Chennai Court February 1882 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Muttammal Vs. Vengalakshmiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad32
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. This Court, in Kumaravelu v. Virana Goundan Ante p. 29 assigned reasons for holding that a stepmother cannot claim the position of a mother in succession to a son.2. We are not prepared to dissent from that conclusion. If, then, the stepmother can, under any circumstances, succeed--and possibly she may do so as a bandhu--she is not entitled to do so in priority to the paternal grandmother whose place in the line of heirs is distinctly declared.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Ratnasubbu Chetti Vs. Ponnappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad70
1. The respondent sued to recover a house from the appellant. The appellant relied on a usufructuary mortgage in support of his possession, but failed to establish it. The house in question belonged to one Subbaraya Chetti, who is now dead, and the appellant pleaded that the respondent, who is the grandson of the maternal uncle of Subbaraya Chetti's mother, was not his heir, and that one Ammani Murugappa, who went abroad about six years ago, was his undivided paternal uncle's son and as such his heir-at-law. Both the Lower Courts held that it was not proved at all that Murugappa was alive, and the District Munsif further observed that the defendant's witnesses said that they did not know how Murugappa was related to Subbaraya, and that the relationship set up by the respondent was not proved.2. It is urged on second appeal that the Lower Courts are in error in holding that, as a bandhu, the respondent is Subbaraya's heir under the Mitakshara law.3. We have the authority of the Privy Co...
Malan Vs. the Queen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad11
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. The Sessions Judge, in answer to Proceedings of this Court, No. 36, dated 16th January 1882, reports that he did not fix a time as directed by Section 278, and that the prisoner was in jail.2. It is to meet such a case that the agent of the party is entitled to appear and that a day should be fixed.3. The Judge says that a general notice is posted in his Court stating that appeals will be heard for admission only on the first Court day next after presentation. This practice is not a compliance with the Act.4. There is no presumption that the lowest class of people who cannot read know of this practice. A time is by law required to be fixed in each case.5. The order passed is set aside. The Sessions Judge is directed to fix a time and to rehear the appeal....
Armugani Pillai Vs. Sabapathi Padiachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad12
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. We think the Judge has disposed of this case quite rightly. 'The sale by Court auction could not pass to the purchaser more than the right, title, and interest of the defendant, and the process of execution, which placed the purchaser in possession of a larger amount of the property than was due to the defendant, gave a right of action to the plaintiff against the purchaser. The question of whether the debt was a debt binding on the family, and one for which, therefore, if the previous suit had been properly framed for the purpose, the plaintiff, the brother of the debtor, might likewise have been made liable, could not be entered upon in the present suit, in which the question is whether the defendant has not been, by an error in procedure in execution, placed in possession of property to which the sale proclamation and sale certificate could give him no title.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Ananda Raman Vathiar Vs. Paliyil Vittil Nanu Nayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1882
Reported in: (1884)ILR5Mad9
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. The issue in the former suit was whether the whole of the lands were held under the letting alleged in the plaint. The letting was a letting to the first defendant in the former suit, and the other defendants were sued as sub-tenants under him.2. It was held, as regards some of the land in the possession of the third defendant in that suit who is the second defendant in this, that the paramba--the object of the present suit--was not held under the letting alleged in the plaint, and the suit was dismissed in regard to this property.3. The present second defendant had in that suit set up the present first defendant as the jenmi and the person under whom he held, but no issue was raised on that question, and the Court of First Instance expressly declined to discuss it. All that was decided was that the present second defendant did not hold the property now in dispute under the first defendant in that suit who was alleged to be the lessee of the plaintiff.4. In the ...
Vasudeva Bhatlu Vs. Narasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad6
1. We requested the District Judge to find whether the sale was complete, and what was the consideration for it.2. He has found that the consideration was a valuable consideration, and that the sale was not complete only by reason of possession not having been delivered.3. We have already decided that, under the law current in Madras, possession was not necessary to complete a sale. The cases upon this point will be found noticed in Mr. Mayne's work on Hindu Law and Usage, paragraphs 330-334.4. The provisions of the Evidence Act, Section 92, to which the District Judge refers, do not prohibit the disproof of a recital in a contract as to the consideration that has passed by showing that the actual consideration was something different to that alleged.5. As the sale was complete, the plaintiff had a right to recover the lands, and we must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs....
Hari Vydianathayyan Vs. Minakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad5
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The decree was a personal decree against the respondent's father for the payment of a certain sum of money. His widow was substituted as his representative after her husband, and sale of her right, title, and interest conveyed to the purchaser the interest which she, as representative, could convey for the payment of the debt of her husband. The decisions in The General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh 14 M. I.A. 605 and Ishan Chunder Mitter v. Buksh Ali Soudagar Marshall Rep. 614, though not passed under precisely similar circumstances, support the conclusion.2. The appeal is decreed, the decree of the Lower Appellate Court in respect of items 1-20 reversed, and the claim in respect of those items dismissed. The appellant, whose interest extends to these items only, will recover from the respondent costs on their value in all Courts....
Madhava Panikar Vs. Govinda Panikar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad4
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. Oridinarily a certificate would be issued to the Karnavan, but as the Karnavan is a debtor to the tarwad under circumstances which justify the tarwad in withholding their confidence from him, we do not consider the discretion of the District Court has been improperly exercised in this case.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›