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
Pattarri Sirkar Vs. Shurnomoyee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal625
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff brings this suit to recover from the defendant Rs. 634 and 11 annas under the following circumstances. The plaintiff alleges that he holds a mokurari jote of 65 bighas 10 cottas 5 chittaks and 2 gandas of land, bearing a rental of Rs. 13-11-3; that the defendant, who is the landlord, brought a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, and having obtained a decree, with an order of ejectment, on the 7th November 1873, evicted the plaintiff from the jote on 21st pous 1280 (4th January 1874); that at the time crops,--viz., kulye, wheat, and job,--were standing upon the land; that the defendant, the landlord, after taking possession of the jote, carried away the crops through her servants and labourers; that, against the decree which was passed by the first Court on the 7th November 1873, the plaintiff preferred an appeal; that, on appeal, that decree was modified, and the plaintiff was allowed fifteen days' time to deposit the rent which was decreed against him; t...
Tag this Judgment!Brijnath Doss Vs. Juggernauth Doss
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal322
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The defendant now says that the jewellery did not belong to Chutterbhooj, but to his wife, and that the garden, although conveyed to Chutterbhooj, was bought with Kissen's money, or with the proceeds of the house 75, Burtola Street. But, if Chutterbhooj's wife allowed him to deal with the jewellery as his own, and if the defendant received it as being Chutterbhooj's property (as it is clear from the above account that he did), he cannot possibly resist the plaintiff's claim for it in this suit. And with regard to the title deeds of the garden, it is equally clear that, as between the plaintiff and defendant, the latter having received them from Chutterbhooj, cannot set up the title of a third party, especially as the plaintiff is the ostensible owner of the property.2. The defendant then contends that, although as between him and the plaintiff the property in the title-deeds to the garden and in the jewels may be in the plaintiff, he has a right of lien upon them ...
Tag this Judgment!Achiraj Lal and anr. Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal604
Markby, J.1. But I also think that neither of these two persons would come within Section 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With regard to the person who appears to be really a khazanchi, although possibly he performs some other duties, I do not think that he would be an agent within the meaning of that section under any circumstance, unless we extend this section to all servants of zemindars, which I certainly should not feel disposed to do. With regard to the dewan, he might be an agent within the meaning of the Act if his master was absent. But it would be unreasonable to extend the operation of the Act to a dewan who was acting only under the orders of his resident master. The section is exceedingly vague in its language and, unless strictly construed, might be made the instrument of great oppression2. The conviction and sentence must be set aside, and the petitioners released.Prinsep, J.(After noticing the irregularities referred to by Markby, J., proceeded as follows):As rega...
Tag this Judgment!Prosonna Nath Roy Chowdry Vs. Afzolonnessa Begum
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal523
Mitter, J.1. In this case the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed by the Courts below as barred by limitation. The facts found by the lower Appellate Court are these: The property in dispute originally belonged to one Kalinath Roy, who died in Bhadro 1251 (Aug.-Sept. 1844), survived by his widow Oma Tara and an infant son Gobind Dass. In 1254 (1847) Oma Tara executed, in favour of the defendant, a mourasi izara of the property in suit. In this document she does not describe herself as guardian or mother of Gobind Dass; but the District Judge is apparently of opinion that it was executed by Oma Tara as guardian of Gobind Dass. In this opinion we think, he is right. See Hunooman Persaud Panday v. Mussamat Babooee Munraj Koonweree (6 Moo. I.A., 393).2. Gobind Dass died, before attaining majority, in Bhadro 1262 (Aug.-Sept. 1855), and, under an anumati pattro executed by Kalinath before his death, the plaintiff in this case was adopted by Oma Tara in Assar 1265 (June-July 1858). Oma Tara d...
Tag this Judgment!Wilson Vs. Howard
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal231
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The first question we have to decide is one raised by the respondent--Whether any appeal lies at all from the refusal of the Judge to confirm an award? 2. It is said that the refusal was not a judgment within the meaning of Section 15 of the Charter, and a Full Bench decision (B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 505; s.c.6 W.R. Mis., 83) was cited in support of that contention, where it was held that an appeal does not lie against the refusal of a Judge to allow an award to be filed under Section 327.3. But we think that case very plainly distinguishable from the present. The application there was made in a case referred (not in a suit, but) by agreement of the parties. The object of the application was to give the Court jurisdiction in the matter, and to enable the successful party to enforce the award, summarily, by judgment and execution. He might in that case have brought a suit upon the award, so as to enforce it in another way; and if any doubt existed as to whether the award ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chunder Ghosaul Vs. Juggutmenmohiney Dabee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal283
Richard Garth, Kt., C.J.1. This case comes before us under circumstances which naturally give rise to much suspicion and distrust, and which should induce us, in my opinion, to make every reasonable presumption in the defendant's favour.2. It is brought by the managing member of a Hindu family to enforce a mortgage said to have been made to him by one of his brothers, Hurrish Chunder Ghosaul, so far back as the 1st of February 1842, more than thirty-six years ago. The original consideration for this mortgage having been (according to the plaintiff's own story) less than Rs. 8,000, his present claim upon it, with compound interest, is about three lacs and ten thousand. It is brought at a time when the brother, who is said to have made the mortgage, is dead; when his widow is dead; and when in fact no evidence remains of the real nature of the transaction, except that of the plaintiff himself; and the lady against whom the suit is brought is a daughter of the alleged mortgagor, who had n...
Tag this Judgment!Kherodemoney Dossee Vs. Doorgamoney Dossee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal456
Richard Garth, C.J.1. During the argument of this case, I confess I entertained some doubt upon both the questions involved in it; but after hearing a very able argument, for which I desire to thank the learned Counsel on both sides, I have arrived at the same result as my learned brother, upon the following short grounds:2. Upon the authority of the Tagore case (9 B.L.R., 377), and the decisions in this Court which have been already referred to, I consider that the limitation in favour of the sons of the testator's sister and her husband are void.3. I had some doubt at; one time whether Mr. Hill's argument, founded on the rule laid down in Hawkins on Wills, page 71, was not well founded,--viz., that where a devise was made to a class, and some one or more of that class were living and capable of taking at the death of the testator, there was no reason why the devise should not take effect in favour of the person or persons so capable of taking, and then open out afterwards to let in a...
Tag this Judgment!Fuckhrunnissa Begum Vs. Ebrahim and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal531
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I consider that in this case the appeal ought not to be heard. The decision of the learned Judge, which is appealed against, is not a judgment or decree which determines or affects the entire claim of the plaintiff. It is a decision which he arrived at on the settlement of issues, upon the validity of a hibbanama which was set up by the defendant as an answer to a portion of the plaintiff's claim.2. As regards the rest of the claim, which is not affected by this hibbanama the Judge has framed certain issues, which will come on to be tried in due course; but the defendant has thought proper in the meantime to appeal from this partial decision. No authority has been adduced by the defendant's Counsel to justify an appeal under such circumstances; and I consider that, looking to the language of the Charter, as well as upon grounds of judicial convenience, the appeal ought not to be allowed.3. The fifteenth clause of the Charter, upon which the appellant relies, says ...
Tag this Judgment!Nobodeep Chunder Shaha Vs. Sonaram Dass and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal592
Mitter, J.1. In this case the Munsif awarded a decree for 14 rupees 2 annas 3 gundas and 2 krants as arrears of rent for the year 1282 (1875), against the defendants Sonaram Dass, Ramanando Dass, and Ramneedhee Dass the sons of Sheetaram Dass. it appears from the finding of the Courts below that these three brothers constitute a joint Hindu family, and the tenure, the rent of which is sought to be enhanced, belongs to this joint family.2. One of the questions raised in this case was, that notice of enhancement was not served on Ramneedhee Dass. The facts with reference to this objection are those:These three brothers, as already stated, are members of a joint Hindu family, Ramneedhee Dass resides at Kooch Behar, where he acts as mooktear. One notice of enhancement was issued by the zamindar, and was served personally on Sonaram Das and Ramanando Dass, who reside in their family residence. The Munsif was of opinion that under these circumstances, the service of the notice was sufficient...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Churn Doss Vs. Raghubanund Doss and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal425
Markby, J.1. The only question which remains to be decided in this case is one of Hindu Law,--namely, to what share in the family property is the plaintiff entitled.2. The common ancestor of the family is one Srihuri Doss, who had three sons, Balmokund, Luchmidar and Dullubanund.3. The plaintiff is one of the sons of Balmokund, but he was adopted by Dullubanund, who died in the lifetime of Srihuri. The defendants are the other sons of Balmokund, and the son of Luchmidar. The plaintiff has established his right to recover a share in the family property, but while he claims one-third just as if he were a natural son of his father, the defendants say, that, as an adopted son, he is only entitled to one-sixth, the remaining five-sixths being equally divided between the sons of Balmokund and Luchmidar.4. I have had some doubt whether this question should have been raised at all in the present suit; and whether, it not being alleged that the family had separated, a suit by one member against...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »