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
Jung Bahadoor and anr. Vs. Sheo Proshad and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal389
Mitter, J.1. The following genealogical table of the family will be of help in stating the facts of this case: _____________________________________________ | | Buniad Protab Narain | | Muni Lall Kali Sahai, Defendant, third party. Mt. Rohini Kooer Plaintiff No. 2, | Jung Bahadoor (Minor), Plaintiff No. 1.2. From the above tree it will appear that the plaintiffs are the minor son and wife of Kali Sahai, who has been made a pro forma defendant. The appellants before us were the defendants who defended the: suit in the lower Court. At the time of the institution of the suit, they were in possession of seven annas of Jufferabad Asli, Aurungabad, Jehanabad, and Dowlatabad, dakilis of which plaintiffs claim to recover possession of a 4 annas 8 pie share.3. It appears, that, these mauzahs constitute an estate, the towji number of which is 1,300, and the Government revenue of which is Rs. 27-13-11. Eight annas of these mouzahs were held and owned by Kali Sahai, who, on the 28th February 1873,...
Tag this Judgment!Ajoodhya Persad Vs. Collector of Durbhungah
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal419
Mitter, ( Offg.) C.J.1. It appears that a fourteen-anna eight-gunda share of a mouzah named Mohamedpur was settled permanently in the year 1226 Fasli (1819). The number of this share of the mouzah in the Collector's Towji is 223. The defendants, second and third parties, are now the owners of this estate. The remaining one-anna twelve-gunda share of the mouzah in question was permanently settled in the year 1861 with Fakir Misser and others. The number of this latter estate in the Collector's Towji is 4,945. In the year 1873, the estate No. 4945 was sold by auction for arrears of Government revenue, and was purchased by the plaintiff.2. On the 28th of July 1879 the plaintiff brought this suit for obtaining a declaration that he is entitled to have the one-anna twelve-gunda share of this mouzah separated from the fourteen-anna eight-gunda share by metes and bounds, and also for a decree directing a partition of the whole mouzah into two parts, so that the lands of his estate may be defi...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Mudali Vs. Ponnambalam and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad376
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. A contract was entered into between the accused and complainant that the accused should beat tom-tom during a certain festival which was to have continued from the 31st May to the 9th June 1882, which contract the accused failed to carry out. On the 9th June, or the last day of the festival, the Tahsildar Magistrate made an order under Act XIII of 1859 that the accused should perform the work which they had agreed to do for the complainant, but without specifying within what time, or during what period, they were to do the work. After the order was made, and on the same day, the accused, whose original defence had been that they had no tom-tom with them, said they could not render the service which they had been ordered to perform, and thereupon the Tahsildar Magistrate proceeded at once to sentence them to ten days' rigorous imprisonment for non-compliance with his order.2. There was no complaint that his order was not complied with and no statements...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Vanam Subramanyam and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad378
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. Accused have been convicted of disobedience to summonses issued under Madras Act III of 1869 by the local Tahsildar, requesting them to attend the Taluq kachari for the purpose of preparing the Census, Jama-bundi, Dowle, and other accounts. They were each sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5, or in default five days' simple imprisonment.2. The accused were not summoned to give evidence or produce any document in connection with the investigation of any matter in which the Tahsildar was authorized to hold an inquiry, and the summons disobeyed is, therefore, not within the purview of Madras Act III of 1869.3. The conviction is bad and must be quashed. The fine, if levied, should be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Sambasivanna Vs. Bhogappa and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad378a
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. Having regard to the statement made by the complainant, we think that the complaint should have been treated as one of voluntary hurt. The Second-class Magistrate was therefore in error in treating it as one of criminal force and allowing it to be withdrawn.2. Considering, however, that the complainant himself treated the violence used to him as amounting to criminal force, and that it is nearly three months since the complaint has been withdrawn, we are of opinion that no further proceedings in the case are necessary....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Kadar Khan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad380
1. Kadar Khan was a witness for the defence of one Shaik Hyder, then on his trial for rioting, and, on the conclusion of the trial, was required by the Magistrate to give security to keep the peace for a year, the reasons given by the presiding Magistrate for this order being that the evidence given by Kadar Khan in the trial left no doubt on his mind but that he was one of the rioters in the case then being tried, and that it was probable he might at some future time encourage a breach of the peace.2. The Sessions Judge, however, points out that Kadar Khan's evidence in the trial as recorded contains nothing equivalent to an information that he was likely to commit a breach of the peace or to do any act calculated to occasion a breach of the peace; and, moreover, that, presuming any such information was contained therein, such evidence, which is the only evidence recorded at all in the proceedings, was not of the nature on which the Joint Magistrate was at liberty to adjudicate as req...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Revu Pothadu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad390
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The accused have been convicted of theft under Section 3791, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to fines of various amounts, which have been paid. The act for which they were convicted consisted of catching fish in a creek at Lakshmipuram, the right to fish in which had been leased out by Government.2. Following the Proceedings of this Court, dated the 23rd October 18782, we set aside the conviction and direct that the fines levied from the accused be refunded.1 Punishment for theft.[Section 379: Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.]2 Proceedings of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 23rd Oct., 1878, Nos. 1759, 7331:In these cases a number of persons have been convicted of stealing fish from certain Government tanks. The right of capturing the fish in the particular tanks in question had been sold by Government at auction to persons ot...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Sreenath Banerjee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal221
McDonell, J.1. In this case the prisoners were convicted of offences under Sections 201 and 346 of the Penal Code. On appeal, the Sessions Judge properly acquitted them of any offence under Section 201, but upheld the conviction under the latter section. We are of opinion that the conviction 'cannot be sustained. To render a person liable under Section 346, it must be shown that the wrongful confinement was of such a nature as to indicate an intention that the person confined should not be discovered. In the present case it is clear that the element is wanting.2. Again, it appears to us that the complainant was not at all in wrongful confinement. The Judge himself says that she was induced, not forced; and that her confinement was not actual, but, as he calls it, potential. This is not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitting the prisoners direct their release....
Tag this Judgment!Number Vs. Ambu and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad381
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The facts of this case are that on the 27th February last the first accused was charged under Section 24* of The Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, with having rescued a cow from the possession of the complainant, who was conveying it to a village pound to be impounded, and he was further charged, along with the second and [382] third defendants, with using criminal force to the complainant on the same occasion (Section 352, Indian Penal Code).2. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the first accused (first defendant) on both charges, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5, commutable into five days' rigorous imprisonment, and also the complainant's costs, amounting to 12 annas. The second and third accused were acquitted under Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the complainant was ordered to pay to the third defendant Rs. 3 as compensation under Section 209 of the said Code.3. The District Magistrate submits that, with reference to High Court ruling o...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Varthappa Nayakan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad382
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. We agree with the District Magistrate.2. The accused was found passing through the bamboo fence of the market at Ambur with a bundle of thread intended for sale. The Second-class Magistrate considered that he did so with intent to cause wrongful loss to the toll contractor by evading payment of the toll which he would have had to pay if he had entered by the gate where the contractor was waiting to levy it, and he convicted him (accused) of criminal trespass, and fined him Rs. 2.3. Evasion of tolls may be a wrong, but it is of itself no offence. There is no finding that the entry was made with any of the intents mentioned in Section 44l* of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and the sentence are set aside and the fine must be refunded.* Criminal trespass.[Section 441: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property; or havi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- Next ›
- Last »