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
Kondi Munisami Chetti and anr. Vs. Dakshanamurthi Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad371
Kernan, J.1. Plaintiff bought the saleable interest of Vaira Pillai in the lands in question at an auction sale held on the 23rd of October 1878 under the powers contained in Act VIII of 1865 for arrears of rent due to the landholder, the mittadar.2. Previous to that sale Suit No. 60 of 1878 had been instituted by defendant's father, Kuppaya Chetti, against Nagamuthu Pillai and others, praying to have the same lands sold to discharge a mortgage of theirs granted by Nagamuthu Pillai on the 17th of December 1865 for Rs. 850-12-0. Vaira Pillai was not a party to that suit, and it is found that Nagamuthu had, some years prior to 1878, sold his interest to Vaira Pillai.3. Plaintiff was in possession as purchaser under the sale since 31st October 1878, being the date of the certificate issued to him under the Act, and up to the filing of this suit. In Suit 60 of 1878 Kuppaya obtained a decree against the defendants in that suit for sale of the lands to pay the mortgage. Plaintiff objected to...
Tag this Judgment!Murli Sahu and ors. Vs. Bessessur Bhugut and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal164
Mitter, (Officiating) C.J.1. It appears that the appellants before us held a decree against certain persons, who are on the record styled the second party defendants, and in execution of that decree the property in dispute in this case was attached. The plaintiffs intervened under Section 246 of the Procedure Code of 1859, claiming to have the property in dispute released on the ground that it did not belong to the second party defendants, but to themselves. Their claim was disallowed by the Court executing the decree on the 15th of August 1877.2. The present suit was brought on the 4th of March 1880 for the purpose of establishing the plaintiffs' title to the property in dispute, and for confirmation of their possession thereof. The object of the suit apparently was to obtain a declaration that the decree-holders were not entitled to sell this property in execution of their decree against the second party defendants.3. The Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiffs' suit as barr...
Tag this Judgment!Tadigotla Timmappa Vs. Lakshmamma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad385
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. We think that appellant is not entitled to insist upon respondent's accepting a proportionate share of the debt due to him. He is at liberty to claim that his mortgage security shall not be divided against his will.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Musa Miya Saheb a Minor Vs. Sayad Gulam HuseIn Mahamad
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom100
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. We think that no second appeal lies in this case. Act X of 1876, Section 15, removes suits, in which the Collector is a party, from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, but the nature of the suit, by which must be understood the jural relations between the parties, remains unaltered, and as the present suit is one of the nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, no second appeal lies, as provided by Section 586, Act X of 1877. Appeal dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Thangathanni Vs. Ramu Mudali
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad358
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of remand made by the District Court of South Tanjore on the 25th August 1880. The suit, which was remanded, had been instituted in the Subordinate Court of that district by a minor, Ramu Mudali, through his next friend and natural father Sundra Mudali. His case was that one Ayyatorai Mudali, whose property he claimed by right of adoption, had died without male issue, leaving him surviving two widows, Thangathanni, the defendant, appellant in this Court, and another since deceased; that some days prior to his death Ayyatorai had authorised his wives to make an adoption for him; and that, after his death, the appellant and her co-widow adopted him, the respondent, according to Hindu Law and usage. The defendant (appellant) denied the adoption as well as her power toad opt. Issues were framed as to the factum of adoption and as to the authority to adopt; but it appeared at the trial from the witnesses exam...
Tag this Judgment!Chembrakandi Musutti Vs. themdyal Puthalath Shekharan Nayar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad41
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In Suit No. 1157 of 1876 second respondent obtained a money decree against petitioner. On the 17th February 1879 it is alleged first respondent promised to get second respondent to certify satisfaction to the Court that passed the decree, received Rs. 100 from petitioner, and paid it over to the judgment-creditor. Second respondent, however, afterwards executed the decree without certifying the payment, and again collected the amount due under it. Petitioner then sued both the respondents and claimed to recover back, with interest at 12 per cent., the first payment which he had made. The Small Cause Judge of North Malabar dismissed the suit with costs as against both respondents on the ground that no suit could be maintained to recover back money paid in satisfaction of a decree. Petitioner applies for our interference under Section 6221 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and contends that he was entitled to a decree against both responden...
Tag this Judgment!Tamiz Mandal Vs. Umid Karigar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal215
Maclean, J.1. It would have been better had the Assistant Magistrate followed the course pointed out by the presiding Judge in the case of. The Empress v. Partab 1 as the proper course to be adopted.2. We direct that the order passed under Section 505 of the Criminal Procedure Code be set aside, and leave it to the Assistant Magistrate to follow the course prescribed in Section 504, Clause 2, if he thinks proper.1 I.L.R., 1 All., 666. In this case Spankie, J., said: 'In making an order for security for good behaviour, I presume that the Magistrate holds the powers of a first class Magistrate, and that ha was acting under Section 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have some doubt whether the Magistrate had adduced before him such evidence as to general character as to justify his dealing with the accused for the offence of which he found he was guilty, and in the record of the trial I find no evidence from which it could be gathered that the accused was by repute a receiver of sto...
Tag this Judgment!Tarini Chunder Singh Vs. Uma Sunkur Sirkar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal571
Field, J.1.The question in this case is concerned with the construction of a patni kabuliat.2. Some land included in the patni was taken up by Government for public purposes, and the patnidar now claims abatement of rent from the zamindar in respect of the land so taken. The contention of the zamindar is that the patnidar is, by an express covenant contained in the patni kabuliat, debarred from making any such claim for abatement. The patni kabuliat first contains an agreement to the following effect: that if land be taken up by Government for a railway, a ferry fund or other purposes, the zamindar and the patnidar shall divide the compensation paid by Government in respect of such land, each receiving one moiety. There is then a further clause which may be roughly translated as follows: 'I shall make no objection on the score of diluvion or any other cause to pay the rent fixed or reserved by this kabuliat.' I propose to construe this second Clause first; and the question which I have...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Nath Surma Vs. Ramjoy Surma
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal395
Wilson, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet modifying a decree of the Munsif of Nubeegunge. A preliminary objection was raised that under Section 586 of the Procedure Code this appeal does not lie, on the ground that the claim is under Rs. 500, and the cause of action of such a nature that a Small Cause Court had jurisdiction over it.2. The claim is for contribution. The case found is that the plaintiff and the defendant, being jointly liable on a bond, were jointly sued, and a decree was made against them jointly. The plaintiff was compelled to satisfy that decree and in this suit seeks to recover his share from the defendant. In Rambux Chittanjeo v. Mudhoosoodun Paul Chowdhry B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 675; 7 W.R. 377 the general rule was laid down by a Pull Bench that a suit for contribution does not lie in a Small Cause Court under Section 6 of the Mofussil Small Cause Courts Act (XI of 1865), in the absence of a contract to contribute. In Shaboo M...
Tag this Judgment!Tekait Ram Chunder Singh Vs. Modho Kooery and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal411
Tottenham, J.1. The subject of this suit is a property called turuf Lalgurh, etc., which forms a portion of the ghatwali of Pathrole, and this is one of the Birbhum ghatwalis, though it is situated within the Sonthal Pergunnahs.2. The plaintiff Ram Chunder Singh is the ghatwal; and the defendants, appellants in this appeal, are the three widows of Bunwari Lall Singh. The object of the suit is to recover from the defendants possession of the property in suit, with a declaration by the Court that the mokurruri khorposh lease alleged to have been granted by Digbijoy Singh to Kanhya Lall Singh, the father of Bunwari Lall, is not binding upon the plaintiff, and that it is invalid in law. The plaintiff further prays for mesne profits from 1282 to 1285 (1875-76 to 1879).3. Digbijoy Singh was, in his day, ghatwal of Pathrole, and was the great-grandfather of the plaintiff. The estate of the defendants is under the management of the Court of Wards, and their defence has been conducted by it. It...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- Next ›
- Last »