The Ex-Rajah of Coorg Veer Rajundur Wadeer v The East India Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1860 |
| Date | 08 December 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 642
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 226; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 350; 3 L. T. 646; 9 W. R. 247. See Musgrave v. Pulido, 1879, 5 App. Cas. 113.
[300] the ex-eajah of coorg (veer rajundur wadeer) v. the east india company. Nov. 13, 14, Dec. 8, 1860. [S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 226; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 350; 3 L. T. 646; 9 W. R. 247. See Musg-rave v. Pulido, 1879, 5 App. Cas. 113.] The East India Company made war against an independent rajah, and having made him prisoner, annexed his territory and seised his property. Part of it consisted 2i BEAT. 801. EX-RAJAH OF COORG V. EAST INDIA COMPANY 643 of notes of the East India Company, which the Court considered belonged to him in his character of rajah, and not as his private property. A bill by the rajah against the East India Company to recover the notes and obtain payment waa dismissed. When the property of a captive prince is taken by a hostile sovereign power in war, no Court of Justice has jurisdiction over such a transaction. Difficulties arising from the double character of merchants and sovereign power filled by the East India Company. Right to relief when a foreign power takes prisoner a private individual, an enemy, and while so holding him, obtains possession of documents which establish his right to recover a debt due from another to him in his private capacity. This suit was filed in June 1854 by the Ex-Rajah of Coorg (since deceased) against the East India Company, praying a declaration of the Court that the Plaintiff was entitled to two promissory notes or securities of the East India Company, dated respectively the 1st of May 1833 and the 1st of February 1811, for sums of 203,900 rupees and 653,940 rupees, and to a large arrear of interest. It prayed that the Defendants might deliver the notes to the Plaintiff, and for an account and payment. The circumstances which gave rise to the claim, and formed the foundation of the defence to it, were as follows :- At the end of the last century, Coorg, which was originally an appendage to Mysore, became an inde-[301]-pendent State. It was governed by Rajah Veer, who possessed absolute power, but he rendered to the British Government, as the supreme ruling power in India, an acknowledgment of fidelity. In 1809 Rajah Veer died leaving no male issue, but a daughter, Princess Ammajee, whom he appointed as his successor. She succeeded to the throne, and being an infant of ten years, her uncle (afterwards Rajah Ling) administered the Government for her as her guardian, but he, in a very short time, seized upon the supreme power and became Rajah of Coorg. Rajah Ling died in 1821, and was succeeded by the Plaintiff, who continued absolute sovereign until 1834. For reasons which it is unnecessary to detail, the Government of India, in the year 1834, declared war against the Plaintiff and invaded his territories. The country was conquered and annexed and the Plaintiff was made prisoner. The Plaintiffs treasure and effects (but not comprising the two bills in question) were seized as spoils of war, and the produce (1,496,735 rupees) divided in moieties between the East India Company and the army engaged, as plunder and booty, under a warrant of King William the Fourth, dated the 6th of June 1835. The Plaintiff was retained by the East India Company as prisoner of war until 1850, when permission was given to him to visit England for a year, which he availed himself of, but at the expiration of that term he refused to return. Part of the Plaintiff's property, at the time he was made prisoner and deprived of his territory, consisted of the two Government notes in question, but which, [302] being then in the possession of his agents, could not be seized and divided as spoil. These notea were in the following form :- " The Governor-General in Council does hereby acknowledge to have received from the sum of Calcutta sicca rupees , as a loan to the Honorable the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, and does hereby...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Attorney General v Simpson
-
James Aspinall Tobin, who has Survived Thomas Tobin v The Queen
...as an act of state. On similar grounds proceeded the decision of the Master of the Bolls in The Rajah of Coorg v. The East India Company, 29 Beavan, 300. If, therefore, that which was done here was wrongfully done, the party aggrieved is not without remedy against the wrong-doer. 2. The nex......
-
Tobin and Another, Suppliants, v the Queen
... ... The Sailillerx' Company, '2'2 Law .!., Q. B. 451, which leaves it ... ...
-
Login v The Princess Victoria Gouramma of Coorg
...the 22 & 23 Viet. c. 63. This suit was instituted for the administration of the estate of Veer Eajundeer Wadeer, ex-Rajah of Coorg (see 29 Beav. 300), who died in England in September 1859. By the decree (18th February 1860), the usual accounts were directed, and an inquiry as to the rights......