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
Thanga Karuppa Nadan and anr. Vs. Arumuga Nadan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad383
Innes, Officiating C.J.1. The construction lately put by the Legislature upon Section 539 of Act X of 1877 by the alteration of the corresponding section in Act XIV of 1882 so as to include suits for breaches of trusts connected with religious purposes is evidence that the Legislature in framing Act X of 1877 intended to restrict the operation of Section 539 to suits for breaches of trusts connected with public charitable purposes exclusive of purposes that were purely religious. We were referred to the objects and reasons of the alteration (as stated in the Legislative Council) in proof that the Legislature regarded the section as it stood as embracing suits for such wrongs connected with both charitable and religious purposes, and only made the alteration in consequence of doubts which might be entertained. It is not admissible, however, to consider what is said in the course of debates in the Legislative Council. We must apply the ordinary rules of construction, and we come to the c...
Tag this Judgment!Gangathara Pandithar Vs. Rathabai Ammal and Panchanathayyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad237
Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In this case a Bale, which had taken place in execution of a decree, but which had not been confirmed, was objected to on behalf of the judgment-debtor on the ground that execution was barred by reason of the decree having been passed more than twelve years before, and of no date having been expressed as that on which the maintenance should be paid.2. We are of opinion that the exception of limitation should have been taken before the sale. The rights of the purchaser, who is not a party to these proceedings1 are involved in the sale, and would be affected by its cancelment.3. If the Court had omitted to serve the preliminary notice of execution after one year from the date of the decree, that might possibly have affected the jurisdiction, and might have vitiated all subsequent proceedings. But in this case the Court had jurisdiction unless the decree was barred; the exception was not taken, and it appears to have been overlooked by the Court. We th...
Tag this Judgment!Marakar Akath Kondarakayil Mamu Vs. Punjapatath Kuttu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad61
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. Fifth defendant, the appellant in this second appeal, represents the original mortgagee from whom he obtained an assignment. He is also in possession of the entire mortgaged property which it is sought to redeem. Further, by his purchase of the rights of the husband of the deceased Parichi, the sister of plaintiff and mother of the minor sixth defendant, he has a share in the equity of redemption. To allow plaintiff to redeem the whole would enable him to get possession of the property to the exclusion of fifth defendant. Now, as fifth defendant is already in possession as assignee of the mortgagee and has also a share in the right to redeem, he cannot be required to surrender possession of the whole against his consent until plaintiff has, by a proper suit for partition, ascertained definitely to what shares in the property he and fifth defendant are respectively entitled.2. We cannot therefore allow a decree for redemption of the whol...
Tag this Judgment!Seshayyar Vs. Pappuvaradayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad182a
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The second defendant disclaimed all title to the property and. only said he was in possession on behalf and on account of his divided brother, the first defendant. It was not stated that he was first defendant's agent. First defendant did not appear, and the District Munsif found in favour of the mortgage set up by plaintiff and decreed in his favour.2. The second defendant then appealed. It is observable that he was not authorized to conduct the defence to the suit on behalf of first defendant, nor did he assume to do so, nor did he appeal on behalf of first defendant. He appealed in his own name and on his own account.3. The Subordinate Judge found the mortgage set up by plaintiff not established, and, on what he considered to be the principle laid down in Sevaji Vijaya Raghunadha Valoji Kristnan Gopalar v. Chinna Nayana Chetti 10 M.I.A. 151 dismissed plaintiff's claim.4. The plaintiff now appeals to the High Court on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sangili Vira Pandia Chinnatambiar, Zamindar of Sivagiri Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad29
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Kernan, J.1. The question here is whether the Judge could legally accord sanction for the prosecution of the plaintiff in the suit on the various charges referred to.2. It appears to us that Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code, contemplates there being sufficient material before the Judge in the suit or criminal trial on which to found the charge.3. The suit had been disposed of without any of the evidence on record giving rise per se to the slightest suspicion of an offence of the nature of any of those charged having been committed before the Court. It was not competent to the Judge, on an application for sanction, to go beyond the record to determine whether sanction ought to be given when the record itself disclosed no foundation whatever for the charges.4. We have not overlooked the fact that authenticated copies of certain documents were filed, though not put in evidence, and that at the trial the plaintiff asked the Court to call upon the Collector a...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Pillai Vs. Vythialinga Mudaliyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad27
1. The plaintiff herein sought to obtain a decree establishing a custom to drain the water of his village of Thamangalam through the villages of Kothamangalam and Sukravaramkotlai belonging to the temple of Sri Navanetheswaraswami of which the first and second defendants are the Panchayatdars, the remaining defendants being the tenants; and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from any interference with the plaintiff's alleged right.2. The defence was to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to no such right as that set up by him; that the suit was barred by limitation; that as the plaintiff, with his father, his uncle, and his brother's sons, together formed an undivided Hindu family, the plaintiff was not entitled to bring this suit without joining the other members of his family; and that the other mirasidars of Thamangalam should also have been joined as defendants in the suit. The sixteenth defendant, the appellant herein, also pleaded that if the plaintiff g...
Tag this Judgment!Subbayya Vs. Venkatesappa and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad49
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The question we have now to decide in this appeal is whether the claim is barred by Section 43 of Act X of 1877. The facts upon which this question arises are clearly set forth in the judgment appealed against. On the 1st July 1878 there was a settlement of accounts between the plaintiff and the defendants, and a debt acknowledged to be due by the latter to the former. The non-payment of this debt constituted a cause of action which might be made the subject of a suit. And the same day it is alleged that the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a contract of partnership, and the partnership trade, which was carried on under this contract, ceased in August 1878. The termination of the partnership and the defendants' omission to account for its assets was another distinct cause of action. Thus, prior to the date of the agreement mentioned in Suit 127 of 1878, the plaintiff was at liberty to institute two different suits upon the two transactions, f...
Tag this Judgment!Appa Pillai and anr. Vs. Ranga Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad71
1. The point of limitation was not argued, but it was contended on behalf of defendants--appellants--that there was a contract valid by Section 25 of the Contract Act, and that plaintiff could not recover.2. The facts found and admitted were that first defendant's father and the plaintiff, on 29th November 1876 executed the document, Exhibit I, in favour of first defendant and his son, second defendant, reciting that plaintiff and his brother had borrowed and received money on the sale and hypothecation of certain of the family lands, and that, as first defendant and his son were the only heirs to the family estate, plaintiff and his brother renounced all right in the property in favour of first defendant and his son and agreed to remain under the management and protection of first defendant.3. Plaintiff in this suit sought to set this arrangement aside and to recover his share of the property.4. The District decreed for plaintiff.5. In appeal, the District Judge was of opinion, on the...
Tag this Judgment!Sitapathi Nayudu Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR6Mad32
Innes, Officiating C.J.1. This is an application in which we are asked to transfer the appeal of one Sitapathi Nayudu from the Court of the Sessions Judge of North Arcot to the High Court, and we have heard Mr. Gould, who makes the application, and the Government Pleader, Mr. Shephard, upon the question of our power to make the transfer. The Government Pleader intimated that, if the Court has the power, he was not instructed to oppose the exercise of the power, but he contended that it was not conferred either by the Criminal Procedure Code or by the Letters Patent.2. Under Section 64* of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court has authority to transfer a criminal case or appeal from any Criminal Court subordinate to it to any other such Court (i.e., Subordinate Court) of equal or superior jurisdiction. It may also transfer a case for trial before itself. But it is clear, as Mr. Shephard contends, this transfer for trial is confined to cases which fall under the definition of the wo...
Tag this Judgment!Marakar and ors. Vs. Munhoruli Parameswaran Nambudri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad140
1. At the hearing of the second appeal, which was on the 8th February of this year, we were not aware and were not informed of the decision of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice KlNDERSLEY in Kunhamu v. Keshavan Nambudri I.L.R. 3 Mad. 246.2. That is a decision by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice KINDERSLEY that there is no authority to support a kanamdar's claim to be allowed to make further advances before the jenmi is entitled to demise the land to another tenant on kanam or otti.3. Had we been aware of this decision, we should probably not have thought it necessary to remit the issue, as the point was directly in question in that suit and disposed of.4. Mr. Sankaran Nayar indeed took the distinction that in the case referred to, the demise taken by plaintiff to whom the jenmi had let the land without calling on the kanam-holder to exercise the option of making further advances, was an otti demise, but the only difference between an otti and a kanam-holder is that the former makes hi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »