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
Bany Mistry Vs. Ertaza HosseIn and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal130
Tottenham, J.1.We think that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in this case cannot be supported.2. The question in dispute was, whether the land belonged to the village of Allygunge or that of Hobeebpore. The plaintiff sued to recover it on the ground that it belonged to Allygunge; and that he held it under the proprietors of that Mauza, and for a long time. It, therefore, was incumbent upon him, in our opinion, to prove either that the land in fact belonged to Allygunge, or that he had enjoyed possession of it adversely to the defendants for at least twelve years. The proprietors of Allygunge were not parties to the suit. The proprietors of Hobeebpore were the defendants.3. The lower Appellate Court found as a fact that the plaintiff had not made out twelve years' adverse possession. The Subordinate Judge, therefore, remanded the case to the Munsif for an enquiry as to which mauza the land belonged. The result was that the Munsif professed himself unable to determine that poin...
Tag this Judgment!Shoshee Mohun Pal and ors. Vs. Dinobundhoo Pal
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal217
Field, J.1. In this case the appellant before us was the purchaser of a property sold at an execution-sale, and he applied to the Court below, in accordance with the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to have the sale set aside, on the ground that the person whose property purported to be sold had no saleable interest therein. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The judgment-debtor, under the decree in execution of which the property was sold, was adjudicated an insolvent by the High Court on the 19th January 1881. The decree was made in February 1881. The attachment in execution of the decree was in June 1881; and the sale was in August 1881. From this it appears that before the dates on which the decree was made, the attachment was made, and the sale was made, the judgment-debtor had been adjudicated an insolvent. Now the effect of that adjudication was, that all the property of the judgment-debtor vested in the Official Assignee. Section 7 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Heet NaraIn and ors. Vs. Gya Persad, Alias Lal Persad, and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal93
Prinsep, J.1. The sole point for our decision in this case is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs sued to recover certain property as having been bought in the name of Mussamut Lakho by Ram Narain Sahoo, and that, on the death of Lakho, they are entitled to succeed as her heirs. It appears that this property is now held by the heirs of Bhoop Narain Sahoo, who is a relative of both the plaintiffs and of Ram Narain, but subordinate as regards rights of inheritance to the plaintiff's. In April 1859, one Sheo Golam Bhagut obtained a decree against Bhoop Narain, in execution of which, in 1862, he sold the properties now in suit, Sheo Golam being himself the purchaser. He then sold his rights to one Sheo Narain Sahoo, who again, in July 1863, sold to Mussamut Lakho.2. In November 1865, Lakho applied to execute this decree and got possession of this property; but nothing resulted from this application, for, on the following June, it was struck off for default. In November...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Churn Boido Vs. Issur Chunder Manjee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal39
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff claimed that the disputed parcel of land was situate within his jama, and that he had been lately dispossessed from it by the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, contended, that the land formed part of their jote, and that the plaintiff had never been in possession. In the first Court the Munsif, coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not been in possession of the land within twelve years, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed and on the case coming before the District Judge, he arrived at the conclusion that, as the plaintiff had never measured the land, nor produced any documentary evidence through his landlord, that the land had been measured by the latter, nothing that he could produce in the way of oral evidence would be sufficient to justify a decree.2. In this Court it has been urged upon us, that, under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the plaintiff had proved possession for some time within twelve ye...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Bhootnath Chatterjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal125
Prinsep, J.1. This is one of the many cases that have recently been before the Courts arising out of the Land Registration Act. The defendant succeeded, as against the plaintiffs, in getting his name registered as in possession of four katas of land.2. The plaintiffs have brought the present suit to obtain possession by proof of title, alleging that the registration-proceedings were their cause of action,-that is to say, as we understand it, that; they wore in possession up to the date on which those proceedings were taken. The defendant says, that he has been in possession for the last twenty-five years under a verbal gift made in his favour by one who is said to have been the plaintiff's ancestor.3. Now the first point which the District Judge had to decide was whether, under such circumstances, the plaintiffs have proved that they were in possession of the land in dispute within twelve years from the institution of the suit. The possession set up by the plaintiffs is, that they exca...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Matter of the Petition of Prankrishna Surma and Vs. Prankri ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal969
Wilson, J.1. The conviction in this case was one under Sections 109 and 363 of the Penal Code for abetting the offence of kidnapping. Upon the appeal two questions were argued: first, whether the substantive offence was committed; secondly, whether there was sufficient evidence of abetment. The second question we may dismiss at once by saying that if the substantive offence was committed, there was ample evidence of abetment. The real question is as to the kidnapping. The facts proved appear to be the following:2. Parameshwari, the wife of Uma Churn Pattuk, left her husband's house at night, taking with her a daughter of six or seven years old and a son still younger. She went to the house of a cousin of her, who lived in a house in the same homestead with the accused and his younger brother Guru Dass. The same night Parameshwari gave her daughter in marriage to Guru Dass. The leaving of her husband's house with the daughter and the marriage of the latter to Guru Dass took place in pur...
Tag this Judgment!Lulit Sing and anr. Vs. Wazir Mahton and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal100
Mitter, J.1. Two objections have been urged against the decision of the lower Court. The first is that the application for execution is barred under Article 179 of Schedule ii, Act XV of 1877. It appears that the decree of the first Court was passed on the 19th December 1877, in accordance with an arbitration award. An appeal was preferred by the defendants, against whom the decree was passed; they contended that the decree should not have been in accordance with the award. The Appellate Court, after entering into the objection raised by the defendants, canoe to the conclusion that no appeal lay against the decree of the first Court, because it was in accordance with the award of the arbitrators appointed in the case. There was a second appeal preferred by the defendants, and the Court upheld the view of the lower Appellate Court that there was no appeal. The judgment of this Court is dated the 12th March 1881. On the 22nd June 1881, the present application for execution of the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Goluck Chunder Shaha, Alias Goluck Shaha Vs. Brojo Gobind Shaha
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal127
Prinsep, J.1. It is contended before us in appeal that the document upon which the plaintiff sues is a 'promissory note,' and that being so, it should have been stamped, and that the Collector, at a subsequent period, was unable to order it to be stamped on payment of a penalty. It appears to us, however, that the document before us cannot be so regarded. It is exactly of the same nature as the document which forms the subject of the suit in the case of Brojender Coomar v. Bromomoye Chowdhrani I.L.R. 4 Cal. 885; 3 C.L.R. 520. In that case White, J. in delivering the Judgment of the Court, expressed himself in the following terms: 'Now, if any one of the entries in the hathchitta had stood alone, and had been intended by the parties to form an isolated entry in the book, it might have been contended with considerable force that it fell within the description of document mentioned in the 5th article as requiring a stamp. We think, however, that the entries cannot be detached from the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaobunessury Vs. Judobendra NaraIn Mullick
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal869
Prinsep, J.1. The lower Appellate Court has held that the application under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1877 is barred, inasmuch as it was not made within thirty days from the date of executing the process, that is, the attachment in execution of the ex-parte decree. For the judgment debtor it is contended that there was no such attachment made, and that this application is in time. The lower Court, however, held that in the absence of any evidence on the part of the defendant, it would, under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, presume that the attachment was properly made.2. We think that the view taken by the lower Court was perfectly correct, and that it was incumbent on the defendant judgment-debtor to show that he made his application under Section 108 within thirty days from the date of the first process in execution of the decree passed against him. Having failed to do so, his application was correctly disallowed as barred. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed wit...
Tag this Judgment!Kishari Vs. Ramcoomar Singh and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal68
Maclean, J.1. Two points have been urged in this appeal: the first is, that the kabuliat, which appears to have been executed in the month of May 1865, should not have been admitted in evidence (in a suit instituted in June 1881), as it was unregistered. The other point is, that rent has never been realized by the landlord under that kabuliat.2. The contention on the first point is based on the language of Section 17 of Act III of 1877, which is to the effect that all documents mentioned therein shall be registered if they have been executed after the date on which Act XVI of 1864 and the other Registration Acts have come into force; and the effect which it is sought to give to that section is, that this lease of May 1865, having been executed after the date on which Act XVI of 1864 came into force, requires, under the Act of 1877, to be registered.3. But it is beyond doubt that the document in question did not require registration when it was executed, for it was not until the Act of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- Next ›
- Last »