Chennai Court March 1883 Judgments
The Queen Vs. Alexander Reddon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1883
Reported in: (1885)ILR6Mad286
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. As ruled by this Court on third December 1872, it was not lawful for the Senior Assistant Magistrate to direct payment of part of the fine as compensation to an innocent purchaser of stolen property. The sale to the purchaser is not the offence complained of within the meaning of Section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sentence of the Senior Assistant Magistrate will be amended by striking out the words 'of which Rs. 4-8-0 will be paid to Mr. Lewin, who purchased the ring for that amount.'...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Pillai Vs. Ramasamya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad402
1. The plaintiff and the second defendant are brothers, and sons of Muttusami Pillai, deceased.2. Plaintiff brought suit No. 43 of 1877 against his father and the second defendant for partition, and obtained a decree, dated the 6th April 1878, and a declaration that, as to the out standings due to the family, the plaintiff was entitled to and to collect one-third share thereof.3. Amongst the out standings was item No. 25 referred to in the decree, Rs. 200 due by a debtor to the family. Plaintiff might have given notice to the debtor to pay him, plaintiff, his one-third, but he did not do so before it was paid to the plaintiff's father.4. The debtor paid on the 12th of May 1878.5. Plaintiff now sues the first defendant, the debtor, for his one-third share and also the second defendant, plaintiff's brother, their father being dead.6. The suit is dismissed against the first defendant, as he duly paid the debt to plaintiff's father; and there is no appeal against the decision. But both the...
Tag this Judgment!Adiveru Dinabhandupatrudu and ors. Vs. Lokanadhasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad322
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. A zamindar cannot put an end to the relation of landlord and tenant, except in the manner provided by law, and it is apparent that, in this case, nothing was done by the zamindar to determine the tenancy. The zamindar, however, alleges that the tenancy was determined by the act of the tenant himself. The merely allowing the land to be waste would not of itself, determine the tenancy. Such procedure on the part of a tenant would, under some circumstances, be evidence of an intention to abandon the holding; under others, it would prove no such intention : for instance, in a season of drought, it would be idle for a tenant to attempt to put a crop into the ground. If then the appellant as purchaser, acquired the tenant's right, it must be determined whether he has put an end to the tenancy, or deprived himself of his right to recover possession.2. The District Judge is requested to try the following issues upon the evidence already recorded, and upon such fu...
Tag this Judgment!Jonnagadla Subbaya Vs. Thatiparthi Senadala Buthaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR6Mad380
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. Under Act XXXV of 1858, the Court can be moved only by a relative or by a person who is a curator under Act XIX of 1841 to make the inquiry under Act XXXV of 1858.2. Possibly, it may be worth the while of the defendants, or some of them, to move a competent Court for this purpose.3. Unless the first defendant is thus declared a lunatic, a guardian cannot it appears, be appointed under Chapter XXXI of the Civil Procedure Code....
Tag this Judgment!Yenamandra Sitaramasami Vs. Midatana Sanyasi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad400
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In order to sustain a mortgage by a Hindu father it must be shown that the moneys were required for necessary purposes, in which is now included payment by a father of an antecedent debt which it would be a pious duty in the son to discharge. Unless the respondents proved that the purpose (or which the debt was incurred was such, or that they in good faith believed it to have been such, as justified the mortgage, they cannot rely on that instrument except in so far as it affects the father's share.2. A son is, however, bound to discharge a debt of the father which he cannot how to have been contracted for an improper purpose to the extent of ancestral property which may come to his hands.3. In a suit brought against him to enforce that liability, the burden of proof as to the nature of the debt would lie on him.4. We reverse the decree in respect of a one-fourth share of one visam of the field known as Konupulugaruvu and decree the...
Tag this Judgment!Kamatchi Ammal Vs. Agilandammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad334
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Regulation VI of 1831 reserved to the Revenue authorities the decision of all claims to hereditary village or other offices in the Revenue or Police Departments, and prohibited the Civil Courts from entertaining such claims. That prohibition has not been removed, and, although the enfranchisement of Inam lands restores the jurisdiction of the Courts over the enfranchised lands, it does not authorize the Courts to call in question decisions already passed by Revenue Officers, under the provisions of Regulation VI, prior to the enfranchisement. The order of Mr. Barlow passed in 1876 was intended to be a decision of the claim made by the appellant, who should have presented an appeal from it; until he had obtained the office he was not entitled to the emoluments, and, as the emoluments were severed from the office before he obtained a recognition of his right to the office, the Civil Court cannot award them to him.2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with co...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.L. Lakshmanan Chetti Vs. Kolandaivelu Kudumban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad311
1. It appears to us that when a landlord claims to revert to a nanjai rate of rent on his repair of a tank, which had fallen out of repair, such repair is only a restitution of the previous state of things, and is not such an improvement as imparts additional value to the land; nor is the claim to revert to the rate in use when the tank was in good repair a claim to raise the rent which under Section 11 of the Rent Recovery Act would require the sanction of the Collector.2. We think that, if the tank were kept in repair, the landlord would be entitled to revert to the rates in force before the tank fell out of repair.3. But the change should not be made too suddenly, because the raiyat should be allowed two or three years to reap his punjai cotton and other crops, and to prepare the land for nanjai cultivation.4. This tank was repaired in Fasli 1289, and this suit relates to the patta for 1290. The raiyat was not allowed a reasonable time to make the changes required. Therefore as to t...
Tag this Judgment!Byreddi Narakka and anr. Vs. Chinna Narayana Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad331
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.1. Plaintiff is one of three brothers; they and their father divided some years ago. The eldest son sued the representatives of the rest of the family for his share in his father's estate. He has since been transported for life. The children of the convict have applied to be made co-plaintiffs:2. The Judge has held the father civiliter mortuus. We cannot accede to that view. Although he has been sentenced to transportation for life, he has not been deprived of power to hold property nor to maintain suit; but, seeing : that the children would be co-owners with their father in ancestral estate, we are not prepared to hold they were improperly made parties. It is true they would be in law sufficiently represented by their father, but in fact they might not be represented effectually, and, under the circumstances, we consider it was proper to grant their application. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Timmappaya Vs. Lakshminarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad284
Innes, J.1. We concur with the District Munsif and Subordinate Judge that the suit does not properly lie against first, second, and third defendants to enforce against them a decree for partition obtained against their father to which they were not parties.2. In the first place, that decree was obtained by the submission of the father to abide by the oath of the therein plaintiff' and, under the Oaths Act, such evidence is to affect only the person who offered to be bound thereby--(see also as to this the judgment in Keshava v. Rudran) I.L.R. 5 Mad. 259. It has been held in the case of a decree obtained against a father alone for a debt due by him that an attachment of joint family property including that of the sons in execution of such a decree may be binding upon the sons, but we cannot regard the case before us as on the same footing with a decree for an antecedent debt against the father.3. The suit in which the decree was passed was a suit for partition. No decree could be proper...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›