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
Muttayan Chetti Vs. Sangili Vira Pandia Chinnatambiar, Zamindar of Siv ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad1
Barnes Peacock, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the plaintiff, and the respondent the defendant, in a suit, No. 13 of 1875, brought in the District Court of Tinnevelly. It appears that in an original suit, No. 8 of 1867, brought in the District Court of Tinnevelly, the late zamindar of Sivagiri, the father of the defendant, put in a razinama, dated the 20th January 18C8, whereby he acknowledged the sum of Rs. 55,872-12-0 to be due, and agreed that the amount should be paid on the 31st December 1872, together with interest at one per cent, per mensem, by the instalments mentioned therein, and he thereby hypothecated certain lands therein specified, being part of the zamindari, as a security for the payment of the principal and interest.2. On the 4th September 1868, a decree was passed in accordance with the razinama. The money not having been paid according to the stipulations, the property hypothecated was attached, in the lifetime of the late zamindar, for instalments Nos. 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Vericherla Suryanarayana Raju Bahadur, Zamindar of Kurupam Vs ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad253
1. The plaintiff sued to establish a right to erect a dam across a stream called Tampara to prevent its flowing into the Gummidi-gedda and so to divert it into the old channel marked F in the plan to plaintiff's lands in Chitrapadu. Defendant maintained that F was a new channel and that the custom was for the water to flow to Chitrapadu by the Gummidi-gedda to plaintiff's lands, and that plaintiff was not entitled to place a dam across the Tarn-para for the purpose mentioned.2. The first issue was as to the custom of erecting the dam at B in the plan. The second as to whether F was an old channel or one recently constructed.3. Both the Lower Courts found that plaintiff had established his right.4. In appeal it is contended that the documents relied on by plaintiff were inadmissible in evidence against the defendant and that, if admissible, their purport and that of the decision in suit 79 of 1868 had been misconstrued.5. To take the last point first, the meaning of the last paragraph o...
Tag this Judgment!Viraraghava Reddi Vs. Subbakka
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad397
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is stated to have delivered certain paddy and dry grains out of Court in satisfaction of a decree against him; but the decree-holder failed to certify that satisfaction to the Court under Section 258, Civil Procedure Code, and four months afterwards she applied for and obtained execution, an application made by the plaintiff for an order compelling the decree-holder to certify being dismissed as too late. The plaintiff then brought the present suit to recover the paddy and grain which he had delivered in the first instance, and the question is, whether such a suit is maintainable.2. Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code imposes on a decree-holder, who has received payment in satisfaction out of Court, the duty of certifying such payment to the Court. The judgment-[398]debtor also may apply to the Court within fifteen days to have the payment certified. Then follows the provision, 'no such payment or adjustment shall be recognized by any Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Puthenpurayil Kuridipravan Kanara Kurup Vs. Pathenpurayil Kuridipravan ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad310
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. We think that the clause to the effect that the property should be surrendered whenever the money is ready is not sufficient to show that it 'was the intention of the parties to enter upon a contract of mortgage differing in its incidents from the ordinary kanam mortgage whereby the mortgagee has a period of twelve years' occupancy before he can be redeemed.2. In a document in which the word kanam is used to express the nature of the engagement and in which provisions are introduced for compensation for improvements which point to a period of occupancy such as is usual under kanam, it seems to us that the clause relied on by the plaintiff must be read as referring to a period subsequent to the expiration of the usual twelve years.3. Having regard to the other terms of the document, it is not sufficient by itself to show that it was the intention of the parties that the kanam should ensure as what is called a kattakanam which is redeemable at any time after its c...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Boya Linga and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad268
1. The three accused were convicted before the Village Magistrate of Ramasagur under Regulation XI of 1816 of theft of a sheep valued at 14 annas, and were sentenced, the first accused to pay a fine of 6 annas, and the second and third 4 annas each; in default, all to suffer two hours' imprisonment. The fines were collected and paid to the complainant as compensation.2. The case has been referred to the High Court on the ground that sheep-stealing is not an offence cognizable by a Village Magistrate within the meaning of Regulation IV of 1821, Section 6, paragraph I, although the value of the sheep may be less than a rupee, and that it cannot be considered a petty theft; also that the punishment awarded is entirely inadequate to meet the commission of such offences.3. The value of the sheep is 14 annas, and we see nothing in the language of Section 6, paragraph I, Regulation IV of 1821, to hold that sheep-stealing can in no case be treated as petty theft. But Section VI, Regulation IV ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjanatha Shanabhaga Vs. Narayana Shanabhaga
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad362
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In this case the common ancestor of the parties was Bapayya; he had two sons, Venkatesa and Narayana. Venkatesa had as on Rama-krishna and Narayana had 3 sons Dasa, Lakshmana and Ramachandra. Rama-krishna had three sons Rayappa, Madava and the plaintiff Manjanatha; Lakshmana left two sons Venkatesa and Vaikunta; Ramachandra left a son Ganapati; and Dasa left a son Narayana, who is the first defendant in this suit. Thus in 1867 there were four coparceners in Ramakrishna's branch, Ramakrishna and his three sons, and in Narayana's branch there were the representatives of his three sons Dasa, Lakshmana, and Ramachandra. Ramakrishna's first two sons, Rayappa and Madava in the one branch, and the representatives of Lakshmana and Ramachandra in the other branch, brought the partition suit No. 21 of 1867 and separated from the rest of the joint family. The result of that suit and of the trial in the appeal suit 434 of 1871 was that the family property was divided into twe...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Vyapuri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad401
Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The accused has been convicted of mischief under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10, commut-able in case of default to four days' rigorous imprisonment, his offence being that he destroyed two documents forming an immoral agreement whereby the complainant allowed his wife to live in adultery with the accused, and she, in consideration of this liberty, agreed to forego her claims to maintenance. The conviction has been referred to this Court as being wrong, inasmuch as the consideration for the agreements being unlawful and the documents having therefore no legal value, their destruction does not amount to mischief.2. The drafts of the two documents on record purport to cancel the marriage between complainant and his wife and to release them from all marital obligations. As the parties are Hindus and as the marriage between them is not liable to be cancelled by mutual consent, they are of no value for the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!The President of the Municipal Commission Vs. G.L. Walker
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad269
Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The point for determination in this case is whether a 4-wheeled carriage on springs drawn by one pony is a vehicle liable to taxation under the provisions of Schedule C (Act III of 1871, Madras). Article 2 of that schedule provides that such a carriage drawn by one horse or by a pair of ponies under 13 hands is liable to taxation.2. Under the Act, the word horse includes a pony. By Schedule C, Article 2, 'a 4-wheeled carriage drawn by a horse is to pay Rs. 4-8-0.' 'Horse' here prima facie includes pony.3. But as 'pair of ponies under 13 hands' are also referred to in that paragraph, it is contended that an intent not to tax a carriage drawn by a single pony is shown. This seems to be an incorrect construction. The true construction is that a carriage drawn by a horse (including pony not under 13 hands) is taxable at Rs. 4-8-0. But although all carriages kept within the Municipality for one month, Section 64, are taxable, yet no rate is fixed by the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Khasim Bahadur Vs. John Carlier
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad272
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Tarrant, J.1. We agree with the decision of the Bombay High Court (The Secretary of State for India v. Kemchand Jeychand I.L.R. 4 Bom. 432 and are of opinion that a bonus is not a pension.2. By recent legislation, the Civil Procedure Code has been so altered in Section 266 as to exempt a bonus or gratuity received from Government from attachment. But this provision does not apply to execution proceedings commenced before the 1st June 1882--vide Section 3, Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, Clause 3. If, therefore, as stated in the reference, the proceedings in execution commenced prior to 1st June 1882, the bonus is attachable....
Tag this Judgment!Kondi Munisami Chetti and anr. Vs. Dakshanamurthi Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad371
Kernan, J.1. Plaintiff bought the saleable interest of Vaira Pillai in the lands in question at an auction sale held on the 23rd of October 1878 under the powers contained in Act VIII of 1865 for arrears of rent due to the landholder, the mittadar.2. Previous to that sale Suit No. 60 of 1878 had been instituted by defendant's father, Kuppaya Chetti, against Nagamuthu Pillai and others, praying to have the same lands sold to discharge a mortgage of theirs granted by Nagamuthu Pillai on the 17th of December 1865 for Rs. 850-12-0. Vaira Pillai was not a party to that suit, and it is found that Nagamuthu had, some years prior to 1878, sold his interest to Vaira Pillai.3. Plaintiff was in possession as purchaser under the sale since 31st October 1878, being the date of the certificate issued to him under the Act, and up to the filing of this suit. In Suit 60 of 1878 Kuppaya obtained a decree against the defendants in that suit for sale of the lands to pay the mortgage. Plaintiff objected to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »