Chennai Court August 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.
Dorasami Vajappayyar Vs. Atiratra Dikshatar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad136
Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. We think that this appeal must prevail. The respondent claims under an execution purchase of the right, title and interest of the appellant's uncle. The Lower Appellate Court ought not to have allowed the question whether the decree against the uncle was founded on an ancestral debt, to be raised. The plaintiff was under no obligation to pay his uncle's debt, and the sale of the property under a decree against the uncle could not pass the plaintiff's share. The case is in fact governed by Armugam v. Sabapathi I.L.R. 5 Mad. 12 and Subramanian v. Subramanian I.L.R. 5 Mad. 125 as we see no distinction between the case of brothers and that of uncle and nephew.2. The Subordinate Judge's decree must be reversed and the Munsif's decree restored, so far as they relate to the property No. 8, and the fifth defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of both appeals....
The Collector of Godavari Vs. Isuf Kasim Nana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad42
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. This was a suit against the Collector of the Godavari District and others for damages caused to the plaintiff's goods by reason of the negligence of the defendants in keeping those goods in a leaky godown. As against the second defendant the suit was withdrawn, and the third defendant has not appealed against the decree passed against him. The Collector alone has appealed to this Court.2. Under Section 197 of the Sea Customs Act, VIII of 1878, such a suit as this cannot be maintained against any Officer of Customs, unless it be proved that the loss or damage was occasioned by the neglect or wilful act of such officer.3. No special negligence has been proved against the Collector in this case. It has not even been shown that the state of the roof of the godown was brought to his notice, and as the roof had been repaired a year before, he had no reason to suppose that it was out of repair.4. The Collector of a district has not time to examine the roof of a ...
Karuppa Goundan Vs. Kolanthayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad91
Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The plaintiff and defendants in this suit are Vellalas; and the plaintiff stated that he and his ancestors had been enjoying, for more than 300 years, the honours of the Vellalas receiving sacred ashes, sandal, betel and nut, flowers, etc., before they were served out to others, on festival and other days at the seven devasthanams mentioned in the plaint; and that from time immemorial, the defendants 4 to 8 had never received the first honours. He therefore sued to establish his right to receive the above offerings or honours before others of the same caste in the said devasthanams, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from preventing his so receiving them.2. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the claim was not of a civil nature; and, on appeal, his decision was confirmed by the District Court. The plaintiff makes this second appeal on the ground that the suit is maintainable in a Civil Court; and whether it is so...
Sankara Narayana Pannikondar Vs. Vijaya Raghunadha Muttayan Pannikonda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad134
Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The eighth defendant, Vellayan Chetti, not having been served with notice of this appeal, will not be affected by this judgment and decree.2. The plaintiff has brought this suit against his father and certain alienees of portions of his father's zamindari, for a declaration as to his future right to succeed after his father's death to the zamindari in question, and for a declaration that the alienations made by his father will not then be binding upon the plaintiff'.3. The only question for our determination is whether the stamp of 10 rupees, which the plaint bears, is a sufficient stamp for such a declaratory suit. We are of opinion that, under the second schedule of the Court Fees' Act, Article 17 (3), the stamp of 10 rupees was sufficient.4. The order of the Subordinate Judge rejecting the plaint as insufficiently stamped is hereby set aside, and the suit is remanded to the Subordinate Court to be replaced on the file, and disposed of in the usu...
The Queen Vs. Tulukanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad131
Turner, C.J.1. In consideration that the accused agreed to work for wages, the employer advanced to him Rs. 10, which was to be worked off, 8 annas per week being deducted from the wages which would accrue due.2. The case is not on all fours with the precedent to which the District Magistrate refers. Here the advance was made on account of work to be performed, and was to be liquidated by performance of the work; in the case referred to, there was a loan which was to enure so long as the service continued and was then to be renewed in full.3. The Court will not interfere....
Ellappa Nayak Vs. Annamalai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad76
Hutchins, J.1. The question is whether the appellant's suit was barred by the law of limitation. Both the lower Courts have found that it was barred, and Mr. Gordon only disputes their decision on the ground that the part-payment gave rise to a new period of limitation under the provisions of Section 20 of Act XV of 1879.2. It has been found that the payment was in fact made by the second defendant at the request of the first defendant, and that the endorsement was made by the second defendant, who affixed his mark to it. At least a portion of the payment must have been towards the principal, and the appellant's case was that the whole was paid towards the principal: if there was any payment of interest, the suit would certainly not be barred. If, however, there was no payment except towards the principal, the question arises whether the endorsement, which shows the payment to have been made and is marked by the second defendant, is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the statute ...
Gurivi Reddi Vs. Chinnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad93
Kindersley, J.1. The two plaintiffs and one Buggamma are co-widows of one Polla Reddi, who died without issue shortly before this suit. Plaintiffs alleged that Buggamma having demanded a share of her late husband's estate, they, by the advice of friends, gave her a house and certain jewels and moveable property, not by way of a final and complete partition but provisionally, and that Buggamma having since died, the defendant had taken unlawful possession of the property to recover which this suit was brought.2. The defendant pleaded that Polla Reddi, who was his father's divided brother, had told him before his death that he was to have Buggamma's share on condition of his supporting her as long as she lived. But this has not been believed. The District Munsif, however, found that Buggamma in her lifetime had given her property to the defendant, but, finding that the defendant had paid some debts with the moveable property, he decreed possession only of the house to the plaintiff's.3. ...
Nangali Vs. Raman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad226
Kernan, J.1. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the Tiruvangatt Devasam, sued to recover four pieces of land with arrears of rent. They alleged that those lands had been let to Eravattu Keshava Poduval, the third defendant's late husband, the younger brother of the second defendant, and the uncle of the first defendant, in September or October 1865. The plaintiffs produced a marupattam or counterpart of a lease, alleging that it was executed by that lessee, but that document was objected to on the ground that it had not been registered. Plaintiffs alleged entry under the marupattam by him, and then by his brother, and then by third defendant. The third defendant, who is the present appellant, denied the genuineness of the marrupattam, and stated that the senior male member of- the family at the date of the marupattam was not Keshava Poduval who was said to have executed it, but one Vikrama Poduval. As to the land No. 3, the third defendant stated that the devasam had only a koovam right to r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›