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
The Empress Vs. Safatulla and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal815
White, J.1. The prisoners in this case were acquitted by the jury of culpable homicide, and convicted under Section 304a of the Indian Penal Code of causing the death of one Alim Koregar by a rash act not amounting to culpable homicide.2. The evidence showed that the deceased had had an enlarged spleen for several years; that his death was caused by rupture of the spleen; and that the rupture was occasioned by blows of the hands inflicted by the prisoners upon the trunk of the deceased's body whilst he was alive.3. The Judge charged the jury with reference to Section 304a in the following terms: 'If you do not think that the act amounted to culpable homicide, but that the circumstances of this district in respect of the prevalence of disease of the spleen are such as to render any beating on the trunk of the body an act of criminal rashness, you will be justified in convicting the accused under Section 304a.'4. It appears to us that the Judge has not put the matter before the jury with...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Kishore Singh Vs. Bharrut Singh Mohaputtur
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal963
Birch, J.1. I think that the Lower Appellate Court, upon the authority of the cases cited in its judgment was right in dismissing this suit.2. The mere fact that the defendant, in ignorance of his rights, allowed the local investigation to proceed, and the rates to be ascertained by an ameen without objection, does not in my opinion raise any distinction between this case and the cases relied on by the Judicial Commissioner.3. The local investigation was made to enable the Court to decide whether the rent claimed by the plaintiff was a fair and equitable rent such as the Court could by its decree impose. If the result of the investigation was to satisfy the Court that the rent, claimed was not the rent fairly payable, the plaintiff's suit would rightly be dismissed.4. From that enquiry the plaintiff may or may not derive benefit in future litigation, but he cannot succeed on his present plaint, as his claim is shown to be unfounded.5. The special appeal is dismissed with costs.Mitter, ...
Tag this Judgment!Nehora Roy and ors. Vs. Radha Pershad Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal64
Garth, C.J.1. We think that the appellants are not entitled, under the circumstances, to raise the point upon which they have appealed; and we consider that they were very properly precluded from raising that point in the Court below. It is to be hoped that this is nearly the last scene in a long series of litigation which has been going on between these parties for upwards of twenty years. In the year 1860, a final decree was made by the Sudder Court at Agra, which determined the rights of the parties in a suit which had been going on for a very long time, and that Court sent the decree to the Court of Ghazipore, which was the Court of first instance, to be executed. In January 1867, a readjustment was made by the Government of India of the boundary line between Lower Bengal and the North-Western Provinces, by means of which the whole or the greater part of the property in dispute, which had before belonged to the North-Western Provinces, became a portion of Lower Bengal, and as the C...
Tag this Judgment!Gunga Pershad and anr. Vs. Bilbassee Koonwaree Mothee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal278
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this is a very clear case, and that the Court below was quite wrong in not trying the questions of title which the defendants wished to raise, and which in fact were raised by the issues.2. The defendants had brought a previous suit against their father for the purpose of having the property in question partitioned, and they obtained a decree for that purpose. The present plaintiffs desired to intervene in that suit, with a view to showing that this property, which had been mortgaged to them by a zurpeshgi lease, was not subject to partition.3. The Judge, however, would not allow them to intervene, and, therefore, as soon as the defendants had obtained their decree and were proceeding to deal with the property under the partition, the plaintiffs came in under Section 230 of Act VIII of 1859, and claimed to hold the property as against the defendants by virtue of their zurpeshgi deed. The lower Court allowed them to come in, and under that section reg...
Tag this Judgment!Abdool Hakim and ors. Vs. Doorga Proshad Banerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal4
Birch, J.1. The plaint sets forth (and for the purposes of this appeal we must assume that what is therein stated is true) that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were the patnidars of lot Hatpara; and that they granted a 'khai khalasee ijara' of their patni to the defendant Doorga Proshad from 1870 to 1874, the conditions of the said lease being, that if in consequence of any default to pay the zemindar's rent on the part of the defendant, the taluk was sold by the Collector for its arrears, the defendant should be liable to the plaintiffs and their heirs for damages for the loss incurred by them by the sale of their patni taluk. That such being the condition, the defendant in breach thereof allowed the tenure to fall into arrears, and the patni was put up to auction and sold by the Collector on the 14th May 1874 for the small sum of Rs. 5,900, far below its value.2. Estimating their profits at Rs. 1,187-7-4-1 per annum, and valuing the property at sixteen years' purchase, the plaintiffs, after ...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Purshad Singh Vs. Paluckdhary Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal50
Garth, C.J.1. The order, which is the subject of this appeal, was made in the course of certain execution proceedings, which have been going on between these parties since the year 1866. In those proceedings it was found by the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad that a certain sum for mesne profits was due to the plaintiffs, and on the 26th of June 1878 an application was made to the same Judge by the plaintiffs, that the rights and interests of the judgment-debtors in certain property should be sold to satisfy the sum so found to be due. The objections made to this application were two-fold--1st, that the execution proceedings had been carried on by the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad entirely without jurisdiction, and that consequently he had no power to grant the application; and 2ndly, that the application was barred by limitation under Article 179 of Act XV of 1877. The Subordinate Judge considered that, as an application had been made to the Shahabad Court in furtherance of the executio...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenath Roy Vs. Cally Doss Ghose
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal82
Pontifex, J.1. (after stating the facts of the case as above, continued): When the plaint was presented to me for admission, finding that all the property in the agreement was out of the jurisdiction, and seeing also that the plaintiff was described as of Vogyakkool in the district of Dacca, merchant and banker, carrying on business at Durmahatta in Calcutta, and that the defendant is described of Panchthopy in the Zilla of Beerbhoom, outside of Calcutta, but who at the time, &c.;, I thought it right to admit the plaint subject to any objection as to jurisdiction. At the time of admitting the plaint the plaintiff obtained an order that the defendant should file a written statement. Mr. Bonnerjee for the plaintiff has not asked at the hearing for any decree with respect to the properties in the mofussil, or for any order for specific performance of the agreement, but he has limited himself to ask for the receipt of Rs. 4,000 with interest at the rate specified in the agreement from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rukhinee Bullubh Vs. Brojonath Sircar and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal308
Jackson, J.1. The facts of this case are, that Ranee Hur Soondury brought a suit against Brojonath Sircar and others, Brojonath having been, as he admits himself, her agent for twelve years, and having the entire management of her property, she alleged that he had not accounted for the monies, which came into his hand as such agent, and sued him for an account.2. The suit was first thrown out on the ground of limitation, but on appeal to this Court, that decision was set aside, and the case went back for trial on the merits. After trial, it was again dismissed, and the Ranee appealed to this Court. It seems that she was remiss in the prosecution of the appeal, and, indeed, has since died we understand; and the defendant, while the proceedings were in suspense, proceeded to execute the decree in his favour by which the suit had been dismissed, and he was entitled to costs. These costs, it seems amounted to about Rs. 900. He was allowed to execute, and in execution, a mehal belonging to ...
Tag this Judgment!Torit Bhoosun Bonnerjee Vs. Taraprosonno Bonnerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal756
Pontifex, J.1. [following the opinion of Phear, J., in Cally Churn Mullick v. Janova Dossee (1 Ind. Jur., N.S., 284), to the effect that in such a case as this the widows are entitled to share with their sons], ordered the plaint to be amended by adding the widows as parties.2. Attorney for the Plaintiff: Shamaldhone Dutt. Attorney for the Defendants: Mohendronauth Bonnerjee....
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Persad Bias Vs. NaraIn Babu
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal21
Garth, C.J.1. We are satisfied that the case comes under Article 65, and not under Article 75, and we are ready to hear the appellant on the merits. (The case was then heard, and a decision on the merits given in favour of the plaintiff, respondent)....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- Next ›
- Last »