Chennai Court March 1884 Judgments
ZamorIn of Calicut Vs. Sitarama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad405
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant was the owner of the land in suit. Originally he let it to the fourth defendant and allowed the patta to stand in his name. With his consent, however, he since let the land to the first defendant, who transferred his right to the second defendant, but the patta continued to stand in the name of the fourth defendant. Meanwhile, the revenue due on the land fell into arrear, and the land was sold to the respondent, under Madras Act II of 1864, in May 1881. The Subordinate Judge held that the proprietary right to the land passed to the purchaser by the revenue sale and dismissed the suit. But it is argued on second appeal that the land of the defaulter was alone liable to be sold, and that the appellant was not the defaulter, and that no written demand was served upon him as required by Section 38. Act II of 1864 does not in our judgment warrant the contention that the fourth defendant was the defaulter, and that it was his interest which passed...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Vs. Pitchaikanni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad434
1. The property in suit belonged to one Kuli Muttu Nadan, who hypothecated it, together with other property, to the appellant Ramachandra Rayar for Rupees, 8,000 on the 9th April 1874. On the 14th August 1879 respondent, Pitchaikanni Marakayar, purchased it when it was put up to sale for arrear of abkari revenue due by Kuli Muttu. In original suit 44 of 1879 the appellant obtained a decree upon the hypothecation bond and attached the property in execution. The respondent, who was then in possession, opposed the attachment, and his objection prevailed. This suit was then instituted on the ground that under Madras Act II of 1864 the sale for arrear of abkari revenue was not free of prior encumbrances : but both the Lower Courts held that it was, and the question for our decision is whether the respondent's purchase was free of the prior hypothecation, either under Act II of 1864, or because debts due to the Crown take precedence of private debts. As to Act II of 1864, the term 'public re...
Tag this Judgment!Periandi Vs. Angappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad423
1. Appellant, Periandi Tevan, purchased the property in dispute on the 30th July 1880 in execution of a decree subject to a prior mortgage in favor of Subbaya Tevan and others, defendants 1 to 4. The mortgagees had previously been sued by the judgment-debtors in suit No. 618 of 1876, and a decree had been passed in the terms of a compromise then made. They were to the effect that the mortgage was redeemable upon the owners paying Rupees 10 on the 16th July 1877. But that decree was not put into execution within three years, and it was barred by limitation at the date of the sale. By the Court sale, the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtors, as it was modified by the razinama decree, could alone have passed to the appellant. The question for decision then is whether the appellant might sue again for redemption, notwithstanding the razinama decree in suit 618 of 1876. There was no direction in the decree that in default of payment within an appointed day the mortgage be fore...
Tag this Judgment!Kundu and anr. Vs. Impichi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad442
ORDERCharles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The first question of fact that must be determined in order to arrive at a conclusion on the plea of limitation is--Whether the transaction by which possession passed to the fourth defendant was a sale for consideration of an absolute interest, or an assignment of the otti right? Presumably, a mortgagee conveys no higher right than his own; it lies on the fourth defendant to prove he bargained for, and obtained an absolute interest. The Judge does not give any reason for believing the assignment to have been absolute.2. The issue must be remitted to the lower Appellate Court for retrial upon the evidence already recorded, and on such further evidence as may be adduced by the parties with reference thereto.3. If the Judge finds that the fourth defendant was not a purchaser of a jenm-title, he must try on evidence as to custom, what are the incidents of a kaividu otti in respect of redemption.4. The District Judge will submit hi...
Tag this Judgment!Thayammal and anr. Vs. Venkatarama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad401
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The apprehension of the facts of this case will be assisted by the following genealogical tree:-------------------------------Thayammal. = Dorasami Ayyan. Subba Ayyan| | |Venkatavaratha Kuttisami = Thangammal |claims to have | |been adopted by Krishnasami, |Thayammal. adopted by Thangammal. ||-------------------------------------| | |Venkatarama = Visvanatha Rangasami = LokambalThangammal. adopted Subramanya. adopted Krishnasami.2. Plaintiff claims to have been adopted by Lokambal after the death of Krishnasami in accordance with permission given by her husband.3. Subba Ayyan and Dorasami were two brothers, who divided in their lifetime. Subba left three sons--Venkatarama, who died leaving a widow (Thangammal), Visvanatha, who died leaving an adopted son (Subramanya), and Rangasami, who died leaving an adopted son (Krishnasami) and a widow (Lokambal). According to the plaintiff's case, Krishnasami was in delicate health at the time of his father's death, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailasanatha Vs. Tiruvengada
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad420
1. We consider the Collector of a district is, under Regulation VII of 1828, competent to transfer suits under the Rent Recovery Act filed before an Assistant Collector in his district to the file of any other Assistant Collector in the same district. It appears that the Judge is mistaken in supposing that the case had been partly heard. We must set aside the order of the Judge, and direct that the appeal be heard.2. The costs of the appeal will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Siddha Vs. Biligiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad354
Hutchins, J.1. The facts found in this case are that the accused Biligiri received an advance in Mysore territory and engaged to come and work on a particular estate in the Wynaad. He did not, however, leave Mysore until he was apprehended on a warrant for this breach of contract and brought up to Wynaad in custody. The Bench of Magistrates has convicted him and ordered him to do the work contracted for, notwithstanding the President's opinion that they had no jurisdiction, both the contract and the breach having taken place in foreign territory.2. The President's opinion seems correct, and I quash the proceedings and the order requiring Biligiri to do the work contracted for....
Tag this Judgment!Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad356
Hutchins, J.1. The only point raised in this case is that a Magistrate, before acquitting an accused person under Section 247 for the complainant's default of appearance, is bound to wait till his Court is about to close for the day. I can see no foundation for this contention. The case was called on at 1-30, and it is admitted that the complainant was not present. Thereupon, the Magistrate was bound by Section 247 to acquit the accused, 'unless for some reason he thought proper to adjourn the hearing to some other day, 'or to a later hour on the same day.2. I see nothing illegal in his acquitting the accused at once, and accordingly decline to interfere....
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathi Vs. Balasundara and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad540
Hutchins, J.1. This is an appeal against an order, made by the Chief Justice on the Original Side of the Court, calling in an attachment which had issued in Civil Suit 15 of 1866 against the goods of T. Saravana Mudali, defendant, No. 2, and rejecting the application of the decree-holder, T. Ganapathi Mudali, for execution as being barred under Section 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Shaw on behalf of T. Saravana Mudali (respondent No. 2) on the ground that the appeal was not sufficiently stamped. It had been received on a stamp of five rupees only, but Mr. Shaw contended that it required a stamp of fifty rupees, and the difference has been paid in by the appellant to abide by our decision upon this point. The question turns on the table of fees prescribed by the rule of Court, dated 24th July 1874. Article 5 prescribes a fee of five rupees for 'every application to the Court or to a Judge before or after decree.' This, however, is not an...
Tag this Judgment!thenju and anr. Vs. Chimmu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad413
Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. This second appeal arises in a suit instituted by the respond-ants, Kumararichath Chimmu Amma and Lakshmi Amma, to redeem two mortgages evidenced by documents A and B. The two respondents on the one hand and the defendants 6 to 8 on the other, who are no parties to this appeal, represent two branches of the same tarwad. They have for many years lived apart from each other, enjoyed separate properties, and joined in instituting suits for the recovery of tarwad lands. The District Munsif has found that there has been ho division between them, and that their separate residence, possession and management are the results of a family arrangement which has been made, as a matter of convenience, without prejudice to their community of interest as members of the same tarwad. This finding has not been questioned either by the appellants, Kumaranchath Thenju Mannadiar and Ittikander Mannadiar, or the respondents, or the defendants 6 to 8, and we take it, theref...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »