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
Gopeenath Mookerjee and anr. Vs. Kally Doss Mullick and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal225
Pigot, J.1. I need not detail the form in which this matter now cornea before me. It appears sufficiently from the pleadings and affidavits in the present case and from the pleadings in the former case from which this case springs.2. The plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendant Kally Doss from executing a decree of this Court in a suit brought by him against the defendant Sreemutty Mohamoyee Dabee on the ground that the decree in that suit was obtained by collusion between her and Kally Doss.3. The first point taken by the defendant is, that the plaintiffs are clothed with no right such as to entitle them to maintain their suit at all, on the ground that the suit instituted by Peary Mohun against Kally Doss and Sreemutty Mohamoyee Dabee to set aside the decree in the before-mentioned suit was compromised in such a manner as entirely to bar the plaintiffs' rights in respect of her deceased husband, Monohur Mookerjee, inasmuch as the consent decree obtained in that suit amounted in effe...
Tag this Judgment!Malkai Mukhadrai Uzwa Badshah Mehal Saheba Vs. Mohamed Masik
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal380
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I have no doubt whatever that in this case the nature of the appeal is the same as the value of the suit, namely, Rs. 2,50,000.2. The question is not what is the defendant's personal interest in the subject-matter of the suit. He may have no personal interest at all; and yet the subject-matter of the appeal may be as valuable as the subject-matter of the suit. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in the defendant's objection....
Tag this Judgment!Akhil Chandra Chowdhry Vs. Nayu and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal248
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We regret very much that we find it necessary to remand this case, but we do so, because we are led to believe, from what the Subordinate Judge himself says, that he has made a mistake in applying the rules which have been laid down by this Court with reference to the use of jumma-wasil-baki papers.2. There were two questions in the case: first, with regard to the rate of rent which the defendants had to pay; and, secondly, with regard to the appropriation of the payments.3. We need not say anything as to the latter point, because we think that the Subordinate Judge was substantially right in the way in which he appropriated the payments.4. But with regard to the first point, the Subordinate Judge says that he cannot believe the first witness who is called for the plaintiffs, because he is unable to say what is the amount of rent which he realized from the defendant in the year 1241, without referring to the jumma-wasil-baki papers.5. Now we have had the evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanniyasi Razu and Two ors. Vs. Pakir Razu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad268
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Prima facie the lands are the lands of the zamindari granted by the former zamindar to certain persons on condition of rendering service and of the payment of a certain sum of money to the zamindar in recognition of his ownership of the land, and it may be to meet the excess of the proper rent over the allowed remuneration.2. It is ordinarily competent to a zamindar to dispense with such services and to resume the tenure or at his pleasure to enhance the quit-rent, and there is evidence to show that, when the zamindari was under the charge of the Court of Wards, the quit-rent was in fact enhanced in 1869.3. The former zamindar assigned the services of some of these service tenure holders to his relations, and thereafter the quit-rents on the holdings of those service tenure holders were collected by the persons to whom the services of the holders had been assigned. There is nothing to show that at that time there was any assignment of the gadaba lands to ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kristo Lall Nag
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal256
ORDERRichard Garth, C.J.1. In this case Mr. Ghose applied to this Bench in September last for a rule under the following circumstances:A preliminary enquiry had taken place at Noakhally before the Deputy Magistrate, Mr. Barber, with regard to several persons, who were charged with dacoity. One of the prisoners, Chand My an, was defended by a first grade pleader, named Kristo Lall Nag, who, in the course of the enquiry, asked questions of the witnesses, which showed that he was in possession of copies of certain Police investigation papers.2. It afterwards appeared that; he had copies of confessions which bad been made to the Police by three of the prisoners (other than the man he was defending) and also copies of depositions of certain witnesses also taken by the Police; and he made use of these copies in conducting his client's case.3. As copies of these papers are not allowed by the Police authorities to be given to anybody, the Deputy Magistrate considered that those which the plead...
Tag this Judgment!Appasami Vs. Rama Subba and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad262
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Act VIII of 1865, which inter alia consolidated the provisions of the law conferring summary remedies on landholders entitled to recover rent or revenue from their tenants or occupiers of the soil, defined landholders as including inamdars, and tenants as including all persons who are liable to pay rent to a landholder. The defendant is an inamdar; the plaintiffs are also inamdars, but are liable to pay a quit-rent to the superior inamdar, the defendant. The Act, in our judgment, authorizes the defendant to have recourse to summary remedies for the recovery of the quit-rent. The decree of the Judge is set aside, and the case will be remanded that the appeal may be reheard. The costs of this second appeal will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Empress Vs. Krishnappa and Murugappa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad276
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We are of opinion that the evidence warranted the conviction.2. The sick person, by becoming a passenger in a train at a time when he was, to his knowledge, suffering from cholera, did an act which he must have known was likely to spread the infection of a disease dangerous to life; and he did so 'negligently,' that is, neglecting the precautions which would have obviated risk to his fellow passengers in that he gave no notice of his condition to the Company's servants, who would have either provided separate accommodation for him or have lawfully prevented him from travelling. The second accused abetted the act. We see no reason to interfere....
Tag this Judgment!Durga Sundari Devi Widow of Monoranjan Das Vs. Govinda Chandra Addy an ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal368
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge, confirming a sale in execution.2. The circumstances were these-One Monoranjan Das became the purchaser at the sale of certain immoveable property described as lots 2 and 3; and he petitioned the Court that the sale should be set aside, and his deposit returned to him, upon the ground that there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale notification, and that consequently he had bought a property very different in its nature and value from that which purported to be sold. There is no doubt that he purchased the same property which was mentioned in the notification; but it was far less valuable than he had reason to believe it to be on account of certain putni leases of which no notice was given, and for certain other reasons, which he alleges to have been known to the execution creditor, and fraudulently concealed by the way in which the property was described in the sale notification.3. The subject-m...
Tag this Judgment!Suryanna Vs. Durgi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad258
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. I do not see on what grounds it can be held that the assignment of the Government revenue alters the character of the payments to which the revenue payer was liable or releases the land from its liability to the charge. The assignee is not entitled to have recourse to the summary remedies to enforce the charge under Act II of 1864, which are conferred by the law on Collectors only, but by ordinary suit he is competent to enforce the payment as a charge upon the land. If, however, he adopts this procedure, he must, in order to affect the interest of the persons who for the time being are owners of the land, implead them, and inasmuch as the respondent was not a party to the Suit 192 of 1876 in which a decree was passed for the sale of the land, the portion to which she was entitled should not have been sold. But in fact it was sold in pursuance of a direction in the decree and at a public auction; and the question arises whether the present claim is not ba...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Empress Vs. Sama Papi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad287
Hutchins, J.1. We see no ground to interfere in this case. A Village Munsif is not a Police officer and the District Magistrate is not right in inferring from Section 7 of the Village Cess Act that he is a Police officer. The confession made to him was not, therefore, inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and, since the woman was not in custody at the time (the Police had not even come to the village), it cannot be excluded under Section 26.* There is no doubt that the woman was dragged out of the water and the Magistrate believed the account which she gave to the Munsif as to how she got there, and evidently did not believe that the other witnesses were telling the whole truth.*Confession made by accused while in custody of Police not to be used as evidence.[Section 26: No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a Police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.]...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- Next ›
- Last »