Skip to content

Privy Council Cases

Appeals from Indian courts heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and House of Lords - filter by originating court or search by party, citation, or keyword above.

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.

Results · Chennai

Feb 09 1883 (PC)

The Queen Vs. Muttu Reddi and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad199

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. By the term 'labouring classes' in the Act I of 1858 we understand not only persons who let their labour for hire, but also persons who habitually engage in manual labour, although they may at the same time be employers of labour.2. We have not sufficient information to determine whether either of the accused was a person who would be properly designated a member of the labouring classes in the sense in which that term is interpreted by us. It is also not clearly apparent that the proper steps were taken to procure the assistance the public officers were entitled to require. The conviction under Act I of 1858 cannot be maintained, but the accused are shown to have committed hurt, and it is unnecessary to disturb their conviction for that offence.3. The sentences are not severe....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 1883 (PC)

Charles Snell and Alexander Seddons Vs. the Queen

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad201

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. It is shown that, by a general rule sanctioned and notified as required by law, the guard and driver of a ballast train should, on a line worked on the block system, stop the train at a station and should not leave the station till the guard has received from the Station Master and delivered to the driver a ' line-clear' certificate.2. It is also shown that on the 27th October the appellants disobeyed that rule, and it cannot be doubted that by so doing they endangered the safety of persons using the railway between the Seringapatam and French Rocks Stations.3. It is no answer to the charge that the rule had been habitually broken, if the evidence as to the disregard of it is reliable, nor is it any answer to the charge that obedience to the rule would possibly not have prevented the accident which occurred. The appellants are liable to conviction not by reason of consequences directly referable to their default, but by reason of the da...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1883 (PC)

Sivada Balarami Reddi Vs. Sivada Pera Reddi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad267

1. The burden lay on plaintiff of showing that first defendant by being taken into another family, otherwise than by adoption, had lost his rights of succession in his own family. The Judge reports that plaintiff is unwilling to undertake to establish by further evidence the custom for which he contends.2. The evidence already taken justified the conclusion arrived at that the first defendant, who had been taken in Illatam after the division between his father and uncle, had a right to share in the estate of the uncle that had devolved after the death of the father. We agree that the karar. in releasing the first defendant's right to share in the property of the family extended only to the property of his immediate family, and not to his rights in that of the divided uncle. The circumstances that a Karar was considered necessary to preclude the first defendant from succeeding in his immediate family is evidence that, without it, in the opinion of those concerned, he would have succeede...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1883 (PC)

Thambu Chetti Subraya Chetti Vs. A.T. Arundel

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad287

1. We entertain considerable doubt whether the Magistrates have come to a correct finding as to the nature of the building which is the subject of this reference.2. The original signification of the term Matha or Math is a building or set of buildings in which Hindu religious mendicants reside under a superior, who is called a Mahant. This spiritual superior is regarded with veneration by the members of the sect, and is installed with some ceremony, and not unfrequently receives an honorific title. Although a place of worship is not a necessary part of a Math, such a place is, as may be expected, often found in such institutions,, and, though intended primarily for the use of the inmates, the public may be admitted to it, and so this part of the building may become a place of religious worship. A Hindu Math somewhat resembles a Catholic Monastery. From the circumstance that a portion of it is not unfrequently devoted to worship, and that the public may be admitted to it, the term Math ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1883 (PC)

Varikara Vadaka Vittil Valia Pravathi and anr. Vs. Varikara Vadaka Vit ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad341

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. The appellant urges two objections to the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, firstly; that the Judge in estimating the amount, which the appellant should receive as maintenance from the tarwad, has deducted a sum allowed by the Court of First Instance as maintenance for the lady who is regarded as his wife and for his offspring by her.2. Although it would seem inconsistent with the principles of the Maruma-katayam law that the tarwad should contribute to the maintenance of the ladies with whom the male members cohabit and of the issue of such cohabitation, these ladies and their issue being members of another tarwad, and entitled to claim maintenance from their own tarwad, unless they voluntarily remove from the house of their tarwad, it is urged in this Court that it is the practice of the country in North Malabar for females to reside during the whole year in the tarwad of the male with whom they cohabit, and that, during such resid...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1883 (PC)

Burla Ranga Reddi Vs. Kalapalli Sithaya

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad368

Innes, J.1. The parties agreed to accept the decision of the arbitrators without any appeal whatever. On the ground that in disposing of Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 50 of 1881 we overlooked this portion of the agreement and the objection to the jurisdiction of the Judge founded upon it, a Review is now sought of our order passed on 11th November 1881.2. The date of the karar was 30th March 1880. No suit was then pending. On the 20th July the petition was put into Court under Section 523 of the Civil Procedure Code to be numbered and registered as a suit. It was thereupon subject to the provisions prescribed with reference to a suit so filed (Section 524) so far as they might be consistent with the agreement filed, and it is said that the agreement in this case excluded all interference of a Court of Justice after the reference to arbitration. But, supposing the arbitrator arrived at a decision not warranted by the matters referred, or left out some material matter which had been r...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1883 (PC)

The Queen Vs. Nabi Saheb

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad247

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. One Nabi Sahab, a Muhannadab by creed and a dealer in miscellaneous wares by profession was convicted by a Village Munsif of a petty theft and sentenced to be put in the stocks for three hours2. The District Magistrate has referred the case to this Court, suggesting that the accused did not belong to the class on which the infliction of the punishment of stocks is sanctioned.3. The 10th Section of Madras Regulation XI of 1816 authorize Village Munsif to inflict the punishment, if the offending parties be of any of the lower castes of the people on whom it may not be improper to inflict so degrading a punishment. inflict so4. The definition has been held by this Court to involve two conditions the one having relation to the position of the caste to which an offender belongs the other to the social status of the person himself. A dealer in petty or may not be a person on whom the infliction of the punishment may degrading but we agree with the Magistrate th...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 1883 (PC)

Anakattil Narayana Krishnan Karthavu Vs. Kocheri Pilo Pilo

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad191

Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. The Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Cochin refers for our decision the question whether his Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit on a judgment of a Court in the Native State of Cochin.2. The obligation arising out of the duty to obey the judgment of a foreign Court is not one of the obligations upon which a suit can be entertained in the Small Cause Court....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 1883 (PC)

Ramanadan Chetti Vs. Periatambi Shervai and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad250

Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the application of 1879, although not complying in every particular with the requirements of Section 235 of the Civil Procedure Code, was substantially an application made in accordance with law, and that, although it was returned for amendment and nothing further was done upon it, the application gives a fresh starting point from the date of its presentation. The present application is in time....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 1883 (PC)

Puna Karuppana Pillai Vs. Virabadra Pillai and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad277

Innes, J.1. As we understand the case, the plaintiff sues a father and son for money properly borrowed for the son's marriage, the purpose being a proper and necessary family purpose. The District Munaif referes the question whether such a suit, including as it does a demand on the son, is properly within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. He is of opinion that it is not, because the debt (he considers) was the debt of the father, and the liability of the son to pay the debt of the father is a liability not arising by contract, but by Hindu Law. We think that the suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The debt is not, properly speaking, the debt of the father, but the debt of the father and son, the father having, in borrowing the money, acted as manager and agent of the family. There is nothing, therefore, to prevent the cognizance of the suit by the Small Cause Court.2. We may further observe that in Govinda Munaya Tiruyan v. Bapu 5 M.H.C.R. 200 it was held that the w...

Tag this Judgment!

  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial