Chennai Court April 1883 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pattathil Chathu Nayar Vs. Pattathil Aku and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad26
1. The property in question in this suit had belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff, the first three defendants, and one Kandu Nayar.2. In 1858 there is said to have been a mortgage granted by Kandu Nayar, the karnavan, which was renewed in 1876.3. About 1852 the entire tarwad lands were apportioned, 51 paras of land being assigned to plaintiff's branch, and 51 paras to that of the first three defendants, and the 25 paras concerned in this suit to Kandu Nayar. It is found that at this date, or subsequently, there was a division, and that the family was no longer in union at the date of Kandu Nayar's death in 1865. Plaintiff and the first three defendants are children of sisters of Kandu Nayar, and as the 25 paras of land had become by the division his property, at his death the plaintiff and these defendants would take it in equal shares.4. The fourth defendant who obtained a decree against the first three defendants attached half of this property left by Kandu and had it sold i...
Arthur Richard Hinde and anr. Vs. Ponnath Brayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad52
Innes, J.1. On review, we found that the French Court had not jurisdiction, and that the Mahe judgment was not binding upon the parties to it. The question, therefore, remained whether the first defendant in this suit was still under the obligation to discharge the bond on which plaintiffs sue.2. As this question had not been decided by the District Judge in appeal, we remitted the issue 'Was the obligation of the first defendant on the bond relied on by the plaintiffs still undischarged at the date of the institution of the suit?'3. The District Judge returned a finding concurring with the finding at which the District Munsif had arrived, that there had been no discharge; but as it was objected that the defendant had received no proper notice of the hearing of the trial of this issue, and it was found on inquiry that this was so, we again remitted the issue for trial. It then came before another District Judg, who came to the conclusion that there bad been a discharge of the bond.4. O...
Harika Ramayyar Vs. Sri Vidya, Sri Sindu Tirtasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad61
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.1. This suit, in which the tenant seeks to obtain a declaration of the rates at which he is entitled to receive a patta for Pasli 1289, is not barred by the suit brought in the preceding year by the landlord to enforce the acceptance of a patta on certain terms for the Fasli 1288. The circumstances of the holding may vary in each year, and the power to sue in the Revenue Court to enforce the acceptance of a patta is limited to the contract for the year. for which the patta is issued.2. Nor can we hold that a Revenue Court in this Presidency in suits for enforcing the acceptance of pattas has, under the Rent Act, power to determine title otherwise than incidentally to the limited jurisdiction conferred on it. Consequently, it cannot be held the matter now in issue, viz., whether the tenant has, by special contract, a right to hold at privileged rates, has been finally decided in that suit. The decrees of the Courts below are set aside, and the ...
Pattakara Annamalai Goundan Vs. Rangasami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad365
Innes, J.1. There was no force used (as far as I can discover) to prevent execution of the decree. But if there was fraud on the part of the debtor which prevented the judgment-creditor from realizing his debt, he can recover, although more than twelve years have elapsed from the date of the decree.2. There can be no question from the statement of facts by the Judge that he has rightly found that the creditor used due diligence to get his decree executed. It is only the peculiar provision of Section 230 of the Civil Procedure Code which holds out a temptation to dishonest debtors to stave off execution by every possible means for twelve years that could raise a doubt as to whether the creditor's right to recover is still subsisting. He has satisfied the ordinary provisions of the Limitation Act by the several applications he has put in for execution within the prescribed period of each other. But the debtor, by eluding the service of the warrant on several occasions, and by making appl...
Venkata Viraragavayyangar Vs. Krishnasami Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad344
1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 460.2. The first defendant executed a bond, dated the 25th December 1869, for Rs. 5,000, hypothecating 2 velis 11 maus of land in the District of South Tanjore to Srinivasa Ayyangar, who transferred the hypothecation bond and right and debt due thereon to the plaintiff' by deed, dated the 21st of October 1875.3. Plaintiff filed Suit No. 4 of 1876 in the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam on the bond against the first defendant, and obtained decree for sale, dated the 6th April 1876, of all the lands hypothecated. On the 17th of August 1876 plaintiff became purchaser of all the hypothecated lands for Rs. 6,000.4. Part of the lands so purchased were 151/2 maus in Pattakal Katlai, within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam. After the purchase, plaintiff discovered that 2 maus out of the 15J maus had been acquired by the South Indian Railway Company in 1874, and that the purchase money (Rs. 460) was lodged in the treasury at Kumbakonam unde...
Samuel Pillai Vs. Ananthanatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad351
Kernan, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the Small Cause Suit 226 of 1882 against the defendant for Rs. 415-1-0 on foot of a promissory note to the plaintiff, dated the 8th of April 1881, payable on demand, and costs.2. The defendant applied in Revision to set aside that decree on the following grounds:(1) That there was no consideration for the note.(2) That there was no liability on the part of the defendant to pay the debt due by his father which was barred by limitation.3. On the 26th January 1883, by order of that date, we requested the Subordinate Judge to say what the consideration was which he found to support the defendant's promise, and whether he decided that the debt due by the defendant's father, apparently barred by limitation, was sufficient consideration for the defendant's promise.4. The Subordinate Judge reports that he found' there was deposited with the defendant's father by the plaintiff Rs. 700, at interest, which interest was for the benefit of plaintiff's...
Mavulali AmirudIn Sharif Saheb Vs. Gundu Sobhanadri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR6Mad339
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This case is governed by the ruling of the Privy Council, referred to by the Lower Appellate Court, in Thumbusawmy Moodelly v. Hossain Rowthen I.L.R. 1 Mad. 17.The obligation to pay the balance before the day fixed was not to attach till that balance should have been ascertained by an account, in which the mortgagee was necessarily to be the accounting party.2. The transaction could not execute itself without any further act of the parties. The mortgage being redeemable, any one of the persons entitled to redeem would be compelled and entitled to claim redemption of the whole, if any part of the debt remained to be satisfied; but, as nothing remains to be paid, the appellant can only redeem his share. To the extent of a 7/48th share, the appellant is entitled to redeem. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is reversed, and the decree of the Munsif restored to the extent indicated, and the parties will pay and receive proportionate costs in all Courts....
Gummalapudi Kalidas Vs. Attaluri Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad29
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The immorality imputed to the petitioner is that he keeps a concubine in his house and has had a family by her. It appears from the age of the concubine's children that this intercourse commenced before the marriage of which the legitimate children are the issue.2. Looking to the caste (Goldsmith, probably Sudra) to which the parties belong, we are unable to say that this circumstance alone would justify a Court in refusing him the custody of his children.3. It has been held that it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself not only that it is better for the children, but essential to their safety or to their welfare in some very serious and important respect, that the father's rights should be superseded or interfered with, before it deprives the father of those rights--Re Goldsworthy L.R. 2. Q. B. D., 83.4. In this case the condition is not satisfied, and we must reverse the Judge's order and declare the father entitled to the custody of his children.5...
Chatti Chalamanna Vs. Pandrangi Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad23
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Some lands, known as Singamvalasa, were held by Sridara Kodanda Rau, who died leaving a widow, Venkamma, and four daughters, Janikamma, Bhagamma, Narasamma, and Ramayamma. The lands passed to his widow who survived her daughters. Bhagamma and Ramayamma had died without issue. Janikamma and Narasamma had left male issue, who succeeded on their grandmother's death. The children of Narasamma then living were a son, Chinna Narasinga Rau, and a daughter, Chatti Chalamanna, the appellant. Narasinga Rau, on the 28th April 1845, executed a deed attested by three witnesses and described as a sanad. This deed recited that the appellant had requested her brother to give her something from the produce of the Singamvalasa lands inherited from his grandmother and witnessed that consequently Narasinga Rau agreed to pay to the appellant during her life, and after her death to her daughter, the sum of Rupees 10 from the harvest of the year Krodi on the 30th of Magha in ea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›