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
Lal Bahadoor Singh and ors. Vs. E. Solano and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal45
Mitter, J.1. This was a suit to recover possession of 113 beegahs 5 cottahs of land in mouzah Mozufferpore. It appears that mouzah Mozufferpore was the estate of Koer Singh. It was confiscated for his rebellion, and was sold by Government in the year 1861. At that sale the defendants' predecessor in title, Mr. E. Solano, became the purchaser. The estate then continued in the possession of Mr. Solano till the year 1878, when it was sold for arrears of Government revenue, and purchased by the present plaintiffs. This suit was commenced on the 23rd May 1879, and there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiffs, after their auction-purchase, did not receive any rent on account of the land in suit from the defendants, who are the executors of the estate of Mr. Solano. The defence in the case was that, although the estate was sold for arrears of revenue, Mr. Solano had another interest in the land in suit, viz., a gujashtadaree interest. In the second paragraph of the written stat...
Tag this Judgment!Ashad Ally Beparee and ors. Vs. Modum Mohun Chowdhry and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal68
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sue for possession of certain immoveable property. They claim under a deed executed by the defendant on the 13th Falgoon 1261 (28th February 1855), which is called in the plaint a kutkabala, but which, upon the face of it, appears to be an absolute sale to the plaintiffs, for the sum of Rs. 275.2. It seems, however, that there was a verbal arrangement between the parties that the transaction should really be a mortgage, and that the money advanced should be paid off with interest at the rate of one per cent, per mensem in Bysakh 1262 (April 1855); the acts and conduct of the parties appear to have been entirely in favour of that view, and both the lower Courts concur in finding that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale.3. That being so, the question comes to be one of limitation, and it arises in this way.4. It appears that in the year 1263 (1856), the plaintiffs took the usual proceedings to foreclose the mortgage, and after t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: J.T. Froeschman (Deceased)
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal575
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I agree with the Taxing officer that only half the property of the deceased is chargeable with the ad valorem duty payable under Article 11, Schedule I of the Court Fees Act....
Tag this Judgment!Johur Mull Khoorba Vs. Tarankisto Deb and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal252
Pigot, J.1. The plaintiff claims as a purchaser of the share and interest of Woopendra Narain (who is mentioned in the 7th, 9th, and 14th paragraphs of the plaint) in certain family property in which Woopendra Narain is stated to have had an interest, together with the defendants, or those whom they represent, by inheritance, and also under the provisions of the deed mentioned in the 9th paragraph of the plaint.2. Woopendra Narain mortgaged his share in the property (described in the plaint simply as lots one to five); and under a decree in a suit brought on the mortgage, the property mentioned in the mortgage was sold under the Rules for the sale of mortgaged property.3. The plaintiff became a purchaser of part of the property at the sale by the Registrar under the decree, and he now prays for a declaration of his rights under the purchase; be submits that he is entitled to specific shares in the properties mentioned, and prays in the alternative for a declaration as to how much he so...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Vyapuri Kangani
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad70
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The term 'arms' in Act XI of 1878 includes parts of arms. If then, the look and barrel of the gun, of which the accused admitted possession, were serviceable, the ground on which the conviction was set aside was erroneous. The statement of the accused that the gun had been delivered to his friend that a new stock might be supplied to it argues that it was serviceable. A re-hearing of the appeal would have been directed had not the appellant been sufficiently punished under the circumstances by the incarceration he has undergone....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narayana Taragan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad49
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In the township of Kalladakuriohi there is a street inhabited by weavers ( Kaikolars ): to the south of this is a street inhabited by Muham-madans known as Chattram Street; and still further to the south is the main high road to Ambasamudram.2. A street runs north and south from the Weavers' Street to the main high road bisecting the Chattram Street.3. For some months before the date of the order under review, a dispute existed between the Muhammadans and Hindus as to the right of the latter to carry corpses along the street crossing Chattram Street.4. From the cases which have come before this Court, it would seem that resistance was first offered to the conveyance through the cross street of the corpse of a Hindu who had died in the southernmost street. The Muham-madans on that occasion forcibly resisted the passage of the procession. Shortly afterwards, a Hindu died in the Weavers' Street, and, in order to vindicate the right of way they claimed, the H...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Khan Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal878
Prinsep, J.1. We think that no appeal lies in this case. Section 406 provides expressly for an appeal on behalf of a person required by a Magistrate, other than the District Magistrate or a Presidency Magistrate, to give security for good behaviour, and the law nowhere declares that any appeal shall lie in other cases of this class. The order moreover is not a conviction on a trial held by a Sessions Judge (Section 410), nor a sentence of the District Magistrate subject to the confirmation of the Sessions Judge (Section 408a), and, therefore under Section 404 no appeal would lie....
Tag this Judgment!Jugut Shobhun Chunder Alias Doolal Chunder Dehingur Gossamy Vs. Binaud ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal925
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, which is somewhat similar in its nature to others which have been appealed from the Assam Valley Districts, we are sorry to find that the District Judge has again taken an erroneous view of the law.2. The plaintiff sued to have it declared that he is entitled to an eight-anna share in certain immoveable property, and to have his name registered as the owner of that share in the Revenue Court.3. His case is, that his father was the owner of the property in question, and that he and his brother, the defendant No 1, inherited it in equal shares. At the time of his father's death, which occurred on the 2nd of Joisto 1277 (17th May 1870), the plaintiff and his brother were both minors, and consequently their step-mother, Chunder Coomary, who appears to have acted as their guardian, had her name recorded in the Revenue Court as the owner of one portion of the property, whilst another portion remained in the name of the plaintiff's father, to whom a pottah ...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Dass Biswas Vs. Kunnock Chunder Mookerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal919
Cunningham, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, having sued for enhanced rent for the year 1286 (1879), can now sue for the original rent for the years 1284, 1285 and 1286 (1877, 1878, and 1879).2. The lower Appellate Court has found that the one action is no bar to the other. We feel it impossible to concur in this opinion. It appears to us that, looking at the wording of Sections 42 and 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clearly the intention of the Legislature that plaintiffs should bring their entire claim and every remedy enforceable in respect of that claim into Court at once, and that if they fail to do that in any suit, they cannot afterwards avail themselves of any other remedy on which they have not chosen to insist in the first suit.3. It is true that the Privy Council have pointed out that a suit for enhanced rent and a suit for rent are very different proceedings. None the less are they, in our opinion, remedies or claims arising in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Bijadhur Bhugut Vs. Monohur Bhugut
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal11
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that in this case there is no appeal, because the proceedings in the lower Court were held under Sections 525 and 526 of the Civil Procedure Code. While rejecting this appeal upon this ground, we are at the same time of opinion that the lower Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, in deciding the question raised in the second issue mentioned in its judgment, viz., whether the defendant did not agree to the terms of the ekrarnama, and they were fraudulently made. It appears from Section 526 that the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate only upon the grounds of objection mentioned in Sections 520 and 521. Now, the defendant's objection that he did not agree to the terms of the ekrarnama, and that he was imposed upon in being persuaded to put his signature to the particular ekrarnama, which was the foundation of the award in this case, is not one which comes within the purview of Sections 520 and 521. When an objection of this nature was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- Next ›
- Last »