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
Srinivasa Bhatta and ors. Vs. Malayacha Mannadi and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad211
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The balance of the purchase money was brought to the Court on the fourteenth day after the sale. A chalan was obtained and the money and the chalan taken to the treasury, but the treasury officer refused to receive it as ha had closed his accounts for the day. The fifteenth and sixteenth were holidays at the treasury. On the seventeenth the money was received. The treasury becomes, for the purposes of payment under the rules of the High Court, dated 21st June 1882, part of the establishment of the Court.2. Under the circumstances the payment was in time. The Calcutta Court appears to have arrived at the same conclusion: Gujadhur Pauree v. Naik Pauree I.L.R. 8 Cal. 528.3. We set aside the Munsif's order and confirm the sale....
Tag this Judgment!Raman Vs. Vairavan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad392
Kernan and Hutchins, JJ.1. This is a suit between two Nattukottai Chetti families. Both were trading in 1879 at Colombo through agents, and the plaintiff seeks to, recover the amount due by the defendants on the account of dealings between them at Colombo.2. In May 1879, a balance was found due by the defendants, and in part payment thereof, their agent granted a hundi on Penang for 2,500 dollars. Only 500 dollars were paid, but on the 20th September 1879, the present appellant, second defendant, wrote (D) to his agent at Penang admitting his liability and directing payment to be made.3. Early in 1880, the plaintiff's agent sued the defendants' agent at Colombo, but the suit was dismissed on the ground that the defendants, and not their agent, were liable. The record of this suit has not been filed, but only the plaintiff's agent's replication (IV), in which he denied that the money was lent to defendants' firm V.E.M.V. and that the (then) defendant endorsed the same as agent of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Yendava Chandramma
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad189
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The accused complained to the Senior Assistant Magistrate of Vizagapatam, on the 10th June last, that a woman and her paramour had killed her newly-born child and secretly disposed of the body. The Magistrate referred the complaint to an Inspector of Police for inquiry and report. On the 25th June the Police Inspector reported, after inquiry, that the complaint was false and malicious. On the 21st July, the Senior Assistant Magistrate examined the accused, and she then stated that her complaint was true and bona fide, that two witnesses saw the child killed, that the Magistrate might cause the woman to be examined by a midwife, and that the paramour was the son of a rich man who prevented the villagers from speaking the truth. Thereupon, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without further inquiry and upon consideration of the result of the police investigation. He also made an order sanctioning the prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!Thiagaraja and ors. and Subramanya and ors. Vs. Gnanasambantha
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad374
Kernan, J.1. The principal question is, are the defendants, appellants (tenants of the village of Santhaputhur), entitled to a right of permanent occupancy?2. The ancestors of the defendants, and after them the defendants, have been in possession as cultivating raiyats since, at all events, 1827. See pymaish account, 18th May 1827.3. In January 1830 a muchalka (exhibit A)was executed by the tenants of the village (ancestors of the defendants), agreeing to cultivate the lands and to pay the rents as therein reserved to the Collector on behalf of the temple.4. In that muchalka no term is fixed for tenure, and the persons signing the muchalka are therein called purakudis.5. Prima facie 'purakudis' are cultivators without occupancy rights. See the description given in Krishnasami v. Varadaraja I.L.R. 5 Mad. 345.6. By muchalka A the parties signing agree to cultivate the wet and dry lands from Fasli 1830 as per pymaish Fasli 1826. The lands and the rates are specified and the period of paym...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Khan Vs. Appadu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad304
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff first sued the defendant, his tenant, on the small cause side of the Subordinate Court to recover rent for the year Vrishu (1881-82) upon a kadapa, or counterpart, alleged to have been executed by the tenant. The Subordinate Judge, believing that the kadapa was a forgery, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then proceeded under the Rent Recovery Act, but failed. He has now brought this suit against the same tenant for use and occupation of his land, and to recover the costs of his previous abortive litigation. Of course, the plaintiff could not recover the costs of his previous litigation. The question reserved was, whether, having failed in his suit on the kadapa, the plaintiff could bring this fresh suit for use and occupation. An action for use and occupation is always founded on some contract or promise, express or implied. The defendant must have held or occupied the permises as tenant thereof to the plaintiff, or by his permission or sufferance (Woodf...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayasami Vs. Periasami
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1885)ILR7Mad242
1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by the appellant to recover the zamindari of Sivaganga. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation, that there were nearer heirs in existence, and that the right of succession, if any, which vested in the descendants of the istimrar zamindar, by his alleged first wife, Manikkathal, had become extinct from lapse of time. This zamindari, which is an impartible estate, was acquired, as observed by the Privy Council in Kattama Nachiyar v. The Raja of Sivaganga 9 M.I.A. 543 by the istimrar zamindar, Gouri Vallaba Tevar. He died in 1829, and the representatives of his elder brother, Oya Tevar, then took possession of the estate. Litigation arose between them and the istimrar zamindar's widow, and it was continued by Gouri Vallaba Tevar's daughter, Kattama Nachiyar, whose claim was eventually decreed by the Privy Council in 1863. She was placed thereupon in possession and continued to enjoy the estate until 1...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami Ayyangar Vs. Narasimhulu Nayak and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad213
1. This was a case of mischief. The Second-class Magistrate, Trichinopoly Town, who tried it, appears to have held that there was a prima facie case against the accused and adjourned the trial to the 28th August to enable them to adduce evidence. The case was called on that day, and, as the complainant was not present, the Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,2. The complainant appealed to the District Magistrate (H. Sewell) and referred to the proceedings of the High Court, 5th November 1874 (Weir's Criminal Rulings, 283). Finding that the complainant had put in an appearance with his Vakil very shortly after the dismissal of the case, the District Magistrate reversed the order of his subordinate and directed a rehearing.3. In explanation of his procedure the District Magistrate now submits that 'under Section 423 (a) any Appellate Court can set aside an order of acquittal, that section not being restricted to cases coming under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chetti Vs. Angappa Chetti and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad220
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We are not prepared to hold that the construction placed on the Act by Mr. Forster Webster is incorrect. The term 'property' without qualification applies to property of all kinds.2. The District Court will be informed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Gandavathara Ayyangar Vs. Devanayaga Mudali and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad222
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The Act does not require that the person appointed by the committee to be dharmakarta should be of a particular sect. The Legislature having provided this qualification in the case of membership of the committee, may have presumed that the committee would appoint only persons of the sects to which they themselves belonged. The Act did not contemplate the formation of one committee to supervise the religious institutions of different sects, but allows the appointment of several committees. It may be desirable that in each case the dharmakarta should be of the sect to which the temple appertains, but we are hardly prepared to say it amounts to a breach of trust or misfeasance on the part of the committee that they have not insisted on this qualification in making the appointment.2. We cannot hold the Judge was bound to accord the sanction prayed, or that he has improperly refused it.3. The application is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Pitchayya Vs. Narasayya and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad246
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This is not a claim to have a partnership wound up, nor is it a suit praying the Court to order payment of debts and to distribute the surplus profits of a partnership. It is a suit to require the defendant to account for and pay over a portion of the sum realised on a joint speculation, or to provide for the plaintiff's share out of another portion of the fund which has been realised under the joint order of the parties.2. The Court of First Instance had, in our judgment, jurisdiction.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- Next ›
- Last »