Chennai Court October 1890 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.
Amirthayyan and anr. Vs. Ketharamayyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad65
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The question for decision 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 Minakshi Ammal, the first defendant, and two divided brothers, the plaintiff's. The plaintiff's' case was that Panchapakesayyan authorized Minakshi Ammal only to adopt one of their sons and that the adoption of the second defendant, who was a mere sapinda, was invalid. On the other hand, the contention for the defendants 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 first 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 th...
Durgayya Vs. Anantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad74
1. On finding it stated in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court (para. 10) that the case had been argued before that Court 'mainly on the 6th issue and the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the lower Court under this issue is the only point for determination in this appeal,' the appellant's vakil has confined his contention in this Court to the same point.2. The question is, therefore, whether the lower Courts are right in holding to be invalid as against the respondents the sale in execution of the decree E obtained by plaintiff against Timmappa Chetti, the father of second and third respondents?3. The decree in question was obtained in December 1882, i.e., after the coming into operation of the Transfer of Property Act, No. IV of 1882. Section 99 of that Act disentitles a mortgagee who attaches property in execution of a decree for the satisfaction of any claim 'whether arising under the mortgage or not' from bringing such property to sale 'otherwise than by institutin...
Neelamegan Vs. Govindan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad71
1. The appellant in both these cases is the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 501 of 1887, on the file of the District Munsif of Madura, in which plaintiff sued for the recovery of Rs. 550 (with further interest) on the security of certain mortgaged property. From the Munsif's decree two separate appeals were preferred to the Subordinate Court of Madura (East). The result in both these appeals was adverse to the plaintiff. He thereupon preferred to this Court his Second Appeal No. 1299 of 1889, with reference only to his own first appeal (No. 465 of 1888), but objecting to the decree of the lower Appellate Court also in the appeal of fourth and fifth defendants (No. 462 of 1888). He was, therefore, directed to prefer a separate second appeal from this latter decree. Hence the Second Appeal No. 1002 of 1890.2. The only question arising for decision in Second Appeal No. 1299 of 1889 is whether the lower Courts are right in holding that the mortgage bond I was not merged in the subsequent sa...
Narasimha Naidu Vs. Ramasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad44
1. It is not clear from the judgment of the District Judge whether any contract, express or implied, has been entered into between the landlord and his tenants or one or other of them who are parties to these second appeals. Until this has been found, we are unable to dispose of these appeals. Fresh evidence will be allowed. The District Judge is requested to submit a distinct finding on the issue above stated.'2. In compliance with this order the District Judge submitted a finding which explained that for convenience of the revenue accounts the land in the Kistna delta is classed as dry and that a water-rate of Rs. 4 per acre is levied by Government upon all land reached by the water of the anicut channels. The raiyats contend that when this irrigation is extended to their lands they need pay only this water rate to Government and the former dry rates to the zamindar. The zamindars contend that in such cases the raiyats must pay increased or wet rates to the zamindar, and a stipulatio...
Sri Sri Sri Rajah Rajeswara Gajapathi Narayana Devu Malavapalinu Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ347
1. I think this Appeal must be allowed. The sum of Rs. 1,092-8-0 in question was not a sum payable under a decree, 'but it was a sum paid in disregard of the terms of the decree, and any agreement to pay such amount was void under the provisions of the 2nd Clause of 8. 257-A, C.P.C. This being so the matter was not in any way governed by the provisions of Section 258, C.P.C. That section contemplates cases where moneys are payable in accordance with the terms of a decree and also plyments made in pursuance of lawful agreements under Section 257-A, of the Code, viz., such agreements as have received the [334] sanction of the Court. Here both these conditions were wanting and this being so the section does not apply. For the rest it was the duty of the Court on the fact of the disregard of the terms of the decree being brought to its notice to enforce compliance with the decree and in the present case this must be done by applying the provisions of the last 01. of Section 257-A, C.P.C.2....
Agra Bank Vs. Hamlin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad235
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. On the 20th January 1890, two estates known as 'Chembali' and 'Burnside' were put up for sale in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 1 of 1889, on the file of the Subordinate Court at Ootacamund. Mr. David bid, on behalf of the plaintiff, Rs. 10,005 for 'Chembali' and Rs. 3,005 for 'Burnside'; but he intimated his wish to withdraw these bids to the nazir on the 21st January and to the Subordinate Judge on the 22nd. The Subordinate Judge refers to this Court the question whether it is permissible for bidders at Court sales to withdraw their bids.2. I am of opinion that the answer must be in the affirmative. Until the lot is knocked down and the sale is concluded, the Court may, in its discretion, adjourn the sale under Section 290, Civil Procedure Code, and it is bound to stop the sale if the judgment-debtor satisfies the decree before the lot is knocked down. It is clear then that, until the lot is knocked down, the Court has a locus penitentia and it fol...
Ramabhadra and anr. Vs. Jagannatha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad328
1. The respondent is the Zamindar of Merangi, and the appellants are his paternal uncles. The latter brought a suit against the former in September 1883 for partition of the Zamindari and obtained a decree in December 1885 from the District Court of Ganjam for a half-share in the estate. The Zamindar then appealed to the High Court, but the original decree was confirmed in March 1888. At his instance an appeal to Her Majesty's Privy Council from the decision of the High Court was admitted under Section 603 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is still pending. In February 1889 execution of the decree under appeal to the Privy Council was stayed as regards the partition of the zamindari upon security being given by the Zamindar for the appellants' share of two years' mesne profits.2. The contest in the present suit is as to five years' mesne profits claimed by the appellants from the date of the partition suit. In their plaint in that suit they asked for ten years' past profits and fo...
Michael Vs. Briggs and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad362
1. The question is whether an action to recover the price of goods supplied to the member of a club or on his responsibility can be brought in the name of the secretary of the club. The club is not a proprietary club such as was in question in Raggett v. Musgrave 2 C. & P. 556 and Raggett v Bishop 2 C. & P. 343, but a mere association of gentlemen for social purposes, managing its affairs by a committee and a secretary. The goods, the price of which it is sought to recover, belonged to the club, and not to the secretary; and therefore it is not to him that the price is due.2. It may be convenient that the secretary should collect the moneys due to the club, and he may have authority to do so, but, if the money is not due on a contract made with him, an arrangement that he should sue cannot be recognized as giving him a right of action. [See Evans v. Hooper L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 45 and Gray v. Pearson L.R. 5 C.P. 568.]3. We are of opinion that the question above stated must be answered in the n...
Queen-empress Vs. Tirakadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad126
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. There are two divisions of Bois in the village of Kamalapuram in the District of Bellary, and they used to go in procession on the New Year's day to hunt in the hills adjoining the village. For some time past, the Chavidikeri Bois objected to their rivals, the Manmatakeri Bois, passing in procession over a piece of ground called Hemagiri Ukkadam. That piece of ground is found not to be private property, but to form part of the vacant village site ordinarily used as a short cut to get out of the village. On the 11th May last, about 60 or 100 of the Manmatakeri Bois formed a procession and proceeded a short distance down the main street. In the meantime, some 60 or 100 of the Chavidikeri Bois assembled on the Hemagiri Ukkadam and there is no doubt upon the evidence that they did so to forcibly prevent the Manmatakeri Bois passing in procession over that spot. The Inspector of Police ordered them to disperse, but they did not obey his order. He then tired in the air ...
Rangasayi Vs. Mahalakshmamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad391
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. I took part in both the decisions to which my learned colleague refers in his judgment, and the observations made in Venkatachalam v. Mahalakshmamma * were made with reference to the length to which the decided cases had proceeded. The period for making the deposit is prescribed by the Legislature with reference to all cases, and it is at all events necessary for the petitioner to show 'that he was diligent in due time to be prepared to lodge the deposit within the limited period.' But the affidavit before us does not show that he used due diligence for procuring the necessary funds before the 25th March last.2. Though it was urged at the hearing that he had letters in his possession from certain persons who promised to lend if he waited till the jaggery season in the local market, yet no affidavits were filed by them. Nor is there anything to show that he had applied to them for loans in sufficient time before the expiration of the prescribed period. It does not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›