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
Results · Chennai
Rama Rau Vs. Venkatesa Bhandari
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad171
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. It would be productive of the greatest inconvenience (if it indeed were possible) to apply the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act of 1877 to applications made in the course of suits or proceedings, and, if the terms of the section can be otherwise satisfied, we are at liberty to construe them so as to avoid such inconvenience. There are numerous applications known to the law which would be correctly described as applications in respect of a property or right in the sense we have indicated--proceedings where a party seeks the aid of a Court to give him relief in respect of some property or right otherwise than by regular suit. Of these, the Acts regulating the rights of landlord and tenant in the North-Western Provinces and generally in Bengal afford instances. We arrive, then, at the conclusion that the provisions of the section were not intended to apply to applications in execution of decrees, and that we are not constrained to apply them to...
Tag this Judgment!Nachiyappa Mudali and ors. Vs. Ayyasami Ayyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad189
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. (Keman, Kindersley, and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.)1. The 5th Section of the Limitation Act provides that, if the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal expires on a day on which the Court is closed, the appeal may be presented on the day the Court reopens.2. The Statute 24 and 25 Vic., c. 104, Section 15, empowers a High Court, established under that enactment, to make and issue general rules for regulating the practice and proceedings of the Courts which might be subject to its Appellate Jurisdiction. Act XXIII of 1861, Section 40, conferred on, and Act X of 1877, Section 652, continued to the High Court the like power in regard. to all Courts subordinate to it.3. In the exercise of this power, the Court in 1869 issued a general rule, directing that, during the adjournment of the Courts of every grade, two days in the week at the least should be set apart and notified in the District Gazette on which plaints, petitions, or other papers would be received ...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusami Chetti Vs. Krishna Ayyan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad222
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The point of law raised in this petition is one on which we arrive at a conclusion not without some hesitation.2. The power conferred on the then existing Zila Courts by Madras Regulation III of 1802 was, on the abolition of those Courts, transferred by Act VII of 1843 to the Subordinate Judges and Principal Sadr Amins appointed under Regulations I and II and VII and VIII of 1827.3. Subordinate Judges appointed under The Madras Civil Courts' Act, 1873, are empowered by that Act to exercise jurisdiction in all suits and proceedings of a civil nature. These terms appear sufficiently large to confer on them not only the general jurisdiction but also any special jurisdiction which had theretofore been exercised by the Subordinate Judges and Principal Sadr Amins whom they superseded, and which, at the time of the passing of the Civil Courts' Act, was still subsisting. The remedy was not taken away, and it is reasonable to infer an intention that the jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!Karpakambal Ammal Vs. Ganapathi Subbayyan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad234
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The father of the respondents having been sued by the appellant for her maintenance, entered into a compromise with her, whereby he agreed to pay her the sum of Rs. 36 on the 1st April in each year during her life, and a decree was passed in those terms.2. It may be the father was sued because he was the manager of the family property; but this is not apparent on the face of the decree.3. The decree can be executed against the sons for arrears, which have accrued since their father's death, only as representatives of their father and until his assets are exhausted, it being of course understood that, on the father's death, the interest he had in his lifetime in joint ancestral property lapsed, and would not be available as assets. We set aside the order of the Judge and direct him to reconsider the application in reference to the above observations.4. The appellant will have the costs of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Mana Vikrama, ZamorIn Maharaja Bahadur of Calicut Vs. Suryanarayana Bh ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad284
Kernan, Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. Both the Civil Courts Act III of 1873 and Court Pees Act VII of 1870 deal with the 'value of the subject-matter of suit,' and the Act of 1873 refers to the Act of 1870.2. It seems reasonable, therefore, that, when a particular subject-matter is valued in one Act, the same value ought to he adopted in respect of the same matter in the other Act, unless contrary to some special provision, or unless there is manifest inconsistency in so doing. There is special reference in Section 141 of the Civil Courts Act to Section 7, Clause 5,2 of the Court Fees Act, and it may be argued that, if the value in the Court Fees Act was intended to be adopted, there should be some particular provision to that effect.3. This may be admitted. But the reason of that special reference was that the valuation of the particular subject, land, was peculiarly difficult, and, as the mode of valuation of it was settled already for stamp purposes by the Court Fees Act, and this was...
Tag this Judgment!Timmu Vs. Deva Rai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad265
1. Notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why she should not furnish security for the costs of the appeal.2. She did not appear, and an order was made requiring her to furnish security on or before the 11th November.3. The order was not served on her, nor on her vakil, nor is it shown she had any notice of it until the 17th January, the date on which the appeal came on for hearing. An objection was then taken that inasmuch as the security had not been furnished within the time prescribed the appeal must be rejected.4. The Code empowers the Appellate Court to demand security and directs the Appellate Court to reject the appeal if the security is not furnished within the time the Court orders. v5. To justify the rejection of the appeal there must have been a demand on the part of the Court.6. The issue of a preliminary notice to show cause is not tantamount to a demand. It simply informs the appellant that the Court proposes to consider the propriety of demanding security from ...
Tag this Judgment!Chithambara Chetti Vs. Muthaya Chetti and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad330
1. Plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of plaintiff's right to recover the amount due by one Manjirasa to plaintiff on a bond executed in his favour by that person on the 30th August 1878, on account of a loan to him by plaintiff of Rs. 1,500, which it was engaged should be repaid to plaintiff by two instalments, one on the 26th February 1879 and the other in August 1879, with interest. Manjirasa, according to plaintiff's case, pledged his ship Ahmed Buksh as security for repayment of the loan. He then went off with his ship to Karikal, where defendant had it seized for a debt due to him. It was sold and the proceeds were held by the French Court which had ordered the sale.2. Plaintiff made a claim upon the proceeds. The French Court on 11th December 1878 required plaintiff to produce, within 25th January 1879, copy of judgment of an English Court, acknowledging and sanctioning his claim against Manjirasa.3. It is stated, and seems to be conceded, that the sale of moveables in Frenc...
Tag this Judgment!Suraya Bhukta and anr. Vs. Lakshminarasamma and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1881)ILR5Mad291
1. These appeals are brought from the decrees of the District Court of Ganjam in Suits Nos. 4 and 5 of 1878 on the [292] file of that Court, and inasmuch as the matters in issue in both suits are the same, we shall dispose of the appeals in one judgment.2. It appears that Kurmesam, whose heirs the plaintiffs claim to be, had adopted as his son Ramayya.3. Ramayya died leaving a widow Lakshminarasamma, appellant in Regular Appeal No. 78, and it is admitted by the learned Counsel who appeared for the lady that he cannot resist the proof that Ramayya died in the lifetime of Kurmesam.4. Kurmesam died in July 1853 leaving a widow Jogamma, who died on April 19th, 1866.5. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 4 were respectively the grandsons and great grandson of the grandfather of Kurmesam, but Jaganatham has died since the institution of the suit and the surviving plaintiffs are the appellants in Regular Appeal No. 81 of 1879.6. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 5, who are the appellants in...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasami Pillai and ors. Vs. Varadaraja Ayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad345
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff as adinakartar (Tarn. A proprietor) and panchayattar (Court of arbitration) of a certain temple at Kandiyur has brought this suit on behalf of the temple to eject the defendants from certain lands in the village of Karuvur belonging to the temple, and for arrears of melvaram (the proportion of crop claimed by Government), and swamibhogam (the proprietor's or landlord's right). It was alleged in the plaint that, about forty years before, the defendants' ancestors, Maruthai Pillai and others, had executed a muchalka in favour of Government (who were then managing the affairs of the temple) undertaking to pay annually to the temple 285-6 kalams of paddy and Rs. 724-11-8 in cash; and also procure the persons necessary to carry things at the processions on festival days. But the defendants had allowed the payments to fall into arrears, and had not supplied men for the processions as agreed. In these circumstances it was alleged that, according to the muchalka,...
Tag this Judgment!Vythilinga Muppanar and ors. Vs. Vijayathammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad43
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The objections to the ownership of Chandraprakasa having been abandoned, we have only to consider the objections taken to the status of the respondent as the widow of Chandraprakasa.2. The parties to the suit are Muppanars and are classed with Sudras. It appears that Ayyavu, the father of the respondent, had married the niece of Appavu alias Muthaya Muppanar. When he was thirty years of age and had had three daughters born to him, Appavu assumed to take him in adoption; but dissensions arose, and he brought a suit--Original Suit 272 of 1829--against Appavu for maintenance as an adopted son, and, although the fact and validity of the adoption were denied, he obtained a decree which was confirmed on appeal.3. Appavu subsequently married a second wife, Niladatchi Ammal, who is said to have been his mother's sister's daughter, and by her he had a son, Chandraprakasa, who was a minor of the age of four years when his father died in 1847...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »