Chennai Court November 1883 Judgments
Dharanamma Vs. Subba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad306
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Several properties had been attached and their sale ordered when the judgment-debtor represented to the Court that a portion of one of them, No. III, was an endowment, and he prayed that the other properties I, II, and V, and the other part of III might be sold first, and stated that, if a sufficient sum was not realized, he would pay the balance. The decree-holder's vakil concurred in the application that I and II should be first sold, but he insisted that IV should also be first sold, and that, if by the sale of I, II, and IV the amount realized was insufficient, the whole of No. III should be sold and the Court made the order accordingly. We are of opinion that the act of the vakil was a sufficient application to the Court to take a step in aid of execution. He concurred in asking the Court to give directions as to the order in which the lots should be sold, and he asked for an order that a lot reserved should subsequently be sold in its entirety and n...
Tag this Judgment!Kuriyali Vs. Mayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad255
1. The plaintiff and appellant, Paratakath Kuriyali, is the karnavan of a tarwad of which the deceased, Paratakath Suliman, was a member Suliman mortgaged the four properties in question to Kakkotakath Moiliar and others, the first four defendants (respondents), who sued him :and obtained a decree ordering the sale of the properties. Suliman having died after decree, the plaintiff was brought in as his representative under Section 234 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is denied that plaintiff was his representative, but he does not seem to have objected or appealed, and as the self-acquired property of an anandravan, undisposed of at his death, becomes the property of the tarwad, it appears to us that the plaintiff was rightly made a party to the decree. It has not been stated who else could have been Suliman's legal representative. He even admits that he has taken one of these very properties, as Suliman's representative, and subject to the mortgage in defendants' favour.2. The decre...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Empress Vs. Saminada Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad274
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The accused in this case was charged with disobeying a summons issued by a Police officer, under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the attendance of the accused to answer a charge of kidnapping. The Second-class Magistrate considered that Section 160 applies only to witnesses and not to accused persons, and referred to the marginal note which mentions witnesses only, and he accordingly discharged the accused on the ground that the summons which he was charged with disobeying was not one which a Police officer was legally competent to issue. The Joint Magistrate, however, was of opinion that the view taken by the Sub-Magistrate was erroneous, and forwarded the case to the District Magistrate for submission to the High Court.2. The Court is of opinion that Section 160 does not authorize a Police officer to require the attendance of an accused person with a view to his answering the charge. The intention of the Legislature seems to have b...
Tag this Judgment!Raja and anr. Vs. Subbaraya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad253
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. There is no valid ground for the contention that if the adoption be proved the plaintiff should take but a fifth share. By representation the adopted son takes the share which his adoptive father would be entitled to take on partition. With all deference to the authority of the High Court of Calcutta in Raghubanund Doss v. Sadhu Churn Doss I.L.R. 4 Cal. 425 we doubt whether the passage in Dattaka Chandrika, Section 5, paragraph 25, even with the addition suggested, has been correctly interpreted. If there be such a special rule, as is suggested, it is not applicable at all events to Sudras, among whom the adopted son is declared entitled to take an equal share with a legitimate son who is born subsequently to the adoption. We agree with the Judge that the plaintiff would take his father's share, a moiety, if he were really adopted.2. Appeal dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Ramaraja Vs. Arunachala and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad248
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) claims the amount due on a hypothecation bond executed in his favour by the first defendant in 1876. The second defendant is the purchaser of first defendant's right, title, and interest, which was sold in execution of a money decree in original suit 414 of 1879. The Munsif gave plaintiff a decree. The District Judge in appeal found in favour of plaintiff's bond, but dismissed his suit on the ground that the personal remedy was admittedly barred, and that the second defendant's certificate of sale, being duly registered, took effect as regards the property against plaintiff's unregistered security under Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1877. The sole question for our determination is whether a Court's certificate of sale, if registered, takes effect within the meaning of that section against all prior unregistered encumbrances.2. The District Court has presumed, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, that the Court which sold...
Tag this Judgment!Timmayya Mada Vs. Lakshmana Bhakta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad215
Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. The appellant was a respondent before the Lower Appellate Court and filed objections to the decree under Section 561 of the Code. The Subordinate Judge held that he could not be heard on a point which was not in dispute between the then appellant and himself, but only between himself and a corespondent. At the same time he decided that, if the objection could be entertained, it must prevail, and the plaintiffs (respondent's) suit ought then to be dismissed with all costs. The respondent does not dispute this part of the decision, and therefore the simple point for determination is whether the appellant's objections ought to have been entertained.2. It is conceded that the only point raised in the appeal before the Subordinate Judge was one of costs between the plaintiff and the appealing defendant. It was one in which this appellant had no possible interest, and he ought not to have been made a party to the appeal. But he was in fact joined as a resp...
Tag this Judgment!Gandavathara Ayyangar Vs. Devanayaga Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad222
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The Act does not require that the person appointed by the committee to be dharmakarta should be of a particular sect. The Legislature having provided this qualification in the case of membership of the committee, may have presumed that the committee would appoint only persons of the sects to which they themselves belonged. The Act did not contemplate the formation of one committee to supervise the religious institutions of different sects, but allows the appointment of several committees. It may be desirable that in each case the dharmakarta should be of the sect to which the temple appertains, but we are hardly prepared to say it amounts to a breach of trust or misfeasance on the part of the committee that they have not insisted on this qualification in making the appointment.2. We cannot hold the Judge was bound to accord the sanction prayed, or that he has improperly refused it.3. The application is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chetti Vs. Angappa Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad220
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We are not prepared to hold that the construction placed on the Act by Mr. Forster Webster is incorrect. The term 'property' without qualification applies to property of all kinds.2. The District Court will be informed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Pitchayya Vs. Narasayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad246
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This is not a claim to have a partnership wound up, nor is it a suit praying the Court to order payment of debts and to distribute the surplus profits of a partnership. It is a suit to require the defendant to account for and pay over a portion of the sum realised on a joint speculation, or to provide for the plaintiff's share out of another portion of the fund which has been realised under the joint order of the parties.2. The Court of First Instance had, in our judgment, jurisdiction.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami Ayyangar Vs. Narasimhulu Nayak and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad213
1. This was a case of mischief. The Second-class Magistrate, Trichinopoly Town, who tried it, appears to have held that there was a prima facie case against the accused and adjourned the trial to the 28th August to enable them to adduce evidence. The case was called on that day, and, as the complainant was not present, the Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,2. The complainant appealed to the District Magistrate (H. Sewell) and referred to the proceedings of the High Court, 5th November 1874 (Weir's Criminal Rulings, 283). Finding that the complainant had put in an appearance with his Vakil very shortly after the dismissal of the case, the District Magistrate reversed the order of his subordinate and directed a rehearing.3. In explanation of his procedure the District Magistrate now submits that 'under Section 423 (a) any Appellate Court can set aside an order of acquittal, that section not being restricted to cases coming under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »