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
Ashruff HossaIn and anr. Vs. Wahid Ali
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal732
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this case must be decided upon a point which appears too have been improperly considered by the Court below.2. (After stating the facts as above, his Lordship continued):3. The defendant denies the right of the plaintiff's to dispossess him of the endowment. He denies that he is in any respect unworthy of the post, or has misappropriated any part of the property; and he also denies the plaintiffs' right to bring this suit. He further says, that the plaintiff Ashruff Ali is himself an improper person to be mutwali.4. The lower Court has found in favour of the plaintiffs. It has decided that Wahid Ali has mismanaged the endowment and is otherwise an improper person to hold the office of mutwali. It also finds that Mussamut Bibi Pearunnessa, being the lineal descendent of Khoda Buksh, had a right to be mutwali herself, and to depute the plaintiffs, by the deed of 1878, to be mutwalis in her place. Now, if the question had been simply, whether the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Hyder Ali Vs. Elahee Bux Maloom and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal1011
White, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, allowing an appeal against a decree of the Munsif. The appeal was allowed on a preliminary ground, that ground being that, under Section 265 of the Contract Act, the suit ought to have been brought in the Court of the District Judge, and not in the Court of the Munsif. A proviso to that section directs that where a partnership is determined, and a suit is brought to wind up the business of the firm, the Court in which the suit is to be brought shall be the Court of the District Judge. This provision, which relates to the forum in which partnership suits of the above description are to be tried, has nothing whatever to do with the subject-matter of the rest of the Code in which it is found, but was probably introduced with a view to secure, as far as possible, that such partnership suits should be properly tried.2. Some Division Benches of this Court are said to have differed as to the construction ...
Tag this Judgment!issur Chunder Doss Vs. Juggut Chunder Shaha and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal79
White, J.1. The lower Appellate Court has decided the question of limitation correctly, and has correctly applied Article 49 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. It appears that the specific property sought to be recovered is specific moveable property, and came into the possession of Chunder Moni Shaha, the first defendant, in the year 1871, under an order of Court, which directed that he should hold that property on giving security subject to the order of the Court. On the 19th August 1873, the same Court ordered that he should deliver up the property to the plaintiff or his vendor. This order he disobeyed. Up to the date of this order, it may be taken that his detention of the property was lawful. But from the moment the latter order was made, his possession of the property became unlawful. Article 49 says, that in a suit for specific moveable property the period of limitation is three years running or commencing from the time that the obtainer's possession became unlawful....
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Nunja and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad163
1. The plaint averred that the land in suit was obtained on patta practically without the knowledge and assent of the Collector and contrary to the orders of Government; and it was hinted that the pattas were obtained owing to the powerful influence of the late Maniakar of Todanad. What is meant by this suggestion is not clear.2. There is absolutely no proof that the pattas were procured by fraud, and there is nothing to show that the Commissioner was so careless in the discharge of his duties that he authorized the issue of the pattas without satisfying himself by inquiry that the lands were such as in his judgment could be disposed of by patta.3. Although this suit has been pending since 14th April 1880, the appellant's counsel is not even now in a position to say that there is anything more than surmise to support the averment that the late Commissioner acted without full knowledge of the nature of the land with which he was dealing.4. The learned Government Pleader is unable to poi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re; Petition of Luddun Sahiba Vs. Mirza Kamar Kudar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal736
McDonell and Field, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case made an application under Section 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of obtaining an order for maintenance of herself as the wife of Prince Mirza Kamar Kudar. It is admitted on all hands that the parties are Sheeas, and that she was a wife by the mutta form of marriage contract. She alleges that the period of the contract made between herself and the defendant was fifty years. The defendant, on the other hand, alleges that the period was one month and-a-half only.2. The Deputy Magistrate, before whom the case came for disposal, was of opinion,--first, that inasmuch as, under the Sheea law, a mutta wife has no right to maintenance, the petitioner was not entitled to obtain an order for maintenance under the provisions of Section 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and, secondly, that as the defendant had given up the remaining term of the period of the mutta marriage, the petitioner was no longer a wife within t...
Tag this Judgment!Madhub Chunder Nag and ors. Vs. Bandy Ali
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal932
Macpherson, J.1. The appellant, judgment-debtor, made an application in the Court below for setting aside the sale held in execution of the decree passed against him, but did not succeed. From the order rejecting that application he now appeals to this Court, on the ground that there were material irregularities in publishing and conducting the sale which led. to substantial injury. Of the irregularities the most material one that has been pressed upon us is, that the sale-notification was not fixed up in the Collector's office as required by Section 289 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Subordinate Judge is, no doubt, wrong in his comments on this part of the case in considering that the publication of such a notice is merely a formal proceeding. But we think that, in this instance, the omission is not shown to have resulted in any substantial injury to the appellant, or to have injuriously affected the price obtained for the property.2. Another ground taken is, that the rule framed by...
Tag this Judgment!LukhynaraIn Chuttopadhya Vs. Gorachand Gossamy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal116
Tottenham, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent's pleader in this case, that no second appeal lies, the subject of the suit being, as he submitted, one of the Small Cause Court class. For the appellant, however, it was contended, and, as we think, rightly contended, that the question of right to the land was raised by the plaintiff, and that the suit was treated by both the Courts below as one for title. We, therefore, hold that the appellant has a right to have the second appeal heard and the question of title decided.2. The suit was brought against an auction-purchaser under Act XI of 1859 for an alleged trespass and damage done by him to the plaintiff by appropriating the fruit of certain trees said to be upon the plaintiff 's mokurari tenure, which mokurari tenure is alleged to have been registered in the Common Register under Act XI of 1859. He, however, did not produce any further evidence of the existence of the tenure beyond filing a mokurari patta, and of th...
Tag this Judgment!Keshava Sanabhaga and anr. Vs. LakshmIn Abayana and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad192
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. ------------------------------------------------ | | | Babu Nayak Anantha Santi. | | | | Chudamma = Venkappa = Kaveri Ramachandra. | | (1st Deft.) | ----------------------------- | Subraya. | | | | Govinda. Devendra. Puttu. | | | | | ------- ------------ | Seshagiri, = Sridevi (died 1877). | | | | | Adopted son2nd 3rd 6th 4th Lakshmi- (died in Deft. Deft.Deft. Deft. narayana 1838), | (Plaintiff). 5th Deft.1. The pedigree of the respondents and of Seshagiri, whose estate is the subject of this suit, has been found to be, so far as it is material, as above set out.2. Venkappa, having no son by either of his wives, adopted Seshagiri, who died without issue in 1838, leaving a widow, Sridevi, who died in 1877.3. The eighth defendant is the son of Sridevi's sister and was under the protection of the seventh defendant; the ninth and tenth defendants are the brother and nephew of Sridevi.4. Before her death Sridevi executed a muktiarnama in which she declared she ...
Tag this Judgment!Mailamdi Fakir Vs. Taripulla Pramanik
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal644
McDonell, J.1. There has been great delay on the part of the Sessions Judge in making this reference. The explanation of the Honorary Magistrates who sat on the Bench and are alive ought to have been submitted. The record says that the charge was under Section 352; and there is no serious contention that anything else was intended. So much of the order as directs the accused to be imprisoned until he gives security is bad, and a definite period not exceeding one year should have been inserted in this part of the order.2. Under all these circumstances we think it will be sufficient to set aside so much of the order as requires recognizance and security to keep the peace, and we set aside this portion accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bushan Mahto and ors. Vs. Jebli Mahto and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal853
Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in the case referred to us allege in their plaint that they are the proprietors of certain shares in a mouza, and under that title are in separate possession of a certain share in some land held by a common tenant of themselves and the defendants, who are the proprietors of the remaining shares of the mouza. The plaintiffs claim to have the corn-rent payable by that tenant divided between themselves and the defendants in the proportion in which the plaint alleges the land to be separately possessed by them and the defendants.2. The suit is, therefore, not based upon the plaintiffs' possession only, but also upon their title, and their right to succeed depends upon their proving such title.3. The first question, on which our opinion is solicited, describes the questions of right which have to be determined between the parties to this suit as de facto rights and interests. But the law knows nothing about de facto rights in such a case as the present. Suits re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- Next ›
- Last »