Chennai Court December 1882 Judgments
Lingammal and ors. Vs. Chinna Venkatammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad239
Innes, J.1. It appears to us that the suit is bad for misjoinder.2. The first plaintiff' claims as one of the widows of Maria Gurusami and the second plaintiff as having been validly adopted by the first plaintiff after Mana Gurusarni's death. The claim of the first plaintiff assumes that there is no adoption; the claim of the second plaintiff assumes that first plaintiff has no right, because there was an adoption.3. Section 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits of the joinder in the same suit of several causes of action in which several plaintiffs are jointly interested against the same defendant. These plaintiffs are jointly interested against the same defendant in the sense that it is the object of both plaintiffs to show a title in one or other of them to the whole or a portion of the estate in competition with the defendant; but this is not enough; they must each be jointly interested with the other in the several causes of action not necessarily equally interested, but joint...
Tag this Judgment!Appavu Nayak and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR6Mad245
Innes, J.1. In this case the property on which the alleged offence was committed belonged to two widows, who being issueless, had brought up fifth and sixth defendants as their sons. These persons had the management of the property. A disagreement arising between them and the widows, the latter made over the property to the Manager of the Vishnu Pagoda at Tirukoilur by a mortgage-deed under which he was authorized to take possession of the property. This person leased the property to defendants 1 to 3 on a cowle. These, with fourth defendant and others not charged, made forcible entry into the land and have been convicted of rioting and sentenced to a moderate term of imprisonment, which, in appeal, was made still lighter. Defendants 5 to 14 were discharged as having only defended their possession.2. Mr. Norton contends that fifth and sixth defendants cannot be regarded as having been in possession on behalf of the widows as their managers; that the rightful possession was with the les...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Short and ors. Vs. Jane Pickering
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad138
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. There is no provision in the Procedure Code authorizing the Court to allow a lien for wages on the assets of a judgment-debtor,2. We are, therefore, reluctantly compelled to vary the order of Judicial Commissioner as regards Rs. 317-9-1, wages due before the appointment of the receiver; but, in other respects, we shall, affirm it.3. The receiver at first accepted the., services of the respondent and did not vary the terms of her engagement. She is entitled to receive in 'full put of the estate the wages earned by her and the bonus to which she became entitled by reason of her summary dismissal. She is also entitled to be paid the sums expended by her in carrying on the-business under the receiver.' '.'''4. The order will be varied accordingly, and each party will pay his and her costs of this application....
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramanayya Vs. Srinivasa Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad182
1. On the finding of the Subordinate Judge, the case stands thus: The lease was a Chalgaini lease, that is, a lease for a year, which, after continuance beyond the term of the year, becomes a lease from year to year. Notice is necessary before a tenant so holding can have his tenancy determined.2. It is now found that due notice was given.3. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that a deposition given by defendant in 1876 in which he admitted his liability to rent in arrears operated to extend the period of limitation, and awarded rent from the year 1874, but the section of the Limitation Act applicable (Section 19) requires that the acknowledgment should be an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the right claimed. The acknowledgment made by the deposition is a liability in respect of a different right to that claimed, viz., a liability to pay rent as a Mulgaini tenant.4. We can only allow rent within three years prior to the date of the suit.5. The plaintiff is liable to pay for...
Tag this Judgment!Muttaya Chetti and ors. Vs. Sivaraman Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad229
Innes, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit ask for a declaration of their exclusive right to the repair of a tank known by the name of the Kalkattu uruni in the village of Karakudi at their exclusive cost, and that the defendants be restrained by perpetual injunction from entering into the uruni for the purpose of conducting repairs; that the plaintiff's possession of the uruni for the purpose of carrying on repairs in their own right be confirmed; and that the defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs Rs. 350 to restore the uruni to its former condition.2. Plaintiff's set out in their plaint that their ancestors originally dug and constructed this tank with the consent of Miras Ambala-gars (headmen) of the village, and that, therefore, he and his descendants became hereditary Hakdars (or rightful owners) of the said uruni, and that they (including the plaintiffs) have ever since maintained the uruni charity by constructing stone walls round it and by digging supply and surplus channels, bu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›