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
Krishna Mohun Bose Vs. Okhilmoni Dossee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal332
Markby, J.1. In this case plaintiff sues to recover Rs. 1,750 on account of arrears of maintenance at Rs. 50 a month. The person whom she sues is her husband's brother. It has been found that the father of the plaintiff's husband, and of the defendant, died, leaving certain property, which had descended to him from his father; and the first Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an allowance of Rs. 16 a month out of this property, and gave her a decree for Rs. 560. This decree was appealed against, but the appeal was dismissed. The defendant has now brought the case here on special appeal.2. Before us it is not denied that the plaintiff, upon the death of her father-in-law, became entitled to maintenance out of the ancestral estate, but it is contended that, under the circumstances of this case, that right was extinguished by the operation of the law of limitation as interpreted in India. It is conceded that, having regard to the peculiar words of Article 128, Schedule II of Act...
Tag this Judgment!Basawa and Gurbasawa Heirs of Parapa Vs. Kalkapa Sharbana and Sidoji
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom489
West, J.1. When Kalkapa obtained from Sidoji the mortgage for Rs. 6,000 on which he now sues (No. 3, dated 6th February 1873), the mortgage of 1869 to Basalinga, representing Parapa, was still unsatisfied. It is referred to in exhibit No. 3, and the money, it is recited, is borrowed in part for the purpose of paying it off. Parapa subsequently, suing Sidoji to enforce his earlier lien, obtained a decree for possession on the 10th November 1873, under which he was put into possession on the 22nd December 1873.2. Kalkapa has now come forward seeking possession on his mortgage; and he says that the decree in favour of Parapa was obtained by collusion with Sidoji, Parapa's claim having, in fact, been satisfied by an intermediate transaction of the 18th June 1873. To establish this transaction, Kalkapa put in evidence a document (No. 45) called a receipt, but intended, if authentic, to entirely release Parapa's claim, through Basalinga, under the mortgage of 1869. This instrument seems not ...
Tag this Judgment!Gunno Singh Vs. Latafut HossaIn and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal337
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case we think that the Subordinate Judge has taken a wrong view of the so-called instrument of mortgage. We consider that it did not amount to a mortgage at all, but that it was merely a covenant not to alienate any property of the debtor until payment of the money advanced. The case decided by the Full Bench--Rajkumar Ram Gopal Narayan Singh v. Ram Dutt Chowdhry 5 B.L.R. 264 which has been relied upon by the respondent, is, in our opinion, an authority in favour of the view which we now take. The instrument before the Court in that case referred to a specific property by name; and there were expressions in the instrument which led the Court to think, that the parties intended that property to be pledged. But the Chief Justice in that case expressly says, that if the question there had been whether a bond for payment of money, with a simple covenant not to alienate the obligor's property until payment, constituted a mortgage, he thought that question shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Satku Valad Kadir Sausare Vs. Ibrahim Aga Valad Mirza Aga
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom457
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiffs, who are Mussulmans, sue to establish their alleged right to carry tabuts in procession along a certain road for immersion in the sea. They aver that the defendants have obstructed them in so doing, and that the Magistrate, at the instance of the defendants, has made an order prohibiting the plaintiffs from using the road for that purpose.2. This claim is resisted by the defendants, also Mussulmans, who allege that the road, along which the plaintiffs wish to carry their tabuts, passes through the mohola (quarter of the town) of the defendants, and close to their musjid, and that the plaintiffs have no right of way along that road, but that there is another and a public road, whereby the sea is accessible to them, which road they have hitherto used for the same purpose.3. The defendants also relied upon the law of limitation.4. The Subordinate Judge found that the suit was barred by that law. The District Judge reversed his decision, and held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Narsinbhat BIn Bapubhat Vs. Chenapa BIn Ningapa
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom479
Michael Westeopp, C.J.1. This is a suit against Chenapa on a bond executed by his brother Parapa as surety for one Rango. Parapa died on 7th August 1874 leaving a son, Ningangavda. This suit was instituted against Parapa on the 1st December 1874. Ningangavda died on the 2nd July 1875. Parapa Ningangavda, and the defendant Chenapa were, at the decease of Parapai members of an undivided Hindu family. Ningangavda and Chenapa continued undivided until the death, of Ningangavda. On his death Chenapa became, by survivorship, entitled to the whole of the family property. No separate property belonging to Parapa or Ningangavda is shown to have come to the hands of Chenapa or to exist. Chenapa, in his written statement filed on the 12th 'June 1875, objected that Ningangavda ought to be made a party to the suit, but he never was made a party to it. Chenapa never was personally responsible for the separate debt of his brother Parapa, or nephew Ningangavda, and the joint family property, which has...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bhoobuneshwar Dutt
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal621
Markby, J.1. It appears to us that this conviction must be set aside. The charge against the petitioner was, that lie had refused to give a receipt for a summons. This has been held by the High Court of Bombay in Reg v. Kalya bin Fakir 5 Bom. II. C. Rep. Cr. Cases 34 not to be an offence under Section 173 of the Indian Penal Code, which is the section under which this conviction has been made. We concur in that decision.2. This conviction will, therefore, be sot aside; and the fine, if paid, will be refunded. If the petitioner is in jail, ho will be released....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress and Vs. Sashi Bhusan Chuckrabutty
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal623
Ainslie, J.1. The provisions of Section 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code ought not to be used for purposes of vexation, but in order to secure due information to Magistrates and the Police of offences committed within their jurisdiction: Provided that information is conveyed to the nearest Magistrate or Police officer by one of the parties bound to give such information; it is not reasonable that every other person who may possibly be bound to give information should be prosecuted for not having done so. A Police officer is not better off when he has half-a-dozen copies of the same report than when he has the first. In the present instance it appears as a matter of fact, from the record which has come up to us, that the petitioner did not himself get any information regarding the theft until the fourth day after its occurrence, and that, in the meantime, an account of the theft had been duly reported to the Police by another gomashta and a punc...
Tag this Judgment!imperatrix Vs. Lakshman Sakharam Vaman Hari and Balaji Krishna
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom481
West, J.1. In the appeal before us, Mr. Gill, the counsel for Lakshman, has taken objection, on his behalf, to the sufficiency of the sanction given by the District Magistrate. He contends that, under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no complaint can be entertained for any offence whatever against any public servant not removeable from his office without the sanction of the Government, except with the sanction of the Government itself; and that the sanction by the District Magistrate, besides being vague and indefinite, is insufficient. He referred to the case of Regina v. Parashram Keshav 7 Bom. H.C. Rep. 61, in which it was held that Section 167 of the superseded Code of Criminal Procedure, which corresponds with Section 466 of the one now in force, required such sanction to give jurisdiction to the trying Court, and that a conviction, founded on evidence taken without such sanction, was bad. He argued that Section 466 does not restrict itself to chapter IX or any other...
Tag this Judgment!Womda Khanum Vs. Rajroop Koer
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal336
Ainslie, J.1. In this case we think that the Subordinate Judge has taken a wrong view of the so-called instrument of mortgage. We consider that it did not amount to a mortgage at all, but that it was merely a covenant not to alienate any property of the debtor until payment of the money advanced. The case decided by the Full Bench--Rajkumar Ram Gopal Narayan Singh v. Ram Dutt Chowdhry 5 B.L.R. 264 which has been relied upon by the respondent, is, in our opinion, an authority in favour of the view which we now take. The instrument before the Court in that case referred to a specific property by name; and there were expressions in the instrument which led the Court to think, that the parties intended that property to be pledged. But the Chief Justice in that case expressly says, that if the question there had been whether a bond for payment of money, with a simple covenant not to alienate the obligor's property until payment, constituted a mortgage, he thought that question should be ans...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Ramchandra Joshi and anr. Vs. Satyabhamabai, Widow of Govind ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom494
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The first question, raised at the hearing of this appeal, was whether the cause of action alleged by the plaintiff is res judicata. We have already, during the argument, stated our opinion to be that, inasmuch as the former suit brought by her was for maintenance from the year 1864 to the year 1866, and the decree made therein against Mahadev Narayan personally was not prospective and not against the ancestral estate, and the present suit is for maintenance from 11th June 1869 to 5th October 1872 and for an allotment of future maintenance out of the ancestral estate, this suit is not res judicata.2. I may observe, however, that it is to be regretted that, in the former suit, an order, awarding to the plaintiff future maintenance, was not included in the decree. It is not desirable that there should be several suits in respect of the maintenance of one widow. The system of seeking or granting relief piecemeal, subjects both plaintiff and defendant to much unnece...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »