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
Venkataramanjulu Nayudu Vs. Ramachandra Nayudu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad150
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The clause respecting the payment of rent at the highest rates payable in the neighbourhood on land formerly dry, which might be irrigated from a Government source of supply, and the clause relating to the payment of such rates as the lessors might agree to take for the cultivation of land in excess of the holdings and unassessed, appear to us to be objectionable, because they are indefinite. The Act intends that the rate of rent should be ascertained and declared even where the rate may vary with the means of cultivation or the frequency of cultivation, or where the quantum of rent may vary with an increase or reduction in the area of the holding.2. We must affirm the decree and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Preonath Misree and anr. Vs. Russick Das Bairagy and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal102
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff describing herself as 'elder sister and guardian of the minors Preonath Misree and Uma Churn Misree,' brought this suit to recover possession of certain land, the property of the minors, from which she, while acting as their guardian and in possession on their account, had been dispossessed.2. The defendants, apart from the merits of the case, contended that Preonath Misree had attained majority, and further, that, even if he and his brother were minors, the plaintiff had no right to sue on their behalf, as she held no certificate under Act XL of 1858, and had no permission from the Court to bring the suit.3. It certainly does not appear that any permission, such as that contemplated by Section 3, Act XL of 1858, was asked for or given; but the Munsif, in disposing of the latter objection, says in his judgment: 'Managers of small properties are competent to bring cases without obtaining a certificate; * * * * thus the plaintiff is in no way debarred....
Tag this Judgment!Nilmoney Dass and ors. Vs. Durga Churn Shaha and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal134
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We have great doubt whether we ought not to reverse the judgments of both Courts, and to dismiss the plaintiff's suit upon the ground that it is not properly brought.2. It is in form a suit by 'Gour Monee Dassee, widow of Sumbho Nath Dass, deceased, and manager on behalf of her minor son Nilmoney Dass.' But the real claimant is Nilmoney Dass, the minor, and the suit has been dealt with from first to last by the lower Courts upon that footing.3. The suit, therefore, in point of form, is brought in the name of the wrong person.4. We have had other cases before us, in which the same mistake has been made, and Courts of First Instance are very much to blame for not obliging plaintiffs to put their claims in proper shape, before they allow such suits to proceed.5. The fact of the Munsiff having omitted to do this in the present case has been the means of causing the parties great delay and expense, and very nearly of defeating the plaintiff's claim altogether, although...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Sattani Bibee and ors. Vs. Mina Kumari Bibee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal220
Richard Garth, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the Court below was quite right.2. It is not necessary for us to deal with any other than that which is the principal question in the case, namely, whether the sale, which took place under the execution proceedings in the former suit, can be set aside by the plaintiff in this suit.3. She (the present plaintiff) was the judgment-debtor in the former suit, and before the execution issued under which the sale took place, she took the objection that the right to issue execution was barred by limitation.4. The Court held that execution was not barred, and consequently the sale took place, and was confirmed to the present defendant.5. The plaintiff, the execution-debtor, then appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that the Court below was wrong, and that the right to issue execution was barred. The decision has been since approved by the Privy Council.6. The plaintiff then brought this suit for the purpose of having it declared that the sale ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Tata Charlu Vs. Konadala Ramachandra Reddi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad152
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. An order under Section 210 alters the decree, and the decree can be executed only subject to such alteration.2. The decree-holder might have objected to the order for the payment of the amount decreed in a lump sum, but he was silent and the order is not a nullity, because the alteration merely postponed the period of payment.3. The Judge has rightly held the application was within time. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Beer Chunder Manikya Vs. Ishan Chunder Burdhun and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal136
McDonell, J.1. We think that the Court below is wrong in holding that Section 432 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevents the institution of a suit by the Maharajah in his own name, and through a recognized agent other than one appointed under that section. In the present suit the Maharajah has not sued as the independent Rajah of Hill Tipperah, but as Zamindar of Chakla Roshanabad, etc. The judgment to which the Subordinate Judge refers was a suit which was brought against the Maharajah qua Maharajah of Independent Tipperah, in respect of a subject of which our Courts could not take cognizance. The order of the lower Court is therefore reversed, and the suit will be tried by the Subordinate Judge....
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Broach Vs. Desai Raghunath and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom546
Pinhey, J.1. This case is on all fours with Second Appeals 432, 437 and 438 Ante, p. 542 in which Mr. Nagindas Marphatya appeared the defendants, and in which judgment was delivered on the 23rd of August last.2. To that judgment we have only to add the following remarks with reference to the arguments advanced by Mr. Shantaram Narayan Bondse:1. We hold that the words in Section 1 of Bombay Act V of 1862--' no portion of a bhag, &c.;, shall be liable to seizure, sequestration, attachment, or sale, by the process of any Civil Court'--mean that no portion of a bhag shall be seized, sequestered, attached, or sold by the process of any Civil Court, and that any such seizure, sequestration, attachment or sale would be absolutely illegal, and, therefore, void.2. Then Mr. Shantaram argued that after a portion of a bhag has been actually sold by a Civil Court, the Collector should not proceed under Section 2, but under Section 3 of the Act; but we think this argument cannot be allowed for a mom...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Miller, Official Assignee of Bengal and of the Estate of Kishen C ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal150
Prinsep, J.1. The question before us is whether a creditor, whose rights depend upon an attachment before judgment, is entitled to execute a decree subsequently obtained, in spite of a vesting order in favour of the Official Assignee of the insolvent debtor's estate passed after the attachment, but before the decree.2. I am of opinion that, having regard to the terms of the present Code, he cannot execute such a decree. An attachment before judgment is obtained when a Court is satisfied that the defendant intends to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, by disposing of or removing his property from the jurisdiction of the Court, or quitting such jurisdiction and is unable to furnish proper security. The attachment is to be removed if at any time the security is furnished or the suit is dismissed. It does not affect the rights of third parties already existing, nor does it prevent any decree-holder from applying for the sale of the property in sat...
Tag this Judgment!Moothora Kant Shaw and ors. Vs. the India General Steam Navigation Co.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal166
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Whatever doubts may have arisen upon the subject of this reference in consequence of recent legislation, it is at least satisfactory that we are all now agreed upon one very material point, namely, that at the time of the passing of the Indian Carriers Act in 1865, the English law relating to common carriers was in force in this country. My brother WILSON and myself, when we referred this case, had some doubt about that point, but, so far as I am concerned, I am glad to say that my doubts have been entirely removed.2. It is obvious that the Carriers Act itself assumes two things: first, that there were a class of persons here at that time, who were recognized as common carriers; and, secondly, that there was some special law, which regulated the duties and responsibilities of those persons. It is difficult to imagine what that law could have been, unless it were the English common law; and it seems only reasonable to suppose that, as common carriers were introduce...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Krishnayyar Vs. Kaveri Shettati and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR7Mad201
Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. The decree which the appellant seeks to execute directed mesne profits to be paid by a person who happened to be yajaman (manager). The decree does not show that he was sued as yajaman, and the two other members of the family who were joined as defendants in the suit were exonerated from the direction as to mesne profits. We cannot say that the decree shows any liability on the part of the family, and therefore dismiss this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- Next ›
- Last »