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
Sankara Narayana Pannikondar Vs. Vijaya Raghunadha Muttayan Pannikonda ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad134
Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The eighth defendant, Vellayan Chetti, not having been served with notice of this appeal, will not be affected by this judgment and decree.2. The plaintiff has brought this suit against his father and certain alienees of portions of his father's zamindari, for a declaration as to his future right to succeed after his father's death to the zamindari in question, and for a declaration that the alienations made by his father will not then be binding upon the plaintiff'.3. The only question for our determination is whether the stamp of 10 rupees, which the plaint bears, is a sufficient stamp for such a declaratory suit. We are of opinion that, under the second schedule of the Court Fees' Act, Article 17 (3), the stamp of 10 rupees was sufficient.4. The order of the Subordinate Judge rejecting the plaint as insufficiently stamped is hereby set aside, and the suit is remanded to the Subordinate Court to be replaced on the file, and disposed of in the usu...
Tag this Judgment!Chandmal and ors. Vs. Bachraj Alias Motiram
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom474
West, J.1. We think that the case must be disposed of on the assumption of a tenancy having existed; and on the single consideration that the alleged notice to the tenant by Khubchand is not so proved to have come to the tenant's knowledge--brought so near to his positive personal cognizance--as the law requires to give it effect in determining a tenancy. What appears is that Khubchand gave notice to vacate to the defendant, along with Several other tenants, by means of an advertisement in the Dnyan Prakash newspaper. It does not appear that the same from of notice was handed to the defendant, or any member of his household, or that even a copy of the newspaper was sent to the defendant by hand or by post. The defendant's non-recollection of whether any notice reached him, or not, cannot supply the defect of positive testimony bringing the notice home to him. He is certain that Khubchand never personally asked him to vacate, and Khubchand does not say that he did make any such request ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohansing Chawan Vs. Henry Conder General Traffic Manager G.i.P. Railw ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom478
West, J.1. The railway company in this case were bound to deliver the particular bags which, they received from the plaintiff's firm for carriage. They did not deliver them, nor did they, so far as the evidence goes, announce their inability to deliver them on account of having lost them either in transit or by misdelivery to some one not entitled. On the other hand, they took from the plaintiff's agent receipts for the full number of bags as arrived at their destination, and gave gate passes for delivery. The natural presumption under such circumstances is that all the goods arrived, and that the railway company was in a position to deliver them. We are asked to infer from the mere non-delivery that they could not be delivered, because they were lost; but that is an affirmative fact of which the company ought to have given evidence. Prima facie, the responsibility rested on the company, and the non-delivery of the goods might arise from other causes than loss. Had the company announce...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Godavari Vs. Isuf Kasim Nana
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad42
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. This was a suit against the Collector of the Godavari District and others for damages caused to the plaintiff's goods by reason of the negligence of the defendants in keeping those goods in a leaky godown. As against the second defendant the suit was withdrawn, and the third defendant has not appealed against the decree passed against him. The Collector alone has appealed to this Court.2. Under Section 197 of the Sea Customs Act, VIII of 1878, such a suit as this cannot be maintained against any Officer of Customs, unless it be proved that the loss or damage was occasioned by the neglect or wilful act of such officer.3. No special negligence has been proved against the Collector in this case. It has not even been shown that the state of the roof of the godown was brought to his notice, and as the roof had been repaired a year before, he had no reason to suppose that it was out of repair.4. The Collector of a district has not time to examine the roof of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Goundan Vs. Kolanthayan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad91
Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The plaintiff and defendants in this suit are Vellalas; and the plaintiff stated that he and his ancestors had been enjoying, for more than 300 years, the honours of the Vellalas receiving sacred ashes, sandal, betel and nut, flowers, etc., before they were served out to others, on festival and other days at the seven devasthanams mentioned in the plaint; and that from time immemorial, the defendants 4 to 8 had never received the first honours. He therefore sued to establish his right to receive the above offerings or honours before others of the same caste in the said devasthanams, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from preventing his so receiving them.2. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the claim was not of a civil nature; and, on appeal, his decision was confirmed by the District Court. The plaintiff makes this second appeal on the ground that the suit is maintainable in a Civil Court; and whether it is so...
Tag this Judgment!Dorasami Vajappayyar Vs. Atiratra Dikshatar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad136
Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. We think that this appeal must prevail. The respondent claims under an execution purchase of the right, title and interest of the appellant's uncle. The Lower Appellate Court ought not to have allowed the question whether the decree against the uncle was founded on an ancestral debt, to be raised. The plaintiff was under no obligation to pay his uncle's debt, and the sale of the property under a decree against the uncle could not pass the plaintiff's share. The case is in fact governed by Armugam v. Sabapathi I.L.R. 5 Mad. 12 and Subramanian v. Subramanian I.L.R. 5 Mad. 125 as we see no distinction between the case of brothers and that of uncle and nephew.2. The Subordinate Judge's decree must be reversed and the Munsif's decree restored, so far as they relate to the property No. 8, and the fifth defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of both appeals....
Tag this Judgment!Muttirangotmanakal Bhavathradan Bhattathiripad Vs. Erangot Trikovil Pi ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad99
Kindersley, J.1. We do not think the plaintiff could be considered a household servant or labourer within the meaning of Article 7 of the Limitation Act.2. This petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Hurbuns Sahay and anr. Vs. Thakoor Persad
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal108
Tottenham, J.1. We think this appeal should be dismissed with costs upon the preliminary ground taken by the pleader for the respondent, viz., that the Judges of the Division Bench, having concurred in the final decree, no appeal lies under the Letters Patent.2. The fact that one of the Judges was inclined to let the whole case be reopened on review, while the senior Judge thought that it should be limited to one point, does not entitle the parties to an appeal from the order so limiting it; and it appears to us that we have no authority to pronounce any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of that order....
Tag this Judgment!Peacock and ors. Vs. Byjnath and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal58
Pigot, J.1. Ordered the suits to be set down and heard together: commission to be varied and to be considered as taken in both suits. Both parties to be at liberty to adduce such witnesses as they may be advised; plaintiffs to furnish defendants, and defendants to furnish plaintiffs in second suit, with list of documents duly verified by the plaintiffs' agents within ten days. Inspection to be given immediately of all documents so set out, and, if necessary, order to be transmitted by plaintiffs; plaintiffs, if requested by defendants, to transmit order by wire to enable inspection of such documents as may have been transmitted to England at all reasonable times and places. Costs reserved, in dealing with which it should be considered whether plaintiffs were in default in not including all causes of action in one suit, or whether their conduct is susceptible of explanation....
Tag this Judgment!Chogalal Vs. Major Trueman
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom481
West, J.1. A copy of a decree of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Nasirabad having been sent for execution to the District Court at Belgaum, the District Judge has refused to execute it, on the ground that the Nasirabad Court had not jurisdiction to make the decree. Poona, the District Judge has found, was the seat of the obligation merging the earlier one, the locality of which was Nasirabad. There might be some room for this contention were the question an open one, but we do not think it is, Nasirabad is in British territory. The Code of Civil Procedure was introduced into Ajmir by a notification in the Calcutta, Government Gazette of 1861, page 502; and Nasirabad is a part of the province of Ajmir. The intention of the Civil Procedure Code, as shown by Sections 239 and 242, is Manifestly that a Court to which a decree is sent for execution by another under the same Government, and the same law of procedure, shall not take on itself the trial of whether the Court Wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- Next ›
- Last »