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
Govind Shaw Tanti Vs. Shiro Kumari Debi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal418
Markby, J.1. This is a suit brought under the provisions of Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure[1] for setting aside an order made in an execution-proceeding taken in respect of certain land, of which the plaintiff claims to be the owner. He put in a claim under Section 246, and failed; and thereupon he brought this suit, to use the words of that section, 'to establish his right.' He sets out his title saying that the land of which he claims to be the owner appertained to 23 bigas II cottas 7 chittaks of land which belonged to one Ram Dhoba; that out of the said land, Ram Dhoba sold 7 bigas, which are in dispute, to Lochunkali; that while Lochunkali was in possession of the said land, he sold it to the plaintiff under a kobala of the 14th Joist, 1269. 'Since then I have been in possession of the same through bhag tenants, by annually paying Rs. 7-14-15 as the rent thereof to the maliks. To this there was no objection offered by anybody.'2. Various issues were raised; and one of ...
Tag this Judgment!Barnes Vs. Kishen Gopaul Mawar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal375
Markby, J.1. The question between the parties in this special appeal is, whether or no the decree passed under Section 52, Beng. Act VIII of 1869, by which the defendant was directed to pay a certain amount as arrears of rent within fifteen days, otherwise he was to be ejected, is good in law.2. It appears that the Court below has held that the land to which the suit relates consisted of two portions,--one of which is nagdi land, and the other bhaoli land. There was an objection taken in special appeal that the Court below was wrong in treating any of these lands as bhaoli. But we expressed our opinion in the course of the argument yesterday that there was nothing in that objection. No doubt there was evidence that, for some time, the land had been in possession of a person under the present plaintiff, between whom and the defendant the rent was treated as all payable in money: but that could not alter the terms of the tenancy as between the plaintiff' and the defendant, and when that ...
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Balapa BIn Dundapa and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom639
Melvill, J.1. It seems impossible, therefore, to bring the acts of the prisoners within the definition of murder. What we consider to be proved is this, viz., that prisoners, Nos. 1 and 2, went to the prostitute's house, armed with sticks, intending to beat the deceased; and that prisoner No. 1 caused the death of the deceased, by striking a blow which was likely to cause death, but was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Under these circumstances, prisoner No. 1 was guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and having regard to the provisions of Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code, we consider that prisoner No. 2 was equally guilty of that offence.2. Unfortunately, this Court, as a Court of Reference, does not appear to have power, under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to alter a conviction of murder into one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but only to order a new trial. In referred cases there is gene...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvan Dullabh Vs. Kala Shankar
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom641
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. The plaintiff Bhagvan Dullabh brought this suit to recover certain immoveable property belonging to his deceased brother, Ranchhod.2. The defendant, Kala Shankar, who is his sister's son, alleged in his written statement that the plaintiff and the deceased Ranchhod were divided in estate; that from his childhood he had lived with his deceased uncle as his son; and that the deceased had made him owner of his estate. He accordingly contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover from him the property sued for.3. It is not alleged that there is any nearer relative of the deceased than the plaintiff. The question, therefore, simply is, which of the two is entitled to the property in preference to the other. It is found that the plaintiff and the deceased were divided in estate; and it is also found that the defendant 'from his childhood always lived with the deceased, and seems always to have been treated and recognized and acknowledged by him and even by ot...
Tag this Judgment!Sidlingapa Son of Basapa Vs. Sidava Kom Sidlingapa
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom634
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Although by Hindu law a husband is bound to maintain his wife, she is not entitled to a separate maintenance from him, unless she establishes in proof that, by reason of his misconduct or by his refusal to maintain her in his own place of residence, or other justifying cause, she is compelled to live apart from him (see Special Appeal No. 307 of 1872, Printed Judgments of 1873, page 1). There is not any finding, by the District Judge, that the plaintiff has proved any such case. On the contrary, the District Judge appears to have believed that she voluntarily tore of her nuptial ornament, and returned it to her husband, and of her own accord left him. We reverse the decree of the District Judge, and restore that of the Subordinate Judge, except as to costs. We direct that the parties, respectively, bear their own costs of the suit and of both appeals....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bittan (an Infant)
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal357
Macpherson, J.1. There being no suit, has the Court power to make such and order? It is submitted it has. The power which the Court has under the Charter of 1865, Section 16, is the power which the Superme Court had. That Court had the power of the Court of Chancery in such matters; see Simpson on Ifants 223; Daniell's Chancery practice, 1189 and 1190. It appears from these authorities that the Court of Chancery has power to appoint a guardin on pertition without suit. The rules of the Supreme Court on the matter refer to petitions generally without any reference to any suit; see Smoult and Ryan's Equity Rules, 170, [Macpherson, J.-The question is what was the practice of the Supreme Court at the time the High Court was instituted.] see matter of Ann Butler (Morton's Dec., 262), and Ex parte Lokecaunt Mullick (Morley's Dig., Vol II, 42).2. The Court mentions that the order should be to refer if to the Judge in Chambers to enquire whether the petitioners, or any other person to be named...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bungseedhur Khettry, an Insolvent Claim of Ramlall Budree Doss
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal359
Macpherson, J.1. On these affidavits I find the facts to be, that, about 10 P.M., on the 20th of December, the firm of Ramlall Budree Doss, merchants in the Burra Bazar, promised at once to give Rs. 5,000 to the insolvent if lie would next morning deliver to them goods to that amount, and would in the meantime satisfy them that he had sufficient goods in his godown and would allow them (Ramlall Budree Doss) to put their lock on the door of the godown so as to secure the goods therein until they had received the value of their Rs. 5,000. Thereupon the insolvent took the gomasta of Ramlall Budree Doss to his godown, lot him see that it contained goods worth more than Rs. 5,000, and allowed him to put his master's lock on the door, while the insolvent, at the same time, replaced his own locks.2. The gomasta and the insolvent then returned to Ramlall Budree Doss' kothi, where Rs. 5,000 were at once paid to the insolvent, who promised to deliver in the morning Bs. 5,000 worth of goods out o...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Joy Hari Kor
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal356
Markby, J.1. We think that we ought not to make the order asked for, because, even if the case were transferred to the Magistrate to Dacca, we do not think he would have power to release the lunatic upon taking security. The authority of the Magistrate appears to us to cease when the lunatic is handed over to the care of the local Government, and it does not revive until the prisoner is sent back to the Magistrate under Section 432 on a certificate that he is capable of making his defence. The Deputy Commissioner can, if he thinks proper, bring the matter to the Government....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Charu Nayiah
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal355
Markby, J.1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in thinking that the prisoner was wrongly committed. It was proved that the prisoner fished in a public river at a place where the prosecutor had the exclusive right of fishery. The Deputy Magistrate held that this constituted criminal trespass; but we do not think so. The law provides that whosoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with a certain intent, is guilty of criminal trespass. But though a fishery is property, we do not think that a man who fishes in a public river enters upon property in the possession of another, though he may have no right to fish there. The river upon which the prisoner entered being a public one was not in the exclusive possession of any one, and a right of fishery is not property of such a nature as that a man who unlawfully infringes that right can be said to enter upon property in the possession of another within the meaning of the section....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Halodhur Poroe and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal383
Markby, J.1. I think we must hold that this is not a case under Section 277 of the Indian Penal Code. The water which is said to have been fouled was certainly not the water of a reservoir, nor, in my opinion, was it the water of a 'public spring.' The judgment of the Magistrate shows that it was the water of the river Nobogunga. I do not think by the use of the words 'the water of any public spring' the Legislature intended to include the water of a river. On that ground we quash the order and direct the fine, it paid, to be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »