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
Dukhi Sahu and anr. Vs. Mahomed Bikhu
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal284
Mitter, J.1. I am of opinion that the question referred in this case is a question of limitation which arises in the case, and has not been decided in the order of reference.2. The plaint in this suit, which was filed on the 30th September 1880, states that there was an adjustment of accounts between the parties on the 18th October 1877.3. In the order of reference, we decided two questions-first, that the suit was not based upon an express contract made between the parties on the 18th October 1877; secondly, that the transaction which took place on that date did not amount to an implied contract. We felt no doubt upon this last mentioned point; and the authorities which are all cited in our judgment are all one way, and fully support the view which we have taken; no conflict of authorities, as far as we are aware, exists on this point. Under these circumstances, we felt that we could not refer this question to the decision of a Full Bench. Our opinion upon the point being clear, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshamana Chetti Vs. Appala Narasimhasami and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad167
Hutchins, J.1. The decree-holder in this case has applied for execution in the following circumstances: Certain moneys stood in deposit in another Court which he believed to be payable to the judgment-debtor. He attached them and the sum was remitted to this Court, that of the Bimlipatam Munsif, at his request. The plaintiff in the other Court put in a claim, but it was disallowed, and the money was paid out to the decree-holder and satisfaction recorded on the decree. The plaintiff in the other Court then brought a suit, in which it was conclusively decided that the money did not belong to this judgment-debtor and was not available for the satisfaction of this decree. The money has, therefore, been refunded and the decree-holder has put in a fresh application.2. The question referred seems to be whether further execution proceedings are barred by the Court having entered up satisfaction in the register.3. We are clearly of opinion that fresh proceedings may be taken. It is not alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Khimji Jivraju Shettu Vs. Sa Purushotam Jutani and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR7Mad171
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. It is a pre-requisite of the right to join in one suit more than one cause of action against a defendant that the Court to which the plaint is presented should have jurisdiction over all the causes of action. The joinder, then, of the claim in respect of the partnership transactions with the claim on account of the agency transactions would not give the Court jurisdiction in respect of the agency transactions. The question is, whether the Court had, independently of this joinder, jurisdiction to determine the claim arising out of the agency transactions.2. It is not alleged that the defendants made any contract of agency at Telli-cherry. Presumably the contract was made at Bombay, where they reside and carry on business; it was performed at Bombay in so far as regarded the sale, purchase, or despatch of goods; and it is not shown that there was any express stipulation as to the place at which an account should be rendered or any balance resulting in favou...
Tag this Judgment!Karimshah Vs. Nattan Bivi and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad417
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The only point calling for decision in this appeal is that of limitation.2. The second defendant obtained possession of trust property more than twelve years before suit. He does not dispute that the property is bound by a trust, on the contrary he admits he holds as a trustee and claims to have been properly constituted a trustee. The case then is governed by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Balwant Rao Bishwant Chandra Chor v. Purun Mal Chaube L.R. 10 IndAp 90 in which it was held that a claim to vindicate the personal right of a trustee to the possession of immoveable property against another person claiming that right in the same character is not governed by Section 10 of the Limitation Act.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Brae Vs. the Queen-empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal338
Mitter, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jhenidah under Section 155 of the Indian Penal Code. It is quite clear, and it is not disputed that that is not the right section under which he should have been convicted. The appellant was simply the manager and not the owner of the land respecting which the alleged riot took place. The section under which he should have been charged is Section 156, but it appears to me that on three essential points the evidence that has been adduced is not sufficient to establish an offence under Section 156.2. The first point that is necessary to be established is that a riot was committed, but there is no evidence to prove that a riot, as defined in the Penal Code, was committed. It is necessary to show that there was an assembly of more than five persons, who had a common object in view, but in this case there is no evidence to show that the servants of the factory, who are alleged, to have constituted...
Tag this Judgment!Gurupathappa and anr. Vs. Narasingappa and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad174
1. This suit was originally referred to five arbitrators, two of whom were named by the plaintiffs and two by the defendants, while the fifth was a common arbitrator, or uttara-panchayattar.2. The plaintiffs' arbitrators declined to act and the common arbitrator died. Thereupon the Munsif appointed two new arbitrators upon the plaintiffs' nomination and another uttara-panchayattar with the consent of both parties. On the date ultimately fixed for the return of an award, the uttara-panchayattar and defendants' arbitrators delivered an award dismissing plaintiffs' claim, while the plaintiffs' arbitrators put in a petition, stating that they had withdrawn from the proceedings as the uttara-panchayattar had treated them discourteously, and that they had not met together or examined witnesses.3. The Munsif thereupon superseded the arbitration, and, after hearing the suit on the merits, gave a judgment partly in favour of the plaintiffs.4. The defendants appealed, and the Subordinate Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference from the Board of Revenue Under Section 46 of the Ind ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad155
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Kernan, Kindersley, Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchines, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the instrument is a lease reserving a rent of Rs. 1,954-10-7, and that the stamp duty is to be calculated on that amount. It is true that the lessor mentions his liability to pay a large sum as Government revenue, and that he directs the lessee to apply so much as is necessary of the rent to the liquidation of his obligation; but as between the lessor and lessee the property is demised free of revenue and not subject to it, and the sum of Rs. 1,954-10-7 is the sum received by the lessor for the use of his land, he remaining under the obligation to discharge revenue, and, if default were made by the lessee in applying the rent as directed, the whole sum he might fail to pay would be recovered from his rent....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Empress Vs. Subbanna and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad197
Kindersley, J.1. As to karnams in settled districts, Collectors might, subject to certain restrictions, require their attendance by notice under Regulation XXIX of 1802, Sections 12 to 16. Those sections, however, were declared by Regulation II of 1806 not to apply to districts in which the revenue was not permanently fixed. In such districts, karnams of villages were declared to be under the immediate authority of the Collectors and their subordinate officers, who were to have full power to require their attendance when and where their services were required.2. Even in settled districts, Section 13 of Regulation XXIX of 1802 was 'not to be construed to preclude Collectors, or other public officers, from demanding from karnams the information required for the due administration of the revenues of such lands as might escheat to Government or remain khas after attachment for arrears of revenue. '3. The Madras Act III of 1869 is 'an Act to empower Revenue officers to summon persons to att...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasayyar Vs. Lakshmamma and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad206
Charles A. Turner Kt., C.J.1. The lands were attached to the office of karnam as its emolument; when the appellant was removed from the office, he lost his right to the land.2. The circumstance that money may have been expended on the improvements of the land in the expectation that the office with its emolument would be continued to the family, would not give the appellant any title to recover the land in the events that have occurred. When he was removed for misconduct, the office and emoluments were conferred on a stranger, and with the decision of the Revenue authority on that question we cannot interfere. While the office was held by a stranger, the Government resolved to sever the lands from the office and to offer them to the then office holder for enfranchisement; the holder accepted the offer and became the owner.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Bachu Ramesam Vs. Nukala Bhanappa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad182
Kernan and Hutchins, JJ.1. The plaintiff contended that he is entitled to add the water-tax as tax in the patta tendered. Water-tax is not rent, and should not be inserted in the patta.2. If the plaintiff desired to add the tax to the rent and to claim it as rent under Section 11 of the Rent Act, he should proceed to obtain the sanction of the Collector, which he has not done.3. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- Next ›
- Last »