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
Muttu Samarapuri Chetti Vs. Shanmuga Chetti and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad47
Tarrant, J.1. In Original Suit No. 128 of 1878 the plaintiff in the present suit sued the present defendants for Rs. 3,805-13-3, alleged to be due from the defendants to the plaintiff, under a verbal partnership arrangement, said to have been continued down to the month of Karthigai of the year Dhatu (November 1877), when the defendants, in consequence of disputes between them, requested the plaintiff to carry on the business on his own account for a few months--which he did--a subsequent desire of the defendants to rejoin the plaintiff not being carried out on account of certain changes in the Government salt rules having had the effect of raising the price of salt and having made it inexpedient for the parties to continue the business. This partnership was entered into between plaintiff and defendants some time in the month of Ani, in the year Yuva (June and July 1875); for the carrying on of a business in the purchase and sale of salt, and which business, it was further alleged, the...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Varma Raja Vs. Narayana Bhatta and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad223
Innes, J.1. The suit was brought to remove first defendant from the management of certain temples to which he had been appointed manager by fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants and to the management of . which plaintiffs claimed an hereditary right.2. The other members of first defendant's family were not made parties, nor was there any indication that first defendant was sued in any other than his individual capacity for what was his single act of assuming management of the temples under the authority of the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants.3. The decree contains nothing from which it can be inferred that it was intended to render any member of first defendant's family but himself liable, and the appellant as representative of the first defendant can only be held liable to satisfy the decree to the extent of any assets of first defendant that have come to his hands and not been properly accounted for. The interest possessed by first defendant in his lifetime in the family property s...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasekara Pillai Vs. Dharmaraya Goundan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad113
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We are unable to say the Munsif has misconstrued the law.2. The period of limitation for: an application of this nature commences to run from the date of the resistance, obstruction, or dispossession. The resistance, obstruction, or dispossession referred to can hardly be any other resistance, &c;, than that mentioned as forming the subject of the complaint. This is the plain interpretation of the terms of the Act, nor is the construction unreasonable, for a Court exercising ordinary care would not issue a second warrant for delivery of possession after an earlier warrant had been returned unexecuted by reason of obstruction, unless the decree-holder had at once taken action to question the propriety of the obstruction, or there had been some change of circumstances. On the other hand, if it be held limitation is to be computed from the date of first obstruction, the provision would take no count of cases in which an abstraction at...
Tag this Judgment!Vydianadayyan Vs. Sitaramayyan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad52
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made under Section 32, Act X of 1877. Appellant sued the first defendant upon a bond executed in his favour. The first defendant pleaded in substance that appellant and his uncle, the respondent, formed a joint Hindu family, that the bond was taken on behalf of the joint family, and that he had made a part-payment to the respondent. The respondent, supporting the statement made by the first defendant, sought to intervene. He had also brought suit upon the same bond against the first defendant. Appellant resisted the respondent's application to be made a defendant, on the ground that the money 'secured by the bond was his own. The Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam added the respondent as a defendant,, and it is argued in appeal that this is not a case within the scope of Section 32,. and reliance is placed on Norris v. Beazly L.R. 2 C.P.D. 80 Horwell v. The London General Omnibus Company L.R. 2 Ex. D. 365 Ex parte Smith L.R. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnama Chari Vs. Gangarau Reddi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad229
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. It appears that the defendant has not paid rent to plaintiff's predecessors in title and to the other Shrotri yamdars separately in respect of the interest of each in the Shrotriyam, nor does it appear that the Shrotriyamdars have agreed among themselves to receive the melvaram separately. We think that the several Shrotriyamdars constitute one single landholder, and one of them is not entitled under the circumstances to enforce acceptance of a separate patta....
Tag this Judgment!Sriman Sadagopa, Sri Sadagopa Edintara Maha Desika Swamiar Vs. Jamuna ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad54
Innes, J.1. In 1862, one Virasami Nayudu instituted a suit on the Equity Side of the late Supreme Court of Madras for a partition of the family property held jointly by him and others.2. An injunction issued to Venkatasami Nayudu, his brother, inhibiting him from intermeddling with the property pending the suit.3. On the 12th May 1863, the injunction was continued. By the decree the master was directed to sell the property and distribute the proceeds.4. On the 7th July 1866, the property was sold, and one Arunachala Mudali became the purchaser on behalf (as is alleged) of one Virji Lal. The latter left a widow Devaki Bhai and a daughter Jamuna Bhai. Arunachala left a will appointing Shanmuga Mudali and Ekambaram Mudali his executors. On the 24th March 1873, they conveyed the property purchased by Arunachala at the Court-sale to the widow of Virji Lal, Devaki Bhai. The latter died in 1875, leaving a will in which she appointed the plaintiffs as her executrixes; and the suit arises out o...
Tag this Judgment!Velliyammal and ors. Vs. Kaisha Chetti
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad61
Innes, J.1. In the Petition 357 of 1879 we were asked to review our decision in Second Appeal 558 of 1878, with reference to the Full. Bench rulings of the High Court in Second Appeals 412 of 1879, and 703, 704, and 705 of 1878, I.L.R. 4 Mad. 1. 73.2. The suit was a partition suit in which plaintiff, while seeking his share in certain family property in possession of the family, also prayed for a share in certain other property that had been purchased in execution of a decree against his father and was in possession of the purchaser.3. As we understand the Full Bench rulings, it was held by the majority of the Court that the decision of the Privy Council in Girdharee Lall v. Kantoo Lall and Girdharee Lall v. Muddun Thakoor L.R. 1 IndAp 321 is binding on this Court, and that, where there has been a decree against the father for debt, and the right, title, and interest of the father in ancestral property has been sold under the decree, and the purchaser has been placed in, possession of ...
Tag this Judgment!Uramkumarath Kannan Nayar Vs. Uramkumarath Tenju Nayar and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad1
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. It is contended that plaintiff is barred under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure as regards items 5-9, and as regards items 1-4, by Section 13.2. The Suit 928 of 1878 was terminated by a karar to which first defendant was not a party. First defendant, however, though not a party to the karar, was a party to a petition to the Court saying that he had surrendered the lands in pursuance of the karar, and asking the Court to draw up a decree dismissing the suit. 3. Suit 912 of 1879 was brought by plaintiff to enforce the terms of the karar, as 1st defendant, though in the petition he had stated that he had surrendered the lands, had not actually done so, but persisted in retaining them. First defendant, however, demurred to this suit, saying that he was not a party to the karar.4. The plaintiff then withdrew the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit on. his general rights as Karnavan to recover the property from first defendant.5. He then insti...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Vs. Ramasami
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad115
1. Plaintiff sued to recover from defendant certain specified land in the village of Kiluveli of Kiliyanur which is equal to one-sixth of the land defendant holds. He said that on 21st November 1861 he entered into a deed of exchange with defendant whereby he was to get one-fourth of the four karais defendant then held in the village of Kiluveli of Kiliyanur, and defendant some lands of plaintiff' in another village; that for convenience sake they had arranged that plaintiff and defendant should enjoy the land jointly, but share the produce in the proportions due to each; and that they had been acting on this arrangement till recently when defendant carried off the produce of the two years Dhatu and lswara; and that hence an apportionment of the lands became necessary. He further said that since the exchange effected in 1861 defendant had acquired two more karais of land in the same village and that plaintiff's share was therefore one-sixth. Defen-dant in his written statement admitted...
Tag this Judgment!John Francis Pereira Vs. Helen Charlotte Pereira and Eugene Bonjour
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad118
1. We consider the evidence sufficient to show that the respondent committed adultery with the co-respondent in October 1879; that the petitioner received reasonably probable information respecting the respondent's misconduct and, by continuing co-habitation, condoned it--Dillon v. Dillon 3 Curteis 112; but that the subsequent misconduct of the respondent shown by the occurrences of January 1880, though falling short of, but tending to, adultery, revived the condoned adultery--Winscom v. Winscom and Plowden 3 Sw. & Tr. 380 and that the petitioner is consequently entitled to a decree.2. We confirm the decree dissolving the marriage with costs to be paid by the co-respondent....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »