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
Mohadeay Kooer Vs. Huruk NaraIn and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal244
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tirhoot dismissing the (plaintiff's) appellant's suit for the partition of a revenue-paying estate, a fractional share of which is owned and held by her by right of inheritance from her husband. The defendants, 1st party, who own and hold another share of this estate, and who if they survive the (plaintiff) appellant are presumptively entitled to the share in her possession after her death, alone opposed her claim.2. It appears that before this suit was instituted the (plaintiff) appellant had made an application to the Collector of the district to partition the estate under the provisions of Beng. Act VIII of 1876, but the Collector dismissed the application on the ground that the (plaintiff) appellant being in possession of a share of the estate as a Hindu widow was precluded by the 10th Section of the Act from applying for the partition thereof.3. The present suit was then brought, praying for the revers...
Tag this Judgment!Goberdhun Lall Vs. Behary Lall and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal446
Mitter, J.1. The question in this case is whether the decree obtained by the respondent against the appellants on the 17th January 1877 is barred by limitation. The lower Court has held that it is not barred, because an application had been made by the decree-holder within three years from the present application in order to bring certain property of the judgment-debtors to sale in execution. In its opinion the present case is governed by Article 179 of the present Limitation Act, viz., Act XV of 1877. The words of Article 179, which, in the opinion of the lower Court, save the decree from being barred, are as follows: 'The date of applying in accordance with law to the proper Court to take some step in aid of execution of the decree or order.' The lower Court was of opinion that an application for the sale of a judgment-debtor's property is one that comes within these words.2. In the corresponding article of the Limitation Act of 1871, viz., Article 167, these words are not to be foun...
Tag this Judgment!MomIn Mondul Vs. Imam Buksh Mondul
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal280
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff, as one of the sons of Sona Mondul, a deceased Mahomedan, sued for possession of a 4-anna share in a certain jote, on the allegation of dispossession therefrom by the defendant (landlord) in Assar 1279 (June 1872). The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff and his brothers, not being able to hold on the jote by paying its rent, relinquished the same in Joisto 1279 (May 1872), and fled away to a different village.2. Both Courts have found that the plaintiff and his brothers were forcibly turned out from the lands by the defendant's predecessors, and have consequently decreed the plaintiff's claim; the lower Appellate Court holding that one year's limitation under Section 27 of the Rent Law did not apply to the suit.3. It has been argued here that the lower Appellate Court was wrong on this question of limitation; and we think the contention is well founded. The plaintiff's suit, both in form and substance, was to recover possession of his jote, having ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenath Roy Vs. Radhanath Mookerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal773
Richard Garth, C.J. and 1. I am of opinion that the preliminary objection must prevail, and that no appeal lies in this case.2. Mr. Allen has contended that the order which is appealed against is one made under Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code, and is therefore appealable under Section 2 of that Act, as amended by Act XII of 1879.3. The suit in which the order was made is an administration suit brought by the plaintiff, a creditor, for administering the estate of Jogendronath Mookerjee, and for having the plaintiff's debts ascertained, and paid out of the assets. A decree was obtained, declaring the plaintiff entitled to the sum which he claims, and directing an account to be taken in the usual way.4. The party to the suit who represents the estate is an infant, who appears by guardian, and an attorney named Nobin Chund Boral acts for the guardian.5. It then appears that in another suit a sum of Rs. 5,000 has been placed in the hands of the Receiver, on account of the infant def...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Pemantle
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal971
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The prisoner was tried and convicted on the 30th day of March last, upon a charge framed under Section 366 of the Penal Code, for having kidnapped one Eva Fleury in order that she might be seduced to illicit intercourse.2. Eva Fleury was the illegitimate child of a Mrs. Fleury, long since deceased, and was, when the offence was committed, living in the house and under the care and custody of a Mrs. Lorenztsen, who claimed to be her lawful guardian within the meaning of Section 361 of the Penal Code. Eva Fleury was, at the time when the offence was committed, a minor under the age of sixteen years, and Mrs. Lorenztsen's claim to be considered her legal guardian was based upon the fact that Mrs. Fleury, on her death-bed, confided Eva and another child to her keeping; this was some twelve years ago. Mrs. Lorenztsen accepted the trust, and has ever since had the charge of and maintained the child at her own expense.3. At the trial the counsel for the prisoner raised t...
Tag this Judgment!Nurendro Nath Roy Vs. Bholanath Roy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal380
Wilson, J.1. In this case the question turns wholly upon the construction of Section 58 of the Rent Act, which says that 'no process of execution of any description whatsoever shall be issued on a judgment in any suit for any of the causes of action mentioned in Sections 27, 28, 29 or 30 of this Act, after the lapse of three years from the date of such judgment, unless the judgment be for a sum exceeding five hundred rupees.' In the present case the judgment or decree is for a sum less than Rs. 500, and the question raised is whether the right to execute is barred.2. Now what appears to have happened is this: that within three years from the date of the decree an application was made for the transfer of a certified copy of the decree from the Court by which the decree was made, to the Court of the Munsif of Nawabgunge. A certified copy was transmitted. After the lapse of three years from the date of the decree, an application was made for execution to the Munsif of Nawabgunge. He held ...
Tag this Judgment!Faki Ismail Vs. Umabai Bivalkar
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom425
West, J.1. There are certain productions of the soil of an estate which, by the Roman law, were regarded as of the character oil fruits or profits, though not falling within the ordinary comprehension of these words. Such were the minerals and stones obtained from pita and quarries--see Digest, Lib. VII, 13, De Verb Sign., 77. Under the modern law, however, Lord Cairns, in a Scotch case, said: 'What we call a mineral lease is really, when properly considered, a sale, out and out, of a portion of the land'--Gowan v. Christie L.R. 2 II.L. 284. See also Wilkinson v. Haygarth 16 L.J.Q.B. 103. Similarly, we think that the removal of earth from a rice field is distinctly a taking of a portion of the substance, not merely of a profit, of the land. In the present case, the owner of the fields was undoubtedly in possession until the servants of Umabai came to take away earth for her embankment. He prevented this, and thus retained possession of the whole property, of part of which Umabai's peop...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Boya Linga and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad268
1. The three accused were convicted before the Village Magistrate of Ramasagur under Regulation XI of 1816 of theft of a sheep valued at 14 annas, and were sentenced, the first accused to pay a fine of 6 annas, and the second and third 4 annas each; in default, all to suffer two hours' imprisonment. The fines were collected and paid to the complainant as compensation.2. The case has been referred to the High Court on the ground that sheep-stealing is not an offence cognizable by a Village Magistrate within the meaning of Regulation IV of 1821, Section 6, paragraph I, although the value of the sheep may be less than a rupee, and that it cannot be considered a petty theft; also that the punishment awarded is entirely inadequate to meet the commission of such offences.3. The value of the sheep is 14 annas, and we see nothing in the language of Section 6, paragraph I, Regulation IV of 1821, to hold that sheep-stealing can in no case be treated as petty theft. But Section VI, Regulation IV ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjanatha Shanabhaga Vs. Narayana Shanabhaga
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad362
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In this case the common ancestor of the parties was Bapayya; he had two sons, Venkatesa and Narayana. Venkatesa had as on Rama-krishna and Narayana had 3 sons Dasa, Lakshmana and Ramachandra. Rama-krishna had three sons Rayappa, Madava and the plaintiff Manjanatha; Lakshmana left two sons Venkatesa and Vaikunta; Ramachandra left a son Ganapati; and Dasa left a son Narayana, who is the first defendant in this suit. Thus in 1867 there were four coparceners in Ramakrishna's branch, Ramakrishna and his three sons, and in Narayana's branch there were the representatives of his three sons Dasa, Lakshmana, and Ramachandra. Ramakrishna's first two sons, Rayappa and Madava in the one branch, and the representatives of Lakshmana and Ramachandra in the other branch, brought the partition suit No. 21 of 1867 and separated from the rest of the joint family. The result of that suit and of the trial in the appeal suit 434 of 1871 was that the family property was divided into twe...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Vyapuri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad401
Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The accused has been convicted of mischief under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10, commut-able in case of default to four days' rigorous imprisonment, his offence being that he destroyed two documents forming an immoral agreement whereby the complainant allowed his wife to live in adultery with the accused, and she, in consideration of this liberty, agreed to forego her claims to maintenance. The conviction has been referred to this Court as being wrong, inasmuch as the consideration for the agreements being unlawful and the documents having therefore no legal value, their destruction does not amount to mischief.2. The drafts of the two documents on record purport to cancel the marriage between complainant and his wife and to release them from all marital obligations. As the parties are Hindus and as the marriage between them is not liable to be cancelled by mutual consent, they are of no value for the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- Next ›
- Last »