Chennai Court November 1890 Judgments
Keeran Avulla Vs. Narikote Kunnamangalath Ettishery Chendra Shekaran N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ504
1. The first question for decision in this second appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 have an otti right, and not merely a kanom rights over the property in suit.2. The proprietor of the land is the 1st defendant, by whose Illom (house), it together with other property was demised to 2nd defendant's family in 1871, under Exhibit II. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 have obtained the plaint land from 2nd defendant's family under Exhibit I (dated 10th May 1885). Plaintiff claims possession of the land under a Koayakanom deed executed to him by 1st defendant in September 1887 (Exhibit A). Defendants Nos, 1 and 2 support the plaintiff's claim.3. The document I, under which defendants Nos. 3 and 4 hold the plaint property, is designated a 'mattotti deed.' It says 'I have demised to you on mattotti right for Rs. 500. Thullevanvalli wet land measuring 6 pothies which is the jenm of Warikot Illom (i.e., 1st defendant's family) which was demis...
Tag this Judgment!Nilakandan and anr. Vs. Padmanabha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad153
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat, who dismissed the appellants' suit for a declaration that, as Uralers, they had the exclusive right of managing the affairs of Kachankurishi temple, and that neither the first respondent nor his family had a joint right of management. The institution in question is an ancient Hindu temple in South Malabar, and the first respondent is the representative of the Nambidi family which ruled in former times over that tract of country in which the temple is situated, whilst the Uraima right is vested in the illom or family of the first appellant, a Nambudri Brahman, from time immemorial. There is no legal evidence before us to show when and by whom the temple was founded or what was the nature of management prescribed by its original constitution. There are, however, certain facts which are established beyond doubt and which are, indeed, not disputed by the appellants, and the Subordinate Judge rests hi...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanasami Vs. Ramasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad172
1. The findings of the Subordinate Judge on both the issues sent for trial are in the affirmative. To these findings objections have been taken on behalf of the appellant on the ground that they are not supported by any evidence.2. It is true that no witness has expressly stated either that plaintiff's natural father was aware, at the time of his giving his son in adoption, of the dispositions made under the will by the late Muttusami Ayyar, or that, but for the natural father's consent to those dispositions, Muttusami Ayyar would not have adopted the plaintiff. But the circumstances, under which the will was executed and the adoption took place, afford evidence which supports the conclusions arrived at by the Subordinate Judge on both the issues.3. It is proved that the plaintiff's father was sent for, while the will was being written, and arrived on the following morning at about 10 o'clock. The will was registered in the afternoon of this latter day, and, on the same afternoon, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Jangam Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad247
1. The petitioners, 3 in number, have been found guilty of removing a cairn erected by officers of the Forest Department in the Cuddapah District as marking the southern boundary of the Salivendula Gatimanikona reserve, and sentenced under Section 50 (d) of the Forest Act, Madras, as follows:--First petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 40, or, in default, to be rigorously imprisoned for six weeks, and the other two petitioners to pay each a fine of Rs. 20, or, in default, to be rigorously imprisoned for one month.2. It is urged on their behalf (1) that the Forest Act is not applicable to the place where the cairn was erected, and (2) that the lower Courts were wrong in declining to consider what are the limits of the Maharajapuram agraharam.3. Section 3 of the Act gives the Governor in Council power to constitute, as a reserved forest, 'any land at the disposal of Government.'4. 'Land at the disposal of Government' is defined in Section 2 as including 'all unoccupied land, whether assessed ...
Tag this Judgment!Panchangam Venkatacharyulu Vs. Gudimella Tirumala Rangacharyulu and Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ91
1. This is a Second Appeal from the Decree of the District Judge of Kistna, who dismissed the Appellant's suit: for an injunction, restraining the respondents from marrying their daughter Venkatarangamma to any one else. The second respondent is the first respondent's wife, and their daughter Venkatarangamma is a child, aged now nine years. In June 1884, the mother bestowed the girl in marriage on the Appellant, and the marriage ceremony was duly solemnised in Narasimhasvami temple at Mangalagiri. The father however, was not present during the marriage, nor had the mother his permission to marry their daughter to the Appellant. There was an averment in his plaint that such permission was granted, but both the Lower Courts have found that it is not proved. The are was also some evidence in the case to show that the father was present when the giri first proceeded to the Appellant's house, after the mar-riage, and what is commonly known as the, Grihapravesam ceremony was performed but. t...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatacharyulu Vs. Rangacharyulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad316
1. This is a second appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Kistna who dismissed the appellant's suit for an injunction restraining the respondents from marrying their daughter Venkatarangamma to any one else. The second respondent is the first respondent's wife, and their daughter Venkatarangamma is a child aged now nine years. In June 1884 the mother bestowed the girl in marriage on the appellant and the marriage ceremony was duly solemnized in Narasimhasvami temple at Mangalagiri. The father, however, was not present during the marriage nor had the mother his permission to marry their daughter to the appellant. There was an averment in his plaint that such permission was granted, but both the lower Courts have found that it is not proved. There was also some evidence in the case to show that the father was present when the girl first proceeded to the appellant's house after the marriage and what is commonly known as the grihapravesam ceremony was performed, but the District ...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottama Vs. Municipal Council of Bellary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad467
1. Three questions have been raised in this appeal.2. It was first contended that under Section 110 of Act IV of 1884 the power of distraint could only be exercised in respect of an arrear which had accrued due within one year. We are of opinion, however, that that section should not be read limiting the powers given by Section 103 but as giving a further power to distrain property on the premises after notice given to the occupier. Under Section 103 it is the property of the defaulter only, that is, the person on whom notice has been served under Section 102, that can be distrained and sold.3. The next contention had reference to the notice which an owner of property may give in order to entitle himself to remission of the house-tax. The tax is an annual one and the language of Section 51 of Act III of 1871 appears to us to show that an annual notice was intended.4. The case stood over for the decision of a Division Bench (Chief Justice and weir, J.) on the question whether the Munici...
Tag this Judgment!Nallanna Vs. Ponnal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad149
1. It is found by the Subordinate Judge that Sengoda Goundan predeceased his father. The question for decision is, therefore, whether plaintiff is entitled to succeed to her grandfather as a bandhu. It was held by this Court in Kutti Ammal v. Radakristna Aiyan 8 M.H.C.R. 88 that a sister is a bandhu. The course of decisions from the date of that decision proceeds on the principle that consanguinity may be recognized as the basis of title to succession in the absence of preferential male heirs. According to the definition of the term sapinda as given in the Achara Kanda of the Mitakshara, there is sapinda relationship when there exists a 'connection with one body either immediately or by descent.'2. On this view, a son's daughter is as much a bandhu as is a sister, and thus entitled to succeed as heir of her paternal grandfather in the absence of preferential male heirs. Our attention has been drawn to the observations of Mr. Mayne in paragraph 495 (4th edition) of his work on Hindu law...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusami Vs. Venkatasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad277
Best, J.1. The appellant (who was the third defendant in the Court of First Instance) is the holder of the decree in Original Suit No. 57 of 1880 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Madura (West). He is a minor under the guardianship of his mother Lingammal.2. The property of the judgment-debtors was attached and about to be sold in execution of the decree, when they put in a petition (No. 636 of 1886), asking for postponement of the sale and a certificate under Section 305 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and, on 11th December 1886, they were granted the certificate (Exhibit E) authorizing them to raise the balance of the decree amount by private sale, mortgage, &c;, of the properties under attachment within the 20th December 1886. On the 22nd December 1886, the first defendant was granted a second certificate (Exhibit D) in the same words, but extending the time to 'within two months from this date.'3. Exhibit B is the petition of first defendant (dated 22nd December 1886) in comp...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Venkatasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad229
1. The accused, in this case, was in the employ of the Post Office at Berhampore, and the facts found are that, on the arrival of the mail, he assisted the sorting clerk in sorting letters, and that, while so doing, he was observed to secrete two letters in his cloth. The head clerk called the Postmaster and accused was searched. Two bearing letters were found in his cloth. When questioned, he said that he intended to give them to the delivery peon, and to share with him the bearing postage, which the latter would collect. The Senior Assistant Magistrate, before whom the accused was charged, was of opinion that the accused did not intend to fraudulently appropriate the letters, nor did he wilfully secrete them, the words implying, in the Magistrate's opinion, wilful intention to keep the letters out of the possession of the addressees and not covering the action of the accused.2. The Magistrate observed also that the accused was originally charged with theft, but, as there was no inten...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »