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
Buchu Lall Vs. Tulsi Panday
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal596
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It seems to us that the view taken by the learned Judges who referred this case is correct. Prima facie in a suit of this kind/the appellant is entitled to a second appeal. The question is, whether that right is taken away by Section 102 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869? That section only applies where the amount sued for, or the value of the property claimed, does not exceed Rs. 100.2. In this case there' is nothing to show that the value of the property claimed does not exceed Rs. 100; and unless that fact does appear, either from the finding of the lower Court, or elsewhere upon the proceedings, it seems to us that we have no right (more especially as we are only empowered here to deal with points of law) to draw any inference to that effect.We are, therefore, of opinion, that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; and a the Division Bench has already decided that the lower Courts were wrong in decreeing the ejectment, we think that the judgment should b...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Brojokanto Roy Chowdhuri
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal638
Mitter, J.1. We agree with the Sessions Judge that the order, of the Deputy Magistrate of Putuakhali, purporting to have been passed under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, is illegal, and should be set aside on the ground that it is unconditional. As required by the section, it does not appoint any time or place within which and where the person to whom it is directed may appear before the Deputy Magistrate himself, or some other Magistrate of the first or second class, and move to have the order set aside or modified. We accordingly set aside the order, which the Sessions Judge recommends to be set aside....
Tag this Judgment!Carlisles, Nephews and Co. Vs. Hurmook Roy and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal679
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the judgment of the Court below is correct. It is satisfactory to have seen the original contract, because it seems clear that the printed words in the margin 'now in course of landing, &c.;,' were merely the common form generally used by the plaintiffs' firm, and were not intended to constitute any part of this particular contract. The argument, therefore, which was addressed to us upon those words entirely fails.2. We think that the questions referred to us should be answered as follows:The first and fourth questions should be answered' in the affirmative. The second question of course, does not arise; and as to the third, we do not see that the Nagri writing is at all inconsistent with the English contract.3. The defendants must pay the costs of this reference....
Tag this Judgment!Mohesh Chunder Bagchi and ors. Vs. in No. 308.--titu Bibi,
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal683
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In answer to the questions referred to us, I think that an under-tenure is clearly an incumbrance within the meaning of Section 66, of the Rent Law of 1869, and I also think that, for the purposes of this case, the effect of a sale for arrears of revenue under Regulation VIII of 1819 is substantially the same as that of a sale for arrears of rent under Section 37 of the Rent Law. In either case the under-tenures are not ipso facto avoided by the sale, but are voidable only at the option of the purchasers.2. In the case of Unnoda Churn Dass Biswas v. Mothura Nath Dass Biswas I.L.R. 4 Cal. 860; s. c. 4 C.L.R. 6. the question which we have now to decide hardly considered. That case came up on appeal before my learned brothers and myself from a decision of Mr. Justice MARKbY and Mr. Justice Prinsep, who had differed as to the time within which a purchaser under the Rent Law was bound to bring a suit to cancel an under-tenure.3. Mr. Justice Markby thought that the purc...
Tag this Judgment!Edulji Muncherji Wacha Vs. Vullebhoy Khanbhoy and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom167
West, J.1. I should like to have some authority to guide me in deciding this question, and it is strange, considering the multitude of partnership cases in the English reports, that no case upon the point appears to be forthcoming. The present application is made under Section 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that parties may be added or transposed as may be necessary 'to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.' These questions, of course, in an ordinary suit arise on the allegations made by the plaintiff, and prima facie it would appear that if the plaintiff withdraws, the allegations are withdrawn, and no question remains for the Court to decide. But a partnership suit is a suit of a peculiar character, and the parties to such a suit do not stand to each other precisely in the same relation as parties to suits generally. Each of the parties to a partnership suit, however he may be formally ranked,...
Tag this Judgment!Timmappaya Vs. Lakshminarayana and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad284
Innes, J.1. We concur with the District Munsif and Subordinate Judge that the suit does not properly lie against first, second, and third defendants to enforce against them a decree for partition obtained against their father to which they were not parties.2. In the first place, that decree was obtained by the submission of the father to abide by the oath of the therein plaintiff' and, under the Oaths Act, such evidence is to affect only the person who offered to be bound thereby--(see also as to this the judgment in Keshava v. Rudran) I.L.R. 5 Mad. 259. It has been held in the case of a decree obtained against a father alone for a debt due by him that an attachment of joint family property including that of the sons in execution of such a decree may be binding upon the sons, but we cannot regard the case before us as on the same footing with a decree for an antecedent debt against the father.3. The suit in which the decree was passed was a suit for partition. No decree could be proper...
Tag this Judgment!Peary Mohun Sircar Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal639
Wilson, J.1. This was a rule granted to show cause why a conviction should not be set aside on the ground that, assuming the facts found to be correct, the conviction was bad in law. We have had the advantage of hearing the arguments of the petitioner's Counsel, and it appears to us that, assuming the facts found to be correct, the conviction is good in law. The facts found are these: that there was no one in undisputed possession of the land in question, but that a dispute of some considerable standing existed between the two parties as to who was entitled to the land and who was in possession of it; that a number of persons of the petitioner's party went to sow the land, together with a body of men armed with latties; that they were prepared to use force, if necessary; and that they stationed these lattials to keep off the opposite party and these were brandishing their weapons, while the land was sowed. That falls within the definition of the offence, because there was an assembly f...
Tag this Judgment!Juggernauth Sew Bux and anr. Vs. Ram Dyal and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal791
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The contract in this case, as I understand, was in writing; there was nothing ambiguous about its terms, and it appeared upon the face of it to be a contract for the sale and purchase of Rs. 25,000 Government Securities, to be delivered on the 1st or 2nd of September following.2. The Judge of the Small Cause Court appears to have gone into the question upon oral evidence, whether the contract between the parties was really what it purported to be, or whether it was merely a wagering contract for differences without any intention by either party to carry out the sale and purchase of the securities.3. Upon this question the Judge has decided that it was a wagering contract, and as such void under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, or contrary to public policy under Section 23 of that Act; and the first question submitted to us by the reference is, whether he was right in so holding.4. Now, if it was competent to the Judge to determine upon oral evidence what the...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.L. Lakshmanan Chetti Vs. Kolandaivelu Kudumban
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad311
1. It appears to us that when a landlord claims to revert to a nanjai rate of rent on his repair of a tank, which had fallen out of repair, such repair is only a restitution of the previous state of things, and is not such an improvement as imparts additional value to the land; nor is the claim to revert to the rate in use when the tank was in good repair a claim to raise the rent which under Section 11 of the Rent Recovery Act would require the sanction of the Collector.2. We think that, if the tank were kept in repair, the landlord would be entitled to revert to the rates in force before the tank fell out of repair.3. But the change should not be made too suddenly, because the raiyat should be allowed two or three years to reap his punjai cotton and other crops, and to prepare the land for nanjai cultivation.4. This tank was repaired in Fasli 1289, and this suit relates to the patta for 1290. The raiyat was not allowed a reasonable time to make the changes required. Therefore as to t...
Tag this Judgment!Byreddi Narakka and anr. Vs. Chinna Narayana Reddi and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad331
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.1. Plaintiff is one of three brothers; they and their father divided some years ago. The eldest son sued the representatives of the rest of the family for his share in his father's estate. He has since been transported for life. The children of the convict have applied to be made co-plaintiffs:2. The Judge has held the father civiliter mortuus. We cannot accede to that view. Although he has been sentenced to transportation for life, he has not been deprived of power to hold property nor to maintain suit; but, seeing : that the children would be co-owners with their father in ancestral estate, we are not prepared to hold they were improperly made parties. It is true they would be in law sufficiently represented by their father, but in fact they might not be represented effectually, and, under the circumstances, we consider it was proper to grant their application. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- Next ›
- Last »