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
Latest Privy Council judgments
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!Hicks Vs. Hicks
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal756
Wilson, J.1. I am satisfied that the practice does not require the decree to be served; and there will, therefore, be a decree absolute....
Tag this Judgment!Kirty Churn Mitter Vs. Aunath Nath Deb
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal757
Garth, C.J.1. I think the Taxing Master is quite right. If the plaintiff's suit had been to recover possession of, or establish his title to, the share which he claims in the property, he must have paid an ad valorem stamp-fee upon the value of that share. But, as I understand, he is already in possession of his share, and all that he wants is, to obtain a partition, which is merely, as explained by the learned Judges in the case of Rajendro Lall Gossami v. Shama Churn Lahoory 4 C.L.R. 418 to 'change the form of his enjoyment' of the property, or, in other words, to obtain a divided, instead of an undivided, share.2. It seems to me impossible to say what will be the value to the plaintiff of this change in the nature of his property, and I, therefore, think a stamp-fee of Rs. 10 is sufficient.3. The view of the Judges in the above case seems quite in accordance with this conclusion.4. It was quite right of course, for the purpose of jurisdiction, to be guided by the value of the proper...
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!Huri Ram and ors. Vs. Raj Coomar Opadhya
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal759
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that the District Judge is in error in holding that, as regards plot 13, the burden of proof lay upon the defendants, and not upon the plaintiff. He says, 'I think that the finding of the lower Court on this point might be defended, if the burden of proof lay upon the plaintiff to show that he was the real purchaser, but it lies upon the defendants to prove that he was not.' The plaintiff in this case sought to recover possession of this plot alleging that he was dispossessed. Therefore, as an ordinary case, the burden of proof lay upon the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case. There is no reason why any difference should be made in this case because the defendants say that the property was purchased benami by the plaintiff. Under Section 110 of the Evidence Act it is for the person who says that the party who is in possession of a disputed property is not the owner of it, to prove that he is not the owner of it. The section says--'when the question ...
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!Bissorup Gossamy and ors. Vs. Gorachand Gossamy and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal120
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue for possession of certain land, described as Mauza Bonkata, on a declaration of their title thereto. They allege that their ancestors obtained the entire Mauza Gossamipur and two drones of land transferred from the jami of Jugurnathpore; that these two drones were reclaimed and called Mauza Bonkata, and were let on mokurari lease to the father of the defendant Dinobundhu; that, on Dinobundhu's failure to pay rent, the land was resumed and let on patni to the 13th defendant Monmohini; that Monmohini sued the principal defendants for possession, and obtained a decree in the original Court, which was reversed in appeal and special appeal, 28th March 1867; that Mauza Bonkata never did appertain to Mauza Gossamipur, and never belonged to the defendants. In that suit the present plaintiffs were joined as defendants.2. The defendants contend, and the Courts below have held, that the suit is barred by Section 13 of Act X of 1877, inasmuch as the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- Next ›
- Last »