Chennai Court September 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.
Krishnasami Pillai and ors. Vs. Rangasami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad112
Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover from an undivided family a sum lent to the two eldest sons for the purchase of indigo. Those two, the first and second defendants, gave a promissory note for the amount, but the note is not admissible in evidence, and the plaintiff sues, not on the note, but for money lent.2. The first objection taken is that such a suit cannot be brought where a note has been given, and Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Khan I.L.R. 7 Cal. 256 was relied upon. It appears to us that this case falls within the first class of cases described in Sir RICHARD GARTH'S judgment. The cause of action 'for money lent' was complete in itself before the giving of the note, and defendants' request and the payment by plaintiff, which constitute the cause of action, can be proved independently of the note.3. The second objection is that the seventh defendant, the father, should not have been made liable, but we understand the lower Courts to have found that the money was ...
Muttammal Vs. the Bank of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad115
Kernan, J.1. Subbu Chetti, a native inhabitant of the Presidency town of Madras, obtained an advance from the Bank of Madras upon the security of the deposit of certain Government promissory notes. He died on the 1st of December 1882 without leaving a son or guardian or any undivided coparcener or other male heir, but leaving one widow only, the plaintiff in this suit, and two infant daughters. The debts he owed were trifling and have been paid. He was a man very well known in Madras, where he spent his life, and at his death was dubash of Arbuthnot & Co. He had not any assets, effects or property outside Madras town. His widow, the plaintiff, is a daughter of Mr. Ramasami Chetti, one of the Vice-Presidents of the Madras Municipality. By letter of the 18th December 1882 to Madras Bank, Ramasami Chetti informed them of the death of the deceased, and by letter of the 19th of December 1882, the Secretary to the Bank replied.2. By letter of the 24th January 1883, Ramasami Chetti, on behalf...
Sri Sri Sri Gajapati Radhikapatta Mahadevi Garu Vs. Sri Gajapati Radha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad96
1. The appellant, Radhika Patta Mahadevi, and the first respondent, Radhamani Patta Mahadevi, are the widows of a Hindu family, which had originally consisted of two brothers, Gopinadha and Krishna. Of these, Krishna had died first, and, upon the death of the surviving brother, Gopinadha, his widow, the appellant, took exclusive possession of the taluk of Tekkali which he had held, and of which the land now in litigation forms a part. But her right to exclusive possession was questioned by the two widows of Krishna, and by two illegitimate sons, and there was litigation in the family.2. By the decree passed by the High Court on appeal, a fifth share was awarded to each of the five claimants, of whom the first respondent, Krishna's junior widow, was one. From this decree an appeal was preferred to the Privy Council {see I.. L.R. 1 Mad. 290 who raised the appellant's share from one-fifth to one-fourth. Before the appeal to the Privy Council was decided, the first respondent, Radhamani, w...
Sama Rayar Vs. Annamalai Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad164
Kindersley, J.1. The plaintiff having obtained a decree of the Civil Court of the Native State of Pudukottai against the defendant and another person, on an hypothecation executed in favour of his father, has brought this suit against the defendant, who now resides in British territory, to recover the balance remaining due under the decree.2. The District Munsif upon the authority of Bhavanishanker Shevakram v. Pursadri Kalidas I.L.R. 6 Bom. 292 dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit would not lie upon the decree of a Civil Court of a Native State.3. That decision was reversed by the District Judge who held that the suit would lie and accordingly remanded it for trial.4. This second appeal rests on the ground that such a suit would not lie, and this is the sole question for determination. It does not appear that the Governor-General in Council has authorized, under Section 434 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the execution within British India of the decrees of the Civil Court o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›