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
Viraraghava Ayyangar Vs. Venkatacharyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad217
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In order to put a limit to litigation and to prevent one suit growing out of another the Legislature has enacted that all questions between the parties to the suit in which a decree is passed and relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by order of the Court executing the decree and not by separate suit. The plaintiff, a judgment-debtor in Original Suit No. 88 of 1872, brought the suit now before the Court on appeal, against the defendant, the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 104 of 1876, who had purchased certain land in execution of the decree, to have it declared that the sale is void, the decree-holder having in fraud procured the sale to be made without due advertisement. It is admitted that between a party to the suit and a stranger the provisions of Section 312 would not debar the person aggrieved from instituting a suit if he could establish that a material error in the publication or conduct of the...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Pukkella Krishnama and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad230
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Innes, J.1. The complaint disclosed offences with which, it they were not serious, the Village Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal, viz., hurt followed by theft. It was not averred that the hurt and theft were so combined as to constitute the offence of theft robbery. Until the Magistrate had inquired into the case he could not have determined whether the offences were or were not petty, and for the reason that the complainant had elected the tribunal, it might be assumed, until the contrary was proved, the offences were not serious.2. The conviction for disobedience to the summons cannot be set aside on the ground suggested. It is a more difficult question whether a Village Magistrate has power to issue a summons. The Regulation conferring on the Village Munsif jurisdiction in criminal cases does not give him expressly power to issue summonses. 'We have, however, no doubt that he has authority incidental to his jurisdiction to issue a summons, whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Alangamonjori Dabee Vs. Sonamoni Dabee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal637
White, J.1. The law is clear that, prior to the passing of the Hindu Wills Act (XXI of 1870), a gift by will to a person unborn at the time when the testator died was void, with a few exceptions which we need not consider now, as they have no application to the present suit.2. The law was so declared in 1873 by Peacock, C.J., and Norman, J., overruling Phear, J., and also by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1872, affirming on this point the decision of the first-named Judges, in the case of Jatendra Mohun Tagore v. Ganendra Mohun Tagore 4 B.L.R. O.C. 103; s.c. on appeal to P.C. 9 B.L.R. 377; L.R. I.A. Sup. Vol. 47.3. I believe that the decision in the Tagore case (4 B.L.R., O.C.,103; s.c., on appeal to P.C., 9 B.L.R., 377; L.R., I.A., Sup. Vol., 47, so far as it declared the invalidity of a bequest to persons unborn at the testator's death, came with surprise upon some members of the Profession, if not upon the Profession generally; and that, until that decision, it had a...
Tag this Judgment!Prankisto Biswas Vs. Nobodip Chunder Biswas and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal868
McDonell, J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860. The two petitioners, and the objector Prankisto Biswas, are, as the Judge says, admittedly in the same degree of affinity to the deceased, Bunshi Dhur; and prima facie therefore they would inherit equally. But Prankisto Biswas contends that he is entitled to have the whole property,-first, on the ground of reunion; secondly, on the ground of a verbal gift; and thirdly, on the ground of adoption.2. It is urged before us that Prankisto Biswas merely said that he was a palak-pootro and did. not set up adoption; but in the view we take of the case, it is unnecessary to enter into this matter.3. The Judge, having examined one of the witnesses on the 17th December, adjourned the case till the 23rd December for the examination of the remaining witnesses cited by Prankisto Biswas; but on the 19th December he disposed of the case without examining these other witnesses. We think that this mode of proceeding was unf...
Tag this Judgment!G.A. Watson Vs. Jonmenjoy Coondoo
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal934
White, J.1. The first question is, what was the transaction that took place between the defendant and Thompson as the agent of the plaintiff in connection with the piece of Government paper in suit.2. There can, I think, be no doubt upon the evidence that it was a lending by the defendant and a borrowing in the name of, and ostensibly for, the plaintiff', of Rs. 19,000 upon the security of the paper. When the loan was effected a promissory note for the amount was executed in favour of the defendant by Thompson in the name of the plaintiff, and the Government paper was delivered, to the defendant by Thompson. The paper was not endorsed to the defendant, but at the time of its delivery to the defendant bore an endorsement in blank, which had some time previously and for some other purpose been made by Thompson in the name of the plaintiff.3. There is no dispute as to the identity of the paper. It is a promissory note of the Government of India of the four-and-half per cent. Loan of 1879 ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnaya Nayudu Vs. Gurunatham Chetti
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad169
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The bond of May 1874 is not expressed as binding on the family, and if it had been so expressed, it would not have affected with liability any but the persons who executed it. A manager has authority to make payments for the family; he has the same authority to acknowledge as he has to create debts, but he has no power to revive a claim barred by limitation, unless he is expressly authorized to do so; and on the 17th May 1874 the debt acknowledged in April 1870 had become barred.2. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Rama Rau Vs. Venkatesa Bhandari
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad171
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. It would be productive of the greatest inconvenience (if it indeed were possible) to apply the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act of 1877 to applications made in the course of suits or proceedings, and, if the terms of the section can be otherwise satisfied, we are at liberty to construe them so as to avoid such inconvenience. There are numerous applications known to the law which would be correctly described as applications in respect of a property or right in the sense we have indicated--proceedings where a party seeks the aid of a Court to give him relief in respect of some property or right otherwise than by regular suit. Of these, the Acts regulating the rights of landlord and tenant in the North-Western Provinces and generally in Bengal afford instances. We arrive, then, at the conclusion that the provisions of the section were not intended to apply to applications in execution of decrees, and that we are not constrained to apply them to...
Tag this Judgment!Nachiyappa Mudali and ors. Vs. Ayyasami Ayyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad189
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. (Keman, Kindersley, and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.)1. The 5th Section of the Limitation Act provides that, if the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal expires on a day on which the Court is closed, the appeal may be presented on the day the Court reopens.2. The Statute 24 and 25 Vic., c. 104, Section 15, empowers a High Court, established under that enactment, to make and issue general rules for regulating the practice and proceedings of the Courts which might be subject to its Appellate Jurisdiction. Act XXIII of 1861, Section 40, conferred on, and Act X of 1877, Section 652, continued to the High Court the like power in regard. to all Courts subordinate to it.3. In the exercise of this power, the Court in 1869 issued a general rule, directing that, during the adjournment of the Courts of every grade, two days in the week at the least should be set apart and notified in the District Gazette on which plaints, petitions, or other papers would be received ...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusami Chetti Vs. Krishna Ayyan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad222
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The point of law raised in this petition is one on which we arrive at a conclusion not without some hesitation.2. The power conferred on the then existing Zila Courts by Madras Regulation III of 1802 was, on the abolition of those Courts, transferred by Act VII of 1843 to the Subordinate Judges and Principal Sadr Amins appointed under Regulations I and II and VII and VIII of 1827.3. Subordinate Judges appointed under The Madras Civil Courts' Act, 1873, are empowered by that Act to exercise jurisdiction in all suits and proceedings of a civil nature. These terms appear sufficiently large to confer on them not only the general jurisdiction but also any special jurisdiction which had theretofore been exercised by the Subordinate Judges and Principal Sadr Amins whom they superseded, and which, at the time of the passing of the Civil Courts' Act, was still subsisting. The remedy was not taken away, and it is reasonable to infer an intention that the jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!Karpakambal Ammal Vs. Ganapathi Subbayyan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad234
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The father of the respondents having been sued by the appellant for her maintenance, entered into a compromise with her, whereby he agreed to pay her the sum of Rs. 36 on the 1st April in each year during her life, and a decree was passed in those terms.2. It may be the father was sued because he was the manager of the family property; but this is not apparent on the face of the decree.3. The decree can be executed against the sons for arrears, which have accrued since their father's death, only as representatives of their father and until his assets are exhausted, it being of course understood that, on the father's death, the interest he had in his lifetime in joint ancestral property lapsed, and would not be available as assets. We set aside the order of the Judge and direct him to reconsider the application in reference to the above observations.4. The appellant will have the costs of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- Next ›
- Last »