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
Harisaran Surma Moitra Vs. Bhubaneswari Debi
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal720
R. P. Collier, J.1. The facts necessary to the understanding of this case are as follows:- Romanath Lahiri, who died in October 1831, had five sons, and left a widow, who died in the year 1849. One of his sons, Roghoomoni, died in 1842, leaving his widow and heiress Chundramoni, who died in October 1858, leaving Uma Soonderi heiress to her father; she was the plaintiff in this suit. Her son has been since substituted, but it will be convenient to treat her as the plaintiff. She sued as defendants, three members of the family, viz., the widow of Sibnath, the youngest son of Lahiri, who died about May 1861 having been the manager of the property from his father's death to that time; Nilcomul, who was a son of the third son of Romanath Lahiri; and Konuk Tara, the widow of the eldest son of Romanath Lahiri. Neither Nilcomul nor Konuk Tara appears in this appeal, the only appellant being Bhubaneswari, widow of Sibnath. The claim of the plaintiff was in right of her father to a fifth share o...
Tag this Judgment!Laljee Sahoo Vs. Roghoonundun Lall Sahoo
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal447
Richard Garth, C.J.1. (who having stated the facts continued):-We think that the lower Court has made a mistake in this case.2. The plantiff says in his plaint that he was a party to the adjustment of accounts which resulted in this deed of settlement, but he has not been called as a witness, and it has not been proved that he was actually a party to that adjustment. This suit was brought just within the three years from the time when that deed was executed, and it was contended by the plaintiff in the Court below, that this deed was a sufficient admission of a debt due from the defendant to the plaintiff to prevent the suit being barred by limitation.3. The Subordinate Judge, however, considered that the case must be governed by Article 85, Schedule ii, div. i, of the Limitation Act of 1877, which provides for a suit brought 'for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, when there have been reciprocal demands between the parties,' and as in that case the period of limita...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoopendra NaraIn Roy Vs. Greesh NaraIn Roy and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal539
Pontifex, J.1. The District Judge in this case has refused to grant an application under Act XXXV of 1858, to declare that one Kasinauth Boy is a lunatic, and to appoint a manager of his estate and guardian of his person. The application was made by the husband of the lunatic's daughter. The family is a Mitakshara family, and consequently the daughter would not inherit the interest of her father in the ancestral property. The Judge has found that in reality the application has been made with a view to taking consequent proceedings for partition. Now it appears, according to the statements of the applicant, that there are two qualities of property in which the lunatic is interested,-first, ancestral estate, which under the Mitakshara law his daughter would not inherit; and secondly, estate said to have been inherited from collaterals, and to have been inherited, not by the family as a joint family, but by the two senior members of the family at the time the inheritance fell in, to the e...
Tag this Judgment!Kameswar Pershad Vs. Bun Bahadur Singh
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal843
J. W. Colyile, J.1. The only material point to be decided upon this appeal arises in a somewhat peculiar manner. The suit was originally brought by the plaintiff, appellant, who is a mahajun carrying on business in the city of Benares, and also at Gaya, to enforce a bond and mortgage against the late Rani Asmedh Konwar, the instrument being dated the 1st of March 1872. It appearing, however, that the next reversionary heir was in possession of the property alleged to have been mortgaged under an ikrarnamah executed by the Rani putting him in possession, apparently, of the whole of her husband's estate, he was joined as a party defendant in the suit; and it was prayed that a decree might be made for the amount sued for, with costs and interest, and that it might be awarded 'by sale of the mortgaged and hypothecated' properties, and in case the same do not cover the amount, by the sale of other 'properties, and from the person of the debtor.' The suit, therefore, was framed for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Hurri Prasad Vs. Jaumna Prasad and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal453
Garth, G.J.1. The plaintiff, who is the owner of Mouza Mokimpore, brings this suit for the purpose of having a certain boundary ascertained between his mouza and the mouza at Chuck Gopal, which belongs to the defendants.2. He says, that this boundary was determined in a suit which he brought against Roghubar Singh and others, the proprietors of the defendants mouza, to which Lalji Sahu, the father of the defendants, was a party.3. In answer to this claim the defendants' case is, that they had made an application to the Collector, under Beng. Act V of 1875, to have the boundary between the plaintiff's land and their own laid down in accordance with the map made in a butwara-proceeding, which took place many years ago between the proprietors of the defendants' mouza.4. The defendants further say, that, upon the application so made by them to the Collector, the boundary was laid down by an Ameen in the first instance; that the plaintiff appeared and made objections to it; that eventually ...
Tag this Judgment!Nobeen Chunder Sil and ors. Vs. Bhobosoonduri Dabee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal460
White, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District Judge of the 24-Pargannas, granting probate of the will of Nobo Coomar Ganguli, deceased, to Bhobosoonduri Dabee, the respondent, who is his widow and executrix.2. The testator died on the 21st October 1877, and left, besides his widow, two sons, Parbutti Churn Ganguli, an adult, and Hori Churn Ganguli, a minor. The will purports to give the entire property of the testator to his widow for her life, and after her death to his sons. It thus postpones the inheritance of the sons until after their mother's death.3. Nobeen Chunder Sil, the appellant No. 1, claims to have obtained in 1878 a money-decree against Parbutti Churn Ganguli for a private debt of his, and, on the 4th of February 1879, which was about a month before the will was propounded, to have attached the share of Parbutti in the immoveable property left by the testator.4. The remaining two appellants, Brojo Mohun Ghose and Obhoy Churn Sen, claim, under a mortgage ...
Tag this Judgment!Baboojan Jha Vs. Byjnath Dutt Jha and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal472
Mitter, J.1. In this case the appellant has been adjudged liable for about Rs. 1,200 as mesne profits due for three years on account of the respondents' share, three annas eight gundas one dumri, in Mouza Juggut, for which the respondents got a decree on 24th July 1878.2. The only contention raised before us is, that the respondents are bound by the amount of mesne profits claimed by them in the plaint, viz., Rs. 309.3. For the appellant two cases have been cited-Karoo Lal Thakoor v. Forbes 7 W.R., 140 and Gooroo Doss Roy v. Bungshee Dhursein 15 W. R., 61. In the former of these, it was laid down that 'if the plaintiff had estimated his mesne profits in a general way with the view of determining the value of the suit, he would have been entitled to recover whatever sums had been realised or were capable of being realised by the defendant ; but when he comes into Court, and knowingly fixes the rate of each bigha of land, he is bound by his own assessment.' Loch, J., who was one of the J...
Tag this Judgment!Chundro Marwari Vs. Mohamed Eshak
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal476
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case one Mohamed Eshak applied to this Court to send for the papers in a case in which one Chundro Marwari has been acquitted by the District Magistrate, for the purpose of having the Magistrate's judgment set aside.2. Chundro Marwari was convicted on the 12th of August last by Mr. Caspersz, who was the Assistant Magistrate, of criminal breach of trust, upon the prosecution of Mohamed Eshak, who was his employer. An appeal was preferred to the District Magistrate, who, after hearing the case, reversed the conviction and acquitted the prisoner.3. We were asked to set aside this judgment of the District Magistrate, upon 'the ground that, on the very day on which Chundro Marwari was convicted by Mr. Caspersz, Mr. Caspersz was, by an order of the Lieutenant-Governor, made a first class Magistrate, and consequently that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from his decision.4. But having now ascertained the true state of the case, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkishore Chuckerbutty and anr. Vs. Kallykanto Chuckerbutty
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal479
Morris, J.1. (who, after stating the facts, continued):-In special appeal it is contended that the Judge has put a wrong construction upon the decree, which by its terms purports to be against Bissessuree Debia personally, and that they, special appellants, are not, within the meaning of Section 234 of the Civil Procedure Code, 'legal representatives of the deceased.' In support of this contention they cite as an authority the case of Mohima Chunder Boy Chowdhry v. Ram Kishore Acharjee Chowdhry (15 B. L. R., 142). They also refer to a recent, but unreported, case, decided in special appeal by a Division Bench of this Court. The judgment of Sir Richard Couch in the first quoted case supplies two reasons, which militate against the argument of the special appellants. Sir Richard Couch says:-' In the present case the debt was not due from the husband, and if the estate of the husband is to he charged either for the arrears of rent becoming due after his death, or for the bond which was gi...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. in Re: Mir Ekrar Ali
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal482
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The accused presented a bond for registration on the 18th December 1879. This bond is said to have been originally dated the 6th August 1879. If this date had remained, the instrument was presented after the time within which such an instrument must be by law presented for registration. The accused is said to have altered the date to the 26th August in order to bring the bond within time; or to have presented it for registration, knowing that the date had been so altered. It appears to us that the alteration of the date under these circumstances is not forgery, as there is nothing to show that it was done 'dishonestly or fraudulently' within the meaning of Clause 2, Section 464 of the Penal Code.2. It is not contended that the bond itself was not genuine, or that the accused intended to support a false claim by a false bond. It is clear that his intention in altering the date of the bond was to cause the registering officer to entertain an erroneous opinion touchi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- Next ›
- Last »