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: Noorjehan Begum
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal429
Field, J. 1. In this case Noorjehan Begum, the widow of Lieutenant-Colonel Hedayut Ali, deceased, obtained a certificate on the 4th of October 1882, granted under the provisions of the Minors' Act XL of 1858. On the 26th of May 1883, a petition was presented by Amirunissa Begum under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. This section provides that the Civil Court for any sufficient cause may recall any certificate granted under the Act, and may also for any sufficient cause remove any guardian appointed by the Court. It is clear that any person applying under this section ought to set forth in his or her petition a sufficient cause for recalling the certificate, and that the Court to which such petition may be presented ought to proceed to enquire judicially whether such sufficient cause is established. In the case before us the District Judge, after stating that he had ascertained by prolonged personal enquiry that there were dissensions amongst the members of the family of the lat...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaul Chunder Chuckerbutty Vs. Nilmoney Mitter and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal374
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I entirely agree with the learned Judge in the Court below that the plaintiff has made out no case; and the only reason, why I think it necessary to say a few words, is to explain my view of the argument, which has been addressed to us by Mr. Phillips, upon the plea of limitation. I think it very desirable that there should be no misunderstanding upon that subject.2. The suit is brought to recover possession of a house and premises in Calcutta. The plaintiff claims the property, having purchased it, as he contends, from the Official Assignee, as belonging to a person named Mittunjoy Chuckerbutty (deceased), who is said to have been the absolute owner. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants Nos. 1 to 7, who are now in possession, were tenants on sufferance of Mittunjoy; and consequently that he, claiming through Mittunjoy, is entitled to eject them.3. These defendants say, that they do not hold under Mittunjoy at all, that they are the tenants of the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Luchmi NaraIn Mahata and ors. Vs. Birajun Koer
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal392
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree in favour of the plaintiff's passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tirhoot. The claim of the plaintiffs was for the recovery of the estate of one Chuttoorbhooj Narain. The (defendant) appellant is the widow of Bhoochunga Lal, brother of Chuttoorbhooj. Purmani Lal father of Bhoochunga Lal, and Chuttoorbhooj Narain, was a uterine brother of the original plaintiffs, viz., Ram Churn and Jairam Lal. The original plaintiffs died after the institution of the suit, and the principal respondents are their legal representatives. Purmani Lal died in the year 1273 F.S. (1866), Bhoochunga Lal in the year 1274 F.S. (1867), and Chuttoorbhooj Narain in the month of Baisack 1280 F.S. (April 1873).2. The plaintiffs alleged that the three brothers, Ram Churn, Purmani and Jairam were joint in food and estate; that Ram Churn separated from the joint family in the month of Baisack 1275 F.S. (April 1868); and that after the death of Bhoochunga Lal, Chuttoorbhooj s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: NobIn Kristo Mookerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal268
McDonell, J.1. In this case a rule was granted by Maclean and Norris, JJ., on the 20th December last, calling upon one Russick Lall Laha to show cause why a certain order made by the Magistrate of the 24-Pergunnahs under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dated the 5th December last should not be set aside.2. The facts of the case are briefly these: On or about the 27th day of September 1881, one Baboo Romanath Laha lent a sum of Rs. 5,000 upon a mortgage bond to a person who represented himself to be one Khirode Chunder Mookerjee. This person was identified by Nobin Kristo Mookerjee, the petitioner now before us. The sum so lent upon mortgage was payable upon the expiry of six months. The money not having been paid, a demand was made on behalf of the mortgagee upon the real Khirode Chunder Mookerjee, who denied any knowledge whatever of the transaction and repudiated liability under the mortgage bond. Subsequently Khirode Chunder Mookerjee instituted a suit in the Civil...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Anonymous
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal274
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that each of the deeds submitted for our consideration comes under Clause (6) of the Article 44 of the Stamp Act, and should be stamped accordingly.2. I consider that Clause (a) applies only to those deeds, in which possession of the mortgaged property is given, or agreed to be given at the time of the execution of the deed; or, in other words, where immediate possession of the property is given, or agreed to be given, by the terms of the deed to the mortgagee.3. It seems to me that this is the only construction of Clause (a) by which any meaning can be given to the words 'at the time of execution,' because the agreement to give possession must of course be made in and by the deed itself; and therefore if Clause (a) is to be read, as the learned Advocate-General contends, the clause would mean the same without the words 'at the time of execution,' as with them. Again, if the Advocate-General's view were correct, Clause (a) would be applicable in al...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmaji Vs. the Queen Empress
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad289
Hutchins, J.1. In the year 1875 one Pattabhiramayyar was diwan of Jaipur, and also had management of the Madugula estate, which had been mortgaged to his master: the appellant was muktyar for both estates. On the 21st April 1875 the appellant registered a bond (A) purporting to have been executed in his own favour by the zamindar of Madugula. In 1881 he brought a suit on this bond, and at the trial he sought to support his claim by the letter B, which purports to have been addressed to him by Pattabhiramayyar from Madugula on the 10th April 1875, and to have given cover to A. The Court found this letter to be a fabricated document and sanctioned the appellant's prosecution.2. He was committed upon three heads of charge. The first was that he gave false evidence in respect of the letter, but this broke down in consequence of the deposition not having been read to him as required by law. The third was laid under Section 4711 and charged him with having dishonestly used a forged document:...
Tag this Judgment!Nundun Lall Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal435
Mitter, J.1. This suit was brought for obtaining an order for partition of certain defined lands measuring 191 bighas 18 cottahs 10 dhure and 7 chattaeks under the following circumstances.2. The lands in suit originally appertained to an estate No. 1212 on the rent-roll of the Collector of Tirhoot. The plaintiff's predecessor in title held a share amounting to 5 gunda 9 annas in the said estate.3. In 1851 this estate was brought under bukvara under the then butwara law, Bugulation XIX of 1814, and the share belonging to the plaintiff's predecessor in title having been separated was recorded as No. 4080 of the towji. The lands in dispute, however, being not then fit for cultivation but covered with water were not divided but left joint amongst all the co-sharers of the present estate, whose shares were recorded in separate numbers. In apportioning the entire revenue payable on account of the parent estate, calculation was made excluding the assets of the disputed lands.4. Recently these...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Vs. Keshavan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad309
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The veppu-holder was not entitled to have either the jenm panayam or the auction sale set aside; but, assuming that he came into Court within time, he was entitled, on tendering the price, to claim that the jenm panayam should be transferred to him : and if no offer was made to him of the land at the price bid by the highest bidder at the auction sale, he was entitled to require that on payment of that price the sale should be made with him. He has not offered to pay the amount of the jenm panayam, nor has he applied for its transfer. He has asked that the sale at auction be set aside, because it was made subject to the principal amount of jenm panayam and interest. There is evidence, exhibit LII that at the auction sale an offer was made to his karnayan to purchase at the price offered by the highest bidder and refused. If he or his karnavan had purchased, the right to call for a transfer of the jenm panayam would not have been prejudiced by the purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Kannan Vs. Nilakandan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad337
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The original uralan and one of the then karalars on 20th July 1868 assigned to the first respondent, in consideration of a money payment, the temple and the properties in suit, which were an endowment of the temple, on the terms that he should 'manage the temple affairs and enjoy with all freedom in perpetuity and cause the services to be performed.'2. This transaction was invalid, because a sale cannot be made of the urairna right, and possibly because the plaintiff, by whom in conjunction with one of the sellers the uraima right had been admittedly enjoyed, was not a party to the transaction. Prom that date the first respondent has held possession of the temple and the properties in suit under the deed. This possession has been in fact that of a trustee, and if he has committed breach of trust he can of course be removed from office or be held accountable for the profits if he has not properly applied them; but these are not the claims now made.3. The p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Surat Dhobni
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal302
Field, J.1. The additional evidence, which we directed to be taken by our order of the 11th December last has now been sent up by the Sessions Judge. In consequence of my learned colleague having some doubt, I have very carefully considered the question with which we have to deal. In the case of Res v. Osborne 1 C. and M. 624 referred to in my learned colleague's judgment, Creswell, J., said: 'What the prosecutrix said, at the time of the committing of the offence would be receivable in evidence on the ground that the prisoner was present and the violence going on but if the violence was over, and the prisoner had departed and the prosecutrix had gone on running away crying out the name of the person, it would not be evidence.' That was a case of rape, and I do not understand Creswell, J., to have meant that in order to render the statement of the prosecutrix admissible in evidence, both the presence of the prisoner and the continuance of the violence must have co-existed with the maki...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- Next ›
- Last »