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
Vasudev Bhat Vs. Narayan Daji Damle
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom131
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff seeks to recover lands as given to him by one Sadashiv Hari Damle. The Acting Assistant Judge has found that the deed of gift was genuine, and that the donor had authority to pass the deed to the exclusion of the defendants, but that possession was only given under the deed of the thikans mentioned in the mamlatdar's summary decision, (exhibit 4). The plaintiff contends that the deed of gift having been registered, his title was complete without possession. It was admitted that the general rule of Hindu law was as laid down in Hargovan v. Narian 4 Bom. H.C. Rep. 38 but it was said, that the object of the rule was to give publicity, and that registration ought to be deemed sufficient to effect that object. Mr. Justice West in his exhaustive, judgment in Lalubhai v. Bai Amrit I.L.R. 2 Bom. 333 expressed an opinion to that effect, but it was not necessary to the decision of the case before him. He says: 'The object of the various ceremonies presc...
Tag this Judgment!Janoji Vs. Janoji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom185
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was brought by an agriculturist, under the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act, to redeem his lands which had been mortgaged to the defendant. The defendant contended that, by the terms of his mortgage-bond, ho was not bound to account, and that Section 12 of the Act was not applicable. The Subordinate Judge overruled the objection, and proceeded to take the account under the above section, which resulted in a balance of Rs. 107-8-6 being found in favour of plaintiff, and passed a decree for the restoration of the land to the plaintiff and the payment of Rs. 107-8-6, minus the defendant's costs. The District Judge confirmed this decree. The only point which was seriously argued before us on second appeal was that a decree for the balance of Rs. 107-8-6 ought not to have been passed in favour of plaintiff, the account having been taken under the Act. The general practice, when the mortgagee has been found on taking the accounts to have been overpaid,...
Tag this Judgment!Appavu Nayak and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad245
Innes, J.1. In this case the property on which the alleged offence was committed belonged to two widows, who being issueless, had brought up fifth and sixth defendants as their sons. These persons had the management of the property. A disagreement arising between them and the widows, the latter made over the property to the Manager of the Vishnu Pagoda at Tirukoilur by a mortgage-deed under which he was authorized to take possession of the property. This person leased the property to defendants 1 to 3 on a cowle. These, with fourth defendant and others not charged, made forcible entry into the land and have been convicted of rioting and sentenced to a moderate term of imprisonment, which, in appeal, was made still lighter. Defendants 5 to 14 were discharged as having only defended their possession.2. Mr. Norton contends that fifth and sixth defendants cannot be regarded as having been in possession on behalf of the widows as their managers; that the rightful possession was with the les...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dass Vs. Birjnundun Das Alias Laloo Baboo and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal617
Wilson, J.1. We entertain no doubt about this case, and we agree with the view taken by the Court below. The suit is a suit to redeem a mortgage, and the question is whether the suit is barred by limitation. There is no. question that this depends upon the terms of the Limitation Act of 1871. Now, under Article 148 of the second schedule to that Act, a suit must be brought within 'sixty years from the date of the mortgage, unless where an acknowledgment of the title of the mortgagor or of his right of redemption has, before the expiration of the prescribed period, been made in writing, signed by the mortgagee, or some person claiming under him, and in such case, the date of the acknowledgment.' In this case, the sixty years elapsed while the Act of 1871 was the governing Act, and the suit is therefore barred unless there is a sufficient acknowledgment to save it from the operation of limitation. The acknowledgment relied upon is contained in the written statement filed by the present d...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Vs. Popatbhai
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom125
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. As the plaintiff has sought the relief contemplated by Section 265 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872) by suit, he must pay the ad-valorem, court fees stamp required by a suit for account's under Section 7, el. iv (f) of Act VII of 1870....
Tag this Judgment!Lingammal and ors. Vs. Chinna Venkatammal and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad239
Innes, J.1. It appears to us that the suit is bad for misjoinder.2. The first plaintiff' claims as one of the widows of Maria Gurusami and the second plaintiff as having been validly adopted by the first plaintiff after Mana Gurusarni's death. The claim of the first plaintiff assumes that there is no adoption; the claim of the second plaintiff assumes that first plaintiff has no right, because there was an adoption.3. Section 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits of the joinder in the same suit of several causes of action in which several plaintiffs are jointly interested against the same defendant. These plaintiffs are jointly interested against the same defendant in the sense that it is the object of both plaintiffs to show a title in one or other of them to the whole or a portion of the estate in competition with the defendant; but this is not enough; they must each be jointly interested with the other in the several causes of action not necessarily equally interested, but joint...
Tag this Judgment!imam Buksh Vs. Thacko Bibee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal599
Maclean, J.1. The appellant before us applied to the District Court of the 24-Pergunnahs for a certificate of administration, under Act XL of 1858, to the property of an infant, Chota Bari Bibee, granddaughter of one Nizamudin, The petitioner's position is that of a brother of the infant's deceased mother.2. There appears to be some opposition on the part of one Thacko Bibee, widow of Nizamudin; but her case does not affect the question before us. She disputes the title of the infant to the property of Nizamudin. That question, of course, has to be decided elsewhere.3. The Collector, we are informed, was the first who moved the Civil Court to appoint a guardian for the minor, and he also appears to have suggested to the Judge the appointment of a lady called Kulsoom Bibee, who is in no way connected with the minor by any relationship. The District Judge, adopting certain objections made by the Collector to the appointment of the appellant, has refused him a certificate, and granted one...
Tag this Judgment!Lingammal Vs. Chinna Venkatammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad227
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The decree on which the order of the Subordinate Judge proceeded has been set aside.2. It is unusual and inconvenient to allow a person, who might have applied before decree, to be joined as co-plaintiff after decree, even if it be lawful to do so, where no interest has devolved and no interest has been created since the institution of proceedings.3. The only section of the Code on which the learned Counsel for the respondent can rely is the 32nd, which points to the joinder of parties whose presence may be necessary for the adjudication of questions raised in the suit. Here the period of adjudication has passed. Nevertheless, we are not prepared to say that the Subordinate Judge had not a discretionary power under Section 32 at any stage of the suit, and, although the widows are still engaged in litigation, prima facie they have an equal right to collect the debts.4. The appeal is dismissed, but without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Suri Bhatta Vs. Sitarama Bhatta and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad195
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The appeal was filed on the 26th January 1881. The respondent died after service on the 17th April 1881. The sixty days from the death of the respondent allowed for an application to substitute the representative expired after the Court had risen for the vacation.2. The Court re-opened on 5th July. Before an order was passed declaring the appeal had abated, the appellant applied on the 11th July that a representative should be substituted. On the 12th December the Court passed an order declaring the appeal had abated as no application had been made within sixty days from the death of the deceased. On the 30th January 1882 the present application was presented under Section 371, Civil Procedure Code. The application was therefore presented within sixty days from the date of the order declaring that the appeal had abated. As the law stood on the date the order was passed, the Court could not take notice of the sufficiency of the excuse made by the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Sundram Chetti and ors. and Ponnusami Chetti and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR6Mad203
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In 1875 the Muhammadans applied for permission to erect a mosque in Sevvaipett on the site occupied by the mosque recently destroyed, but the Hindus objected and the application was refused. The Muhammadans nevertheless, it would seem, occupied the site, and in 1878 again applied for permission to build the mosque. The Hindus opposed the application : they intimated their apprehension that the erection of the mosque would lead to disturbances when they were conducting their processions with music or celebrating ceremonies in the temples adjoining the river.2. The Collector, Mr. Longley, accorded sanction to the erection of the mosque on condition that the Muhammadans undertook to allow the free passage of processions; but, professing to act as District - Magistrate, he at the same time ordered that all music should cease when any procession was passing or repassing the mosque; and he directed that this order should be notified to the inhabitants of Sevvai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- Next ›
- Last »