Chennai Court April 1882 Judgments
Kiyipattu Animangulatillatu Narayanan Nambudri and anr. Vs. Ayikotilla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad165
1. There were originally four Illams entitled to the management of the pagoda. The third and fourth defendants belonged to one of these Illams. They entered into a partition, and each enjoyed a moiety of the Urayama right belonging to their Illam. In another Illam which enjoyed what has been described as the second Urayama right, the right of a management was relin-quished by the father, first plaintiff, to his son, the second defendant. The first defendant, the head of the Illam which held the first Urayama right, the second defendant, the son of first plaintiff, and the fifth defendant, who had the fourth Urayama right, came to an agreement with the third and fourth defendants, who held conjointly the divided Urayama right, that the fourth defendant should relinquish his moiety to the third defendant, and that a fifth Urayama right should be created in favour of the fourth defendant in consideration of the payment of Rs. 600 by the third and fourth defendants for the benefit of the D...
Tag this Judgment!Mukkanni Vs. Manan Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad182
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit to redeem a kanam held by the first defendant. It was alleged that defendants 2-5 held under the first defendant. The property in suit originally belonged to Chungath Achan. In the year 1761 he mortgaged the land in suit to one Venkateswara Bhatta (exhibit III,). In 1784-85 Venkateswara Bhatta assigned it to one Kuppan Bhatta (exhibit IV). In 1839 Kuppan Bhatta's heir assigned the mortgage to Murukkan Nayar, and in this the mortgagee acknowledged Chungath Achan's right of redemption (exhibit V.) In 1847 there was another arrangement in favour of Venkateswara Bhatta (exhibit VI). The plaintiff averred that there was a renewal in 1863, and that the counterpart was destroyed by fire; but both the Lower Courts found that this averment was not proved. They further found that the plaintiff was the representative of Chungath house by Attalatakamor reversionary right. The assignment of 1784 contained no acknowledgment of the mortgagor's right of r...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Punamalai Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad199
1. The accused were convicted under Section 173, Indian Penal Code, for having refused to receive summonses issued to them by a Village Munsif, and each was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2, in and, default of payment, to simple imprisonment for five days. The referring officer submits that the act of the accused cannot amount to the offence of having intentionally prevented the service of summons, and cites the judgment of this Court in Revision Case No. 155 of 1881.12. Service is usually made by delivering to, and leaving with, the party the summons, though under Section 154,2 Criminal Procedure Code, tender is sufficient. We think that a refusal to receive a summons is not an offence under Section 173; the words 'any manner prevents the service' cannot apply when the summons is tendered and refused, as it is good service. We set aside the conviction, and the fines, if levied, must be refunded.1 The Queen v. Arumuga Nadan. The Judgment of the High Court (Innes and Kindersley, JJ.) was as...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Hari Bhanji and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad273
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The respondents having purchased a quantity of salt at Bombay and paid excise on it at the rate of Rupees 1-13-0 per maund, the rate leviable under the law there in force, despatched it by sea to certain ports in this Presidency. While the salt was in transit, Act XVIII of 1878 was passed and came into force. By that Act the import duty on salt was raised to Rupees 2-8-0 per maund; but in virtue of a notification issued by the Governor-General in Council under the authority of the Indian Tariff Act, 1875, importers were allowed a deduction of the excise already paid, and consequently they were chargeable only with the difference between the excise and the import duty.2. On the landing of the salt in this Presidency, the Collector required the respondents to pay the difference, 13 annas per maund, between the excise already paid and the import duty leviable under the Act of 1877, and the respondents, having complied with the Collector's requirements in ord...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.R.M. Muthaya Chetti Vs. R.M.A.R.A.R. Muthaya Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad334
1. The plaintiffs shipped goods on board the Helen Wallace for conveyance from Rangoon to Negapatam. Owing to stress of weather the ship sprang a leak, and the Captain found it necessary to put into Singapore that repairs might be effected.2. The Captain, being unable to raise money on a bottomry-bond, sold a portion of the cargo, the property of the plaintiffs, to raise funds to meet the cost of repairs. The repairs were effected with the funds so provided, and the ship continued her voyage.3. The ship was registered in the name of the second defendant, the agent of the first defendant; but the actual owners are the third defendant--who was also the Captain--and three other persons who are not before the Court, the first defendant being the mortgagee.4. The Court of first Instance held that the plaintiffs could not recover from the first defendant personally, but were entitled to a personal decree against the third defendant and to a maritime lien on the ship which would take priority...
Tag this Judgment!Ramapurath Pullankot Illath Cheria Krishnan Nambudri Vs. Ramapurath Pu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad198
Kernan and Kindersley, JJ.1. An otti mortgage is vested in the defendant. The interest of the jenmi subject to the mortgage was put up for sale by auction, and the plaintiff's vendor purchased it and sold it to plaintiff for 200 rupees.2. The plaintiff sues now to redeem.3. The defence of the defendant is that he is entitled to a right of preemption of the lands under mortgage. Plaintiff, however, says that as public notice of the intended sale of the jenmi's interest was given, and as the defendant might have come in and bid, no further option of pre-emption is necessary, and that as defendant neglected to buy, he must submit to be redeemed.4. Both the Courts acting on the established custom of the country have ruled against plaintiff. The right of pre-emption is well understood. The otti mortgagee must pay for pre-emption whatever sum is bona fide offered to the jenmi for the purchase, if he has the. offer made to him by the jenmi and is rightly informed of the circumstances in refer...
Tag this Judgment!Keshava Sanabhaga and anr. Vs. LakshmIn Abayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad192
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. ------------------------------------------------ | | | Babu Nayak Anantha Santi. | | | | Chudamma = Venkappa = Kaveri Ramachandra. | | (1st Deft.) | ----------------------------- | Subraya. | | | | Govinda. Devendra. Puttu. | | | | | ------- ------------ | Seshagiri, = Sridevi (died 1877). | | | | | Adopted son2nd 3rd 6th 4th Lakshmi- (died in Deft. Deft.Deft. Deft. narayana 1838), | (Plaintiff). 5th Deft.1. The pedigree of the respondents and of Seshagiri, whose estate is the subject of this suit, has been found to be, so far as it is material, as above set out.2. Venkappa, having no son by either of his wives, adopted Seshagiri, who died without issue in 1838, leaving a widow, Sridevi, who died in 1877.3. The eighth defendant is the son of Sridevi's sister and was under the protection of the seventh defendant; the ninth and tenth defendants are the brother and nephew of Sridevi.4. Before her death Sridevi executed a muktiarnama in which she declared she ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Nunja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad163
1. The plaint averred that the land in suit was obtained on patta practically without the knowledge and assent of the Collector and contrary to the orders of Government; and it was hinted that the pattas were obtained owing to the powerful influence of the late Maniakar of Todanad. What is meant by this suggestion is not clear.2. There is absolutely no proof that the pattas were procured by fraud, and there is nothing to show that the Commissioner was so careless in the discharge of his duties that he authorized the issue of the pattas without satisfying himself by inquiry that the lands were such as in his judgment could be disposed of by patta.3. Although this suit has been pending since 14th April 1880, the appellant's counsel is not even now in a position to say that there is anything more than surmise to support the averment that the late Commissioner acted without full knowledge of the nature of the land with which he was dealing.4. The learned Government Pleader is unable to poi...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Rau Vs. Virappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad162
Kindersley, J.1. In this case both of the Courts below have found that the defendant brought a criminal charge against the plaintiff with malice and without reasonable or probable cause. It has been argued that the District Munsif in awarding damages was wrong in taking into consideration the fees which the defendant paid to vakils employed in his defence, and we have been referred to Gajpathi Rau v. Narasing Rau 6. M.H.C.R. 89 as laying down the rule that in no case should the fees of counsel be taken into consideration in assessing the damages in such suits. But that decision does not really lay down any such general rule. In that case counsel had probably been brought at a large expense to Vizagapatam from Madras; the Lower Court had allowed as much as Rs. 50,000 by way of damages; and one of the Judges in reducing the damages remarked that the fees of counsel (which must have been very large) were not a proper element for consideration. There are several English cases which show th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chetti Vs. Ramasami Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad220
Kindersley, J.1. This suit has been brought upon a hundi drawn by the defendant on his firm at Colombo. In the Courts below the objection was taken that the hundi, which was never presented for payment, was not stamped until long after the date on which it was drawn. The Acting District Judge was of opinion that, as the hundi was payable at Colombo, which is not in British India, it did not require a stamp. He, therefore, admitted the hundi in evidence and based his judgment upon it.2. If the point were properly before us, we should be unable to concur in the opinion of the District Judge. Section 16 of the Stamp Act shows that all instruments chargeable with duty and executed in British India ought to be stamped, either before or at the time of their execution. But the document having been admitted in evidence by the District Judge, we are precluded by Section 34,1 Clause 3 of the Stamp Act from allowing it to be called in question now. The objection is not one affecting the merits of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »