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
Deo NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Lal Sahoo
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal781
Ainslie, J.1. On appeal the Subordinate Judge affirmed the finding that the holding is not protected from enhancement, and also held that no custom of transfer of occupancy rights without the consent of the landlord had been established. This last finding is irrelevant, as ejectment is not sought. He went on to hold that Nuro Panday had no right to build, and consequently could give no such right to his vendee. He assumes it to be an established rule that a lessee cannot build on land held by him for cultivation, and supports this view by a reference to the case of Juggut Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Eshan Chunder Banerjee 24 W.R. 220. In that judgment the Court said: 'It may well be that, in particular places, ryots having rights of occupancy in land for agricultural purposes may, by custom, have the right to transfer it to any person to hold for the same purpose; but that will not carry with it the proposition that a person who may be desirous of erecting a large house in the midst of an ...
Tag this Judgment!Nursingdas Rughunathdas Vs. Tulsiram BIn Doulatram
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom558
1. Under the provisions of Section 268, the bonds cannot be sold till the end of six months from the date of attachment.2. It follows that, as a Court of Small Causes cannot appoint a receiver, any bonds on which recovery will be time-barred before the date on which a sale can legally be made, cannot be made available for satisfaction of the judgment-creditor's debt.3. The Code on this respect appears to require amendment....
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Sobharam Vs. Purbhudas Kursandas
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom560
1. It is clear that Section 648 does not apply to a case in which the defendant resides within the same district in which the Court issuing a warrant is situate. 2. Section 223 does not apply to Courts of Small Causes.3. It follows that a Court of Small Causes may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person residing in another district, but not if he resides within the same district in which the Court is situate, but outside its local jurisdiction. This is an anomaly which appears to require the attention of the Legislature....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress on the Prosecution of Denonath Ghattack Vs. Rajcoomar Sing ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal573
L.S. Jackson, J.1. It appears to me in the first instance that the Joint Magistrate was in error in making any order in this matter under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It seems to mo that the subject-matter was one to which that section could have no application. There was really no question of possession. The land was in the joint possession of the disputants, and the only question was, whether one of them being a joint owner was at liberty to make use of the land in such a manner as to cause what the other joint owner chose to consider an annoyance, and against the will of that joint owner. In fact, the Magistrate himself, in a passage of his judgment, scorns to furnish an excellent reason why he should not have exercised jurisdiction under that section. Adverting to an argument of the pleader for the accused, as to the right of Coopee Kisto Gossain to forbid this mode of enjoyment, he says: 'I am unable to accede to the application of this doctrine. The vakeel says ...
Tag this Judgment!Ubilack Rai and ors. Vs. Dallial Rai and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal557
White, J.1. So far as the pottah bears the seal of Futtey Ali, we have no reason to find fault with the mode by which the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that the seal was the genuine seal of Futtey Ali; but inasmuch as besides Futtey Ali, there were two other maliks, who have not sealed or signed the pottah, the authority of Shyam Lall to sign for them should be proved; and such proof is a necessary preliminary to the admission of the document in evidence.2. The Judge states thus--'The issue which I have to try is the mokurrari pottah genuine; and if so, was it effectuated or not.' 'What the Judge says on this issue is this:--'The evidence adduced on behalf of the pottah is fully satisfactory. True that no direct evidence was given to establish its authenticity, but it is also true that no direct evidence was available. The pottah is more than forty years old. The writing of the lease was proved by the evidence given by Soonder Lall, the son of Shyam Lall, the writer of it. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkanath Bysack and anr. Vs. Burroda Persaud Bysack
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal443
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Only two questions are raised in this appeal: first, whether certain bequests made by the testator are valid; and secondly, whether, if they are invalid, a residuary bequest which follows them, is invalid also.2. The clause of the will upon which the question arises, is as follows: 'I do direct my trustee to spend suitable sums at the annual sradhs or anniversaries of my father, mother, and grandfather, as well as of myself after my demise, for the performance of the ceremonies and the feeding of the Brahmins and the poor; to spend suitable sums for the annual contribution and gifts to the Brahmins, Pundits holding tolls [(or native schools) for the diffusion of Sanscrit learning in the country] at the time of the Doorga Poojah. To spend suitable sums for the perusal of Mohabharat and Pooran, and for the prayer to God during the month of Kartick. Should there be any surplus after the above expenditure, then I do hereby direct my trustee to spend the said surplus i...
Tag this Judgment!Panchcowrie Mull and ors. Vs. Chumroolall and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal564
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The learned Judge in the Court below has dismissed the suit (without settling any issues, and without going into evidence), as we understand, upon four grounds,-1st.--That the plaintiffs do not show in what right they sue.2nd.--That the plaintiffs are not a corporation, and cannot therefore claim to In old property by succession.3rd.--That the Advocate-Gen oral is not a party to the suit.4th.--That no leave of the Court to bring the suit has been obtained under Section IB of Act XX of 1863.2. The right in which the plaintiff's sue is, in our opinion, sufficiently shown. They describe themselves as the persons forming for the time being the Tairo Pantee Anungo Punch Brothron, and as such they claim to have, on behalf of themselves and others, the general management and control of the religious endowments belonging to the Degumbery Soot of Jains. They also show that the bequests, which they seek to enforce are bequests which the testator directed to be applied under...
Tag this Judgment!Harasatoollah and ors. Vs. Brojonath Ghose
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal730
Markby, J.1. The Subordinate Judge seems to have correctly explained the present state of the law. If the purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree be resisted or obstructed when being put in possession by the Court, as provided for by Section 318 or Section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1877,[1] the Court can now act only under Section 334 or Section 335.2. Section 318 provides for the giving of what is usually termed khas possession to an execution-purchaser, and the Court is empowered to 'order delivery to he made by putting the purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, and, if need be, by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same.' If resistance or obstruction is made by the judgment-debtor or any one on his behalf, the provisions of chapter xix of the Code relating to resistance or obstruction to a decree-holder are applicable to Section 334. If, on the other hand, the property sold was not in t...
Tag this Judgment!Mothoora Mohun Roy Vs. Peary Mohun Shaw
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal259
Pontifex, J.1. Section 8 does not refer to such instruments only. These bills are not admissible upon another ground. If you contend that Section 28 applies only to instruments chargeable with one anna, then, Section 5 shows that you cannot use an adhesive stamp at all. Again, Section 19 seems to show that Section 20 does not apply to bills of exchange at all. It could not have been intended that s.20 should alter s.19. I must admit the objection as to these hundis as they are insufficiently stamped....
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Ibrahim and ors. Vs. M.B. Morrison
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal36
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs' claim in this case is in respect of a large tract of chur lands, which was, it is alleged, formed by the recession of the River Kosi between 1273 and 1275 (1867 and 1869). The plaintiffs allege that the land in suit appertains to their patni of Mouza Khera. The defendant holds a neighbouring mouza called Madhoora. His case is, that the disputed land was thrown up more than twelve years, and that ever since its formation it has been held as part of Mouza Madhoora, to which it really appertains. The lower Court has dismissed the claim as barred by limitation. In appeal it is contended, that this being a chur land the onus of proving adverse possession for more than twelve years is upon the party who sets up that plea. It has been also urged that, supposing the onus of proof is upon the plaintiff, that onus has been satisfactorily discharged. We agree with the lower Court that the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to establish the formation of the chur in dis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »