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
Nathu Ganesh Vs. Kalidas Umed
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom365
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued in the Ahmedabad Court of Small Causes, as alleged owner of certain moveable property under Rs. 500 in value, to recover that property or its value from the defendant, Kalidas Umed who had caused it to be attached in execution of a decree obtained by him against Vanarsi Rangji.2. The question is, whether the Court of Small Causes has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it appearing that the plaintiff's claim had been rejected upon an application made by him under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859, in the cause in which the decree, under which the attachment had been made, was passed. The Judge is of opinion in the affirmative, but has referred the question to this Court. Woomesh Chunder Bose v. Muddun Mohun Sircar 2 Cal. W.R. 44 is in point--the suit there having been brought, as here, by the alleged owner of the property attached--and supports the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. Ram Dhun Biswas v. Kefal Biswas 10 Cal. W.R. 141 is di...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Lotta Vs. Sreedhone Borooa and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal772
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the District Judge has made a mistake in this case, which the learned Judge in this Court has not thought fit to rectify.2. The District Judge appears to have considered, for some reason or other, that it was not competent for the Civil Court to question the validity of the proceedings of the Collector.3. The question arose in this way-The plaintiff claimed rent from the defendant by virtue of a patni which had been granted to her by Doorga Mohun, and under which Doorga Mohun's rights as the defendant's landlord had been conveyed to him (the plaintiff).4. The defendant's case was, that the patni was invalid, because Doorga Mohun had no right to grant it.5. Now, prima facie, Doorga Mohun had of course a right by law to grant the patni. But the defendants alleged, that certain proceedings had been taken by the Collector, the legal effect of which was to prevent Doorga Mohun from transferring his interest in the tenure; which proceedings consisted of a ...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Harai Mirdha and Umed Sardar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal190
Markby, J.1. The two prisoners, Harai and Umed, whose case is now before us under Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code, were put upon their trial before the Sessions Court on a charge 'that being members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, they had committed murder.' This was a charge under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also charged 'that being members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, they had voluntarily caused grievous hurt.' This was under Sections 326 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Other prisoners were likewise charged at the same time, and the verdict of the jury as regards these two prisoners was a verdict of acquittal upon both these charges; but in answer to a question put to them by the Sessions Judge, they stated that the two prisoners, Harai and Umed, were in the company of two of the other prisoners, whom they found guilty on the second of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Gungapersad and ors. Vs. Gogun Sing
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal323
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The question that arises in this special appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court is right in reversing the decree of the Court below, and apparently dismissing the suit on the ground of the reception of a document called dowl fehrist, which, in the opinion of the lower Appellate Court, was inadmissible, because it was not registered and not stamped. It is not discoverable from the judgment of the Munsif that any objection had been taken to the dowl in the Court of first instance on that ground. The contest before him appears to have been whether the dowl was genuine or not,--that is to say, whether it recorded facts which were actually true. But the Judge holds that it was nothing more or less than the record of the new rates of rent, and that the signatures of the ryots were taken to it in testimony of their agreement to cultivate the lands at the rate mentioned. It specified seven years as the period for which these holdings were to continue, and should therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Kashishwary Deby and ors. Vs. Gogon Manjy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal498
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this appeal should he allowed. The judgments of the Subordinate Judge, and that of Mr. Justice White, appear to us to he directly opposed to the ruling of the Full Bench in the case of Golam Mohamad v. A smut All Khan 10 W.R. F.B. 14.2. The grounds upon which that case proceeded, as we understand them, are these; that in order to entitle a landlord to sue a tenant for a kabuliat at a certain rout, he should either have tendered to the tenant a pottah at the rate of rent mentioned in the kabuliat, or ho should be willing to grant a pottah at that rate; and when be brings a suit against his tenant for a kabuliat at a certain rent, it must be presumed that ho is ready to grant a pottah at that rate. That presumption would enable him to succeed in his suit, if the Court considers that the rent which he claims is the correct amount. But if the Court thinks that lie is not entitled to a kabuliat at the rate claimed, but at a lower rate, then it is plain th...
Tag this Judgment!Bapuji Apaji Vs. Senavaraji Marvadi and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom231
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The transaction, the subject of the present suit for redemption, is comprised in two documents, identical in date, which documents must, we think, he taken together in order to ascertain the nature of the contract between the parties. The date of each is the 12th Jeth sud Shakh 1780 23rd Jun A.D. 1858. Of these documents, one (Exhibit 18) executed by the plaintiff's ancestors (the grantors) to the person whom the defendants represent (the grantee), recites a mortgage (dated 7th Magh sud Shakh 1776 24th Jan A.D. 1855 of the lands in question (consisting of upwards of ten bighas) by the former to the latter for Rs. 125, on which mortgage the parties agreed that there were, on the 12th Jeth sud Shakh 1780 (23rd June 1858) Rs. 200 due by the grantors to the grantee.2. This deed (Exhibit 18) further contained an agreement between the parties to it that the grantee should pay to Lakma Raghoji, a Marvadi, Rs. 75, which were due to him by the grantors, and described th...
Tag this Judgment!GossaIn Dass Chunder Vs. Issur Chunder Nath
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal225
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think there is no ground for this appeal. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain rooms in a house, the whole of which he admits to have once belonged to the defendant, but which he says were sold by the defendant to his (the plaintiff's) brother in the year 1857 or 1858, and afterwards fell to the share of the plaintiff in a partition which took place between him and his brother many years ago.2. The evidence of the purchase of the property from the defendant was so weak that it was rejected altogether by the Munsif (who found in the defendant's favour) and not relied upon by the District Judge (who reversed the Munsif's judgment, and found in favour of the plaintiff). This judgment of the District Judge is based upon the ground that, although the plaintiff may not have legally established the purchase from the defendant in 1857, he has proved that he has been in possession of the property in. question for upwards of twelve years, and this is in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Shankara BIn Marabasapa Vs. Hanma BIn Bhima and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom470
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The Assistant Judge has found in substance that the plaintiff is the hereditary holder of the office of Chalvadi, or bearer, on public occasions, of the insignia or symbols of the Lingayet caste at Bagalkot;. but that, though members of the caste may bestow voluntary gratuities on the Chalvadi, there are not any fees, as of right, appurtenant to that office. It is, therefore, clear that an action by the plaintiff against an intruder upon his office, who has been paid such gratuities, if the action be brought merely for moneys received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff, will not lie--Boyter v. Dodsworth 6 Term. Rep. 681, Muhammad Yussub v. Sayad Ahmed (1 Bom. H.C. Rep., Appx. xviii), Sitarambhat v. Sitaram Ganesh, per Couch, C.J. 6 Bom. H.C. Rep. A.C.J. 250, Vithal Krishna Joshi v. Anant Ramchandra 11 Bom. H.C. Rep. 6. So far, therefore, as the plaintiff seeks to recover moneys paid to the defendant in his usurped character of Chalvadi by members of t...
Tag this Judgment!Golokemoney Dabia and ors. Vs. Mohesh Chunder Mosa and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal548
Markby, J.1. In this case we think that the decision of the Munsif and of the District Judge was wrong, and that execution ought to have been allowed to issue.2. Now the Full Bench have laid down in a case 4 B.L.R. F.B. 82 : S.C. 13 W.R. F.B. 3, and that decision is binding upon us, what the true construction of the section is which imposes a term of limitation of three years upon a judgment-creditor when applying for execution. The effect of that decision is stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Macphehson, who says that 'the words should he considered as meaning that execution shall not issue unless a proper application for execution is made within three years from the date of the judgment.' That I understand to be the decision of the majority of the Judges of the Full Bench. That being so, the real question which we have to determine in this case is whether the proceeding of the 17th March 1876 was a new and substantive application for execution, or whether it was merely a step take...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Mookerjee Vs. Mahtab Chunder Bahadoor, Maharajah of Burdwan
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal351
Mitter, J.1. In this case two objections have been raised before us in appeal: First, that the judgment of the lower Court is wrong in allowing interest upon costs when the decree does not expressly award it. Secondly, that the lower Court was not right in awarding interest upon the principal sum decreed after the 18th September, 1876, when the judgment-debtor deposited the money due from him in the Collector's office, and that at any rate the lower Court should not have awarded interest after the date when the Collector of Burdwan by a roobocary informed the Court that he had no objection to pay the money deposited to the decree-holder.2. As regards the first question, although it seems that the practice of the Court was not uniform for some time upon this matter, the later decisions establish that this Court has refused to allow interest upon costs in cases where the decree is silent about it. Of these latter cases Ulfutunnissa v. Mohan Lal Sukal 6 B.L.R. App. 33 and Ameeromiissa Kha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »