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
Surdharee Loll Vs. Mansoor Ally Khan and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal298
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of Mr. C.T. Manson, Deputy Collector, also called Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Rajmehal, which is admittedly and entirely within the Sonthal Pergannas. The appeal is valued at Rs. 5,922.2. By Act XXXVII of 1855 of the Governor-General in Council, the Sonthal Pergannas were removed from the operation of the general laws and regulations of the Bengal Code, except so far as was thereinafter provided.3. By Section 2 of that Act1 I the administration of civil justice was vested in officers to he appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. There was a proviso that all suits beyond the value of Rs. 1,000 were to be tried and determined, according to the general laws and regulations, in the same manner as if that Act had not been passed.4. The 4th section 2 declared that all decisions in civil suits passed by such officers to the extent of the powers conferred on them were final, and it was made lawful for the Lieutenant-Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Chunder Coomar Roy and ors. Vs. Bhogobutty Prosonno Roy and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal236
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that 'applying to enforce the decree' in Article 167 means the application (under Section 212, Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise) by which proceedings in execution are commenced, and not applications of an incidental kind made during the pendency of such proceedings.2. But we also think that some meaning must be given to the alternative expression 'keep in force' occurring in the same article, and that consequently in cases governed by Act IX of 1871, a decree-holder who has applied to the Court simpliciter 'to keep the decree in force' may, within three years from the date of such last named application, obtain execution of his decree.Ainslie, J.3. I accept the decision of my learned colleagues as the proper answer to the question put....
Tag this Judgment!Jagjivan Nanabhai Vs. Shridhar Balkrishna Nagarkar
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom252
Melvill, J.1. In Keshavrav v. Bhavanji 8 Bom. H.C. Rep. 142 I have expressed a doubt whether, in the case of an ordinary mortgage in the mofussal, the mortgagee can exercise a power of sale given by the instrument of mortgage. In the present case, although the mortgaged property is situated a few miles out of Bombay, the parties are residents of Bombay, conducting their transactions through Bombay solicitors, and the instrument of mortgage is a regular and formal deed in English form. I think that in this case the parties must be held to have intended to contract with reference to English law, and to be entitled to enforce their rights according to that law: Bholanath Coondoo Chowdry v. Unodapersad Ray 1 Bou. 97 see 101.2. The deed of mortgage between the parties contains a power of sale to be exercised after a previous notice to the mortgagor. Such a notice was given to the plaintiff on the 21st February 1877, and thereupon, on the 17th March, the plaintiff filed this suit to redeem, ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Chunder Koondoo and ors. Vs. Taruck Chunder Bose and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal146
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that in this case the plaintiffs are barred by the former judgment. It is to be observed, that the present suit is not to recover khas possession of the property in question. The land is in the occupation of a tenant, and the plaintiffs' only object is to establish their title to it as against the defendant No. 1. We have, therefore, to see whether the right and title which is the subject of claim in this suit was not the very same right and title which was in issue between the same parties, and determined in the former suit. When once it is made clear, that the self-same right and title was substantially in issue in both suits, the precise form in which the suit was brought, or the fact that the plaintiff in the one case was the defendant in the other, becomes immaterial.2. Now, in this instance, the plaintiff in the former suit is the same person as the defendant No. 1 in this; and he sued to recover from the occupying tenant the rent of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Leelanund Singh Bahadoor Vs. Thakoor Munrunjun Singh and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal251
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff, the zemindar of the mehals of Khurukpore, to recover from the defendants certain arrears of rent in respect of Taluk Kukwara, appertaining to the Khurukpore mehals; and also to have his right declared to an enhanced rent at the annual rate of Rs. 11,240 from the beginning of 1282 F.S., or any other rate which the Court may think just as an equivalent for the ghatwali services which the defendants and their predecessors in title have been used to render, but which now, through the agency of Government, have been discontinued.2. This is probably the last scene in a long series of litigation which has been going on between these parties for upwards of thirty years past. The defendants and their ancestors have, from the year 1785, and probably from a still earlier period, been in possession of Taluk Kukwara under a ghatwali tenure. The origin and nature of these tenures are explained very clearly in the judgment delivered by Lord...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Bengal Vs. M. Pogose (Window and Representative of J.G. Po ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal175
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs, the Bank of Bengal, to recover from Mr. Joachim Gregory Nicholas Pogose, a sum of Rs. 1,10,687-10-2, being the aggregate amount of principal and interest due upon nineteen bills of exchange, each drawn by Mr. Nicholas Peter Pogose upon and accepted by his cousin Mr. J.G.N. Pogose, payable to the drawer's order, and endorsed by the drawer to the plaintiffs' Bank.2. The Court below have decided in the plaintiffs' favour; and as the defendant died pending the proceedings, the present defendant, Mrs. Mary Pogose, his widow and representative, became defendant in his stead, and is prosecuting this appeal.3. The defence is, that Mr. J.C.N. Pogose accepted the bills merely for the accommodation of his cousin and without any consideration; that the plaintiffs were aware of that fact; and that by consenting to and signing a deed of trust, which Mr. N.P. Pogose made of all his property for the benefit of his creditors, the Bank have ...
Tag this Judgment!Goluknath Misser Vs. Lalla Prem Lal and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal308
White, J.1. It appears that in this case the defendants (who are grouped together as No. 1) borrowed from the special appellant (who is the plaintiff in the suit) on the 13th of Srawun 1271 F.S. Rs. 295 at 2 per cent, per mensem, and by a mortgage bond of that date, in order to secure the payment of that sum with interest, mortgaged to the plaintiff certain land which is described in the mortgage bond as '20 bighas of 'Inglis' land belonging to us exclusively' (meaning defendants No. 1),--that is to say, 10 bighas out of 50 bighas in Mouzah Kuchia, and 10 bighas in Mouzah Dowlutpore.' Certain payments on account of the interest were made as appears by the endorsement on the bond; but in 1278 P.S. the whole of the principal sum and a large arrear of interest still remaining unpaid, the parties came to an adjustment of account, when Rs. 500 was found to be due for principal and interest upon the foot of the bond, and thereupon the defendant No. 2 executed to the plaintiff another mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Lill Dhary Muhton Vs. Ram Lall Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal777
Ainslie, J.1. There is no evidence to show that, by agreement or otherwise, the accumulation of water is limited to a certain quantity; and that when the water rises to a given height, the defendants, or the plaintiff, or the plaintiff's zemindar, is bound or entitled to open a passage for the escape of the surplus.2. The Munsif found that the plaintiff had entirely failed to prove any right to cut the bund: and we must say that, in our opinion, it would require very strong evidence to establish such a claim as that put forward here, not on the part of the zemindar acting on behalf of the cultivators of his estate, but on behalf of each individual ryot according to his own judgment, to cut down the bund of a neighbouring zemindar, seeing that it is well known that the consequence of so doing would be that, when the water once begins to flow over the bund, the bund must give way, and the accumulation of water, which is absolutely necessary for the cultivation of land, must be lost.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Nana BIn Lakshman and ors. Vs. Anant Babaji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom353
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. On behalf of the defendants it is contended that as the mortgage (Exhibit 3) of the 1st November 1867 was for a sum of Rs. 5, with interest at Rs. 1-9 per cent, per mensem--i.e., upwards of 18 per cent, per annum--and was not redeemable for five years from its date, the right, title, and interest thereby created exceeded Rs. 100 in value, and, therefore, according to Act XX of 1866, Section 17, Clause 2, required registration, not having been registered, could not lawfully be received in evidence, or acted on by the lower Court (section 49). In support of this contention, Darshan Singh v. Hanwanta I.L.B. 1 All. 274 was cited. The Court, in its judgment in that case, stated that the instrument, the necessity for registration of which was there in question, 'secured the repayment of Rs. 99 plus Rs. 6, the interest for three months.' Hence we infer that the whole consideration, shown by the instrument to have been received by the mortgagor, was Rs. 99. The stateme...
Tag this Judgment!Dulsook Rattanchand Vs. Chugon Narrun and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom356
Michael Westropp, C.J.,1. A decree of the 14th June 1873 for Rs. 123 was made payable by annual instalments of Rs. 20-8-0, with a proviso that, on default of payment of any one instalment, the whole amount of the decree should become payable forthwith. The first instalment fell due, but was not paid until subsequently to the 14th June 1874. The second instalment was paid into Court on the 2nd April 1875, and the third instalment on the 13th March 1876. The plaintiff on the 23rd June 1877, applied for execution for the whole of the residue of the amount decreed. The Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad has referred to this Court the question whether the right to such execution is barred by the law of limitation (Act IX of 1871), and has expressed his own opinion to be in the affirmative. In that opinion we concur. We think that the whole amount decreed, became due on the first default in payment of the instalments, viz, on the 14th June 1874, so that three years and nine days...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »