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
Jugdeep NaraIn Singh Vs. Deendyal Lal
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal199
J.W. Colvile, J.1. The respondent in this case is the only son of one Toofani Singh, and, the family being governed by the law of the Mitakshara, is joint in estate, in the strict sense of the term, with his father. On January 28th, 1863, the father being indebted to the appellant to the amount of Rs. 5,000, executed to him a Bengali mortgage bond for securing the repayment of that sum with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum. The appellant afterwards put this bond in suit, and on May 30th, 1864, obtained a decree against Toofani Singh for the sum of Rs. 6,328-13-8. He took no proceedings to enforce this decree, which was in the form of an ordinary decree for money against the property especially hypothecated; but in September, 1870, caused 'the rights and proprietary and mokurrari title and share of Toofani Singh, the judgment-debtor,' in the joint family property, which is the subject of this suit, to be put up for sale in two lots for the realisation of the sum of Rs. 11,...
Tag this Judgment!The London Bombay and Mediterranean Bank Limited Vs. Bhanji Zutani and ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom116
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The balance order of 26th January 1871 is a part of the record in Chancery, and, as such, 'imports incontrovertible verity.' In Weikersheim's Case L.R. 8 Ch., Ap. 831, the Master of the Rolls did nothing contrary to what he found on the record, for the words Weikersheim & Co., in that case, implied the existence of more than one member of the firm; whereas the words here, 'Devji Bhanji, cotton merchant,' placed on the list 'in his own right,' imply the existence of only one individual trader.2. What the plaintiffs ask us to do, is to allow them to give evidence for the purpose of showing that Devji Bhanji, of whom the balance order speaks as one man, in the singular, was, in fact, two men, in the plural, and thus virtually to amend the record of the Court of Chancery, which we cannot do.3. Nor, having sued the two defendants as partners on a joint liability, can the plaintiffs now be permitted, in the same suit, to proceed against one whom they allege to have s...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Bharthi Vs. Laving Bharthi and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom140
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We concur with Mr. Walker in thinking that the principle decided in Rahi v. Govind I.L.R. 1 Bom. 97 is applicable to Gosavis. None of the passages from Steele or 1 West and Buhler, cited by the learned pleader of the plaintiff, show the contrary. The alleged custom amongst Gosavis to recognise a right of heirship in the son of Gosavi by a woman, who, in the lifetime of a previous husband, and without his consent, has married the Gosavi, would be a bad custom, and such as could not be treated by Courts of Justice as valid--Reg. v. Karson Goja 2 Bom. H.C. Rep. 117. The plaintiff, although the son of Lila Bharthi, being the offspring of an adulterous intercourse, cannot inherit from Lila Bharthi.2. The Assistant Judge has found that the plaintiff was not initiated as a 'chela, or disciple of Lila Bharthi: so on this ground also the plaintiff fails.3. We cannot--in this suit, which concerns only one portion of Lila Bharthi's property, and to which all persons in po...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Balu Vs. Krishnarav Ramchandra and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom273
Green, J.1. The plaintiff, in the character of assignee of certain immoveable property in Lohar Chal Street in Bombay, claims as against the defendants, the surviving heirs of one Sakharam Lakshmanji, who died on or about 27th October 1865, to recover damages for the breach of certain covenants for title contained in a certain instrument, purporting to be an indenture and under seal, dated 15th July 1865, and expressed to be made between the said Sakharam Lakshmanji, of the one part, and one Bhagvantrav Ramchandra, of the other part. The plaint alleges that, by this indenture of 15th July 1865, the said Sakharam Lakshmanji granted and conveyed to the said Bhagvantrav, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, the said premises in Lohar Chal Street. The plaint also alleges that at the time of the execution, by Sakharam Lakshmanji, of the indenture of 15th July 1865, the said premises were, and had been by a deed of gift bearing date 16th February 1847, and executed by the said ...
Tag this Judgment!imperatrix Vs. Baban Khan Valad Mhaskoji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom142
West, J.1. We think that the first head of the charge in this case did not give to the accused the information which the law intended him to have of the particular offence, expressed circumstantially, to which he was called upon to answer. The descriptions of crimes in the Penal Code must of necessity be expressed in abstract terms, but the very object of a trial is to determine whether particular acts or omissions on the part of an accused fall or do not fall within the rule thus abstractedly stated. Conformably to this principle, all the models of charges in Schedule III to the Code of Procedure contain or imply the setting forth with reasonable particularity of the matters alleged to constitute the offence. Here the accused was charged that he being a public servant * * * knowingly disobeyed the direction of the law as to the way in which he had to conduct himself as such public servant with respect to the property found in an investigation held in a case of theft, etc.;' what the d...
Tag this Judgment!Kartick Churn Setty Vs. Gopalkisto Paulit and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal265
Macpherson, J.1. In this case the facts, which I find to be proved, are, that the defendant Gopalkisto Paulit came to the plaintiff's place of business in Calcutta, and there got from him the jewellery, which is the subject of this suit, taking it away and giving for it a receipt in which the prices of the articles were mentioned, and it was stated that they were taken on ten days inspection. He said, he was taking the jewels on inspection, and would purchase if he did not return within the ten days. But I do not consider it proved that he ever said he would send them up to Moorshedabad or to Baboo Poolinbehari Sen.2. I believe that the plaintiff allowed him to take away the jewellery, because he said he wished to take it with a view to purchase on ten days' inspection, and would buy if he did not return within that time, because he deposited two thousand rupees, and because Koylash Chunder Sircar, a cashier in the employment of Moharaja Jotindro Mohun Tagore, said, that he was a respe...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnadas and ors. Vs. Lalitaram and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom294
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The darkhast of the 24th July 1874 prays execution of the decree of the 10th December 1863 against certain specified moveable property of the defendants, on which decree the plaintiffs allege that Rs. 21,346-5-5 are still due. It had directed the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 43,667-9-10, and also declared the plaintiffs entitled to a mortgage (dated 25th January 1856) upon a monthly permanent pension of Rs. 300 payable quarterly to the defendants. On the 16th April 1869, the plaintiffs, by a darkhast alleging that Rs. 30,789-3-5 were then due on the decree of 1863, prayed attachment of the pension; and the Court of the Subordinate Judge ordered the same accordingly. Subsequently, the Pensions Act XXIII of 1871 was passed, and the Deputy Collector of the Zillah of Surat, by letter of 13th May 1872 to the Court, in consequence of the passing of that Act, declined to continue to the plaintiffs the payment of the pension, which, up to that dat...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kant Roy Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Bhago Bibee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal293
White, J.1. This was a suit brought by the special respondents against the special appellants (who are grouped together as first party defendants in the first Court) to avoid an undertenure in certain villages, part of an entire mehal, which the respondents bad jointly with second party defendant purchased at a Government revenue sale, and which villages, on partition, fell to the share of the respondents. The written statement of the added defendants, Sohina Bibi and Nowa Bibi and Korban Ali, which embodies the case of the special appellants, after stating that a certain portion of the lands claimed are not in their possession or belong to their undertenure, as regards the rest of the disputed lands (comprising 6 kanees 5 gandas), claims in effect the benefit of the exceptions in Section 37 of Act XI of 1859. It is alleged, first, that the undertenure comes within the first exception, as it is a mokurari taluk held at a fixed rent from the time of the Permanent Settlement; and, second...
Tag this Judgment!Framji Besanji Dustur Vs. Jaitha Devji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom258
Green, J.1. This matter arises on a summons, dated 19th July 1877, issued at the instance of one Jaitba Devji, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why a certain sale by the Sheriff of Bombay on 13th June last to the said Jaitha Devji as purchaser of three shares Nos. 2022, 2095, and 3005, of the New Colaba Company, Limited, should not be set aside and cancelled, and why the sum of Rs. 2,300, paid by the said purchaser to the Sheriff on the said 13th June as purchase-money of the said shares, should not be returned to the purchaser, and why the plaintiff should not pay the said purchaser the costs incurred by him concerning the said sale together with the costs of the application. In the meantime, the Sheriff was directed to retain the said sum of Rs. 2,300 till further order. Though the Sheriff is not a party to that summons, yet the Deputy Sheriff informed me he was aware of the same, but had no intention of showing any cause, and submitted to any order the Court might make.2. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Madhavrao Naik and anr. Vs. the Collector of Thana
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom145
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. This Court is of opinion that any right of appeal, to which the plaintiff might have been entitled under Sections 31 and 36 (combined) of the Civil Procedure Code (Act VIII of 1859), against the order of the District Judge, which fixed the amount of the Court fee chargeable on the plaint, has been taken away by Section 12, clause I of the Court Fees Act VII of 1870. Under clause II of the same section, a Court of Appeal, before which a suit may come, is, if the question of amount of fee have been wrongly decided in the Court below to the detriment of the revenue, empowered to require payment of the additional fee, but has no authority to reduce the fee, if wrongly decided to the detriment of the subject and advantage of the revenue. Section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code is not mentioned in the second section or third schedule of the Court Fees Act amongst the enactments wholly or partially repealed by that Act; but Section 2 and Schedule III are not exhaustive...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »