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
Ramasami Ayyan Vs. Seshayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad181
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The application is not barred by limitation. The error in affixing an insufficient stamp did not render the application illegal. The order of the Judge is set aside and that of the Munsif restored with costs in all Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chunder Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Juddoo Lall Mullick
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal778
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I regret very much that the parties in this case should not have been able to adopt the suggestion of the Court, and settle their differences out of Court; but as they have failed to do so, it is necessary that we should give our judgment; and I feel bound to say that I cannot take the same view of the case as the learned Judge in the Court below.2. I quite think that the plaintiffs' evidence is not as precise as it might have been, either as to the number of years, during which the right claimed has been exercised, or as to the particular mode or times of the alleged enjoyment.3. It very rarely happens in my experience that the evidence of native witnesses in cases of this kind is very accurate. But on the whole I think it sufficiently appears that a right, such as the plaintiffs' claim, has been exercised from time to time for upwards of 20 years before suit; and the probabilities of the case seem to me greatly in favour of that view.4. Certain facts giving rise...
Tag this Judgment!Chena Pemaji Vs. Ghelabhai Narandas
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom301
Melvill, J.1. Section 230 of Act X of 1877 leaves it to the discretion of the Court executing a decree to refuse execution at the same time against the person and property of the judgment-debtor; but the law appears to allow an appeal against such an order of refusal, and we are, therefore, bound to consider whether the lower Court's discretion has been properly exercised. In the present case we are of opinion that the lower Court was not justified in refusing a warrant of arrest) for no other reason than because a warrant for attachment of property had been issued. The decree was passed in 1878, and under it the judgment-creditor claims more than Rs. 6,000, but has never been able to recover more than Rs. 301. On the 1st October, 1880, the judgment-debtor asked for a month's time to enable him to raise money by sale or mortgage, and pay off the debt, and three months were granted him for that purpose; but he appears to have taken no steps to raise the necessary funds. When the present...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruvengada Chari Vs. Vythilinga Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad418
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We are of opinion that a decree for money, though it be a judgment debt, is not liable as a 'debt' to sale in execution of a decree. The judgment debt could be rendered available in execution without attachment, and Section 273 appears to be imperative as to the procedure to be adopted to secure the judgment debt and make it available to satisfy the claim of the attaching decree-holder. For reasons which are sufficiently obvious, e.g., the uncertainty of its value, the Code, it appears to us, prescribes a particular procedure which renders the sale of a money-decree unnecessary.--2. The order of the Munsif was right, and the application must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Hury Doyal Guho Vs. DIn Doyal Guho
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal479
Field, J.1. Three points were raised in the grounds of appeal in this case The first point (as to costs), and the third point raised in the first and third grounds of appeal respectively were given up at the hearing; and we have only to dispose of the question raised in the second ground of appeal.2. The decree-holder (Appellant) Hury Doyal Guho Mujumdar contends that the Court below was wrong in allowing the judgment-debtor Din Doyal Guho to set-off against the amount of the decree-holder's decree the sum of Rs. 51-13, being the amount of a decree which Din Doyal, the judgment-debtor, had obtained against the decree-holder appellant and another person. I have considered this matter, and think that the decision of the learned District Judge is correct upon this point. Illustration (b) of Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows: 'A and B co-plaintiffs obtain a decree, for Rs. 1,000 against C, and G obtains a decree for Rs. 1,000 against B. G cannot treat his decree as a...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Ayyan and anr. Vs. Venkata Rayar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad254
Innes, J.1. First plaintiff is the adopted son. of Krishna Ayyan, who died' on the 19th January 1880. Krishna Ayyan was admittedly divided from his. brother, the first defendant. The second defendant is the son of first defendant.2. On the death of Krishna Ayyan, therefore, the adopted son was the person to perform his funeral rites, and the second plaintiff proceeded to perform them under authority from the first plaintiff, who was an infant. But the first defendant interfered and would not permit second plaintitf to perform the obsequies, but insisted on joining in them himself. They accordingly jointly set fire to the funeral pyre, and early next morning first defendant hastened, to the pile, collected the bones, and performed the ceremonies thereupon; so that when plaintiffs went to do the same, they found that the heap of ashes-containing the bones had disappeared. This necessitated the plaintiffs' recommencing the ceremonies by making an image of Durba grass and burning it and pe...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas Kevaldas Vs. Nathu Bhagvan
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom217
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sues upon a debt contracted with his deceased father when carrying on trade under the name of Kevaldas Hansi. The defendant pleaded that the shop at present belongs to the plaintiff and his three brothers--Mansuk, Amratlal and Harilal--as an undivided family, and that, therefore, plaintiff could not sue alone. Both the Courts below found that the fact was as stated by the defendants, and held that the plaintiff could not sue alone, and rejected the claim with costs. The three brothers, it appears, were examined at the hearing, and said that they had no objection to the plaintiff suing alone, as their father gave this debt to him before his death in consideration of his managing the business. The District Judge, however, disbelieved this story, holding that it had been invented for the purpose of avoiding the bar of limitation, and rejected the claim, holding on the authority of Ramsebuk v. Ramlal Kundoo I.L.R. 6 Cal 815 that the plaintiff coul...
Tag this Judgment!Kally Prosunno Biswas and anr. Vs. Mungala Dassee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal631
Prinsep, J.1. It seems clear from the record that the lower Appellate; Court has wrongly admitted what has been termed a cross appeal, but what, strictly speaking, is an objection taken by the respondent under Section 561 of the Code. The day fixed for the hearing of the appeal in the lower Appellate Court was, according to the notice served on the respondent, the 11th of June 1881. Therefore, according to the terms of Section 561, as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court, the notice of the objection, that is, the written petition of objection itself, should have been filed in the lower Appellate Court not less than seven days before the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal, namely, the 11th June. It was not filed till the 14th June. The only provision made by the Legislature for extending the period of limitation is to be found in the second Clause of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877); and as has already been pointed out in the case of Degamber Mozumdar v. Kallyn...
Tag this Judgment!Dugappa Chotti Vs. Vidhia Purna Tirthasami and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad263
1. The plaintiff by the plaint filed in suit 258 of 1879, claims to have the proprietary right in land assessed at Us. 14-6-4 in varg No. 23 in Vakavadi village and sues to recover rent therefor from 1872 from the defendant, who is stated in the plaint to hold on chalgaini lease. He also sues to have a portion of the three vargs, viz., No. 2, No. 23, and No. 25 in the same village, and in the possession of the defendant, held at a rent of Rs. 14-6-4 per annum payable to Government, and 41/2 to 51/2 muras of rice to the Aneigadi Ganapathi Devastanam and 41 regulation muras to the plaintiff's mattam, delivered to him.2. The suit for demarcation and delivery of portion of the three vargs in the defendants' possession to the plaintiffs is founded on the allegation that the varg No. 23 was demised to the defendants' ancestors very many years ago, and that they did not preserve the boundaries of that varg, but allowed them to be destroyed, so that the landlord's land, yarg No. 23, cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanasami Chetti Vs. Samidas Mudali
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad293
1. In Suit 713 of 1879 plaintiff sued the defendant's father for a sum due on two promissory notes, one of which was for Rs. 30; the District Munsif passed judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the one note, but dismissed that portion of the claim based upon the note for Rs. 30, on the ground that it was barred by lapse of time. Defendant's father is said to have soon afterwards executed the note now sued upon for Rs. 30, promising to pay this debt which had been declared to be barred. He afterwards died and plaintiff sued his son. The District Munsiff found that the promissory note had been in fact executed, but that the son was not bound by the promise of the father to pay a barred debt.2. We are now asked, in revision, to set aside this decision.3. The fact that the debt was barred by the Act of Limitation did not affect the existence of the debt, and there was nothing illegal or immoral in the action of the father in promising to pay it. The new note operated as a renewal of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- Next ›
- Last »