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
Ram Needhee Koondoo Vs. Rajah Rudhoo Nath NaraIn Mullo and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal457
Markby, J.1. There can be no doubt whatever that under the ijara the plaintiff from the time the ijara term commenced, and whilst that term lasted, was, and is, the only person capable of granting a valid lease to tenants, or making any valid arrangement as to the collection of rents. The zemindar has granted to the plaintiff for fourteen years his zemindari, 'together with the rights.' There is nothing to show that the zemindar intended to retain to himself the power of making any settlements with the tenants or the monduls during the term; on the contrary it is expressly said--'You have during the term power as complete as my own to make settlements in the said zemindari,' the only qualification added being that these settlements shall not be injurious to the Rajah's reversionary interest. It would require very clear words to qualify this express power, and there are no such words in the document.2. His Lordship then referred to the terms of the pottah, especially to the stipulation,...
Tag this Judgment!Suttya Ghosal Vs. Suttyanund Ghosal and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal389
Pontifex, J.1. Act IX of 1875 was passed for the purpose of attaining greater certainty respecting the age of majority, but itself causes the uncertainty out of which this application arises. Section 3 of the Act is as follows: 'Every minor of whose person or property a guardian has been or shall be appointed by any Court of Justice, and every minor under the jurisdiction of any Court of Wards, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Succession Act, or in any other enactment, be deemed to have attained his majority when he shall have completed his age of 21 years, and not before.'2. The suit in which this application is made was instituted before 1872, and when the present applicant was a minor under the age of 18 years. She was made a defendant to the suit, which was for partition. She was at the time a married woman, and her husband, who would have been her natural guardian, was appointed by this Court her guardian ad litem. By the decree in the suit it was, amongst o...
Tag this Judgment!Treeporasoondery Dossee Vs. Debendronath Tagore
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal45
Pontifex, J.1. This case, which has been argued in the settlement of issues, raises many troublesome and difficult questions.2. Dwarkanath Tagore, who died about the year 1846, left three sons--Debendronath, who is still living and is the principal defendant in this suit; Greendronath, who died in 1854, leaving two sons, Ganendronath, who died in 1869, and Ganendronath, who is a defendant in this suit, and Nogendronath, who died in 1858, without issue, leaving a widow, who is the plaintiff in this suit. Dwarkanath Tagore, by his will made in 1843, appointed a Mr. Gordon and his three sons his executors (all of whom, except Nogendro, proved the will), and, after thereby confirming a certain deed of settlement of the 20th of August 1840, making certain devises and bequests (including a devise of a piece of land and a bequest of Rs. 20,000, for the purposes of building a house thereon, to his son Nogendronath), the testator Dwarkanath gave the beneficial interest in the residue of his rea...
Tag this Judgment!Abba Haji Ishmail Vs. Abba Thara
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom253
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The defendant is right. There is no appeal from that order, but we do not in the least degree sympathize with him in his struggle to deprive his attorney of his costs. I may also add that we are of opinion that Mr. Justice Bayley's order was perfectly right....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Feda HosseIn and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal432
Markby, J.1. This, it will be observed, is not an application in the form required by Act VI of 1874, and it has been stated that the petition was so drawn expressly in order to raise the question whether the provisions of that Act were binding.2. I may say at once that no case for granting special leave to appeal has been made out.3. An attempt was also made to obtain, upon this petition, a certificate under Act VI of 1874, that a substantial question of law was involved in the case; and I was asked to grant this certificate, should I think that Act to be binding. But it was subsequently admitted that upon this petition, this alternative course could not be pursued.4. The question therefore which remains is, whether the petitioners in spite of Act VI of 1874 have a right of appeal, simply upon the ground that the property is above the value of Rs. 10,000. There is no doubt that the petitioners would have had that right prior to the passing of Act VI of 1874, and the petitioners conten...
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Govinda
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom342
Melvill, J.1. I understand that these proceedings have been referred to me under Section 271-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order that I may decide whether the offence committed by the prisoner was murder, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.2. For convenience of comparison, the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code may be stated thus:Section 299.A person commits culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is caused is done(a) With the intention of causing death;(b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death:(c) With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.Section 300.Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done (1) With the intention of causing death;(2) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;(3) With the intention of causing bodi...
Tag this Judgment!Reg. Vs. Lalubhai Gopaldass and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom232
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We think that, even if the Legislature intended what Mr. Inverarity contends it did, it has not expressed that intention, and this would be a case of quod voluit non dixit. We also think, however, that it had no such intention. Where it wished to make a rule about the selection of jurors for the trial of European British subjects, we find it doing so in express terms in Section 35. If Mr. Inverarity's contention were well founded, that the Legislature did intend that a prisoner not being a European British subject should be tried by a jury, of which the majority should be other than Europeans or Americans or both, we should have expected, after reading Section 35, to find another section expressly conferring an equivalent right on persons not being European British subjects. There being no such section, it seems to us that the contrary inference to that for which Mr. Inverarity contends is the one that should be drawn from the express provisions of the Act. The...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanacharya Vs. Narso Krishna and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom262
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Subapa had two sons, Krishnapa and Sinapa (alias Shrinivas), who, it is alleged by the plaintiffs, inherited the house, the subject of this suit, from their father Subapa. While Krishnapa and Sinapa were undivided in estate, one undivided moiety of the house was, by public auction, sold by a Civil Court in execution of a decree obtained against Sinapa, and the other undivided moiety was also by public auction sold by the same Court to the defendant Narayanacharya in execution of a decree obtained against Sinapa and Krishnapa. Narso and Svajirav, the sons of Krishnapa, have brought their suit against Narayanacharya to recover two-thirds of a moiety of the house on the ground that at the time of the sale, to Narayanacharya they had a vested interest to that extent in their father's undivided moiety of the house. 2. On behalf of the defendant it has been questioned whether the house was ancestral property of Krishnapa and Sinapa, and alleged that they acquired it ...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chunder Chunder Vs. Prankristo Chunder
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal403
Pontifex, J.1. In this case before 1871 there was a suit for partition of the estate of Ramtonoo Chunder. In that suit Bissonath Chunder was a defendant. By a decree in that suit, dated the 13th of February 1871, the Receiver of the Court was appointed Receiver of the estate, and there was the usual order, restraining the defendants in that suit and persons claiming under them from intermeddling with the estate pending partition, and it was further ordered that quiet possession should be given to the Receiver. Bissonath Chunder has since died, and his representatives have been made parties to the suit.2. Under these circumstances, and while the Receiver is still undischarged, one Denonath Mitter, a judgment-creditor in a suit on a mortgage against Bissonath Chunder, now seeks satisfaction of his decree against Bissonath's share of the property under partition, and finds himself powerless to execute his decree against such share without the assistance of the Court, because the estate is...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Dada Naik Vs. Ramchandra Dada Naik
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom561
Melvill, J.1. In this suit the parties are brothers, and the plaintiff sues for a partition of the family property.2. This is not the first litigation of the kind between these parties. At the beginning of the year 1861 the plaintiff filed a bill in the late Supreme Court at Bombay against his father Dada Naik and his brother, the present defendant, to obtain an immediate partition of the family estate. That case is reported at 1 Bom. H.C. Rep., Appx. lxxvi. The defendants demurred to the bill, and the demurrer was allowed by Sausse, C.J., and Arnould, J., on the grounds that the right of a son to a compulsory partition, if it exists at all against the father, does not extend to moveable property, and because the only immoveable property, of which a partition was claimed, appeared upon the face of the bill not to be within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court considered that, as between a father and his sons, in the distribution of paternal or other ancestral estate, the father tak...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »