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
Soonder NaraIn Vs. Bennud Ram and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal76
Jackson, J.1. The specific ground on which the special appellant impugns the conveyance which has been upheld by the lower Appellate Court is that the guardian who conveyed the property on behalf of his minor son was not a guardian appointed under Act XL of 1858; and it is contended that no guardian acting as what is called in this judgment a natural guardian can exercise higher powers than a guardian appointed under the law; that is to say, the power of a natural guardian is limited to granting leases for a period not exceeding five years, and such guardian must apply to the Court for sanction even in cases of legal necessity. I am not aware of any sanction of the law for that contention (see, however, Abhassi Begum v. Maharanee Rajroop Koonwar ante (p. 33). There is no doubt a decision by one. of the learned Judges of this Court, sitting alone in the trial of a special appeal below Rs. 50, in which that opinion has been expressed; but with every respect for the opinion of the learned...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Mohim Chunder Rai and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal765
Maclean, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by the Sessions Court of the 24-Pargannas of an offence under the Registration Act, VIII of 1871, and as the trial was held with a jury, the petition of appeal filed on 13th April was directed to show certain errors of law, such as defects in the Judge's charge to the jury. By a subsequent petition of 17th April, the prisoners claim to be heard against the conviction on questions of fact as well as law, as the offence of which they have been convicted is not one of those to which trial by jury has been made applicable by the Government notification of January 1862 (Calcutta Gazette, 8th January 1862, p. 87).2. It has been contended before us by the Government Pleader that the Sessions Judge was competent to try the prisoners with a jury notwithstanding that the offence charged is not included in the Government notification referred to, and therefore the prisoners are not entitled to appeal against their conviction except upon matter of l...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliprosad Rai Vs. Meher Chandro Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal222
Ainslie, J.1. The question raised by this application is whether, in 1876, Section 12, Act VIII of 1859, applied to the Sonthal Pargannas in respect of suits in which the subject of dispute exceeds Rs. 1,000 in value.2. The petitioner instituted a suit valued at Rs. 6,197-9 on a mortgage bond, by which certain properties lying partly within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Moorshedabad and partly within that of the Court at Dumka in the Sonthal Pargannas were pledged, and sought to get a decree specially declaring the liability of those properties in respect of the debt covered by the bond. This suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moorshedabad who made a reference to obtain sanction from the High Court under Section 12, Act VIII of 1859, to his proceeding with the suit.3. On the 17th April 1877 an order was made by a Judge of this Court, before whom, in the ordinary course of business, such references were laid, declining to give the authority sought, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Roy Lutchmeeput Singh Vs. Assamathem Nessa Bibee, Widow of Meer Asruff ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal142
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that the property in question did not pass to the defendant under the sales made by the Sheriff.2. It may be, that if the suit instituted by the Land Mortgage Bank on the 10th of May 1872 had been brought in proper form, and if the proceedings in that suit had been conducted to a conclusion in the regular course of law, the decree might have been binding upon Suddurunnessa, and this property might legally have been sold under that decree; but in point of fact, the suit was brought advisedly against certain other persons as the representatives of Buzloor Rohim, expressly excluding the name of Fatimatunnessa, upon the ground that she had sold her share of the deceased's property to her daughter Surfunnessa; and omitting all mention of Suddurunnessa and her share, although the plaintiff in the suit knew perfectly well that she was entitled to a share, and they had reason to believe that she was alive at Medina. A decree was then passed in that suit, n...
Tag this Judgment!Jungle Singh Vs. Khoob Lall and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal788
McDonell, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover 994 rupees 5 annas 9 pie principal, with interest, under a teep executed by the defendants. Both the lower Courts have decreed the plaintiff's claim. In special appeal it is urged that the Courts below should have held that the teep on which the plaintiff relies is a promissory note and being insufficiently stamped as such is inadmissible in evidence.2. On the appeal being taken up a preliminary objection was raised that no appeal lies in this case, inasmuch as where a document is admitted by the first Court as not requiring a stamp, its inadmissibility cannot be questioned in appeal. Various rulings of these Courts have been cited in support of this objection; and it appears to us that the ruling in Enayetoolah v. Shaik Meajan 16 W.R. 6 is on all fours with the present case. Therefore, following that ruling, we hold that the preliminary objection must prevail.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Protab Chunder Dass Vs. Gour Chunder Roy
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal132
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff Protap Chunder Dass to recover from the defendants the sum of Its. 20,740 for principal and interest due upon two hundis each dated the 17th of September 1875, payable ninety days after date, drawn by Mr. Pogose, the second defendant, in favour of the third defendant, and accepted by Gour Chunder Roy, the first defendant.2. The lower Court has held that the last-named defendant is not liable, and the only question in this appeal is whether ho is liable or not.3. It is an admitted fact in the case that the only person for whose benefit those hundis were drawn and negotiated is the drawer, the second defendant, and that the other defendants were his sureties; and the defence which is set up by Gour Chunder is that after the bills became due, the plaintiff gave time to Mr. Pogose, the principal debtor, without his (the defendant's) consent, by accepting from him a sum of Rs. 1,860 by way of interest in advance, and that this di...
Tag this Judgment!Hurro Proshad Roy Vs. Gopaul Dass Dutt and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal818
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is that of limitation; and, in order to the proper solution of that question, having regard to the authorities to which our attention has been called it is necessary to state the facts with some precision.2. The suit is brought to recover arrears of rents of certain chukdari tenures from the years 1272 to 1279.3. These tenures are within the limits of Talook Kassinugger, which originally belonged to the defendants' ancestors; but as they failed to pay the Government revenue, the talook was sold in the year 1838 under Reg. XI of 1822, and purchased by the Government.4. In 1841 the defendants took a farming lease of it for five years in the name of one Bissonath Dey.5. In 1846 that lease was renewed for another twenty years, so that the defendants held the talook in ijara up to 1866.6. Meanwhile, in 1860, the Government sold its proprietary right in the talook to the plaintiff's father, who afterwards died, leaving the plaintiff his ...
Tag this Judgment!GossaIn Sudersan Das Vs. Terietput Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal46
Broughton, J.1. The plaintiff in this case such for adjudication of right to, and confirmation of possession of, land. He bases his title on a deed of sale dated 16th Falgoon 1267 F.S., corresponding with the year 1860 of the Christian era, executed by the defendant, second party, in favour of the plaintiff, by setting aside the collusive Kobala executed by the same defendant in 1864 in favour of the father of the other defendants, who are minors.2. The plaintiff based his claim in his written statement on the deed of sale of 1267, coupled with possession, and all the defendants repudiated that deed of sale, and denied the possession.3. The Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff never was in possession. He says: 'It also clearly appears from all the evidence that the plaintiff's suit on the allegation of his having been in possession is false,' and he dismissed the suit on this preliminary point, directing the plaintiff that if he was out of possession he should sue for recovery of...
Tag this Judgment!Abinash Chunder Dutt Vs. Taru Patur
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal79
L.S. Jackson, J.1. Various questions have been raised on the part of the special appellant, one of which is that the plaintiff's suit must fail, because it was a suit for enhancement and no notice of enhancement had been served on the defendant. It seems manifest from the terms of the plaint and of the written statement also that this is not really a suit for enhancement. What the plaintiff asks for is a declaration of right to receive the full rent of 20 bighas, and this prayer of the plaintiff is specially met by the defendant's averments that he had for a particular reason a right to hold the land at half the current rate. He also alleged that he had always been holding at this half rate. The plaintiff, who is a purchaser of the estate, which was formerly a khas mehal, produced as evidence of what the rates were, certain proceedings of the Deputy Collector under Reg. VII of 1822. Those proceedings were commenced in 1843 and concluded in 1845. To that the defendant objects, in the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Doorga Persad Singh Vs. Doorga Konwari and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal190
B. Peacock, J.1. This is a suit brought by Doorga Persad Singh, son of Gopi Nath Singh, alleging himself to be the proprietor of Talook Guddi Chakai and other property in Zillah Monghyr. The suit is against Takaitni Doorga Konwari, widow of Futteh Narain Singh, deceased, and mother of Gurbh Narain Singh, deceased, and also against Maharaja Joy Mungul Singh. It was brought, first, to obtain possession from the widow by adjudication of the right of inheritance of the plaintiff in accordance with kulachar, or family usage, in reference to the property in suit left by Tekait Gurbh Narain Singh, son of the late Tekait Futteh Narain Singh; secondly, for an adjudication and order with respect to the right of reversion to the said estate, that a deed which had been executed by the widow in favour of the defendant Joy Mungul Singh should be declared illegal and inoperative after the decease of the widow, the defendant No. 1.2. The property was formerly the property of Dhurm Narain Singh, and th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »