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
Rasbehary Mookerjee and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal591
Mitter, (Offg.) C.J.1. This is a suit to set aside a revenue sale of the share of an estate called Aima Mungulpore bearing Towzi No. 1312.2. The ground upon which the lower Appellate Court has set aside the sale is that the sale notification under Section 6, Act XI of 1859, did not contain the names of all the recorded proprietors of this share, but only of one of them, Talebulla. Section 6 requires that a notification should be issued in the language of the district specifying the estates or shares of estates which are to be sold. The District Judge is of opinion that unless the names of all the recorded proprietors are given, an estate, or share of an estate, cannot be considered to be specified within the meaning of Section 6. We are unable to agree in this view of the law. The section distinctly says that it is the estate or the share of an estate which is to be specified. If it were the intention of the Legislature that the names of the recorded proprietors should be also inserted...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruvengada Ayyangar Vs. Rangayyangar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad114
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. The 9th section of the Act, declaring the office of a member of a committee appointed under the Act to be tenable for life if in the meantime he should not be guilty of misconduct or become unfit to exercise the duties of his office, was intended to create a right in favour of such member and not to deprive him of the liberty of retiring from office. We hold that the appellant in Civil Revision Petition 108 of 1882 had the same liberty to resign his office as he would have had to decline election. The office was then vacant. It is said that due notice was given of the vacancy and an election was held; but the voters were not numerous, because the persons entitled to be placed on the register had not taken the steps it was incumbent on them to take to qualify themselves. This would not invalidate the election. Unless, on other grounds, the election of Laksmi Narasayya is invalid, the Judge has no power to act, and in that case he can onl...
Tag this Judgment!Ragho Govind Parajpe Vs. Balvant Amrit Gole
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom101
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The important question, in this case is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the property in question without also paying the amount of a simple contract debt owing to the mortgagee by the original mortgagor from whom the plaintiff derives his title. It was admitted for the appellant that the original mortgagor, Krishnarav, could have redeemed without paying it; but it was contended that the conveyance to the plaintiff, Balvant (exhibit 2), under which he derives his title, was a voluntary conveyance, and that, as Krishnarav had by that instrument made over all his property to plaintiff in his lifetime with the obligation of paying all his debts, the Court ought to allow the mortgagee to tack on the debt in question to avoid circuity of actions on the same principle as by English law a mortgagee is entitled to take on a simple contract debt as against executors or volunteers under the mortgagor: Rolfe v. Chester 20 Beav. 610. It was also slid that t...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavrav Deshpande Vs. Ramrav Deshande
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom151
Melvill, J.1. The arbitration award of 1838 (exhibit No. 2), Which was assented to by the ancestors of the parties, provided that Narsinh Khanderav should continue to hold the deshpande vatan, and should pay an increased allowance to the plaintiff's father and two uncles. The plaintiff's case is that the allowance so fixed is payable in perpetuity, and he accordingly sues to recover it by virtue of the award. Assuming, but by no means deciding, that the ancestor of one of the parties had power to bind his descendants to pay a fixed allowance in perpetuity, and that the ancestors of the other party had power to bind their descendants to be content with such allowance, however their circumstances might alter, yet we do not think that we should be hasty to assume such an intention, and we certainly find no trace of it in the arbitration award. The award shows that there already existed an arrangement, which, as stated in Shidojirav v. Naikojirav 10 Bom. H.C. 228 is a common one in deshpan...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Bawa Alias Bhau Bawa Vs. Narayan Bawa
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom188
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. It is not in dispute between the parties that the lands in question were originally granted in 1815 to one Baloba Bawa and his descendants for the purpose of maintaining the worship of the God (Shri Vithoba Dev) of a temple. In 1866 a suit was brought by plaintiff's father, Vithoba, one of Baloba's sons, against Hari (another son of Baloba) and his son, the first defendant, to enforce his claim to one-third share of the management of the lands. In this suit Vithoba obtained a decree that he should have the exclusive management every third year, but he was ordered to pay costs. To enforce payment of his costs, Hari Bawa, in execution of the above decree, attached the one-third share of Vithoba in the management of the lands, which was sold at auction to a Marwadi in January, 1870, for 160 rupees, and afterwards re-sold to the second defendant, Trimbak, another son of Hari, in May, 1870, for 200 rupees. The 160 rupees were more than sufficient to pay the cost...
Tag this Judgment!Tippayya Holla Vs. Venkata and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad74
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The instrument of mortgage in this case is not on all fours with the instrument which was the subject of this Court's decision in Perlathail Subba Ban v. Mankude Narayana I.L.R. 4 Mad. 113. It provided that the mortgaged lands should be made over to the mortgagee for cultivation; that a grain rent, estimated at a certain quantity, should be retained yearly in lieu of interest by the mortgagee, and that on the expiry of any year the mortgage might be redeemed and possession recovered on payment of the principal.2. This instrument falls within the purview of Regulation XXXIV of 1802. The Lower Courts have held that an account must be taken of the value of the grain rent, and the mortgagor credited with any surplus which may be found in excess of interest at the rate of 12 per cent. The mortgagor has accepted the decree, which awards him certainly not more than he is entitled to claim.3. The amendment of the plaint was not improperly allowed.4. I would dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Tatia and ors. Vs. Sadashiv
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom40
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The District Judge was wrong in holding that mere non-payment of rent was sufficient to constitute adverse possession: Dadoba v. Krishna Supra p. 34; Rungo Lall Mundul v. Abdul Guffoor I.L.R. 4 Calc. 314. The decree must, therefore, be reversed, except, as to damages, which must be varied by substituting five rupees on account of moveables in the house for rupees twenty, and plaintiff's claim must be rejected (except as aforesaid) with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Tevan Vs. Vasudeva Sastri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad148
Kernan, J.1. Mr. Gopalachari contends for plaintiff that the revenue sale was fraudulent, as no arrears were due and the sale to the officer who bought for Government was not a valid sale, but merely nominal, and the tenant had still the right to the lands as no arrears were due. That the Collector did not comply with the directions in Sections 38 and 39 of the Revenue Recovery Act, and therefore the sale was not confirmed or concluded as provided by Sections 38 and 39 of the Revenue Recovery Act. That although this may not be so, still the sale was fraudulent, and, as the Judge found that plaintiff was not aware until 1879 that there were no arrears due at the sale, and thus was not aware of the fraud, plaintiff has three years under Article 951 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act, 1877, to bring his suit from the discovery of the fraud, or, at all events, one year from that time.2. Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar for the fourth defendant urges that Article 12(c)2 of the Limitation Act, 1877, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanuja Ayyangar and ors. Vs. Virappa Tevan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad90
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In our judgment this suit can be maintained.2. The plaintiff is entitled to sue for partition of the lands, though he cannot, without the consent of the Government, put an end to his joint liability for the entire quit-rent.3. He must implead all raiyats whose rights he questioned in order that the nature of their interests may be ascertained, so that an equitable' partition may be carried out, but he need not implead other raiyats whose rights and privileges are unquestioned.4. The partition must be carried out by the Collector, and, therefore, when a preliminary decree has been made, it would be sent to the Collector, and, when partition is concluded by the Collector the final decree would be prepared.5. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the case remanded for re-trial. The parties will bear each their own costs of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Roghuni Singh and ors. Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal455
Field, J.1. This is an appeal from a sentence passed by the Sessions Judge of Patna upon three persons, Roghuni Sing, Ram Charan Singh, and Kanya Singh, who have been convicted, the first mentioned of murder, and the other two of abetment of murder, and have all three been sentenced to transportation for life. Two other persons, namely, Ram Lall and Bhoran, were tried, together with the appellants before us, and were acquitted by the unanimous verdict of the jury.2. The prisoners, appellants, have been convicted by a majority of three out of five jurors.3. It appears that the jury retired for eight minutes only, and in this case I desire to observe that this time was insufficient to enable the jury to consider the evidence, and deliberate thereupon amongst themselves.4. The facts of the case for the prosecution are briefly these: Two persons, Radha Singh and Mewa Singh, were said to have taken a lease of some 10 bighas 13 cottahs of land from one Lakhon Mahton, ijaradar. On the morning...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- Next ›
- Last »