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
In Re: Petition of Chundernath Sen
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal875
Morris, J.1. This matter has arisen from a complaint made on 15th February 1879, regarding an obstruction to a public thoroughfare.2. It appears that, a few months before this complaint was made, proceedings had been taken under Section 521 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding an obstruction to another portion of the same road, and the matter had been referred to a jury under Section 523. The report of the jury was not unanimous, but the Magistrate, on 6th February 1879, accepted the opinion of the majority, declaring that the road was private, and not public.3. The Magistrate, apparently without the consent of either side, directed the same jury to report on the second matter. Shortly after, one of the contending parties objected to one of the jurymen, who had been appointed by the Magistrate, on the ground that he had decided the matter against him in the first case. Without giving notice to the other party, the Magistrate allowed this objection, and appointed another juryman...
Tag this Judgment!Kalishunkur Doss Vs. Gopal Chunder Dutt
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal49
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The following sketch will suffice to explain roughly the position of the premises, the nature of the easement, which is the subject of dispute, and the defence to the suit, which we have to consider in this appeal.Defendant's land. Drain Privy. Plaintiff's house and premises.Wall erected by the Defendant Drain House and premises of A, theAcross the drain. Subject of former suit.That defence, upon the strength of which the lower Courts and the learned Judge of this Court have dismissed the plaintiff's case is, that, in a former suit, in which another person, whom we will call A, set up a similar right against the present defendant to that now claimed by the plaintiff, it was decided that no such right existed; and it has been held by the lower Courts, and by the learned Judge in this Court, that this judgment between the defendant and A operates as a res judicata in this case to debar the present plaintiff from prosecuting his claim.2. We think, however, upon a rev...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hurruck Chund Golicha
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal605
Broughton, J.1. On these facts, without reference to an affidavit in answer, filed a week ago by the petitioning creditor, and I think properly available to him in this enquiry, two questions have arisen: first, a question of construction; and secondly, a question of practice.2. The first question is, whether a trader, who trades by a gomashta, can be adjudicated an insolvent, if the gomashta commits an act of insolvency. If he cannot, there must be numerous cases in which native traders in this city cannot be adjudicated insolvent at all, for nothing is more common than for a. trader living in the mofussil, and scarcely ever visiting Calcutta, to leave an extensive business in the hands of his gomashta, who has the fullest authority, and who carries on the whole business on his behalf.3. There are two ways in which a man may become insolvent. He may petition himself, under Section 5, or a creditor may petition under Sections 8 or 9.4. Under Section 5, the petitioning insolvent must 'r...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Chunder Dutt and ors. Vs. Ram Krishna Dass
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal902
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It appears to us that, having regard to the weight of authority in this Court, as well as to the question of principle and convenience, the proper solution of the points referred to us is as follows:2. That a sale of a share in a tenure, which has been let to a tenant in its entirety, does not of itself necessarily effect a severance of the tenure or an apportionment of the rent; but that, if the purchaser of the share desires to have such a severance or apportionment, he is entitled to enforce it by taking proper steps for that purpose.3. If he takes no such steps, then the tenant is justified in paying the entire rent, as before, to all the parties jointly entitled to it. But if the purchaser desires to effect a severance of the tenure and an apportionment of the rent, he must give the tenant due notice to that effect, and then, if an amicable apportionment of the rent cannot be made by arrangement between all the parties concerned, the purchaser may bring a sui...
Tag this Judgment!Udoi Chand Alias Munmun Vs. Umaid Bahadur
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal119
1. Mr. G. Gregory and Baboo Mohesh Chunder Chowdhry for the Respondent.2. The learned Judges (Garth, C.J., and Prinsep, J.) before whom the case was heard referred it to a Full Bench. The referring order was as follows:3. 'A question of Hindu Law has arisen in this case, which, being of general importance, we think should be referred to a Full Bench.4. 'The plaintiff in this suit, Udoi Chand, claims certain property as heir to his father, Poran Chand, under a conveyance from one Mussamut Nobo Bahu, the widow of Mukhtab Bahadur, to whom the property originally belonged: and for the purposes of the question at issue, it must be taken that the plaintiff has a right to recover the property from the defendant, unless the latter can show that by Hindu Law he is the heir of Mukhtab Bahadur.5. 'The defendant claims to be the heir of Mukhtab Bahadur through Mussamut Jeswant Koer, his maternal grandmother, his mother having been the daughter of Jeswant Koer, and Jeswant Koer having been the sist...
Tag this Judgment!Fatten Lall Vs. Gujju Lall
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal171
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This special appeal depends upon a question of law, which we think should be referred to a Full Bench.2. It was admitted on both sides in the lower Courts, that if Sham Behari Lall survived Mussamut Sheo Bucham Koer, then the plaintiff was the nearest heir of Bhichuk Lall, and as such was entitled to succeed; but if, on the other hand, Mussamut Sheo Bucham Koer survived him, then he was not so entitled.3. In the Court of first instance, the plaintiff relied upon a judgment in a former suit, dated the 26th of June 1876, in which the question was raised between Gujju Lall, the present defendant (who was the plaintiff in that suit), and Janki Singh and others (the defendants in that suit), whether Gujju Lall or Sham Behari Lall was the nearest heir of Bhichuk Lall. It was decided in that suit that Sham Behari Lall was the nearest heir of Bhichuk Lall. In this suit it was contended by the defendant in both the lower Courts, that the judgment in the former suit could n...
Tag this Judgment!Giridhur Chowdhry by His Guardian Kamini Chowdhrani Vs. Luchmun Dass
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal855
Pontifex, J.1. Those questions may be answered in the affirmative]. The second question referred is answered by the arguments as to the first. The third question may be answered by Kanto Lall's case (L.R., 11. A., 321; S.C. 14 B.L.R., 187), which is distinguishable only from the fact that in that case a stranger was the purchaser. The difference between the first and third questions is only a question of the form of the decree. As to the fourth question, Sections 28 and 29 of Chap. I of the Mitakshara may be cited against us. Yet these sections must be read with the qualification that a son is bound to pay his father's debts, and there are texts which go so far as saying, that, even during the lifetime of the father, a son is bound to pay his father's debts. [Garth, C.J.--The hardship is, that the father might sell any portion of the property without consulting the son]. The cases of Buddree Lall v. Kanto Lall (23 W.R., 260) and Anoorajee Koer v. Bhugobutty Koer (25 W.R., 148), both de...
Tag this Judgment!Ramconnoy Audicarry Vs. Johur Lall Dutt
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal867
Wilson, J.1. This suit, which was undefended, was upon a promissory note. The note was for Rs. 400, was dated the 4th June 1877, was payable on demand, and bore interest at 5 per cent. monthly. The only question was, what amount was recoverable in respect of interest.2. The parties are Hindus; and it is clear that their rights are governed by the Hindu law, unless there be some Statute providing a different rule. I think it is also well settled that, by Hindu law, arrears of interest more than sufficient to double the debt are not recoverable; Menu, Chap. VIII, 151; Col. Dig., Bk. I, Chap. II, Section 2, pl. xliii; Dhendu Jagannath v. Narayan Ram Chandra (1 Bom. H.C., A.C., 47), Khuskal Chand Lalchand v. Ibrahim Fakir (3 Bom. H.C., A.C.A.C., 23). Ramkrishnabhat v. Vithoba (1 Bom. H.C., A.C., 25), and Narayan v. Stavaji (9 Bom. H.C., A.C., 83).3. Has then any Statute altered the law upon this point to be applied to Hindus in this Court? The Bombay cases above referred to decide that Act...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Pershad Vs. Asa Jolaha
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal925
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This case seems to us very clear. The suit is brought to recover damages for a malicious prosecution, and the plaintiff says, that besides the actual costs to which he has been put by the malicious proceedings, and which amount to Rs. 104-15, he is also entitled to an additional sum for damages to his reputation. The question is, whether this is a case which may be tried in a Small Cause Court.2. Section 6 of Act XI of 1865 says, first, that a suit may be brought in the Small Cause Court for damages, but that no action shall lie in such Courts on account of an alleged personal injury, unless actual pecuniary damage has resulted from the injury; that means, that if actual pecuniary damage has resulted from the injury, then the suit may be brought in the Small Cause Court.3. Now, in this case, there is no doubt that actual pecuniary damage has resulted from the injury, because the plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 104-15, which he says he has had to pay for costs. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdut Singh Vs. Ghursobhit Ahir
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal923
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think this is a very clear case. The plaintiff sues to eject the defendant from the property in question, after giving him a proper notice to quit. The defendant sets up a right of occupancy which has been found against him in both the lower Courts, and the only ground upon which he contends that he is entitled to the judgment of the Court, is this. In a former suit between the same parties, in which the plaintiff sued him for rent due under a written agreement, he (the defendant) set up this same right of occupancy; that suit was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement; and, having failed to do so, the other point with regard to the defendant's right of occupancy was neither tried nor decided; it was of course not necessary under the circumstances to decide it.2. But the defendant now says that, although that point was neither tried nor decided in the former suit, still, as it might and ought to have been made his ground of defence in tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- Next ›
- Last »