, and the presumption of Hindu law in favour of joint acquisition and joint family does not arise in this case.' He, therefore, proceeded to deal with the case as a case of partnership between ordinary individuals not subject to Hindu laws and customs, and he dismissed the suit both in regard to the question of title and the point of limitation. In appeal the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the lower Court was wrong, and applying the principles of Hindu law relating to joint families to the case, he decided that, inasmuch as ...
Tag this Judgment!Assrup Koer and ors. Vs. Luchmi NaraIn Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal43
Mitter, J.1. We do not think that there is any ground for interference in this case. The Courts below have found that the plaintiff 's husband was separate from the defendant No. 2, and that, after her husband's death, she was in possession of the disputed property until dispossessed. There is no ground upon which this finding can be questioned in second appeal. We must, therefore, accept it as correct. These two questions of law have been argued before us: 1st, that the plaintiff 's suit is barred because a previous suit brought by her was dismissed. It appears that the previous suit referred to was dismissed not upon the merits, but upon the ground that the form in which that action was brought was not the correct form. She had alleged that she was in possession of the property in dispute, the Court found that she was not in possession, and simply upon this ground that suit was dismissed; therefore it cannot be said that that decision is any bar to the present suit under Section 13 o...
Tag this Judgment!Umrao Begum and ors. Vs. Mahbuban and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal721
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that these appeals are chargeable with a full stamp as in the case of appeals from decrees. They clearly do not come within Article 11, Clause (b), Schedule ii of Act VII of 1870, because that article does not apply to orders which have the force of a decree....
Tag this Judgment!Bhadeshwar Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Gaurikant Nath
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal834
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, an objection that was made in the Court below by the defendant was that the property was undervalued, and that, consequently, the plaintiffs had brought their suit in the wrong Court. That question was gone into by the first Court, which found that the property was undervalued, and that, consequently, the suit should be dismissed.2. Upon that the plaintiffs appealed, apparently upon the ground that the finding of the first Court was wrong upon the question of valuation. That was a point which, of course, went to the merits of the question. But they also contended that the first Court, finding as it did, ought not to have dismissed the suit altogether; but should, under Section 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have returned the plaint to the plaintiffs to be presented to the proper Court.3. The lower Appellate Court found, that the first Court was right in saying that the suit was undervalued; and the Subordinate Judge also held, that the lower Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoggomanto Poddar and ors. Vs. Mudun Mohun Poddar and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal923
Prinsep, J.1. The order of the lower Appellate Court remanding this case is clearly contrary to the law. The Subordinate Judge seems to have thought that, because the issues wore not correctly framed, he was competent to draw up fresh issues and to send the case back to the first Court for retrial. No doubt the issues thus drawn up are more complete than those on which the case was tried in the first Court; but from the materials before us, it is impossible to say that there was any necessity for thus expanding the case, or that the parties before the first Court, when the case went to trial, were not fully aware of the points which they were bound, each of them, to prove. We would point out to the Subordinate Judge that if, on trying the appeal, he was of opinion that the evidence on the record was not sufficient to enable him to decide all the points arising out of the case, he should have kept the appeal on his own file and dealt with it in the manner provided by Section 566 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bonode Mohini ChowdhraIn Vs. Sharat Chunder Dey Chowdhry and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal837
Field, J.1. This was a suit to recover land, and was brought against a sole defendant. That sole defendant died on the 5th September 1880, after the institution of the suit. On the 8h November 1880, that is, sixty-three days after his death, an application, which purported to be made under Section 368 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was made to the Subordinate Judge for the purpose of having the son and heir of the deceased defendant made a defendant in his stead. On the 22nd November 1880, the Subordinate Judge, considering this application out of time, because it was not made within the sixty days allowed by Article 171B of the second schedule of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877, rejected it, and made an order that the suit do abate. On the same day, that is, the 22nd November 1880, a further application was made to the Subordinate Judge that this order, directing the suit to abate, might be set aside, on the ground that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause from applying wit...
Tag this Judgment!Hridoy NaraIn Vs. Sheo Sunkur Sahoy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal143
Mitter, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of damages from the defendant under the following circumstances: A ticca patta was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 13th Shrabun 1282, stipulating that the plaintiff should remain in possession of the property leased from 1283 to 1293 on a fixed rent, which was to be applied to the payment of Government revenue, the interest upon the zurpeshgi-money, and other charges. The possession of the leasehold property not having been given to the plaintiff, a suit was brought to recover possession, and a decree was passed in his favour on the 19th of December 1877. On the 2nd of June 1879, corresponding with the 27th Joist 1286, a suit for the profits of the ticca lease for the year 1283 was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, and a decree was obtained. The present suit was brought for the profits of the ticca for the years 1284 to 1286. An objection was taken in the lower Court that this suit was barred by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Opnit Misser and ors. Vs. NaraIn Roy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal304
Mitter, J.1. The land in dispute in the possession of the defendant in this case amounts to 13 bighas out of an area of 78 bighas. The whole of the 78 bighas at the time of the thakbust in the year 1864, was the subject-matter of a dispute between the Maharajah of Domraon on the one hand, and Dewan Ram Jewan Singh and Ram Coomar Singh on the other. The former claimed it as a part of Chuk Nowrunga, which is in the district of Gazeepore, and the latter as part of Baharwar in the district of Shahabad. The land in question was entered in the survey map as part of Baharwar.2. The plaintiffs seek to evict the defendant after serving him with a notice to quit.3. In September 1876 two suits were brought (one by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4, and the other by the plaintiff No. 5), to recover possession of the whole of the aforesaid 78 bighas against the present defendant and several other persons. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants were trespassers, who had, under the color of so...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Rau Saheb, Jagirdar of Arni Vs. the Secretary of State for I ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad226
1. This was a suit to establish the plaintiff's right to carry through a channel called Thone Madai the rain-water falling on a portion of the hill called Thone Madai to the Periyeri tank in the village of Devakipuram, and to recover Rs. 10, being the cost of closing two breaches made by the defendants on the eastern bank of that channel. The hill in question lies in the limits of the villages of Devakipuram, belonging to the plaintiff, and of Kalkaraipadi and Tuchampadi, belonging to Government, and the channel takes its rise in that part of the hill which is situated within the limits of the Devakipuram, and runs from a distance of 30 or 40 yards from its source, and until it enters Devakipuram again, through the Government villages of Kalkaraipadi and Tuchampadi. It was alleged by the plaintiff that his ancestors had exercised the right of taking water through the channel in question from time immemorial; that that part of Thone Madai channel which lay in the limits of Devakipuram w...
Tag this Judgment!Mon Mohun Buksee Vs. Gunga Soondery Dabee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal181
White, J.1. The Court below held that the execution was not barred by the law of Cooch-Behar, but that it was so by the law of British India, that being the law of the Court in which the judgment was sought to be enforced, and the law defining the limitation for suits being part of the lex fori.2. On appeal before us it is argued, that, assuming the question to be determinable by the Limitation Act now in force in British India (Act XV of 1877), yet by that Act the execution is not barred, for the plaintiff (the decree-holder) is a minor, and as such under disability, and therefore time does not run against him during his minority. It is not disputed that the decree-holder is a minor; and accordingly, under Section 7 of the Act, until his minority has ceased, he is not affected by the law of limitation. It is contended, however, for the respondent that, upon the true construction of Section 7, the minor must wait until he attains majority before suing out execution, and that, until the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- Next ›
- Last »