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
Muttalagiri Nayak Vs. Muttayyar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad357
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We agree with the rulings of the learned Judges of the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts in Gopeenath Acharje v. Achcha Bibee I.L.R. 7 Cal. 553 Jetha Madhavji v. Najeralli Abhramji I.L.R. 4 Bom. 472 and Krishnashankar v. Chandmshankar I.L.R. 5 Bom. 198 that, when a person desires to share in the assets realized by a sale in execution, he must apply to the Court in which those assets are held for execution of his decree. When it is found that property attached by a Munsif's Court is already, or thereafter becomes, subject to an attachment issued from a superior Court, the decree-holder must apply to the District Court to transfer his application to the higher Court if he desires to secure the application of the attached property and its proceeds to the satisfaction of his decree.2. We affirm the order of the Court below, and dismiss this application, but without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Senra Disai Venra Jagath Virarama Dhikku Vijaya Sethurayar Vs. Annasam ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad359
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The decree was passed on 1st March 1870. From time to time it was in part executed. On the 25th March 1881 an application was made by the decree-holder for the sale of the properties hypothecated to satisfy the balance remaining unpaid. On the 23rd July 1881 an order was made for sale. On the 3rd September 1881 the decree-holder applied for a postponement of the sale up to August 1882, informing the Court that arrangements had been made between him and the judgment-debtors for the satisfaction of the decree and other debts. But, before an order was passed on this petition, it was withdrawn on the 7th September, and on the 18th September fresh proclamation of sale was issued.2. On the 19th September the present appellant (second defendant) petitioned the Court to postpone the sale to the 20th January 1882. The decree-holder consented, and the sale was stayed. Mention appears to have been made in Court of an agreement into which the parties had entered, and...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnayyan and ors. Vs. Muttusami
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad407
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The respondent, Muttusami Goundan, sued to recover possession of five lands described in the schedule attached to his plaint, and mesne profits for the years 1878 and 1879. Virappa Goundan and Sundara Goundan were two brothers who had formed a joint Hindu family. Of these, Virappa died in 1866, leaving him surviving a concubine named Ammachi and Maruthamutta and Periyannan, the second and third defendants, two sons by her; and Sundara died in 1867 leaving two widows named Virammal and. Minakshi. On the 6th October 1867, these two widows mortgaged the lands in suit with possession for Rupees 2,000 to Sadaya Goundan who transferred his right to Annammal on the 29th May 1869. Annammal assigned the mortgage again to Sabapathi Goundan, the father of the respondent. The respondent's case was that the several mortgagees had been in possession, that the first appellant, Olaipalaiyam Krish-nayyan, had been their gumashta, and, as such, superintended the cultivatio...
Tag this Judgment!Dig NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Jumoona Persad Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal1
O'Kinealy, JJ.1. In this case plaintiff sues for possession of his share in certain properties sold in execution of a decree against his father and purchased by the defendant, or, if that cannot be done, he wishes that possession of the entire property may be given up to him, and that a decree, somewhat in the form of the decree given in the case of Deendyal Lal v. Jugdeep Narain Singh I.L.R. 3 Cal. 198 : L.R. 4 I.A. 247 should be passed in his favour. His mother is also a party to the suit on the ground that, according to Hindu law, when a partition of joint property is made, she is entitled to a share of the property in lieu of maintenance. The lands in dispute may be divided into two classes. In the first class fall parcels 1 to 6, which were purchased by the defendant in execution of his own decree; in the second class parcel No. 7, which the defendant purchased in execution of the decree of a third party. For the defence it was contended that the debts were debts due by the family...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Ayyangar Vs. Marimuttu Bhattan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad404
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The learned Counsel for the appellant argues that the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is defective in that that Court has not expressed an opinion on the issue as to whether possession lay with the third defendant, and we have first to determine whether that issue was material.2. In Rajah Sahib Perhlad Sein v. Baboo Budhoo Sing 12 M.I.A. 275 the Judicial Committee expressed strong doubt whether the execution of a Bill of Sale by a Hindu vendor would pass an estate irrespectively of actual delivery of possession.3. The learned Judges of the Bombay High Court have held that a sale is incomplete without delivery of possession--Lalubhai Surchand v. Bai Amrit I.L.R. 2 Bom. 299.4. On the other hand, in Narain Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Dataram Roy I.L.R. 8 Cal. 597 the learned Chief Justice and Judges of the Calcutta High Court have held that delivery of possession is not under Hindu Law essential to complete the title of a purchaser for value, and that, acc...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Nilamekam Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad406
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The farm of the Abkari revenue in the Dindigal Taluk for a term of three years from Fasli 1282--Fasli 1284 (July 1872--July 1875) was offered for sale by public auction.2. It is a condition of such sales that the bidder whose bid is accepted shall within a time specified furnish security to the amount of two monthly instalments payable in respect of the farm, and that if he fails to do so, the farm shall be again put up to auction, and if the price realized be less than the price bid by the defaulter at the first sale, that the defaulter shall be responsible for the difference.3. At the sale Mahalingam Pillai was declared the highest bidder, and his bid was accepted subject to his furnishing the required security. He failed to do so, and a second sale was held at which he was again declared the purchaser, but at a bid less than his bid at the original sale by Rs. 4,875, and he consequently became indebted to the Government in that sum. He again found some...
Tag this Judgment!Surnomoyee Vs. Denonath Gir Sunnyasee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal908
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, a zamindar, against three sets of defendants. Her claim is twofold (1st), for rent, cesses, and interest, amounting altogether to upwards of Rs. 5,000; and (2nd), for khas possession of the property in respect of which the rent is claimed.2. The history of the case is this. Previously to the year 1870 the property, which is the subject of the suit, was held by a person named Rajendra Gir Gossami. He, and his predecessors before him who belonged to some religious order, had held the property in question, under settlements made from time to time with the zamindar, and the last of these settlements, made with Rajendra Gir, dated the 26th of Choitro 1267 (9th April 1861), was for a term of five years, from the commencement of 1268 (13th April 1861) to the end of 1272, (12th April 1866) at an annual rent of Rs. 674-0-1. In that settlement there was a provision to this effect: 'if failing to pay the rent of the said jote, instalm...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Mudali and ors. Vs. the Sub-collector of Chingleput and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad303
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In 1796, the Board of Revenue reported to the Government that, while the mirasi right was not lost by a failure to cultivate, unless it arose from obstinacy or intrigue, the Government had a right (as had also the mirasidars), when the mirasidar failed to cultivate, to call in strangers to cultivate.2. In December 1796, Mr. Place was directed to require each mirasidar to declare, in writing, the extent of ground he was willing to enter into engagement with the Government to cultivate, previously informing the mirasidars that it was the intention of Government to bestow the surplus or spare land they could not cultivate on new mirasidars.3. In a lengthy minute on mirasi right, submitted by Mr. Place in 1799, he expressed his concluson that a property in the mirasi land vested in the mirasidar so long as he did or could cultivate it and paid the dues to Government, and that, when he did not or could not cultivate his lands, when he withheld the dues of Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Mitter Vs. Surendro Deb Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal865
Cunningham, J.1. The plaintiff sues to have it declared that three documents, constituting his patni right in certain properties are in force, to be put in possession of the properties, and that the defendants may be ordered to execute a patni pottah in respect of the taluks recorded in the Collector's towjee and a mourasi and mokurari pottah in respect of the tikka and other mehals, and to accept a kabuliat for the same from the plaintiff.2. The first of these documents was dated 28th Pous 1283, and was executed by the defendants 1 and 2; the second was executed on 21st Bysack 1286 by the defendants 3 and 4, assenting to the terms of the first agreement; and the third on the 26th Srabun 1286 executed by the four defendants modifying the terms of the first.3. The questions raised in this appeal are, first whether the third document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration; and, secondly, whether, if it is inadmissible specific performance of the other two contracts can be d...
Tag this Judgment!Fatma and ors. Vs. Shaik Essa BIn Khaliffa and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom266
West, J.1. The point that now arises on the construction of Act V of 1881 is by no means free from doubt. The difficulty is created by the way in which the Act is drawn with reference to the previous Acts X of 1865 and XXI of 1870. Section 2 of Act XXI of 1870, the Hindu Wills Act, incorporates, amongst others, Section 187 of the Indian Succession Act X of 1865, thereby making probate necessary in the case of Hindus, Jains, &c.; Act V of 1881, by Section 154, amends in some respects, but not in this, Section 2 of the Hindu Wills Act. The result is that Section 187 of Act X of 1865 is incorporated in Act V of 1881; but that still leaves untouched the case of a Mahomedan will. Prima facie, one would conclude from such inclusion and omission that the omission was intentional. But if we look at the history of this legislation, and see by what steps it has come to the point it has now reached, we must come, I think, to a different conclusion. In 1865 the first Act on this branch of the law ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- Next ›
- Last »