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
Attipakula Munappa Vs. Dasinani Chenchu Nayudu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad138
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. These were suits, in the nature of appeals against distraints by their landlord, instituted by a number of raiyats under Section 18 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865 (Madras). The time limited for such summary suits is thirty days from the date of distraint. The distraints were made on the 10th of March, and on the 13th these raiyats presented a joint petition to the Head Assistant Collector, who accepted it, but, without registering it as a plaint, and apparently without considering what jurisdiction he had to interfere, endorsed the petition to the Tahsildar for inquiry and report. On behalf of the raiyats it has been suggested that this order must have been made under Section 67* which allows the Collector, at any stage of a summary suit, to direct a local inquiry. The other side has not shown how else the proceedings could be justified. It is true that the suit had not been registered, but the raiyats cannot be held responsible for any omission on...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Vs. Raya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad325
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The inam title-deed is certainly misleading as is not unfrequently the case; it is apparent from other and unquestionable evidence that the inamdar was not entitled to the land, but to a share of the revenue, and that the payment mentioned in the inam deed as quit-rent is in fact the two-thirds of the revenue, which was retained by the Government, when one-third was given to the inamdar.2. Pattas are produced granted to the occupiers as ordinary raiyats by the Revenue authorities, and, in virtue of those pattas, payment of two-thirds of the revenue was made in kind to Government up to 1859 and thereafter in money till, in 1868, the Collector directed that the payment should be made through the inamdar, a procedure which appears to have been contemplated by the Inam Commissioner.3. Although the Rent Recovery Act defines the term landlord in that Act as including inamdars who may be mere assignees of Government revenue and also as including persons, who far...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasami and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad102
Hutchins, J.1. These are appeals by different prisoners in a housebreaking case. The first and second prisoners were partners in an arrack-shop adjoining the premises which were broken into; the third and seventh, besides three others who were acquitted, were Police constables; the eighth and twelfth prisoners were Koravars. The first prisoner has appealed separately by Mr Michell; the second, third, seventh, and ninth to twelfth prisoners have forwarded a joint petition, stating that they did not commit the offence, but urging no special grounds of appeal. The tenth to twelfth prisoners pleaded guilty, and their appeal may be dismissed at once.2. On behalf of the first prisoner, Mr. Michell has urged that certain confessions were inadmissible against him, as well as the mahazars drawn up after the discovery of various items of property, and many statements made on hearsay by the Inspector of Police. There can be. no doubt that these objections are well-founded, and, if the case had be...
Tag this Judgment!Hurry Churn Chuckerbutty and anr. Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal140
Prinsep, J.1. The two appellants before us, Hurry Churn Chuckerbutty and Gopal Chunder Chuckerbutty, gomasfchas of two co-sharer zamindars, have been tried on charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 804 of the Indian Penal Code, voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325, and voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323. The jury unanimously acquitted them of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and by a majority of three to two convicted them on the second charge. The Judge, in accepting this verdict, expressed his disapproval of the acquittal on the first charge, but in view of the unanimity of the jury in respect of that acquittal accepted the verdict under both heads, and accordingly sentenced the prisoners to the extreme sentence of imprisonment allowed by the law, and also inflicted a fine.2. There are many objections which have been taken to, and are indeed patent in, the Judge's proceedings, both as regards those during the...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliyugam Chetti Vs. Chokalinga Pillai and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad105
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The suit was instituted in the Pudukottai Court on a bond made in Pudukottai territory and payable to the appellant, a resident of Pudukottai. The cause of action then on the bond arose in the Pudukottai territory. The respondents appeared in the suit brought in the Pudukottai Civil Court and took no objection to the jurisdiction of that Court, until the case had reached the stage of appeal, when it was overruled on the ground that they had not taken such an objection in the Court of First Instance.2. The question of jurisdiction was involved in the decision of the questions whether the bond was made by the respondents and whether it was payable in Pudukottai.3. On the facts found in the Pudukottai Court, the Court had jurisdiction.4. We must set aside the decrees of the Courts below and remand the suit to the Court of First Instance for trial. Costs to abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!James Scott Vs. James Finlay and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom386
Bayley, Acting, C.J.1. The question referred to us for our opinion by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court is 'whether, on a true construction of the terms of the bills of lading held by the plaintiff, the delivery, under the circumstances set forth in the case, was a complete delivery to the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the bills of lading.' The bills of lading were two, but are identical in form. The goods 'shipped in good order and condition are to be delivered, subject to the exceptions and conditions herein provided, in like good order and condition from the ship's tackles (where the ship's responsibility shall cease).' Then follow the exceptions and conditions referred to, only one of which is material to the present question, and that runs as follows: 'The ship-owner shall have the option of discharging in dock, and of making delivery of the goods under the bill of lading, either over the ship's side, or from lighters, or a store-ship, or custom house, or wareho...
Tag this Judgment!Tinnappa Chetti Vs. Mumgappa Chetti
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad107
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. The appellant and respondent purchased the same piece of ground (No. 2) which had been entered under different numbers in the same sale proclamation. The respondent was the decree-holder, and had put the Court in motion. He bought the land as No. 7 on the 12th August, his sale was confirmed on the 14th October, and the certificate issued on the 18th December. The appellant bought it as No. 40 on the 30th August, and his purchase was confirmed on the 31st October, but his certificate bears date 17th November and has been registered.2. The first point urged in appeal was that the appellant's certificate bears ,a date prior to that of the respondent, but this was abandoned on it being pointed out that the respondent's certificate disclosed the fact that his purchase had been confirmed before the appellant's.3. The third argument was that the respondent's unregistered certificate must give way to appellant's, which had been registered. We hold, however, that ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanti Lakshmaya Vs. Yerubandi Pedda Appadu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad111
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The Judge has rightly held that a mortgagor would not necessarily be deprived of his right to redeem by a revenue sale.2. The decree in Original Suit 338 of 1881 would estop the respondent from asserting that the amount then found was not due on the date of that decree, but it may be that that amount has been since discharged out of the usufruct. We see no reason to disturb the order....
Tag this Judgment!Muttukumarappa Reddi Vs. Arumuga Pillai and Two ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad145
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. From the decision on Krishna Behari Roy v. Bunwari Lall Roy I.L.R. 1 Cal. 144 it appears that in that case the question of title had been carried up to the highest Court of appeal in India and finally determined. The circumstances of the present case are different.2. The former suit was a suit for rent. It was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. The tenant had no reason to object to a decree, which was altogether in his favour, and it was not, in our judgment, competent to him to present an appeal from the finding on an issue.3. We agree with the Judge that the matter is not, under the circumstances, res judicata. We see no reason to disturb the Judge's order remanding the suit for trial, nor do we see any reason why the Sub-Collector should not proceed to determine it, for there has been no denial of the relation of landlord and tenant.4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Mathuradas Nandvalabh and anr. Vs. Bai Amthi
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom522
West, J.1. The enjoyment of apertures admitting light and air is an enjoyment 'as of right' when it is open and manifest, not furtive or invisible, and when it is not had in such wise as to involve the admission of an obstructive right in the owner of the alleged servient tenement. The phrase does not mean a right acquired through grant from the owner of the servient tenement, though the presumption of a grant from an enjoyment for twenty years was the basis of the English law on the subject. It may seem hard that the owner of a plot of land should be divested of one of the ordinary incidents of ownership by his neighbour's building a house on his land more than twenty years before the former wants to build, and that would be so if exclusive ownership were an ultimate fact; but the truth is, that both owners occupy under the sanction of the State, because such occupation is found conducive to the general welfare. The same principle warrants the use of land for purposes beneficial to co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- Next ›
- Last »