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
Valu Widow of Aba Vs. Ganga Widow of Bablingaya
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom84
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff, Ganga, claiming to be the widow of one Bablingaya, seeks to recover possession from the defendant, Valu, the daughter-in-law of the said Bablingaya, (her husband having pre-deceased his father), of five fields and a house. The plaintiff's case is that all the property was given to her by Bablingaya by will. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's claim to be the widow of Bablingaya and also the validity of the will. Both of these issues were found by the Courts be low in favour of the plaintiff. As to the house, it was also found that it had passed under Bablingaya's will to Bhagu, another of his wives who survived him, and that as Bhagu, who is now dead, left a daughter now living, the plaintiff could have no claim to it, at any rate at present. As to the lands, the District Judge found that they were ancestral, but refused to allow defendant's claim to maintenance out of them, on the ground that she was an unchaste widow.2. It h...
Tag this Judgment!Kisansing Jivansing Pardesi Vs. Moreshwar Vishnu Joshi
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom91
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. This suit arises out of the following facts. Nan Ganaji and his nephew, Hashia Bhika, were the members of an undivided Hindu family in 1872, in which year Nan mortgaged the land in dispute (part of the family property) to one Jana Patil, who subsequently obtained a decree on 10th June, 1876, against Nan, directing the sale of the mortgaged property, which was accordingly sold by auction on 26th October, 1876, and purchased by the defendant. The plaintiff had previously (as alleged in the plaint) purchased the same property from Nan and Hashia by a registered deed dated the 30th June, 1876, and seeks by his plaint to recover possession of Hashia's half share of the land and mesne profits. The defendant pleaded that the mortgage was binding on Hashia, and that plaintiff's purchase was not bona fide, but made in collusion with Nan and Hashia in order to save the property; and, lastly, that plaintiff was estopped from disputing his title. The Subordinate Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanpat Singh Vs. Saraswati Dasi and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal431
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think there is no ground for this appeal.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to have his name registered as the owner of two mahals, and he made out his title in this way:3. Asrafunnissa was the original owner of the property, and the plaintiff's case was that Asrafunnissa mortgaged it to one Hulash Chand in 1861; that Hulash Chand foreclosed the mortgage in 1864; and that Hulash Chand then sold it to the plaintiff in 1877; and he has proved these facts to the satisfaction of the lower Court.4. Then it is also admitted by both sides that one Khudiram farmed the property from 1251 to 1260; and that from the year 1262 it has been let in patni to the representatives of Khudiram, and it has been proved that Hulash Chand, under whom the plaintiff claims, sued the representatives of Khudiram for the patni rent and obtained a decree for the years 1281 and 1283, and, moreover, that the amount of that decree was paid by the present defendant or her attorney.5. Now t...
Tag this Judgment!MaidIn Saiba Vs. Nagapa and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom96
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The suit is to recover possession of certain lands to which the defendant pleads that they were included in a mulgeny lease granted to him in 1849 and also that the plaintiff's claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations. The District Court has found first, that the lands were not included in the lease; secondly, that the defendant has been in actual possession of the lands ever since 1849, claiming throughout to hold them as such mulgeny tenant. The Full Bench ruling in Dinomoney Dahea v. Doorgapersad Mozoomdar 12 B L.R. 285 is conclusive as to the right of the defendant to set up the defence of tenancy and at the same time to rely on the Statute of Limitations. But it was said that inasmuch as the defendant has always claimed the land as a permanent tenant, there has been no adverse possession as contemplated by Article 144 of the Limitation Act XV of 1877. In the case reported at the foot of 12 Bengal Law Reports, 282, the Court held that such possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Sen Vs. Ram Chunder Poddar and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal463
Richard Garth, C.J.1. These suits were brought by two different plaintiffs to recover two several portions of the same property. They were dealt with by the Courts below in one judgment, the plaintiff's claim being dismissed in each case by the Subordinate Judge, and decreed by the District Judge.2. I propose to deal with one of the suits only, No. 529, and the same judgment will dispose of them both.3. The plaintiff in that suit is Hari Das Sen. He claimed as the reversionary heir of one Kali Das Roy, and he says that his title accrued upon the death of one Monikornika, who was the daughter of Kali Das Roy. She died in 1879.4. There is no doubt that the plaintiff was the reversionary heir of Kali Das Roy.5. The defendants claim the property under two kobalas, dated the 25th Magh 1256 by which the property was conveyed to the predecessors of the defendants by a person named Kali Kishore Das, who was the son of Monikornika; and who, at the time when the conveyance was made, was the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Rughu Nath Singh Manku Vs. Pareshram Mahata and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal635
Prinsep, J.1. The first Court in this case held that the decree was not barred by limitation, and on another point decided in favour of the judgment-debtors.2. The decree-holder alone appealed against the latter finding. No objection under Section 561 was taken by the judgment-debtors against the finding as regards limitation which was adverse to him. At the hearing of the appeal, in the course of the argument, the point of limitation was raised, and the lower Appellate Court held that execution was barred.3. We are of opinion that the lower Appellate Court was, under the circumstances, not competent to consider this point; and in this respect we concur in the judgment delivered by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Alimannissa Khatoon v. Syed Hossein Ali 6 C.L.R. 267. The District Judge has gone beyond the law in stating that the point of limitation must be considered, even though it be not pleaded.' The terms of Section 4 of the Limitation Act declare that a Court ha...
Tag this Judgment!Radhapersad Singh Vs. Ram Parmeswar Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal797
A. Hobhouse, J.1. In this case there have been changes of parties, as frequently happens when a litigation extends over many years; but they have made no difference to the present question, and it will be convenient to speak of the appellant and respondents as if there was no change. So speaking of them, the appellant has been ordered to pay to the respondents the costs of a litigation with them. He now seeks to set-off against those costs the costs of a prior part of the same litigation which were awarded to him; and the question is whether his right to those prior costs has been displaced by a subsequent decree in the later part of the litigation. In the Court below the appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants. The suit was for the recovery of certain lands; and the respondents set up a defence of the law of limitation. That issue was decided in their favour by the Subordinate Judge on the 31st July 1868, and in consequence the appellant's suit was dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!Muttaya Chetti and ors. Vs. Sivaraman Chetti and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad229
Innes, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit ask for a declaration of their exclusive right to the repair of a tank known by the name of the Kalkattu uruni in the village of Karakudi at their exclusive cost, and that the defendants be restrained by perpetual injunction from entering into the uruni for the purpose of conducting repairs; that the plaintiff's possession of the uruni for the purpose of carrying on repairs in their own right be confirmed; and that the defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs Rs. 350 to restore the uruni to its former condition.2. Plaintiff's set out in their plaint that their ancestors originally dug and constructed this tank with the consent of Miras Ambala-gars (headmen) of the village, and that, therefore, he and his descendants became hereditary Hakdars (or rightful owners) of the said uruni, and that they (including the plaintiffs) have ever since maintained the uruni charity by constructing stone walls round it and by digging supply and surplus channels, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramanayya Vs. Srinivasa Rau
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad182
1. On the finding of the Subordinate Judge, the case stands thus: The lease was a Chalgaini lease, that is, a lease for a year, which, after continuance beyond the term of the year, becomes a lease from year to year. Notice is necessary before a tenant so holding can have his tenancy determined.2. It is now found that due notice was given.3. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that a deposition given by defendant in 1876 in which he admitted his liability to rent in arrears operated to extend the period of limitation, and awarded rent from the year 1874, but the section of the Limitation Act applicable (Section 19) requires that the acknowledgment should be an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the right claimed. The acknowledgment made by the deposition is a liability in respect of a different right to that claimed, viz., a liability to pay rent as a Mulgaini tenant.4. We can only allow rent within three years prior to the date of the suit.5. The plaintiff is liable to pay for...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Chunder Addya Vs. Afzul Rabbani and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal426
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues in this case to recover a small piece of ground with the building upon it; and the suit has been dismissed in the Court below, upon the ground that the plaintiff is precluded by Section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code from bringing it.2. It appears that the piece of land, which is the subject of the suit, belonged formerly, together with other land, to one Abdool Hye, and that two several portions of this land were sold under an execution against Abdool Hye on the same day; one portion, No. 155, was sold to a Mr. Linton; and another portion, No. 147, to Afzul Rabbani, the present defendant.3. The plaintiff in this suit bought Mr. Linton's share at a sale in execution of a decree; and he claims the piece of land now in suit, as belonging to the portion numbered 155, which Mr. Linton purchased.4. On the other hand, the defendant Afzul Rabbani claims it as part of the piece numbered 147, which he purchased; and he has set up as a defence to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- Next ›
- Last »