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
Mahomed Taki Khan Alias Peer Bux Khan and anr. Vs. Najhan
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal872
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that this suit ought to be dismissed as barred under Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendant appellant before us brought a suit against the present plaintiffs, and also certain other persons, including the wives of the present plaintiffs, as defendants. That suit was for possession of a piece of land, which includes the disputed land. In that suit the plaintiffs alleged that they were in possession as ryots. The question whether they were entitled to remain in possession of the land as ryots or not, was not gone into, but on the 11th of September 1879 a decree for possession was given in favour of the defendant appellant, and the direction in the decree was that the plaintiff in that case, viz., the appellant before us, was to recover possession of the land claimed in the month of Pous 1287. In execution of that decree possession was obtained by the appellant. Thereupon the plaintiffs in this suit appeared as objectors, and contested the ri...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Sri Vidya Sankara Narasimha Bharathi Guruswamulu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad381
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of acquittal made by the Joint Magistrate of the district of Godavari in Calendar Case 2 of 1882 on his file. The complainant in this case is one Atmuri Lakshmi Narasimham, a komati by caste, and the District Munsif of Rajahmundry, and the respondent is the high priest of the Smarta sect in the Northern Circars, and the head of one of the six mattams belonging to that sect called Abhinava Virupakshi mattam. In 1881 there was an earnest discussion in Rajahmundry and in other places, as to whether widow-marriage was not really in accordance with Hindu Law, and whether, if contracted in opposition to the existing usage, it should entail loss of caste. As might be expected, there was a difference of opinion on the subject, and the party in favour of such marriage was numerically small in comparison with the orthodox party which was opposed to it. The foremost advocate of widow-marriage in Rajahmundry is one Kandukuri Virasalingam, a Bra...
Tag this Judgment!Saminadha Mudali Vs. the South Indian Railway Company
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad420
1. The decision of this case turns on the construction we are to place on the terms 'silks in a manufactured state and whether wrought up or not wrought up with any other materials.' We are unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge that these terms were intended to apply to all classes of goods in which silk may be introduced; yet it is difficult to arrive at any precise definition of the terms. Mr. Shaw has called our attention to the case of Brunt v. The Midland Railway Company 2 H. & C. 889 in which a web known in the trade as silk web having a silk face and composed in the proportion of 1oz. of silk to 1 1/4oz. of India-rubber and 3/4 oz. of cotton with relative values of 12d or 13 1/2d (silk) to 7 1/2d (India-rubber) and 31 /4d (cotton) was held to be silk within the meaning of the Act. With the exception of articles 2, 3, 12b, and 16 not one of the pieces of goods produced in this case has a silk face. But there are several in which the silk forms the most expensive part of the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T.P. Waller
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad430
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. It was enacted by the Civil Procedure Code, Act X of 1877, Section 8, that, save as provided in Sections 3, 25, 86, 223, 225, 386 and Chapter XXXIX, that Code should not extend to any suit or proceeding in any Court of Small Causes established in the towns of Calcutta, Madras or Bombay; but that the Local Government might, by a notification published in the official gazette, extend to such Court the Civil Procedure Code or any part thereof except so far as related to appeals and reviews of judgment.2. Chapter XX of that Code invested the District Court (a Court of unlimited jurisdiction in respect of value) with a jurisdiction in insolvency in the cases of insolvent judgment-debtors who might be residing, or in custody, within the local limits of its jurisdiction.3. The jurisdiction so conferred enabled the District Court not only to discharge and protect an insolvent judgment-debtor from imprisonment (Section 351), but committed to it powers which could ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram DeIn Singh and ors. Vs. Het NaraIn Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal871
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad in a suit upon a bond. The only question raised in the appeal is, whether the decree for interest from the date fixed in the bond for the repayment of the loan at the particular rate mentioned in the bond is correct or not. There is also another question raised,'viz., that the plaintiff's are not entitled to recover interest in excess of the principal. As regards the question of rate, the terms of the bond are quite plain. It says: I do declare and give out in writing that I shall, without any objection, repay the said amount, principal with interest at the rate of Rs. 1-4 per cent per mensem, on the 30th Bhadur 1277 Fusli. If I fail to do so on that date as promised, then on the expiration of that date, i.e., from the 1st Assin 1278 Fusil interest on the said amount of loan at the rate of Rs. 1-8 per cent per mensem, till the date of repayment, shall be due from me.' We are bound to decree the rat...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Chetti and anr. Vs. Appasami Nayak
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad355
1. A zamindar named Appasami Nayak having become indebted to certain Chettis, is alleged to have executed a bond in their favour on the 16th of May 1882, promising to pay the amount of the debt by instalments, and, on failure of any one instalment, to pay the whole amount with interest and hypothecating the income which he might derive from certain villages, after deducting the peshkash and other charges.2. The Chettis then brought Suit 16 of 1883 against the zamindar, who had made a default, to enforce the payment of the debt upon the security of the income hypothecated, and asked for the appointment of a receiver before judgment. The application was opposed on behalf of the zamindar, and the Subordinate Judge, conceiving that the appointment of a receiver was unnecessary, that the zamindar was entitled to collect the revenue of the villages, and that the income of the villages did not form the subject of the suit within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 503, refused...
Tag this Judgment!Davani Ammal Vs. Ratna Chetti and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad417
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Innes, J.1. A question has been raised as to the number of years for which a claim can be brought for interest, when such interest is charged on land. With the same hesitation as is expressed by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court in Lallubbai v. Naran I.L.R. 6 Bom. 719 we agree with that Court that Article 1321 of the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act is applicable, and that such interest may be recovered for twelve years. A decree will pass for payment to the plaintiff by the first, and by the second defendant as the representative of his father, of the sum of Rs. 5,081-14-0 with costs oh the amount decreed and future interest at 6 per cent., and for realization of the amount decreed by sale of the hypothecated property if the debt is not discharged in six months.2. We also order that the plaintiff's costs, decreed as aforesaid, shall be recoverable from the third defendant as well as from the first and second defendants, and we affirm so ...
Tag this Judgment!Marakkal Vs. Kandappa Goundan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad371
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. About ten years ago the defendant married the complainant, and for some time they lived together. Then the defendant married a second wife, and the complainant left him and lived in her father's house for about six years. In March 1882 she applied to a Magistrate for an order of maintenance, but she withdrew her complaint on the defendant offering to maintain her in case she lived with him. She since lived in his house and grain was given her, but she was told to cook her own food separately, and she was not permitted to eat with the defendant or other inmates of the house. They appear to have quarrelled again, and she has applied for an order of maintenance, complaining of ill-treatment. She has a female child aged seven years, and the defendant is a member of a joint Hindu family under the protection of his father, who has seven sons under his control. It is in evidence that the family has sufficient means, and, in answer to the present complaint the defendant d...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Kanjamalai Padayachi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad372
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in thinking that the commitment is bad and must be quashed.2. The accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 468* and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and cognizable exclusively by the Sessions Court. The Sub-Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground that there was very little evidence to show that the document, which formed the subject of the charge, was false, and that there was no evidence to prove that the document was either made by the accused, or that he had any intent to defraud. But on perusal of the preliminary register, the District magistrate considered that there was a prima facie case against the accused, and directed his committal to the Court of Sessions, without calling upon the accused, however, to show cause why he should not be committed. The power to order a committal is conferred on the District Magistrate by Section 436, subject to the provision that the accused should have an opportunity ...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Begarayi Krishan Saranu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad373
Kernan, J.1. The first witness for the prosecution, a child of nine years of age, took a necklace valued at Rs. 2-8-0 from another boy who was wearing it. The accused received it from the child for five annas, and the Second-class Magistrate found that he (the accused) knew that it was stolen property, and convicted him under Section 411, Indian Penal Code.2. The first witness was, however, discharged under Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, and the conviction is referred to us as bad in law, on the ground that, as there was no theft, the property in question was not stolen property within the meaning of Section 410*.3. The child took the ornament and immediately after either pledged or sold it for five annas. This latter act of the child seems to us to show that, although he was over seven years and under twelve, yet that ho attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion within the meaning of Section 83 of the In...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- Next ›
- Last »