Chennai Court August 1884 Judgments
Vasudeva Vs. Chinnasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad584
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The omission of the Limitation Act to declare expressly that, in calculating the period allowed for the presentation of an appeal, the time during which an application for review is pending should be allowed, shows that the legislature did not intend that this period should be allowed as a matter of right. On the other hand, we are not prepared to say that it should never be allowed. If a person has with what is, under the circumstances, reasonable diligence applied for a review, and the application has been entertained, and there is every reasonable prospect that the petitioner will obtain all by the application that he could obtain by appeal, the Court would be justified in accepting the explanation as a sufficient cause for his not appealing within the time limited.2. In the case before the Court, the defendant applied for a review of judgment on the very last day before the period limited for appeal had expired, and not on the ground of the discovery ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Vs. Paramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad583
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was brought to recover payment of three instalments, each of Rs. 75, due on a bond executed on 17th September 1874.2. The bond was executed to secure the repayment of Rs. 1,200 without interest in sixteen yearly instalments of Rs. 75, and it contained a condition that, if failure was made in the payment of any one instalment at the date stipulated, the whole sum then remaining due should be forthwith exigible. It is admitted that default was made in payment of the first six instalments, and the instalments now sued for are the seventh, eighth, and ninth.3. The defendant pleads that, inasmuch as the holder of the bond did not bring suit within three years after default was made in payment of the first instalment, the right to sue for the whole, and, therefore, for any part of the bond debt, has become barred. The plaintiff contends that it was optional to the bond-holder to waive the benefit of the condition, and that the condition was waived; an...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu Vs. Nayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad577
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The Limitation Act declares that, where an instrument is payable in instalments accompanied by the condition that in default of payment of one the whole shall be due, a suit on the instrument must be brought within three years from the date of the first default, unless when the payee waives the benefit of the provision, and then from the date when fresh default is made.2. This provision applies to all suits on the bond, whether for the recovery of a part or the whole sum due.3. If default has been made and a right to sue for the debt in full has accrued beyond the period of limitation, the creditor must prove a waiver, and to prove waiver it is not sufficient to show a mere abstinence from suit. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Antamma and ors. Vs. Kaveri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad575
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Doubt has been thrown on the authenticity of the work ascribed to Bhutala Pandya, but on the point on which we are now considering that work contains no express direction.2. There is some support for the contention that the Alyasantana was not the original law of the Hindus in Canara, and although, if it were borrowed from the South, it may in many features resemble Malabar law, it is not to be assumed that they are on all points identical. As to the rules relating to the devolution of self-acquired property, the only safe guide is local usage.3. This, the Judge finds, is distinctly in favour of the claims of the heirs of the acquirer in his own branch and opposed to the claim of the tarwad. As has been pointed out by Mr. Krishna Menon, who denies the accepted rule respecting the devolution of self-acquired property under Marumakkatayam law, survivorship obtains under Hindu law in respect of coparcenary property. The acquisition in which there is no copar...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya and ors. Vs. Srinivasa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad580
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Although from the context it has been held that a 'farmer' is not a 'tenant' within the meaning of certain sections of the Act, it has also been held that, generally in other sections of the Act, the term 'tenants' applies to, and includes, 'farmers.' In our judgment there is nothing in the context of the section under which the respondent has instituted these proceedings, which necessarily confines the term 'tenant' to agricultural tenants. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.2. The damages are not unreasonable....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen-empress Vs. Polavarapu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad563
Hutchins, J.1. The decision of Mr. Justice Tyrrell in Ishri v. Bakshi I.L.R. 6 All. 96 seems correct, although his reasons have not been fully-stated. Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code defines a complaint to mean 'the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this code, that some person has committed an offence.' Here the accusation was made to a police officer who took action and laid the matter before the Magistrate with a charge sheet.There was no complaint as defined by the Code, and the case not having been instituted upon complaint,' the Magistrate had no power to award compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The award of compensation is accordingly quashed and the 5 rupees must be refunded to the person from whom it was levied....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen-empress Vs. Kuppu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad560
Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The facts are stated by the referring officer. The offence for which the Joint Magistrate purported to give sanction under Section 195 was perjury committed before the Second-class Magistrate who did not give, nor was b.e applied to for, sanction, though, he stated, he disbelieved the witness.2. The Joint Magistrate on reading the calendar and apparently without reading the evidence or forming an opinion from it whether the witness had committed perjury and without any application for the purpose purported to give sanction to prosecute the witness.3. The Joint Magistrate when he granted sanction was not sitting as a Court to hear the case in any stage of it, nor was any application before him.4. Sanction should not be given by any Court without first examining the evidence. The object of giving the power to sanction is to secure, as far as possible, that no man shall be prosecuted unless the Court hearing the case or a superior Court is satisfied that ...
Tag this Judgment!Virankutti Vs. Chiyamu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad557
Hutchins, J.1. The facts alleged against the accused are that at night they forcibly entered the house of a deceased person and removed his property with the dishonest intention of depriving the complainant's sister and her son of the share to which they were entitled under the Muhammadan law. The house, it is stated, was being guarded by watchmen, some of whom were sent by the complainant's sister, while others had been appointed by the first and second accused on behalf of their daughters, who are admittedly entitled to a share.2. The original charge was one of dacoity. The Deputy Magistrate split it up and convicted the accused of rioting, using criminal force, and misappropriating the property of a deceased person. In appeal the Sessions Court reversed this conviction, holding that the offence committed, if any amounted to dacoity, but that, the facts being incredible, there was no occasion to order a committal.3. The complainant thereupon lodged a fresh charge of dacoity before an...
Tag this Judgment!Yakub Vs. Narasinga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad572
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Narasinga Lala, the mittadar of Veppampattu, instituted a summary Suit, 39 of 1882, in the Court of the Head Assistant Collector, Salem District, to compel the defendant, Patel Yakub Sahib, to accept a patta and exchange a muchalka. The Head Assistant Collector directed the defendant to accept a patta as amended by him.2. The defendant appealed to the District Court, and on the 27th February 1883 that Court ordered further amendment of the patta, and stated specifically in its judgment what the terms of the patta should be. A decree was drawn up which directed the preparation of a patta. The particulars given in the decree are at variance with those set out in the judgment.3. On the 6th March, the defendant states, he received information from his vakil that the case had been decided partly in his favour. He subsequently applied for copies of the decree and judgment. The defendant states that, discovering that the decision and the decree of the Appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatamma Vs. Chengalrayappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad556
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Hutchins, J.1. We agree with the High Court of Calcutta in Nanuk Pershad v. Lalla Nitya Lall I.L.R. 6 Cal. 40 that the Act XXVII of 1860 gives the Judge no power to cancel the certificate, though, with all respect for the learned Judges who heard that case, we cannot convince ourselves that the Judge would have power, independently of the Act, to cancel the certificate, otherwise than on review. The question then arises whether we can entertain an appeal from the order.2. It appears that the application was presented as an appeal, but that the learned Judge, who admitted it, directed that it should be amended and received as an application under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. In our judgment an appeal lay under the general provisions of the Procedure Code, and, treating this as an appeal, we set aside the order of the Judge and direct the respondent to bear the appellant's costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »