Chennai Court November 1891 Judgments
Ramasami Pillai Vs. Vellaya Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ48
1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge in holding that the sale was void for the reason that no arrear was due on the particular land sold. It is true that in the patta the sum stipulated for by way of rent is shown to be made up of smaller sums payable in respect of the various items of land. But in our opinion these particulars are only given for convenience and it is not intended that what is one patta in form should stand for several pattas for the several pieces of land. Only one sum, viz. Rs. 1-11-7 is given as payable on account of road-cess for the whole land and in the operative part of the patta itself the greater sum only is mentioned. It is then contende on the respondent's behalf that as the mortgage in favor of the 5th defendant which, is a usufructuary mortgage is found to be genuine and as the plaintiff has not asked to redeem, the suit being in ejectment must be dismissed. Following the decision in Ohandu v. Kombi I. L. R. 9 M. 208 we must allow the contenti...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnayya Vs. the Bellary Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad292
1. We fail to see any reason why the Secretary of State was a necessary party to the suit. The real question to be determined was whether the pyal, which plaintiff' wanted to roof over, was his private property or not. The District Munsif found, upon a careful review of the evidence, that the pyal was plaintiff's private property, he and his ancestors for the last fifty years having exercised acts of ownership over it. The defendant, on the other hand, adduced absolutely no evidence to show that the ground occupied by the pyal ever formed part of the street. The District Judge does not decide that the pyal is not private property, but merely remarks that the proof of plaintiff's right cannot be considered very satisfactory. It is argued that this must be held to be a finding that the pyal is not private property. If we thought so, it would be necessary to ask the Judge to reconsider his decision as the evidence seems to us overwhelming, but we do not consider that he intended to set as...
Tag this Judgment!Maine Moilar and ors. Vs. Islam Amanath and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad355
1. We agree with the Courts below that the plaint discloses no cause of action. The plaintiffs wish to prevent the defendants, who are also Muhammadans, from performing a service called 'kutbah ' in their own private mosque on Friday. The ground on which they seek to obtain a permanent injunction is, not that, the performance causes annoyance or obstruction to them in the exercise of their own worship, but that it is contrary to the Muhammadan religion. It is not the province of the Courts to determine what is or what is not contrary to the Muhammadan religion, or to decide what religious service different sects of a community may hold in their own places of worship, provided the holding of such services cause no disturbance or illegal annoyance to the rest of the community, or does not infringe on the rights of their co-worshippers. It is argued that the Courts below should have decided whether the defendants were entitled to read the kutbah. In the case referred to by the District Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Chetti Vs. Venkatanarasu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ83
1. We think the District Judge was right in holding that the suit is not maintainable. The right claimed is the hereditary exclusive right to settle the caste disputes between members of plaintiff's caste. This is a right which cannot be enforced, for the caste people cannot be prevented from referring their caste disputes to other persons for settlement. He also claims as incident to this hereditary right a right to collect a fanam a head from the caste people. It is admitted that this is a voluntary contribution and cannot be enforced. An hereditary right to do that which any other person has a full legal right to do is not a right which the court can declare or enforce, and the allegation that by virtue of such right plaintiff obtains certain voluntary contributions does not make it any the more enforceable by law.2. The case in Srinivasa v. Tiruvengada I. L. R 11 M 450 is not in point. There there was a right to the performance of certain services in a temple. The right claimed her...
Tag this Judgment!Sah Maun Mull and anr. Vs. the Madras Building Company Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ95
1. It is an admitted fact that the three principal title-deeds relating to the property in question in this suit, which should have been in the possession of the late 2nd defendant as mortgagee under a deed of mortgage from Mrs. Annie Smith, of the 5th December 1879, were in September 1883 in the possession of the mortgagor, who was thereby enabled to obtain a loan of Rs. 10,000 from the plaintiff company on executing to them a mortgage of the property in question dated 15th October 1883, and subsequently to obtain a further sum of Rs. 500 by way of further charge on the same property. The explanation which 2nd defendant gave of the title-deeds being out of his possession was that he was in possession of them in 1878, having obtained them on the occasion of taking a prior mortgage from Mrs. Smith, but gave them up to her in that year to enable her to obtain a new Collector's certificate in her name, that such new Collector's certificate was issued in May 1878 and handed to him but he d...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rama Row Vs. Xavier Restov Fernand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ217
1. The date of the decree of the Sub-Collector was 16th December 1889. The time allowed for appeal was one month. Appellant applied for copy on 17th December. There is nothing to show when the stamp papers were called for, but assuming that they were called for on the 18th December and deposited on 14th January, the appeal would be just in time. Following Mahadevi v. Vikrama I. L R 14 M 372, we are of opinion that the time for obtaining copy should be excluded. Moreover the Acting District Judge on the 1st March 1890, excused the delay in presentation as he was entitled to do, (see Reference under Forest Act V of I.L.R. 1882 M 210) and admitted the appeal. We set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal to be heard and determined on its merits. Costs to follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarayadu and ors. Vs. Venkataramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad284
1. We think that the decision of the Subordinate Judge is opposed to the principles laid down in the Full Bench decision in Venkata v. Rama I.L.R. 8 Mad. 249. The land which formed the emolument of the office of karnam did not become the family property of the person appointed to the office, although he may have had an hereditary claim to the office. The land was designed to be the emolument of the person into whose hand the office of the karnam might pass and was inalienable by him. The effect of enfranchisement was to free the lands from their inalienable character and to empower the Government to deal with them as they pleased. The grant of them to Venkata Narasiah was not a grant to the undivided family, of which he formed a unit, but to him personally, and the future succession and transmission of the land was placed in the same position as any other private property. The plaintiffs were neither holders of the office at the time of enfranchisement, nor in possession of the lands, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shan Maun Mull and anr. Vs. Madras Building Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad268
1. It is an admitted fact that the three principal title-deeds relating to the property in question in this suit, which should have been in the possession of the late second defendant as mortgagee under a deed of mortgage from Mrs. Annie Smith of the 5th December 1879, were in September 1883 in the possession of the mortgagor, who was thereby enabled to obtain a loan of Rs. 10,000 from the plaintiff company on executing to them a mortgage of the property in question dated 15th October 1883, and subsequently to obtain a further sum of Rs. 500 by way of further charge on the same property. The explanation which the second defendant gave of the title-deeds being out of his possession was that he was in possession of them in 1878, having obtained them on the occasion of taking a prior mortgage from Mrs. A. Smith, but gave them up to her in that year to enable her to obtain a new Collector's certificate in her name, that such new Collector's certificate was issued in May 1878 and handed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Vs. Chandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad219
1. The District Judge was in error in holding that Section 59 of Act II of 1864 applied to the suit, inasmuch as the sale by the Collector was not a proceeding under the Act, as there is no provision in Act II of 1864 for treating the sum payable for plaintiff as revenue. The sale was ultra vires, and plaintiff had twelve years within which to bring his suit. We set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Munsif. Appellant will be entitled to his costs in the lower Appellate Court. There will be no costs in this Court the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Munsif. Appellant will be entitled to his costs in the lower Appellate Court.2. There will be no costs in this Court....
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Devi Vs. Jaru Heggade and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad290
1. The first point raised is that the set-off was wrongly allowed, and in support of this contention we were referred to the decision in Raghu Nath Das v. Ashraf Husain Khan I.L.R. 2. All. 252. We do not think the case has any application. The point here raised was not there taken and that decision was prior to the passing of the Transfer of Property Act. We agree with the Sub-Judge that Section 76 applies. The question is one of procedure and the estimation of the loss caused to the mortgagor by the failure of the mortgagee to make necessary repairs is an item which must be considered in determining the accounts in settlement of the mortgage.2. It was a paramount duty for the mortgagee to make such necessary repairs, and we cannot accept as valid the excuse that to do so would diminish his interest or profits.3. We think the Subordinate Judge rightly held that as the mortgagee continued in possession after 13th June 1878 the profits must be regarded as having been enjoyed in.lieu of i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »