Chennai Court October 1883 Judgments
Ali Khan Vs. Appadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad304
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff first sued the defendant, his tenant, on the small cause side of the Subordinate Court to recover rent for the year Vrishu (1881-82) upon a kadapa, or counterpart, alleged to have been executed by the tenant. The Subordinate Judge, believing that the kadapa was a forgery, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then proceeded under the Rent Recovery Act, but failed. He has now brought this suit against the same tenant for use and occupation of his land, and to recover the costs of his previous abortive litigation. Of course, the plaintiff could not recover the costs of his previous litigation. The question reserved was, whether, having failed in his suit on the kadapa, the plaintiff could bring this fresh suit for use and occupation. An action for use and occupation is always founded on some contract or promise, express or implied. The defendant must have held or occupied the permises as tenant thereof to the plaintiff, or by his permission or sufferance (Woodf...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Yendava Chandramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad189
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The accused complained to the Senior Assistant Magistrate of Vizagapatam, on the 10th June last, that a woman and her paramour had killed her newly-born child and secretly disposed of the body. The Magistrate referred the complaint to an Inspector of Police for inquiry and report. On the 25th June the Police Inspector reported, after inquiry, that the complaint was false and malicious. On the 21st July, the Senior Assistant Magistrate examined the accused, and she then stated that her complaint was true and bona fide, that two witnesses saw the child killed, that the Magistrate might cause the woman to be examined by a midwife, and that the paramour was the son of a rich man who prevented the villagers from speaking the truth. Thereupon, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without further inquiry and upon consideration of the result of the police investigation. He also made an order sanctioning the prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!Thiagaraja and ors. and Subramanya and ors. Vs. Gnanasambantha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad374
Kernan, J.1. The principal question is, are the defendants, appellants (tenants of the village of Santhaputhur), entitled to a right of permanent occupancy?2. The ancestors of the defendants, and after them the defendants, have been in possession as cultivating raiyats since, at all events, 1827. See pymaish account, 18th May 1827.3. In January 1830 a muchalka (exhibit A)was executed by the tenants of the village (ancestors of the defendants), agreeing to cultivate the lands and to pay the rents as therein reserved to the Collector on behalf of the temple.4. In that muchalka no term is fixed for tenure, and the persons signing the muchalka are therein called purakudis.5. Prima facie 'purakudis' are cultivators without occupancy rights. See the description given in Krishnasami v. Varadaraja I.L.R. 5 Mad. 345.6. By muchalka A the parties signing agree to cultivate the wet and dry lands from Fasli 1830 as per pymaish Fasli 1826. The lands and the rates are specified and the period of paym...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Vs. Vairavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad392
Kernan and Hutchins, JJ.1. This is a suit between two Nattukottai Chetti families. Both were trading in 1879 at Colombo through agents, and the plaintiff seeks to, recover the amount due by the defendants on the account of dealings between them at Colombo.2. In May 1879, a balance was found due by the defendants, and in part payment thereof, their agent granted a hundi on Penang for 2,500 dollars. Only 500 dollars were paid, but on the 20th September 1879, the present appellant, second defendant, wrote (D) to his agent at Penang admitting his liability and directing payment to be made.3. Early in 1880, the plaintiff's agent sued the defendants' agent at Colombo, but the suit was dismissed on the ground that the defendants, and not their agent, were liable. The record of this suit has not been filed, but only the plaintiff's agent's replication (IV), in which he denied that the money was lent to defendants' firm V.E.M.V. and that the (then) defendant endorsed the same as agent of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Thunji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad163
1. The accused were severally charged under Act I of 1882, Section 26, with possessing salt earth knowing it to be contraband. They admitted the possession of a substance which the witness described as saltish earth and the Magistrate finds not to have been a saline efflorescence or deposit, but earth impregnated with salt.2. The accused stated they had collected this substance to bleach cloths, and the Magistrate considered their statements to be true and found they had no intention of manufacturing salt. He, therefore, acquitted them. The section on which the charge was framed prescribes a penalty, inter alia, for the manufacture of contraband salt and for the possession of such salt. The term 'manufacture' is defined in Section 2 as including collection, and the term 'salt' as including 'salt earth,' meaning thereby natural saline deposits and efflorescence, and earth salt,' that is, salt made from 'salt earth' or 'from any earth naturally impregnated with salt.' The Act, it will be...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Bhatta and ors. Vs. Malayacha Mannadi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad211
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The balance of the purchase money was brought to the Court on the fourteenth day after the sale. A chalan was obtained and the money and the chalan taken to the treasury, but the treasury officer refused to receive it as ha had closed his accounts for the day. The fifteenth and sixteenth were holidays at the treasury. On the seventeenth the money was received. The treasury becomes, for the purposes of payment under the rules of the High Court, dated 21st June 1882, part of the establishment of the Court.2. Under the circumstances the payment was in time. The Calcutta Court appears to have arrived at the same conclusion: Gujadhur Pauree v. Naik Pauree I.L.R. 8 Cal. 528.3. We set aside the Munsif's order and confirm the sale....
Tag this Judgment!Sengotha and anr. Vs. Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad241
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. An application for an order under Section 499 can only be made by a plaintiff after the summons has been served and after reasonable notice of the intention to apply for the order has been given in writing to the defendant. The term 'may' must be read with the words 'at any time,' and does not import that it is competent to a plaintiff to apply before service of summons, or to evade the condition of notice.2. In this case the order was applied for on the 10th July and made on the 11th ex parte without notice to the defendant and without any proof to support it, while the summons was not served till the 25th July. The order under Section 499 is discharged with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Vs. Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad284
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. A decree had been passed against the defendant by the District Court on appeal. He applied for review of judgment and, in the meantime, for stay of execution. The Court stayed execution on terms that security should be furnished for the due execution of the decree. The respondent was offered and accepted as a surety. The application for review was dismissed and the decree-holder now applies to execute his decree against the surety. He cannot do so under Section 253, for, assuming that section can be extended to appeals, it applies only to cases in which the security has been given before the passing of the decree. We must dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Bada Vs. Hussu Bhai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad236
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The land was appurtenant to the office, and the Government determined to sever it from the office and to allow the office-holder or office-holders for the time being to enfranchise it. The appellant, who was never the holder of the office, could not have a claim on its emoluments.2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Vs. Tulukanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad187
Hutchins, J.1. The petitioner has married a second wife, and on that ground alone the respondent, his first wife, refuses to live with him. The petitioner expressed his willingness to maintain her in his own house, but the Magistrate ordered him to pay her a separate maintenance on the sole ground that he had married again. As a Hindu the petitioner is not debarred from marrying a second wife, and the mere fact that he has done so does not entitle the first wife to a separate maintenance. The present case may be a hard one, but the law is clear.2. The order for separate maintenance is hereby quashed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »