Chennai Court August 1883 Judgments
Venkatramana and anr. Vs. Thir Singh and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad280
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The ruling in Krishna Reddi Govindu Reddi v. Stuart I.L.R. 1 Mad. 192 construes the Act as conferring on the Government power at any time to enlarge the period during which a suit may be brought to contest the award. The order enlarging the time had not been obtained when the previous suit was filed, and therefore that suit might have been at once rejected, and was necessarily dismissed. It could not be determined on the merits. The order has now been obtained, and we must assume it has been obtained on sufficient grounds. There is now nothing to debar the Court from entertaining the suit. The Government enjoys under this Act the unique power of extending the period of limitation in such cases, and all that was decided in the former proceeding was that the ordinary period had expired and had not been extended.2. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the case remanded for trial. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Tinnappa Chetti Vs. Mumgappa Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad107
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. The appellant and respondent purchased the same piece of ground (No. 2) which had been entered under different numbers in the same sale proclamation. The respondent was the decree-holder, and had put the Court in motion. He bought the land as No. 7 on the 12th August, his sale was confirmed on the 14th October, and the certificate issued on the 18th December. The appellant bought it as No. 40 on the 30th August, and his purchase was confirmed on the 31st October, but his certificate bears date 17th November and has been registered.2. The first point urged in appeal was that the appellant's certificate bears ,a date prior to that of the respondent, but this was abandoned on it being pointed out that the respondent's certificate disclosed the fact that his purchase had been confirmed before the appellant's.3. The third argument was that the respondent's unregistered certificate must give way to appellant's, which had been registered. We hold, however, that ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanti Lakshmaya Vs. Yerubandi Pedda Appadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad111
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The Judge has rightly held that a mortgagor would not necessarily be deprived of his right to redeem by a revenue sale.2. The decree in Original Suit 338 of 1881 would estop the respondent from asserting that the amount then found was not due on the date of that decree, but it may be that that amount has been since discharged out of the usufruct. We see no reason to disturb the order....
Tag this Judgment!Muttukumarappa Reddi Vs. Arumuga Pillai and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad145
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. From the decision on Krishna Behari Roy v. Bunwari Lall Roy I.L.R. 1 Cal. 144 it appears that in that case the question of title had been carried up to the highest Court of appeal in India and finally determined. The circumstances of the present case are different.2. The former suit was a suit for rent. It was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. The tenant had no reason to object to a decree, which was altogether in his favour, and it was not, in our judgment, competent to him to present an appeal from the finding on an issue.3. We agree with the Judge that the matter is not, under the circumstances, res judicata. We see no reason to disturb the Judge's order remanding the suit for trial, nor do we see any reason why the Sub-Collector should not proceed to determine it, for there has been no denial of the relation of landlord and tenant.4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kaliyugam Chetti Vs. Chokalinga Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad105
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The suit was instituted in the Pudukottai Court on a bond made in Pudukottai territory and payable to the appellant, a resident of Pudukottai. The cause of action then on the bond arose in the Pudukottai territory. The respondents appeared in the suit brought in the Pudukottai Civil Court and took no objection to the jurisdiction of that Court, until the case had reached the stage of appeal, when it was overruled on the ground that they had not taken such an objection in the Court of First Instance.2. The question of jurisdiction was involved in the decision of the questions whether the bond was made by the respondents and whether it was payable in Pudukottai.3. On the facts found in the Pudukottai Court, the Court had jurisdiction.4. We must set aside the decrees of the Courts below and remand the suit to the Court of First Instance for trial. Costs to abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasami and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad102
Hutchins, J.1. These are appeals by different prisoners in a housebreaking case. The first and second prisoners were partners in an arrack-shop adjoining the premises which were broken into; the third and seventh, besides three others who were acquitted, were Police constables; the eighth and twelfth prisoners were Koravars. The first prisoner has appealed separately by Mr Michell; the second, third, seventh, and ninth to twelfth prisoners have forwarded a joint petition, stating that they did not commit the offence, but urging no special grounds of appeal. The tenth to twelfth prisoners pleaded guilty, and their appeal may be dismissed at once.2. On behalf of the first prisoner, Mr. Michell has urged that certain confessions were inadmissible against him, as well as the mahazars drawn up after the discovery of various items of property, and many statements made on hearsay by the Inspector of Police. There can be. no doubt that these objections are well-founded, and, if the case had be...
Tag this Judgment!Gilby Vs. Subbu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad100
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The object of the Act was to provide a remedy for fraudulent breaches of contract by workmen, artificers or labourers, who have received advances of money for work they have undertaken to perform or get performed, such persons being, from want of means, ordinarily unable to make compensation when sued for damages. As the Act applies to cases in which the workman has undertaken to get work performed, as well as to cases in which he undertakes personally to perform it, there may be cases in which a contractor is liable to proceedings under the Act; but the Court agrees with the District Magistrate that the contractor must be himself a workman, and the evidence warranted the District Magistrate in finding in this case that accused, whose ordinary business is that of a contracting bricklayer, and who does not himself work, was not a workman within the meaning of the Act with reference to the contract for earthwork, which is the subject of the proceedings.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Attipakula Munappa Vs. Dasinani Chenchu Nayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad138
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. These were suits, in the nature of appeals against distraints by their landlord, instituted by a number of raiyats under Section 18 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865 (Madras). The time limited for such summary suits is thirty days from the date of distraint. The distraints were made on the 10th of March, and on the 13th these raiyats presented a joint petition to the Head Assistant Collector, who accepted it, but, without registering it as a plaint, and apparently without considering what jurisdiction he had to interfere, endorsed the petition to the Tahsildar for inquiry and report. On behalf of the raiyats it has been suggested that this order must have been made under Section 67* which allows the Collector, at any stage of a summary suit, to direct a local inquiry. The other side has not shown how else the proceedings could be justified. It is true that the suit had not been registered, but the raiyats cannot be held responsible for any omission on...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Vs. Raya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad325
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The inam title-deed is certainly misleading as is not unfrequently the case; it is apparent from other and unquestionable evidence that the inamdar was not entitled to the land, but to a share of the revenue, and that the payment mentioned in the inam deed as quit-rent is in fact the two-thirds of the revenue, which was retained by the Government, when one-third was given to the inamdar.2. Pattas are produced granted to the occupiers as ordinary raiyats by the Revenue authorities, and, in virtue of those pattas, payment of two-thirds of the revenue was made in kind to Government up to 1859 and thereafter in money till, in 1868, the Collector directed that the payment should be made through the inamdar, a procedure which appears to have been contemplated by the Inam Commissioner.3. Although the Rent Recovery Act defines the term landlord in that Act as including inamdars who may be mere assignees of Government revenue and also as including persons, who far...
Tag this Judgment!Muttirangotmanakal Bhavathradan Bhattathiripad Vs. Erangot Trikovil Pi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad99
Kindersley, J.1. We do not think the plaintiff could be considered a household servant or labourer within the meaning of Article 7 of the Limitation Act.2. This petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »