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
Arunachala Pillai Vs. Ramasamya Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad402
1. The plaintiff and the second defendant are brothers, and sons of Muttusami Pillai, deceased.2. Plaintiff brought suit No. 43 of 1877 against his father and the second defendant for partition, and obtained a decree, dated the 6th April 1878, and a declaration that, as to the out standings due to the family, the plaintiff was entitled to and to collect one-third share thereof.3. Amongst the out standings was item No. 25 referred to in the decree, Rs. 200 due by a debtor to the family. Plaintiff might have given notice to the debtor to pay him, plaintiff, his one-third, but he did not do so before it was paid to the plaintiff's father.4. The debtor paid on the 12th of May 1878.5. Plaintiff now sues the first defendant, the debtor, for his one-third share and also the second defendant, plaintiff's brother, their father being dead.6. The suit is dismissed against the first defendant, as he duly paid the debt to plaintiff's father; and there is no appeal against the decision. But both the...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Alexander Reddon
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1885)ILR6Mad286
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. As ruled by this Court on third December 1872, it was not lawful for the Senior Assistant Magistrate to direct payment of part of the fine as compensation to an innocent purchaser of stolen property. The sale to the purchaser is not the offence complained of within the meaning of Section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sentence of the Senior Assistant Magistrate will be amended by striking out the words 'of which Rs. 4-8-0 will be paid to Mr. Lewin, who purchased the ring for that amount.'...
Tag this Judgment!Chatti Chalamanna Vs. Pandrangi Subbamma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad23
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Some lands, known as Singamvalasa, were held by Sridara Kodanda Rau, who died leaving a widow, Venkamma, and four daughters, Janikamma, Bhagamma, Narasamma, and Ramayamma. The lands passed to his widow who survived her daughters. Bhagamma and Ramayamma had died without issue. Janikamma and Narasamma had left male issue, who succeeded on their grandmother's death. The children of Narasamma then living were a son, Chinna Narasinga Rau, and a daughter, Chatti Chalamanna, the appellant. Narasinga Rau, on the 28th April 1845, executed a deed attested by three witnesses and described as a sanad. This deed recited that the appellant had requested her brother to give her something from the produce of the Singamvalasa lands inherited from his grandmother and witnessed that consequently Narasinga Rau agreed to pay to the appellant during her life, and after her death to her daughter, the sum of Rupees 10 from the harvest of the year Krodi on the 30th of Magha in ea...
Tag this Judgment!Gummalapudi Kalidas Vs. Attaluri Subbamma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad29
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The immorality imputed to the petitioner is that he keeps a concubine in his house and has had a family by her. It appears from the age of the concubine's children that this intercourse commenced before the marriage of which the legitimate children are the issue.2. Looking to the caste (Goldsmith, probably Sudra) to which the parties belong, we are unable to say that this circumstance alone would justify a Court in refusing him the custody of his children.3. It has been held that it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself not only that it is better for the children, but essential to their safety or to their welfare in some very serious and important respect, that the father's rights should be superseded or interfered with, before it deprives the father of those rights--Re Goldsworthy L.R. 2. Q. B. D., 83.4. In this case the condition is not satisfied, and we must reverse the Judge's order and declare the father entitled to the custody of his children.5...
Tag this Judgment!Mavulali AmirudIn Sharif Saheb Vs. Gundu Sobhanadri and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR6Mad339
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This case is governed by the ruling of the Privy Council, referred to by the Lower Appellate Court, in Thumbusawmy Moodelly v. Hossain Rowthen I.L.R. 1 Mad. 17.The obligation to pay the balance before the day fixed was not to attach till that balance should have been ascertained by an account, in which the mortgagee was necessarily to be the accounting party.2. The transaction could not execute itself without any further act of the parties. The mortgage being redeemable, any one of the persons entitled to redeem would be compelled and entitled to claim redemption of the whole, if any part of the debt remained to be satisfied; but, as nothing remains to be paid, the appellant can only redeem his share. To the extent of a 7/48th share, the appellant is entitled to redeem. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is reversed, and the decree of the Munsif restored to the extent indicated, and the parties will pay and receive proportionate costs in all Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Viraragavayyangar Vs. Krishnasami Ayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad344
1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 460.2. The first defendant executed a bond, dated the 25th December 1869, for Rs. 5,000, hypothecating 2 velis 11 maus of land in the District of South Tanjore to Srinivasa Ayyangar, who transferred the hypothecation bond and right and debt due thereon to the plaintiff' by deed, dated the 21st of October 1875.3. Plaintiff filed Suit No. 4 of 1876 in the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam on the bond against the first defendant, and obtained decree for sale, dated the 6th April 1876, of all the lands hypothecated. On the 17th of August 1876 plaintiff became purchaser of all the hypothecated lands for Rs. 6,000.4. Part of the lands so purchased were 151/2 maus in Pattakal Katlai, within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam. After the purchase, plaintiff discovered that 2 maus out of the 15J maus had been acquired by the South Indian Railway Company in 1874, and that the purchase money (Rs. 460) was lodged in the treasury at Kumbakonam unde...
Tag this Judgment!Samuel Pillai Vs. Ananthanatha Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad351
Kernan, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the Small Cause Suit 226 of 1882 against the defendant for Rs. 415-1-0 on foot of a promissory note to the plaintiff, dated the 8th of April 1881, payable on demand, and costs.2. The defendant applied in Revision to set aside that decree on the following grounds:(1) That there was no consideration for the note.(2) That there was no liability on the part of the defendant to pay the debt due by his father which was barred by limitation.3. On the 26th January 1883, by order of that date, we requested the Subordinate Judge to say what the consideration was which he found to support the defendant's promise, and whether he decided that the debt due by the defendant's father, apparently barred by limitation, was sufficient consideration for the defendant's promise.4. The Subordinate Judge reports that he found' there was deposited with the defendant's father by the plaintiff Rs. 700, at interest, which interest was for the benefit of plaintiff's...
Tag this Judgment!Pattakara Annamalai Goundan Vs. Rangasami Chetti and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad365
Innes, J.1. There was no force used (as far as I can discover) to prevent execution of the decree. But if there was fraud on the part of the debtor which prevented the judgment-creditor from realizing his debt, he can recover, although more than twelve years have elapsed from the date of the decree.2. There can be no question from the statement of facts by the Judge that he has rightly found that the creditor used due diligence to get his decree executed. It is only the peculiar provision of Section 230 of the Civil Procedure Code which holds out a temptation to dishonest debtors to stave off execution by every possible means for twelve years that could raise a doubt as to whether the creditor's right to recover is still subsisting. He has satisfied the ordinary provisions of the Limitation Act by the several applications he has put in for execution within the prescribed period of each other. But the debtor, by eluding the service of the warrant on several occasions, and by making appl...
Tag this Judgment!Harika Ramayyar Vs. Sri Vidya, Sri Sindu Tirtasami and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad61
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.1. This suit, in which the tenant seeks to obtain a declaration of the rates at which he is entitled to receive a patta for Pasli 1289, is not barred by the suit brought in the preceding year by the landlord to enforce the acceptance of a patta on certain terms for the Fasli 1288. The circumstances of the holding may vary in each year, and the power to sue in the Revenue Court to enforce the acceptance of a patta is limited to the contract for the year. for which the patta is issued.2. Nor can we hold that a Revenue Court in this Presidency in suits for enforcing the acceptance of pattas has, under the Rent Act, power to determine title otherwise than incidentally to the limited jurisdiction conferred on it. Consequently, it cannot be held the matter now in issue, viz., whether the tenant has, by special contract, a right to hold at privileged rates, has been finally decided in that suit. The decrees of the Courts below are set aside, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Somu Vs. the Queen
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad316
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner complained to the Magistrate that, in consequence of her having widened a path by which her cattle were taken to pasture, K. Sankara Bhatta, I). M. Sankara Narayana Bhatta, Shambu alias Muttu Bhatta, and Sanku came to her verandah, inquired why she had widened the path, and abused her for it; that Sankara Bhatta pushed her on the neck, and, taking a switch of Maderi, struck her twice with it on the back; and that, fearing the other accused would also strike her, she entered the house. She added that the marks left by the blows were still visible.2. She was examined on her complaint; and it is recorded that she repeated her charge against Sankara Bhatta, that she admitted the other persons accused had not assaulted her, but explained that she included them in the complaint because they had stood by and abused her while Sankara was striking her.3. The Magistrate made a note that there were marks of blows on the complainant's back.4. It will b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »