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
Mahomed Hamidulla Khan Vs. Lotful Huq and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal744
Morris, J.1. There is no question that Moulvi Golam Sharuff executed the document styled a 'waqfnama,' which bears date 1st Bhadro 1248. The only question raised in this appeal is, whether the four annas, or rather the fourth share of the property which he appropriated under that deed to his daughter Budrunnessa, is, under Mahomedan law, a valid ' waqf,' or, in other words, that it is inalienable and incapable of being attached and sold in execution of a decree against Budrunnessa.2. The Subordinate Judge, relying upon a passage which is to be found in page 571 of Baillie's Digest of Mahomedan Law, is of opinion, that the 'defendant No. 1, Budrunnessa, became absolutely vested in the two annas share out of the eight annas share of Kantabari, and so it became heritable and alienable.' The passage in question is in these terms:-'If one should say, this my land is a sadukah settled on my child, and child of my child, the child of his loins, and the child, of his child in existence on the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. M.J. Vyapoory Moodeliar
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal655
Garth, C.J. and Maclean, J.1. The prisoner in this case was tried before the Special Court at Rangoon upon three charges for receiving money illegally as a public servant, contrary to the provisions of Section 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The transactions upon which the charges were based are all said to have occurred in the year 1876, and the nature of them was, that the prisoner, being then the managing clerk in the commissariat office of Tonghoo, where Messrs. Cohen Brothers carried on business as Commissariat contractors, accepted certain remuneration from Messrs. Cohen for services, which he is said to have rendered them in his official capacity.3. The case for the prosecution was that these services were rendered, and the remuneration received, by the prisoner under some arrangement, which existed between the parties in the year 1876, but which came to an end in January 1877.4. In the year 1877, the prisoner was transferred to the Commissariat office at Thayetmyo; and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Ramnad Zamindar and anr. Vs. Dorasami
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR7Mad341
1. Sivasami Tevar, the respondent's father, claimed the zamindari of Ramnad, but, in release of his claim, accepted, in January 1861, certain villages and a monthly allowance of Rs. 700 to be paid out of the revenues of the zamindari. Sivasami Tevar died on 1st July 1861, leaving a widow, Kolanathai Nachiar, and according to the respondent's case, another widow, Ramamani Ammal, the mother of the respondent and of his sister since deceased.2. Kolanthai Nachiar obtained a certificate to collect the debts of the deceased and denied the status of Ramamani Ammal as a widow of the deceased and the legitimacy of her children, consequently Ramamani Ammal instituted Original Suit 13 of 1864 on the file of the District Court of Madura to establish the right of the respondent as the son and sole heir of Sivasami to inherit the movable and immovable estate left by him. Kolanthai Nachiar disputed the claim on the grounds that Ramamani was a prostitute and of a class with which a marriage, if celebr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shumsher Khan
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal624
Cunningham, J.1. We think that the appeal must be dismissed, on the ground that there is no sufficient reason shown for calling in question the deliberate conclusion at which the Magistrate has arrived.2. With regard to the point that the sentence required the confirmation of the Sessions Judge, we think that the words of Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be construed to refer to cases in which the sentence of imprisonment is a sentence of upwards of three years, and to leave aside any sentence the Magistrate may pass as to fine or whipping.3. We, therefore, think that it is unnecessary for the sentence in this case to be confirmed by the Sessions Judge.4. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnauth Doss and anr. Vs. Protab Chunder Doss and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal626
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed, upon the single ground that the plaintiff has not shown who is the common ancestor through whom he claims title to the property in question from Nobocoomar Dhara.2. The case comes before us under rather peculiar circumstances. The original plaintiff, Kedarnauth Doss, claimed as the sole heir of Nobocoomar Dhara; but it turned out at the trial that if the plaintiff should make out his title to the property, his mother, the witness Koylashmoney Dossee, would be entitled to a share of it. Upon this it was objected by the defendants' counsel that her name ought to be added as a co-plaintiff, and an order was made by the Court to that effect, although the plaint does not appear to have been amended.3. The decree of the Court below being then given for the defendants with costs, the plaintiff Kedarnauth did not pay the costs; consequently he has been made an insolvent by the defendants, and the Official As...
Tag this Judgment!Zabunnessa Khatun Vs. Abdool Futteh Moulvie
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal631
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only material question which we are called upon to decide in this appeal, is as to the maintenance. The plaintiff's right to the dower is hardly disputed.2. Mr. Piffard certainly contended, in the first place, that the defendant was placed at a great disadvantage at the trial in consequence of being obliged to conduct his own case; and urged that the Court should allow him a new trial upon payment of costs. But there is clearly no ground for this contention. The defendant has never applied for a new trial in the Court below, and any disadvantage under which he has laboured is due to his own default.3. With regard to the question of maintenance, Mr. Piffard does not object to the amount of the monthly allowance; but he contends that the decree is erroneous in two respects: first, that no order ought to have been made for past maintenance; and second, that it should have been made payable, not during the plaintiff's natural life, but only during the continuance ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Morgan and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal633
Phillips, J.1. Section 23 of the Insolvent Act does not affect the mortgagee. This case comes within the principle laid down in Reynolds v. Bowley (L. R., 2 Q. B., 474; in the Court below, Id., 41), which decides, that where one partner allows the other, bond fide, to carry on the business ostensibly as his own, on the bankruptcy of the latter, the share of the dormant partner in the partnership stock-in-trade cannot be dealt with as in the possession, order, or disposition of the bankrupt as reputed owner with the consent of the true owner. Here Smith was not insolvent at the time of the insolvency of the other partners. In Ex parte Dorman (L. R., 8 Ch., 51), the Lords Justices held, that the clause relating to goods in the possession, order, or disposition of a bankrupt is confined to cases where the bankrupt is in the sole possession of goods as the sole reputed owner; and they say,-'It is obvious that if the clause was held to apply to every case where goods, with the permission of...
Tag this Judgment!Bibee Solomon Vs. Abdool Azeez and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal687
Pontifex, J.1. The plaintiff is a minor, and sues by her next friend to set aside a compromise sanctioned by this Court in a former suit.2. In that suit her title was stated in the following way:One Sudickjee, of Cashmere, carried on large business operations in Calcutta, other parts of British India, and Cashmere. He died, nearly fifty years ago, intestate. His business was carried on in partnership with Khajah Mussijee and Koodoor Mullick. He left two sons, Khaluckjee and Ackbarjee, and a daughter, Fatima, who was the wife of his partner Khajah Mussijee.3. That, after Sudickjee's death, his son Ackbarjee had charge of the Calcutta business.4. That Khajah Mussijee died in 1854, having bequeathed the residue of his estate to his son Khajah Moheeoodeen and Khaluckjee. That Khaluckjee died in 1859 intestate, leaving Ackbarjee one of his heirs.5. That Ackbarjee died in 1868 having been jointly interested in the business with Khaluckjee and Khajah Mussijee up to the death of the latter; an...
Tag this Judgment!Buddree Doss and ors. Vs. Ralli and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal678
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the first question should be answered in the negative.2. As to the second question, we think that the week allowed for recleaning the seed commenced from the 10th July, when the refraction was found to be thirteen per cent. The time occupied by the plaintiff in recleaning was only two days; but as they did not succeed in reducing the refraction to the rate of six per cent., the defendants had a right to reject the seed. It is clear that the plaintiffs were not entitled by the terms of the contract to any further time to re-clean it again.3. The defendants are entitled to the costs of this reference.4. Attorney for the Plaintiffs: Mr. Camell.5. Attorneys for the Defendants: Messrs. Sanderson & Co....
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Bhuson Biswas and ors. Vs. Kanai Lall Khan and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal777
McDonell, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows: One Romoni Dasi, the widow of Digambar Mondol, borrowed Rs, 2,000 from the ancestor of the defendants in the present case upon the mortgage of a certain property. This money was not paid, and the mortgagee brought a suit against Romoni Dasi on the 17th May 1872, to enforce the mortgage lien against the mortgaged property. While that suit was pending, Romoni Dasi died; and on the 10th July 1873, the mortgagee applied to have the plaintiffs in the present suit substituted as defendants in the place of Romoni Dasi. In that petition the mortgagee stated, that the present plaintiffs, Sashi Bhuson Biswas and others, were the heirs of Romoni Dasi. These persons were at that time minors, and Bhoopal Chunder Biswas was their father and guardian. Notice was served upon Bhoopal Chunder Biswas, and he, Bhoopal, came in and filed a petition on behalf of the minors.2. In that petition it was distinctly asserted that the minors were not th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- Next ›
- Last »