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
Raj Coomar Nobodeep Chunder Deb Burmono Vs. Beer Chunder Manikkya and ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal535
McDonell, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Tipperah, by which the plaintiff, respondent, was declared to be entitled to maintenance from the Maharajah of Hill Tipperah at the rate of Rs. 600 per mensem and to arrears of the same from the 1st of May 1878 to the date of institution of the suit; and the decree further provided that the amount should be realized from the defendant's zamindari in British Tipperah.2. The plaintiff, respondent, is Raj Coomar Nobodeep Chunder, a son of the late Maharajah of Hill Tipperah, and appointed by him to the office of kurta in the year 1862. Upon the death of this Maharajah, Ishan Chunder, he was succeeded by the present Maharajah Beer Chunder, who had been duly appointed 'juboraj' by his predecessor and elder brother. In July 1874, the plaintiff made an attempt to oust him altogether. He brought a suit to recover possession of various properties held by the Maharajah in British India, upon the ground that he was the rightf...
Tag this Judgment!Sripoti Churn Dey Vs. Mohip NaraIn Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal643
Prinsep, J.1.The facts of this case are as follows: In Assin and Pous 1276 Ikram Rusul and others executed in favour of the plaintiff a mortgage by way of conditional sale of certain lands. They subsequently granted a mourasi mokurari patta of the same land to the defendant. The plaintiff took foreclosure proceedings under Regulation XVII of 1806, and notice was served upon the mortgagors, but not upon the defendant, and the plaintiff subsequently obtained a decree for possession against the mortgagors. He now sues to set aside the defendant's patta.2. The Subordinate Judge, reversing the decision of the Munsif, has held that the plaintiff's case fails on the ground that the defendant was entitled to redeem the plaintiff's mortgage and therefore ought to have been served with notice of foreclosure under Section 8 of the Regulation.3. We do not agree in this view. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of MacPherson and Glover, JJ. in Lalla Doorga Pershad v. Lalla Luc...
Tag this Judgment!indro NaraIn Gossami Vs. Ishan Chunder Bandopadhya
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal788
Prinsep, J.1. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court that the defendant, who held a decree against the plaintiff and others, agreed to take, and did take, from plaintiff Rs. 25, as representing his liability under this joint decree, and at the same time undertook to abstain from further proceedings, but that notwithstanding he persisted in executing the decree and sold certain property belonging to the plaintiff.2. The only question raised before us is, whether under the Code of Civil Procedure now in force, a suit will lie to set aside the sale of plaintiff's property as having been held fraudulently, and in breach of the undertaking on receipt of the money paid out of Court in satisfaction of the liability of the plaintiff judgment-debtor under the decree, whether the law (Section 258) having placed it in the power of a judgment-debtor making such a payment to obtain the assistance of the Court, within a certain specified period, to require the decree-holder to certify that p...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjivi Reddi Vs. Kama Errapa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad290
Kernan, J.1. This is a suit on an instrument, dated the 12th of September 1875, whereby the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 273-5-10 (money borrowed), with interest, at any time within six years on demand.2. Demand was made in February 1881.3. The plaint was filed before July 1881.4. The question of law is whether the suit is barred by limitation. Assuming: that the instrument (which is a promissory note) was payable on demand, it was governed by the Limitation Act of 1871; and the time of limitation did not arise until demand. But the Act XV of 1877 altered the law and made the period of limitation run from the date of the note.5. Allowing the extra time under Section 2*, Act XV of 1877, on this note, as a note on demand, time would elapse on the 12th September 1879, and in that view the suit would be barred.6. In its terms the note is not one containing merely 'a promise to pay on demand.'7. Its terms are to pay 'at any time within six years on demand.' As the law stoo...
Tag this Judgment!Rongai and ors. Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal513
Mitter, J.1. In this case three persons--Rongai, Gouri Khan and Beerai--were convicted under Section 457, coupled with Section 109, by an officer exercising the special powers vested in him under Section 36, Act X of 1872. They were each of them sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment on the 9th of December last. An appeal was presented to this Court on the 23rd of January last, and on the appeal coming on for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on the same day, the following order was passed: 'The appeal is admitted, send for the record and issue the usual notices.' The case being now called on before us to be heard finally a question has arisen,--whether this Court is competent to hear this case as an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the lower Court. It appears, with reference to the provision's of the old Code, that the provisions of the old Code and those of the new Code are not precisely the same. Under the old Code the test which determined the venu...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chunder Soor Vs. Kally Churn Das
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal528
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff (appellant) sued for possession of 2 1/4 bigas of land, which he claimed to have purchased absolutely from the respondent under a kobala, dated the 18th Aughran 1285 (3rd December 1878).2. The respondent admitted the kobala, but contended that the transaction between the plaintiff and himself was a mortgage only.3. In support of this view, the defendant relied partly upon oral evidence of the transaction, and partly upon the conduct of the parties, more especially the fact that the plaintiff had never taken possession, although the kobala was dated the 3rd December 1878, and this suit was not brought until the year 1880.4. He also relied upon the further fact, that the sum of Rs. 18, which was admitted to be the consideration for the kobala, was scarcely one-fourth the value of the property.5. The plaintiff all along objected to the reception of these facts in evidence upon the ground that the defendant was precluded by Section 92 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Vyankatraya BIn Ramkrishnapa Vs. Shivrambhat BIn Nagabhat
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom256
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to have his right established to attach a piece of land in execution of his decree against one Dodapa Yana Timaya, who held the land under a mulgeni lease from the defendant. The defendant objected to the attachment on the strength of a particular provision in the lease in question, which after forbidding alienation by the tenant by mortgage, sale, or lease, continues thus: 'You are not to let it be sold, or attached and sold in satisfaction of judgment debts if you do let it, I shall take away the land, and give it to others for cultivation.' The Judge held that this clause was void as being in restraint of alienation, which he held to be a necessary incident to a mulgeni estate, but that in any case 'the creditor was not bound by it, nor the Court restrained from issuing process of attachment at his instance, and, lastly that an assignment by operation of law, and not by the voluntary and immediate act of the parties, was n...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ji Raghunath Kothavle Deceased, by His Son and Heir Ramchandra ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom293
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant in this case had filed an award against the respondent on 19th December 1873, and by his darkhast of 1874 applied for and obtained the attachment of certain property of his judgment-debtor, which was, however, subsequently removed on the 16th July, 1875, on the application of one Bhaskarav, a minor, represented by his mother and guardian, Lakshimibai. Thereupon the appellant preferred a suit in. 1875 to have it declared that the property was liable to attachment, which suit was rejected on the 8th July, 1880. On the 30th November, 1880, the appellant presented a darkhast for the arrest of the respondent. The Subordinate Judge rejected the darkhast as beyond time, being of opinion that the decision of this Court in Kalyanbhai Dipchand v. Ghanashamlal Jadunathji I.L.R. 5 Bom. 29 was not applicable. In that case, the judgment-creditor had attached the property of his debtor, but the sale had been subsequently restrained by an injunction obtained ...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal Bundopadhya Vs. Digumber Roy Chowdhry and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal563
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that according to the Hindu law current in the Lower Provinces of Bengal a brother's daughter's son is a preferable heir to the great-great-great-grandfather's great-great-great-grandson.2. In the Full Bench decision in Guru Gobind Shaha Mandal v. Anund Lal Ghose Mazumdar 5 B.L.R. 15; S.C. 13. W.R. F.B. 49 Mr. Justice Dwarkanath Mitter, J. was of opinion that a cognate of this description is a sapinda as defined in the Dayabhaga. A brother's daughter's son offers two pindas or undivided oblations to the father and the grand father of the deceased in which he participates. 'Whereas the great-great-great-grandfather's great-great-great-grandson is not connected with the deceased through the medium of undivided oblations. He is a sakulya or an agnate, connected with the deceased through the medium of divided oblations. Therefore, the competition in this case is between a cognate who is a sapinda and an agnate who is a sakulya. According to the Dayabhaga, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Janoki Nath Mukhopadhya Vs. Mothuranath Mukhopadhya and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal580
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that both these questions should be answered in the affirmative.2. It is now settled law that the interest of a Hindu widow may be alienated by her, and that the alienation would be valid for her life. In cases of necessity, such as are mentioned in paras. 61 and 62, Section 1, chap. XI of the Dayabhage, she may effect even an absolute alienation to enure after her death. If there were no provisions to the contrary, the right of alienation of the interest of one of two or more widows jointly inheriting their husband's estate Would logically flow from these two propositions. So far as the doctrines of the Hindu law prevalent in the Lower Provinces of Bengal are concerned, there does not, in our opinion, exist any such contrary provision.3. One of the cardinal points of difference between the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga is, that according to the latter the right of alienation being a necessary incident of ownership, one of two or more joint owners can alie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- Next ›
- Last »