Chennai Court April 1883 Judgments
Subbaraya Mudali and ors. Vs. the Sub-collector of Chingleput and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad303
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In 1796, the Board of Revenue reported to the Government that, while the mirasi right was not lost by a failure to cultivate, unless it arose from obstinacy or intrigue, the Government had a right (as had also the mirasidars), when the mirasidar failed to cultivate, to call in strangers to cultivate.2. In December 1796, Mr. Place was directed to require each mirasidar to declare, in writing, the extent of ground he was willing to enter into engagement with the Government to cultivate, previously informing the mirasidars that it was the intention of Government to bestow the surplus or spare land they could not cultivate on new mirasidars.3. In a lengthy minute on mirasi right, submitted by Mr. Place in 1799, he expressed his concluson that a property in the mirasi land vested in the mirasidar so long as he did or could cultivate it and paid the dues to Government, and that, when he did not or could not cultivate his lands, when he withheld the dues of Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Ayyangar Vs. Marimuttu Bhattan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad404
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The learned Counsel for the appellant argues that the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is defective in that that Court has not expressed an opinion on the issue as to whether possession lay with the third defendant, and we have first to determine whether that issue was material.2. In Rajah Sahib Perhlad Sein v. Baboo Budhoo Sing 12 M.I.A. 275 the Judicial Committee expressed strong doubt whether the execution of a Bill of Sale by a Hindu vendor would pass an estate irrespectively of actual delivery of possession.3. The learned Judges of the Bombay High Court have held that a sale is incomplete without delivery of possession--Lalubhai Surchand v. Bai Amrit I.L.R. 2 Bom. 299.4. On the other hand, in Narain Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Dataram Roy I.L.R. 8 Cal. 597 the learned Chief Justice and Judges of the Calcutta High Court have held that delivery of possession is not under Hindu Law essential to complete the title of a purchaser for value, and that, acc...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Nilamekam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad406
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The farm of the Abkari revenue in the Dindigal Taluk for a term of three years from Fasli 1282--Fasli 1284 (July 1872--July 1875) was offered for sale by public auction.2. It is a condition of such sales that the bidder whose bid is accepted shall within a time specified furnish security to the amount of two monthly instalments payable in respect of the farm, and that if he fails to do so, the farm shall be again put up to auction, and if the price realized be less than the price bid by the defaulter at the first sale, that the defaulter shall be responsible for the difference.3. At the sale Mahalingam Pillai was declared the highest bidder, and his bid was accepted subject to his furnishing the required security. He failed to do so, and a second sale was held at which he was again declared the purchaser, but at a bid less than his bid at the original sale by Rs. 4,875, and he consequently became indebted to the Government in that sum. He again found some...
Tag this Judgment!Muttalagiri Nayak Vs. Muttayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad357
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We agree with the rulings of the learned Judges of the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts in Gopeenath Acharje v. Achcha Bibee I.L.R. 7 Cal. 553 Jetha Madhavji v. Najeralli Abhramji I.L.R. 4 Bom. 472 and Krishnashankar v. Chandmshankar I.L.R. 5 Bom. 198 that, when a person desires to share in the assets realized by a sale in execution, he must apply to the Court in which those assets are held for execution of his decree. When it is found that property attached by a Munsif's Court is already, or thereafter becomes, subject to an attachment issued from a superior Court, the decree-holder must apply to the District Court to transfer his application to the higher Court if he desires to secure the application of the attached property and its proceeds to the satisfaction of his decree.2. We affirm the order of the Court below, and dismiss this application, but without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Senra Disai Venra Jagath Virarama Dhikku Vijaya Sethurayar Vs. Annasam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad359
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The decree was passed on 1st March 1870. From time to time it was in part executed. On the 25th March 1881 an application was made by the decree-holder for the sale of the properties hypothecated to satisfy the balance remaining unpaid. On the 23rd July 1881 an order was made for sale. On the 3rd September 1881 the decree-holder applied for a postponement of the sale up to August 1882, informing the Court that arrangements had been made between him and the judgment-debtors for the satisfaction of the decree and other debts. But, before an order was passed on this petition, it was withdrawn on the 7th September, and on the 18th September fresh proclamation of sale was issued.2. On the 19th September the present appellant (second defendant) petitioned the Court to postpone the sale to the 20th January 1882. The decree-holder consented, and the sale was stayed. Mention appears to have been made in Court of an agreement into which the parties had entered, and...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnayyan and ors. Vs. Muttusami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad407
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The respondent, Muttusami Goundan, sued to recover possession of five lands described in the schedule attached to his plaint, and mesne profits for the years 1878 and 1879. Virappa Goundan and Sundara Goundan were two brothers who had formed a joint Hindu family. Of these, Virappa died in 1866, leaving him surviving a concubine named Ammachi and Maruthamutta and Periyannan, the second and third defendants, two sons by her; and Sundara died in 1867 leaving two widows named Virammal and. Minakshi. On the 6th October 1867, these two widows mortgaged the lands in suit with possession for Rupees 2,000 to Sadaya Goundan who transferred his right to Annammal on the 29th May 1869. Annammal assigned the mortgage again to Sabapathi Goundan, the father of the respondent. The respondent's case was that the several mortgagees had been in possession, that the first appellant, Olaipalaiyam Krish-nayyan, had been their gumashta, and, as such, superintended the cultivatio...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Begarayi Krishan Saranu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad373
Kernan, J.1. The first witness for the prosecution, a child of nine years of age, took a necklace valued at Rs. 2-8-0 from another boy who was wearing it. The accused received it from the child for five annas, and the Second-class Magistrate found that he (the accused) knew that it was stolen property, and convicted him under Section 411, Indian Penal Code.2. The first witness was, however, discharged under Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, and the conviction is referred to us as bad in law, on the ground that, as there was no theft, the property in question was not stolen property within the meaning of Section 410*.3. The child took the ornament and immediately after either pledged or sold it for five annas. This latter act of the child seems to us to show that, although he was over seven years and under twelve, yet that ho attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion within the meaning of Section 83 of the In...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Kanjamalai Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad372
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in thinking that the commitment is bad and must be quashed.2. The accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 468* and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and cognizable exclusively by the Sessions Court. The Sub-Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground that there was very little evidence to show that the document, which formed the subject of the charge, was false, and that there was no evidence to prove that the document was either made by the accused, or that he had any intent to defraud. But on perusal of the preliminary register, the District magistrate considered that there was a prima facie case against the accused, and directed his committal to the Court of Sessions, without calling upon the accused, however, to show cause why he should not be committed. The power to order a committal is conferred on the District Magistrate by Section 436, subject to the provision that the accused should have an opportunity ...
Tag this Judgment!Marakkal Vs. Kandappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad371
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. About ten years ago the defendant married the complainant, and for some time they lived together. Then the defendant married a second wife, and the complainant left him and lived in her father's house for about six years. In March 1882 she applied to a Magistrate for an order of maintenance, but she withdrew her complaint on the defendant offering to maintain her in case she lived with him. She since lived in his house and grain was given her, but she was told to cook her own food separately, and she was not permitted to eat with the defendant or other inmates of the house. They appear to have quarrelled again, and she has applied for an order of maintenance, complaining of ill-treatment. She has a female child aged seven years, and the defendant is a member of a joint Hindu family under the protection of his father, who has seven sons under his control. It is in evidence that the family has sufficient means, and, in answer to the present complaint the defendant d...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Chetti and anr. Vs. Appasami Nayak
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad355
1. A zamindar named Appasami Nayak having become indebted to certain Chettis, is alleged to have executed a bond in their favour on the 16th of May 1882, promising to pay the amount of the debt by instalments, and, on failure of any one instalment, to pay the whole amount with interest and hypothecating the income which he might derive from certain villages, after deducting the peshkash and other charges.2. The Chettis then brought Suit 16 of 1883 against the zamindar, who had made a default, to enforce the payment of the debt upon the security of the income hypothecated, and asked for the appointment of a receiver before judgment. The application was opposed on behalf of the zamindar, and the Subordinate Judge, conceiving that the appointment of a receiver was unnecessary, that the zamindar was entitled to collect the revenue of the villages, and that the income of the villages did not form the subject of the suit within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 503, refused...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »