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
Bhikaji Sabaji and ors. Vs. Bapu Saju and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom550
Charles Sargent, J.1. This matter comes before me on a rule nisi obtained by the plaintiffs, calling on the defendants to show cause why they should not be restrained from working in wood, and carving boxes and other articles independently of two agreements entered into by them conjointly with the plaintiffs. It appears that the parties to this suit are all artizans, carrying on the trade of carvers in wood, or 'working box-makers' as they call themselves in their agreement. On 14th October 1875 they all entered into an agreement, by which the first plaintiff was appointed president and five other persons were appointed vice-presidents, to manage, according to a majority of votes, the business of the society for a term of five years. Fifty-seven of these 'working box-makers' signed this agreement, binding themselves for five years not to enter in the service of anybody, to do the business of 'working box-makers,' and not to receive work except through the president and vice-presidents....
Tag this Judgment!Ranchoddas Dayaldas Vs. Ranchoddas Nanabhai
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom581
Melvill, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, a mortgagee, sues to recover three instalments of his debt by the sale of the mortgaged property. The property is a portion of a share in a Bhagdari village, and it may be taken as admitted that it does not form what is called, in Bombay Act V of 1862, a recognized subdivision of such share. Under these circumstances the District Judge has held that he is precluded by Section 1 of Bombay Act V of 1862 from making a decree in the suit. Section 1 is as follows:No portion of a bhag or share in any bhagdari or Narwadari village, other than a recognized subdivision of such bhag or share, shall be liable to seizure, sequestration, attachment, or sale by the process of any civil Court and no process of such Court shall be enforced so as to cause the dismemberment from any such bhag or share or recognized subdivision thereof, of any homestead, building-site (Gubhan), or premises appurtenant or appendant to such bhag or share or recognized subdivision t...
Tag this Judgment!Keval Kuber and anr. Vs. the Talukdari Settlement Officer and Gagubhai ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom586
Melvill, J.1. The land in dispute has admittedly been rent-free for fifty years. This is sufficient to throw upon the person demanding rent the burden of proving that rent is due.2. The case made by the defendant (the Talukdari Settlement Officer) is that the land is service land, and that, as service is no longer required, rent must be paid. It appears to us that this is not a sufficient defence to the action.3. In Baboo Koolodeep Narain Singh v. Mahadeo Singh 6 Cal. W.R. 199 Civ., Rul., see p. 203), Peacock, C.J., says: 'I must say that this is the first time I have ever heard such a contention as that a landlord can dispense with the services upon which lands are held whenever he pleases, and take back the estate. It is not because the services are released or dispensed with, or become unnecessary, that the estate can be resumed. If a grantor release the services, or a portion of the services, upon which lands are holden, the tenant may hold the land free of the services; but the la...
Tag this Judgment!Basapa BIn Murtiapa Vs. Lakshmapa BIn Maritaraapa
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom624
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The special appellant's learned pleader has raised two points--1st, that, the land in dispute having been decided under Bombay Act V of 1864 by the Mamlatdar to have been in the possession of the special appellant (defendant No. 1, Basapa Murtiapa) under the mortgage bond by the second defendant (Basapa Shivapa) of the 1st June 1863, his decision could not be questioned in the present suit on the title, and in Lingapa v. Irapa (Sp. Ap. 363 of 1870 decided on 18th September 1870), a Mamlatdar's order, under Act V of 1864, was treated as conclusive evidence of the facts of possession and dispossession. We, however, do not think that we could adopt that view of the law. The case there cited [ex parte Nagova 3 Bom. H.C. Rep. 108 does not appear to us to be an authority to that effect. It, in fact, merely decided that a Munsif's Court had, as well as a Mamlatdar's Court, jurisdiction to entertain a suit for institution of possession of land, of which the plaintiff h...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Shivkarn Vs. the Collector of Ahmednagar and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom628
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The acts alleged to have been committed by the respondents, and which are complained of by the special appellant as plaintiff, were so committed before Bombay Act VI of 1873 came into force. The District Judge, therefore, was mistaken in supposing that its 86th section is applicable to this suit. The enactment, which is applicable to it, is Act XXVI of 1850, which does not contain any provision as to notice of action.2. But the Government Pleader has renewed an objection to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge, made in his Court, but not apparently repeated in the District Court. To that objection, founded on Section 32 of the Bombay Courts' Act XIV of 1869, we must yield, inasmuch as we think that the Collector was, in his official capacity of District Magistrate, a member of the Municipality, under the 6th section of Act XXVI of 1850, when the causes of action accrued; and, therefore, the reasoning in Nursingrav v. Luxumanrav I.L.R. 1. Bom. 318 is applic...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Annapurnabai
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom630
1. It appears to the Court that the provisions of Chapter XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to such a case. Section 415 and the two succeeding sections contemplate proceedings preliminary to and independent of inquiry. Upon general principles where there has been an inquiry or a trial, and the accused person is discharged or acquitted by any Criminal Court, that Court is bound to restore the property, the subject matter of the investigation, into the possession of the person from whom it is taken, unless, as provided for in Section 418, such Court is of opinion that 'any offence appears to have been committed' regarding it, when such order as appears right for the disposal of the property may be made. It is clear that the 2nd Class Magistrate did not consider that any offence had been committed in respect of the property in question: therefore, Section 419 gave the District Magistrate no jurisdiction to interfere. On this ground the Court will cancel his order. Whateve...
Tag this Judgment!Kally Prosonno Ghose Vs. Gocool Chunder Mitter and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal296
Mitter, J.1. The following genealogical table will materially help in setting out the facts of this case:PTTAMBUB GHOSH.Died August 1825.|-----------------------------------------------------| |Parbutty Churn Ghose, Bhugoban Chunder Ghose,(Died 1851) (Died October 1855)Married Bindadeboo Dossee Married Potitpaboni Dessee(Died 1804) || Khetter Mohun GhoseDaughter (Died 1855)Kristo Mohiny Dosseo, Married Bamasoondery Dossee,Died childless between the deaths who, after her husband's death,of Parbutty and Bindadehee. in August 1870, adoptedKALLY PBOSONNO GHOSM, the plaintiff'. 2. The plaintiff in this case is the alleged adopted son of Khetter Mohun, and the defendant is the brother of Bindadebee, widow of Parbutty, whose property is the subject-matter of dispute in the present case. Parbutty died in 1851, leaving him surviving Bindadebeo his widow, Kristo Mohiney a daughter, and Khetter Mohun his brothor's son he executed a will before his death, bequeathing all his property to Bindadebee...
Tag this Judgment!Watson and Co. Vs. Dhonendra Chunder Mookerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal7
Markby, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff on behalf of the zemindars to recover arrears of rent due in respect of certain estates in the Zilla of Midnapore, held by the defendants as patnidars. The rents claimed were those which fell due between Bysack 1275 and Aughran 1281. The defence set up was, fist, that as to the rent which fell due in 1275, the suit was barred by Section 2 of Act VII of 1859; secondly; that as to all the rent which foil due prior to the 30th of Cheyt 1277, the claim was barred by limitation; thirdly, that the defendants had paid to one Captain Murray Rs. 2,500 out of the rent due by the order of the plaintiff. The defendants contended that if these deductions were made, only Rs. 2,780-3 remained due for rent, which amount they had deposited in the Collectorate.2. It appears that the zemindars of this property and their patnidars have been for a long time in litigation with each other. In the year 1271 some opposition was made by the zemindars to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ardesir Nasarvanji Vs. Muse Natha Amiji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom601
Melvill, J.1. The only objection taken in special appeal to the decision of the Assistant Judge is that he was in error in holding that the sale of the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtor Mahamed Natha to Ardesir Nasarvanji was null and void, as being contrary to Bombay Act V of 1862.2. It appears that, on the application of the decree-holder, the whole of a bhag or share in a bhagdari village, together with a house and gubhan, standing in the name of Natha Amiji, was attached in execution of a decree against Mahamed Natha, one of the sons of Natha Amiji. The proclamation and certificate of sale were made in the usual terms, and Ardesir became the purchaser of the right, title, and interest of Mahamed Natha in the attached property. In attempting to take possession he was opposed by, Muse Natha, the brother of Mahamed Natha, but with the assistance of the Court he succeeded in obtaining possession of three survey number fields, forming a portion of the bhag, but was refus...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Soorjmukhi Koer
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal272
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We consider that we may answer both those questions by saying that the requirements of Section 11 as to the deposit of costs are not absolutely imperative. Had they been so, this Court would not have any power to modify them. But we think they are not so. There is no provision similar to that in Section 10 requiring the petition to be dismissed in case of default. We think, therefore, that the Court has some discretion, and that it would be in all cases a reasonable exercise of that discretion, if, when the period for making the deposit expires on a day when the offices of the Court are closed, the deposit were allowed to be made on the day that the offices re-open....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »