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
M.R.R.M. Muthaya Chetti Vs. R.M.A.R.A.R. Muthaya Chetti and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad334
1. The plaintiffs shipped goods on board the Helen Wallace for conveyance from Rangoon to Negapatam. Owing to stress of weather the ship sprang a leak, and the Captain found it necessary to put into Singapore that repairs might be effected.2. The Captain, being unable to raise money on a bottomry-bond, sold a portion of the cargo, the property of the plaintiffs, to raise funds to meet the cost of repairs. The repairs were effected with the funds so provided, and the ship continued her voyage.3. The ship was registered in the name of the second defendant, the agent of the first defendant; but the actual owners are the third defendant--who was also the Captain--and three other persons who are not before the Court, the first defendant being the mortgagee.4. The Court of first Instance held that the plaintiffs could not recover from the first defendant personally, but were entitled to a personal decree against the third defendant and to a maritime lien on the ship which would take priority...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Somayazulu Vs. Kannam Dhora
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad184
1. Yeswara Ramana, the then owner of the land in suit, mortgaged it with other plots to Puttu Gangana on the 30th March 1863, and on the 8th July 1865 he again mortgaged it by registered deed to the respondent, who, in 'pursuance of the terms of the contract, immediately entered into, and has since continued in possession. On the 30th November 1865 the respondent advanced a further sum of Rs. 99 on the same security. In 1868 Original Suit 26 of 1868 was brought on the first mortgage and a decree obtained, which directed the sale of the property mortgaged. The respondent was not made a party to that suit, but, when the land occupied by him as mortgagee was attached, he preferred an objection, which was disallowed without inquiry.2. At the sale held on the 12th April 1871, in pursuance of the decree, Paradesi Pillai became the purchaser of the land in suit, and formally received possession, but the actual possession of the respondent was not disturbed.3. On the 12th November 1878 the app...
Tag this Judgment!Keshava Tharagan Vs. Rudran Nambudri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad259
1. The facts of this case, so far as they have been ascertained, are as follows : Damodaram Numbudri, the last male owner of the Thiruthil Illam, having no sons, gave his daughter Nangeli in marriage to the second defendant, Shangaran Nambudri, whom he accepted as a Sarvaswadanam son-in-law.2. [The ordinary incidents to this Sarvaswadanam custom have not as yet been ascertained after any complete inquiry. The Judge refers to two of his own decisions, of which the latter follows the earlier, and the earlier proceeds, not so much on evidence, as on the hypothesis that the custom is a survival of the obsolete practice of constituting as heir the son of an appointed daughter. These rulings cannot then be safely accepted as conclusive. It is agreed that the effect of the custom is to introduce the son into the Mam, to confer on him the status of a son in respect of the property of the Illam, coupled with the obligation of managing, or assisting in the management, of the estate and of suppor...
Tag this Judgment!Parthasaradi Ayyangar and ors. Vs. Chinnakrishna Ayyanger and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad304
1. In the village of Mathura Mangalam there is a Vaishnava temple erected in honour of a devotee, Embar. The appellants are members of the Tenkalai sect interested in maintaining the worship at this temple and in defending the privileges of the temple.2. The respondents are members of the Vadakalai sect, who have erected a Vaishnava temple on a private site in the Sanadi (temple) street in honour of a devotee, Vedhanta Desikar, which has been lately thrown open for regular-public worship.3. It appears that in 1849 the Vadakalais endeavoured to open a temple for public worship according to the tenets of their sect on a site in the Sanadi street adjoining that which they now occupy.4. The Tenkalais thereupon instituted a suit--Original Suit 13 of 1850--in the Court of the Sadr Arain, praying that the Vadakalais might be compelled to remove their idols and prohibited from celebrating festivals and erecting any temple in the village for the worship of their idols. The Vadakalais, in their ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasami Tatacharyar and ors. Vs. Krishnamacharyar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad313
1. In the ceremonial worship conducted at Chinna Conjeeveram there is pronounced the Thodakam or invitation to prayer given by uttering the word Sathitarula. This is followed by the Mantram or address to a spiritual teacher and Sevakalam or chant of some verses of a Tamil hymn, Prabhandam.2. The Brahman who pronounces the Thodakam is known as the Thodakagar. His office is regarded as one of considerable dignity, and entitles him to certain honours and emoluments. He receives a rice cake known as Arulapadu and a garland and cloth, and is provided with a gold crown. He also partakes of the emoluments of the Brahmans who proclaim the Mantram and chant the Sevakalam. It is admitted that the office and emoluments of these assistants are known as the Adhiapaka Miras.3. The plaintiffs, who are Vaishnavite Brahmans of the Tenkalai sect, claim for the members of their caste and sect the Adhiapaka Miras in the pagoda of Sri Devarajaswami and seventeen other Vjagodas, and they assert that the Tho...
Tag this Judgment!Kolandai Mudali and ors. Vs. Sankara Bharadhi and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad302
1. Appellants brought this suit to recover 2-15-0 kanis of Inam land together with Rs. 75 for loss of produce for the year Iswara (1878-79). They alleged that the first and second respondents had granted to them a lease on the 27th April 1879 for a term of nine years, and that the third to sixth respondents, who had previously been in possession, refused to surrender the land and enjoyed the produce in the year Iswara, which, it was stated, amounted to 30 kalams. The seventh respondent was exonerated from all responsibility, and the first and second respondents, who are the Inamdars, admitted the lease and the appellants' claim. The other respondents contended that they were in possession under one Muniyappa Udayan who had reclaimed the land, and that the appellants' lessors were entitled only to a tirva of Rs. 8 per annum. The District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the 'Pensions Act barred its institution in the Civil Courts. In the title-deed granted to the first and se...
Tag this Judgment!Ali MoidIn Ravuthan and ors. Vs. Elayachanidathil Kombi Achen and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad239
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The contest in this second appeal has reference to items of land 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, in which alone appellants (defendants 4 to 7) are interested. The respondents (plaintiffs) alleged that those items had been demised on kanam in December 1856 to one Avulkadar Ravuthan, the brother of the second defendant and of the husband of the third defendant, under whom appellants claim by right of purchase. In Suit 19 of 1870 on the file of the District Munsif of Palghat, respondents' Karnavan sued appellants' vendors and others to redeem the same kanam, but that suit was dismissed on the ground that the equity of redemption as to all the lands which were then and are now sought to be recovered had been sold to one Anantakrishna Bhatta in execution of the decree in Suit No. 67 of 1869 on the file of the Principal Sadar Amin of Calicut. It appears that appellants' vendors then pleaded that the right of redemption as to all the lands had passed to Anantakrishna Bhatta and that t...
Tag this Judgment!Viraraghava Ayyangar Vs. Venkatacharyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad217
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In order to put a limit to litigation and to prevent one suit growing out of another the Legislature has enacted that all questions between the parties to the suit in which a decree is passed and relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by order of the Court executing the decree and not by separate suit. The plaintiff, a judgment-debtor in Original Suit No. 88 of 1872, brought the suit now before the Court on appeal, against the defendant, the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 104 of 1876, who had purchased certain land in execution of the decree, to have it declared that the sale is void, the decree-holder having in fraud procured the sale to be made without due advertisement. It is admitted that between a party to the suit and a stranger the provisions of Section 312 would not debar the person aggrieved from instituting a suit if he could establish that a material error in the publication or conduct of the...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Pukkella Krishnama and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad230
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Innes, J.1. The complaint disclosed offences with which, it they were not serious, the Village Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal, viz., hurt followed by theft. It was not averred that the hurt and theft were so combined as to constitute the offence of theft robbery. Until the Magistrate had inquired into the case he could not have determined whether the offences were or were not petty, and for the reason that the complainant had elected the tribunal, it might be assumed, until the contrary was proved, the offences were not serious.2. The conviction for disobedience to the summons cannot be set aside on the ground suggested. It is a more difficult question whether a Village Magistrate has power to issue a summons. The Regulation conferring on the Village Munsif jurisdiction in criminal cases does not give him expressly power to issue summonses. 'We have, however, no doubt that he has authority incidental to his jurisdiction to issue a summons, whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnaya Nayudu Vs. Gurunatham Chetti
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad169
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The bond of May 1874 is not expressed as binding on the family, and if it had been so expressed, it would not have affected with liability any but the persons who executed it. A manager has authority to make payments for the family; he has the same authority to acknowledge as he has to create debts, but he has no power to revive a claim barred by limitation, unless he is expressly authorized to do so; and on the 17th May 1874 the debt acknowledged in April 1870 had become barred.2. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »