Chennai Court March 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.
Elayachanidathil Kombi Achen and anr. Vs. Kenatumkora Lakshmi Amma and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad201
1. The first defendant is the Karnavan of the plaintiffs' tarwad and in Suit No. 1077 of 1877 suffered a money decree to be passed against him for money alleged to be borrowed for tarwad purposes. In execution of the decree property of the tarwad was put up to sale, a claim preferred by plaintiffs having been rejected.2. The plaintiffs then brought this suit to set aside the sales of the tarwad property.3. According to what we have always regarded as a most erroneous practice, the Courts below, in executing the decree, went into the question of what the decree meant beyond what it plainly said.4. The decree made the first defendant liable. The first defendant happens to be also the Karnavan of the plaintiffs' tarwad. The Courts, therefore, construed the decree as a decree against the tarwad, when, on the face of it, it was not so, and sold up the property of persons who were no parties to the decree. In the suit brought by these persons, they do not put their claim to recover expressly...
Lakshmanammal and anr. Vs. Tiruvengada Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad241
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Sabapathi Mudali, the last male owner of the property in dispute in this suit, died in 1846 without issue, but leaving a widow, a mother and three sisters. His widow died in 1861 and his mother in 1871, having successively enjoyed the property. After the death of the latter a dispute arose as to the succession between the respondent, a son of one of the sisters, and the appellants, the other sisters of the deceased. The appellants intermeddled with the property, and the respondent thereupon instituted this suit to vindicate his title and obtained a decree in the Court of First Instance. Although other objections were raised in the memorandum of appeal at the hearing, the argument was confined to the objection that the sister is a nearer heir than a. sister's son.2. In this Presidency, and in the north of India where the inheritance was governed by the law of the Mitakshara, English commentators and Judges for sometime refused to allow any right of success...
Gurusami Sastrial and ors. Vs. Ganapathia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad337
1. The appellant Gurusami obtained a decree in Original Suit 270 of 1875 in the Court of the District Munsif of Mayavarm for possession of a share in the village of Vaithinathan Pattavirthi, and, on the 2nd October 1876, he executed an agreement to sell the share to the respondent Ganapathia Pillai for the sum of Rs. 7,500. It was agreed that the sale should be com-pleted on the 30th December 1876, and that the seller should pledge a share held by him in the village of Ponnur to secure the purchaser from any loss he might sustain if a claim were made upon the property agreed to be sold, by the son of the seller then an infant aged 1l/2 years.2. On the same date the respondent paid Rs. 1,000 as a deposit and executed a counter-agreement binding himself to pay the balance of the purchase-money on the 30th December 1876, and, in the event of his failure to complete the purchase, to pay Rs. 1,000 in addition to the deposit money.3. On the 30th December 1876 the respondent tendered to Gurus...
Karnataka Hanumantha Vs. Andukuri Hanumayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad232
Charles A. Turner. Kt., C.J.1. The 234th Section of the Code provides that the representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor may be made parties to proceedings in execution and declares that they shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which may come to their hands, &c.; The interest of the father in the ancestral property had not been attached in his lifetime and brought under the control of the Court for the satisfaction of the decree. It therefore passed, on his death, to his sons by survivorship and ceased to be his property.2. There is no difference in this respect between the right of a father and of any other coparcener--Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh L.R. 6 IndAp 88 and although it has been ruled that the interest of the sons in ancestral estate are liable to satisfy a father's debt, this liability does not attach to the property in their hands in their representative character: Zamindar of Sivagiri v. Alwar Ayyangar I.L.R. 3 Mad. 42.3. To enf...
Kondayya Vs. Guruvappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad139
Innes, J.1. Plaintiff was in possession from 1872 to 1880 under an optionally registerable, but unregistered, conveyance from first and second defendants. In 1879 they conveyed to third defendant. His conveyance was registered. He then dispossessed the plaintiff.2. The case Tirumala v. Lakshmi I.L.R. 2 Mad. 147 and a case in which judgment was delivered by the Chief Justice and myself on the 17th ultimo [Nallappa Goundan v. Ibram Sahib I.L.R. 5 Mad. 73 are decisive on the question involved in this case.3. In the latter case we referred to Fuzludeen Khan v. Fakir Mahomed Khan I.L.R. 5 Cal. 336 in which it was held that the first sale was, according to the intention of the Legislature, subject to the risk of the title of the vendee being displaced by a subsequent innocent purchaser without notice whose conveyance was duly registered, and we only dissented from the view taken that notice in the subsequent purchaser would affect the question of the ineffectiveness of a prior unregistered d...
Kunhi Mannan Vs. Seshagiri Bhakthan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad141
Innes, J.1. It appears to me that we ought to uphold the order made and dismiss this appeal. The application to the Court to obtain a copy of a diary order, certifying that a copy of the Revenue Register of the properties against which the decree-holder desired to execute his decree was necessary to enable him to do so was, I think, an application to the Court to take some step in aid of the execution of the decree. He required the copy of the register, because without it he could not execute the decree. He required that the Court should certify that such a copy was necessary, because, without such certificate from a Court, Revenue officers, as a matter of fact, refuse, though they ought not to refuse, to give copies of documents.2. The only question seems to be whether such an application can be said to be made in accordance with law to the proper Court. It is possible that, by incessant applications to the Revenue authorities, the decree-holder might have obtained a copy of the regis...
Srinivasa Nayudu Vs. Yelaya Nayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad251
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. On the issue sent down, the finding must be taken to be that there is nothing to show whether the decree was executed as to the personal remedy or as to the remedy against the mortgaged property. The view of the District Judge is most probably correct, that the sale was ordered and carried out in execution of so much of the decree as was personal and in execution of the order for the enforcement of the mortgage.2. What the Full Bench judgments of the majority of the Judges decided was that in cases similar to that now before the Court the rule laid down in Girdharee Lall v. Kantoo Lall and Girdharee Lall v. Muddan Thakoor 14 B.L.R. 187 : L.R. 1 IndAp 321 ought to be followed in this as in other Presidencies. We think we ought to follow the rule, therefore, without addition of the dicta to be found in pages 69 and 70 of the Report in I.L.R. 4 Madras Series.3. As the debt was not immorally or illegally contracted, we reverse the decrees of the Courts belo...
Kommireddi Varaha Narasimham Vs. Chevala Ramasami Nayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad136
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The argument of the plaintiff in this reference proceeds on the assumption that a patta is necessarily a lease or contains a lease. A patta is not necessarily more than a definite statement, for the protection of both landlord and tenant, of the charges to be paid by the tenant for a particular year or term of years.2. The mere circumstance, therefore, that the parties have arranged without a writing that the one should occupy and the other pay rent is not sufficient to raise the inference that they dispensed with the provision of the law that patta and muchalka should be exchanged.3. The agreement to dispense with patta and muchalka need not be express, but it must appear, as observed by the Subordinate Judge, that the provision of the law was present to the minds of the contracting parties and that they deliberately elected not to act upon it....
The Queen Vs. Sakiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad137
1. The Second-class Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 22, Madras Act III of 1864, and imposed a fine of Rs. 7, but omitted to pass an order under Section 26B for the award in equal shares to the appre-hender and the informer of the fine levied, and of the articles confiscated by the Collector under Section 17, to wit, two asses, a pack-saddle, and four bags by, on, and in which the illicit conveyance of liquor was effected.2. The District Magistrate submits that the omission to pass an order under Section 26B is illegal, and further asks whether the value of the articles confiscated by him as Collector under Section 17 is subject to the order of the Magistrate, in whose Court the conviction was obtained, for distribution under Section 26B.3. As the District Magistrate submits, an order must be made by the Subordinate Magistrate under Section 26B* of the Abkari Act.4. With regard to the question on which the District Magistrate expresses a doubt, we observe that Section 23A...
Sadagopayyangar Vs. Dorasami Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad214
Innes, J.1. This case is similar to that of Second Appeal 102 of 1880, which was referred by Mr. Justice Muttusami Ayyar and myself for the decision of the Full Bench with reference to the conflicting rulings of this Court and the High Court of Bombay with those of the High Court of Allahabad upon the question of the registration value of instruments which, while reciting a consideration within 100 rupees, may eventually operate to charge the property with a larger sum.2. The case was heard by a Bench of three Judges of whom the present Chief Justice was one.3. The question referred was not, however, considered, as the Court was of opinion 'that the terms ' I bind myself to pay within the 4th May 1876 Rs. 92 with interest at the rate of 9 pies per pagoda per mensem' left it open to the mortgagor to discharge the incumbrance at any time he thought fit before the day named. The deed did not therefore necessarily create an interest in land of the value of 100 rupees.'4. This view, if appl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›