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
In Re: Petitions of Govindan Nayar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad224
Hutchins, J.1. In this case there was a charge of wrongful confinement and extortion made by one Tayichi Pokkan against certain persons. The Second-class Magistrate held an inquiry, and, having arrived at the conclusion that the charge was false, recorded proceedings to the effect that 'the complainant should be prosecuted for false complaint and the individuals mentioned in the Police report (the present petitioners) should be prosecuted for abetment of the false complaint.' I take this to be a sanction and not an order directing the prosecution. It is urged, however, and it seems to be the case that, as against these petitioners, there is no sort of evidence beyond some loose statements recorded by the Police.2. Before granting a sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Court is bound to satisfy itself that an offence has been committed. I do not see that it is bound to hold an inquiry as to all the persons who may be implicated in such offence. On the contrary...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatagopal Vs. Rangappa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad365
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In this and the connected appeals the appellant is the zemindar of Tiruvur and holds the village of Perumallapetta as a part of his permanently-settled estate. The respondents have long cultivated lands in the village as tenants. The appellant tendered to the respondents pattas for the fasli year 1290 (1879-80) stipulating for the payment of rent at certain rates in cash. The rates of rent entered in the pattas had been paid for the same lands for not less than fourteen years. The tenants refused to receive the pattas and demanded pattas providing for the payment of rent in kind, and, when these were not granted, neither party had recourse to the Revenue Court to obtain a decision of the dispute. The tenants remained in possession, and after the close of the agricultural year the zemindar attached their crops for arrears of rent at the rates entered in the pattas. Thereupon the tenants instituted the suits in which these appeals are presented by way of ap...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoyrub Chunder Surma Roy Vs. Chunder Nath Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal250
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this appeal should be dismissed.2. The plaintiff brought this suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for the purchase of the property, and it was decided by the Court below that he was entitled to a decree as against the defendant No. 4, who with full notice of the agreement, has subsequently bought the property from the other defendants, and had registered his purchase deed.3. It is contended by the appellant that this decision was wrong. But we find that the very point has been considered by Justices Mitter and Maclean in the case of Solano v. Lala Ram Lal 7 C.L.R. 481 and decided against the appellant's view.4. Those learned Judges founded their decision upon the general doctrine of equity, which had been previously acted upon in several cases in this Court, and which has been always recognized in England; that notwithstanding the provisions of the Registration Act, a party who purchases, even under a registered deed, with notice of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkristo Dass Vs. Sheikh Harain
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal517
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the registered owner of a revenue-paying estate under Beng. Act VII of 1876, and in this and other analogous cases he sues certain tenants of that estate to recover rent for the lands which they hold; and for the purposes of the question, which we have to determine, we must assume that he has proved no title to the rent which he claims, beyond the mere fact that he is the registered proprietor. The question is, whether that fact alone entitles him to recover rent from the defendants.2. The Court of First Instance considered that it did; but the Subordinate Judge and the learned Judge of this Court have both decided against the plaintiff. He now appeals to us relying on the language of Section 78 of Beng. Act VII of 1876.3. That section says that 'no person shall be bound to pay rent to any person claiming such rent as proprietor or manager of an estate or revenue-free property in respect of which he is required by this Act to cause his name to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Allunni Vs. Kunjusha and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad264
Muttusawmi Ayyar, J.1. The appellant Puliankalath Allunni Mannadyar, and the respondents, Puliankalath Kunjusha Mannadyar and others, belong to the same tarwad and he is their karnavan. The properties in suit are in the respondents' possession, and the appellant seeks to eject them on the ground that, by virtue of his position as karnavan, he is entitled to resume possession.2. In Original Suit 741 of 1876, which gave rise to Appeal Suit 708 of 1877, he claimed possession, alleging that he was their karnavan, that the lands in dispute were made over in 1839 to one Koma Amma under an oral agreement for her maintenance and for that of her descendants, and that the present first respondent, who was in possession as Koma Amma's descendant, had mortgaged some of the lands to the prejudice of the tarwad and thereby lost his right to continue in possession. The respondents then contended that they held the lands under an assignment of 1874 and on a veppu (mortgage) claim of 1862. As regards l...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Vs. the Zamindar of Sivagiri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad328
1. The defendant in this case is the zemindar of Sivagiri, and the plaintiff is a creditor, and the assignee of another creditor of defendant's father, the late zamindar. The object of the suit is to make the whole zamindari in the hands of the son, [334] including portions which had been specifically mortgaged by the father, liable for two judgment-debts due by the father.2. The first debt is that decreed in original suit 1 of 1865. A razinama was filed making the sum due to plaintiff payable by instalments and a decree was passed to the same effect in May 1867. The only instalment now in question is the last, which fell due on the 25th February 1870.3. The second debt formed the subject of original suit 37 of 1870. It had been assigned by the original obligee to one Venkatachalam Chetti, in whose favour a decree was passed on the 21st January 1871.4. The defendant's father died in 1873. Defendant was brought on the record of both suits as his father's representative and various proce...
Tag this Judgment!Dinabashy Shaha and ors. Vs. Khetter Mohun Chuckerbutty
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal265
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This was a suit brought, under Section 77 of the Registration Act for the purpose of obtaining registry of a deed.2. The reason why the Registrar refused to register it was that the signature of the defendant had not been proved to his satisfaction.3. A suit was then brought by the plaintiffs in the Munsif's Court, which was eventually dismissed upon the ground that such Court (sic) the proper one to try the question; and the plaint was consequently returned by the Munsif, in order to its being presented in the Subordinate Judge's Court, which was accordingly done.4. Both the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge have now decreed the plaintiffs' claim; and upon appeal to this Court, two points have been raised, first, that the plaintiffs' claim is barred by limitation; and, secondly, that the District Judge ought not to have found, as he has done, that the application was made to the Registrar by the plaintiffs' authorized agent.5. With regard to the first poin...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Afsaroodeen Vs. Bir Chunder Manikya
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal299
Tottenham, J.1. The parties in this suit were purchasers at auction of the same property in execution of two separate decrees. The plaintiff's was the more recent purchase, it having taken place on the 1st July 1868. The defendant's purchase was on the 5th April 1867; but the plaintiff's case was that the decree in execution of which his purchase was made was a mortgage decree, the mortgage having been made and the decree upon it having been obtained previously to the purchase made by the defendant. The date of the mortgage was 21st April 1864, and the date of the decree upon the mortgage bond was 30th December 1865. On the other side, for the defendant, appellant, it is contended that the decree obtained in December 1865 upon the mortgage bond was not a mortgage decree, but a simple money decree, and this has been held by the lower Court. The District Judge, however, was of opinion that, notwithstanding this fact, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession upon the authority of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bengal Banking Corporation Vs. S.A. Mackertich
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal315
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Court below, so far only as it concerns the defendant, Sarah Amelia Mackertich. Against the other two defendants the learned Judge made a decree, but refused to make one as against Mrs. Mackertich.2. The claim against her was of this nature.3. By a deed, dated the 1st of February 1880, Mrs. Mackertich gave to her husband, M.J.N. Mackertich (since deceased) a power-of-attorney to sell or mortgage a one-fifth share of a house in Elysium Bow, to which she, was entitled in her own right.3. Being so empowered, Mr. Mackertich in the month of September in the same year, arranged to borrow from the plaintiffs' Bank a sum of Rs. 8,000, and on the 1st of October they lent him that money upon the security of a promissory note of that date signed by himself, and Hem Chandra Bannerjee (the other defendant in this suit) and also signed by himself as attorney for his wife, Mrs. Mackertich. The note was in this form....
Tag this Judgment!Luchmon Sahai Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Kanchun OjhaIn and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal525
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that the decision of the lower Court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as barred by limitation under Article 14, Schedule II of the Limitation Act is erroneous. It is true that the plaintiffs in the plaint prayed for the reversal of the orders passed under the Land Registration Act VII of 1876, but that prayer may be treated as mere surplusage. The Civil Court has no power to set aside an order passed under the Land Registration Act. The second Clause (a), Section 89, of the Land Registration Act provides that nothing contained in that Act shall be deemed to 'preclude any person from bringing a regular suit for possession of, or for a declaration of right to, any immoveable property to which he may deem himself entitled,' and that is the clause under which the plaintiffs in this case are entitled to maintain this suit for declaration of their right to the property in dispute, and if they can successfully establish that right in a Civil Court, then under the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- Next ›
- Last »