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
Tariny Debee Vs. Shama Churn Mitter
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal954
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is a patnidar, and the rent payable by him to the zamindar is Rs. 922. The defendant is darpatnidar, and the rent payable by him to the patnidar is Rs. 1,022. Under the terms of the dar-patni kabuliat the darpatnidar is to pay the zamindar's rent,--i.e., the head rent. It thus appears that the actual amount payable by the darpatnidar to the putnidar for each year is Rs. 100.2. The present suit is brought to recover the sum of Rs. 3,133-15, alleged arrears of the darpatni rent, with interest. This amount has been obtained by making an account extending over the years after 1274 (1867). In this account the amounts paid by the darpatnidar, as well to the patnidar direct as to the zamindar, are credited to the oldest arrears of the entire amount of darpatni rent.3. The essential question in the case is, as the District Judge says, a question of appropriation of payments. The District Judge is of opinion that what the parties intended was, that the pay...
Tag this Judgment!Muttayan Chetti Vs. Sangili Vira Pandia Chinnatambiar, Zamindar of Siv ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad1
Barnes Peacock, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the plaintiff, and the respondent the defendant, in a suit, No. 13 of 1875, brought in the District Court of Tinnevelly. It appears that in an original suit, No. 8 of 1867, brought in the District Court of Tinnevelly, the late zamindar of Sivagiri, the father of the defendant, put in a razinama, dated the 20th January 18C8, whereby he acknowledged the sum of Rs. 55,872-12-0 to be due, and agreed that the amount should be paid on the 31st December 1872, together with interest at one per cent, per mensem, by the instalments mentioned therein, and he thereby hypothecated certain lands therein specified, being part of the zamindari, as a security for the payment of the principal and interest.2. On the 4th September 1868, a decree was passed in accordance with the razinama. The money not having been paid according to the stipulations, the property hypothecated was attached, in the lifetime of the late zamindar, for instalments Nos. 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Dokouri Chunder Thakoor Vs. Charu Surnokar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal956
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using a path which runs over the land and premises admittedly belonging to the plaintiff. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court says, that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff's premises and the defendant's premises, which adjoin, originally belonged to the same owner, and it appears that the plaintiff and defendant obtained their respective tenements by purchase more than twenty years ago. When I say the defendant' I include the defendant's predecessor in title, because, although the defendant himself purchased seventeen or eighteen years ago, he is for the purpose of this suit entitled to add the time during which his immediate predecessor, Gya Nath, held the particular tenement. The defendant's case was, that the two tenements belonged to the same owner; that this owner constructed the ghat and the path now used by him (defendant), and that this ghat an...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Vericherla Suryanarayana Raju Bahadur, Zamindar of Kurupam Vs ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad253
1. The plaintiff sued to establish a right to erect a dam across a stream called Tampara to prevent its flowing into the Gummidi-gedda and so to divert it into the old channel marked F in the plan to plaintiff's lands in Chitrapadu. Defendant maintained that F was a new channel and that the custom was for the water to flow to Chitrapadu by the Gummidi-gedda to plaintiff's lands, and that plaintiff was not entitled to place a dam across the Tarn-para for the purpose mentioned.2. The first issue was as to the custom of erecting the dam at B in the plan. The second as to whether F was an old channel or one recently constructed.3. Both the Lower Courts found that plaintiff had established his right.4. In appeal it is contended that the documents relied on by plaintiff were inadmissible in evidence against the defendant and that, if admissible, their purport and that of the decision in suit 79 of 1868 had been misconstrued.5. To take the last point first, the meaning of the last paragraph o...
Tag this Judgment!Viraraghava Reddi Vs. Subbakka
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad397
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is stated to have delivered certain paddy and dry grains out of Court in satisfaction of a decree against him; but the decree-holder failed to certify that satisfaction to the Court under Section 258, Civil Procedure Code, and four months afterwards she applied for and obtained execution, an application made by the plaintiff for an order compelling the decree-holder to certify being dismissed as too late. The plaintiff then brought the present suit to recover the paddy and grain which he had delivered in the first instance, and the question is, whether such a suit is maintainable.2. Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code imposes on a decree-holder, who has received payment in satisfaction out of Court, the duty of certifying such payment to the Court. The judgment-[398]debtor also may apply to the Court within fifteen days to have the payment certified. Then follows the provision, 'no such payment or adjustment shall be recognized by any Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Nobo Gopal Sircar Vs. Srinath Bundopadhya
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal877
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case purchased, at a sale in execution of a common money-decree, the judgment-debtor's interest in a certain patni. The defendant holds a darpatni within this patni. Before the plaintiff's purchase, the patni was about to be brought to sale under Reg. VIII of 1819 for arrears of rent for the last half-year of 1284. The defendant, as darpatnidar, prevented the sale by paying the amount of arrears of the patni rent. This amount so paid considerably exceeded all the darpatni rent then due by the defendant to the patnidar. The present suit has been brought to recover the rent of 1285, and the defendant contends that he is entitled to deduct from the rent so claimed the amount so paid into Court by him under the Regulation in excess of the darpatni rent due up to the end of 1284.2. Both the lower Courts have admitted this contention, and it is now argued before us that, having regard to 'the express language of Clause 4, Section 13 of Reg. VIII of 1819,' su...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Prosad Koondoo Vs. Reily
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal112
Prinsep, J.1. The point we are called upon to decide in this appeal is, whether the plaint having stated the amount of mesne profits claimed at a certain sum of money, and the decree having directed the amount to be ascertained in execution, the plaintiff, decree-holder, is estopped from claiming any excess of the amount stated in his plaint.2. As an authority for the affirmative of this proposition the case of Baboojan Jha v. Byjnath Jha I.L.R. 6 Cal. 472; S.C 7 C.L.R. 539 has been cited. We have consulted the learned Judges who passed that judgment, and we are authorized by them to state that they did not then intend to enunciate any general rule for adoption in such cases. We are therefore at liberty to deal with this case on its own merits.3. It appears to us that-as stated by Dwarkanath Mitter, J. in the case of Pearee Soonduree Dossee v. Eshan Chunder Bose 16 W.R. 302. the decision in the original suit having declared the amount of mesne profits should be determined in execution,...
Tag this Judgment!Anathnath Deb Vs. Poreshnath Mukerji and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal265
R. Couch, J.1. The question in this appeal, which is from a decision of the High Court at Calcutta on an appeal from the District Court, is stated by the learned Chief Justice in giving the judgment of the High Court, in which he says: 'The point upon which, in our opinion, this case should be decided is rather of a peculiar nature. The plaintiff is the zamindar of a share in a property called lot Shah Alumpur, and he also claims to be the darpatnidar of a portion of the same property. In his character of darpatnidar, he brings this suit against the defendant No. 1, Bistu Chandra Rai, as ijardar of part of the estate for rent and for road-cess The defendant resists the claim upon the ground that Poreshnath, the defendant No. 2, is the real owner of the darpatni; and the defendant No. 2 has intervened for the purpose of supporting his title to the rent as against the plaintiff. It appears that some time ago, in the year 1259 (A.D. 1852), one Ishan Chandra purchased, and was the undoubte...
Tag this Judgment!Dintarini Dabi Vs. Doibo Chunder Roy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal880
Field, J.1. This was an application under Section 234 of the Indian Succession Act X of 1865, for revocation of probate of a will granted on the 8th December 1876. The will purports to have been executed by Rojoni Kant Roy Chowdhry, the late husband of the petitioner, Dintarini Dabi. Jogesh Chunder Roy Chowdhry, the brother of Rojoni Kant, obtained probate of the will, and himself died a few years afterwards. He executed a will before his death, and one Doibo Chunder Roy obtained probate of that will. The present petitioner, Dintarini, subsequently applied for a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860, and was opposed by Doibo Roy, who, as executor of Jogesh Chunder Roy, relied upon the grant of probate of Rojoni Kant's will which Jogesh Chunder had obtained. The present petitioner alleges that it was on this occasion that she first became aware of the alleged existence of the will said to have been executed by her late husband; and she thereupon made an application to the District Judge, ...
Tag this Judgment!issur Chunder Nath Vs. Kali Churn Nath and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal883
Prinsep, J.1. We see no reason to interfere. We agree with the judgment of another Division Court in the case of Shonai Paramanick 1 C.L.R., 486, that the Magistrate having satisfied himself (as in the case now before us) that there was no cause for acting under Section 521, was at liberty to let the matter drop....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- Next ›
- Last »