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
Helen Beard Vs. Samuel Egerton
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad179
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. We consider that the practice of the Small Cause Court hitherto is right in regarding as exempted from attachment, by Clause (h), Section 266 of the Civil Procedure Code, half the pay actually drawn by the judgment-debtor at the time of the attachment or from time to time. What the defendant is now drawing is, we understand, his pay on sick leave, which is half his ordinary salary. Half of the amount so received by him as his salary while on sick leave is by the clause quoted exempted from attachment. The other half is attachable....
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Chetti Vs. Colonel J.G. Cloete
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad189
1. On the 14th June 1877, the defendant, a Settlement Officer, purporting to act under Madras Act XXVIII of 1860, passed a decision demarcating the boundaries of certain villages in the 'Salem District, some of which are in plaintiff's mitta. He gave notice of his decision to the plaintiff in an endorsement of the 20th June 1877, on a letter addressed by plaintiff to him. On 18th August 1877, plaintiff brought this suit to set aside this decision.1. The District Munsif considered plaintiff was not in time, as his appeal (see Section 25, Act XXVIII of 1860) was not brought within two months from the date of the decision; and he dismissed the suit.3. The Subordinate Judge in appeal considered that the decision of the Settlement Officer, though purporting to be under Act XXVIII of 1860, was upon a matter in which he had no right to exercise the power conferred by that Act, or that, if he had, his procedure was not in accordance with what is required by the Act, as the evidence on which hi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Ayyangar Vs. Bagirathi Ammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad180
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. We entertain, no doubt, that the representative of the deceased judgment-debtor ought to have been brought in this case, and that the further process of sale, which had to take place before the execution could be fully had, could not legally issue without some person upon the record representing the deceased against whom the decree might be executed.2. The sale must be set aside and the attachment of the property resumed. It will be for the judgment-creditor to take steps to bring in the representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor and proceed regularly with the execution of his decree.3. The petitioner will have the costs of this application....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Ramachandrappa and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad249
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code are sot in conflict with those of the Special Law, and effect may, therefore, be given to both. By Section 16(3) of the Regulation, a summary power to impose a fine is conferred on a Village Munsif analogous to that conferred on the Civil Courts by Sections 170* of the Civil Procedure Code.2. In ordinary oases when there are no aggravating circumstances, the Village Munsif or Civil Court would act discreetly in employing the special powers conferred on it, but if a charge is instituted in a Criminal Court under the Indian Penal Code, it must be dealt with by the Court. The order referred must be set aside and the Magistrate directed to resummon the accused and to complete the trial.* Procedure if witness fails to appear.[Section 170:-If such person does not appear, or appearing, fails to satisfy the Court that he did not abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the summons, and that he had not notice of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Ayyan Vs. Seshayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad181
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The application is not barred by limitation. The error in affixing an insufficient stamp did not render the application illegal. The order of the Judge is set aside and that of the Munsif restored with costs in all Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Tiruvengada Chari Vs. Vythilinga Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad418
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We are of opinion that a decree for money, though it be a judgment debt, is not liable as a 'debt' to sale in execution of a decree. The judgment debt could be rendered available in execution without attachment, and Section 273 appears to be imperative as to the procedure to be adopted to secure the judgment debt and make it available to satisfy the claim of the attaching decree-holder. For reasons which are sufficiently obvious, e.g., the uncertainty of its value, the Code, it appears to us, prescribes a particular procedure which renders the sale of a money-decree unnecessary.--2. The order of the Munsif was right, and the application must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Ayyan and anr. Vs. Venkata Rayar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad254
Innes, J.1. First plaintiff is the adopted son. of Krishna Ayyan, who died' on the 19th January 1880. Krishna Ayyan was admittedly divided from his. brother, the first defendant. The second defendant is the son of first defendant.2. On the death of Krishna Ayyan, therefore, the adopted son was the person to perform his funeral rites, and the second plaintiff proceeded to perform them under authority from the first plaintiff, who was an infant. But the first defendant interfered and would not permit second plaintitf to perform the obsequies, but insisted on joining in them himself. They accordingly jointly set fire to the funeral pyre, and early next morning first defendant hastened, to the pile, collected the bones, and performed the ceremonies thereupon; so that when plaintiffs went to do the same, they found that the heap of ashes-containing the bones had disappeared. This necessitated the plaintiffs' recommencing the ceremonies by making an image of Durba grass and burning it and pe...
Tag this Judgment!Dugappa Chotti Vs. Vidhia Purna Tirthasami and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad263
1. The plaintiff by the plaint filed in suit 258 of 1879, claims to have the proprietary right in land assessed at Us. 14-6-4 in varg No. 23 in Vakavadi village and sues to recover rent therefor from 1872 from the defendant, who is stated in the plaint to hold on chalgaini lease. He also sues to have a portion of the three vargs, viz., No. 2, No. 23, and No. 25 in the same village, and in the possession of the defendant, held at a rent of Rs. 14-6-4 per annum payable to Government, and 41/2 to 51/2 muras of rice to the Aneigadi Ganapathi Devastanam and 41 regulation muras to the plaintiff's mattam, delivered to him.2. The suit for demarcation and delivery of portion of the three vargs in the defendants' possession to the plaintiffs is founded on the allegation that the varg No. 23 was demised to the defendants' ancestors very many years ago, and that they did not preserve the boundaries of that varg, but allowed them to be destroyed, so that the landlord's land, yarg No. 23, cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanasami Chetti Vs. Samidas Mudali
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad293
1. In Suit 713 of 1879 plaintiff sued the defendant's father for a sum due on two promissory notes, one of which was for Rs. 30; the District Munsif passed judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the one note, but dismissed that portion of the claim based upon the note for Rs. 30, on the ground that it was barred by lapse of time. Defendant's father is said to have soon afterwards executed the note now sued upon for Rs. 30, promising to pay this debt which had been declared to be barred. He afterwards died and plaintiff sued his son. The District Munsiff found that the promissory note had been in fact executed, but that the son was not bound by the promise of the father to pay a barred debt.2. We are now asked, in revision, to set aside this decision.3. The fact that the debt was barred by the Act of Limitation did not affect the existence of the debt, and there was nothing illegal or immoral in the action of the father in promising to pay it. The new note operated as a renewal of...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Chetti Vs. Alfred Champion
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad1
Innes, J.1. We do not see that the suit was barred by limitation. The judgment in appeal was pronounced on the 5th January, but the costs had to be taxed and inserted in the decree, and the solicitor still continued on the record and was bound, on notice received on the 22nd February, to communicate, as he did, with his client, and take his instructions as to whether he should appear and watch his client's interests at the taxation, or should refrain from doing so. On the 23rd, on which date he communicated with defendant, he was instructed not to appear. It cannot be said that the suit had terminated in the sense of Article 84 of the Limitation Act until the costs were inserted in the decree and had issued. The suit was within three years from 22nd February 1878, and was therefore in time.2. This petition must be dismissed with costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »