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
Timmayya Mada Vs. Lakshmana Bhakta
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad215
Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. The appellant was a respondent before the Lower Appellate Court and filed objections to the decree under Section 561 of the Code. The Subordinate Judge held that he could not be heard on a point which was not in dispute between the then appellant and himself, but only between himself and a corespondent. At the same time he decided that, if the objection could be entertained, it must prevail, and the plaintiffs (respondent's) suit ought then to be dismissed with all costs. The respondent does not dispute this part of the decision, and therefore the simple point for determination is whether the appellant's objections ought to have been entertained.2. It is conceded that the only point raised in the appeal before the Subordinate Judge was one of costs between the plaintiff and the appealing defendant. It was one in which this appellant had no possible interest, and he ought not to have been made a party to the appeal. But he was in fact joined as a resp...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaraja Vs. Arunachala and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad248
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) claims the amount due on a hypothecation bond executed in his favour by the first defendant in 1876. The second defendant is the purchaser of first defendant's right, title, and interest, which was sold in execution of a money decree in original suit 414 of 1879. The Munsif gave plaintiff a decree. The District Judge in appeal found in favour of plaintiff's bond, but dismissed his suit on the ground that the personal remedy was admittedly barred, and that the second defendant's certificate of sale, being duly registered, took effect as regards the property against plaintiff's unregistered security under Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1877. The sole question for our determination is whether a Court's certificate of sale, if registered, takes effect within the meaning of that section against all prior unregistered encumbrances.2. The District Court has presumed, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, that the Court which sold...
Tag this Judgment!Raja and anr. Vs. Subbaraya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad253
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. There is no valid ground for the contention that if the adoption be proved the plaintiff should take but a fifth share. By representation the adopted son takes the share which his adoptive father would be entitled to take on partition. With all deference to the authority of the High Court of Calcutta in Raghubanund Doss v. Sadhu Churn Doss I.L.R. 4 Cal. 425 we doubt whether the passage in Dattaka Chandrika, Section 5, paragraph 25, even with the addition suggested, has been correctly interpreted. If there be such a special rule, as is suggested, it is not applicable at all events to Sudras, among whom the adopted son is declared entitled to take an equal share with a legitimate son who is born subsequently to the adoption. We agree with the Judge that the plaintiff would take his father's share, a moiety, if he were really adopted.2. Appeal dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Empress Vs. Saminada Chetty
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad274
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The accused in this case was charged with disobeying a summons issued by a Police officer, under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the attendance of the accused to answer a charge of kidnapping. The Second-class Magistrate considered that Section 160 applies only to witnesses and not to accused persons, and referred to the marginal note which mentions witnesses only, and he accordingly discharged the accused on the ground that the summons which he was charged with disobeying was not one which a Police officer was legally competent to issue. The Joint Magistrate, however, was of opinion that the view taken by the Sub-Magistrate was erroneous, and forwarded the case to the District Magistrate for submission to the High Court.2. The Court is of opinion that Section 160 does not authorize a Police officer to require the attendance of an accused person with a view to his answering the charge. The intention of the Legislature seems to have b...
Tag this Judgment!Kuriyali Vs. Mayan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad255
1. The plaintiff and appellant, Paratakath Kuriyali, is the karnavan of a tarwad of which the deceased, Paratakath Suliman, was a member Suliman mortgaged the four properties in question to Kakkotakath Moiliar and others, the first four defendants (respondents), who sued him :and obtained a decree ordering the sale of the properties. Suliman having died after decree, the plaintiff was brought in as his representative under Section 234 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is denied that plaintiff was his representative, but he does not seem to have objected or appealed, and as the self-acquired property of an anandravan, undisposed of at his death, becomes the property of the tarwad, it appears to us that the plaintiff was rightly made a party to the decree. It has not been stated who else could have been Suliman's legal representative. He even admits that he has taken one of these very properties, as Suliman's representative, and subject to the mortgage in defendants' favour.2. The decre...
Tag this Judgment!NobIn Krishna Mookerjee Vs. the Chairman of the Suburban Municipality
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal194
Field, J.1. In this case the accused has been convicted for failing to remove or alter the spouts of his house which discharge water on the high road, and the conviction has been bad as for a breach of Bye-law No. 19 of the Suburban Municipality made under the provisions of Section 313, Beng. Act V of 1876.2. The first point raised before us is that the conviction is bad, because it was had before a Bench of Magistrates consisting, amongst other's, of Mr. Sterndale, the Vice-Chairman and a salaried officer of the Muncipality. We think that this objection is a sound one, anything contained in Section 555+ of the present Code of Criminal Procedure notwithstanding. That section enacts 'that no Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from his Court, try any case to, or in which he is a party or personally interested,' and then there is an exception as follows: 'A Judge or Magistrate shall not be deemed to be a party or personally intereste...
Tag this Judgment!Dharanamma Vs. Subba and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad306
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Several properties had been attached and their sale ordered when the judgment-debtor represented to the Court that a portion of one of them, No. III, was an endowment, and he prayed that the other properties I, II, and V, and the other part of III might be sold first, and stated that, if a sufficient sum was not realized, he would pay the balance. The decree-holder's vakil concurred in the application that I and II should be first sold, but he insisted that IV should also be first sold, and that, if by the sale of I, II, and IV the amount realized was insufficient, the whole of No. III should be sold and the Court made the order accordingly. We are of opinion that the act of the vakil was a sufficient application to the Court to take a step in aid of execution. He concurred in asking the Court to give directions as to the order in which the lots should be sold, and he asked for an order that a lot reserved should subsequently be sold in its entirety and n...
Tag this Judgment!Chundi Churn Bhuttacharjea and anr. Vs. Hem Chunder Banerjea
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal207
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that the order complained of must be set aside. The first point that was urged before us was that no notice of the application upon which the order in question was passed was given to the petitioner. The complainant's vakil, who appeared before us in support of the order of the Sessions Judge, admits this defect. The order is therefore bad upon this ground. The second objection taken before us is that the Sessions Judge, under Section 437, has no power to direct a particular Magistrate by name to make the further enquiry contemplated in that section. It appears to us that this contention is also well founded. The language of Section 437 leaves no room for doubt that the Sessions Judge has not the power which he has exercised in this case, viz., of directing a particular Subordinate Magistrate by name to make the further enquiry under this section. The third point taken before us, and upon which we think the order must be altogether set aside, is that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Neogy and ors. Vs. Rajanikanth Biswas and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal244
Richard Garth, C.J.1. These are four cases, in which somewhat similar claims were made by the plaintiffs.2. At an auction sale in execution, the plaintiff's purchased the right, title and interest of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are members of the Biswas family, in certain property, which those defendants were jointly entitled to, and in possession of, with the other Biswas defendants; and amongst other lands, which were included in the purchase, was the right, title and interest of the defendants 1 and 2 in the joint family dwelling-house.3. Other portions of the family property consisted of lands let out to tenants, whilst others again were held by one or two of the Biswas defendants in rather a peculiar way, which I shall presently explain.4. At present we will deal with one of the cases only (No. 738), which relates to the joint family dwelling-house, and to one or two plots of land which were held by tenants of the family on service tenure.5. The Munsiff held that the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Vellaya Vs. Jaganatha
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad307
Kindersley, J.1. If when the postage stamps were put in, an application was made to take some step in aid of execution, this would be sufficient to give a new period of limitation, and the subsequent application would be within the time allowed. But upon the other point we consider that, while the discovery of a fresh authority may not entitle a party to a review of judgment, yet, when a Judge is satisfied that his judgment has proceeded upon an erroneous view of the law, the words of Section 623 of the Civil Procedure Code are wide enough to allow him to review his judgment, and to decide according to law.2. We dismiss this petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- Next ›
- Last »