Chennai Court July 1882 Judgments
Thangathanni Vs. Ramu Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad358
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of remand made by the District Court of South Tanjore on the 25th August 1880. The suit, which was remanded, had been instituted in the Subordinate Court of that district by a minor, Ramu Mudali, through his next friend and natural father Sundra Mudali. His case was that one Ayyatorai Mudali, whose property he claimed by right of adoption, had died without male issue, leaving him surviving two widows, Thangathanni, the defendant, appellant in this Court, and another since deceased; that some days prior to his death Ayyatorai had authorised his wives to make an adoption for him; and that, after his death, the appellant and her co-widow adopted him, the respondent, according to Hindu Law and usage. The defendant (appellant) denied the adoption as well as her power toad opt. Issues were framed as to the factum of adoption and as to the authority to adopt; but it appeared at the trial from the witnesses exam...
Tag this Judgment!Chembrakandi Musutti Vs. themdyal Puthalath Shekharan Nayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR6Mad41
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In Suit No. 1157 of 1876 second respondent obtained a money decree against petitioner. On the 17th February 1879 it is alleged first respondent promised to get second respondent to certify satisfaction to the Court that passed the decree, received Rs. 100 from petitioner, and paid it over to the judgment-creditor. Second respondent, however, afterwards executed the decree without certifying the payment, and again collected the amount due under it. Petitioner then sued both the respondents and claimed to recover back, with interest at 12 per cent., the first payment which he had made. The Small Cause Judge of North Malabar dismissed the suit with costs as against both respondents on the ground that no suit could be maintained to recover back money paid in satisfaction of a decree. Petitioner applies for our interference under Section 6221 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and contends that he was entitled to a decree against both responden...
Tag this Judgment!Tadigotla Timmappa Vs. Lakshmamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad385
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. We think that appellant is not entitled to insist upon respondent's accepting a proportionate share of the debt due to him. He is at liberty to claim that his mortgage security shall not be divided against his will.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kondi Munisami Chetti and anr. Vs. Dakshanamurthi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad371
Kernan, J.1. Plaintiff bought the saleable interest of Vaira Pillai in the lands in question at an auction sale held on the 23rd of October 1878 under the powers contained in Act VIII of 1865 for arrears of rent due to the landholder, the mittadar.2. Previous to that sale Suit No. 60 of 1878 had been instituted by defendant's father, Kuppaya Chetti, against Nagamuthu Pillai and others, praying to have the same lands sold to discharge a mortgage of theirs granted by Nagamuthu Pillai on the 17th of December 1865 for Rs. 850-12-0. Vaira Pillai was not a party to that suit, and it is found that Nagamuthu had, some years prior to 1878, sold his interest to Vaira Pillai.3. Plaintiff was in possession as purchaser under the sale since 31st October 1878, being the date of the certificate issued to him under the Act, and up to the filing of this suit. In Suit 60 of 1878 Kuppaya obtained a decree against the defendants in that suit for sale of the lands to pay the mortgage. Plaintiff objected to...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Khasim Bahadur Vs. John Carlier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad272
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Tarrant, J.1. We agree with the decision of the Bombay High Court (The Secretary of State for India v. Kemchand Jeychand I.L.R. 4 Bom. 432 and are of opinion that a bonus is not a pension.2. By recent legislation, the Civil Procedure Code has been so altered in Section 266 as to exempt a bonus or gratuity received from Government from attachment. But this provision does not apply to execution proceedings commenced before the 1st June 1882--vide Section 3, Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, Clause 3. If, therefore, as stated in the reference, the proceedings in execution commenced prior to 1st June 1882, the bonus is attachable....
Tag this Judgment!The President of the Municipal Commission Vs. G.L. Walker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad269
Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The point for determination in this case is whether a 4-wheeled carriage on springs drawn by one pony is a vehicle liable to taxation under the provisions of Schedule C (Act III of 1871, Madras). Article 2 of that schedule provides that such a carriage drawn by one horse or by a pair of ponies under 13 hands is liable to taxation.2. Under the Act, the word horse includes a pony. By Schedule C, Article 2, 'a 4-wheeled carriage drawn by a horse is to pay Rs. 4-8-0.' 'Horse' here prima facie includes pony.3. But as 'pair of ponies under 13 hands' are also referred to in that paragraph, it is contended that an intent not to tax a carriage drawn by a single pony is shown. This seems to be an incorrect construction. The true construction is that a carriage drawn by a horse (including pony not under 13 hands) is taxable at Rs. 4-8-0. But although all carriages kept within the Municipality for one month, Section 64, are taxable, yet no rate is fixed by the Act...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Boya Linga and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad268
1. The three accused were convicted before the Village Magistrate of Ramasagur under Regulation XI of 1816 of theft of a sheep valued at 14 annas, and were sentenced, the first accused to pay a fine of 6 annas, and the second and third 4 annas each; in default, all to suffer two hours' imprisonment. The fines were collected and paid to the complainant as compensation.2. The case has been referred to the High Court on the ground that sheep-stealing is not an offence cognizable by a Village Magistrate within the meaning of Regulation IV of 1821, Section 6, paragraph I, although the value of the sheep may be less than a rupee, and that it cannot be considered a petty theft; also that the punishment awarded is entirely inadequate to meet the commission of such offences.3. The value of the sheep is 14 annas, and we see nothing in the language of Section 6, paragraph I, Regulation IV of 1821, to hold that sheep-stealing can in no case be treated as petty theft. But Section VI, Regulation IV ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjanatha Shanabhaga Vs. Narayana Shanabhaga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad362
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In this case the common ancestor of the parties was Bapayya; he had two sons, Venkatesa and Narayana. Venkatesa had as on Rama-krishna and Narayana had 3 sons Dasa, Lakshmana and Ramachandra. Rama-krishna had three sons Rayappa, Madava and the plaintiff Manjanatha; Lakshmana left two sons Venkatesa and Vaikunta; Ramachandra left a son Ganapati; and Dasa left a son Narayana, who is the first defendant in this suit. Thus in 1867 there were four coparceners in Ramakrishna's branch, Ramakrishna and his three sons, and in Narayana's branch there were the representatives of his three sons Dasa, Lakshmana, and Ramachandra. Ramakrishna's first two sons, Rayappa and Madava in the one branch, and the representatives of Lakshmana and Ramachandra in the other branch, brought the partition suit No. 21 of 1867 and separated from the rest of the joint family. The result of that suit and of the trial in the appeal suit 434 of 1871 was that the family property was divided into twe...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Vyapuri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad401
Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The accused has been convicted of mischief under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10, commut-able in case of default to four days' rigorous imprisonment, his offence being that he destroyed two documents forming an immoral agreement whereby the complainant allowed his wife to live in adultery with the accused, and she, in consideration of this liberty, agreed to forego her claims to maintenance. The conviction has been referred to this Court as being wrong, inasmuch as the consideration for the agreements being unlawful and the documents having therefore no legal value, their destruction does not amount to mischief.2. The drafts of the two documents on record purport to cancel the marriage between complainant and his wife and to release them from all marital obligations. As the parties are Hindus and as the marriage between them is not liable to be cancelled by mutual consent, they are of no value for the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›