Privy Council Cases

Upendra NaraIn Myti Vs. Gopee Nath Bera and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal817

Prinsep, J.1. Madhub Bera died leaving four sons, who admittedly formed a joint Hindu family. In 1264 Nursingh the eldest separated from his brothers. In 1878, Korunamoyi, the widow and heiress of the son of the second brother Goburdhun, sued the third son Gopeenath, the third brother, and Chintamoni, the widow and heiress of the son of the fourth brother Manikram (deceased), for her share of the family property. That suit ended in a solehnama or compromise under which Gopeenath, on the one hand, agreed to give up 25 bighas to Korunamoyi and 15 bighas to Chintamoni, while Korunamoyi for herself and Bishtupria, the mother-in-law and guardian of Chintamoni, on the other hand, agreed to give up all rights to any family property of the brothers whom they represented.2. The plaintiff, a minor, being the son of a daughter of the fourth son Manikram the fourth brother as reversionary heir after Chintamoni and Bishtupria Hindu widows having only a life interest, sues to have it declared that t...

Sirdhary Lall Vs. Surjya NaraIn Singh

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal825

Prinsep, J.1. The questions raised in this appeal are, first, whether the bond marked 'A,' executed by Baboo Ram Gopal Singh to Baboo Sirdhary Lall dated the 31st March 1873, entitles Baboo Sirdhary Lall to demand compound interest; and, second, whether under Hindu law plaintiff was entitled to recover arrears of interest to an amount greater than the principal. One portion of the bond runs as follows: 'I, the declarant, have borrowed from Baboo Sirdhary Lall, inhabitant and part proprietor of Maskin Masihuddinnuggur, pergunnah Bhagulpore, Rs. 19,000, bearing interest at the rate of one rupee five annas per cent. per mensem from this day up to the date of repayment. Therefore I, the declarant, do hereby declare and state in writing that I shall pay the interest on the said sum every year, and the principal in one lump sum in Magh 1286, F. S; that whatever amount will be paid for interest or principal, I, the declarant, shall have the same credited on the back of this bond, the plea of ...

Pearay Bhugut Vs. Ram NaraIn Sing

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal830

Prinsep, J.1. This case depends upon the proper construction of a deed of grant from a husband to his wife. The document sets forth that it conveys all his rights to the lady without exception; that she shall take possession of his property; that neither he nor his heirs shall at any time have any claim either to the property or to the price or value of it.2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant, first, that, unless there are express terms in the grant, such as will convey ordinarily an estate of inheritance, the gift must be taken to be only one lasting for the lifetime of the lady. In support of the contention we have been referred to the case of Koonj Behary Dhur v. Prem Chand Dutt I.L.R. 5 Cal. 684: 5 C.L.R. 561 and, no doubt, if one sentence of that judgment be taken by itself, it would support the contention now raised before us. But when we look at the case as a whole, we find that the learned Judges who expressed that opinion were not content to base their judgment ...

Moheswar Das Vs. Carter

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal210

Richard Garth, C.J. (Prinsep and Wilson, JJ., concurring.)1. This is a case referred under Section 617 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on any of the points which arise, except on that referring to the relations between the parties arising out of the risk note, which was the agreement under which the goods were received and despatched by the Railway Company, because the learned Counsel on behalf of the Company in the present case has agreed to waive any objections to the suit as brought against the Traffic Manager, in order that he may obtain our opinion on the main point in issue.2. It appears that twelve tins containing 6 1/2 maunds of ghee were consigned to the Railway Company at Agra for delivery at Ahmedpore. It has been found, that when these tins were delivered, one had been cut open by a knife, and there was consequently a deficiency of some 21i seers in the quantity of ghee contained in them.3. For the defendants it is contended that...

Gopal Chundra Mittra and ors. Vs. Srinath Dutt

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal511

Cunningham, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether a debt secured by mortgage of immoveable property has been rightly sold in execution of decree, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code applicable to moveable property.2. The learned Judge below has regarded it merely as a debt, and has held that it was rightly sold as moveable property. We feel some difficulty in adopting this view. A mortgage is not merely a debt; it represents a substantial interest in the mortgaged property, viz., the right of selling it, under certain conditions, in realization of the debt. It is obvious that if the debt alone, apart from the security, is sold in execution, the full value of the mortgage will not be realized. The case does not appear to be expressly provided for by the Code. We think that in such cases there should be an attachment under Section 274 as well as under Section 268. In the present case, as the debt alone was sold, a material irregularity producing substanti...

Mahomed Mabood Bux and ors. Vs. Toree Mahomed

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal730

Tottenham, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is, whether an application made on the 26th of January 1882 for the execution of a decree, dated the 26th of August 1878, is barred by limitation. The judgment-debtor, appellant, contends that it is barred, as having been made more than three years after any previous application to the Court to take some step in aid of execution of the decree within the meaning of Article 179 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.2. It appears that execution proceedings were going on in February 1879, and the decree-holders on the 22nd of that month paid a Court-fee of Rs. 2 into Court, in connection with those proceedings. The lower Court has held that this act of the decree-holders was practically such an application as comes within the meaning of Article 179, and that thus the decree is saved from limitation.3. We think that this opinion is not sustainable, for it seems to us clear that the decree-holders did not on that occasion ask the Court...

Yenamandra Sitaramasami Vs. Midatana Sanyasi and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad400

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In order to sustain a mortgage by a Hindu father it must be shown that the moneys were required for necessary purposes, in which is now included payment by a father of an antecedent debt which it would be a pious duty in the son to discharge. Unless the respondents proved that the purpose (or which the debt was incurred was such, or that they in good faith believed it to have been such, as justified the mortgage, they cannot rely on that instrument except in so far as it affects the father's share.2. A son is, however, bound to discharge a debt of the father which he cannot how to have been contracted for an improper purpose to the extent of ancestral property which may come to his hands.3. In a suit brought against him to enforce that liability, the burden of proof as to the nature of the debt would lie on him.4. We reverse the decree in respect of a one-fourth share of one visam of the field known as Konupulugaruvu and decree the...

Judoonath Ghose Vs. Schoene Kilburn and Co.

Court : Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that both the lower Courts have taken an erroneous view of the law in this case. In the Munsif's Court two issues were raised: first, whether the defendants did relinquish the land; and, secondly, whether the relinquishment was good in law. With regard to the first point, which was a question of fact, the Munsif found that the defendants had relinquished the land, and that they had given the notice to quit, upon which they relied. And upon the second point, namely, whether the notice was good in law, the Munsif found that it was, holding, apparently, that a lessee, under a lease of this kind, was at liberty, after due notice to his landlord, to relinquish his lease, and that upon relinquishing it, and holding no further possession of it, his obligation was at an end.2. The Subordinate Judge appears to me to be rather doubtful about confirming the view of the law which the Munsif had laid down. He says: 'That the defendants gave three months' previous notic...

Jonnagadla Subbaya Vs. Thatiparthi Senadala Buthaya and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1884)ILR6Mad380

Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. Under Act XXXV of 1858, the Court can be moved only by a relative or by a person who is a curator under Act XIX of 1841 to make the inquiry under Act XXXV of 1858.2. Possibly, it may be worth the while of the defendants, or some of them, to move a competent Court for this purpose.3. Unless the first defendant is thus declared a lunatic, a guardian cannot it appears, be appointed under Chapter XXXI of the Civil Procedure Code....

Tara Prasad Mytee and anr. Vs. Nund Kishore Giri and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal842

Prinsep, J.1. The main objection taken before us in this case is that the plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed, because they have failed to produce the sale certificate on which they acquired their title. It has nowhere been denied, nor is it disputed before us, that the plaintiffs purchased in an execution sale the right, title and interest of the defendants, judgment-debtors, in the present case. We, therefore, think that this objection is untenable, and in this respect we agree with the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Doorga Narain Sen v. Baney Madhub Mozoomdar I.L.R. 7 Cal. 199 in which it was held that 'the order affirming the sale would be sufficient to pass a title to the purchaser; and the certificate which might afterwards be obtained by him would be merely evidence that the property so passed.'2. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs....