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
In Re: Chumman Shah and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal756
Prinsep, J.1. It was unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any 'confession' of Chumman Shah, since he was competent on the admission of Chumman to sentence him without any further record (Section 324, Code of Criminal Procedure).[1][1] Section 324: If an accused person admits the commissin ofAccused may be convict- an offence before a Court competent to try him for such offence,ed on his own plea. such Court may convict him on his own admission....
Tag this Judgment!Savitribai Widow of Dhakji Balcrustna Vs. Luximibai Widow of Ganoba An ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom573
Michael Westropp, C.J.,1. Ganoba Ananta, the husband of the first defendant Luximibai, died, leaving, by her, two sons, Sadasiv (the second defendant) and Balcrustna, and one daughter Anantibai. Balcrustna was transported to the Straits Settlements, whence he returned in 1850 or 1851, and died in 1867 or 1868, leaving one son Dhakji, of whom counsel stated on the argument of this appeal that he (Dhakji) was born in 1839, before the partition which we shall presently mention, but of this there is no proof. It was not asserted that he was married until after the partition. He has died, leaving, surviving him, his widow, the plaintiff Savitribai, and an infant daughter who died during the pendency of this suit and before the present appeal. In 1852 Sadasiv Ganoba instituted a suit against his cousins, the sons of Shivshanker, brother of Ganoba Ananta, and his (Sadasiv's) brother, Balcrustna, and a Parsi mortgagee, at the Equity Side of the late Supreme Court, in which suit a decree for sa...
Tag this Judgment!Sidlingapa Son of Basapa Vs. Sidava Kom Sidlingapa
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom624
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiff, alleging herself to be the wife of the defendant, by her plaint states that, three days previously to the filing of it he turned her out of doors with her children (of whom there are said to be two), and refused to support her. She, accordingly, sues him for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4 per mensem.2. The defendant, in reply, denied that, at the time mentioned by the plaintiff, he turned her out of his house, and he alleged that, about fourteen years previously, she had eloped with another man, and that her suit is barred by the law of limitation. The defendant further asserted that, about twelve years before he filed his written statement, he had divorced the plaintiff, on the occasion of a dispute between them, before the magisterial authorities, and that she had given birth to two illegitimate children.3. The Subordinate Judge of Haveri made a decree, with costs for the defendant, on the ground that, about ten or twelve years previously to ...
Tag this Judgment!Apaji Chintaman Devdhar Vs. Gangabai Kom Daji Chintaman
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom632
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The question whether a Court of Small Causes could have entertained this suit, referred to a Full Bench by the Division Court having been by the Full Bench decided in the negative, it now remains for the present Division Court--Mr. Justice Nanabhai Haridas, who was one of the referring Judges, being no longer on the Bench--to dispose of the suit on the merits. It is one by a widow against the brother of her late husband for a pecuniary allowance as maintenance and the expenses of a pilgrimage to Benares. The defendant alleged that he had not any ancestral property, and that he did not derive any property from his deceased brother, the husband of the plaintiff, and the Courts below have found this allegation to be true. The Subordinate Judge decreed against the plaintiff, but his decision was reversed by the Assistant Judge, who relied upon Timmappu v. Parmehrimma 5 Bom. H.C. Rep. 130. However, in the case of Savitribas v. Luxumibai I.L.R. 2 Bom. 573 decided on ...
Tag this Judgment!Tirthanund Thakoor Vs. Mutty Lall Misser
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal774
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We have not the least doubt about this case; and the time of the Court has been unnecessarily occupied by the respondent's pleader attempting to urge a point, which has been decided against him by the learned Judge of this Court, and against which decision he has not thought fit to appeal.2. The only question is, whether it is necessary or proper that there should be a remand; and the appeal is made to us upon the ground that the learned Judge was wrong in ordering a remand, when it had not been proved that there was any right by custom in the defendant, the occupancy tenant, to divide his tenure and transfer it to different persons.3. An issue was raised distinctly by the Munsif, at the instance of the defendant, whether an occupancy ryot had a right by custom to transfer his tenure to different persons.4. The Munsif found that occupancy ryots had a right in that locality to transfer their tenures generally. Whether he was justified, upon the evidence, in arrivin...
Tag this Judgment!Prosunno Coomar Sircar and ors. Vs. Ram Coomar Parooey
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal53
Markby, J.1. With regard to Special Appeal No. 868, which has just been argued, no doubt it raises a question of very considerable importance, and one which-perhaps, at any rate on this side of India (see Baban Mayacha v. Nagu Shravucha, I.L.R., 2 Bom., 19), has not yet been finally decided. Therefore, i f we had finally to give our opinion upon that question, we should hesitate in doing so when the matter has not been fully argued; but it is not necessary to decide finally in this case what the rights of the parties are in a tidal navigable rive. That any private right of fishery, such as is claimed here, must be derived from the Crown, if it exists at all, is, I think, a matter which is beyond dispute; and I think it also beyond dispute that any such right as this must he established by very clear evidence indeed, and that the presumption would be against any such private right. There is a still further doubt whether such a right as this can be created. The order of' the Board of Rev...
Tag this Judgment!Baneshur Vs. Nilmoney Singh Deo
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal91
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The special appeal before us is one of three arising out of three suits brought by different persons, who all allege themselves to be sons of the Rajah of Punchookootee, born of women of low condition, but not dasis or recognised handmaids, who are referred to in the evidence regarding a certain custom to which I shall presently refer. The plaintiff claimed to receive from the defendant Rajah allowance and arrears thereof at the rate of eight annas per day.2. The Rajah defendant, in his written statement, set out that he was a Khetrya by caste; that the mother of the plaintiff (admitting apparently the fact of paternity) was a woman of the Lohar caste, and that consequently plaintiff had no claim to maintenance at his hands; and he then averred that there was a custom in family of that Raj to the effect that when the Rajahs marry, and certain dasis or handmaids come into their family with the bride, if it should so happen that such dasis become pregnant and bear chil...
Tag this Judgment!Nittyanund Nundy and ors. Vs. Joykisto Cowar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal738
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It appears that Anundo Chunder Cowar, the Lather of the appellant, who is an infant, died on the 19th March 1871. Anundo Chunder, up to the times of his death, carried on business as a trader, and had dealings with the plaintiffs' firm. He died leaving him surviving the appellant and his elder brother Nobokisto, both then infants under the age of 16 years, and two widows. The sons and widows, after Anundo's death, lived as members of a joint Hindu family. The ancestral trade was carried on under the management of the widows.2. The widows being purdanasheen women could not take the management of the ancestral trade directly into their own hands, but employed their son-in-law, one Harradhone, for that purpose; and it was under the direct supervision and management of Harradhone that the business was carried on. It is also proved that the appellant's elder brother Nobokisto, after he came of age, took part in the management with his brother-in-law Harradhone.3. Durin...
Tag this Judgment!Purran Chunder Ghose Vs. Mutty Lall Ghose Jahira
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal50
Markby, J.1. This is a suit for arrears of rent under Beng. Act VIII of 1869. It has been dismissed by the Court of first instance as barred by limitation; and plaintiff's appeal having been dismissed, he has brought the matter before us in special appeal,2. Section 29 of the present Rent Law declares that 'suits for the recovery of arrears of rent shall be instituted within three years' from certain specified dates; and, like Act X of 1859, which it has replaced, contains no provisions for relaxing that term, such as are contained in the general law of limitation.3. On the last day allowed for filing the plaint in the suit now before us the Courts were closed, because it was a close holiday; and the plaint was presented on the next and first open day. Now, under the general law of limitation (Act IX of 1871), this would be allowed, as special provision is made for such a contingency; but the matter for consideration is whether that law applies to suits under the Rent Law, and whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanye Lall Ruj and anr. Vs. Kangal Chandra Ruj
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal69
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff's sued in this case to recover possession of land which they claimed under two distinct titles--one being a title by sale and the other under a lease or usufructuary mortgage. The Court of first instance (Munsif) gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the whole of the lands claimed.2. On appeal, the Judge held that the title under the deed of sale was satisfactorily made out, but that the evidence of the usufructuary mortgage altogether failed. So he cut down the decree and allowed the plaintiffs only to recover the land which fell under the deed of sale. When the officer of the Court came to draw out the decree, he found no means of ascertaining what the lands wore that were covered by the decree, and consequently he was unable to specify the boundaries of the land of which the plaintiffs were to recover possession, and the decree accordingly provided that this should be ascertained in execution. Now, decrees of Appellate Courts, as well as decrees of Or...
Tag this Judgment!