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
PugardIn Ravutan Vs. Moidinsa Ravutan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad414
Innes, J.1. It was objected that the Court could not in such a case exercise its powers of Revision under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as under Section 522 an appeal is provided. The case, Boonjad Mathoor v. Nathoo Shahoo I.L.R. 3 Cal. 375 was quoted in proof of this position. That is a case under the old Act, and it does not appear to me to be applicable to the questions before us in the present case. Section 522 provides that no appeal shall lie from a decree upon an award, except in so far as the decree is in excess of, or not in accordance with, the award.2. The section assumes that the conditions existed for passing a decree, that is to say, an award regularly and properly arrived at by arbitrators duly appointed. In the present case each party named two arbitrators;, an umpire was appointed by consent of both parties.3. The Judge made the order of reference to arbitrators on the 17th December 1880, assuming the consent of the arbitrators nominated. On the 20th Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Pattathil Chathu Nayar Vs. Pattathil Aku and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad26
1. The property in question in this suit had belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff, the first three defendants, and one Kandu Nayar.2. In 1858 there is said to have been a mortgage granted by Kandu Nayar, the karnavan, which was renewed in 1876.3. About 1852 the entire tarwad lands were apportioned, 51 paras of land being assigned to plaintiff's branch, and 51 paras to that of the first three defendants, and the 25 paras concerned in this suit to Kandu Nayar. It is found that at this date, or subsequently, there was a division, and that the family was no longer in union at the date of Kandu Nayar's death in 1865. Plaintiff and the first three defendants are children of sisters of Kandu Nayar, and as the 25 paras of land had become by the division his property, at his death the plaintiff and these defendants would take it in equal shares.4. The fourth defendant who obtained a decree against the first three defendants attached half of this property left by Kandu and had it sold i...
Tag this Judgment!Arthur Richard Hinde and anr. Vs. Ponnath Brayan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad52
Innes, J.1. On review, we found that the French Court had not jurisdiction, and that the Mahe judgment was not binding upon the parties to it. The question, therefore, remained whether the first defendant in this suit was still under the obligation to discharge the bond on which plaintiffs sue.2. As this question had not been decided by the District Judge in appeal, we remitted the issue 'Was the obligation of the first defendant on the bond relied on by the plaintiffs still undischarged at the date of the institution of the suit?'3. The District Judge returned a finding concurring with the finding at which the District Munsif had arrived, that there had been no discharge; but as it was objected that the defendant had received no proper notice of the hearing of the trial of this issue, and it was found on inquiry that this was so, we again remitted the issue for trial. It then came before another District Judg, who came to the conclusion that there bad been a discharge of the bond.4. O...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Chari Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad336
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The Judge has submitted this case for orders under the following circumstances.2. The accused, with other persons who have been acquitted, was tried on charges, of which some were, at the time the trial commenced, triable by a jury and others were not so triable. In accordance with the practice then obtaining, the jurors were empanelled as assessors in respect of the charges they were not competent to try as jurors.3. The trial was-protracted, and, before its conclusion, Act X of 1882 came into force. That Act, Section 269, prescribes that, where on a trial some charges are triable by a jury and others are not ordinarily so triable, all the charges shall be tried by a jury; and the Judge considers that the operation of the Act in this case was to convert the persons empanelled as assessors into jurors in respect of the charges they commenced to try as assessors. Inasmuch as the accused was convicted by the jury on one of those charges, and the Judge found...
Tag this Judgment!Koraga Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad374
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We have considered the evidence recorded in this case, and are of opinion that it is not sufficient to prove that the cohabitation of a man and woman under the Alyasantana law constitutes such a marriage as is intended in those sections of the Penal Code which provide for the punishment of offences against the marriage right. That the Alyasantana law did not recognize such cohabitation as marriage appears to be shown by the circumstance that it founds upon it no rights of property or inheritance. The authority of the treatise attributed to Bhutalapandya has been seriously impugned.2. The customary cohabitation of the sexes under Alyasantana law appears to us to do no more than create a casual relation, which the woman may terminate at her pleasure, subject, perhaps, to certain conventional restraints among the more respectable classes, such as a money payment and the control of relations, etc., which may be prescribed as a check upon capricious conduct. I...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Vithal Vs. Anant Mahadev and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom373
Pinhey, J.1. We think the Subordinate Judge was quite wrong it dismissing this suit for the reasons given by him. He dismissed the suit for two reasons, viz., first, because the second defendant Ramabai was not made a party to the suit until more than sixty days after the death of her husband. Sitaram, as required by Article 171 B of Schedule II of Act XV of 1877; and, secondly, because the sixth defendant Balkrishna, who is a brother of the plaintiff, possesses property which is liable to partition, and which is not included in the plaint.2. Now, as to the first of these reasons, we think the limitation law has no bearing on the case. Article 171B applies to applications made under Section 368 of the Code of Civil Procedure,--that is, after a suit has been instituted. A suit is instituted by presenting a plaint (Section 48). An application to sue in forma pauperis is deemed the plaint in the suit after the Court has granted the application under Section 410. What happened is this case...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Balaji Vs. Hari Nilkanthrav
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom377
Kemball, J.1. It is objected, and we think the objection is well founded, that this claim to possession is res judicata. It has 'been 'held by this Court under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, as it stood before it was altered by Act XXII of 1882, in the case of Hari v. Lakhsman I.L.R. 5 Bom. 614 that an agriculturist mortgagor had no right to sue his mortgagee in a mere action for an account: in other words, that he must, when asking for an account, add a prayer for redemption; and it follows, therefore, that where there has been, a suit for an account, a subsequent suit, for recovery of possession on payment of the money declared due, is barred, under either section. 13 or Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. We have, consequently, no alternative but to reverse the decrees of the Courts below, and reject the claim, with costs. What the effect of the decree of the 14th January 1881, may be, it is not for us to decide now; but, supposing that the decree-holder is not able to ...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmony Jourdar Vs. Anund Chundra Mundul and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal758
Macpherson, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is, whether land purchased by, a Hindu widow with money derived from the income of her life-estate, passes, when undisposed of by her, to the heirs of her husband as an increment to the estate, or to her heirs as her own property over which she had absolute control.2. It arises in this way: Gourmoni, a widow of one of three brothers, inherited her husband's one-third share of the family property. Being dispossessed by the other two brothers, she obtained against them decrees both for possession and for mesne profits, and in execution of the latter brought to sale and herself purchased their two-third share of the same property. Both Courts have found, and the fact is not now disputed, that this was an acquisition made out of the income of the property, in which she held a widow's life-estate, the purchase-money representing the usufruct of which she had been wrongfully deprived. Gourmoni was, however, under the necessity of borrowing ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Narsinh Vs. Ragho Keshav and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom292
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. We think, following Chaudhri Ranjit Singh v. Jafar Ali Khan I.L.R. 3 All. 18 that the right of appeal given by Sections 588 and 589 of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order of remand contemplated by Section 562 is not taken away by Section 586.2. The Court then heard the appeal on the merits, and confirmed the remand order of the District Judge, with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Ayyar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad361
1. The appellants are inamdars in the Palaiyapat village of Urkad in the taluk of Ambasamudram in the district of Tinnevelly. Their ancestors had held 9-72 acres of wet land as inam from before 1800, for the purpose of maintaining a 'Dwadasi Katlai Chattram' and feeding four Brahmans on every Dwadasi or the 12th day of every lunar fortnight. They since divided the inam, and a third share is now held by one Yegna Subba Ayyar, the remaining two-thirds being held by the appellants. It was asserted by the zamindar of Urkad that the inamdars entered into an agreement in 1850 that they were to pay the zamindar every year seven kottais of paddy for each kottai of land for the maintenance of the charity. In 1864, the tenure on which this inam was held was investigated by the Inam Commissioner, and, on the 18th August 1864, the title-deed D was issued by that officer on behalf of the Governor in Council. It purported to have been issued to the manager for the time being of Dwadasi Katlai Chattr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- Next ›
- Last »