Skip to content


Privy Council Cases Home > Privy Council Page 9 of about 68,146 results (0.128 seconds)

Mar 23 1876 (PC)

In Re: Keshav Lakshman

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom175

1. The Court thinks that the Subordinate Judge, and not the karkun, Keshav, must be regarded as the complainant in the proceedings before the Magistrate. The Subordinate Judge acted judicially, and, on that ground, would not be subject to the penalty provided in Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The karkun, if he made a false report to the Subordinate Judge, or gave false evidence before the Magistrate, is punishable otherwise; but, not being the complainant, he also is not liable to have the payment of compensation awarded against him under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Court reverses the order of the Magistrate, which directed that Keshav Lakshman should pay Rs. 5 to Aba valad Krishna as compensation....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1876 (PC)

The Queen Vs. ZuhiruddIn and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal220

Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am happy to say, that since last evening, some papers have been discovered, which will render any further discussion of this rule unnecessary.2. It appears, that in 1869, in a case which in its circumstances very closely resembled the present, it was decided by no less than nine Judges of this Court, that the proper course was to apply to the Court, sitting in its judicial capacity upon affidavits, in the usual way; and I am extremely glad to find that no less distinguished a Judge than Mr. Justice Louis Jackson, was one of the Judges who took part in that decision. This was the case of The Queen v. Pogose referred to by Mr. Woodroffe. An application in that case was made by Mr. Herschel, the Officiating Sessions Judge of Dacca, to the Registrar of this Court, suggesting that an order should be obtained for the transfer of the proceedings to the High Court for trial. I will read his letter, dated the 11th of June 1869.I have the honour to request that you will l...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1876 (PC)

Murarji Gokuldas and ors. Vs. Parvatibai

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom177

Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The subject matter of this suit consists of Government promissory notes and money in the hands of the defendants which in the lifetime of Gokuldas Vithaldas belonged to him. He died at Porebunder, without issue, in June 1873. Parvati, the plaintiff, as his alleged heir, sues to recover the property in question. The defendants rely upon a will, alleged to have been made at Porebunder by Sakerbai, the widow of Gokuldas Vithaldas, on the 24th of August 1873. Sakerbai died on the 2nd of September 1873. She appears to have become blind some time previously to the death of her husband. One of the points relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff Parvati, before us at the hearing of the appeal, was that Sakerbai's blindness disqualified her for inheriting from her husband, and, therefore, that her will, even if genuine, could not affect the property in dispute. Mr. Justice Bayley, having decided in favour of the plaintiff Parvati upon another ground, did not give any opin...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1876 (PC)

Parbhudas Rayaji and anr. Vs. Motiram Kalyands

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom203

Melvill, J.1. 'Toda-Gras' haks are thus described by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Maharana Fatesangji v. Desai Kallianrayaji (10 Bom. H.C. Rep. 281): 'It is sufficient to state that these annual payments, though originally exacted by the Grasias from the village communities in certain territories in the west of India by violence and wrong, and in the nature of blackmail, had, when those territories Jell under British rule, acquired by long usage a quasi-legal character as customary annual payments; and that as such they were recognized by the British Government, which took upon itself the payment of such of them as were previously payable by villages paying revenue. The Assistant Judge has held that payments of this description fall within the definition of 'a grant of money or land revenue' in Act XXIII of 1871. We are not prepared to say that he is wrong. In opposition to this view it has been contended that the purpose of Act XXIII of 1871 is simply 'to keep the di...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1876 (PC)

In Re: Mohesh Mistree and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal283

Macpherson, J.1. It seems to us to be clear that this case came before the Magistrate of the 24-Pergunnas under Section 295 of the Criminal Procedure Code,[1] and that it was in the first instance dealt with by the Magistrate under that section. That being so, his proper and only course was to proceed under Section 296, to report the case for orders to the High Court, which (under Section 297) might have ordered the accused persons to be tried, if of opinion that they had been improperly discharged.2. A case (re Sidya bin Satya) quoted by Mr. Prinsep in his latest edition of the Criminal Procedure Code, as having been decided by the Bombay High Court, has been referred to as showing that the Magistrate was right in the course he adopted. But that case is not reported in the regular reports of the Bombay High Court: nor have we been able to find any report of it. The full facts with which the Bombay Court had to deal are not before us, and we are unable to say how far the Court may real...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1876 (PC)

Peary Mohun Mookerjee Vs. Arfunnessa

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal379

Mitter, J.1. This was a suit for resumption of 7 bighas 15 chittacks of land held by the defendant under an alleged lakhiraj title. The plaintiff is the representative of an auction-purchaser, and the suit was commenced within twelve years from the date of auction-purchase. The plaintiff alleged that the land in suit appertained to the mal estate, and was held under the pretence of a lakhiraj title by withholding payment of mal rent only from a comparatively recent time. The defendant alleged that the lands in suit were valid lakhiraj. At first both the Courts below dismissed the plaintiff's suit, notwithstanding that they held that the onus of proof in such a case as this was upon the defendant. The lower Appellate Court, on an application of review having been made, has given to the plaintiff a decree for a portion of the land, holding that the defendant has failed to establish his case with reference to it. The defendant has preferred this special appeal against that decision.2. The...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1876 (PC)

Shepherd Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom132

Green, J.1. Though the plaint, as originally framed, does (amongst other things) allege that the passing of resolutions reflecting on the character of private individuals is ultra vires the defendants as Trustees of the Port of Bombay, yet the scope and gist of the case there made is, that the defendants had by their said resolutions defamed the plaintiff, though such defamatory matter is not alleged to have been as yet published, and the relief sought is for damages, and in the meantime and till the hearing for an injunction against publishing such resolutions, and in particular transmitting the same to the local Government. On the same day as the original plaint was filed, viz., the 2nd instant, a rule was granted calling on the defendants to show cause why the president or presidents of the meetings of the 10th and 17th February, in the plaint mentioned, should not be restrained by injunction from signing the resolutions in question, or either of them, and why the said defendants, t...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1876 (PC)

Ramdhone Bhuttacharjee Vs. Khajah Ashanoollah

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal326

L.S. Jackson, J.1. It appears to us that this is not a suit to which the provisions of Section 27 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 could be applied for the purpose of barring the suit as not brought within one year. Whatever other difficulties that section may present in regard to suits differing from the present one, we think there are many circumstances which prevent the application of it here. In the first place, it is not simply a suit to recover the occupancy of land from which the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the person entitled to recover the rent. There is a certain complication in the facts alleged, because the plaintiff claims a howla right of which the principal defendant altogether denies the existence. He sues Khajah Ashanoollah, who is not the sole zemindar, but one of the persons entitled to the rent. He sues also Ram Coomar Sen, the previous talookdar of this estate, and he also sues the several persons who are now paying rent to Khajah Ashanoollah. The case is not there...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1876 (PC)

Mutty Lall Dhur and ors. Vs. Hendry

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal396

Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff claims a three-sixteenth share in a dwelling-house at Sealdah, one half of which is admitted to have belonged to the late Bulzloor Rohim, who died in 1871.2. Buzloor Rohiin, in his lifetime, had employed Anderson, Wallace, & Co., in Calcutta, to do some repairs to the house; after his death his daughter Surfurunnissa Begum, who was entitled to five-sixteenths of the whole property, employed them to do further repairs. The price of these repairs not having been paid, Anderson, Wallace, & Co. brought an action against Surfurunmssa Begum, as representing her father's estate, to recover the sum due to them; and having obtained a decree, the house was sold in execution under the decree, and was purchased by the defendants Hendry and Hubbard, Meanwhile, a sister of Buzloor Rolum, Sadumnnissa Bibi, who had been for some time past on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and who was entitled to a three-sixteenth share of the property, returned, and she sold he...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1876 (PC)

In Re: Sooraj Kant Acharj Chowdry

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal384

Brich, J.1. This appeal is preferred against a summary order of the District Judge passed under Section 6 of Regulation VIII of 1819, directing the zemindar to accept the security tendered, and to give effect to the transfer without delay.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal lies to this Court from such an order; and we are of opinion that the objection must prevail. The pleader for the appellant has been unable to show us any law which authorizes an appeal from an order under Section 6. His argument is that an appeal lies, because the Judge has used the word 'decreed,' and has drawn up an order in the form of a decree directing that an injunction should issue. We think that the fact of the Judge having dealt with the application in this manner does not entitle the appellant to come up here in appeal when the law does not provide for an appeal from an order passed under Section 6 of Regulation VIII of 1819.3. It is then urged by the appellant's pleader that if we a...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //