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
Sitaram Vasudev Vs. Khanderav Balkrishna
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom286
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to obtain a share in ancestral property in the possession of the defendant, whom the plaintiff alleges to be united with him in estate. The plaintiff admits that he has lived separate from the defendant for forty years previously to the institution of this suit in the year 1873, and that he (the plaintiff) has not, during that period, received any portion of the produce or profits of the ancestral property.2. Reg. V of 1827, Chap. I, Section 1, Clause 1, enacted that 'whenever lands, houses, hereditary offices, or other immoveable property have been held without interruption for a longer period than thirty years, whether by any person as proprietor, or by him and his heirs, or others deriving a right from him, such possession shall be received as proof of a sufficient right of property in the same.'3. That section has, both in the Sadr Adalat and in the High Court, been held applicable to suits, such as the present, t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdool Hamid Alias Sabhan Miah Vs. Abul Munsoor
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal98
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this appeal it is only necessary for us to decide one of the points which have been taken by the defendants, the appellants, and that point is upon the plea of limitation.2. After stating the facts as above, the learned Chief Justice proceeded as follows:3. The plaintiff relies upon the same ground as that taken in his former suit, viz., that Shitul Chunder's purchase was made on behalf of his (the plaintiff's) co-debtors; and that the judgment-debt was consequently extinguished. He contends, therefore, that the subsequent sale was void as against the plaintiff.4. One objection to this suit, which was made in the Court below, and is now made by the defendant, the appellant, is, that it is brought to set aside a sale in execution of a decree of a Civil Court within the meaning of Clause 14 of the 2nd schedule of the present Limitation Act, and this point was argued before us yesterday.5. There are other questions in the case, and many circumstances which we shou...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Vs. Manji Hansraj and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom295
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The Assistant Judge having found, as a fact, that the first defendant Manji did not receive the hundi from the plaintiff, or undertake the collection of its proceeds for him, this Court is bound by that finding, and must, so far as the decree of the Assistant Judge relates to the liability of the first defendant, affirm the same with costs.2. As the second defendant Muhammad Raisi has not, nor has either of the other defendants, made any objection in the Courts below on the ground that he (Muhammad Raisi) ought not to have been joined as a co-defendant with the first and third defendants, we must consider this case on its merits as against him. He admitted that in consideration of Rs. 500 received by him from the plaintiff, he (Muhammad Raisi) drew the hundi; hence it became necessary for him to discharge himself from the liability consequent upon that act. He attempted to do so by pleading payment of it to the third defendant, Ibrahim Hansraj. That defence sub...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Narayan Vs. Trimbak Sadashiv and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom267
1. We concur in the decision of the lower Courts, and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Bhyrub Chunder Bundopadhya Vs. Soudamini Dabee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal142
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The question which we propose to decide in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant certain sums paid by the plaintiff for Government revenue due in respect of a share, now owned by the defendant, in a zemindari, the larger share of which belongs to the plaintiff.2. The proceedings do not show very accurately what the precise position of the parties is: but the facts seem to be as follows: The plaintiff' owns as zemindar and putnidar (or partly as zemindar and partly as putnidar) a 15 annas 3 gandas 3 cowries share of an estate, Lot Nimdaba, registered as No. 75 in the Collectorate of Burdwan; and Krishnaprosonno Mozumdar and another were the zemindars of the remaining small share, 16 gandas 1 cowrie. The total revenue payable to the Collector in respect of the estate was Rs. 8,807, 4 annas 11 gandas. Of this, Rs. 8,356, 9 annas 11 gandas represented the plaintiff's share, and Rs. 450, 11 annas was the share of Krishnaprosonno M...
Tag this Judgment!Kristomonee Dossee Vs. Denobundhoo Chowdhry
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal153
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case I have the misfortune to differ in opinion from my learned colleagues. The question which we have to decide is, whether the plaintiff in this suit is barred by the judgment in a former suit. It is said that she is so barred by the second Section of the Civil Procedure Code, which enacts ' that the Civil Courts shall not take cognizance of any suit brought on a cause of action' which has been heard and determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, in a former suit between the same parties.'2. Is then the 'cause of action' in the present suit the same cause of action which was adjudicated upon in the former suit? This depends upon what is meant by the words 'cause of action,' and I believe it has never been seriously doubted, either here or in England, that the true meaning of that expression is not the claim itself, as for instance, the money, or goods, or land, which the plaintiff seeks to recover, but the grounds upon which that claim is founded. ...
Tag this Judgment!Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom339
1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily ...
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Bhista BIn Madanna
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom308
Melvill, J.1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Court is whether a sentence of fine only, or of imprisonment only, under Clause 6, Section 32 of Act XXXI of 1860, is a legal sentence.2. The clause in question enacts that every person who commits the offence thereby made punishable 'shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, and also to a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees.' The ordinary meaning of this phraseology would certainly be that the offender may be punished with imprisonment, or fine, or both.3. The difficulty of assigning to the words their natural interpretation arises from the circumstance that in other sections of the same Act (viz., 5, 15, 23, and 34) the Legislature has declared that persons who commit certain offences are 'liable to fine, or imprisonment, or to both fine and imprisonment,' and it may reasonably be argued that, if the Legislature had intended that offences under Section 32 shoul...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Baijoo Lall and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal451
Macpherson, J.1. This is an application to quash an order of the Judge of Gya, under Section 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code, sending the plaintiff in a Civil suit and two of his witnesses to a Magistrate for enquiry into charges of giving false evidence, &c.;2. I say the order was made under Section 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because although Section 16 of Act XXIII of 1861[1] gives Civil Courts powers similar to those conferred on Civil and Criminal Courts alike by Section 471, there can be no doubt that the whole law is now embodied in Section 471, and our jurisdiction to interfere in the matter is not affected by a suggestion that the order in question was, or might have been, made under Section 16 of Act XXIII of 1861[2] and not under Section 471.3. The learned Judge stated the facts of the case and continued.4. It is contended for Baijoo Lall and Juggernath that the Judge had no power to make that order, inasmuch as he never made any preliminary enquiry and had no suf...
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Gaji Kom Ranu
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom311
Melvill, J.1. The Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar being debarred by Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from trying an offence committed in contempt of his own authority, the case of the Queen v. Gaji, wife of Ranu, is, under the provisions of Section 64 of the Code, ordered to be transferred for trial to the Sessions Court of Poona.2. If it were not for the peculiar wording of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we should have hesitated to accept the broad proposition laid down in The Queen v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep. 73), that the offence of giving false evidence is to be regarded as a contempt of Court. But [notwithstanding some rulings of the Allahabad Court to the contrary--Queen v. Kultaran Singh (I.L.R., 1 All. 129) and Queen v. Jugat Mull (I.L.R., 1 All. 162)] we agree with the Madras High Court (see Proceedings, 24th March 1873, 7 Mad. H.C. Rep., Appx. XVII) that the Legislature has, by most inapt words, extended the prohibition contained in Section 473 t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »