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
Bhobotarini Debi Vs. Sree Ram Paul
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal629
Maclean, J.1. The respondent's pleader objects to our hearing this appeal on the ground that the plaintiff, appellant, Bhobotarini Debi, was not the plaintiff in the original suit, and that therefore she has no locus standi in this Court. It is a matter of surprise that this objection should have been raised here, because we find that the person who is now appellant before us was alone placed upon the record in the lower Appellate Court as respondent. We cannot therefore, allow the objection to bar the hearing of this appeal. The appellant's vakeel recognizes his situation and asks us to set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, which is adverse to her in saddling her with costs, on the ground that she was not liable under the Munsif's decree and was in fact improperly made respondent in the Court below. We think there is no way out of the respondent's dilemma. Having omitted to make Suttobali Debi, the real plaintiff, respondent in the lower Appellate Court, he has lost his...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath and ors. Vs. Aloke Chunder Seal and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal641
Maclean, J.1. In this case the question to be decided is whether the sale, on the basis of which the plaintiffs sue as purchasers, passed the tenure or only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtors. It appears that in 1870, the plaintiffs' mother brought a suit for arrears of rent of a howla for the years 1274,1275 and 1276, and obtained a decree on the 19th July. In execution of that decree, the property, on account of which the suit for arrears had been brought, was sold. What was sold is the present dispute. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that since the certificate purports to have been issued under Sections 59 and 60 of the Rent Act and the Court admittedly had no power to sell under that Act anything but the tenure itself, there arises an irrebuttable presumption in favour of the tenure being sold. But when we turn to the notification, under which the sale is declared to have taken place, and the sale certificate, we find that they contain a clear and pre...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Baibaya
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom126
Melvill, J.1. The conduct of the accused does not constitute the offence of which she has been convicted. In order to constitute the offence of mischief it is not sufficient to show that the accused was guilty of carelessness in allowing her goat to stray. The prosecution was bound to show that there was an intention to cause wrongful loss or damage. The same view has been taken by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts in cases reported in 6 Bengal Law Reports, Appendix 3, and 6 M H C R 36. The Court, therefore, reverses the conviction and sentence, and directs the fine to be returned to the accused....
Tag this Judgment!Narasimmacharya Vs. Ragupathyacharya and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad176
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. As the appellant had been disturbed in the enjoyment of his property by respondents, who claimed an adverse right, he was entitled to a declaratory decree. As to damages, the seizure of the well was a trespass on immoveable property, and it continued to be a trespass until the possession of the trespasser came to an end; the limitation for suits for compensation in such a case is three years, and for any damage which accrued within three years before 9th February 1880, the date on which suit was brought,' the respondents would be liable. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the case remanded for retrial of the appeal. Costs to follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Naduvath Mannakel Subramanyan Nambudripad
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad187
Kernan, J.1. We think the Judge is right. The minor in this case has property paying revenue to Government.2. This Court has held that Regulations V of 1804 and X of 1831 do not give power to a Zila (now District) Judge to appoint a guardian to a minor in a case where the Court of Wards have jurisdiction to do so, viz., in cases where the minor is entitled to property paying revenue to Government.3. Section 20 of the Regulation V of 1804 and Act XIV of 1858 have been held by a majority of the Court in 1871* to refer only to cases where the Court of Wards have not jurisdiction.4. Whether the Court of Wards exercise their jurisdiction or not, this Court considered, was not material on the question whether the Zila Court had jurisdiction. This seems to be the proper construction, having regard to Regulation X of 1831, which refers to property of minors that was subject to be taken in management, but which was not in fact taken in management as well as of property actually taken in managem...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppayyan Vs. Ramasami Ayyan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad197
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In execution of a decree obtained against the appellant, certain immoveable property was offered for sale at auction on the 24th March and knocked down to Thevana Goundan for Rs. 3,550.2. The Amin, considering that the deposit had not been duly made, re-sold the property in lots on the following day, when it realised only Rs. 2,500, Gamai Goundan being the purchaser of two lots and the decree-holder of the other lots. On the 26th March Thevana Goundan presented a petition to the District Court which had ordered the sale, asserting that he had offered the deposit to the Amin who refused to receive it, and he prayed that the Court would receive his deposit and grant him a receipt.3. No notice of this application was given to the judgment-debtor, but the decree-holder appeared, and the Judge on the 28th March set aside the second sale and ordered a re-sale without determining whether the first sale had been duly made. A third sale took place on the 13th June...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay Tramway Company Limited Vs. Khairaj Tejpall
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom119
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. We think the questions put to us by the First Judge of the Small Cause Court must be answered in the affirmative, and that the proprietor of the buggy is liable in this suit.2. In Fowler v. Locke L.R. 7 C.P. 285 Willes. J., stated that the effect of the corresponding Acts in force in England upon the subject was to recognize and stamp upon the transaction the character of an employment in which the cabman is a servant, and to make the proprietor liable for 'him as such.' The question is whether there is any material difference between the English Acts and the Bombay Act VI of 1863 which would justify us in holding that the relationship established here between the proprietor and the driver of a cab is different from that existing in England.3. In Powles v. Hider 25 L.J.Q.B. 331 Lord Campbell considered the effect of the English Statutes, and referred particularly to Sections 23, 24, 27 and 28 of Stat. 6 and 7 Vic., c. 86, as showing that the driver of a cab...
Tag this Judgment!Umed Dholchand Vs. Pir Saheb Jiva Miya and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom134
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us by the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Ahmedabad is, whether it was incumbent on the plaintiff to unite the claims on the two bonds in the same suit. Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code requires that 'every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to in respect of the same cause of action.' There can be no doubt that the two bonds and the default in payment of them constitute, in any view of the expression 'cause of action', two distinct causes of action, and there is nothing, we think, in the language of the Section (which would appear to have been mainly designed to discourage multiplicity of suits) which would justify the Court in going behind the bonds to consider the circumstances out of which they sprung, albeit those circumstances might themselves at the time have constituted a cause of action. A case of two promissory notes passed under similar circumstances to the present bond, and d...
Tag this Judgment!Magandas Khemchand Vs. Ramchandra Hiraji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom137
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The document is apparently a bond, and properly stamped, with a two-anna stamp....
Tag this Judgment!Harmukhgauri Vs. Harisukhprasad
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom191
Melvill, J.1.We think that the District Judge is correct in his opinion that Article 132, Schedule II of Act IX of 1871 applies to suits which are brought by a 'hakdar' against the person originally liable for payment of the 'hak', and not to suits by one sharer in a vatan against another sharer, or alleged sharer, who has improperly received the plaintiff's share of the 'hak.' A suit of the latter description is a suit for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use, and the period of limitation is three years, as proscribed by Article 60. It is true that this is not the view which was expressed in the case to which the District Judge refers--Chhaganlal v. Bapubhai I.L.R. 5 Bom. 68 but it is to be observed that the question raised and argued in that case was whether the 'hak' in dispute was moveable or immoveable property, and whether the period of limitation was six years, as alleged by the defendant, or twelve years as contended by the plaintiff. It was never argued that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- Next ›
- Last »