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
Tadigotla Timmappa Vs. Lakshmamma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad385
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. We think that appellant is not entitled to insist upon respondent's accepting a proportionate share of the debt due to him. He is at liberty to claim that his mortgage security shall not be divided against his will.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Thangathanni Vs. Ramu Mudali
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad358
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of remand made by the District Court of South Tanjore on the 25th August 1880. The suit, which was remanded, had been instituted in the Subordinate Court of that district by a minor, Ramu Mudali, through his next friend and natural father Sundra Mudali. His case was that one Ayyatorai Mudali, whose property he claimed by right of adoption, had died without male issue, leaving him surviving two widows, Thangathanni, the defendant, appellant in this Court, and another since deceased; that some days prior to his death Ayyatorai had authorised his wives to make an adoption for him; and that, after his death, the appellant and her co-widow adopted him, the respondent, according to Hindu Law and usage. The defendant (appellant) denied the adoption as well as her power toad opt. Issues were framed as to the factum of adoption and as to the authority to adopt; but it appeared at the trial from the witnesses exam...
Tag this Judgment!Chembrakandi Musutti Vs. themdyal Puthalath Shekharan Nayar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad41
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In Suit No. 1157 of 1876 second respondent obtained a money decree against petitioner. On the 17th February 1879 it is alleged first respondent promised to get second respondent to certify satisfaction to the Court that passed the decree, received Rs. 100 from petitioner, and paid it over to the judgment-creditor. Second respondent, however, afterwards executed the decree without certifying the payment, and again collected the amount due under it. Petitioner then sued both the respondents and claimed to recover back, with interest at 12 per cent., the first payment which he had made. The Small Cause Judge of North Malabar dismissed the suit with costs as against both respondents on the ground that no suit could be maintained to recover back money paid in satisfaction of a decree. Petitioner applies for our interference under Section 6221 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and contends that he was entitled to a decree against both responden...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Chandramala Patta Mahadevi Vs. Sri Muktamala Patta Mahadevi an ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad20
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff, as the widow of the late Sri Ramachandra, zamindar of Hatgada, claimed to be trustee of a certain temple in the fort of Hatgada, and, as such trustee, she sued to recover possession of the village of Jannapuram, with the revenues of which that temple had been endowed; for the sum of Rs. 540, being arrears of revenue for Fasli 1288, and for subsequent revenue at the same rate; also for an injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering.2. The first defendant claimed to be the trustee of the temple in question as the widow of her late husband Sri Chaitania Chandra, who, she alleged, had been adopted by the plaintiff as directed by her husband, the late zamindar. She also alleged that she was the mother and guardian of the minor son of the said Chaitania Chandra. In a second written statement the first defendant alleged that the late zamindar, plaintiff's husband, has made his will on the 2nd December 1859, whereby he had appointed the first def...
Tag this Judgment!indukuri Rama Raju Vs. Yerramilli Subbarayudu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad387
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Tarrant, J.1. The contention is that, as there was other land of the original mortgagor which the second defendant, the second mortgagee, might have attached and sold for realization of the mortgage amount, he ought in equity to be required to realize from that land instead of the portion of the mortgaged land which plaintiff purchased.2. The purchase of plaintiff was subject to existing encumbrances, and there is no foundation for his contention that the mortgagee should be thus deprived of what are his legal rights.3. We must dismiss the second appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Hassaji and anr. Vs. the East India Railway Company
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad388
Innes, Officiating C.J.1. This appeal arises in a suit in which the plaintiffs seek compensation for goods belonging to them carried by the East India Railway for delivery to them and not delivered. The consignment consisted of 220 bags of grain, out of which plaintiffs received all but 93. Of these 28 were lost and 65 bags, after arrival, were damaged (as is found upon the evidence by the Courts below) by a complication of causes against which it was impossible for the defendants to provide, and had to be destroyed under orders of the Magistrate. As to the 65 bags, therefore, the defendants cannot be held answerable.2. In regard to the 28 bags the Company are undoubtedly liable, unless the claim is, as contended, barred. The loss occurred on the 20th September 1877, at latest, as it was discovered on that date, and if the question of the period of limitation be governed by Article 30 of the Second Schedule of Act XV of 1877, this suit is undoubtedly barred as it was not instituted til...
Tag this Judgment!Chengaya Vs. Appasami Ayyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad172
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. It appears to us that the application on the 14th December 1877, though an application 'under the section' in the sense of the third clause of Section 230, was not an application which was granted within the meaning of that clause. It was simply an application on which a notice was issued under Section 248. The applicant cannot be brought, therefore, within the twelve years rule of Section 230, and, as his last application was presented on the 10th December 1880 (not as the District Judge says 18th December), it was within three years from the last preceding application, and is in time.2. We must reverse the order and allow the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Mudali Vs. Ponnambalam and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad376
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. A contract was entered into between the accused and complainant that the accused should beat tom-tom during a certain festival which was to have continued from the 31st May to the 9th June 1882, which contract the accused failed to carry out. On the 9th June, or the last day of the festival, the Tahsildar Magistrate made an order under Act XIII of 1859 that the accused should perform the work which they had agreed to do for the complainant, but without specifying within what time, or during what period, they were to do the work. After the order was made, and on the same day, the accused, whose original defence had been that they had no tom-tom with them, said they could not render the service which they had been ordered to perform, and thereupon the Tahsildar Magistrate proceeded at once to sentence them to ten days' rigorous imprisonment for non-compliance with his order.2. There was no complaint that his order was not complied with and no statements...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Vanam Subramanyam and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad378
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. Accused have been convicted of disobedience to summonses issued under Madras Act III of 1869 by the local Tahsildar, requesting them to attend the Taluq kachari for the purpose of preparing the Census, Jama-bundi, Dowle, and other accounts. They were each sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5, or in default five days' simple imprisonment.2. The accused were not summoned to give evidence or produce any document in connection with the investigation of any matter in which the Tahsildar was authorized to hold an inquiry, and the summons disobeyed is, therefore, not within the purview of Madras Act III of 1869.3. The conviction is bad and must be quashed. The fine, if levied, should be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Sambasivanna Vs. Bhogappa and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad378a
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. Having regard to the statement made by the complainant, we think that the complaint should have been treated as one of voluntary hurt. The Second-class Magistrate was therefore in error in treating it as one of criminal force and allowing it to be withdrawn.2. Considering, however, that the complainant himself treated the violence used to him as amounting to criminal force, and that it is nearly three months since the complaint has been withdrawn, we are of opinion that no further proceedings in the case are necessary....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »