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
Vayangara Vadaka Vittil Manja Vs. Pariyangot Padingara Kuruppath Kadug ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad89
Kernan, J.1. The Judge had, we assume, before him in making his decree, the Suit No. 476 and the Appeal Suit No. 458. He states in paragraph 5 of his judgment: 'It was the present plaintiff who contended in the former suit to be the jenmi and was defeated. It appears that the present plaintiff had colluded with the defendant, and that the present defendant was a kanamdar.'2. The present plaintiff was, in fact, the real defendant in the former suit, and it was his untrue defence that caused the expense, which was decreed against both the defendants in the former suit. The Judge also finds that the plaintiff here colluded with the defendant here in the former suit to endeavour to defeat the plaintiff there.3. Acting on the principles laid down in Suput Singh v. Imrit Tewari I.L.R. 5 Cal. 720 we think that the plaintiff is not entitled to contribution against the defendant.4. The Judge laid down, rather too widely, a rule that there cannot be contribution for costs between two parties ord...
Tag this Judgment!Prosunno Nath Chowdhri and ors. Vs. Ichamoyee Chowdhranee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal557
Wilson, J.1. This was a rule granted under Section 622 of the Procedure Code, to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge of Pubna, directing an award to be filed, should not be set aside. The rule was granted upon two grounds, the first and most important of which is, in my opinion, sufficient to dispose of the case, viz., 'that considering the cause shown against the award the order ought not to have been made.'2. The question turns upon the construction of Sections 525 and 526 of the Procedure Code, Section 525 says: 'When any matter has been referred to arbitration without the intervention of a Court of Justice, and an award has been made thereon, any person interested in the award may apply to the Court of the lowest grade having jurisdiction over the matter to which the award relates, that the award be filed in Court. The application shall be in writing and shall be numbered and registered as a suit between the applicant as plaintiff and the other parties as defendants. T...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hansraj Malji and Narandas Dayal; Insolvents; Dewar and Co.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom411
Scott, J.1. Upon the evidence it appears sufficiently established that Narandas was, at the date of filing his joint petition, a minor under the age of eighteen years; that he had brought some capital into the firm, but had taken no active part in the business, and that he had made no express representation to any constituent or creditor of the firm that he was of full age. Such being the facts proved, the law laid down in Ex p. Jones (1) applies. That case is based on the general rule that infants being incapable of contracting, except for necessaries, cannot be adjudged insolvent, and the only exception allowed to the rule is where there has been an express representation amounting to fraud. Narandas is not liable to be made a bankrupt, though, no doubt, he has traded, and even brought some moneys of his own into the trade. From the mere fact of his trading he cannot be taken to have held himself out as a person of full age nor, because fie did not give out to the world what his real...
Tag this Judgment!Ellappa Nayak Vs. Annamalai Goundan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad76
Hutchins, J.1. The question is whether the appellant's suit was barred by the law of limitation. Both the lower Courts have found that it was barred, and Mr. Gordon only disputes their decision on the ground that the part-payment gave rise to a new period of limitation under the provisions of Section 20 of Act XV of 1879.2. It has been found that the payment was in fact made by the second defendant at the request of the first defendant, and that the endorsement was made by the second defendant, who affixed his mark to it. At least a portion of the payment must have been towards the principal, and the appellant's case was that the whole was paid towards the principal: if there was any payment of interest, the suit would certainly not be barred. If, however, there was no payment except towards the principal, the question arises whether the endorsement, which shows the payment to have been made and is marked by the second defendant, is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the statute ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurivi Reddi Vs. Chinnamma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad93
Kindersley, J.1. The two plaintiffs and one Buggamma are co-widows of one Polla Reddi, who died without issue shortly before this suit. Plaintiffs alleged that Buggamma having demanded a share of her late husband's estate, they, by the advice of friends, gave her a house and certain jewels and moveable property, not by way of a final and complete partition but provisionally, and that Buggamma having since died, the defendant had taken unlawful possession of the property to recover which this suit was brought.2. The defendant pleaded that Polla Reddi, who was his father's divided brother, had told him before his death that he was to have Buggamma's share on condition of his supporting her as long as she lived. But this has not been believed. The District Munsif, however, found that Buggamma in her lifetime had given her property to the defendant, but, finding that the defendant had paid some debts with the moveable property, he decreed possession only of the house to the plaintiff's.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Nangali Vs. Raman and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad226
Kernan, J.1. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the Tiruvangatt Devasam, sued to recover four pieces of land with arrears of rent. They alleged that those lands had been let to Eravattu Keshava Poduval, the third defendant's late husband, the younger brother of the second defendant, and the uncle of the first defendant, in September or October 1865. The plaintiffs produced a marupattam or counterpart of a lease, alleging that it was executed by that lessee, but that document was objected to on the ground that it had not been registered. Plaintiffs alleged entry under the marupattam by him, and then by his brother, and then by third defendant. The third defendant, who is the present appellant, denied the genuineness of the marrupattam, and stated that the senior male member of- the family at the date of the marupattam was not Keshava Poduval who was said to have executed it, but one Vikrama Poduval. As to the land No. 3, the third defendant stated that the devasam had only a koovam right to r...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Lal Bera and ors. Vs. the Empress on the Prosecution of Azim, Pe ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal18
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioners were convicted under Section 183 of the Penal Code for offering resistance to an attachment of the property of one Tulseeram Bera, which the Deputy Collector had ordered in execution of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act (Beng. Act 'VID of 1880. The warrant under which the peon acted stated that the return should be made on or before the 3rd February.2. The resistance, it has been found in the present case, was offered on the 4th February, and it is contended before us that under such circumstances, no lawful order was in force, and consequently the prisoner has committed no offence. It appears to us that, having regard to the terms of the second Clause of Section 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this objection is fatal to the conviction, and that the conviction, therefore, must be set aside and the fine, if paid, refunded....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Tulukanam
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad131
Turner, C.J.1. In consideration that the accused agreed to work for wages, the employer advanced to him Rs. 10, which was to be worked off, 8 annas per week being deducted from the wages which would accrue due.2. The case is not on all fours with the precedent to which the District Magistrate refers. Here the advance was made on account of work to be performed, and was to be liquidated by performance of the work; in the case referred to, there was a loan which was to enure so long as the service continued and was then to be renewed in full.3. The Court will not interfere....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Act I of 1879; in Re: a Reference to the Board of Revenue
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal92
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case certain immoveable property was sold by the Sheriff of Calcutta in execution of a decree of this Court for Rs. 5,000. It was sold subject to two mortgages, securing repayment with interest of Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 250 respectively.2. The Board of Revenue have referred to us the question whether the stamp on the sale certificate should be for Rs. 5,000, the purchase-money, or for Rs. 12,250, being the amount of the purchase-money plus the sum secured by the mortgages.3. The Collector and the Board of Revenue consider that the stamp should be for Rs. 12,250, and we are referred to two Full Bench authorities, one of the Bombay High Court Sha Nagindas Jeychand v. Halalkore Nathwa Gheesla I.L.R. 5 Bom. 470 and the other of the Madras High Court-Reference under Section 49 of the Stamp Act I.L.R. 5 Mad. 18, which appeared to be in conflict.4. The Bombay Court decided that where a certificate of sale expressly stated that the sale was made subject to the mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!Gan Savant Bal Savant and anr. Vs. Narayan Dhond Savant
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom467
Kemball, J.1. It appears that a suit was brought, and decree obtained, by the manager of a joint family in 1858 for redemption of certain property, but the decree was not executed. Subsequently the present suit for redemption in respect of the very came property was brought by another member of the joint family who was a minor when the former suit was instituted, and the question is, this second suit maintainable? The District Judge found, as a fact, that the present plaintiff was duly represented in the former suit, but was of opinion that a new cause of action had arisen, as the decree in the former suit did not direct foreclosure; and the decree never having been executed, the status of mortgagor and mortgagee continued between the parties.2. But I think the District Judge was wrong: see Full-Bench ruling--Sheikh Golam, Hossein v. Alla Rukhee Beebee N.W.P.H.C. R. 1871 62 referred to in Anrudh Sing v. Sheo Prasad I.L.R. 4 All. 481. By reason of the default in payment of the money dec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- Next ›
- Last »