Chennai Court November 1882 Judgments
Venkatammal Vs. Andyappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad130
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the widow of Andiappa Chetti who, dying, was succeeded by his son Krishnasami Chetti, the father of the first defendant.2. Krishnasami Chetti, with the aid of such property as he had inherited from his father, had large transactions in connection with the Sivagunga zamindari, of which he was at one time a manager and at another time a lessee : he also carried on the business of a banker. Of the properties, which are the subject of this suit, seven are said to have been acquired by the plaintiff's husband, and six by Krishnasami Chetti. In the course of his business, Krishnasami Chetti mortgaged the whole of the properties in suit to the second defendant to secure a loan of Rs. 25,000 : he also mortgaged the property, No. 1 in the schedule to the plaint, to the third defendant to secure a loan Rs. 15,000, and he mortgaged all the properties in suit to the fourth defendant to secure a loan of Rs. 15,000. On these mor...
Tag this Judgment!Kanteti Venkayya Vs. Balabhadrapatruni Kotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad153
Innes and Kinrersley, JJ.1. Under the decisions of this Court the registered sale-deed of the 8th March 1871 in favour of plaintiff, which has been found to be genuine,, takes effect under Section 50 of the Registration Act of 1866 against the unregistered document of 1869 (upon which first defendant has obtained a decree) as regards the property comprised therein. Both documents were-optionally registrable, but first defendant, who elected not to register his document, did so at the risk of having his title under his mortgage defeated by a subsequently registered document.2. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the. Distinct Munsif with costs in this and the Lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Vengamuthu Vs. Pandaveswara Gurukal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad151
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The members of a sect are entitled, subject to the rules made by the duly constituted authorities of the sect, to take part in the public 'worship of the sect, and if any one of them is wrongfully prevented from so doing, he is entitled to seek from the Civil Courts such remedies as they can afford him. If the Judge finds that on an occasion when public worship was being carried on the appellant was entitled to take part in it, but was wrongfully prevented from so doing, she would be entitled to some relief. We must set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and direct a re-hearing of the appeal. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Sami Achari Vs. Somasundram Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad119
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The decree passed in 1866 must, in the events which have happened, be regarded as a declaratory decree in so far as it related to redemption. It declared the plaintiff entitled to redeem and to recover possession on making a certain payment. It did not declare the mortgagor would be foreclosed if he did not exercise his right of redemption. The mortgagor's right to redeem is not lost because he omitted to make the payment which was declared to be the condition of his recovering possession in the former proceedings.2. The appeal is dismissed, but we refuse the respondent his costs, and overrule his objection with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Valiappa Ravuthan Vs. Mahommed Khasim Marakayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad166
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant, the drawer of a hundi, to recover a balance due thereon. The defendant pleaded that the hundi was written on an insufficient stamp, and that to conceal the insufficiency of the stamp, the plaintiff had removed a slip of paper attached to the hundi, which contained the direction as to the time of payment and which the parties intended should form part of the instrument.2. The Court of First Instance found that the alteration alleged had been made, and that the hundi was insufficiently stamped, but held that the production of the hundi was unnecessary and that the plaintiff might, on independent evidence, recover the consideration, and gave the plaintiff a decree. The Judge affirmed the decree. On second appeal, the defendant contends the hundi was the only legal evidence of the obligation created by it, and that the plaintiff cannot recover on it as it is insufficiently stamped and has been altered in a...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Kamti Vs. Krishna Kamti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad159
Innes, J.1. It appears from the plaint and the issues that the suit is for the recovery of rent and mesne profits for Pramadi and Vikrama (April 1879' to end of March 1881) for recovery of the land forfeited by reason of non-payment of the rent since Iswara (1877) and for forfeiture by reason of alienation on 9th October 1877 in execution of the decree in Original Suit 169 of 1877. It appears, therefore, that the non-payment of rent giving rise to the forfeiture, which it is now desired to enforce, is a non-payment distinct from that which formed the cause of action in Original Suit 263 of 1877. Both the old Act VIII of 1859 in Section 71 and the new Act of 1877 in Section 43 require, though in somewhat different language, that the whole of the claim, arising out of the cause of action shall be included in a suit on pain of the plaintiff not being afterwards allowed to bring a fresh suit for the portion of the claim omitted. Had the arrear of rent, upon which the right to insist on for...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnayyar Vs. Venkayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad81
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. The Court to which the decree was sent was bound to certify the fact of such execution, or, where such Court fails to execute the decree, the circumstance attending such failure.2. Until that certificate has been received, it would ordinarily be the duty of the Court by which the decree was passed to abstain from issuing execution, for it might be assisting the decree-holder to recover a second time the amount of the decree. In moving the Court of Palmaner to transmit its certificate, we hold that the decree-holder applied to the proper Court to take a step in aid of execution.3. This appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Yella Chetti Vs. Munisami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad101
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. Section 257(a) applies only as between the parties to the suit-and decree.2. There seems to be nothing in that section to affect the legality of a guarantee such as that out of which plaintiff's suit arises, and in which he sues to recover from defendant a sum that in pursuance of the terms of that guarantee he has been made to pay on defendant's account.3. We set aside the decree of the District Court and restore that of the District Munsif, with costs of this and the Lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Municipality of Palamcottah Vs. Annasami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad100
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. The appellant, who was assessed by the Municipal Commissioners under Clause IV, Schedule B, of the Towns Improvement Act, III of 1871, on account of his profession as a private Vakil or Agent, neglected to pay the tax. He was prosecuted before the Bench Magistrates of Palamcottah and fined Rs. 3 and also ordered to pay the tax, Rs. 12, in addition.2. On appeal the Temporary Deputy Magistrate reversed the sentence on the ground that the term 'Pleader' is applicable only to one who is qualified under the rules framed by the High Court under Section 4 of Act XX of 1865, and who has obtained a sanad from the High Court or District Court, and not to a private practitioner.3. The District Magistrate submits that, for the reasons stated in his letter, the appellant is liable to pay the tax, and that the order passed by the Bench Magistrates should be restored.4. If a Vakil follows the business of Vakil for any of the public employing him, or for any class of the public...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Ayyar Vs. Venkatramayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad135
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. A suit (No. 57 of 1865 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Tranquebar) was brought against the first defendant by the widow of his deceased son for her maintenance, and in execution of the decree which she obtained against the first defendant, lands forming part of items 15 and 16 in the plaint were brought to sale and purchased by the fifth defendant. The case for the plaintiff against the fifth defendant was that he purchased benami for the first defendant, who, as the manager of the family, improperly furnished the fifth defendant with the purchase money out of joint family funds. The District Judge has dismissed the suit as against the fifth defendant on the ground that the suit was prohibited by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 317. The first part of that section which the District Judge relied upon enacted that 'no suit shall be maintained against the certified purchaser on the ground that the purchase was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›