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
Mobaruck Shah and anr. Vs. Toofany and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal206
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that there has been some misapprehension in this case as to the actual circumstances under which the plaintiffs' claim was made.2. The suit was brought to recover a portion of the site of an old road which had been used by the public for a considerable time previously to the year 1279 (1872), and which road, during all that time, formed the boundary between the land of the plaintiffs and the land of the defendants.3. In the year 1279 the Deputy Magistrate changed the line of the road altogether, so that the part in, question was no longer used or required as a road: whereupon the plaintiffs took possession of that half of it which adjoined their field, and cultivated it for a time by their burgodars; but then, it seams, the defendants carried off the crop thus grown by the plaintiffs' burgodars, and thus forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs; whereupon this suit was brought.4. The Munsif decided in favour of the plaintiffs upon the ground that, as the old ...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the Town of Calcutta
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal758
Ainslie, J.1. The question referred by the Presidency Magistrate is, whether the protection extended by Section 39 of Act IV of 1877 to certain individual public servants extends equally to a Municipal Corporation prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code for being guilty of a public nuisance.2. By Section 11 of the Penal Code, the word 'person' is defined to include a body of persons whether incorporated or not; and therefore the word 'person' in Section 21 may be read as a body of persons incorporated, The words 'public servants' in that section may consequently denote a body of persons incorporated falling under any of the descriptions given therein. It is not necessary to refer to any except the tenth. The illustration in the tenth description says that a Municipal Commissioner is a public servant; but it does not therefore follow that a Corporation such as that created by Act IV of 1876 (B.C.) is also a public servant within the meaning of that section.3. The words 'every officer' in...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Abdool Karim
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal18
Ainslie, J.1. Section 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure takes away the right of appealing from persons convicted by Magistrates of the first class exercising summary jurisdiction when the sentence is one of imprisonment, not exceeding a term of three months. Therefore, in the present case, the convicted persons, who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, are deprived of the right of appeal on the facts, if the Deputy Magistrate was right in trying the case summarily.2. The Deputy Magistrate seems to think that the fact that he had not the Police papers at the time that the prisoners were put on their trial entitled him to deal with the case on the verbal statement of a Court Sub-Inspector. But on looking at the record it appears that the very first witness for the prosecution states distinctly that there were two persons who appear to have been the leaders of the unlawful assembly if the evidence of this witness is to be believed) armed with sword...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmonee Singh Deo Vs. Rambundhoo Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal757
Jackson, J.1. The question which we are called upon to determine in these six appeals touches the finality of a decision of the District Court; or in case of an appeal, of the High Court as a Court of Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 39 of Act X of 1870, otherwise called the Land Acquisition Act of 1870. In all these cases the subject of dispute is the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector in respect of land taken up for public service, in respect of which compensation, a dispute as to the apportionment thereof arose, and a reference was made thereupon under Section 38 of the Act with a view to a decision by the Court meaning as explained in the definition clause of the Act, 'the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction,' no other Judicial Officer having apparently been appointed for that purpose in the District of Burdwan. The parties contending were the zamindar, certain persons called jagirdars, and other persons having subordinate rights and by the decision of t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: in the Goods of Elliott
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal106
Pontifex, J.1. It being conceded by both sides that Surgeon-Major Elliott came out to India in the service of the East India Company previous to 1858, I think the case is concluded by the very careful judgment in Wauchope v. Wauchope (4 Ct. of Sess. Cases, 4th series, 945), before the Court of Session in Scotland, in which I feel certainly inclined to agree; at all events, I am not inclined to dissent from it. I must, therefore, hold that Surgeon-Major Elliott at his death had an Anglo-Indian domicile. The will is therefore not good....
Tag this Judgment!Kalo Nilkanth Vs. Lakshmibai Kom Kalo Nilkanth
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom637
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It is not competent for this Court to re-open the question of co-habitation of the plaintiff and, defendant, or of the continence of the plaintiff. Those are questions of fact disposed of by the Courts below. The District Judge has, on the point of limitation, erroneously applied Act IX of 1871 to this cause, which was commenced in 1872 before that Act came into force. Section I, Clause 14 of Act XIV of 1859, is also inapplicable, as this is not a case of maintenance chargeable on any estate. The provision of that Act which is applicable, is Section 1, Clause 16, which gives six years from the accruer of the cause of action, and it does not accrue until there has been a demand and refusal. (See special appeal 1041 of 1864, and the note to vol. 2, West's Acts, p. 139). No demand or refusal has been proved to have occurred prior to the bringing of this suit, which is in itself a sufficient demand, and the defence is a sufficient refusal.2. We must, accordingly, o...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Chunder Vs. Tayler and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal103
Jackson, J.1. The Extra Assistant Commissioner, not going into the merits, threw out the plaintiff's suit, firstly, on the ground that the plaintiff was barred, in as much as twelve years had elapsed from the time of the accretion of the land as taken possession of by the defendants and, secondly, because three years' limitation applied from the date of the Survey Deputy Collectors award; and lastly, because by Act IX of 1847 the Court was debarred from maintaining the suit.2. As to the first two grounds, it is clear that the plaintiff would not be barred, because he is an auction-purchaser of the estate, and as such is entitled to recover it free of all encumbrances, and his cause of action, by whatever period of limitation it would be restricted, would arise from the time of his purchase, and the period of limitation is to be counted from that time; and it seems that the present suit is brought within three years from the date of the plaintiffs purchase.3. As regards the objection un...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: in the Matter of the Petition of Shibo Prosad Pandah
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal124
Markby, J.1. The defendant in this case has been convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months by the Joint Magistrate of Balasore under Section 500 of the Penal Code of defamation, and he has applied to us to set aside the conviction and sentence as illegal. The defamation charged is contained in a petition to the Magistrate of Balasore, in which the defendant stated that Harnarain Mahapattur and others were preparing to bring false charges against him, and it was upon Harnarain Mohapattur's complaint that the allegations in this petition were injurious to his character that these proceedings wore instituted. The defendant at the trial tried to prove that the allegations in the petition were true, and he called several persons who swore that they had heard conversations between Harnarain Mohapattur and other persons in which Harnarain Mohapattur had expressed his intention of getting up false charges against the defendant, and they had reported these conversations to t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdool Bari Vs. Ramdass Coondoo and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal607
Jackson, J.1. The object of the present suit was to recover from the defendant certain land which he (defendant) was holding within the taluk purchased by the plaintiff at a revenue-sale on the 29th March 1863. As the case comes before us in special appeal, the defendant claims the benefit of Section 53 of Act XI of 1859, it having been found that the defendant is a non-resident cultivating ryot, having in that capacity also a claim to be protected under Section 37 of the same law. The Courts below have decided against him on both grounds; and the chief point which we have to consider is, whether Section 53 really applies to the present case or not. The facts are these: Previous to the revenue-sale, and previous to the occurring of the default which brought about the revenue-sale, a default having arisen from non-payment of the revenue payable on the 19th January 1863, the plaintiff had purchased, at an execution-wale in the Civil Court at Sylhet, certain mouzas, which were held and en...
Tag this Judgment!Mohesh Chunder Banerjee and ors. Vs. Ram Pursono Chowdry and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal539
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiffs have brought the present suit to recover from the defendants Nos. 1 to 40, to whom were afterwards added certain persons passing under the name of Gisborne and Co., the sum of Rs. 6,901, due under two distinct accounts. The first part, or the sum of Rs. 1,200, is made up of the principal duo upon a bond, dated 11th Aughran 1281 (26th November 1874, viz., Rs. 645, and interest of a like amount due upon the same bond. The rest of the claim consisted of two amounts deposited in the Collectorate, respectively on the 13th May and 16th November 1875, to stay the sale of a patni taluk of which the bond previously mentioned purported to give the plaintiff a mortgage, and the interest upon those two payments. The bond, out of which the rest of his claim directly or indirectly arose, appears to have been executed by the defendants 1 and 17. These two persons are said to be the direct descendants or representatives of the persons originally registered in the zamindar'...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »