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
Ananda Bibee Vs. Nownit Lal and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal315
Mitter, J.1. after referring to the facts and evidence, continued as follows:2. The possession of the disputed mouzah by Gocul Chand and his father is not therefore shown by any evidence to have been permissive. Whether this possession was referable to the title derived under the alleged deed of gift to Dukho Bibi is not made clear upon the evidence. If the plaintiff's allegation of the abstraction of the deed of gift from her by the defendant No. 1 be not correct, then there is no evidence to connect the possession of Gocul Chand and his father with the title under the alleged deed of gift. The lower Court has rejected this part of the plaintiff's story. I see no reason to dissent from that opinion.3. But although the title under the deed of gift is not proved, the possession of Gocul Chand and his father for more than twelve years being established, and it being not shown that that possession was with the permission of the defendants and their ancestors, it seems to me that we must h...
Tag this Judgment!Bundhoo Lall Vs. Joy Coomar and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal363
Mitter, (Offg.) J.1. We are of opinion that in this case the judgment of the lower Appellate Court cannot stand.2. The question between the parties was whether the plaintiff was entitled to have the alang or singha, marked B.C. in the Munsif's map, removed, the plaintiff's allegation being that it was placed there in the month of August 1879 by the defendants, who are the proprietors of mouzah Rathni.3. The plaintiff alleges that the land upon which the alang has been put up belongs to him, being part of a jagir of eight bighas within mouzah Titaria.4. The defendants do not deny that the alang or singha B.C. is upon a piece of land appertaining to mouzah Titaria, but they allege that this piece of land does not appertain to the plaintiff's jagir of eight bighas, but to the khalisa land of mouzah Titaria; that it is really a part of an alang or singha of an har called ahar uparata, and that it has been in existence for more than twenty years.5. The Munsif came to the conclusion that the...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Venguvayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad25
Innes, Officiating C.J., and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The accused, who is the Nattamgar (Headman) of a village, was tried under Section 4091, Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust in respect of part of certain revenue collections which he was charged with embezzling. He was discharged under Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, the reason given by the Joint Magistrate for such discharge being that he could not find the accused guilty on the gross sum in respect of which he was charged.2. If, however, the Magistrate found the charge established as to a portion of the amount, he should have convicted as to that portion.3. From his judgment it seems doubtful what he found as to the sums mentioned in exhibits A and N. His order of discharge should be set aside, and he should be directed to come to a finding as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner on these items. If he finds him guilty, he should pass sentence according to law.4. In connection with this case the District Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Arundadhi Ammyar and anr. Vs. Natesha Ayyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad391
1. A suit (183 of 1874) was instituted by first defendant against Lakshmi, her mother. The latter died pending the suit, and this plaintiff, who had been adopted by Lakshmi and her husband, was substituted as her representative.2. Lakshmi and her husband Samu Bhatta had five daughters, and Samu Bhatta had left a bequest of 8,000 rupees to be divided among them as their marriage portions. This sum had come, it was alleged, to the hands of Lakshmi, and she had neglected to pay the amount due to the first defendant in the present suit, who, as already stated, was the plaintiff in the Suit 183 of 1874. In special appeal in that suit it was decided that plaintiff, in his representative character, was liable to the extent of assets of Lakshmi that might have come to his hand.3. There was admittedly no property of Lakshmi in plaintiff's hands available for attachment, but the law provides in that case--Section 252, Civil Procedure Code--that execution may be issued against the judgment-debtor...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Velayudam Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad146
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The question in this case is, whether the sanction of a Taluk Magistrate to a prosecution under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code for a statement made to the Police and included in their referred charge sheet forwarded by them to such Magistrate under Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sufficient, or whether the sanction for the prosecution should not have been given by an official in the Police Department.2. It does not appear to us that the Taluk Magistrate is the official superior of the Station-house Officer within the meaning of Section 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the order of acquittal is therefore right. We must decline to interfere....
Tag this Judgment!Lucky Churn Chowdhry Vs. Budurrunnissa and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal627
Wilson, J.1. We are disposed to think that this appeal will not lie. The order that is sought to be appealed against is one under Section 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, which says: 'If, on the day so fixed for the defendant to appear and answer, it be found that the summons has not been served upon him, in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee leviable for such service, the Court may order that the case be dismissed.' The question is whether there is an appeal against such dismissal when no appeal is expressly given either in Section 588 or elsewhere. Section 588 says that an appeal will lie against a decree. A decree is defined in the interpretation clause as 'the formal expression of an adjudication upon any right claimed, or defence set up, in a Civil Court when such adjudication, so far as regards the Court expressing it, decides the suit or appeal.' A decree, therefore, must be an expression of opinion upon the rights of the parties; but this was a dism...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Arthur Taylor Vs. Virasami Chetti and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad108
Kernan, J.1. The plaint states that plaintiff had since some time in 187S: sold shirting impressed with. a trade-mark, and that a particular distinguishing portion of the mark was a collection of figures of talwars,. or swords, which, on one class of his goods, amounted to five in number; that his goods acquired in the Madras market the name of 'Talwar shirtings' from the figures of talwars printed on them; and that defendant recently procured shirting imported by him to be impressed with the mark of five talwars, which mark, plaintiff alleges, would cause defendants' goods to bear, the same name in the market as the plaintiff's, and that defendants' mark Was calculated to deceive. Defendant denies that plaintiff's goods were known in the market as 'Talwar shirtings,' and denies that plaintiff has acquired any exclusive right to the use of the talwar device.2. The issue was, whether defendants had infringed plaintiff's trade-mark.. The general principles on which the Court gives relief...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Gobind Dhur and ors. Vs. Hari Churn Dhur and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal367
Wilson, J.1. We think that this appeal must be allowed. It appears to us that the lower Appellate Court has mistaken the application of the law of limitation to the case. The judgment of that Court says: The plaintiffs, therefore, are bound to prove that the ijaradars were in possession of the disputed land to the end of the term of their ijara, and if it comes out that the ijaradars did hold possession up to the end of the term of the ijara, then the cause of action of the plaintiff's may be held to have arisen just as the ijara terminated, otherwise the plaintiffs were bound to bring this suit within twelve: years from the time at which the ijaradars were dispossessed from the land or from the time at which their (the ijaradars) predecessors had been. dispossessed, in case the defendants were never in possession.2. That appears to us to be a misapprehension of the law. The facts are very short. The land was purchased by the plaintiffs, and at the time when they acquired their title i...
Tag this Judgment!Virasami Nayudu Vs. Subba Rau and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad54
1. The respondents in this suit are the dharmakartas of the patlisuraswami temple of Tirupapuliyur, and the temple committee having the superintendence of such temple, and the suit was brought to recover from the appellant the temple and certain moveable and immoveable property appertaining thereto, together of the value of Rs. 11,611-12-7, of which the appellant was said to be in wrongful possession the appellant having in January 1877 been properly dismissed by the temple committee from the office of dharmakarta of the said temple, to which he was originally appointed by the Collector in 1849.2. Appellant filed a written statement to the effect that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge; that respondents had no locus standi to maintain the suit; that the respondents professing to represent the temple committee under Act XX of 1863 did not really do so; that the temple came under Section 4 and not Section 3 of Act XX of 1863; that appellant had...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Siddappa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad60
Innes, Officiating C.J., Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The accused in this case has been tried under Section 19, Clause (f) of the Indian Arms Act XI of 1878, for possessions of a gun without a license. He was discharged under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the gun was unserviceable, the trigger being lost.2. The District Magistrate submits that the fact of trigger being lost is immaterial, as a gun without a trigger comes within the provision of Section 4 of the Arms Act, which lays down that the word ' arms ' includes inter alia 'parts of arms,' and that the discharge was therefore not warranted.3. It appears from the evidence taken in the case that the gun was quite unserviceable and unfit for use; in fact the District Magistrate finds that it is. not a firearm at all.4. A firearm in such a state as this, even though it might be repaired and rendered serviceable, is not, we think, one for which a license need be taken out. In including parts of ar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- Next ›
- Last »