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
Dukharam Bharti Vs. Luchmun Bharti
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal954
Ainslie, J.1. One Rambuksh Bharti died on the 17th of Aughran 1284 (1st December 1877). It is stated that he and Luchmun Bharti were fellow disciples of one Moharuck Bharti, who died some time before that, and who is alleged to have left a will.2. Luchmun Bharti claims a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860 as being the person entitled to succeed to the guddee of the Mut. There is another claimant for a certificate, namely, Dukharam Bharti, who is admitted to have been a chela of Rambuksh.3. The question before us has nothing to do with the question of the extent of the estate of the deceased Rambuksh, nor with the right of succession to the Mut. The one question which we have to consider is, which of these two persons, the spiritual brother, or the spiritual son, is entitled as representative of the deceased to collect the debts, outstanding due to the personal estate of the deceased Rambuksh, if there are any.4. There is on the record a bond by Girdhari and Bheekum Aheer, of the 5th o...
Tag this Judgment!Smith and ors. Vs. SreenaraIn Bagchee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal808
Jackson, J.1. The ground on which the defendant now, on appeal before us, seeks to resist the claim of the plaintiff's, is, that by the application of a portion of the purchase-money paid in respect of the entire turruff, which afforded satisfaction in part of the plaintiff's mortgage debt, he has conferred a benefit upon the plaintiff's, and, consequently, the plaintiffs, before they can recover possession of the chahar-patni, ought to be on terms and compelled to repay him certain portion of the purchase-money.2. It appears to us that the defendant is not in that position. That which he purchased was not the chahar-patni, nor did the Land Mortgage Bank proceed against the chahar-patni, which had been mortgaged to it. The Bank availed itself of its right to execute its decree generally, and sold the dar-patni, and by name the dar-patni granted by Tarachand Biswas. The defendant, in purchasing that along with other parts of Turruff Ramgourpore, took his chance. He has not in fact confe...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Ketabdi Mundul
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal764
Ainslie, J.1. We do not concur in the view of the law taken by the Sessions Judge. In the case of Khiran Nomiya (Unreported) this Court, on 3rd September 1877, held, that Section 304A does not apply to a case in which there has been the voluntary commission of an offence against the person. If a man intentionally commits such an offence, and consequences beyond his immediate purpose result, it is for the Court to determine how far he can be held to have the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause the actual result.2. If such knowledge can be imputed, the result is not to be attributed to mere rashness; if it cannot be imputed, still the wilful offence does not take the character of rashness, because its consequences have been unfortunate. Acts, probably or possibly, involving danger to others, but which in themselves are not offences, may be offences under Sections 336, 337, 338 or 304A, if done without due care to guard against the dangerous consequences. Acts which are offe...
Tag this Judgment!Horro NaraIn Vs. Sboodha Krishto Berah and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal890
Mitter, J.1. This suit is brought by a talukdar to contest the demand of a distraint, and to try the plaintiff's right to the possession of the crop distrained.2. The defendant admits that he distrained the crops, but denies the plaintiff's right to, and possession of, the land.3. The plaintiff's case was that he held some of the lands in dispute at a money-rental and some in bhag-jote: the finding of the Court of first instance was that all the lands were let at a money-rental, and that the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the crops distrained. The opinion of the Subordinate Judge was that the plaintiff could not bring such a suit, because he had no right to the crop, which the Subordinate Judge considered to belong to the cultivators. The suit was accordingly dismissed, and the defendant was declared, according to the provisions of Section 96, Act VIII of 1869, entitled to recover the sum which had been deposited by him as security when removing the crop.4. In appeal, the Judg...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Hori Dasi Dabi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal228
Jackson, J.1. Before disposing seriatim of the several appeals, it may be convenient to state our opinion of what the testator intended by his will to effect.2. When Behari Lall made the will in question, he was a man scarcely past the prime of life, quite capable of having further issue, but for the moment having no living child, nor any living descendant except a daughter's daughter of very tender years.3. If he then died intestate, his estate would go to his widow, and on her death, his daughter's daughter would not take, but his brother Roop Lall if then living would be the heir. This he was determined to prevent by the exercise of testamentary power.4. In carrying out this purpose, he provided firstly for the possible case of issue being born to himself.5. In that event, he directed that such sons, sons's sons, or son's grandsons surviving him, should take according to Hindu law (cls. 2 and 4).6. On failure of them, he directed that his wife should take according to Hindu law and ...
Tag this Judgment!Umbicka Churn Goopta Vs. Madhub Ghosal and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal870
Mitter, J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of 7 1/2 bighas of land upon the allegation that the defendants who held it as the plaintiff's tenants were served with a notice by which their tenancy was determined. The Munsif decreed the claim, but the lower appellate Court has reversed that decree upon the ground that the tenancy of the defendants alleged by the plaintiff was not proved, and that, on the other hand, the defendants had established adverse possession of the disputed land for more than twelve years.2. The plaintiff has preferred this special appeal, and contends that notwithstanding his failure to prove that the defendants held the disputed land as his tenants, he is entitled to a decree upon the other facts found by the Courts below.3. These facts are as follows: The land in dispute was part and parcel of a tenure of 11 bighas 15 cottahs held by the defendants under one Rungomoni Dabee, the patnidar of lot Senapoti Mehal, Some time before 1864, the rent payable by th...
Tag this Judgment!Greender Chunder Ghose Vs. Mackintosh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal897
White, J.1. This suit is instituted by persons who are creditors of the estate of Aushootosh Day, on behalf of themselves and all the other creditors of that estate against the defendant Mackintosh and also against Charoo, Surruth, and Nobinmoney, the executors and executrix of Aushootosh Day's will. Its object is to follow in the hands of the defendant Mackintosh certain property which originally formed portion of the testator's estate, and was mortgaged to Mackintosh, partly by the defendants Charoo and Surruth, and partly by them and the other defendant Nobinmoney Dossee. The plaintiff's allege that Mackintosh took the mortgages with notice that certain suits were pending in which they and others claimed to be creditors of Aushootosh Day, and also with notice that the debts due from his estate were unpaid, and that the mortgage money was intended to be applied by the borrowers to their own private purposes and not in a due course of administration.2. The prayer of the plaint has a w...
Tag this Judgment!Sayad Mir UjmuddIn Khan, Legal Representative of Fatma-ul-nissa Begam ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : ILR1879NULL287
James W. Colvile, J.1. The question in this appeal regards the succession to one Amir-ul-Nissa Begam who died in 1857. The short history of the case is this: Afzaluddin, who was the last recognized Nawab of Surat, died on the 8th August 1842. He left two wives, Amir-ul-Nissa Begam and Padsha Begam. He also left a daughter, Bakhtiar-ul-Nissa Begam, whom we may take, for the purpose of this decision, to have been born on the 13th March 1821, some four years before the marriage of Afzaluddin with Amir-ul-Nissa Begam. Bakhtiar-ul-Nissa Begam had been married in her father's lifetime to Mir Jafir Aly, and the issue of that marriage was two daughters, the respondents. Immediately after the death of the Nawab in 1842 there arose considerable discussion regarding the right of succession to him, and there was a contest before one of the Government officers, Mr. Elliott, on that subject. No final decision, however, appears to have been come to until after the passing of Act XVIII of 1848, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Nownit Lal and Bunwari Lal Vs. Rai NaraIn Dass
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal810
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this case is quite undistinguishable in principle from that of Deendayal Lal v. Jugdeep Narain Singh (4 L.R., In. Ap., 247; S.C.I.L.R., 3 Cal, 198). It was there held by the Privy Council that, where a decree has been obtained against the father of a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, his interest in the family property could be sold under the decree, and that what the purchaser bought under such a sale was the right which the father had as a member of the family to a partition, by means of which the extent of his share would be ascertained, and that share would then become the purchaser's property.2. The only difference between that case and the present is, that here the member of the joint family against whom the decree has been obtained, is not the father of the family, but a son; and an attempt has been made by Baboo Chunder Madhub Ghose to show that the son is not in the same position as the father, because he would not, except under...
Tag this Judgment!Akram Ally and anr. Vs. Bollye Satee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal961
Birch, J.1. The plaintiffs' case is, that they as mokudums of a 13-anna 6-gunda share of a jalkar have demanded an enhanced rent for their share of a fishery from the defendants after serving a notice calling upon them to pay an extra rent for the fishery; that the defendants refusing to pay any increase of rent continue to fish as before. The plaintiff's, therefore, sue in the terms of the plaint to dispossess the defendants. The defendants' answer is, that they have acquired a right of occupancy in the jalkar, and cannot be deprived of their right.2. The Munsif points out that no question of right of occupancy can arise in the case, but he says that, as the tenants have received notice to pay a higher rent, and been informed that if they decline the plaintiffs' terms they must cease to fish in the jalkar; there is nothing to prevent the plaintiff's from recovering khas possession. In appeal before the District Judge, the main objection raised was that, as the plaintiffs were only pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »