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
In Re: Bhavanibai Widow of Bala Maharaj
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom194
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. When the lady adopted a son, her gift in future became inoperative. The donee now claims under a gift from the adopted son, and if that instrument of gift be duly stamped, it will constitute a sufficient title-deed. The instrument should be stamped with a single stamp as an instrument of gift under Article 36, Schedule I, Act I of 1879....
Tag this Judgment!Helen Beard Vs. Samuel Egerton
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad179
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. We consider that the practice of the Small Cause Court hitherto is right in regarding as exempted from attachment, by Clause (h), Section 266 of the Civil Procedure Code, half the pay actually drawn by the judgment-debtor at the time of the attachment or from time to time. What the defendant is now drawing is, we understand, his pay on sick leave, which is half his ordinary salary. Half of the amount so received by him as his salary while on sick leave is by the clause quoted exempted from attachment. The other half is attachable....
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Chetti Vs. Colonel J.G. Cloete
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad189
1. On the 14th June 1877, the defendant, a Settlement Officer, purporting to act under Madras Act XXVIII of 1860, passed a decision demarcating the boundaries of certain villages in the 'Salem District, some of which are in plaintiff's mitta. He gave notice of his decision to the plaintiff in an endorsement of the 20th June 1877, on a letter addressed by plaintiff to him. On 18th August 1877, plaintiff brought this suit to set aside this decision.1. The District Munsif considered plaintiff was not in time, as his appeal (see Section 25, Act XXVIII of 1860) was not brought within two months from the date of the decision; and he dismissed the suit.3. The Subordinate Judge in appeal considered that the decision of the Settlement Officer, though purporting to be under Act XXVIII of 1860, was upon a matter in which he had no right to exercise the power conferred by that Act, or that, if he had, his procedure was not in accordance with what is required by the Act, as the evidence on which hi...
Tag this Judgment!Dutto Singh and ors. Vs. Dosad Bahadur Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal575
Mitter, J.1. These two rules arise out of a proceeding held in the Munsiff's Court of Tajpore under the provisions of Sections 525 and 526 of the Civil Procedure Code. It appears that certain matters in dispute between the parties to these two rules were referred to arbitration without the intervention of a Court of Justice. The arbitrators made their award on the 5th of August 1881; but it was not handed over to the parties till the 13th September following. The petitioners in Rule No. 1033 being dissatisfied with the award, in the meantime filed, on the 16th of August, a petition of review before the arbitrators.2. While this petition of review was pending, the petitioners in Rule No. 1202 under Section 525 of the Civil Procedure Code, applied to the Munsiff of Tajpore, who had jurisdiction over the matter, to have the award filed in Court. On notice being given to the petitioners in Rule No. 1033, who were the parties to the arbitration other than the applicants under Section 525, t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjivan Amirchand Vs. Hasan Abraham and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom179
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. We do not think the application is barred. See Khodabux v.Budree Narain Singh I.L.R. 7 Cal 137....
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Ayyangar Vs. Bagirathi Ammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad180
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. We entertain, no doubt, that the representative of the deceased judgment-debtor ought to have been brought in this case, and that the further process of sale, which had to take place before the execution could be fully had, could not legally issue without some person upon the record representing the deceased against whom the decree might be executed.2. The sale must be set aside and the attachment of the property resumed. It will be for the judgment-creditor to take steps to bring in the representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor and proceed regularly with the execution of his decree.3. The petitioner will have the costs of this application....
Tag this Judgment!Sankana Kalana Vs. Virupakshapa Ganeshapa and
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom146
Kemball, J.1. Assuming that the District Judge was justified in going behind the decree obtained by Sankana against Ningana, it is clear that he was wrong in holding under Section 134 of the Contract Act that Sankana's omission to sue the principal Mohidin discharged the surety Ningana. Section 134 is qualified, as held in Hajarimal v. Krishnaram I.L.R. 5 Bom. 647 by Section 137, which obviously governs the present case.2. It is contended, however, on behalf of the respondent Virupakshapa that the decree obtained by Sankana was not binding on him, he not having been a party to the suit, and that, on the authority of the numerous decisions of this Court--see the cases of Pandubhat v. Balaji Printed Judgments for 1878 p. 54; Ganesh Sadashiv v. Balkrishna Gopal Printed Judgments for 1879 p. 28; Radhabai v. Shamrav Vinayak Printed Judgments for 1881 p. 219; Dayabhai Jaichand v. Maganlal Kalidas Printed Judgments for 1881 p. 232; Wasudev Balaji v. Narayan Krishna See supra p. 131; Rupchand ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuvarbai, Widow of Bomanji Vs. Mir Alam Khan
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom170
Kemball, J.1. Two points a rise in this case as it now presents it self before us first as to the validity of the assignment of the property in dispute by Padshah Begam to Mir Ruhulla which it was for the plaintiff to establish, and, second, (assuming that the property had validly passed to Mir Ruhulla) as to the mala fides of the quasi consent decree obtained by Bomanji, the husband of the plaintiff, against Mir Ruhulla, the burden of proof being on the defendant.2. The first question turns on whether the document just referred to was a deed of gift or a will, for it was conceded in the Court below and admitted here (on the authority of a case recently decided in this Court) thai if it was a deed of gift, then plaintiff's case must of necessity fail. The District Judge has found that the document was a deed of gift, and 'as such admittedly was invalid', but he refused to apply the general rule to the case, as defendant had no right to the property in dispute, save what he derived from...
Tag this Judgment!Mohun Chunder Kurmokar and anr. Vs. Mohes Chunder Kurmokar and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal569
Cunningham, J.1. In this case there was a decree on compromise on the 30th January 1877, by which the parties were declared to be entitled to a partition, and it was ordered that, if the plaintiffs did not have the partition of the lands carried out within two months, any one of the parties, plaintiffs or defendants, might execute the decree and take possession after partition. The partition was not carried out forthwith, and an application was made by some of the plaintiffs to have the partition effected, and on that application, without dividing the entire property, one-third portion was separated. On the 16th March 1882 the present applicants applied for partition of the rest of the properties, that is, of the remaining two-thirds which were not partitioned The question we have now to decide is, whether that application being made more than three years after the decree of the 30th January 1877 is kept alive by the application of some of the plaintiffs in January 1880. The lower Appe...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Ramachandrappa and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad249
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code are sot in conflict with those of the Special Law, and effect may, therefore, be given to both. By Section 16(3) of the Regulation, a summary power to impose a fine is conferred on a Village Munsif analogous to that conferred on the Civil Courts by Sections 170* of the Civil Procedure Code.2. In ordinary oases when there are no aggravating circumstances, the Village Munsif or Civil Court would act discreetly in employing the special powers conferred on it, but if a charge is instituted in a Criminal Court under the Indian Penal Code, it must be dealt with by the Court. The order referred must be set aside and the Magistrate directed to resummon the accused and to complete the trial.* Procedure if witness fails to appear.[Section 170:-If such person does not appear, or appearing, fails to satisfy the Court that he did not abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the summons, and that he had not notice of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- Next ›
- Last »