Chennai Court October 1891 Judgments
Municipal Council of Tellicherry Vs. Bank of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad153
1. The first objection taken is that the profession tax was paid in Negapatam three days before it fell due and therefore was not paid in discharge of a legal obligation; hence that plaintiff is liable to the tax at Tellicherry, the payment at Negapatam having been voluntary. The liability to pay is created by Section 53, Madras Act IV of 1884, and Section 55 operates to exempt a person who has exercised his profession for less than 60 days in the half-year. Section 55 therefore indicates a ground on which a person may, if he wishes, claim exemption from liability and also gives him the privilege of paying the tax in two instalments. It is not the petitioner's case that the Madras Bank ceased to carry on business at Negapatam before the expiry of 60 days, nor do we think that payment, three days before the expiration of that time, can be treated as made otherwise than in discharge of the liability for the second half-year.2. The next contention is that each Branch Bank ought to be trea...
Tag this Judgment!Subbakke Vs. Maruppakkala and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ54
1. We are of opinion that Article 49 applies. The original possession of the title-deeds by defendant was lawful and the time runs from the date of the detainer's possession becoming unlawful. The mere retention of the deeds in defendant's possession after payment of the decree amount was not unlawful, though plaintiffs had a legal right to demand delivery, but his retention of them after a lawful demand for delivery was made was an illegal detention.2. The time will therefore ran from the date of demand (July 1885) and the suit is not barred.3. The judge does not state he entertains any doubt on the question of misjoinder and we see no reason to consider it under the provisions of Section 617, Civil Procedure Code, In answer to the last question the point for decision is whether plaintiffs are entitled to the deeds. If they are and if the defendant is not entitled to detain them there can be no question of security....
Tag this Judgment!Umade Rajuha Raje Damara Kumara Muddu Venkatappa Naidu Baharuvaru, Zam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ704
1. The suit was brought upon a bond executed to the late Zamindar of Kalahasti for an arrear of rent due for a previous fusli and it is argued that the sum due under the bond is not a debt but rent within the meaning of Section 4, Sub-Section 2 of the Succession Certificate Act. We are not able to accept the argument. The debt is now due upon the bond and is not rent. The character must be determined by the promise contained in the document and not by the consideration recited for the promise. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Prabha and ors. Vs. Ranga Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ19
1. We have already decided that the office in question is an hereditary one. The question now is whether the transfer of it by the last holder to the plaintiff's father was a valid one. According to general principles a religious office cannot prima facie be made the subject of alienation. The succession to such an office is governed in the first instance by the will of the founder and, in the absence of direct evidence on that point, by usage of the particular institution from which the founder's will may be inferred. A religious office appears to us to stand with reference to alienability on a different footing from private property, it was argued at the last hearing on the authority of the case in I. L. R. 6 B, 298, Mancharam v. Pranshankar, that the holder of a religious office may transfer it to one who is in the line of descent whether he be the next heir or a possible future heir and that the plaintiff's father was in the present instance the next heir. The finding however retur...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana and ors. Vs. Ranga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad183
1. It is argued that the finding that the plaintiff's family had an hereditary right to the office ought not be accepted, and our attention is drawn to Exhibits I, II, F, III, IV and V, and also to Exhibits 0, VI to XVIII. Nothing is urged to show that they have been misconstrued, or not duly considered by the Court below. Exhibit I only shows that the award A was not thought to favour the claim set up by the then plaintiff. The words in exhibit II 'you should act with consent, &c;,' are not inconsistent with the plaintiff's case. They only imply that in the conduct of the puja, the son was to act subject to the direction and control of the mooktessors. As regards Exhibits F and III, the ground on which the suit to which they refer was dismissed was that there had been a prior partition- Though the District Munsif dealing with the review petition remarks that 'the office is dependent on the pleasure of the dharmakartas,' we cannot say that the Courts were wrong in not attaching weight ...
Tag this Judgment!thekepat Putham Vittil Madhavan Nambiyar Vs. Attuyarath Atti Nangiyar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ81
1. Assuming that the rights under the demise were forfeited by the alienations made by 1st defendant, these alienations were admittedly made more than 12 years before suit, and the suit so far as it is based upon forfeiture is barred by limitation. We also observe that rent was accepted for several years after the alleged alienation. On these grounds, we think the decision of the Lower Court can be supported. It is argued for the appellant that he has a right to recover, because the 1st defendant denied his title in the written statement. It is not shown that there was any denial of title before suit, and therefore the plaintiff had no cause of action at the time of filing the suit.2. The cases referred, to by the appellant's Vakil including S. A. No. 512 of 1890 all relate to the question whether a disclaimer of the landlord's title would preclude the necessity of proving valid notice to quit. We do not think the disclaimer in the written statement in this case can relate back to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Guntupalli Venkatasubbayya Vs. Inturi Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ700
1. In Ramasami Sastrial v. Samiappa Naicker (sic) the majority of the court adopting the rule laid down by the Privy Council in Thumbusawmy's case 1 held that mortgages executed subsequent to 1858 shall be treated according to what the Privy 'Council considered to be the erroneous course of decisions. Nothing was expressly decided in that case as to how long this rule shall be followed; but the principles kept in view appears to be that that which had been, though erroneously, suffered to be the law in, Madras shall be followed as to mortgages after 1858, until the legislature interferes to settle the law. In the present case the District Judge has laid d'6wn a new rule that mortgages executed after the date of the Privy Council decision in Thumbusawmy's case (1875) must be treated as governed by the principle of that decision. We are not prepared to adopt this principle and so still further unsettle rights created by mortgages in this Presidency. We consider that under the Privy Counc...
Tag this Judgment!Madavan Vs. Athi Nangiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad123
1. Assuming that the rights under the demise were forfeited by the alienations made by first defendant, these alienations were admittedly made more than twelve years before suit, and the suit, so far as it is based upon forfeiture, is barred by Limitation. We also observe that rent was accepted for several years after the alleged alienation. On these grounds, we think the decision of the lower Courts can be supported. It is argued for appellant that he has a right to recover, because first defendant denied his title in the written statement. It is not shown that there was any denial of title before suit, and therefore plaintiff had no cause of action at the time of filing the suit.2. The cases referred to by appellant's Vakil, including Chidambaram v. Saminatha Second Appeal No. 512 of 1890, unreported all relate to the question whether a disclaimer of the landlord's title would preclude the necessity of proving a valid notice to quit.3. We do not think the disclaimer in the written st...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubbayya Vs. Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad230
1. In Ramasami Sastrigal v. Samiyappanayakan I.L.R. 4 Mad., 179 the majority of the Court adopting the rule laid down by the Privy Council in Thumbuswamy Moodelly v. Hossain Rowthen I.L.R. 1 Mad.1 : L.R. 2 IndAp 241 held that mortgages executed subsequent to 1858 shall be treated according to what the Privy Council considered to be the erroneous course of decisions, nothing was expressly decided in that case as to how long this rule shall be followed, but the principle kept in view appears to be that that which had been, though erroneously, supposed to be the law in Madras should be followed as to mortgages after 1858, until the Legislature interfered to settle the law. In the present case the District Judge has laid down a new rule, that mortgages executed after the date of the Privy Council decision in Thumbusawmy Moodelly v. Hossain Routhen I.L.R. 1 Mad. 1 : S.C. L.R. 2 IndAp 241 in 1875 must be treated as governed by the principle of that decision. We are not prepared to adopt this...
Tag this Judgment!Rebala Pera Reddi Vs. Mohamed Abdul HussaIn Sahib Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ702
1. It is argued that the debt is claimed by the son by right of survivorship and that the case is not within the scope of the Certificate Act. The act clearly contemplates only cases of succession and our attention is also drawn to Act V of 1881, Section 4. But the promissory note sued on stands in the name of the father. There is-nothing on the record to show that the debt sued for was a joint family debt. The question therefore does not arise upon the face of the documents or upon the pleadings in the case. We must decline to interfere and dismiss the petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »