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
Appa Pillai and anr. Vs. Ranga Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad71
1. The point of limitation was not argued, but it was contended on behalf of defendants--appellants--that there was a contract valid by Section 25 of the Contract Act, and that plaintiff could not recover.2. The facts found and admitted were that first defendant's father and the plaintiff, on 29th November 1876 executed the document, Exhibit I, in favour of first defendant and his son, second defendant, reciting that plaintiff and his brother had borrowed and received money on the sale and hypothecation of certain of the family lands, and that, as first defendant and his son were the only heirs to the family estate, plaintiff and his brother renounced all right in the property in favour of first defendant and his son and agreed to remain under the management and protection of first defendant.3. Plaintiff in this suit sought to set this arrangement aside and to recover his share of the property.4. The District decreed for plaintiff.5. In appeal, the District Judge was of opinion, on the...
Tag this Judgment!Hasonbhoy Visram and ors. Vs. H. Clapham Owner; J. Henderson Master of ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom51
Latham, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs are the firm of Visram Ebrahim & Co.; the first defendant is the owner and the second defendant the master of the steam-ship Hutton; and the remaining defendants are the members of the firm of Messrs. Finlay, Muir & Co., by which name it will be convenient to designate them collectively. The suit springs out of a charter-party of the Hutton, dated September 20, 1880, and signed by Finlay, Muir & Co. as agents for master and owners, whereby the Hutton was chartered to one Essa Ahmed for a term of not less than three or more than four months at Rs. 15,000. per month, payable fortnightly in advance, commencing at a future date which turned out to be either the 19th or 20th of October, 1880. By a, memorandum dated the 1'st December, 1880, the time was extended to between the 10th and 20th of March, 1881; and on the 25th February, 1881, by another memorandum it was further extended to the 30th of March, 1881; and by an endorsement on the charter-part...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dhun Dhur Vs. Mohesh Chunder Chowdhry and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal406
Wilson, J.1. We think that the order of the lower Appellate Court must be varied in this case. The suit is for two distinct things. In the first place, it is a suit in which the second defendants are principally interested, with the view of giving the plaintiff a share of the sale-proceeds of certain property. With regard to this claim it is enough to say that we see no ground whatever for differing from the view taken by the Court below; but then there is a matter of greater difficulty, namely, the suit as against the first defendant. The object of that is to enforce the mortgage-decree which the plaintiff has obtained against the former owner of the property, viz., Pitamber, against the property which has now passed into the hands of the first defendant, who has purchased it at an auction sale in execution of a money decree. Prim facie the plaintiff is entitled to that, because the sale in execution of the money decree was the sale of the right, title and interest of the mortgagor, a...
Tag this Judgment!Sitapathi Nayudu Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR6Mad32
Innes, Officiating C.J.1. This is an application in which we are asked to transfer the appeal of one Sitapathi Nayudu from the Court of the Sessions Judge of North Arcot to the High Court, and we have heard Mr. Gould, who makes the application, and the Government Pleader, Mr. Shephard, upon the question of our power to make the transfer. The Government Pleader intimated that, if the Court has the power, he was not instructed to oppose the exercise of the power, but he contended that it was not conferred either by the Criminal Procedure Code or by the Letters Patent.2. Under Section 64* of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court has authority to transfer a criminal case or appeal from any Criminal Court subordinate to it to any other such Court (i.e., Subordinate Court) of equal or superior jurisdiction. It may also transfer a case for trial before itself. But it is clear, as Mr. Shephard contends, this transfer for trial is confined to cases which fall under the definition of the wo...
Tag this Judgment!Marakar and ors. Vs. Munhoruli Parameswaran Nambudri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad140
1. At the hearing of the second appeal, which was on the 8th February of this year, we were not aware and were not informed of the decision of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice KlNDERSLEY in Kunhamu v. Keshavan Nambudri I.L.R. 3 Mad. 246.2. That is a decision by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice KINDERSLEY that there is no authority to support a kanamdar's claim to be allowed to make further advances before the jenmi is entitled to demise the land to another tenant on kanam or otti.3. Had we been aware of this decision, we should probably not have thought it necessary to remit the issue, as the point was directly in question in that suit and disposed of.4. Mr. Sankaran Nayar indeed took the distinction that in the case referred to, the demise taken by plaintiff to whom the jenmi had let the land without calling on the kanam-holder to exercise the option of making further advances, was an otti demise, but the only difference between an otti and a kanam-holder is that the former makes hi...
Tag this Judgment!Kota Muthanna Chetti Vs. Alibeg Sahib
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad174
1. On the 13th November 1872 the second defendant mortgaged the property in question to plaintiff by an unregistered document. On the 30th September 1876 the second defendant mortgaged the property to first defendant's father by a registered document. On the 20th December 1877 second defendant sold the property to plaintiff by an unregistered instrument. In suit 339 of 1879 first defendant's father obtained a decree against second defendant in respect of the mortgage. Subsequently, first defendant's father having died, first defendant attached the property. ' Plaintiff's petition against the attachment was rejected. Plaintiff then brought this suit.2. First defendant alleged that his father was placed in possession at the date of the mortgage to him in 1876, and that plaintiff's documents of mortgage and sale had been since concocted. The District Munsif disbelieved the evidence as to plaintiff's documents of mortgage and sale and dismissed his suit. On appeal, the District Judge was o...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Shaligram Vs. Malhari and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom106
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree on 29th June, 1881, directing that he do recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 60 payable in three annual instalments, each defendant to be liable for half of each instalment, with all costs on the defendants. The plaintiff obtained warrant of arrest against the defendants on 23rd September, 1881, for the amount of the costs, under which the defendant, Malhari, was arrested and brought before the Court on 12th October, 1881. The next day he was discharged at the request of the plaintiff. The first instalment became due on 17th May, 1882, and the plaintiff now seeks to recover it by arrest and imprisonment from both defendants. The questions referred to us are:1. Whether in the execution of an instalment decree, the judgment-debtor can be arrested and imprisoned separately for default in the payment of each instalment?2. If he can be, whether in limiting the term of imprisonment, the amount of the particular ...
Tag this Judgment!Manikam Mudali and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad63
Innes, Officiating C.J.1. These are applications to the High Court to order the admission to bail of certain persons arrested and detained in the Central Jail of Salem on serious charges of offences connected with the late riots at Salem on the 15th and 16th August last, and also for transferring the inquiries. and trials to another district.2. We have heard Mr. Grant on behalf of the accused persons and the Government Pleader (Mr. Shephard) who opposed the applications on behalf of the Government.3. It was argued by Mr. Shephard that we had no authority to take cognizance of such an application, as it was not a judicial proceeding, but, we think, there can be no question that we have the power to do what is asked, should the Magistrate's proceedings prove to be illegal, and the power has been exercised in numerous cases by the High Courts in the several Presidencies. The proceeding in which it is or has to be determined whether bail should be taken falls within the definition of a jud...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Maniyam Mahalakshmamma Garu Vs. Sri Maniyam Venkataratnamma Garu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad83
1. This appeal arises from a suit for maintenance instituted by the respondent, a childless Hindu widow and a member of the appellant's family. The appellant is the zamindar of Nilapalli and Gutala and other villages in the Godavari District. The appellant's husband was the last male owner, and, upon his death on the 25th April 1875, appellant succeeded to the zamindari. Shortly after, a disagreement arose between the appellant and the respondent, and the latter left the family residence at Yanam, a town under the French Government, and has since resided in British territory. On the 7th April 1880' she brought the present suit and claimed maintenance, together with arrears, from the 1st January 1876 at Rs. 850 per mensem. She prayed also that a tiled house at Georgepetta, belonging to the joint family, might be set a/part; for her residence, and that part of the family property described, in the schedule attached to the plaint might be declared to be liable for her maintenance. She fur...
Tag this Judgment!Rayanmakanagath Kunhi Bivi Sheriff Vs. Cheriyapudiagath Abdul Aziz and ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad103
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Innes, J.1. The judgment of the Judge implies a doubt whether a right of superintendence has been enjoyed by either party, but, assuming the existence of the right is established, there is, it appears to us, a material defect in the Judge's judgment in that it omits any reference to the alleged custom that the succession to the superintendence of mosques is governed by Marumakkatayam law. This custom was asserted and made the subject of an issue, and the Munsif refers to evidence which, if accepted, would have warranted the conclusion that the custom obtained in Ponani. If it were shown that the custom obtained, or that the usage was so general as the witnesses allege, the evidence of the witnesses who have deposed to the title of the plaintiff's tarwad would be greatly strengthened. The judge is doubtless right in holding that the circumstance that other property of the founder descended according to Makkatayam law affords a persumption that any right ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- Next ›
- Last »