Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad253
1. The plaintiff sued to establish a right to erect a dam across a stream called Tampara to prevent its flowing into the Gummidi-gedda and so to divert it into the old channel marked F in the plan to plaintiff's lands in Chitrapadu. Defendant maintained that F was a new channel and that the custom was for the water to flow to Chitrapadu by the Gummidi-gedda to plaintiff's lands, and that plaintiff was not entitled to place a dam across the Tarn-para for the purpose mentioned.2. The first issue was as to the custom of erecting the dam at B in the plan. The second as to whether F was an old channel or one recently constructed.3. Both the Lower Courts found that plaintiff had established his right.4. In appeal it is contended that the documents relied on by plaintiff were inadmissible in evidence against the defendant and that, if admissible, their purport and that of the decision in suit 79 of 1868 had been misconstrued.5. To take the last point first, the meaning of the last paragraph o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad397
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is stated to have delivered certain paddy and dry grains out of Court in satisfaction of a decree against him; but the decree-holder failed to certify that satisfaction to the Court under Section 258, Civil Procedure Code, and four months afterwards she applied for and obtained execution, an application made by the plaintiff for an order compelling the decree-holder to certify being dismissed as too late. The plaintiff then brought the present suit to recover the paddy and grain which he had delivered in the first instance, and the question is, whether such a suit is maintainable.2. Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code imposes on a decree-holder, who has received payment in satisfaction out of Court, the duty of certifying such payment to the Court. The judgment-[398]debtor also may apply to the Court within fifteen days to have the payment certified. Then follows the provision, 'no such payment or adjustment shall be recognized by any Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad1
Barnes Peacock, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the plaintiff, and the respondent the defendant, in a suit, No. 13 of 1875, brought in the District Court of Tinnevelly. It appears that in an original suit, No. 8 of 1867, brought in the District Court of Tinnevelly, the late zamindar of Sivagiri, the father of the defendant, put in a razinama, dated the 20th January 18C8, whereby he acknowledged the sum of Rs. 55,872-12-0 to be due, and agreed that the amount should be paid on the 31st December 1872, together with interest at one per cent, per mensem, by the instalments mentioned therein, and he thereby hypothecated certain lands therein specified, being part of the zamindari, as a security for the payment of the principal and interest.2. On the 4th September 1868, a decree was passed in accordance with the razinama. The money not having been paid according to the stipulations, the property hypothecated was attached, in the lifetime of the late zamindar, for instalments Nos. 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1881)ILR5Mad291
1. These appeals are brought from the decrees of the District Court of Ganjam in Suits Nos. 4 and 5 of 1878 on the [292] file of that Court, and inasmuch as the matters in issue in both suits are the same, we shall dispose of the appeals in one judgment.2. It appears that Kurmesam, whose heirs the plaintiffs claim to be, had adopted as his son Ramayya.3. Ramayya died leaving a widow Lakshminarasamma, appellant in Regular Appeal No. 78, and it is admitted by the learned Counsel who appeared for the lady that he cannot resist the proof that Ramayya died in the lifetime of Kurmesam.4. Kurmesam died in July 1853 leaving a widow Jogamma, who died on April 19th, 1866.5. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 4 were respectively the grandsons and great grandson of the grandfather of Kurmesam, but Jaganatham has died since the institution of the suit and the surviving plaintiffs are the appellants in Regular Appeal No. 81 of 1879.6. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 5, who are the appellants in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad345
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff as adinakartar (Tarn. A proprietor) and panchayattar (Court of arbitration) of a certain temple at Kandiyur has brought this suit on behalf of the temple to eject the defendants from certain lands in the village of Karuvur belonging to the temple, and for arrears of melvaram (the proportion of crop claimed by Government), and swamibhogam (the proprietor's or landlord's right). It was alleged in the plaint that, about forty years before, the defendants' ancestors, Maruthai Pillai and others, had executed a muchalka in favour of Government (who were then managing the affairs of the temple) undertaking to pay annually to the temple 285-6 kalams of paddy and Rs. 724-11-8 in cash; and also procure the persons necessary to carry things at the processions on festival days. But the defendants had allowed the payments to fall into arrears, and had not supplied men for the processions as agreed. In these circumstances it was alleged that, according to the muchalka,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad43
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The objections to the ownership of Chandraprakasa having been abandoned, we have only to consider the objections taken to the status of the respondent as the widow of Chandraprakasa.2. The parties to the suit are Muppanars and are classed with Sudras. It appears that Ayyavu, the father of the respondent, had married the niece of Appavu alias Muthaya Muppanar. When he was thirty years of age and had had three daughters born to him, Appavu assumed to take him in adoption; but dissensions arose, and he brought a suit--Original Suit 272 of 1829--against Appavu for maintenance as an adopted son, and, although the fact and validity of the adoption were denied, he obtained a decree which was confirmed on appeal.3. Appavu subsequently married a second wife, Niladatchi Ammal, who is said to have been his mother's sister's daughter, and by her he had a son, Chandraprakasa, who was a minor of the age of four years when his father died in 1847...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad265
1. Notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why she should not furnish security for the costs of the appeal.2. She did not appear, and an order was made requiring her to furnish security on or before the 11th November.3. The order was not served on her, nor on her vakil, nor is it shown she had any notice of it until the 17th January, the date on which the appeal came on for hearing. An objection was then taken that inasmuch as the security had not been furnished within the time prescribed the appeal must be rejected.4. The Code empowers the Appellate Court to demand security and directs the Appellate Court to reject the appeal if the security is not furnished within the time the Court orders. v5. To justify the rejection of the appeal there must have been a demand on the part of the Court.6. The issue of a preliminary notice to show cause is not tantamount to a demand. It simply informs the appellant that the Court proposes to consider the propriety of demanding security from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad330
1. Plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of plaintiff's right to recover the amount due by one Manjirasa to plaintiff on a bond executed in his favour by that person on the 30th August 1878, on account of a loan to him by plaintiff of Rs. 1,500, which it was engaged should be repaid to plaintiff by two instalments, one on the 26th February 1879 and the other in August 1879, with interest. Manjirasa, according to plaintiff's case, pledged his ship Ahmed Buksh as security for repayment of the loan. He then went off with his ship to Karikal, where defendant had it seized for a debt due to him. It was sold and the proceeds were held by the French Court which had ordered the sale.2. Plaintiff made a claim upon the proceeds. The French Court on 11th December 1878 required plaintiff to produce, within 25th January 1879, copy of judgment of an English Court, acknowledging and sanctioning his claim against Manjirasa.3. It is stated, and seems to be conceded, that the sale of moveables in Frenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad169
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The bond of May 1874 is not expressed as binding on the family, and if it had been so expressed, it would not have affected with liability any but the persons who executed it. A manager has authority to make payments for the family; he has the same authority to acknowledge as he has to create debts, but he has no power to revive a claim barred by limitation, unless he is expressly authorized to do so; and on the 17th May 1874 the debt acknowledged in April 1870 had become barred.2. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad171
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. It would be productive of the greatest inconvenience (if it indeed were possible) to apply the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act of 1877 to applications made in the course of suits or proceedings, and, if the terms of the section can be otherwise satisfied, we are at liberty to construe them so as to avoid such inconvenience. There are numerous applications known to the law which would be correctly described as applications in respect of a property or right in the sense we have indicated--proceedings where a party seeks the aid of a Court to give him relief in respect of some property or right otherwise than by regular suit. Of these, the Acts regulating the rights of landlord and tenant in the North-Western Provinces and generally in Bengal afford instances. We arrive, then, at the conclusion that the provisions of the section were not intended to apply to applications in execution of decrees, and that we are not constrained to apply them to...
Tag this Judgment!