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
Mana Vikrama, ZamorIn Maharaja Bahadur of Calicut Vs. Suryanarayana Bh ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad284
Kernan, Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. Both the Civil Courts Act III of 1873 and Court Pees Act VII of 1870 deal with the 'value of the subject-matter of suit,' and the Act of 1873 refers to the Act of 1870.2. It seems reasonable, therefore, that, when a particular subject-matter is valued in one Act, the same value ought to he adopted in respect of the same matter in the other Act, unless contrary to some special provision, or unless there is manifest inconsistency in so doing. There is special reference in Section 141 of the Civil Courts Act to Section 7, Clause 5,2 of the Court Fees Act, and it may be argued that, if the value in the Court Fees Act was intended to be adopted, there should be some particular provision to that effect.3. This may be admitted. But the reason of that special reference was that the valuation of the particular subject, land, was peculiarly difficult, and, as the mode of valuation of it was settled already for stamp purposes by the Court Fees Act, and this was...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Churn Karmokar Vs. Mukhoda Soondury Dasi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal871
Prinsep, J.1. The circumstances out of which this suit has arisen are as follows: In 1874, one Prem Bibi obtained a money-decree against one Muddun Karmokar for Rs. 1,210; and, in execution of that decree, attached the property which is the subject of the present action. The plaintiff intervened under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859, alleging that the house was his sole and exclusive property. This application was rejected. Subsequently, the plaintiff instituted a regular suit against Prem Bibi and another, to establish his exclusive title to the property; and, after the suit had been pending for some time, he withdrew it without obtaining permission of the Court to bring a second action for the same matter. After the suit had been withdrawn, the attachment fell through, but the property was re-attached and sold in execution of the same decree, and was purchased by the defendant on the 2nd July 1877. The plaintiff did not appear to contest the second execution-proceedings after his sui...
Tag this Judgment!Kartick Singha Vs. Sreeputty Mirdha and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal10
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the property of the plaintiff having been attached by the defendants, the plaintiff brought his claim under Section 246 of the old Code. That claim having been rejected without investigation, on the ground of the late date on which it was put in, plaintiff was left to prosecute his claim by a regular suit under Section 247. He has done so, and, after a contest on the part both of the judgment-debtor and the attaching-creditor, has established his right to the property in suit. But an objection is taken to the decree, which was also taken to the suit, on the ground that, at the time when the plaintiff made his claim, the attachment had virtually ceased owing to the decree having been satisfied from other properties of the judgment-debtor.2. We concur with the Court below in thinking that there is nothing in this circumstance to deprive the plaintiff of the remedy which the law provided for him. A very distinct shade of doubt would be thrown on his title by ...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Ram Lall
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal875
Prinsep, J.1. This reference has been made because the Cantonment Magistrate, who tried the case, and the District Magistrate, are of opinion that the Sessions Judge, as an Appellate Court, has improperly reduced the sentence passed.2. The powers of the District Magistrate, in referring cases to this Court as a Court of Revision, are described in Sections 295, 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 295 declares that the District Magistrate 'may at all times call for and examine the record of any Court subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to, the legality of any sentence or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such subordinate Court'; and Section 296 adds that, if the District Magistrate 'is of opinion that the judgment or order is contrary to law, or that the punishment is too severe or inadequate, he may report the proceedings for the orders of the High Court.' But Section 296 is controlled by Section 295, and it was certainly nev...
Tag this Judgment!Hukamaram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2341
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. In this application, under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the order dated the 7th June, 1979 of Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions case No. 50/76, Hukamaram Umaram & Ramuram, the applicants, contend that the impugned order by which 'hey have been called upon to face the trial and cognizance has been taken against them under Section 319, Cr.. P.C. should be quashed, as it was done on the basis of police statements and no evidence has been recorded by the Sessions Judge.2. Dr. Bhandawat, the learned Public Prosecutor could not dispute the facts as alleged by the petitioners but he submitted that a Sessions Judge was competent to take cognizance on the basis of the police statements recorded under Section 319, Cr. P.C. as per the decision of this Court in Ajayab Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1978 Raj LW 9.3. It is not in dispute that application dated the 14th May, 1979 was moved by the Asslt. Public Prosecutor before the Sessions Court for taking cognizance again...
Tag this Judgment!Timmu Vs. Deva Rai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad265
1. Notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why she should not furnish security for the costs of the appeal.2. She did not appear, and an order was made requiring her to furnish security on or before the 11th November.3. The order was not served on her, nor on her vakil, nor is it shown she had any notice of it until the 17th January, the date on which the appeal came on for hearing. An objection was then taken that inasmuch as the security had not been furnished within the time prescribed the appeal must be rejected.4. The Code empowers the Appellate Court to demand security and directs the Appellate Court to reject the appeal if the security is not furnished within the time the Court orders. v5. To justify the rejection of the appeal there must have been a demand on the part of the Court.6. The issue of a preliminary notice to show cause is not tantamount to a demand. It simply informs the appellant that the Court proposes to consider the propriety of demanding security from ...
Tag this Judgment!Chithambara Chetti Vs. Muthaya Chetti and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad330
1. Plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of plaintiff's right to recover the amount due by one Manjirasa to plaintiff on a bond executed in his favour by that person on the 30th August 1878, on account of a loan to him by plaintiff of Rs. 1,500, which it was engaged should be repaid to plaintiff by two instalments, one on the 26th February 1879 and the other in August 1879, with interest. Manjirasa, according to plaintiff's case, pledged his ship Ahmed Buksh as security for repayment of the loan. He then went off with his ship to Karikal, where defendant had it seized for a debt due to him. It was sold and the proceeds were held by the French Court which had ordered the sale.2. Plaintiff made a claim upon the proceeds. The French Court on 11th December 1878 required plaintiff to produce, within 25th January 1879, copy of judgment of an English Court, acknowledging and sanctioning his claim against Manjirasa.3. It is stated, and seems to be conceded, that the sale of moveables in Frenc...
Tag this Judgment!Suraya Bhukta and anr. Vs. Lakshminarasamma and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1881)ILR5Mad291
1. These appeals are brought from the decrees of the District Court of Ganjam in Suits Nos. 4 and 5 of 1878 on the [292] file of that Court, and inasmuch as the matters in issue in both suits are the same, we shall dispose of the appeals in one judgment.2. It appears that Kurmesam, whose heirs the plaintiffs claim to be, had adopted as his son Ramayya.3. Ramayya died leaving a widow Lakshminarasamma, appellant in Regular Appeal No. 78, and it is admitted by the learned Counsel who appeared for the lady that he cannot resist the proof that Ramayya died in the lifetime of Kurmesam.4. Kurmesam died in July 1853 leaving a widow Jogamma, who died on April 19th, 1866.5. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 4 were respectively the grandsons and great grandson of the grandfather of Kurmesam, but Jaganatham has died since the institution of the suit and the surviving plaintiffs are the appellants in Regular Appeal No. 81 of 1879.6. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 5, who are the appellants in...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasami Pillai and ors. Vs. Varadaraja Ayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad345
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff as adinakartar (Tarn. A proprietor) and panchayattar (Court of arbitration) of a certain temple at Kandiyur has brought this suit on behalf of the temple to eject the defendants from certain lands in the village of Karuvur belonging to the temple, and for arrears of melvaram (the proportion of crop claimed by Government), and swamibhogam (the proprietor's or landlord's right). It was alleged in the plaint that, about forty years before, the defendants' ancestors, Maruthai Pillai and others, had executed a muchalka in favour of Government (who were then managing the affairs of the temple) undertaking to pay annually to the temple 285-6 kalams of paddy and Rs. 724-11-8 in cash; and also procure the persons necessary to carry things at the processions on festival days. But the defendants had allowed the payments to fall into arrears, and had not supplied men for the processions as agreed. In these circumstances it was alleged that, according to the muchalka,...
Tag this Judgment!Vythilinga Muppanar and ors. Vs. Vijayathammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad43
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The objections to the ownership of Chandraprakasa having been abandoned, we have only to consider the objections taken to the status of the respondent as the widow of Chandraprakasa.2. The parties to the suit are Muppanars and are classed with Sudras. It appears that Ayyavu, the father of the respondent, had married the niece of Appavu alias Muthaya Muppanar. When he was thirty years of age and had had three daughters born to him, Appavu assumed to take him in adoption; but dissensions arose, and he brought a suit--Original Suit 272 of 1829--against Appavu for maintenance as an adopted son, and, although the fact and validity of the adoption were denied, he obtained a decree which was confirmed on appeal.3. Appavu subsequently married a second wife, Niladatchi Ammal, who is said to have been his mother's sister's daughter, and by her he had a son, Chandraprakasa, who was a minor of the age of four years when his father died in 1847...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- Next ›
- Last »