Chennai Court January 1883 Judgments
Subramania Ayyan and anr. Vs. Venkata Rayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad254
Innes, J.1. First plaintiff is the adopted son. of Krishna Ayyan, who died' on the 19th January 1880. Krishna Ayyan was admittedly divided from his. brother, the first defendant. The second defendant is the son of first defendant.2. On the death of Krishna Ayyan, therefore, the adopted son was the person to perform his funeral rites, and the second plaintiff proceeded to perform them under authority from the first plaintiff, who was an infant. But the first defendant interfered and would not permit second plaintitf to perform the obsequies, but insisted on joining in them himself. They accordingly jointly set fire to the funeral pyre, and early next morning first defendant hastened, to the pile, collected the bones, and performed the ceremonies thereupon; so that when plaintiffs went to do the same, they found that the heap of ashes-containing the bones had disappeared. This necessitated the plaintiffs' recommencing the ceremonies by making an image of Durba grass and burning it and pe...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruvengada Chari Vs. Vythilinga Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad418
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We are of opinion that a decree for money, though it be a judgment debt, is not liable as a 'debt' to sale in execution of a decree. The judgment debt could be rendered available in execution without attachment, and Section 273 appears to be imperative as to the procedure to be adopted to secure the judgment debt and make it available to satisfy the claim of the attaching decree-holder. For reasons which are sufficiently obvious, e.g., the uncertainty of its value, the Code, it appears to us, prescribes a particular procedure which renders the sale of a money-decree unnecessary.--2. The order of the Munsif was right, and the application must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Ayyan Vs. Seshayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad181
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The application is not barred by limitation. The error in affixing an insufficient stamp did not render the application illegal. The order of the Judge is set aside and that of the Munsif restored with costs in all Courts....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Ramachandrappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad249
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code are sot in conflict with those of the Special Law, and effect may, therefore, be given to both. By Section 16(3) of the Regulation, a summary power to impose a fine is conferred on a Village Munsif analogous to that conferred on the Civil Courts by Sections 170* of the Civil Procedure Code.2. In ordinary oases when there are no aggravating circumstances, the Village Munsif or Civil Court would act discreetly in employing the special powers conferred on it, but if a charge is instituted in a Criminal Court under the Indian Penal Code, it must be dealt with by the Court. The order referred must be set aside and the Magistrate directed to resummon the accused and to complete the trial.* Procedure if witness fails to appear.[Section 170:-If such person does not appear, or appearing, fails to satisfy the Court that he did not abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the summons, and that he had not notice of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Ayyangar Vs. Bagirathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad180
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. We entertain, no doubt, that the representative of the deceased judgment-debtor ought to have been brought in this case, and that the further process of sale, which had to take place before the execution could be fully had, could not legally issue without some person upon the record representing the deceased against whom the decree might be executed.2. The sale must be set aside and the attachment of the property resumed. It will be for the judgment-creditor to take steps to bring in the representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor and proceed regularly with the execution of his decree.3. The petitioner will have the costs of this application....
Tag this Judgment!Helen Beard Vs. Samuel Egerton
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad179
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.1. We consider that the practice of the Small Cause Court hitherto is right in regarding as exempted from attachment, by Clause (h), Section 266 of the Civil Procedure Code, half the pay actually drawn by the judgment-debtor at the time of the attachment or from time to time. What the defendant is now drawing is, we understand, his pay on sick leave, which is half his ordinary salary. Half of the amount so received by him as his salary while on sick leave is by the clause quoted exempted from attachment. The other half is attachable....
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Chetti Vs. Colonel J.G. Cloete
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad189
1. On the 14th June 1877, the defendant, a Settlement Officer, purporting to act under Madras Act XXVIII of 1860, passed a decision demarcating the boundaries of certain villages in the 'Salem District, some of which are in plaintiff's mitta. He gave notice of his decision to the plaintiff in an endorsement of the 20th June 1877, on a letter addressed by plaintiff to him. On 18th August 1877, plaintiff brought this suit to set aside this decision.1. The District Munsif considered plaintiff was not in time, as his appeal (see Section 25, Act XXVIII of 1860) was not brought within two months from the date of the decision; and he dismissed the suit.3. The Subordinate Judge in appeal considered that the decision of the Settlement Officer, though purporting to be under Act XXVIII of 1860, was upon a matter in which he had no right to exercise the power conferred by that Act, or that, if he had, his procedure was not in accordance with what is required by the Act, as the evidence on which hi...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimmacharya Vs. Ragupathyacharya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad176
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. As the appellant had been disturbed in the enjoyment of his property by respondents, who claimed an adverse right, he was entitled to a declaratory decree. As to damages, the seizure of the well was a trespass on immoveable property, and it continued to be a trespass until the possession of the trespasser came to an end; the limitation for suits for compensation in such a case is three years, and for any damage which accrued within three years before 9th February 1880, the date on which suit was brought,' the respondents would be liable. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the case remanded for retrial of the appeal. Costs to follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Naduvath Mannakel Subramanyan Nambudripad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad187
Kernan, J.1. We think the Judge is right. The minor in this case has property paying revenue to Government.2. This Court has held that Regulations V of 1804 and X of 1831 do not give power to a Zila (now District) Judge to appoint a guardian to a minor in a case where the Court of Wards have jurisdiction to do so, viz., in cases where the minor is entitled to property paying revenue to Government.3. Section 20 of the Regulation V of 1804 and Act XIV of 1858 have been held by a majority of the Court in 1871* to refer only to cases where the Court of Wards have not jurisdiction.4. Whether the Court of Wards exercise their jurisdiction or not, this Court considered, was not material on the question whether the Zila Court had jurisdiction. This seems to be the proper construction, having regard to Regulation X of 1831, which refers to property of minors that was subject to be taken in management, but which was not in fact taken in management as well as of property actually taken in managem...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppayyan Vs. Ramasami Ayyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad197
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In execution of a decree obtained against the appellant, certain immoveable property was offered for sale at auction on the 24th March and knocked down to Thevana Goundan for Rs. 3,550.2. The Amin, considering that the deposit had not been duly made, re-sold the property in lots on the following day, when it realised only Rs. 2,500, Gamai Goundan being the purchaser of two lots and the decree-holder of the other lots. On the 26th March Thevana Goundan presented a petition to the District Court which had ordered the sale, asserting that he had offered the deposit to the Amin who refused to receive it, and he prayed that the Court would receive his deposit and grant him a receipt.3. No notice of this application was given to the judgment-debtor, but the decree-holder appeared, and the Judge on the 28th March set aside the second sale and ordered a re-sale without determining whether the first sale had been duly made. A third sale took place on the 13th June...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »