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
Jaggamoni Dasi Vs. Nilmoni Ghosal and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal75
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case makes the following allegations in her plaint: that her father, the late Gunga Narain Dutt, purchased certain brohmutter land on the bank of the river Hooghly, and during his lifetime built thereon certain mundirs, or temples, dedicated to Ishwar Siva, a bathing-ghat, and a room called gungajatri-ghur, and close thereto another ghat, called an antorjoli-ghat, about six feet in breadth; that, ever since the above ghat was built, sick persons, who have lost all hopes of recovery, have been brought to the aforesaid gungajatri-ghur, and, when on the point of death, have been removed to the said ghat, where the rites of antorjoli have been performed according to practice and the Hindu Shastras; that, the plaintiff is her father's executrix and the manager of his property; that the defendants have recently used the ghat for the purpose of landing goods from their boats; that, in consequence of their doing so, the sick persons brought to the river-side h...
Tag this Judgment!Denaput Singh and anr. Vs. Hari Ram and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal167
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The facts of this case are briefly these: Two persons, Ram Nath and Hem Nath, took a loan of Rs. 192 from the plaintiffs, under a chitti dated the 17th Falgoon 1280 (March 1873). Hem Nath sold his share in Mauza Rizapore Damudur to Gokoola Persad, defendant No. 2, on the 24th July 1874. On the same date Hem Nath, as the guardian of his nephew Mothoora Persad, son of his deceased brother, the aforesaid Ram Nath, granted a zurpeshgi lease of Ram Nath's share in the same property also to Gokoola Persad, defendant No. 2. Out of the consideration-moneys of these two transactions, by an arrangement between the parties, Rs. 192 was left with the defendant No. 2 to be paid over to the plaintiffs in liquidation of the debt due under the chitti of the 17th Falgoon 1280 (March 1873), but this money was not paid by the defendant No. 2 to the plaintiffs, who brought a suit for its recovery; and, on the 13th September 1876, obtained a money-decree against the defendant No. 2.2....
Tag this Judgment!Huro Prosad Roy Vs. Kali Prosad Roy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal290
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that under Section 326, it is in the discretion of the Court to authorize the Collector or not, as it thinks fit, to provide for the satisfaction of the decree in the manner which the Collector recommends, and for the purpose of effectually exercising that discretion we consider that the Court is bound to hear any objections which may be made by the decree-holder to the feasibility of the proposed scheme, and any evidence that may be offered in support of those objections.2. It is clear that under Section 320, the word 'may' is used in a discretionary sense only, and it would appear to be used in the same sense in the intervening sections; and there certainly seems good reason why the Court should enquire closely into the feasibility of the Collector's proposal, seeing that its effect would be to deprive the decree-holder of the right, which the law gives him, of executing his decree, and not only so, but to protect the debtor's property during all that t...
Tag this Judgment!Manickya Moyee Vs. Boroda Prosad Mookerjee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal355
Field, J.1. In this case one Kali Dass Roy mortgaged certain property to Boroda Prosad Mookerjee by an instrument, dated the 17th June 1878. This instrument was not a formal deed of mortgage; it was an agreement for mortgage only, but it was the intention of the parties that a formal mortgage deed should be subsequently executed. The agreement of the 17th June 1878 contained a provision that, until the formal mortgage deed should be executed containing all such covenants, provisions, stipulations, and agreements as are usually or properly introduced into mortgages of estates of a similar nature, the mortgage-property should remain charged with the amount of the loan, and the mortgage agreement (which was correctly stamped under Act XVIII of 1869) should be considered as a deed of mortgage. Under the agreement the money lent on mortgage, together with interest at 18 per cent., was to be paid within one year from the 17th June 1878, and the agreement further provided that this interest w...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Khasim Bahadur Vs. John Carlier
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad272
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Tarrant, J.1. We agree with the decision of the Bombay High Court (The Secretary of State for India v. Kemchand Jeychand I.L.R. 4 Bom. 432 and are of opinion that a bonus is not a pension.2. By recent legislation, the Civil Procedure Code has been so altered in Section 266 as to exempt a bonus or gratuity received from Government from attachment. But this provision does not apply to execution proceedings commenced before the 1st June 1882--vide Section 3, Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, Clause 3. If, therefore, as stated in the reference, the proceedings in execution commenced prior to 1st June 1882, the bonus is attachable....
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chunder Mitter Vs. Mohesh Chunder Boral and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal230
Field, J.1. The property which forms the subject of this suit was attached in execution of a decree against the defendant No. 3. The plaintiff preferred a claim under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859 in respect of this property. This claim was disallowed on the 7th of September 1876. The plaintiff now seeks to establish his right to, and obtain possession of the property which formed the subject of that claim. The present suit was instituted on the 9th of October 1879, that is more than three years after the order disallowing the claim, which order was made under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859.2. The Munsif was of opinion that the limitation law applicable to this case is Act XV of 1877, and he refers to Article 11 of Schedule ii of that Act. Applying that article, he was of opinion that this suit ought to have been brought within one year from the 7th of September 1876, and that, having been brought more than a year after the date of the order disallowing the claim, it was barred by l...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Sunkur Vs. Monohur Lall and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal283
Mitter, J.1. Who after stating the facts as above, continued.2. The main ground urged in appeal by the defendants, appellants, is that the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 7 of Act VIII of 1859. It is contended that the present suit is based upon the same cause of action upon which the suit for possession during the lifetime of Rutton Dai, and the suit for wassilat after her death, were brought.3. As regards the first of these two suits, it is quite clear that it was not brought upon the same cause of action upon which the present action is based. The succession to the estate of Koonj Behari devolved upon the plaintiff, respondent, and his other co-heirs on the death of Button Dai; therefore, the cause of action of the present suit accrued on the date of her death, viz., 10th May 1870; consequently it is not identical with the cause of action of the suit which the plaintiff, respondent, brought during the lifetime of Rutton Dai. The cause of action in this latter ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Matter of the Petition of Prayag Singh and ors. and Vs. Pra ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal103
Wilson, J.1. The order of the Assistant Magistrate must be set aside as made without jurisdiction. The order under Section 518 can only be made when it is necessary to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to the person or injury to human life, health, or safety or a riot or affray. Such an order cannot be made merely for the protection of property.2. In the present case, taking the Assistant Magistrate's finding at the highest, it cannot amount to more than this, that the bund in question diminishes the supply of water to the land lying at a lower level....
Tag this Judgment!Gunesh Dass Vs. Gondour Koormi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal147
Mitter, (Officiating) C.J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to eject the defendant from two plots of land constituting his holding. The suit was based upon the ground that, under a contract, or according to the custom of the country, the defendant was bound to use the land of his holding for agricultural purposes only; but that the defendant, in contravention of this condition, planted trees upon the land in dispute, and converted it into a garden.2. The plaintiff alleged that this planting of trees took place in October 1876. The suit was brought on the 19th of April 1879. The plaintiff in his plaint sought for two reliefs. He asked first for the ejectment of the defendant, and if the defendant was not liable to be ejected, he next asked in the alternative that the defendant should be compelled to remove the trees planted by him.3. As regards one of the plots in dispute the Munsif found that the planting of the trees had taken place more than twelve years before the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Siddik and ors. Vs. Edun
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal150
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Patna, reversing the decision of the Munsif, by which the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The decree appealed against is in these words: Defendant must cause registration of the deed and delivery of it, and put the plaintiffs in possession of the thing sold, and then plaintiffs will pay to her, or into Court, the Rs. 20 still due.'2. The plaintiffs brought this suit to compel the defendant to register a mokurari patta alleged to have been executed by her in their favour. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant agreed to grant a mokurari patta of the property in dispute on a bonus of Rs. 100; that, according to this agreement, a mokurari patta was executed by the defendant on the 27th of January 1880; that, on that date, Rs. 80, out of Rs. 100, were paid, and the mokurari patta was made over to the plaintiff's; that the said document was filed by the plaintiffs in the Sub-Registry Office at Patna on the 3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- Next ›
- Last »