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
Shivram Narayan Mekal Deceased by His Sons and Heirs Vs. Ravji Sakhara ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom254
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case seeks to have possession given him of one undivided sixth part of the property in possession of the defendant. The defendant is admittedly the purchaser at an auction sale in 1865 and 1866 in execution of a decree obtained by one Allarakia, to whom plaintiff's father had executed a mortgage of the property, and he produced an unregistered certificate of sale in proof of his title. Both the Courts below held it to be inadmissible, and passed judgment for the plaintiff. The decision in Padu Malhari v. Rakhmai 10 Bom. H.C. R 435 is conclusive as to the inadmissibility of the certificate. The question, however, whether a purchaser at an auction sale under the Code of Civil Procedure of 1859, who has obtained possession without a certificate of sale, is entitled to retain it, has never, as far as we are aware, been decided in this Court. In Tukaram v. Satvaji I.L.R. 5 Bom. 206 Sir Michael Westropp, C.J., says: 'This Court is not to be ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Charoo Chunder Mullick and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal397
Field, J.1. In this matter an application has been made asking us to call up the proceedings connected with the commitment of three persons, Baboo Charoo Chunder Mullick, Chintamoney Doss, and Bunwari Lall, with a view to such commitment being quashed, on the ground, first, that as regards one of these persons, Baboo Charoo Chunder Mullick, there is no evidence which can in any view of the case incriminate him; and, secondly, that as regards all three accused, even if the truth of the facts deposed to by the witnesses examined before the Magistrate be assumed, these facts do not constitute any offence punishable by the Criminal law.2. The application at first purported to be made under Section 147 of the High Courts' Criminal Procedure Act X of 1875, but it comes before us today as an application under either this section or Section 14 of the same Act.3. The first question with which we now propose to deal is whether an application of this nature, an application that is to quash a comm...
Tag this Judgment!Kunneth Odangat Kalandan Vs. Vayoth Palliyal Kunhunni Kidavu and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad80
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. It appears to us that the original of the plaint having been destroyed, it was open to the Court to admit secondary evidence of the document by a production of an uncertified copy.2. We think the clause of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, which provides that 'In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible,' applies to the case in which the public document is still in existence on the public records, and is a provision intended rather to protect the originals of public records from the danger to which they would be exposed by constant production in evidence, than to interfere with the general rule of evidence given in Clause (c) of the same section that secondary evidence may be given when the original has been destroyed or lost. Evidence was taken to ascertain that the plaint was a true copy of the original, and there seems, therefore, to be no substantial ground for the objection to the admissibil...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Fathula Saheb Vs. Munyappa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad98
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. The petitioner put in a claim to property attached in Original Suit 12 of 1877 and an order was passed in his favour releasing the property. The respondent brought a suit to have the property declared to be attachable under his decree, and it appears that two Courts have determined in respondent's favour. The petitioner has appealed to the High Court and the contention is that the concluding language of Section 283, Civil Procedure Code, precludes the execution of the decree by sale of the property pending the final result. But if this consequence followed upon an order under Section 283, the effect would be that Section 283 would work an exception to the procedure laid down in Section 545. If this had been intended, we think there would have been some special provision to take such cases out of the rule laid down in Section 545.2. The effect of the decree in the suit is to declare the property attachable and in effect it sets aside, until altered by a decree in...
Tag this Judgment!Divethi Varada Ayyangar Vs. Krishnasami Ayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad117
1. The appellant is admittedly the owner of the property in suit, from which he sued, to eject the respondent, alleging that he had been let into possession of a portion under a lease of which the term had expired, and had encroached on the residue under colour of his lease. The evidence on which the appellant sought to establish his averment respecting the lease has been held to be fabricated.2. The respondent pleaded, and the Courts below have found, that he obtained possession of the whole estate in virtue of a mortgage for Rs. 1,000 and a second mortgage for Rs. 50 on the 22nd of July 1865.3. The mortgage for Rs. 1,000 was executed after the Registration Act of 1864 came into force but was not registered.4. The respondent's Pleader contends that, although this instrument could not be produced in evidence, he is entitled to prove it by secondary evidence, namely, an admission contained in the second mortgage-deed, and that the instrument, though it could not be given in evidence, wa...
Tag this Judgment!Knnnathurillath Yasudevan Nambudri and anr. Vs. Narayanan Nambudri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad121
Innes, J.1. The appeal is concerned only with the lands Nos. 1 and 2. As to these, the plaintiff claimed them as having been purchased by his illam in 1852. He said that the illam was in possession till 1878, when he was dispossessed in execution of the decree in Original Suit 656 of 1876, a suit against his elder brother, to which he was not a party.2. The District Munsif decreed as to portions of these numbers for plaintiff. On appeal to the District Court, that Court held that plaintiff was bound by the decree in Suit 653 of 1876 against his elder brother, and dismissed plaintiff's suit.3. On appeal to the High Court, that Court (KERNAN and Forbes, JJ. held that plaintiff was not bound by that former decree, as he was no party to it, and remanded the suit for re-trial.4. The District Munsif on re-trial has dismissed plaintiff's suit as to Nos. 1 and 2. On appeal, the District Judge has found that the former decision in the suit of 1876 was wrong on the merits, and has held plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Vythilinga Mudali Vs. Ravana Sundarappayyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad167
Kindersley, J.1. The defendant in this case borrowed Rupees 10 promising in the following terms to repay the amount: 'I shall return the said Rupees 10 within fifteen days from the present date. Should I fail to pay it at the said time, I bind myself to pay at the rate of 1 anna per rupee per diem from this date.' No interest was payable if the principal had been repaid in fifteen days.2. The first question is whether the high rate of interest payable in default of payment of the principal within fifteen days is to be regarded as a penalty to secure prompt payment. Such was the explanation given by the plaintiff in his deposition. He said, 'I demanded the said interest for the purpose of payment being made according to time.' And the explanation seems probable, seeing that the defendant was a poor man, to whom it would not have been safe to lend money as an investment. And by the terms of the document the high rate of interest in default of payment in fifteen days would commence, not f...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Janki
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom82
West, J.1. The effect of Sections 37 and 40 of the Stamp Act I of 1879 is that every one must be allowed an opportunity of paying the penalty before the Collector exercises his discretion under Section 69. In many cases there may be a reasonable question as to whether any penalty is payable or not, and the duty may be recovered by an order which would be lost by a prosecution. He ought, at any rate, to do what the law commands as his duty before exercising a mere discretion. It is not abetment of the execution of an unstamped instrument to receive it, any more than acceptance of stolen property is abetment of theft. The Court is of opinion that the decision of Mr. Ingle is right....
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Arjun
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom184
Pinhey, J.1. We must reverse the conviction and sentence, and direct the trial of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused did not merely falsely inform the chief constable that he had been fobbed, but he complained that Ganpat had robbed him....
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Ayyar Vs. Venkatramayyan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad135
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. A suit (No. 57 of 1865 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Tranquebar) was brought against the first defendant by the widow of his deceased son for her maintenance, and in execution of the decree which she obtained against the first defendant, lands forming part of items 15 and 16 in the plaint were brought to sale and purchased by the fifth defendant. The case for the plaintiff against the fifth defendant was that he purchased benami for the first defendant, who, as the manager of the family, improperly furnished the fifth defendant with the purchase money out of joint family funds. The District Judge has dismissed the suit as against the fifth defendant on the ground that the suit was prohibited by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 317. The first part of that section which the District Judge relied upon enacted that 'no suit shall be maintained against the certified purchaser on the ground that the purchase was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- Next ›
- Last »