Chennai Court December 1890 Judgments
Krishnasamy Servaigaren Vs. Savvoy Vijia Raghunatha Canagasabai Gopala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ247
1. As far as the facts are concerned, we expressed our opinion at the hearing that we saw no reason to differ from the finding of the Subordinate Judge. It was however contended that the case was one which the District Munsiff had jurisdiction to try, inasmuch as the value of the share sought to be recovered and not the value of the entire property should be taken to be the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the District Munsiff. Following the cases cited, vie., Khausa Bibi v. Syed Abba I.L.R. 11 M. 140 and Venkatarama v. Meera Labbai I.L.R. 18 M. 275 we must uphold this contention, for here as in those cases the plaintiff and the defendant do not stand in the relation of coparceners to each other.2. The question was then raised on behalf of the respondent whether, notwithstanding thaj the District Munsiff had jurisdiction to try the case, the Subordinate Judge had not concurrent jurisdiction, or whether, if he had no jurisdiction, the case did not come within the...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasami Vs. Kanakasabai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad183
1. As far as the facts are concerned, we expressed our opinion at the hearing that we saw no reason to differ from the finding of the Subordinate Judge. It was, however, contended that the case was one which the District Munsif had jurisdiction to try, inasmuch as the value of the share sought to be recovered, and not the value of the entire property, should be taken to be the value for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. The value of the share would admittedly bring the case within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif. Following the cases cited, viz., Khansa Bibi v. Syed Abba I.L.R. 11 Mad. 140, and Venkatarama v. Meera Labai I.L.R. 13 Mad. 275, we must uphold this contention, for here, as in those cases, the plaintiff and the defendant do not stand in the relation of co-parceners to each other.2. The question was then raised on behalf of the respondents whether, notwithstanding that the District Munsif had jurisdiction to try the ease, the Subordinate Judge had not concurrent...
Tag this Judgment!Ara Pidikayil Bikutti Vs. Puthen Purayil Thottathil Kalendan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ240
1. This is a suit brought by the.; junior members ' of a Malabar Tarward in respect of land alleged to have been alienated to some of the defendants. ' The plaint states that after the death of :the late Karnavan Cheria Kunhammad, the 1st and '2nd defendants executed a deed of gift in favour of the other defend ants, including the name of the late Karnavan as an executant. It charges that the 1st and 2nd defendants, of whom one is the present' Karnavan, are not authorized to make such a gift, and con' cludes with a prayer for the cancellation or the deed of gift and the surrender of the land given to the plaintiffs or to the. 1st d.efen,- dant, on behalf of the Tarward.2. The District Munsif who tried the suit dismissed it on the merits, and the plaintiff appealed. On the appeal, in order to save Court fee stamp, he abandoned the prayer for possession, but insist ed on his right to have the other relief prayed for' in the plaint-; and it is against the decree accordingly made in his fa...
Tag this Judgment!Bikutti Vs. Kalendan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad267
1. This is a suit brought by the junior members of a Malabar tarwad in respect of land alleged to have been alienated to some of the defendants. The plaint states that after the death of the late Karnavan Cheria Kunhammad, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, executed a deed of gift in favour of the other defendants including the name of the late karnavan as an executant. It charges that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, of whom one is the present karnavan, are not authorized to make such a gift and concludes with a prayer for the cancellation of the deed of gift and the surrender of the land given to the plaintiffs or to defendant No. 1 on behalf of the tarwad.2. The District Munsif who tried the suit dismissed it on the merits, and the plaintiff appealed. On the appeal, in order to save Court-fee stamp, he abandoned the prayer for possession, but insisted on his right to have the other relief prayed for in the plaint; and it is against the decree accordingly made in his favour by the Subordinate Judge th...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaran and ors. Vs. Komappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad169
1. In our opinion, the Subordinate Judge was wrong in valuing the plaint according to the value of the whole tarwad property. It is clear that the plaintiffs will not be gainers to that extent if they obtain a decree.2. It was argued for on behalf of the respondents that Section 12 of the Court Fees Act prevented our revising the decision of the Subordinate Judge, but it has been held by this Court that where it is not a mere question of amount or arithmetical calculation the section does not apply--Chandu v. Kombi I.L.R. 9 Mad. 208), Ajoodhya Pershad v. Gunga Pershad I.L.R., 6 Cal., 249). We reverse the decree and remand the case to be dealt with according to law. Appellants must have the costs of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Ramayyar Vs. Vedachalla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad441
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The first question referred for our decision is whether a suit to enforce the acceptance of a patta can be maintained in a Civil Court, and I think it should be answered in the affirmative. So early as 1879, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Karim v. Muhammad Kadar I.L.R. 2 Mad. 89 that the suit is cognizable by a Civil Court. In 1889, however, another Divisional Bench expressed a doubt in Narasimha v. Suryanarayana I.L.R. 12 Mad. 481 as to whether the suit would lie in a Civil Court inasmuch as the duty of accepting a patta and giving a muchalka was one imposed by statute and a special remedy for enforcing it was prescribed by the same statute. It was, however, observed that the object of Act VIII of 1865 in requiring the exchange of patta and muchalka was to insure the existence of evidence of the terms of the holding, and as a landlord could, on a proper occasion arising, certainly maintain a declaratory suit, so, in such suit, he might obtain by...
Tag this Judgment!Jake and ors. Vs. Sankayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1890
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ277
1. The plaintiffs, respondents, are the children of one Bachu Banta by his wife Pammunhi. Their claim is based upon two documents executed by their late father in 1863 and 1870 in favor of the 1st plaintiff and his mother. Although these documents are in the form of mortgages, it has in effect been found that the intention of Bachu Banta was to make a gift and it has been found that such intention was effectuated by delivery of possession. Bachu Banta, the last survivor of his family, died in 1881 and disputes arising as to the right to his property, an order was passed by the Magistrate under Section 580 of the Criminal Procedure Code declaring the property to be in possession of one Subbannah. Among the persons who were parties to the proceeding before the Magistrate, was the present 1st plaintiff. He was certainly a person bound by the order being the party to whom it was adverse.2. The first question is whether the other plaintiffs, children of Pammunhi, who neither personally nor ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyavayyar and anr. Vs. Rahimansa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad170
1. Having regard to the language used in the two instruments, dated 17th January 1873, we think there can be no doubt that a sale with a condition for repurchase on the date specified was intended. The absence of reference to a reconveyance does not appear to us to be important, and there are certainly no words positively indicating that a mortgage was intended. There is no mention of interest and no power is reserved to the purchaser to recover his purchase-money. On the other hand, there is the fact that property was already hypothecated to the purchaser and it is not explained why a different form of mortgage should have been required. The District Judge, however, refers to other circumstances, which, in his opinion, point to an intention that the land should stand as a security for the amount of the consideration stated in the sale-deed. He finds that the price was inadequate, and he refers to the fact that the signature of Nachimuttu Pillai, as an attesting witness, was taken to a...
Tag this Judgment!Thaman Chetti Vs. Alagiri Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad399
1. In this case the Acting Joint Magistrate of Madura transferred a complaint of a coffee theft from the Second-class Magistrate of Kodaikanal to the Taluk Magistrate of Periaculam. But the Acting District Magistrate being of opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for the transfer, but that on the contrary there were very good grounds against it, withdrew the case from the file of the Taluk Magistrate and transferred it back to that of the Kodaikanal Sub-Magistrate. It is contended that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the retransfer under Section 528, Criminal Procedure Code.2. We are, however, of opinion that a Magistrate, who is subordinate to a Sub-Division Magistrate, is also subordinate to the District Magistrate within the meaning of Section 528. Neither Section 17, which declares such Magistrate to be subject only to the general control of the District Magistrate, nor Schedule III which specifies the ordinary powers of a District Magistrate, can be so...
Tag this Judgment!Sanku and ors. Vs. Puttamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad289
1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of South Canara awarding to plaintiff possession of extensive properties, moveable and immoveable, to which the Subordinate Judge has found that plaintiff is entitled as sole owner, she being the last surviving member of an Aliyasantana family.2. The appellants are the wife and children of one Manjappa alias Mallanna Shetti, the last surviving male member of plaintiff's Aliyasantana family, who died in 1882.3. Plaintiff is a lunatic whose estate has been taken charge of by the Court of Wards under the orders of Government, and the suit was brought on her behalf by the Collector of South Canara as Agent of the Court of Wards.4. The first objection taken by the appellants is that 'the Court of Wards' Regulation V of 1804 is inapplicable to the plaintiff's case, the sections relating to lunatics therein not being in force.' This objection rests on the fact of Sections 6 and 7 of Regulation V of 1804 so...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »