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
Venkataramanayya Vs. Srinivasa Rau
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad182
1. On the finding of the Subordinate Judge, the case stands thus: The lease was a Chalgaini lease, that is, a lease for a year, which, after continuance beyond the term of the year, becomes a lease from year to year. Notice is necessary before a tenant so holding can have his tenancy determined.2. It is now found that due notice was given.3. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that a deposition given by defendant in 1876 in which he admitted his liability to rent in arrears operated to extend the period of limitation, and awarded rent from the year 1874, but the section of the Limitation Act applicable (Section 19) requires that the acknowledgment should be an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the right claimed. The acknowledgment made by the deposition is a liability in respect of a different right to that claimed, viz., a liability to pay rent as a Mulgaini tenant.4. We can only allow rent within three years prior to the date of the suit.5. The plaintiff is liable to pay for...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Short and ors. Vs. Jane Pickering
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad138
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. There is no provision in the Procedure Code authorizing the Court to allow a lien for wages on the assets of a judgment-debtor,2. We are, therefore, reluctantly compelled to vary the order of Judicial Commissioner as regards Rs. 317-9-1, wages due before the appointment of the receiver; but, in other respects, we shall, affirm it.3. The receiver at first accepted the., services of the respondent and did not vary the terms of her engagement. She is entitled to receive in 'full put of the estate the wages earned by her and the bonus to which she became entitled by reason of her summary dismissal. She is also entitled to be paid the sums expended by her in carrying on the-business under the receiver.' '.'''4. The order will be varied accordingly, and each party will pay his and her costs of this application....
Tag this Judgment!Appavu Nayak and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad245
Innes, J.1. In this case the property on which the alleged offence was committed belonged to two widows, who being issueless, had brought up fifth and sixth defendants as their sons. These persons had the management of the property. A disagreement arising between them and the widows, the latter made over the property to the Manager of the Vishnu Pagoda at Tirukoilur by a mortgage-deed under which he was authorized to take possession of the property. This person leased the property to defendants 1 to 3 on a cowle. These, with fourth defendant and others not charged, made forcible entry into the land and have been convicted of rioting and sentenced to a moderate term of imprisonment, which, in appeal, was made still lighter. Defendants 5 to 14 were discharged as having only defended their possession.2. Mr. Norton contends that fifth and sixth defendants cannot be regarded as having been in possession on behalf of the widows as their managers; that the rightful possession was with the les...
Tag this Judgment!Lingammal and ors. Vs. Chinna Venkatammal and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad239
Innes, J.1. It appears to us that the suit is bad for misjoinder.2. The first plaintiff' claims as one of the widows of Maria Gurusami and the second plaintiff as having been validly adopted by the first plaintiff after Mana Gurusarni's death. The claim of the first plaintiff assumes that there is no adoption; the claim of the second plaintiff assumes that first plaintiff has no right, because there was an adoption.3. Section 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits of the joinder in the same suit of several causes of action in which several plaintiffs are jointly interested against the same defendant. These plaintiffs are jointly interested against the same defendant in the sense that it is the object of both plaintiffs to show a title in one or other of them to the whole or a portion of the estate in competition with the defendant; but this is not enough; they must each be jointly interested with the other in the several causes of action not necessarily equally interested, but joint...
Tag this Judgment!Lingammal Vs. Chinna Venkatammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad227
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The decree on which the order of the Subordinate Judge proceeded has been set aside.2. It is unusual and inconvenient to allow a person, who might have applied before decree, to be joined as co-plaintiff after decree, even if it be lawful to do so, where no interest has devolved and no interest has been created since the institution of proceedings.3. The only section of the Code on which the learned Counsel for the respondent can rely is the 32nd, which points to the joinder of parties whose presence may be necessary for the adjudication of questions raised in the suit. Here the period of adjudication has passed. Nevertheless, we are not prepared to say that the Subordinate Judge had not a discretionary power under Section 32 at any stage of the suit, and, although the widows are still engaged in litigation, prima facie they have an equal right to collect the debts.4. The appeal is dismissed, but without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Suri Bhatta Vs. Sitarama Bhatta and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad195
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The appeal was filed on the 26th January 1881. The respondent died after service on the 17th April 1881. The sixty days from the death of the respondent allowed for an application to substitute the representative expired after the Court had risen for the vacation.2. The Court re-opened on 5th July. Before an order was passed declaring the appeal had abated, the appellant applied on the 11th July that a representative should be substituted. On the 12th December the Court passed an order declaring the appeal had abated as no application had been made within sixty days from the death of the deceased. On the 30th January 1882 the present application was presented under Section 371, Civil Procedure Code. The application was therefore presented within sixty days from the date of the order declaring that the appeal had abated. As the law stood on the date the order was passed, the Court could not take notice of the sufficiency of the excuse made by the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Sundram Chetti and ors. and Ponnusami Chetti and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR6Mad203
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In 1875 the Muhammadans applied for permission to erect a mosque in Sevvaipett on the site occupied by the mosque recently destroyed, but the Hindus objected and the application was refused. The Muhammadans nevertheless, it would seem, occupied the site, and in 1878 again applied for permission to build the mosque. The Hindus opposed the application : they intimated their apprehension that the erection of the mosque would lead to disturbances when they were conducting their processions with music or celebrating ceremonies in the temples adjoining the river.2. The Collector, Mr. Longley, accorded sanction to the erection of the mosque on condition that the Muhammadans undertook to allow the free passage of processions; but, professing to act as District - Magistrate, he at the same time ordered that all music should cease when any procession was passing or repassing the mosque; and he directed that this order should be notified to the inhabitants of Sevvai...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimmacharya Vs. Ragupathyacharya and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad176
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. As the appellant had been disturbed in the enjoyment of his property by respondents, who claimed an adverse right, he was entitled to a declaratory decree. As to damages, the seizure of the well was a trespass on immoveable property, and it continued to be a trespass until the possession of the trespasser came to an end; the limitation for suits for compensation in such a case is three years, and for any damage which accrued within three years before 9th February 1880, the date on which suit was brought,' the respondents would be liable. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the case remanded for retrial of the appeal. Costs to follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Naduvath Mannakel Subramanyan Nambudripad
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad187
Kernan, J.1. We think the Judge is right. The minor in this case has property paying revenue to Government.2. This Court has held that Regulations V of 1804 and X of 1831 do not give power to a Zila (now District) Judge to appoint a guardian to a minor in a case where the Court of Wards have jurisdiction to do so, viz., in cases where the minor is entitled to property paying revenue to Government.3. Section 20 of the Regulation V of 1804 and Act XIV of 1858 have been held by a majority of the Court in 1871* to refer only to cases where the Court of Wards have not jurisdiction.4. Whether the Court of Wards exercise their jurisdiction or not, this Court considered, was not material on the question whether the Zila Court had jurisdiction. This seems to be the proper construction, having regard to Regulation X of 1831, which refers to property of minors that was subject to be taken in management, but which was not in fact taken in management as well as of property actually taken in managem...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppayyan Vs. Ramasami Ayyan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad197
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In execution of a decree obtained against the appellant, certain immoveable property was offered for sale at auction on the 24th March and knocked down to Thevana Goundan for Rs. 3,550.2. The Amin, considering that the deposit had not been duly made, re-sold the property in lots on the following day, when it realised only Rs. 2,500, Gamai Goundan being the purchaser of two lots and the decree-holder of the other lots. On the 26th March Thevana Goundan presented a petition to the District Court which had ordered the sale, asserting that he had offered the deposit to the Amin who refused to receive it, and he prayed that the Court would receive his deposit and grant him a receipt.3. No notice of this application was given to the judgment-debtor, but the decree-holder appeared, and the Judge on the 28th March set aside the second sale and ordered a re-sale without determining whether the first sale had been duly made. A third sale took place on the 13th June...
Tag this Judgment!