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
Ramapurath Pullankot Illath Cheria Krishnan Nambudri Vs. Ramapurath Pu ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad198
Kernan and Kindersley, JJ.1. An otti mortgage is vested in the defendant. The interest of the jenmi subject to the mortgage was put up for sale by auction, and the plaintiff's vendor purchased it and sold it to plaintiff for 200 rupees.2. The plaintiff sues now to redeem.3. The defence of the defendant is that he is entitled to a right of preemption of the lands under mortgage. Plaintiff, however, says that as public notice of the intended sale of the jenmi's interest was given, and as the defendant might have come in and bid, no further option of pre-emption is necessary, and that as defendant neglected to buy, he must submit to be redeemed.4. Both the Courts acting on the established custom of the country have ruled against plaintiff. The right of pre-emption is well understood. The otti mortgagee must pay for pre-emption whatever sum is bona fide offered to the jenmi for the purchase, if he has the. offer made to him by the jenmi and is rightly informed of the circumstances in refer...
Tag this Judgment!Sreegopal Mullick Vs. Ram Churn Nuskur and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal856
Wilson, J.1. This case is practically before the Court tinder somewhat peculiar circumstances.2. The main question is one relating to title, and I am not really in a position to say what the title is. Naturally one would suppose that the defendants would produce all the title deeds, and lay before the Court full information on the subject, but from what fell from the defendants one can see that they are not in possession of the title-deeds.3. The case arises in this way. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the two defendants on the 2nd April 1878, for the purchase from them of certain property at ghoosery, comprised in two plots described in the contract. The material parts of the contract are these (after reading the portions set out above his Lordship continued):4. It is not necessary to go into the details of what happened afterwards, except, on one or two points. Rupees 500 in Company's paper was paid at the time of the agreement. There is a conflict of testimony as to wheth...
Tag this Judgment!ishur Chunder Surmah Vs. Doyamoye Debea and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal864
White, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Sylhet, dismissing an application of the appellant upon a preliminary ground and without going into the evidence.2. The appellant's application is contained in a petition which states that Gunga Gobind Misser died on the 9th November 1877, having previously made his will on the 31st July 1877. The testator is alleged to have bequeathed by that will all his moveable and immoveable properties to the petitioner, who is a sapinda and kinsman to the testator, and also to the testator's widow and two daughters. The petition further alleges that the will is in the possession of Sarbamangala Debi, the widow. The petition was accompanied by a copy of the will, but of course not by the will itself. The application was two fold: first, praying that the original will should be called for from Sarbamangala Debi; and secondly, that letters of administration under the Act should be granted to the petitioner.3. The petitioner cl...
Tag this Judgment!Kiyipattu Animangulatillatu Narayanan Nambudri and anr. Vs. Ayikotilla ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad165
1. There were originally four Illams entitled to the management of the pagoda. The third and fourth defendants belonged to one of these Illams. They entered into a partition, and each enjoyed a moiety of the Urayama right belonging to their Illam. In another Illam which enjoyed what has been described as the second Urayama right, the right of a management was relin-quished by the father, first plaintiff, to his son, the second defendant. The first defendant, the head of the Illam which held the first Urayama right, the second defendant, the son of first plaintiff, and the fifth defendant, who had the fourth Urayama right, came to an agreement with the third and fourth defendants, who held conjointly the divided Urayama right, that the fourth defendant should relinquish his moiety to the third defendant, and that a fifth Urayama right should be created in favour of the fourth defendant in consideration of the payment of Rs. 600 by the third and fourth defendants for the benefit of the D...
Tag this Judgment!Mukkanni Vs. Manan Bhatta and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad182
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit to redeem a kanam held by the first defendant. It was alleged that defendants 2-5 held under the first defendant. The property in suit originally belonged to Chungath Achan. In the year 1761 he mortgaged the land in suit to one Venkateswara Bhatta (exhibit III,). In 1784-85 Venkateswara Bhatta assigned it to one Kuppan Bhatta (exhibit IV). In 1839 Kuppan Bhatta's heir assigned the mortgage to Murukkan Nayar, and in this the mortgagee acknowledged Chungath Achan's right of redemption (exhibit V.) In 1847 there was another arrangement in favour of Venkateswara Bhatta (exhibit VI). The plaintiff averred that there was a renewal in 1863, and that the counterpart was destroyed by fire; but both the Lower Courts found that this averment was not proved. They further found that the plaintiff was the representative of Chungath house by Attalatakamor reversionary right. The assignment of 1784 contained no acknowledgment of the mortgagor's right of r...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Punamalai Nadan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad199
1. The accused were convicted under Section 173, Indian Penal Code, for having refused to receive summonses issued to them by a Village Munsif, and each was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2, in and, default of payment, to simple imprisonment for five days. The referring officer submits that the act of the accused cannot amount to the offence of having intentionally prevented the service of summons, and cites the judgment of this Court in Revision Case No. 155 of 1881.12. Service is usually made by delivering to, and leaving with, the party the summons, though under Section 154,2 Criminal Procedure Code, tender is sufficient. We think that a refusal to receive a summons is not an offence under Section 173; the words 'any manner prevents the service' cannot apply when the summons is tendered and refused, as it is good service. We set aside the conviction, and the fines, if levied, must be refunded.1 The Queen v. Arumuga Nadan. The Judgment of the High Court (Innes and Kindersley, JJ.) was as...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Hari Bhanji and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad273
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The respondents having purchased a quantity of salt at Bombay and paid excise on it at the rate of Rupees 1-13-0 per maund, the rate leviable under the law there in force, despatched it by sea to certain ports in this Presidency. While the salt was in transit, Act XVIII of 1878 was passed and came into force. By that Act the import duty on salt was raised to Rupees 2-8-0 per maund; but in virtue of a notification issued by the Governor-General in Council under the authority of the Indian Tariff Act, 1875, importers were allowed a deduction of the excise already paid, and consequently they were chargeable only with the difference between the excise and the import duty.2. On the landing of the salt in this Presidency, the Collector required the respondents to pay the difference, 13 annas per maund, between the excise already paid and the import duty leviable under the Act of 1877, and the respondents, having complied with the Collector's requirements in ord...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.R.M. Muthaya Chetti Vs. R.M.A.R.A.R. Muthaya Chetti and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad334
1. The plaintiffs shipped goods on board the Helen Wallace for conveyance from Rangoon to Negapatam. Owing to stress of weather the ship sprang a leak, and the Captain found it necessary to put into Singapore that repairs might be effected.2. The Captain, being unable to raise money on a bottomry-bond, sold a portion of the cargo, the property of the plaintiffs, to raise funds to meet the cost of repairs. The repairs were effected with the funds so provided, and the ship continued her voyage.3. The ship was registered in the name of the second defendant, the agent of the first defendant; but the actual owners are the third defendant--who was also the Captain--and three other persons who are not before the Court, the first defendant being the mortgagee.4. The Court of first Instance held that the plaintiffs could not recover from the first defendant personally, but were entitled to a personal decree against the third defendant and to a maritime lien on the ship which would take priority...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petition of Jhubboo Mahton and ors. Vs. Jhubboo Mahton and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal739
Field, J.1. In this case eight persons have been tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 142 of the Penal Code, and have been sentenced to transportation for life. The circumstance out of which the case arose was a dispute concerning a piece of land and the crop which, at the time of the occurrence, was upon this land.2. The first prisoner Jhubboo was originally charged under Sections 302, 326, 396 and 148 of the Penal Code. In the course of the trial two further charges were added, viz., that he, Jhubboo, was a member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of which, namely taking possession of certain crops by force, one of the members' committed murder by causing the death of one Ibrahim Hossein, and that he was thereby guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code; and secondly, that he was a member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of which, namely, in taking possession of the crops by force, ...
Tag this Judgment!Finch Vs. Jugmohun Tewari and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal62
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the ticcadar of Mouza Malpore, brought this suit for arrears of rent for the year 1283. He alleged that the defendants held in that year 7 bigas 8 cottas 5 dhurs of land at a nukdi rent of Rs. 16-10 5/8; 7 cottas 10 dhurs of land on which there were bamboo clumps, and the value of the landlord's share of the bamboos cut in the year was Rs. 51; and 18 bigas 5 cottas of bhowli lands, the value of the landlord's share of the putnee was Rs. 210 and odd. The plaintiff gave a deduction of Rs. 24 and odd annas as the amount paid by the defendants in that year.2. The defendants denied holding any bhowli land, and alleged that they held a maurasi tenure in the village, the rent of which was Rs. 22-1-3, and that in this tenure the bamboo clumps mentioned in the plaint were included.3. The Munsif gave a decree in accordance with the allegations of the plaintiff, although ho made some modification in the amount claimed. This decree has been confirmed by the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- Next ›
- Last »