Chennai Court October 1883 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kunhammatha and ors. Vs. Kunhi Kutti Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad233
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The father of the respondents having been sued by the appellant for her maintenance, entered into a compromise with her, whereby he agreed to pay her the sum of Bs. 36 on the 1st April in each year during her life, and a decree was passed in those terms.2. It may be the father was sued because he was the manager of the family property ; but this is not apparent on the face of the decree.3. The decree can be executed against the sons for arrears, which have accrued since their father's death, only as representatives of their father and until his assets are exhausted, it being of course understood that, on the father's death, the interest ho had in his lifetime in joint ancestral property lapsed, and would not be available as assets. We set aside the order of the Judge and direct him to reconsider the application in reference to the above observations.4. The appellant will have the costs of this appeal....
The Queen Vs. Pottachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad161
Hutchins, J.1. In this case, two women were arrested as they were conveying more than a quart of toddy from the sub-renter's trees to his shop. There is no doubt that they come within the letter of Section 22, as they had no permit, but they were the sub-renter's servants, and acting for him, and their possession was that of their master. By Section 15 sub-renters are authorized to grant permits within the limits of their farms, and the place in question was within such limits, while the quantity conveyed apparently does not exceed that which a sub-renter's permit will cover. These sections were enacted for the protection of renters and sub-renters, and whatever they can authorize others to do, they can themselves do. We, therefore, agree with the District Magistrate that the conviction is bad, and accordingly quash it.2. The fines, if paid, must be refunded....
The Queen Vs. Chakrasahu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad185
Kindersley, J.1. In this case one Chakrasahu was convicted under Madras Act, III of 1884, Section 21, and was fined Rs. 200. Of that sum, Rs. 47-8-0 were recovered by distress and sale of his movable property; and, as no more could be so recovered, he was sentenced to imprisonment for five months under Section 32 of the same Act.2. The Senior Assistant Magistrate set aside the sentence of imprisonment, being of opinion that Section 32 of Act III of 1864 did not authorise a sentence of imprisonment, when it appeared by actual distress and sale, as in the present case, that such penalty could not be levied in full. The Magistrate of the District refers the case for revision by this Court. The first case in which imprisonment is authorised by Section 32 of the Act is, 'if upon the return of such warrant it shall appear that no sufficient distress can be had whereon to levy such penalty, and the same shall not be forthwith paid.' This is exactly that case. There has been a distress, but th...
MoidIn Vs. Chandu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad273
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. There appears to be no provision in the Code for enforcing summarily a surety bond given under the section (349) and no appeal from an order refusing summary enforcement of the surety bond, and the only course open to the party who desires it should be enforced is to move the Court to put it in suit.2. Whether, under the circumstances, the suit would succeed we need not now determine.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Bachu Ramesam Vs. Nukala Bhanappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad182
Kernan and Hutchins, JJ.1. The plaintiff contended that he is entitled to add the water-tax as tax in the patta tendered. Water-tax is not rent, and should not be inserted in the patta.2. If the plaintiff desired to add the tax to the rent and to claim it as rent under Section 11 of the Rent Act, he should proceed to obtain the sanction of the Collector, which he has not done.3. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Srinivasayyar Vs. Lakshmamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad206
Charles A. Turner Kt., C.J.1. The lands were attached to the office of karnam as its emolument; when the appellant was removed from the office, he lost his right to the land.2. The circumstance that money may have been expended on the improvements of the land in the expectation that the office with its emolument would be continued to the family, would not give the appellant any title to recover the land in the events that have occurred. When he was removed for misconduct, the office and emoluments were conferred on a stranger, and with the decision of the Revenue authority on that question we cannot interfere. While the office was held by a stranger, the Government resolved to sever the lands from the office and to offer them to the then office holder for enfranchisement; the holder accepted the offer and became the owner.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›