Chennai Court February 1883 Judgments
Sanjivi Reddi Vs. Kama Errapa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad290
Kernan, J.1. This is a suit on an instrument, dated the 12th of September 1875, whereby the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 273-5-10 (money borrowed), with interest, at any time within six years on demand.2. Demand was made in February 1881.3. The plaint was filed before July 1881.4. The question of law is whether the suit is barred by limitation. Assuming: that the instrument (which is a promissory note) was payable on demand, it was governed by the Limitation Act of 1871; and the time of limitation did not arise until demand. But the Act XV of 1877 altered the law and made the period of limitation run from the date of the note.5. Allowing the extra time under Section 2*, Act XV of 1877, on this note, as a note on demand, time would elapse on the 12th September 1879, and in that view the suit would be barred.6. In its terms the note is not one containing merely 'a promise to pay on demand.'7. Its terms are to pay 'at any time within six years on demand.' As the law stoo...
Tag this Judgment!Kotha Subba Chetti and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad252
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. We think the Vakil, third prisoner, was improperly put upon his trial on a charge under Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Having been called upon, in an enquiry under the Legal Practitioners' Act, to explain his conduct, it was not competent to the Court which conducted the enquiry to take a statement from him on solemn affirmation. He was not, therefore, in such proceeding legally bound by an oath to speak the truth, and, if he stated what was false, did not render himself amenable to the charge of' making a false statement under Section 181, Indian Penal Code, or giving false evidence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code.3. The conviction as to this prisoner must be quashed, and his immediate discharge ordered.4. With regard to the cases of the other two prisoners, we are of opinion that the enquiry under the Legal Practitioners' Act was a judicial proceeding, and that false statements on solemn affirmation made by the witnesses should have been charged ...
Tag this Judgment!Jada Ankamma Vs. Nadimpalle Rama Sastrulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad281
Innes, J.1. All that is required by Section 20 of the Limitation Act of 1877 is that the fact of the payment should appear in the handwriting of the person making the same. It is not necessary that the appropriation of the payment to principal should appear in writing. That may be made to appear otherwise....
Tag this Judgment!Viramma Vs. Narayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad283
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The complainant applied to the Magistrate for an order directing her husband to pay her maintenance. The parties came to terms, the husband agreeing that he would furnish his wife with certain ornaments, build a house for her, deliver to her annually a certain amount of grain, and pay her a certain sum in cash.2. This agreement the parties brought to the notice of the Magistrate, who, reciting their concurrence, declared that he passed judgment in accordance with the agreement on 12th December 1882. No formal order has been drawn. It appeared to this Court that the law empowers a Magistrate only to direct payment of a monthly maintenance, and that such an agreement as the parties entered into cannot he made the subject of an order under Section 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor enforced under the provisions of that section.3. We direct, in supersession of the direction - of the Magistrate, that the agreement be placed on the record and the applic...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Beari Vs. Abdul Kadar Beari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad319
1. The plaintiff, a Canarese Mapilla, gave his daughter in marriage to the defendant in 1871, and, on the 20th June of that year, she being a girl of 13 years of age, he executed, in favour of her husband, on her account, a deed of gift which is described as Kasi or Badi, conveying certain. property to be enjoyed by her and her descendants from generation to generation.2. The District Judge has defined Kasi as money or land, given by the relations, of a Mapilla female to the man whom she is about to marry, to be enjoyed by the latter during the continuance of the marriage, but returnable to the woman's family on dissolution of the marriage, either by divorce or by the death of either party. This definition has not been objected to. In the present case, the plaintiff's daughter died in May 1877; and the plaintiff has brought this suit on the ground that he had given the property as Kasi, and that, on the death of his daughter, he became entitled to recover it. He therefore sued for the-...
Tag this Judgment!Madabhushi Seshacharlu Vs. Singara Seshaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad55
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We consider that signature by a mark would be, under the circumstances, a sufficient compliance with the Act.2. We set aside the decree dismissing the suit and direct the Lower Appellate Court to re-hear the appeal.3. The costs of this application will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Anthony Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad280
Innes, JJ.1. In England a man is bound by statute to fence wells in his premises within twenty-five yards of, and open to, the highway. There is no such statutory obligation in India.2. There is no doubt that the existence of an unfenced well at a distance of only eight yards from the highway, and open to it, must cause danger to the public, and the omission to fence the well thus possesses some of the elements which constitute a public nuisance; but unless the omission is an illegal omission, the definition of a public nuisance is not satisfied. In Section 43t of the Indian Penal Code the word 'illegal' is defined to be applicable to everything which is an offence, or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action. The two first conditions do not exist, and the omission to fence a well in one's own premises does not, per se, furnish ground for a civil action; and it seems very doutbtful whether damage caused by the fall into the unfenced well of a person who ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmanan Chetti and ors. Vs. Karuppan Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad273
Innes, J.1. The plaintiffs had sued the first and fifth defendants in the Court at Kandy upon bonds, dated 15th February 1878 and 13th November 1878, and had obtained a decree against those defendants on 28th October 1879.2. The bond of 15th February 1878 hypothecated immoveable property of defendants 1 and 5, situated in the island of Ceylon, while that of the 13th November 1878 hypothecated immoveable property both in Ceylon and in the District of Madura.3. In execution of the decree in Ceylon the plaintiffs realized Rs. 738---50 cents by sale of the property in Ceylon. They then instituted a suit in the Subordinate Court of Madura against defendants 1 to 6 for the balance, Rs. 11,493-2-4.4. This appeal is from the decree in that suit which was passed against first and fifth defendants for the sum claimed and costs, but which dismissed the suit as against the other defendants and directed the plaintiff's to pay the costs of the fourth and sixth defendants. The decree further directed...
Tag this Judgment!Ambala Vaveri Manakel Raman Somayajipad and anr. Vs. Naduvakat Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad325
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The question as regards the lands 1, 2, and 4 is one of identification, and the Judge does not consider that they are identified by the evidence of plaintiffs as lands in the possession of Kunholen whose rights the defendants purchased.2. As regards land No. 3, the respondents put in a memorandum of objections but their objection relates to the finding of the Judge upon the evidence that the plaintiffs have identified this piece of land with one of those held by Kunholen. It was suggested also for the respondents that plaintiffs' claim to No. 3 is barred by limitation, and though it was not open to the respondents to take this objection of themselves, the Court is bound to consider it. It is contended by Mr. Rama Rau that the kanam demise is a lease, and that, as rent has been continuously paid, the relation of landlord and tenant has continued and the suit is not barred. But the Full Bench decision in N. V. Silapani v. V.M. Ashta Murti Nambudri I.L.R. ...
Tag this Judgment!Charavur Teramath and anr. Vs. Urath Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad270
1. It appears that the fourth Uralar, with a knowledge that the suit was filed and that the plaintiffs objected to the renewal, assented to it, and it has been found the renewal was beneficial to the devaswam.2. Under these circumstances we consider the suit was properly dismissed. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »