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
Mano Mohun Ghose and ors. Vs. Mothura Mohun Roy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal225
Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca. The suit was brought by the appellants to recover certain chur lands, as being a re-formation on the site of their Chur Rajapore. There is no question that the plaintiffs' father (whose heirs they are) was the owner and in possession of Chur Rajapore until it was diluviated; that the various defendants, or their predecessors in title, were interested in various churs adjacent to Chur Rajapore; that Rajapore and other adjacent churs were, at dates which are disputed diluviated; that re-formations have subsequently taken place; that, from time to time, as re-formation took place, attempts have been made by the parties interested to show that portions of the re-formations were on the site of their own churs; and that, in 1875, disputes having arisen about some re-formed land, the Deputy Magistrate attached certain lands, the extent of which is disputed, leaving the parties interested to sue in a Civil Court. T...
Tag this Judgment!Sudisht Lal Vs. Mussamut Sheobarat Koer
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal245
Sir M. E. Smith.1. This is an action brought by Sudisht Lai, a mahajun carrying on his business at Mozufferpore, against Mussamut Sheobarat Koer, to recover a sum of Rs. 23,470 and interest, upon the footing of a stated and, settled account. The plaint is based entirely upon an account which, it alleges, had been settled, not by the defendant herself, but by her husband, Ajudhya Pershad, who, it is said, had authority from her to state and settle accounts. In the outset it may be noticed that no evidence was given of the items of the account so as to establish an indebtedness independently of the account stated. This omission seems to have been intentional, for the plaintiff himself, and two of his gomashtas, who might have given that evidence if a debt really existed, were not called.2. The circumstances which preceded the action may be shortly stated. Ram Dyal Misser, who is now dead, carried on a banking business in the same place as the plaintiff, at Mozufferpore. He died in the ye...
Tag this Judgment!Surbomangala Dabi and anr. Vs. Goluk Chunder Mahinta and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal711
McDonell, J.1. We think that the order of the Subordinate Judge in this case ought not to be interfered with, though we do not agree with the reasons upon which he has based his decision. The property, Bazzapti Mehal Kulliar Chur, belonged to the Judgment-debtors. They mortgaged it to one Kalachand Mahinta. Kalachand brought a suit upon the mortgage-bond and obtained a decree, which was a personal decree against the judgment-debtors, and also a decree against the mortgaged property. Meanwhile the mortgaged property was brought to sale under the provisions of Section 16 of Beng. Act VII of 1868. That sale was in all respects the same as a sale in execution under the Code of Civil Procedure; in other words, it was a sale of the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtors. The right, title, and interest of the judgement-debtors was, therefore, the equity of redemption. The sale under Beng. Act VII 1868 took place on the 26th of July 1878; and the appellants in the case became, eith...
Tag this Judgment!Goburdhon Lall Vs. Singessur Dutt Koer and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal52
Mitter, J.1. Who, after stating the facts as above, continued.---Upon these findings of fact by the Subordinate Judge he framed the following judgment:It is hereby declared that only four-eighth-anna of Nirpur and 7/8th-an 'share of Chuck Ibrahim are liable to be sold in satisfaction of the defendant, 'decree against Chundermun Koer, dated 20th July 1875. The remaining portions of four annas share and seven annas share of those estates belong to the 'plaintiffs, and their shares should be separated from Chundermun's share, and 'would be equally partitioned between themselves.' We think that this decree is erroneous, because it seems to us that there could not be a partition between a person who is already dead and his sons. No doubt, according to the case of Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh (L. R., 6 I.A., 88), if the property under attachment had been sold, and if it had been proved that the decree was a personal decree against the father, and that the debt for which the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Upooroop Tewary and ors. Vs. Lalla Bandhjee Suhay
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal749
Mitter, J.1. Various objections have been taken by the defendants against the plaintiff in this suit, and the lower Courts have overruled them all. Some of them have been also taken before us in this appeal, but it would be convenient to take up first the 8th and 9th grounds mentioned in the petition of appeal. These two grounds raise the question, which is in issue between the parties, as regards the title to the property. It is contended before us, that the decision of the lower Courts, that what was sold was only the interest of Dabee Pershad, is erroneous. The proceedings resulting in the execution-sale taken together with the bond of the year 1864, it is contended, show that what was sold was the entire family property. The District Judge decides this point as follows:-'Now the words which I have just quoted apply exactly to the present case. It appears from the bond of the 24th August 1864, that the mortgage was of Dabee Pershad's right, title, and interest without any specificat...
Tag this Judgment!Gour Chunder Shaha and anr. Vs. NobIn Chunder Sircar and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal759
McDonell, J.1. Now it appears to us that the plaintiffs are not entitled to succeed in this suit. It may be well to point out in the first instance that the case of the plaintiffs is, not that the defendants, holding over after the expiry of the term of the kabuliat, are bound by the conditions of the kabuliat, and are, therefore, liable to pay rent according to the terms of that instrument, nor is it contended that the defendants have refused to grow indigo, and are, therefore, liable, under the penalty-clause, to pay the rent fixed by the decree. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs do not seek to enforce the conditions of the kabuliat in any way. Their contention is that, on the expiry of the term of the kabuliat, the enhancement decree of 1864 revived, and has full effect.2. In the first place, it is to be observed that this decree does not contain any direction as to the time for which it is to have effect. Those who are conversant with the history of the law of enhancement of rent...
Tag this Judgment!Huro Prosad Roy Vs. Womatara Debee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal263
McDonell, J.1. This is a suit for enhancement of rent. The defendant in a tenant, under the plaintiff, of a holding, which originally consisted of 1,202 bighas, and the rent of which was originally fixed at Rs. 641-1-1. Three grounds of enhancement were set out in the plaint. The first ground is, that the quantity of land held by the defendant is more than that for which rent was formerly paid. He says, that the quantity of land is now 1,900 instead of 1,202 bighas. The second ground is, that the productive powers of the land have increased; and the third ground is, that the value of the produce has increased.2. As to the first two grounds there is no question in the present appeal, and the third ground is the only one with which we have to deal. That prices have, within the last twenty, thirty, or forty years, increased considerably in these provinces is a matter as to which few reasonable people have any doubt. At the same time, in any particular case, it is necessary that evidence o...
Tag this Judgment!Dabi Churn Dutt and ors. Vs. Sundhya Mala
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal715
Morris, J1. We think that this appeal must prevail upon the authority of the decisions which have been quoted to us, viz., Mohidin v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1. Mad. H. C. Eep., 245), Nund Eishore Singh v. Hurree Pershad Mundul (13 W. E., 64), Fran Nath Sandyal v. Bam Coomar Sandyal (2 C. L. R., 33), and the Full Bench decision in the case of Gobind Chunder Koondoo v. Taruck Chunder Bose (I. L. R., 3 Cal., 145). It is clear that the self-same right and title, which are in issue in this case, have been substantially in issue and adjudicated upon in the previous case decided between the same parties on the 9th December 1874. In that case the subject of dispute was a plot of land forming part of what is called Bund Mahata ; it was claimed by one side as appertaining to Mermah, and by the other side as appertaining to Simrail Kandi, and each party set up a certain potta from the same lessor in proof of title. It was found that although the land of Bund Mahata appertained to Mouza Mermah, yet, un...
Tag this Judgment!Panchu Mohini Debya Vs. Taruck Chunder Mookerjee
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal791
Pontifex, J.1. In April 1878, rent being due from the defendant to the plaintiff for the years 1281, 1282, and 1283, the plaintiff instituted a suit for the rent of 1281, for which she obtained a decree.2. Although that suit was instituted after Act X of 1877 came into force, the plaintiff did not include in her suit the rents for 1282 and 1283, which were also then due.3. In April 1879, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for the rents of 1282, 1283, and 1284. With respect to the rents of 1284, it appears from the judgments of the Courts below that, at the time of the institution of the former suit, the year 1284 had not expired, and therefore the entire rent for that year had not become due. The present suit would, therefore, lie for the rent of 1284.4. But objection was taken by the defendant to the suit so far as it related to the rents of 1282 and 1283, on the ground, that they should have been included in the former suit in accordance with the provisions of Section 43 of Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Baba Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Abedooddeen Mahomed and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal69
Morris, J.1. In all the suits for arrears of rent out of which these appeals arise, the Subordinate Judge has declined to recognize the rates of rent fixed by the Collector in the proceedings held by him at the instance of the plaintiff under Section 10 of Beng. Act VI of 1862, and has dismissed the plaintiff's suits, save in respect of certain sums admitted by the defendants themselves. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge is appealed against, on the ground that he cannot go behind the decision of the Collector under Beng. Act VI of 3862, that the defendants made no appeal at the time against the decision under Section 10, and that, therefore, the proceedings under that section are final.2. It seems to us, however, clear on the face of those proceedings, that the Collector acted without jurisdiction; and that, therefore, the Subordinate Judge is right in declining to accept the rates that have been fixed by him.3. First, the Collector proceeded on the application of a fractional hold...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- Next ›
- Last »