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
Ram Chunder Sao Vs. Bunseedhur Naik
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal741
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that the chitta of 1844, Which has been treated by the Subordinate Judge as no evidence against the present defendant, was not evidence, and that he was perfectly right in the view which he took.2. As I understand, this was a chitta prepared by the Deputy Collector, with a view to resumption proceedings being taken, and the way in which that chitta was sought to be used in this case by the plaintiff, was that in that chitta the 1 bigha and 19 cottas of land in suit which has been found by the Subordinate Judge to be lakeraj, was not entered as lakeraj, but as rent-paying land.3. I think that having regard to the object of the chitta, and 'to the way in which it was prepared, it cannot be made evidence under Section 83 of the Evidence Act.4. The maps and plans, which are mentioned in that section, are, as it seems to me, maps and plans made by the Government for public, purposes; I quite agree with the learned Judges, who decided the case of Junmajo...
Tag this Judgment!Haranund Mozoomdar Vs. Prosunno Chunder Biswas and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal763
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think it clear that the lower Courts have made a mistake in this case.2. They have dismissed the suit upon the ground that there was a misjoinder of defendants; or, in other words, that instead of bringing one suit against all the defendants, Nos. 7 to 11, who purchased at the execution sale different portions of the property in question, they ought to have brought five different suits, one against each of those defendants.3. The plaintiff's case is, that before the execution sale, under which the defendants 7 to 11, purchased these properties, they were purchased by him from the execution-debtors by private contract, and that he took possession of them. These properties were afterwards attached in execution under a decree obtained against the judgment-debtors by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, whereupon the plaintiff preferred a claim to the whole property in the execution proceedings, but the Court decided against him; and so it was sold and bought by the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Alexander Reddon
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1885)ILR6Mad286
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. As ruled by this Court on third December 1872, it was not lawful for the Senior Assistant Magistrate to direct payment of part of the fine as compensation to an innocent purchaser of stolen property. The sale to the purchaser is not the offence complained of within the meaning of Section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sentence of the Senior Assistant Magistrate will be amended by striking out the words 'of which Rs. 4-8-0 will be paid to Mr. Lewin, who purchased the ring for that amount.'...
Tag this Judgment!Chatti Chalamanna Vs. Pandrangi Subbamma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad23
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Some lands, known as Singamvalasa, were held by Sridara Kodanda Rau, who died leaving a widow, Venkamma, and four daughters, Janikamma, Bhagamma, Narasamma, and Ramayamma. The lands passed to his widow who survived her daughters. Bhagamma and Ramayamma had died without issue. Janikamma and Narasamma had left male issue, who succeeded on their grandmother's death. The children of Narasamma then living were a son, Chinna Narasinga Rau, and a daughter, Chatti Chalamanna, the appellant. Narasinga Rau, on the 28th April 1845, executed a deed attested by three witnesses and described as a sanad. This deed recited that the appellant had requested her brother to give her something from the produce of the Singamvalasa lands inherited from his grandmother and witnessed that consequently Narasinga Rau agreed to pay to the appellant during her life, and after her death to her daughter, the sum of Rupees 10 from the harvest of the year Krodi on the 30th of Magha in ea...
Tag this Judgment!Gummalapudi Kalidas Vs. Attaluri Subbamma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad29
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The immorality imputed to the petitioner is that he keeps a concubine in his house and has had a family by her. It appears from the age of the concubine's children that this intercourse commenced before the marriage of which the legitimate children are the issue.2. Looking to the caste (Goldsmith, probably Sudra) to which the parties belong, we are unable to say that this circumstance alone would justify a Court in refusing him the custody of his children.3. It has been held that it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself not only that it is better for the children, but essential to their safety or to their welfare in some very serious and important respect, that the father's rights should be superseded or interfered with, before it deprives the father of those rights--Re Goldsworthy L.R. 2. Q. B. D., 83.4. In this case the condition is not satisfied, and we must reverse the Judge's order and declare the father entitled to the custody of his children.5...
Tag this Judgment!Mavulali AmirudIn Sharif Saheb Vs. Gundu Sobhanadri and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR6Mad339
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This case is governed by the ruling of the Privy Council, referred to by the Lower Appellate Court, in Thumbusawmy Moodelly v. Hossain Rowthen I.L.R. 1 Mad. 17.The obligation to pay the balance before the day fixed was not to attach till that balance should have been ascertained by an account, in which the mortgagee was necessarily to be the accounting party.2. The transaction could not execute itself without any further act of the parties. The mortgage being redeemable, any one of the persons entitled to redeem would be compelled and entitled to claim redemption of the whole, if any part of the debt remained to be satisfied; but, as nothing remains to be paid, the appellant can only redeem his share. To the extent of a 7/48th share, the appellant is entitled to redeem. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is reversed, and the decree of the Munsif restored to the extent indicated, and the parties will pay and receive proportionate costs in all Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Divendro Nath Sanyal and ors. Vs. Tarruck Chunder Bhuttacharjee and or ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal831
Tottenham, J.1. The cause of this appeal, which arises from the execution of a decree, is the refusal of the lower Court to recognize an alleged payment out of Court by the judgment-debtors of a large portion of the amount of the decree to one amongst several joint decree-holders, who also had certified the payment in the manner prescribed in Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code. This individual did not profess to have received payment for the joint benefit of all the decree-holders; but claiming to be entitled to 12 1/2 annas share of the whole, represented that his claim had been satisfied.2. Application was made by the other decree-holders for execution of the whole decree. They denied the right of Behary Lall to 12 1/2 annas share, or to any more than a small fraction of the decretal amount, and refused to recognize the payment said to have been made to him.3. The lower Court was of opinion that a payment out of Court could not be recognized under Section 258 unless certified by...
Tag this Judgment!Nittyanund Singh and ors. Vs. Koob Lall Chowdhry
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal839
Prinsep, J.1. We think that the orders passed by the lower Courts are correct. Golab Chand Nowlakha, defendant No. 5, in 1877, obtained a mortgage decree against Imdad Ali. The plaintiff, in execution of a decree held by another person, has purchased the property hypothecated by that decree. The defendant, Koob Lall, stating that he was the assignee of the decree-holder, then executed the mortgage-decree obtained by Golab Chand and was about to put up for sale a portion of the property previously purchased by the plaintiff, when the plaintiff, in order to protect that property from sale, deposited under protest the money due under the decree. The present suit is to recover the money so paid. It has been found by both the lower Courts that Golab Chand, on the 6th August 1877, sold to one Jotee under an unregistered deed of conveyance, and that Jotee in August 1880 transferred his rights thereunder to Koob Lall by a registered conveyance. Both the Courts have found, and we think rightly,...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Viraragavayyangar Vs. Krishnasami Ayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad344
1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 460.2. The first defendant executed a bond, dated the 25th December 1869, for Rs. 5,000, hypothecating 2 velis 11 maus of land in the District of South Tanjore to Srinivasa Ayyangar, who transferred the hypothecation bond and right and debt due thereon to the plaintiff' by deed, dated the 21st of October 1875.3. Plaintiff filed Suit No. 4 of 1876 in the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam on the bond against the first defendant, and obtained decree for sale, dated the 6th April 1876, of all the lands hypothecated. On the 17th of August 1876 plaintiff became purchaser of all the hypothecated lands for Rs. 6,000.4. Part of the lands so purchased were 151/2 maus in Pattakal Katlai, within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam. After the purchase, plaintiff discovered that 2 maus out of the 15J maus had been acquired by the South Indian Railway Company in 1874, and that the purchase money (Rs. 460) was lodged in the treasury at Kumbakonam unde...
Tag this Judgment!Samuel Pillai Vs. Ananthanatha Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad351
Kernan, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the Small Cause Suit 226 of 1882 against the defendant for Rs. 415-1-0 on foot of a promissory note to the plaintiff, dated the 8th of April 1881, payable on demand, and costs.2. The defendant applied in Revision to set aside that decree on the following grounds:(1) That there was no consideration for the note.(2) That there was no liability on the part of the defendant to pay the debt due by his father which was barred by limitation.3. On the 26th January 1883, by order of that date, we requested the Subordinate Judge to say what the consideration was which he found to support the defendant's promise, and whether he decided that the debt due by the defendant's father, apparently barred by limitation, was sufficient consideration for the defendant's promise.4. The Subordinate Judge reports that he found' there was deposited with the defendant's father by the plaintiff Rs. 700, at interest, which interest was for the benefit of plaintiff's...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- Next ›
- Last »