Chennai Court September 1884 Judgments
Muttumira and ors. Vs. the Queen Empress
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad590
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. During the Muharram festival the accused, who are Labis resident in the village of Dalavaipatnam, erected a pandal or temporary shed on a piece of waste land forming part of the village site, and placed in it an image.2. The land is in the neighbourhood of Hindu temples, whence at certain seasons processions are conducted past the site, and parts of it are used by the Hindus at the Kaliamman festival for tying buffaloes dedicated to the idol.3. It is found that in so doing the accused had no deliberate intention to wound the religious feelings of the Hindus, but the Appellate Court has sustained the order of the Magistrate convicting them of having caused a public nuisance, on the ground that the placing of a Muhammadan symbol in the neighbourhood of Hindu temples is likely to cause serious annoyance to the Hindu public.4. A public nuisance is defined in the Penal Code as an act or omisison which causes any common injury, danger, or annoyance to the publi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaya Vs. Chinnaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad597
Hutchins, J.1. The lands in suit formed part of the emoluments of the karnam's office. That office was hereditary in the family of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and was held by their father, who consequently enjoyed the lands as his emolument. On the death of their father the office, or at all events the right thereto, devolved on one of them. Whilst the lands were in possession of the sons, the Government resolved that such offices should no longer be remunerated by emoluments in land and that the lands held as such emoluments should be offered to the office-holders if they were willing to pay a prescribed consideration for their enfranchisement. The sons of the deceased accepted the offer and received pattas. The lands enfranchised cannot be regarded as the property of the father and liable to sale for the payment of his debts. They could not have been sold by him, nor attached and sold in his lifetime for payment of his debts. His interest in them ceased when his office was vacated by...
Tag this Judgment!Virasami Vs. Athi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad595
1. The respondent, Athi Nayak, obtained a decree against Virasami Chetti, the appellant, on the 5th March 1879, and on the 16th September 1879 he applied to execute the decree by the attachment and sale of certain properties which he alleged belonged to the appellant. Orders were accordingly issued and a sale took place and was confirmed on the 8th January 1880.2. The auction-purchaser, Subbaraya Chetti, being informed that the appellant had no title to the properties sold, instituted a suit and obtained a decree for the cancelment of the sale on the 2nd April 1881.3. On the 2nd November 1881 Subbaraya Chetti obtained an order for the restitution of the purchase money, and it was paid to him by the respondent in December 1881.4. On the 2nd March 1883 the respondent again applied for execution by the arrest of the judgment-debtor.5. The Munsif relying on Paras Bam v. Gardner I.L.R. 1 All. 355 and Issuree Dassee v. Abdool Khalak I.L.R. 4 Cal. 415 held that the application was in time.6. ...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu Vs. Rangasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad588
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Assuming that the finding is right and that there was no division between the brothers, it has to be considered whether such a settlement as that which the appellant has proved can take effect as against the undivided interest of the settlor.2. It bras been held in this Presidency that such an interest will pass to a purchaser for value, or rather that a purchaser for value has the same right to call for a partition which the seller has.3. A post-nuptial settlement executed in pursuance of an ante-nuptial agreement in consideration of marriage is equivalent to a sale. If then the settlement on which the appellant relies was executed in pursuance of an antenuptial contract made in pursuance of marriage (it is immaterial whether it was made with her or with her father) the appellant cannot be in a worse position than a purchaser for value, and the question arises whether a purchaser for value of the interest of an undivided coparcener loses all benefit of h...
Tag this Judgment!Nagireddi Vs. Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad592
Hutchins, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) sued as assignee of a purchaser in execution to eject the judgment-debtor (respondent) from the lands sold in execution. The decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge in a Small Cause suit. The Subordinate Judge's Court was then abolished and the decree came into the District Court for execution. It was transferred for execution to the District Munsif, who would have had jurisdiction to try the cause as a regular suit but for the existence of a superior Court with Small Cause powers up to Rs. 500. The lands were then regularly attached and brought to sale and the purchase by the appellant's vendor was duly confirmed.2. The District Judge, however, has now held the sale to have been void, because the preliminary procedure required by Section 20, Act XI of 1865, had not been observed.3. The decree was passed against the assets of one Siddamma, deceased. It is not alleged that Siddamma left any moveable property against which execution might have ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakamma Vs. Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad586
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The defendant's husband died and the plaintiff, her brother-in-law, contested her right of succession and obtained possession. She brought a suit to recover possession and eventually succeeded; while the suit was pending, a creditor of the deceased sued the plaintiff and the widow, and obtained a decree for the liquidation of the debt out of the estate. The plaintiff paid the debt out of his own moneys before the widow obtained her decree. The property of a deceased person is, under Hindu Law, liable for his debts, in whosoever hands it may be found. The plaintiff having the estate in his hands could not have resisted the decree, and, by reason of the decree, became under a legal liability to make the payment. Having done so to save the estate, we consider he is entitled to recover the amount. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›