Chennai Court October 1890 Judgments
Subbarayalu Vs. Rowlandson and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad133
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made on the 4th August last in Insolvent Case No. 136 of 1884 in regard to the appellant's claim to dividend and the directions given to the Official Assignee on his application. One Shunmuga Mudaly of Conjeeveram, an insolvent debtor at Madras, filed his petition and schedule on 1st September 1884, and in the latter the appellant was entered as creditor No. 3 for Rs. 1,300, and commission due under a bond, dated the 19th March 1883. By this document the insolvent agreed to repay Rs. 1,300 which he borrowed, before the end of 1885, and, in the meantime, to pay commission thereon at 10 per cent, per mensem. There is no dispute as to the appellant's claim to be admitted to dividend on Rs. 1,300, the principal debt, and on Rs. 2,262 commission due at 10 per cent, per mensem up to 1st September 1884, the date on which the insolvent filed his petition and schedule. But the appellant contended in his affidavits, dated 2nd May 1889 and 11t...
Tag this Judgment!Perianayakam Vs. Pottukanni and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad382
1. We see no reason to doubt that the Act only applies to Christian marriages. The Judge has discussed the question at considerable length, and we agree with the conclusion at which he arrives....
Tag this Judgment!Alima Vs. Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad96
1. The appellant is respondent's sister, and in 1859 they jointly purchased the paramba in dispute. It is found that the exclusive title set up by the appellant has not been proved. Though the appellant has been in possession from 1878 when the respondent went to live in Ponnani, yet the Subordinate Judge finds that the latter has been frequently visiting the house on the paramba for ceremonies and festivals. Upon these facts, we agree with the Subordinate Judge in thinking that Article 142 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Article 142: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description of Suit. | Period of | Time when period begins | limitation. | to run. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For possession of ...
Tag this Judgment!Lingayya and anr. Vs. Narasimha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad99
1. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal and no appeal lies.2. The order, which it is sought to appeal against, was made under Section 258, Civil Procedure Code, and no appeal is allowed against such orders under Section 588, Civil Procedure Code, unless therefore the order is a decree within the meaning of the definition in Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, an appeal will not lie. The definition in Section 2 includes orders made under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, but these orders must be orders, it is said, made in execution of a decree, that is to say, after application has been made to a Court in the execution department to enforce a decree.3. Here it is admitted no application had been made for execution to the Court, the decree having been passed on the 8th November and the application of the defendants, out of which the present proceedings have arisen, having been made on the 30th November following. We are not prepared to hold that the objection is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Davies Vs. President of the Madras Municipal Commission
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad140
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is a case stated for the opinion of the High Court under Section 193 of Act I of 1884. The questions which we have to determine and the facts upon which they arise for decision are stated by the Magistrates in the following terms:2. 'The appellant in this case, Mr. J.F. Davies, is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Oakes and Co. He was assessed under Section 103 and schedule A, class I, of the said Act to pay the sum of Rs. 125, as tax on arts, professions, trades and callings for the half-year ending 31st March 1890, as agent in charge of the business of Mr. W.H. Oakes, a non-resident shopkeeper, carrying on business under the style of Messrs. Oakes and Co.' He complained under Sections 104 and 190 against such assessment, but it was confirmed by the President.3. 'The appellant next appealed to us under Section 192 against the decision of the President, hereinafter called the respondent, and for the purposes of our decision, the following facts were admitted:-...
Tag this Judgment!Pydel Vs. Chathappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad150
1. The decree passed in Original Suit No. 162 of 1878 directed the first defendant alone to pay the amount decreed to the appellant; but the judgment recorded in that suit showed that his karnavan was also intended to be made liable. The appellant attached four parcels of tarwad land in execution, but the respondents objected to the attachment on the ground that the decree-debt was not a tarwad debt. Their objection being overruled, they brought this suit to have it declared that tarwad property was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree in question. Subsequently, the attachment was followed by sale and defendant No. 3, who was the purchaser at the Court sale, was made a party to the suit. Subsequently to the sale, the decree was amended so as to include the karnavan among the defendants who were directed to pay the amount decreed. Both the Courts below decreed the claim, and held that for the purposes of this suit, the decree must be taken to have been as it stood originally...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Madras Vs. Subbarayalu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad32
Best, J.1. This is a suit by the Bank of Madras for the recovery (with interest) of a sum of Rs. 4,300 due under a promissory note. The first defendant is the drawer of the note and the second defendant' the indorser. First defendant admits his execution of the note, but pleads that he did so ' at the request of the plaintiff (Bank) who through their agent T. Murugasa Mudali promised and agreed that the plaintiff would not at any time call upon him, the first defendant, to pay same or any part thereof,' and that the note was executed by him (first defendant) for the accommodation of one Gurunatha Chetti, who was at the time already indebted to the Bank under two previous notes for Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 2,500 respectively, both of date 8th March 1889.2. The plaint note has been filed as Exhibit A; it is dated 10th September 1889. The acceptor of the note is Ramaswami Chetti, brother of the Gurunatha Chetti referred to by first defendant. He has allowed the suit to proceed ex parte as far as...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Vs. Sama and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad227
1. It is admitted that the appeal cannot be maintained. It must therefore be dismissed.2. As to the petition under Section 622, it is urged that the sale was not merely irregular, but was wholly void ah initio and that, therefore, the Courts below exceeded their jurisdiction. Seeing that it was the present petitioner, the judgment-debtor, who put the Court in motion by applying under Section 311, we are unable to see how the petitioner can be heard to say that the Court had no jurisdiction.3. As the case was put by the judgment-debtor, the Court clearly had jurisdiction. Apart from this, we do not consider that either the commencement of the sale prior to the expiry of the thirtieth day, or any delay in making the deposit required by Section 306, or the adjournment of the sale from time to time without sufficient ground is more than a mere irregularity.4. Although we are referred to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Bakshi Nand Kishore v. Malak Chand I.L.R. All. 289 Jasoda v...
Tag this Judgment!Amirthaien and anr. Vs. Ketharamaien (Minor) by His Guardian Minatchi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ185
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. The question for docision in this second appeal is whether the construction put by the District Judge upon the will (Exhibit I) is correct.2. The testator Panchapakesayyan made his will on the 18th December 1884 and died on the 1st February 1885, leaving him surviving a widow named Menatchi Ammall, the 1st defendant, and two divided brothers, the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that Panchapakesayyan authorised Menatchi Ammal only to adopt one of their sons, and that the adoption of the 2nd defendant, who was a mere Sapinda, was invalid. On the other hand, the contention for the defendant was that the 'authority was general, and that the adoption was, therefore, open to no objection. The Subordinate Judge considered that the testator conferred upon the 1st defendant an authority to adopt a child only from a particular class, but the Judge held that there was no such restriction. It has been contended before us that the will has. been misconstrued by the Judge....
Tag this Judgment!Dorasami Tewar Vs. Sri Muthu Vijaya Regunadha Dorasami Tevar Avergal A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ557
Weir, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Court of Madura appointing one S. Kristnasami Aiyar to be sole guar-dian of the estate of certain minors and joint custodian along with the maternal uncle (appellant) of the persons of the minors.2. The order purports to be made under Act IX of 1861 and the principal ground of objection urged before me is that the order in. so far as it appoints a guardian to the estate of the minor is ultra vires, inasmuch as Act IX of 1861 only empowers the court to appoint guardians to the persons of minors. This question has been argued at some length and I have taken time to consider the [539] arguments with the result that I am not satisfied that the District Judge's order should be disturbed.3. The Act (Act IX of 1861) is certainly ambiguous and a strong inference in favor of the view that the term guardian means guardian of the person only is said to be derivable from other enactments (Madras Regulation V of 1804, Sections 10 and 20...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »