Chennai Court September 1883 Judgments
The Queen Empress Vs. Subbanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad197
Kindersley, J.1. As to karnams in settled districts, Collectors might, subject to certain restrictions, require their attendance by notice under Regulation XXIX of 1802, Sections 12 to 16. Those sections, however, were declared by Regulation II of 1806 not to apply to districts in which the revenue was not permanently fixed. In such districts, karnams of villages were declared to be under the immediate authority of the Collectors and their subordinate officers, who were to have full power to require their attendance when and where their services were required.2. Even in settled districts, Section 13 of Regulation XXIX of 1802 was 'not to be construed to preclude Collectors, or other public officers, from demanding from karnams the information required for the due administration of the revenues of such lands as might escheat to Government or remain khas after attachment for arrears of revenue. '3. The Madras Act III of 1869 is 'an Act to empower Revenue officers to summon persons to att...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference from the Board of Revenue Under Section 46 of the Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad155
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Kernan, Kindersley, Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchines, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the instrument is a lease reserving a rent of Rs. 1,954-10-7, and that the stamp duty is to be calculated on that amount. It is true that the lessor mentions his liability to pay a large sum as Government revenue, and that he directs the lessee to apply so much as is necessary of the rent to the liquidation of his obligation; but as between the lessor and lessee the property is demised free of revenue and not subject to it, and the sum of Rs. 1,954-10-7 is the sum received by the lessor for the use of his land, he remaining under the obligation to discharge revenue, and, if default were made by the lessee in applying the rent as directed, the whole sum he might fail to pay would be recovered from his rent....
Tag this Judgment!Gurupathappa and anr. Vs. Narasingappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad174
1. This suit was originally referred to five arbitrators, two of whom were named by the plaintiffs and two by the defendants, while the fifth was a common arbitrator, or uttara-panchayattar.2. The plaintiffs' arbitrators declined to act and the common arbitrator died. Thereupon the Munsif appointed two new arbitrators upon the plaintiffs' nomination and another uttara-panchayattar with the consent of both parties. On the date ultimately fixed for the return of an award, the uttara-panchayattar and defendants' arbitrators delivered an award dismissing plaintiffs' claim, while the plaintiffs' arbitrators put in a petition, stating that they had withdrawn from the proceedings as the uttara-panchayattar had treated them discourteously, and that they had not met together or examined witnesses.3. The Munsif thereupon superseded the arbitration, and, after hearing the suit on the merits, gave a judgment partly in favour of the plaintiffs.4. The defendants appealed, and the Subordinate Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!Karimshah Vs. Nattan Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad417
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The only point calling for decision in this appeal is that of limitation.2. The second defendant obtained possession of trust property more than twelve years before suit. He does not dispute that the property is bound by a trust, on the contrary he admits he holds as a trustee and claims to have been properly constituted a trustee. The case then is governed by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Balwant Rao Bishwant Chandra Chor v. Purun Mal Chaube L.R. 10 IndAp 90 in which it was held that a claim to vindicate the personal right of a trustee to the possession of immoveable property against another person claiming that right in the same character is not governed by Section 10 of the Limitation Act.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Lakshamana Chetti Vs. Appala Narasimhasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad167
Hutchins, J.1. The decree-holder in this case has applied for execution in the following circumstances: Certain moneys stood in deposit in another Court which he believed to be payable to the judgment-debtor. He attached them and the sum was remitted to this Court, that of the Bimlipatam Munsif, at his request. The plaintiff in the other Court put in a claim, but it was disallowed, and the money was paid out to the decree-holder and satisfaction recorded on the decree. The plaintiff in the other Court then brought a suit, in which it was conclusively decided that the money did not belong to this judgment-debtor and was not available for the satisfaction of this decree. The money has, therefore, been refunded and the decree-holder has put in a fresh application.2. The question referred seems to be whether further execution proceedings are barred by the Court having entered up satisfaction in the register.3. We are clearly of opinion that fresh proceedings may be taken. It is not alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Khimji Jivraju Shettu Vs. Sa Purushotam Jutani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR7Mad171
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. It is a pre-requisite of the right to join in one suit more than one cause of action against a defendant that the Court to which the plaint is presented should have jurisdiction over all the causes of action. The joinder, then, of the claim in respect of the partnership transactions with the claim on account of the agency transactions would not give the Court jurisdiction in respect of the agency transactions. The question is, whether the Court had, independently of this joinder, jurisdiction to determine the claim arising out of the agency transactions.2. It is not alleged that the defendants made any contract of agency at Telli-cherry. Presumably the contract was made at Bombay, where they reside and carry on business; it was performed at Bombay in so far as regarded the sale, purchase, or despatch of goods; and it is not shown that there was any express stipulation as to the place at which an account should be rendered or any balance resulting in favou...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Krishnayyar Vs. Kaveri Shettati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR7Mad201
Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. The decree which the appellant seeks to execute directed mesne profits to be paid by a person who happened to be yajaman (manager). The decree does not show that he was sued as yajaman, and the two other members of the family who were joined as defendants in the suit were exonerated from the direction as to mesne profits. We cannot say that the decree shows any liability on the part of the family, and therefore dismiss this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!B. Tata Charlu Vs. Konadala Ramachandra Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad152
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. An order under Section 210 alters the decree, and the decree can be executed only subject to such alteration.2. The decree-holder might have objected to the order for the payment of the amount decreed in a lump sum, but he was silent and the order is not a nullity, because the alteration merely postponed the period of payment.3. The Judge has rightly held the application was within time. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramanjulu Nayudu Vs. Ramachandra Nayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad150
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The clause respecting the payment of rent at the highest rates payable in the neighbourhood on land formerly dry, which might be irrigated from a Government source of supply, and the clause relating to the payment of such rates as the lessors might agree to take for the cultivation of land in excess of the holdings and unassessed, appear to us to be objectionable, because they are indefinite. The Act intends that the rate of rent should be ascertained and declared even where the rate may vary with the means of cultivation or the frequency of cultivation, or where the quantum of rent may vary with an increase or reduction in the area of the holding.2. We must affirm the decree and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Thurga Ramachandra Rau Vs. Appayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad128
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff, a srotriyamdar, has brought this suit for the dismissal of the karnam of his villages, on the ground that the defendant (karnam) had been appointed by him, but did not conduct his duties properly, nor explain his accounts properly to plaintiff, and that defendant spoke insultingly to the plaintiff.2. The District Munsif made a decree dismissing the defendant from the office of karnam with costs. The District Court, however, reversed that decree, the Judge being of opinion that the provisions of Regulation XXV of 1802 did not apply to this case.3. This second appeal has been brought on the ground that under the regulations the Civil Courts had the power to dismiss the karnams, and that the defendant had received his appointment from the plaintiff. The object of Regulation XXV of 1802 was to settle permanently the peshkash due to Government by certain zamindars and other landholders, who thereupon became entitled to receive from Government a sanad-i-milkiy...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »