Chennai Court July 1883 Judgments
Sriraja Venkataramaya Apparau Bahadur Vs. Anumukonda Rangaya Nayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad41
1. The case was posted for hearing for the 2nd October 1882.2. On that day, at the request of the defendant's vakil, the case was adjourned until the 7th November 1882.3. On this latter day, plaintiff and his vakil were absent, and the defendant was present.4. The Judge dismissed the suit without going into the case, defendant's vakil denying plaintiff's claim.5. An application was made to the Court on the 6th December 1882, under Section 103, * Chapter VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the dismissal, on proving that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the 7th November.6. The Judge, however, on the 6th December records that the dismissal was under Section 158 of the Code, and that the order cannot be set aside as requested.7. We think the Judge was in error in holding that the suit was dismissed under Section 158, as the facts of the case are not within that Section, but are within Section 157.8. Section. 158 applies to a party to whom time ...
Tag this Judgment!Yusuf Khan and anr. Vs. Sirdar Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad83
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. It has been held in Raja Rau v. Tolasi Ammal not reported, see I.L.R. 7 Mad. 82 Sabhanatha v. Subba Lakshmi I.L.R. 7 Mad. 80 that the words, 'a certain date' in Article 179 (6) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, require that an actual date shall have been specified, either absolutely or in relation to some contingency, and that it is not enough that the payment has been ordered to be made monthly or annually, leaving it for the Court to say whether it is to be made at the end, or beginning, or middle of the period. The petitioner cannot, therefore, rely on that clause, for his decree is simply that the money shall be paid annually. The words in Section 230 of the Procedure Code are the same, and that section, therefore, would also be a bar to the execution of this decree of 1854.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.1 [Article 179:______________________________________________________________________________________________________Description of appli...
Tag this Judgment!Vayangara Vadaka Vittil Manja Vs. Pariyangot Padingara Kuruppath Kadug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad89
Kernan, J.1. The Judge had, we assume, before him in making his decree, the Suit No. 476 and the Appeal Suit No. 458. He states in paragraph 5 of his judgment: 'It was the present plaintiff who contended in the former suit to be the jenmi and was defeated. It appears that the present plaintiff had colluded with the defendant, and that the present defendant was a kanamdar.'2. The present plaintiff was, in fact, the real defendant in the former suit, and it was his untrue defence that caused the expense, which was decreed against both the defendants in the former suit. The Judge also finds that the plaintiff here colluded with the defendant here in the former suit to endeavour to defeat the plaintiff there.3. Acting on the principles laid down in Suput Singh v. Imrit Tewari I.L.R. 5 Cal. 720 we think that the plaintiff is not entitled to contribution against the defendant.4. The Judge laid down, rather too widely, a rule that there cannot be contribution for costs between two parties ord...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruvengada Ayyangar Vs. Rangasami Nayak
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad19
Kindersley, J.1. On the 25th of December 1875, the plaintiff's adoptive mother and guardian, Balambaboye Ammal, and his natural father, Narayana-sami Panditar, both apparently acting on behalf of the plaintiff, who was then a minor, executed a deed mortgaging certain lands, the property of the plaintiff, to the defendant, Tiruvengada Ayyangar. The consideration for the mortgage mentioned in the deed was that the defendant would pay certain debts due by the plaintiff, and amongst others a sum of Rs. 1,801-10-8 due to one Kuppusami Panditar. The defendant failed to pay Kuppusami Panditar, who accordingly brought a suit (No. 268 of 1877) against Narayanasami and the present defendant for recovery of the debt. The present defendant appears to have pleaded in that suit that Kuppusami had no cause of action against him, and that there was an oral agreement that Kuppusami was to give him a bond of indemnity in case the minor, on coming of age, should repudiate the debt, and that, as he had no...
Tag this Judgment!Muringa Mangalath Gopalan Nayar and ors. Vs. the Kiyaka Kovilagath Val ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad87
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.1. A practice has prevailed in Malabar, whereby the karnavan has been recognized as representing the tarwad and entitled to sue or defend suits as such representative without the association of the other members of the tarwad, who were nevertheless held bound by decrees passed in such suits, unless they showed mala fides in their representative. This practice had its origin in convenience, but now that the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 30, contains a special provision to obviate the inconvenience, where a number of persons in the same interest have occasion to assert or defend their rights by suit, it may be doubted how far the practice would be now upheld, and it is advisable that resort should be had to the provisions of Section 30, Civil Procedure Code.2. In the present case, it appears that the karnavan and eight anandravans were impleaded by a jenmkar, under whom the tarwad held a lease, which they alleged was perpetual. They had denie...
Tag this Judgment!Muppidi Papaya and ors. Vs. Ramana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad85
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. It is a general principle that a person filling an office cannot aliene the emoluments of the office to the prejudice of his successors, and there is authority for holding that the lands attached to the office of karnam in permanently-settled estates cannot be alienated by the holder of the office, notwithstanding that Regulation XXIX of 1802 does not contain a prohibitory provision similar to that which is found in Regulation VI of 1831, M. Seshaiya v. M. Gauvamma 4 M.H.C.R. 336 Diggavelly Parummah v. Goontamookala Surrauze 1 M.S.D. 214 (Select decrees, 1 of 1819) Vencatoovien v. Vencataramyen 2 M.S.D. 85 (Select decrees, 1 of 1844).2. The alienation made by the father of the second and third appellants cannot bind his successor, and the suit has been brought within twelve years from the date when the succession to the office devolved on the second and third appellants.3. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court, in so far as it subjects the restoration o...
Tag this Judgment!Virappa Nayak Vs. Kathana Talavachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad428
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the holding had been mortgaged, and in 1873 the mortgagee brought a suit and obtained a decree for realization of the debt by sale of the holding. In execution of the decree, the holding was sold on the 18th April 1874. On the 14th April the landlord issued a notice of his intention to sell summarily, and on the 16th April this notice was affixed to the house of the tenant with the remark that he was absent. It may be doubted whether this service should have been accepted as sufficient without further proof; but, assuming that it was sufficient and that the sale under the Rent Act was valid, the question arises whether it had not been defeated by the sale of the holding in execution of the decree of the Civil Court. It has recently been held that a landlord has not a lien on the holding for the rent and that a sale of the holding after mortgage conveys the tenant's interest to the purchaser burdened with the mortgage. The validity of the mort...
Tag this Judgment!Sabhanatha Dikshatar Vs. Subba Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad80
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We are unable to distinguish this case from the case cited by the appellant's vakil--Raja Rau v. Tolasi Ammal C.M.S.A. 391 of 1879 (not reported).2. As the decree stands, it is a declaratory decree. But the lady can, if need be, sue for the enforcement of the right which has been declared. We decree the appeal and reverse the order for execution but without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ammani Ammal Vs. Sellayi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad426
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. As to damages, those incurred in the second year were not the probable result of the wrongful act of the respondents, but were the consequences of a judicial act proceeding from the Magistrate alone : Lock v. Ashton 12 Q.B. 871. They cannot then be recovered from the respondents. We overrule the objection that the respondents may also have suffered damages from the exaggerated claim made by the appellant, and that, consequently, they should not be required to pay damages to the appellant; for, if the respondents have suffered damage, they should bring a cross-suit.2. We dismiss the appeal and overrule the objection with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Tiyagaraja Padyachi Vs. Ramanujam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad422
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. The only material ground of appeal in this case is that the hypothecation instrument A, on which the suit was brought, was compulsorily registrable, and, being unregistered, could not affect the property. After reciting the hypothecation of the property for Rs. 73-15-9, the obligor proceeds to bind himself to pay the sum with interest within the 15th April 1879. Interest at the stipulated rate up to the 15th April 1879 would raise the whole amount due on the bond to something over Rs. 100, and the question is whether such a bond purports or operates to create an interest in the immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100. We think not. If the whole debt remained unpaid on the 15th April 1879, the obligee's interest would exceed Rs. 100, but it might have been paid in part or in full much earlier. The obligee could not have compelled payment earlier, but obligor might have compelled him to accept the money earlier, and the value of the interest actually cr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »