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
Noferdoss Roy and ors. Vs. Modhu Soondari Burmonia and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal732
Jackson, J.1. There are two principal questions raised on the appeal of the plaintiffs in the present suit. One of them relates to an issue of fact; the other to a question of law. The plaintiffs contend that the Court below has come to an erroneous conclusion as to the circumstances under which a deed called a willnama, which was afterwards in substance affirmed by a document called an ikrarnama, was executed by Lukhmimoni Dossee, the widow of Jugomohun, who as mother inherited from her infant son Mul Chund. (His Lordship then considered the evidence as to the execution of these documents, and continued).2. The next question is as to the effect of the willnama and its validity. On that part of the case, I think it sufficient for us to refer to decided cases in our own Court in which this very point has boon raised. These cases appear to mo to be absolutely deciding the question so far as we are concerned. One is the case of Sharma Soonduree v. Surut Chunder Dutt (8 W.R., 500), in whic...
Tag this Judgment!Budoloo Khan Vs. Khemna Gowala
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal251
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Court, brought this suit for a kabuliat against the defendant, appellant, in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Chatra, in the Manbhum District, on 3rd June 1878, and on 7th August following, both plaintiff and defendant filed a joint petition before [255] the Deputy Collector, stating that they had agreed to refer the matters in dispute to certain arbitrators.2. These arbitrators, accordingly, delivered their award on 8th November, and it was sent in to the Deputy Collector. He, however, rejected it, as he considered that it was at variance with the decision in the case of Gogon Manji v. Kashishwary Debi (I. L. R., 3 Cal., 498), as it awarded a lower rate of rent than was claimed in the plaint. He, therefore, dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court, however, after discussing the legality of a reference to arbitration in a suit under Act X of 1859 (as to which he decided that such a reference could be legally made), and,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlall Agarwallah Vs. Moonia Bibee and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal79
Wilson, J.1. I consider it unnecessary to go into the facts, but upon the broad principle of law, laid down in the case of Earl Cholmondeky v. Lord Clinton (19 Ves., 261), viz., that an attorney having discharged his client cannot change sides, I will not enter into or decide the motion on the facts as stated in the affidavits. I feel myself bound to follow the ruling laid down in the case cited. I thought it would be for the benefit of the profession, that attorneys should know clearly what cases they were entitled to take up. Mr. Wheeler having admitted that he took an active part in the conduct of the defendants' case, I consider that the defendants are entitled to the order asked for; but in granting the application I wish it to be understood, that I have not entered into a discussion of the facts of the present case, and have refrained from any consideration of the question as to which of the parties to the application would be most prejudiced by my order. I would, thererore, simp...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachella Chetti Vs. Muthu Chettiar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 17Ind.Cas.586; (1912)23MLJ347
Kindersley, J.1. In the present case, the plaintiff, as the person having hereditary right to the management of a public charity, sues a person whom he regards as a trespass er. This is not the case of one of the general public and suing without the authority of the Advocate-General or other officer to secure the due performance of the trust, and, I think, that Section 539, Civil Procedure Code, does not apply. The decision of the two lower Courts must be reversed and the suit must be remanded to the Subordinate Courts for decision on the merits.2. The costs will be disposed of by the final decree.Forbes, J.3. Section 539 is applicable only in cases of an alleged breach of an express or constructive trust created for a public charitable purpose. The restriction on the right of suing is thus confined to cases where the person sued is a trustee. In the present case, the suit is brought against an alleged trespasser, whose title to manage is denied and who, if he is without title, cannot ...
Tag this Judgment!Asman Singh Vs. Doorga Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal284
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff seeks to recover from the first party defendants the sum of Rs. 412-8 under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff is the owner of nine annas of Mouza Ishakpore, and the defendants, first and second parties, of one anna and six annas respectively. The plaintiff is in charge of the collection of the rent of the mouza from the tenants. There are thirty-two bighas of khoodkast lands, which have been distributed amongst the proprietors in proportion of two bighas per anna, for which no rent is realisable.3. Over and above their proportionate share of the khoodkast lands, the defendants first party cultivated fifty-four bighas in the years 1281, 1282, 1283, and 1284. The plaintiff brought a suit, under Beng. Act VIII of 1869, to recover rent for these years on account of these lands from the defendants first party, and obtained a decree in the Court of first instance. But on appeal the suit was dismissed on the ground that there did not exist the relationshi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajrup Koer Vs. Abul HosseIn and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal394
M.E. Smith, J.1. This was a suit brought by Maharaja Ramkissen Singh Bahadur to establish an asserted right to a pain or artificial watercourse, and also to a tal, or reservoir, and the water flowing from them through another estate to his own, and to obtain the removal of certain obstructions in the pain. The Maharanee, the present appellant, is his widow. Several questions arising in the suit have been finally disposed of in the Courts below, leaving for the decision of their Lordships the main question, which arose on the special appeal before the High Court, as to the effect of the Statute of Limitations upon two of the obstructions complained of.2. The facts necessary to raise this question may be shortly stated: The Maharaja and his ancestor were the owners of Mehal Sunaut Parwariya, in the district of Gya, and the defendants were the owners of an estate called Mouza Mora. The system of irrigation claimed by the plaintiff embraces an artificial pain, which is fed by a natural riv...
Tag this Judgment!Manick Chund Vs. Jomoona Doss
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal645
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We shall answer both questions in the negative, and we make no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Gogun Chunder Ghose Vs. the Empress
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal247
White, J.1. This was an appeal by the prisoner Gogun Chunder Ghose against a conviction under Section 471 of the Code and a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The circumstances out of which the prosecution arose are these: The prisoner had brought a suit against Basheeram Mundle and his two brothers, Babooram Mundle and Dharani Dhur Mundle, for the recovery of 726 rupees, being the amount of principal and interest due upon a kistibandi, or bond, alleged to have been executed in favour of the prisoner by the three brothers.3. The Munsif found that the bond had been executed by one of the three, Dharani Dhur, but dismissed the suit, because he was of opinion that the signature of the other two defendants, Basheeram and Babooram, were forged; and he entertained so strong an opinion upon the point that he directed this prosecution, which we are now considering, to be instituted against the prisoner for forging the kistibandi, and using it as genuine knowing it to be forged. T...
Tag this Judgment!Greesh Chunder SeIn Vs. Gudadhur Ghose
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal869
Wilson, J.1. Possibly Mr. Apcar's client has an incomplete equitable title, but this cannot prevail against the title of the attaching creditor. I, therefore, dismiss the claim with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Jemah Misser and ors. Vs. Chottoo Misser
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal198
Richard Garth, C.J.1. (who, after shortly stating the facts, continued):-In this Court, it has been argued by the appellant, that, according to the rule laid down by the Privy Council in the Shivagunga case (Kathama Natchiar v. Dorasinga Tever, L. R., 2 I. A., 169), the plaintiffs were not entitled to the decree which the lower Court has given them; that their interest being only contingent, the Court could make no declaration of title in their favour; and that the decree which they have obtained is not one which can give them any consequential relief in this or any other suit.2. It appears to me, however, that this is one of that class of cases which are referred to in the Shivagunga case (L.E., 2 I. A., 169) as being exceptions to the general rule, which is there laid down. In page 191 of the judgment, their Lordships allude to suits brought against Hindu widows by presumptive reversioners to restrain waste and the like, as being ' suits of a very special class, which have been enter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- Next ›
- Last »