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
Hurrodurga ChowdhraIn Vs. Sharrat Soondery Dabea
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal674
Morris, J.1. A cross-appeal has been preferred by the decree-holder. It is to the effect that the lower Court has acted upon a wrong principle in assessing the mesne profits; that it has simply added together the totals of the rents which the ameen has found to have been paid in each year to the judgment-debtor by the ryots, and not taken into account the loss which the judgment-creditor has sustained during the long period of dispossession. In support of his argument he refers to the judgments of this Court, to be found in the cases of Protap Chunder Borooah v. Ranee Surno Moyee (14 W.R., 151); Sokhee Monee Debia v. Brijoraj Mookerjee (17 W.R., 228); and Chowdhry Waheed Ali v. Mussamut Jumaye (19 W.R., 87)--the effect of which is that not merely the bare rental of each year, less the collection charges, is to be ascertained, but the actual loss which the party ousted has sustained by not having the use of his money during the period that he is kept out of possession.2. The reply made ...
Tag this Judgment!Alukmonee Dabee Vs. Banee Madhub Chuckerbutty and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal677
White J.1. Several questions have been raised by the appellant in this case, but, for the purposes of this appeal, it is only necessary to express our opinion on one of them, which is whether Kali Kumar Chuckerbutty, as the purchaser under a sale in execution of a decree to which I shall presently refer, acquired the interest of Dinobundhu Roy and Bepin Roy, the minor sons and heirs of one Anundmohun Roy, their deceased father, in the three-anna twelve anna share of the jalkar mehal, which is the subject of the suit; for, if the respondents did not acquire their interest, we think that the present suit must fail, notwithstanding that all the other questions raised by the appellant are determined in favour of the respondents. (After stating the facts of the case as above, and finding that the respondent had all along been in actual possession, and that neither Kali Kumar nor his representative had taken any proceedings to obtain actual possession from the Court in charge of the executio...
Tag this Judgment!Monmohini Dassi Vs. Eshan Chunder Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal683
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff in this case seeks to recover possession of a share in a certain taluk, and to establish her right of worshipping two idols mentioned in the plaint. The taluk and the right of worshipping the idols are claimed by the plaintiff as heir of her husband. As regards one of the idols she claims the right of exclusive worship, and as regards the other, only during one-sixth of the year.2. The defendants pleaded limitation to the whole claim, and, upon the merits, alleged that under a will executed by her husband, the plaintiff by her conduct has forfeited her rights.3. The Court of first instance overruling both these objections decreed the claim in full. On appeal the District Judge has upheld the judgment, except as regards the idol Shalgram Deo, the idol which the plaintiff claimed to worship exclusively.4. The defendants have preferred this appeal, and contend that the lower Courts have misconstrued the terms of the will, and that the plaintiff's claim regarding...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Matter of the Petition of Mackenzie Vs. Shere Bahdoor Sahi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal378
Jackson, J.1. We think it clear that the order of the Magistrate is erroneous. He seems to be under the impression that the effect of the butwara proceedings and the orders therein is to oust the tenants previously holding under parties either in joint possession or holding separately by consent. That clearly is not so. The injustice would be monstrous if it were so.2. The possession given by the butwara ameen to Shere Bahdoor in this case was possession as owner, not possession as occupier. The Magistrate's order, therefore, must be set aside. The Magistrate will enquire into the fact of actual possession by the complainant, Mr. Jackson's client, and if he be found to be in actual possession will maintain him in it....
Tag this Judgment!Nazir Khan Vs. Proladh Dutta and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal660
Jackson, Offg. C.J.1. This case is not on all fours with the one referred to by the Sessions Judge.2. In that case a Division Bench of this Court, finding no independent evidence on the record that the house which was entered and searched was a gaming-house within the meaning of the Act, held, that it could not be presumed to be so under Section 6 of the Act, because that presumption only arises when the proceedings are authorized by the preceding section, which, for the reasons stated in the judgment, was held not to be the case.3. In the case under reference there is the direct evidence of the witness Hurri Krishna Gosswami to show that the house of Kangali Dhoni was a gaming-house. Therefore, although the action of the Police may have been illegal, this would not exculpate the accused, or prevent the Magistrate convicting them on other independent evidence.4. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the Deputy Magistrate....
Tag this Judgment!Nundo Coomar Roy Vs. Goluck Chunder Masanta and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal699
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Two points have been raised in this appeal:2. First.--That, as the plaintiff claimed to set aside the order made under Section 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code in favour of the defendant, and to have possession of the property by virtue of an ancient debutter title, he was bound to prove, not only that he had been in possession for upwards of twelve years, but also to prove the debutter title which he set up.3. Secondly.--That the learned Judge in this Court was wrong in supposing that there was some evidence of the debutter title upon which the Court below had acted.4. In the view which we take of the first point it is not necessary to decide the second.5. The first point we consider should be decided in accordance with the judgment of this Court in the case of Gossain Dass Chunder v. Issur Chunder Nath (I.L.R., 3 Cal., 223).6. The plaintiff there claimed possession of certain land under a deed said to have been executed in the year 1857, and he also stated in ...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Nipcha and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal712
Tottenham, J.1. It seems to me that the Judge is wrong in his law throughout.2. The Deputy Magistrate did expressly sanction a complaint under Section 211, and even took bail for the appearance of the accused. The sanction was none the less valid because the person to whom it was given did not avail himself of it, and sanction having been given, the Magistrate of the district was competent, under Section 142, Code of Criminal Procedure, to take up the case without a complaint.3. As to the change from Section 211 to Section 192, the sanction in respect of one offence covers also one under the other on the same facts (ss. 470 and 450, Code of Criminal Procedure).4. But, after all, it would appear that the Judge would acquit the prisoners on the merits also. It will be sufficient, therefore, to point out to the Judge that his view of the law is erroneous.5. His attention should also be called to the fact that he has omitted to sign the depositions recorded by him as required by para. 2, S...
Tag this Judgment!RajnaraIn Singh Vs. Heeralal and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal142
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We consider that this case is governed by the Full Bench judgment in the case of Bhimul Doss v. Choonee Lall (I.L.R., 2 Cal., 379), where it was virtually decided, that in joint families governed by the Mitakshara law, the principle of survivorship obtains until partition, and that upon a partition taking place, the distribution amongst the different members of the family is to be made not according to the ordinary Hindu rule of heirship, but per stirpes.2. Runglal having died subsequently to the institution of the suit, and also after the decision in the lower Court, the plaintiff will be entitled to a one-fourth share instead of the one-fifth share claimed by him....
Tag this Judgment!Mumtaz HosseIn Vs. Brij Mohun Thakoor and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal888
Jackson, J.1. The appellant has not convinced us that the facts of the case are such as that the Court should have, under Section 351, declared him an insolvent. In the first place, I may remark that the Judge has placed him in a position somewhat more advantageous than he was entitled to, by holding that the burden of proving the matters set out in that section did not lie on him. We think it does lie upon the applicant to satisfy the Court as to the various matters there described, and it is quite reasonable that he should do so, because the facts are peculiarly and chiefly within the applicant's own knowledge; and the meaning of the section no doubt is that upon his examination before the Court he should leave on the mind of the Court an impression that he is not under any of those heads undeserving of the protection which he asks for. Now it appears to us that the circumstances stated by the Judge do amount to a very strong case of suspicion, and more upon this head, that he had co...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Das Vs. Nekunjo Bhaishinai
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal374
Ainslie, J.1. We decline to interfere with the order of the Magistrate. It is not for a Magistrate to determine the question who is the lawful guardian of a child. The provisions of chap. xli of the Criminal Procedure Code only enable him to make an order for the maintenance of his wife or child on its appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that he has neglected or refused to do so, although in the possession of sufficient means.2. The child in this case is an illegitimate one in the custody of its mother, and there is nothing in the Code which warrants the Magistrate making an order for her surrendering it to the father. Her refusal to surrender it is no ground for stopping the allowance previously ordered. The father's right to the custody of the child, if any, must be determined elsewhere, and not in the Magistrate's Court....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›
- Last »