Chennai Court December 1883 Judgments
Arunachala Vs. the Zamindar of Sivagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad328
1. The defendant in this case is the zemindar of Sivagiri, and the plaintiff is a creditor, and the assignee of another creditor of defendant's father, the late zamindar. The object of the suit is to make the whole zamindari in the hands of the son, [334] including portions which had been specifically mortgaged by the father, liable for two judgment-debts due by the father.2. The first debt is that decreed in original suit 1 of 1865. A razinama was filed making the sum due to plaintiff payable by instalments and a decree was passed to the same effect in May 1867. The only instalment now in question is the last, which fell due on the 25th February 1870.3. The second debt formed the subject of original suit 37 of 1870. It had been assigned by the original obligee to one Venkatachalam Chetti, in whose favour a decree was passed on the 21st January 1871.4. The defendant's father died in 1873. Defendant was brought on the record of both suits as his father's representative and various proce...
Tag this Judgment!Allunni Vs. Kunjusha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad264
Muttusawmi Ayyar, J.1. The appellant Puliankalath Allunni Mannadyar, and the respondents, Puliankalath Kunjusha Mannadyar and others, belong to the same tarwad and he is their karnavan. The properties in suit are in the respondents' possession, and the appellant seeks to eject them on the ground that, by virtue of his position as karnavan, he is entitled to resume possession.2. In Original Suit 741 of 1876, which gave rise to Appeal Suit 708 of 1877, he claimed possession, alleging that he was their karnavan, that the lands in dispute were made over in 1839 to one Koma Amma under an oral agreement for her maintenance and for that of her descendants, and that the present first respondent, who was in possession as Koma Amma's descendant, had mortgaged some of the lands to the prejudice of the tarwad and thereby lost his right to continue in possession. The respondents then contended that they held the lands under an assignment of 1874 and on a veppu (mortgage) claim of 1862. As regards l...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petitions of Govindan Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad224
Hutchins, J.1. In this case there was a charge of wrongful confinement and extortion made by one Tayichi Pokkan against certain persons. The Second-class Magistrate held an inquiry, and, having arrived at the conclusion that the charge was false, recorded proceedings to the effect that 'the complainant should be prosecuted for false complaint and the individuals mentioned in the Police report (the present petitioners) should be prosecuted for abetment of the false complaint.' I take this to be a sanction and not an order directing the prosecution. It is urged, however, and it seems to be the case that, as against these petitioners, there is no sort of evidence beyond some loose statements recorded by the Police.2. Before granting a sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Court is bound to satisfy itself that an offence has been committed. I do not see that it is bound to hold an inquiry as to all the persons who may be implicated in such offence. On the contrary...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatagopal Vs. Rangappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad365
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In this and the connected appeals the appellant is the zemindar of Tiruvur and holds the village of Perumallapetta as a part of his permanently-settled estate. The respondents have long cultivated lands in the village as tenants. The appellant tendered to the respondents pattas for the fasli year 1290 (1879-80) stipulating for the payment of rent at certain rates in cash. The rates of rent entered in the pattas had been paid for the same lands for not less than fourteen years. The tenants refused to receive the pattas and demanded pattas providing for the payment of rent in kind, and, when these were not granted, neither party had recourse to the Revenue Court to obtain a decision of the dispute. The tenants remained in possession, and after the close of the agricultural year the zemindar attached their crops for arrears of rent at the rates entered in the pattas. Thereupon the tenants instituted the suits in which these appeals are presented by way of ap...
Tag this Judgment!Suryanna Vs. Durgi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad258
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. I do not see on what grounds it can be held that the assignment of the Government revenue alters the character of the payments to which the revenue payer was liable or releases the land from its liability to the charge. The assignee is not entitled to have recourse to the summary remedies to enforce the charge under Act II of 1864, which are conferred by the law on Collectors only, but by ordinary suit he is competent to enforce the payment as a charge upon the land. If, however, he adopts this procedure, he must, in order to affect the interest of the persons who for the time being are owners of the land, implead them, and inasmuch as the respondent was not a party to the Suit 192 of 1876 in which a decree was passed for the sale of the land, the portion to which she was entitled should not have been sold. But in fact it was sold in pursuance of a direction in the decree and at a public auction; and the question arises whether the present claim is not ba...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Empress Vs. Sama Papi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad287
Hutchins, J.1. We see no ground to interfere in this case. A Village Munsif is not a Police officer and the District Magistrate is not right in inferring from Section 7 of the Village Cess Act that he is a Police officer. The confession made to him was not, therefore, inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and, since the woman was not in custody at the time (the Police had not even come to the village), it cannot be excluded under Section 26.* There is no doubt that the woman was dragged out of the water and the Magistrate believed the account which she gave to the Munsif as to how she got there, and evidently did not believe that the other witnesses were telling the whole truth.*Confession made by accused while in custody of Police not to be used as evidence.[Section 26: No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a Police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.]...
Tag this Judgment!Appasami Vs. Rama Subba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad262
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Act VIII of 1865, which inter alia consolidated the provisions of the law conferring summary remedies on landholders entitled to recover rent or revenue from their tenants or occupiers of the soil, defined landholders as including inamdars, and tenants as including all persons who are liable to pay rent to a landholder. The defendant is an inamdar; the plaintiffs are also inamdars, but are liable to pay a quit-rent to the superior inamdar, the defendant. The Act, in our judgment, authorizes the defendant to have recourse to summary remedies for the recovery of the quit-rent. The decree of the Judge is set aside, and the case will be remanded that the appeal may be reheard. The costs of this second appeal will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Empress Vs. Krishnappa and Murugappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad276
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We are of opinion that the evidence warranted the conviction.2. The sick person, by becoming a passenger in a train at a time when he was, to his knowledge, suffering from cholera, did an act which he must have known was likely to spread the infection of a disease dangerous to life; and he did so 'negligently,' that is, neglecting the precautions which would have obviated risk to his fellow passengers in that he gave no notice of his condition to the Company's servants, who would have either provided separate accommodation for him or have lawfully prevented him from travelling. The second accused abetted the act. We see no reason to interfere....
Tag this Judgment!Sanniyasi Razu and Two ors. Vs. Pakir Razu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad268
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Prima facie the lands are the lands of the zamindari granted by the former zamindar to certain persons on condition of rendering service and of the payment of a certain sum of money to the zamindar in recognition of his ownership of the land, and it may be to meet the excess of the proper rent over the allowed remuneration.2. It is ordinarily competent to a zamindar to dispense with such services and to resume the tenure or at his pleasure to enhance the quit-rent, and there is evidence to show that, when the zamindari was under the charge of the Court of Wards, the quit-rent was in fact enhanced in 1869.3. The former zamindar assigned the services of some of these service tenure holders to his relations, and thereafter the quit-rents on the holdings of those service tenure holders were collected by the persons to whom the services of the holders had been assigned. There is nothing to show that at that time there was any assignment of the gadaba lands to ...
Tag this Judgment!Vellaya Vs. Jaganatha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad307
Kindersley, J.1. If when the postage stamps were put in, an application was made to take some step in aid of execution, this would be sufficient to give a new period of limitation, and the subsequent application would be within the time allowed. But upon the other point we consider that, while the discovery of a fresh authority may not entitle a party to a review of judgment, yet, when a Judge is satisfied that his judgment has proceeded upon an erroneous view of the law, the words of Section 623 of the Civil Procedure Code are wide enough to allow him to review his judgment, and to decide according to law.2. We dismiss this petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›