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
Dhunput Singh Vs. Heera Lall Mookhopadhya and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal500
Prinsep, J.1. This case is practically in continuation of the litigation of which the last stage is reported in Vol. XXIV, Weekly Reporter, Page 282. The present plaintiff obtained a decree against one Chitkumari for a certain sum of money, and, in the course of executing it, a petition, to which the plaintiff, decree-holder, assented, was presented on behalf of the debtor, acknowledging a certain amount to be due from her and promising to pay it off by instalments. Money was paid under this agreement, but Chitkumari having died, execution of the decree for the balance outstanding was taken out against the present defendants as her representatives. Objection was raised, and finally allowed by a Division Bench of this Court--see Hera Lall Mookerjee v. Roy Dhunput Singh (24 W.R. 282), which held that execution could not proceed, as it was barred by limitation, and the agreement for payment by instalments could not be substituted for that decree, or extend the ordinary term of limitation....
Tag this Judgment!Tiluck Chand Vs. Soudamini Dasi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal566
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the judgment of the Court below has proceeded upon an erroneous view of the law.2.The facts are these:On the 12th of August 1869, one Soudamini Dasi purchased certain property at an execution-sale, and obtained possession of it. But it appeared that one Tiluck Chand had purchased the same property at another execution sale three days before the purchase by Soudamini Dasi. In 1870, Tiluck Chand brought a suit against Soudamini Dasi to recover possession, and succeeded, the final decree in that case being pronounced in the High Court on the 23rd August 1872. He, then, in 1873, brought a suit against Soudamini Dasi for mesne profits during the three years that she had been in possession, viz., from 1869 to 1872, and in that suit Soudamini Dasi set up a counter-claim by way of sot-off for sums which she had paid for Government revenue during the time that she was in possession.3. Upon the strength of this set-off the Court of first instance not only dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Roy Luchmeeput Singh Bahadur and anr. Vs. Goopee Nath Dobey
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal542
Ainslie, J.1. The judgment of the late learned Chief Justice Sir Barnes Peacock in the case of Okhoy Chunder Dutt v. Erskine 3 W.R. Mis. R. 11 may be quoted as showing that, in all cases in which a sale may be postponed to another day, it is necessary that the formalities required by law should he gone through afresh (unless it be that they have been waived by the parties themselves). He says--'It is exceedingly important that when an auction-sale is to take place in exection of a decree, a proclamation should be made, giving notice of the day on which the sale is to take place, so that intending purchasers may go and bid for the articles put up for sale, and Act VIII of 1869 is express on the point.' he then goes on to quote Section 249.2. The case then before the Court is, no doubt, somewhat different from the present case, inasmuch as in that case the postponement had been indefinite, whereas in the present case the postponement was to a certain fixed day. Still it appears to us tha...
Tag this Judgment!Mungol Prashad Dichit Vs. Shama Kanto Lahory Chowdhry
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal708
Morris, J.1. Several questions have been raised, arising out of proceedings taken between the last and the next preceding application for execution, that is, between the 5th September 1874 and the 22nd September 1877. But the determination of these is unnecessary if, as has been pointed out, the decree which it is sought to execute was dead on the 5th September 1874 by reason of the previous application having been made on the 26th July 1871. It is, however, pointed out that the respondent, debtor, made an acknowledgment of the judgment-debt on the 30th November 1871, when he asked for two months' postponement of the sale in execution. And a contention is raised that this is such an acknowledgment in writing of the debt as is contemplated in Section 20, Act IX of 1871, and that, consequently, a new period of limitation runs from the date on which it is signed. The application for execution made on the 5th September 1874 brings this case under the provisions of Act IX of 1871 (see Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Hemnath Dutt and anr. Vs. Ashgur Sindar and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal894
Jackson, J.1. It appears to us that the Court below is in error in this matter. It seems that the lands formerly in the occupation of the defendants, and as to which they had acquired a right of occupancy, were submerged many years ago, as were the lands of other tenants.2. The defendants said: 'The other ryots concerned gave up their lands: we did not give up ours. We did not pay rents, because they were not asked from us.'3. In these circumstances the lower Courts supposed that, inasmuch as there was no express surrender of the land by the tenants, and the landlord did not in any form re-enter upon the land, and because immediately upon the re-formation the old tenants asserted their rights and commenced cultivation, therefore their right of occupancy had been maintained, and the plaintiff's suit was liable to dismissal. 4. Now the right of occupancy is one which, as defined by the Statute, is to be maintained by regular and punctual payment of the rent payable. It is not sufficient ...
Tag this Judgment!Surbomungola Dabee Vs. Mohendronath Nath and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal508
White, J.1. Declare that the trust for the erection of a bathing-ghaut and temples is void for uncertainty; that the residue of the testator's property is undisposed of; and that the plaintiff, as sole heiress of the testator, is, as such, entitled to the whole of his property after payment of his debts. Usual administration accounts. The Court Receiver to take possession of the testator's property, to convert such as does not consist of money or Government securities into money and invest the whole in Government securities. Power to dispose of the property, by private contract or public sale. Costs of all parties up to decree to be paid out of the estate on scale No. 2. Reserve further directions....
Tag this Judgment!MartIn Vs. Lawrence
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal655
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This appears to me a very clear case, and Mr. Hill, notwithstanding the short time that he has had to prepare his argument, has said everything that could he said on behalf of his client. (His Lordship then stated the facts of the case, and continued.) The case, as I have already said, is to my mind a very clear one. There is no ground whatever, as far as I can see, for the application; and the mistake of the appellant has arisen from her confounding together two proceedings of the Court, which are entirely diverse in their nature She is attempting to treat her imprisonment, which was a punishment imposed upon her for disobeying an order of the Court, as an ordinary process of execution at the suit of an execution-creditor.2. Execution at the instance of a creditor against the person of the execution-debtor is a process which the Court is bound to enforce, provided the application for it is made in the proper way, and in the regular course of law. It is one of the...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Komul Dossee Vs. J.W. Laidley and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal957
Jackson, J.1. We are quite unable to agree in the judgment of the Court below in the present case.2. The suit was on the part of Rai Komul Dossee, who holds an ijara settlement under the zamindar of a certain turuff, and she seeks to recover possession of a large area of land situated within that turuff--the area is described as being one thousand six hundred and odd bighas--which land is in the occupation of certain persons constituting the firm of Robert Watson and Co., who are also owners of an indigo concern, called Domekul factory. The first occupation of this land appears to have taken place under a potta granted by the then zamindar in the Bengali year 1260 (1853) to Mr. James Dalrymple, who was then, we may take it, local representative of the firm of Watson and Co., and was the manager of the Domekul indigo concern. That was expressed to be a lease of the land for ten years from 1260 to 1269 (1853 to 1862) at an annual jumma calculated at the rate of 12 annas per biga upon an ...
Tag this Judgment!Janokinath Mookerjee and anr. Vs. Ramrunjun Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal949
Mitter, J.1. In this case the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, because they were of opinion that there had been a misjoinder of parties, and such a joinder of causes of action as would not be allowed under the law.2. After going through the plaint and the written statement, and hearing the learned Pleaders engaged on behalf of the plaintiffs, and one of the defendants Raja Ramrunjun Chuckerbutty, who has alone appeared in this Court, we think that the grounds upon which the Courts below have dismissed the suit are erroneous. The plaintiff's in this suit seek for alternative relief,--viz., for possession of a 4-anna share of a patni taluk; or failing in this, for the recovery of the rent of that share from the defendants from Assar 1281 (1874), to the end of the year 1282 (1875). They allege that their ancestor, Thakoordass Mookerjee, was the owner of a 12-anna share of the zemindari under which the patni is held; that upon a partition between the plaintiffs' ancestor, Rakh...
Tag this Judgment!Dadoba and ors. Vs. Krishna and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom34
West, J.1. The possession of Bhai, whether as a physical act it commenced before the death or only on the death of Balaji, was, on Balaji's death, held consistently with and in fulfillment of the agreement (No. 11). By that document Balaji, in consideration of three persons, Bhai, Ragunath and Shamji, undertaking or having undertaken to provide for him and to perform his obsequies, conveys to them the whole of his property to vest immediately on his own death with a conditional right to assume possession forthwith if they will pay off his debts. Reference is made in the document to another where by the three donees had entered into the engagement to provide for Balaji, and thus that other document, exhibit No. 75, is embodied by reference in exhibit No. 11 for the purpose of showing what the precise consideration for No. 11 was. It might have been set forth at length in the document No. 11 itself, and no sum is sought to be recovered on it as an agreement or constitution of any title a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »