Chennai Court September 1890 Judgments
Secretary of State for India Vs. Choyi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad82
Best, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of North Malabar awarding to the respondent a sum of Rs. 11,432-8-0 as damages sustained by the latter in consequence of orders directing the closing of certain shops within the limits of the Abkari farms, of which the respondent had become purchaser for eleven months from 1st May 1885 to 31st March 1886.2. It'is urged on behalf of the appellant that the Collector had, under Section 6 of the Abkari Act, No. Ill of 1864 (Madras), and also under the sale notification, Exhibit Y, and the license granted to the respondent, Exhibit AE, power to close the shops; that respondent's suit was therefore not maintainable; and that the damages awarded are excessive.3. The first issue recorded in the case is as follows:--'Whether, under the terms of the agreement with the plaintiff (now respondent), the Collector or other officer exercising his powers had right to pass the orders complained of, directi...
Tag this Judgment!Anantan Vs. Sankaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad101
1. It is contended, in the first instance, that the suit brought by the junior members of a tarwad is not maintainable. The karnavan is included as a defendant in the suit, and, as he has failed to sue till the period of twelve years has almost expired, we are of opinion that the suit by the junior members cannot be validly objected to.2. The other question is whether the suit is time-barred3. Applying the principle of the decision of this Court in Pachamuthu v. Chinnappan I.L.R. 10 Mad. 213 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rughuba Dyal Sahuv. Bhikya Lai Misser I.L.R. 12 Cal. 69, we find the lower Appellate Court is right in holding the suit to be not time-barred.4. The lower Courts have found, as a fact, that the money was not advanced for tarwad necessity.5. This second appeal fails, therefore, and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Budara Janni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad121
1. The appellant, Budara Janni, teas been convicted of murder by the Sessions Court of Vizagapatam, and has been sentenced to transportation for life.2. In Sessions Case No. 18 of 1889 the appellant, on the same facts, was convicted by the Agent to the Governor in Vizagapatam of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but this Court, being of opinion that the facts proved pointed clearly to the offence of murder, set aside, by its order in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1890 and Criminal Revision Case No. 150 of 1890, dated 30th April 1890, the conviction for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and directed that the accused should be re-tried for the offence of murder, and the Court further directed that the re-trial should take place before the Sessions Court of Vizagapatam.3. The appellant has been re-tried accordingly by the Sessions Court of Vizagapatam with the result already stated.4. The Agent to the Governor in Vizagapatam (through the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu Vs. Krishna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad61
1. The lower Appellate Court's judgment proceeds on the plaint alone, but the Judge appears to have lost sight of the fact that the property is stated in the plaint to have been entrusted to first defendant for the benefit of plaintiff and his mother. If such is the case, the plaintiff's suit will not be barred, as Section 10 of the Limitation Act will apply [Sethu v. Subra-manya I.L.R. 11 Mad. 274 and Suddasook Kootary v. Ram Chunder I.L.R. 17 Cal. 620.2. The lower Court's decree is set aside and ' the suit remanded for disposal on the evidence as to the portion which is the subject of this appeal.3. The costs hitherto incurred will be provided for in the revised decree....
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Vs. Devu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad55
1. Adakkalam v. Theethan I.L.R., 12 Mad., 505, is authority for holding that a document which, for want of registration is not admissible in evidence as creating an interest in land, is admissible for the purpose of obtaining specific performance of the contract, which is in effect the object of the present suit; and Nynakka Routhen v. Vavana Mahomed Naina Routhen 5 M.H.C.R. 123 is authority for the admission of secondary evidence in case of a document being allowed to remain unregistered through no fault of the plaintiff. In either case, therefore, the Subordinate Judge's decision is wrong.2. The Munsif has found that there was an agreement for sale.3. The Lower Appellate Court having dismissed the suit on a preliminary point without going into the merits of the case, we set aside the decree and remand the case for replacement on the tile and disposal on merits. The costs of this appeal will be paid by the respondent. The costs hitherto incurred will be provided for in the revised dec...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhan Vs. Sankara and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad78
1. It is first urged that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit, the encumbrances found to have been improperly created by the appellant being to the extent of more than Rs. 2,500. The plaint refers to the encumbrances as instances of mismanagement on the part of the appellant and it does not pray for a decree that they be set aside. The only relief prayed for is the removal of the appellant from his position of karnavan and it was held in Narangoli Chirakal Kunhi Raman v. Puttalathu Kimhunni Nambiar I.L.R. 4 Mad. 314 that such relief is incapable of valuation. The decision in Ganapati v. Chathu I.L.R. 12 Mad. 223 is not in point, for the plaintiff's in that case sued to obtain a declaration that the Uraima right to a certain devasom was vested solely in their tarwads and the ground of decision was that the value of a suit for declaration of title to specific property should be taken, for the purpose of jurisdiction, to be the same as that of a suit to recover ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasami Vs. Kesava and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad63
1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a Small Cause suit in which he sought to recover from two defendants a sum of Rs. 33-2-0 as principal and interest due under a promissory note, dated 1st May 1886.2. Defendant No. 1, admitting the execution of the note, contended that the Rs. 25 mentioned in it were the fee to be paid to the plaintiff as the first defendant's vakil in Original Suit No. 304 of 1886, which suit the plaintiff had withdrawn and that the plaintiff was entitled to no relief; defendant No. 2 is ex parte. The Munsif considered the following points:(1) ' Whether the note A is invalid under Section 29 of the Legal Practitioners' Act?(2) If so, what is the fair amount that can be awarded to the plaintiff for his labour in Original Suit No. 304 of 1886?3. As to the first point the Munsif found Exhibit A to be invalid under Section 29 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, because it was not filed in Court, in that suit, and because the sum of Rs. 25 which the plaintiff admits to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Vs. Alikoya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad76
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the plaintiff (now appellant) is not entitled to redeem the property sued for before the expiration of 12 years from date of his document (Exhibit A).2. The Court of First Instance held that the property could be recovered by plaintiff before the usual period of 12 years, because Exhibit A itself provides that the property should be surrendered on demand at any time within 12 years. Were this a correct translation of the stipulation in Exhibit A, the decision of this Court in Shekhara Paniker v. Raru Nayar I.L.R. 2 Mad. 193 would be authority in support of the above finding, for it was there held that, although the right to hold for 12 years is inherent in every kanom according to the custom of the country, it is competent to the jenmi to exclude its operation by express agreement. Consequently it must be held that the agreement in Exhibit A for surrender of the property within 12 year...
Tag this Judgment!Rathna Naidu Vs. P.R. Aiyanachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1890
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ599
1. In these cases the plaintiff appellant is the same person. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are also the same, the latter being the son of the former.2. The suit to which second appeal No. 1022 of 1905 relates is to recover from the 1st defendant and by sale of the mortgaged property the sum of Rs. 1,034 being the principal and interest due on a mortgage deed executed to the plaintiffs by the 1st defendant in 1900.3. The suit to which second appeal No. 1023 of 1905 relates is to recover possession of certain lands sold to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant.4. In the first suit the District Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree against the 1st defendant personally, but exonerated the property. The second suit was dismissed. The decrees were confirmed in appeal.5. Prior to the mortgage and sale there was a partition between the 1st and 2nd defendants in which the properties now in suit fell to the share of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the 2nd defendant subsequently released his s...
Tag this Judgment!Mauna Gurusami Naik (Minor) Through His Adoptive Mother and Guardian L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ233
Best, J.1. The appellant (who was 3rd defendant in the Court of First Instance) is the holder of the [222] decree in Original Suit No. 57 of 1880 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Madura (West). He is 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 were granted the certificate E authorizing them to raise the balance of the decree amount by private sale mortgage, &c.;, of the properties under attachment within 20th December 1886. On the 22nd December 1886 the 1st defendant was granted a second certificate D in the same words, but extending the time to 'within two months from this date.'3. Exhibit B is the petition of 1st defendant (dated 22nd December 1886) in compliance with the request contained in whi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »