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
Jibaneswari Debia, Mother and Guardian of Kailas Chunder Chuckerbutty ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal243
Sir R. P. Collier.1. This case was reduced during the argument to a point of law, which becomes intelligible upon the statement of a few facts.2. Brojo Kishor and Ram Kishor were brothers, joint in estate, of whom Ram Kumar died sometime before 1835, leaving two sons, Ram Kumar and Nobo Kumar. In the year 1835 an estate, consisting of an 8-anna share in a taluk, called Newaz Ali, and belonging to one Abdul Samad, was bought in the name of Ram Kumar, but with the joint funds of the family. Brojo Kishor died in 1836 having shortly before his death separated from the other branch of the family. He left two widows, each of whom adopted a son, one adopted son being Ishan Chunder and the other Mohesh Chunder. Upon, or sometime after, the death of Brojo Kishor, Ram Kumar set up an exclusive title to the purchased estate; and the representatives of Brojo Kishor, who at that time were the adopted sons, in the year 1839, brought a suit against Ram Kumar, and his brother Nobo Kumar, for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Ward Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad33
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The powers of the Government of British India to make laws and exercise jurisdiction over British subjects outside British India but within the territories of Princes of States in India in alliance with the British Government, are declared in and regulated by English Statute Law.2. By the Indian Council's Act 1861, power was given to the Governor-General in Council at meetings for making laws and regulations to make, inter alia, laws and regulations for European British subjects, being servants of the Government of India within the dominions of Princes and States in alliance with Her Majesty. By 28 Vic., Cap. 17, this power was enlarged so as to enable the same authority to make laws for all British subjects of Her Majesty in the places before mentioned; and the doubts which had arisen as to the power of the same authority to make laws binding on Native Indian subjects in the same places were set at rest by 32 and 33 Vic., Cap. 98....
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Vaimbilee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal826
Prinsep, J.1. The prisoner Vaimbilee, a Madrassee, was charged, before the Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Pargannas, with culpable homicide amounting to murder, by causing the deaths of Trevedee and Naga, and with having caused hurt to one Lazarus by a dangerous weapon, these three men being Madrassees employed with him in a tannery at Tengra.2. As the prisoner was ignorant of any language except Tamil, an interpreter, Mr. Section A. Daniel, minister of the Madrassee Church, was sworn.3. On the record of the trial the Additional Sessions Judge has recorded, the prisoner, through the interpreter, Mr. Daniel, having been asked whether he pleaded guilty or claimed to be tried, pleaded guilty to the first charge, that of the murder of Trevedee.' The Additional Sessions Judge thereupon convicted the prisoner on this charge, and sentenced him to death, subject to the confirmation of this Court.4. Two days later, that is on 7th February, Mr. Daniel appeared before the Additional Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lall Agurwallah Vs. Masoollah Khan
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal6
Jackson, J.1. It is clear that there is no ground of special appeal in this case. The one point which was raised before us, but which was not raised in the lower Appellate Court, was the question of jurisdiction. It is suggested that this suit was not properly framed, inasmuch as the plaintiff joined together three different causes of action, which he had against the defendant, [8] two of which were valued at less than Rs. 1,000. As. to these two, it is contended that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction. Now, the old Code of Civil Procedure, under which this suit was commenced, authorized a plaintiff to join causes of action against the same parties which were cognizable by the same Court. It is contended that these two suits being below Rs. 1,000 were not cognizable by the Subordinate Judge under Act VI of 1871, but it is clear that they were, because Section 19(sic) of that Act gives the Subordinate Judge jurisdiction over all cases without reference to the value, subject only ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonamonne Dassee and ors. Vs. Hazir Gazi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal31
Jackson, J.1. There must be a remand in this case. The Judge has given to the judgment previously obtained against Nadir Gazi an effect as regards the brother and co-sharer Hazir, which, in our opinion, Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not warrant. That section provides:--' No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue having been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction, between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating Under the same title, has been heard and finally decided by such Court'; and expl. 5, which is referred to, says--' where persons litigate bond fide in respect of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.' Now, we are not prepared to say that the explanation has this meani...
Tag this Judgment!Sutyabhama Dassee Vs. Krishna Shunder Chatterjee and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal55
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case we are unable to agree with the view which the learned Judge has taken.2. The plaintiff brought her suit under these circumstances: She says, that the defendants sold to her the property in question, of which she is now seeking to recover khas possession, some thirty years ago; that, after they had sold it to her, they became her tenants at a certain rent; that, from that time up to about five years ago, this rent was duly paid; that, upon their ceasing to pay her rent, she demanded it from them, but they then told her they were no tenants of hers, and that she was not their landlord,--in fact they set up an adverse title, and denied that they had ever sold her the land. Consequently, after waiting some time, she brought the present suit to eject them.3. Upon this, the defendants, not content with their parol disclaimer of the plaintiff's title, set up in their written statement that the kobala under which they sold this land to her was a false deed; ...
Tag this Judgment!Nursing Doyal Vs. Hurryhur Saha
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal897
Pontifex, J.1. We are of opinion that neither the Limitation Act of 1871, nor that of 1877, extinguishes a debt. These Acts only bar or discharge the remedy. This we think is clear from the language of the Acts, and particularly from Sections 12 and 29 of the Act of 1871, and Sections 11 and 28 of the Act of 1877.2. The difference between these Acts and the English Limitation Law is, that in India limitation need not be set up as a defence (Section 4 of the Act of 1871 and Section 4 of the Act of 1877), while in England, the defendant must expressly claim the operation of the Statute. Section 60 of the Contract Act, which was passed after the Limitation Act of 1871, also shows that the debt is not extinguished, but may be, insisted on for certain purposes; so likewise, if the creditor had a lien on the goods of his debtor on a general account, he would be entitled to hold the goods for a debt the recovery of which was barred by the Limitation Act. And probably it would be held that an ...
Tag this Judgment!Noshai Mistri and Ram Chunder Haldar Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal958
White, J.1. We have now considered the cases of the prisoners Noshai Mistri and Ramchunder Haldar with reference to the ruling of the Full Bench in the case of Anuntram Singh (ante, p. 954), and are of opinion that the ruling in question has no application in the present case, but that the confessions are inadmissible for the following reasons:2. They were in our opinion confessions recorded under Section 122 of the Code, and are defective from the omission of the Deputy Magistrate to record the certificate required by Section 346, Criminal Procedure Code, and the defect cannot be cured by taking evidence under the last clause of Section 346.3. Independently of this objection, we think that, even if the defect could have been cured by taking evidence under that section, the Sessions Judge had no evidence on the point before him on which he could act, for the last clause of Section 346 directs that the Court of Session shall take the evidence. In this case, the committing Magistrate too...
Tag this Judgment!Bolakee Lall Vs. Thakoor Pertam Singh and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal928
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are unable in this case to agree with the Court below. The plaintiff was the mortgagee under a bond of certain property, part of which was situate in the Bhagalpore District, and part in the Patna District. Upon this bond, he brought a suit against his mortgagor, Sheonundun Pershad, in the Bhagalpore Court, and obtained a decree for the mortgage-money and interest, with a declaration that the decree should be satisfied by sale of the whole mortgaged property.2. The permission of the High Court had not been obtained in that suit by the plaintiff to proceed against the Patna property, and the omission appears to have arisen from a mistaken supposition on the part of the Subordinate Judge that it was not necessary to obtain it.3. The plaintiff then brought a certificate to the Patna Court from Bhagalpore, and attached the Patna property situate in that district under the decree so obtained.4. The present defendant then intervened, upon the ground that he had previ...
Tag this Judgment!Hurro Sundari Dabia Vs. Chunder Kant Bhuttacharjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal17
Garth, C.J.1. We think that, in this case, the Judge was quite right in holding that the attestation at the foot of the will was insufficient, because it is proved that both the witnesses signed their names before the will was signed by the testatrix. We agree with the learned Judges who decided the case of Bissonath Dinda v. Doyaram Jana I. L. R., 5 Cale, 738, and also with the Bombay case of Fernandez v. Alves I. L. R., 3 Bom., 382, which was cited to show that Section 50, Act X of 1865, clearly intends that the two witnesses shall sign their names after the testator or testatrix shall have signed his or hers.2. But then there is the further point, which has been argued here, and to which the attention of the Judge does not appear to have been directed,--namely, that when the testatrix admitted before the Registrar her execution of the will, she was identified on that occasion by one of the same persons who profess to have witnessed her signature to the will. Upon her admitting befor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »