Privy Council Cases

The Empress Vs. Butto Kristo Doss and anr.

Court : Kolkata

L.S. Jackson, J.1. We think it clear that the person appointed by the Government Solicitor, with the approval of the Government, to act as Government Prosecutor, under the arrangements made by the Governor-General in Council, is a public servant within the moaning of Section 21, Indian Penal Code....

Basappa BIn Malappa Aki Vs. Dundaya BIn Shivlingaya

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom540

Melvill, J.1. This is a suit in ejectment, and, although the appellant, who was a defendant, may have no title, the plaintiff (the respondent) must recover on the strength of his own title. The plaintiff's title to the land is derived from the purchaser at a Court sale. The decree, under which the sale took place was reversed in appeal. The reversal took place subsequently to the sale but before the order was made confirming the sale. It is well established that, if a decree be reversed after a sale under it has become absolute, and a certificate has been granted to the purchaser, the title of the purchaser Is not affected by the reversal of the decree. But, in the present case, the decree was reversed while the sale was still incomplete; and from that moment the Court, which had made the decree, ceased to have jurisdiction to take any further steps to execute it. The Court, when it confirmed the sale, was probably not informed that its decree had been reversed, and the purchaser was p...

Umedmal Motiram Vs. Davu BIn Dhondiba

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom547

Melvill, J.1. The plaintiff is the purchase, at a Court sale, of the right, title, and interest of one Pema, in a house.2. The house originally belonged to the defendant Davu, who executed the conveyance (exhibit 13) in favour of Pema. This instrument was delivered to and duly registered by Pema. Although it is distinctly stated in it that the purchase-money had been paid, and the house delivered to Pema, it has been found by the Courts below that the consideration was, in fact, not paid, nor the property delivered; but that, on the contrary, Pema, being unable to raise the purchase-money, returned the deed to Davu eleven days after it had been registered, and that thus (in the opinion of those Courts) the whole transaction of sale fell to the ground.3. All this took place before the attachment and sale of the house; and the question is, whether Pema, under the above circumstances, had any interest in the house at the date of the sale, or whether the property in the house remained in t...

Debendronath Mullick and ors. Vs. Odit Churn Mullick

Court : Kolkata

Pontifex, J.1. Was of opinion that the plaint did disclose a cause of action, and allowed other issues in the case to he settled....

Gopessur Mostofee and ors. Vs. Ramsoonder Sandyal

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal716

Kemp, J.1. It is contended by the pleader for the special appellant that if the starting point is to be the application under Section 212, which was made on the 2nd of January 1869, then the present application having been made more than three years from that date is barred. On the other hand, it is contended by the pleader who appears for the respondent, that the application of the 6th of September 1873 is within time, as the last previous application was made on the 22nd of November 1870. That was an application to sell the interest of the judgment-debtor in a certain decree and certain specified properties.2. The pleader admits that this application of the 22nd November 1870 was not made under Section 212 of the Civil Procedure Code, but be says that it was an application 'to keep in force' the decree within the meaning of Article 167 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act as interpreted by the Full Bench in In re Chunder Coomar Roy v. Bhuggobutty Prasonno Roy I.L.R. 3 Calc. 235 : S.C...

Abhassi Begum Vs. Moharanee Rajroop Koonwar and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal33

Ainslie, J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff against Mussamut Umda Khanum and her daughter Mussamut Abhassi Begum to recover Rs. 37,018-10-9 on a bond dated 19th September 1868 for Rs. 20,000, bearing interest at 15 per cent. per annum, which has accumulated until it now amounts to Rs. 17,018-10-9, such bond having been executed by the first defendant during the minority of her daughter on her own account and as guardian of her daughter.2. The bond contains a pledge of a five-sixth share of thirty-two villages, formerly belonging to Aga Wahid Ali Khan, the husband of Umda Khanum and father of Abhassi Begum, being the share which, under the Mahomedan law of inheritance, has descended to the two defendants jointly after deducting a one-sixth share taken by his mother.3. The bond recites that monies were due to Duli Chand under four decrees, all hearing date 12th May 1862, in respect of debts due by Aga Wahid Ali; and that the executant and her daughter were liable for the amount i...

Fleming and anr. Vs. Ralli and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that this injunction was properly granted; but in order to make its meaning more clear, I think the form of it should be slightly modified.2. There is no doubt, I conceive, as to the law of the case; and there is but little difference between the parties as to the actual facts. The difficulty, if there be any, is to ascertain the fair and reasonable inference which we ought to draw from those facts. I propose dealing with the matter at this stage as shortly as I can, in order to avoid prejudicing the defendants' case at the hearing of the cause, when the Court may probably be supplied with fuller materials than it has at present for ascertaining the truth.3. For the present purpose it appears to me sufficiently established that the plaintiffs, Messrs. Nicol, Fleming, & Co. have, for several years past, been selling a particular cloth in the market, which has obtained celebrity there, and become readily saleable; that this cloth is known to the publ...

Monohur Doss Vs. Romanauth Law

Court : Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. The defendant does not deny the plaintiff's general right to an account of what is due under the mortgages, and to have the property sold; but he maintains (1) that lie ought not to pay compound interest, (2) that the bills of costs delivered in 1869 ought to be taxed, and (3) that the rate of interest was too high, and ought to be reduced.2. Before proceeding to deal with these particular questions, we may say generally, that there is no reason whatever to suppose that the plaintiff' intended to act dishonestly towards his client. The plaintiff had no doubt satisfied himself in his own mind, that if his client went elsewhere to borrow the money, he would not, on the whole, be so well off. We are quite willing to presume this in favour of an attorney of long standing and high character, such as the plaintiff is here. But, for the purposes of this suit, the question is, whether, having regard to the fiduciary relation between the parties, and the rule which the Cou...

Seth Gokul Dass Gopal Dass Vs. Murli and

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal603

B. Peacock, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces of India, in a suit instituted by the appellant against the respondents in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner of Jubbulpore, for the foreclosure of a mortgage.2. The following are the circumstances under which the mortgage was executed: On the 27th June 1859, the appellant obtained a decree in the Court of the Sudder Ameen of Jubbulpore against Tarapat Patel, malgumr of Khairi, the father of the defendants, for the sum of 9,413 rupees, 15 annas and 3 pies, being the balance of principal and interest due upon a bond executed by Tarapat, and the costs of suit. The decree was silent as to the payment of future interest on the amount decreed. 13y the bond upon which the decree was obtained, it was expressly stipulated that interest should be paid at the rate of 1 per cent, a month.3. Between the date of the decree and the 27th June 1865, the plaintiff endeavoured, on several occasions, ...

Sudder Ally and ors. Vs. Bhugwan Chunder Dass and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal41

Richard Garth, C.J.1. We do not think it necessary to go into the question, which has been fully dealt with by the Court below, as to whether there was any bona fide service of notice at all in this case. Taking for granted that everything was done upon which the appellants' pleader relies, we consider that there was no sufficient publication of the notice according to law. The Reg. VIII of 1819, Section 8, provides that the notice which the law requires to be sent in to the mofussil, is to be published by being stuck up in some conspicuous part of the cutcherry, or at the principal town or village of the defaulting talukdar. Then follow some provisions to which it is only necessary for us to allude in order that we may the better explain what we believe to be the meaning of the authorities to which we have been referred during the argument. These provisions are to the effect that the notice thus required to be published is to be served by a single peon, who is to bring back the receip...