Privy Council Cases

The Empress on the Prosecution of Ram Manikya Chakrobutty and ors. Vs. ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal540

Ainslie, J.1. We see no grounds for interfering. Section 453 of the Criminal Procedure Code modifies Section 452, which requires a separate charge and a separate trial for every distinct offence, by allowing three charges of three distinct offences of the same kind and committed within one year of each other to be tried at the same time; hut this does not mean that, if at one time or within one year a man commits fifty distinct offences of the same kind, he shall not in one day be prosecuted for more than throe such offences. This is clear from illustration (6), Section 454....

Bhavan Mulji Vs. Kavasji Jehangir Jasawala and Perosha Merwanji Liquid ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom542

Green, J.1. The action in this case was for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,000, being the amount of the first distribution of assets in the abovementioned company (in liquidation), at the rate of Rs. 200 per share, in respect of five shares in the company held by the plaintiff.2. The facts appearing from the case, stated by the Judge, were as follows:3. That five shares in the company were allotted to one Nagardas Parmanandas before the 30th November 1874; that no share certificates were ever issued; that the only document which Nagardas ever obtained, as evidencing his right to the five shares, was a receipt for Rs. 1,250, the first call on five shares in the company, which receipt was signed by the then secretaries and treasurer of the company. The receipt was in the following form: Received from Nagardas Parmanandas, Esq., the sum of rupees one thousand two hundred and fifty, being the amount of first call on five shares of Amraoti Cotton Mills, as per allotment No. 132.Bombay, 27...

Heera Lall Pramanick and ors. Vs. Barikunnissa Bibee

Court : Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. So far as the merits of tins case are concerned, we are not called upon hero to adjudicate upon them. The Munsif hay determined the rate of rent which is payable by the defendant, and the District Judge, in his judgment of the 14th February 1877, says, that as regards the Munsifs decision on remand, in which the merits of the case were discussed and settled, the appellant did not raise any question before him.2. The only point, therefore, which could be, or has in fact been, raised on special appeal in this Court is that of jurisdiction, which was determined in a former judgment of the Officiating Judge, dated the 13th of May 1876, in favour of the plaintiff. That judgment has been reversed by the learned Judge of this Court, and we have to consider the correctness of his judgment upon that point only.3. The question arises in this way. The plaintiffs, in the year 1862, brought a resumption suit against the defendant's mother (under whom the defendant claims) in r...

Prosunno Coomaree Debea and anr. Vs. Sheikh Rutton Bepary and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal696

Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the appeal should be decreed. (The learned Judge stated the facts of the case and continued.) So that we must take the established facts to be that the defendants, their father and grandfather, have been occupying this land for fifty or sixty years; that it has been used as a homestead, consisting of a house and fruit-trees; that there is no evidence as to the origin of the tenancy, nor (except as to the amount of rent) as to the tonus of it; and that it does not appear who built the house or planted the fruit-trees. The notice to quit has been proved, and no objection has been taken that any longer notice to quit was required by law.2. Upon these facts, the Munsif has decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.3. The Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision and has delivered a judgment which, in our opinion, is not only contrary to law, but which we cannot refrain from characterizing as being wilfully perverse and disrespectful to...

Hurropersaud Roy and anr. Vs. Shamapersaud Roy and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal654

R.P. Collier, J.1. The transaction out of which this suit arose occurred nearly half a century ago, and from it has flowed [6S5] a continuous stream of litigation, not in all respects creditable to the earlier tribunals of India down to the present day. A history of that litigation, given shortly and clearly, will lie found in a report, in the 8th volume of Mooro's Indian Appeals, of a judgment of this Committee, which was delivered on the occasion to be hereafter mentioned. Doorgapersaud Roy Chowdhry v. Tarapersaud Roy Chowdhry 8 Moo. I.A. 308 Their Lordships deem it enough to refer to that case without recapitulating the history, inasmuch as the facts necessary to the determination of the points now before them need no very lengthened statement.2. Two brothers, Doorgapersaud Chowdhry and Taraporsaud Chowdhry, of whom Doorga was the elder, entered into an agreement of compromise for the purpose of settling disputes then pending between them on the 4th of April 1829. That agreement of ...

Vasudevanant Vs. Ramkrishna and Shivram Narayan

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom529

Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We think that the decision of the Inam Commissioner of the 30th January 1865 was only intended to regulate the duration of the exemption of the village of Koliwadi from assessment, and not to regulate the enjoyment of it as between the heirs of the original grantee. There was not, in fact, any question, then, before the Inam Commissioner as to the right of Vasudev as adopted son of Anandrav. We are further of opinion that the provision in Bombay Act II of 1863, Section 6, Clause 2, as to non-recognition of adoption, by any Civil Court, etc., relates only to the question of the assess-ability of lands when raised between Government and a claimant of exemption. Here Government has recognized Vasudev as the adopted son of Anandrav, has. permitted him to hold the lands free from assessment, and admits his title. It is not open to the plaintiffs to rely upon a provision of which Government only is entitled to take advantage. As, for the foregoing reasons, we think t...

The Empress on the Prosecution of Michell Vs. Joggessur Mochi

Court : Kolkata

Ainslie, J.1. We think that the Sessions Judge might have disposed of this case under Section 419, Criminal Procedure Code without a reference to this Court.2. The words 'Court of appeal' in that section are not necessarily limited to a Court before which an appeal is at the moment pending. It may very often happen, as in this case, that the question of the propriety of an order under Section 418 for the disposal of any property produced before the Court may in no way concern the convicted person; and we think it unreasonable to put such a construction on Section 419 as shall make the power of the Judge to modify, alter on annul a Magistrate's order affecting one, contingent on the accident whether another person has or has not chosen to appeal.3. Section 286, by the words 'except in the cases provided for by this Act' must include cases in which the power to alter or annul the order of a Magistrate is expressly given.4. We are further of opinion that the case does not call for our int...

Gocool Chunder Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Koonj Behary Chowdhry and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal616

Kemp, J.1. This is an application, not as the Judge states for a certificate to collect debts due to the estate of Kalee Sundari Chowdrain, who had no interest beyond a life-interest, but it is an application for a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860, to collect debts due to the estate of the late Gournath Chowdhry. Now it is admitted that Gournath Chowdhry died in Aughran 1245, or some forty years ago. The application for a certificate on the part of the appellants before us is on the footing that they are the gyantees of Gournath Chowdhry, and there was a counter-application by two ladies, Tripura Sundari and Kheema Sundari, who allege that they are the widows of Gobind Chunder Chowdhry, the adopted son of Gournath Chowdhry, and that they represent the interest of his two minor sons as their guardians. The Judge has examined a large number of witnesses in this case. Their examination appears to have lasted over twelve days; it was then postponed for a considerable period and resumed ...

Damodar Madhowji and ors. Vs. Purmanandas Jeewandas

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom155

Scott, J.1. These two suits, arising out of the same causes of action and being between the same parties in the same interests, were tried together. In the first suit (No. 237 of 1877) the plaintiffs are the executors appointed by the will of Ramkuverbai alias Samkuverbai, widow of Ranchordas Canjee, and they claim from the defendant, Purmanandas, nephew and residuary legatee of the said Ranchordas Canjee, the sum of five thousand nine hundred and fifty rupees with interest. This sum of 5,950 rupees is due, they contend, to the deceased widow under the will of her husband, Ranchordas, who made provision for her by directing the payment of certain annual sums amounting to Rs. 950, and by also directing that Rs. 5,000 should be paid to her in case she performed a certain pilgrimage.2. Purmanandas, as plaintiff of the second suit (No. 556 of 1877) against the said executors, prayed:(1) That the will of Ranchordas be declared void; but this prayer was withdrawn at the hearing, in consequen...

Bolye Chund Sing Vs. Moulard

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal572

Wilson, J.1. In deciding this case it seems to me important to see what questions are open and what not. With regard to a large part of the case there is no dispute. The plaint on one side, and the written statement on the other, concur in regard to a large portion of the matter out of which the suit arises. The written statement raises specific ground of defence. It alleges that money for the rent was tendered under certain circumstances stated in the written statement, and sets this out as a defence to the action. The matter came before Mr. Justice Pontifex for settlement of issues, and he raised certain specific issues, and decided certain other points.2. I do not say that, under certain circumstances, the Judge at the trial is precluded from allowing amendments, or from raising issues other than those settled. But what the Judge has decided at the settlement of issues by refusing to raise an issue, is a question which ought not to be re-opened by the Judge at the trial, and the Jud...