Chennai Court November 1891 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Queen-empress Vs. Venkatasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad131
1. We do not think the provisions of Sections 480-482, Criminal Procedure Code, apply to Village Magistrates (Section 1, Criminal Procedure Code).2. It is true that no complaint was made by the Village Munsif but that defect is covered by Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code. The Second-class Magistrate is of a grade competent to try the complaint, and the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment on the appeal. The imprisonment has been undergone.3. There is nothing now to call for our interference. The petition is dismissed....
Samayya and anr. Vs. Nagalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad174
1. It is not clear what the lower Courts intended to find to have been the effect of the division between the three original usufructuary mortgagees, the third defendant's father, defendant No. 4 and Betra Pantulu. The Munsif in paragraph 14 of his judgment finds that there was an agreement that each mortgagee should discharge his debt from the usufruct of the plots that went to his share, and that an agreement must be inferred that one should have no further claim on the plots that went to the other. If this were the effect of the division, then the plots B and, E were only subject to the fourth defendant's share of the mortgage debt which was extinguished by his release, and therefore they came into the first plaintiff's hands upon the occasion of the usufructuary mortgage to him free from any claim under the original mortgage- and could not be sold in execution of the third defendant's decree upon that mortgage. But the above finding of the Munsif is inconsistent with another part o...
Muttakke and ors. Vs. Thimmappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad186
1. This is a suit by certain persons claiming to be members of an undivided Aliyasantana family for a declaration (i) that plaintiffs and defendants are members of an undivided family, (ii) that plaintiff No. 1 is the senior member of the family, and as such entitled to get the kudtala, or revenue registry of the lands transferred to his name.2. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs and defendants were members of an undivided Aliyasantana family, and that the property was joint family property, and asserted that for more than a century the property had been in their exclusive possession, and that a declaratory suit would not lie.3. The Subordinate Judge held that a declaratory suit was maintainable, and that the suit was not barred by limitation. These two points have been fully argued before us, and we are of opinion that the decision of the Subordinate Judge cannot be maintained.4. The case on which the Subordinate Judge relied in support of his opinion that a declaratory suit wo...
Queen-empress Vs. Basava
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad75
Parker, J.1. The evidence shows that a girl, who is dedicated as a Basivi, becomes incapable of contracting a marriage, which would be recognized as valid by the laws and customs of her caste; that she is at liberty and is expected to have promiscuous intercourse with men generally, and that she and any children born to her inherit in her father's family only.2. The dedication thus made effects a change in the circumstances of the minor which was recognized as a 'disposal' within the terms of Section 372, Indian Penal Code, in the Proceedings of this Court, dated 11th April 1881, No. 746, paragraph 13, (Weir's Criminal Rulings, 3rd Ed., p. 215), and the parents of the minor cannot but be aware that the minor will in consequence live a life which is recognized as immoral.3. I do not think that any analogy can be drawn as suggested by the Sessions Judge between the dedication of a girl as a Basivi and the formal marriage of a girl in Malabar under the Marumakkatayam law. In Malabar there...
Ramaier Vs. Shunmugam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ39
Shephard, J.1. This is a suit brought upon an instrument of hypothecation executed in the plaintiff's favour by one Ponnappa Pillai now deceased. The defendants are the sons and grandsons of Ponnappa. It has been found by the District Judge that after the bond came into the plaintiff's hands, an attestation was added, purporting to be signed but not in fact signed by Ponnappa's son, Shunmugam. In the opinion of the judge this addition for which the plaintiff was responsible constituted a material alteration of the instrument and he accordingly dismissed , the suit. There can be. no doubt that the object in making this addition was to facilitate the proof of the execution of the instrument as well against the executant as against his son, the defgnd-ant. It was the more important to obtain the son's attestation rather than that of a stranger because when the instrument came to be enforced, it would be material to show that he had admitted the debt and that his interest in the property w...
Ramayyar Vs. Shanmugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad70
Shephard, J.1. This is a suit brought upon an instrument of hypothecation executed in the plaintiff's favour by one Ponnappa Pillai, now deceased. The defendants are the sons and grandsons of Ponnappa. It has been found by the District Judge that, after the bond came into the plaintiff's hands, an attestation was added purporting to be signed, but not in fact signed by Ponnappa's son Shanmugam. In the opinion of the Judge this addition, for which the plaintiff was responsible, constituted a material alteration of the instrument, and he accordingly dismissed the suit. There can be no doubt that the object in making this addition was to facilitate the proof of the execution of the instrument as well against the executant as against his son the defendant. It was the more important to obtain the son's attestation rather than that of a stranger, because when the instrument came to be enforced, it would be material to show that he had admitted the debt and that his interest in the property w...
Kerala Varma Vs. Chadayan Kutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad181
1. The order of the District Judge in dismissing the suit for failure of plaintiff to pay additional stamp duty demanded was irregular for the following among other grounds. In the first place he had no jurisdiction over the whole subject matter of the suit, the appeal by fourth defendant relating to one item only. Secondly, the appeal had not been admitted when the order was passed, and therefore the mutter was not before the Judge in such a shape that he had jurisdiction to make any order. The order of the Subordinate Judge reversing the decree so far as the fourth defendant was concerned after the original suit had been already dismissed was clearly ultra vires We set aside the decrees and orders both of the District Judge and of the Subordinate Judge and direct the Subordinate Judge to replace the appeal on his file and to dispose of it according to law. Costs to follow result....
Thanikachella and anr. Vs. Shudachella
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad258
1. The case quoted by the Subordinate Judge was under the Revenue Recovery Act, not under Act VIII of 1865.2. The suit, however, is not for rent, but for contribution on account of a payment made by plaintiff in defendants' interest. There is no provision of law making such a claim a charge upon immoveable property. Article 99 of the Limitation Act applies.3. The decree of the Subordinate Judge must be reversed and that of the District Munsif restored. The appellants are entitled to their costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court....
Kammathi and ors. Vs. Kunhamed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad288
1. Defendant No. 2 having obtained a decree against defendant No. 1, the undivided brother of the plaintiffs, attached a kanom of Rs. 400. Plaintiffs put in a claim which was allowed to the extent of Rs. 250 only. They then instituted the present suit to establish their right to four-fifths of the kanom amount. They obtained a decree in the Court of First Instance, and defendant No. 2 appealed. The District Judge, being of opinion that the proper stamp duty had not been paid, called upon defendant No. 2, the appellant, to pay additional Court-fees. This appears to have been done. Thereupon, the District Judge called upon the plaintiff's (respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in the lower Appellate Court) to show cause why they should not pay additional Court-fees. The plaint had been stamped with a Rs. 10 stamp, but the Judge was of opinion that ad valorem fees should be paid, and, as the plaintiffs failed to pay the same within the date fixed, he dismissed the suit. His order is supported on the gr...
P. Shangara Menon Vs. Pudiavittil Krishnan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ93
O.S. No. 610 of 1887 was instituted by the 1st defendant, plaintiff's brother, who is alleged by plaintiff to have been his agent, the property which 1st defendant sought to recover in the above suit having been purchased in his name benami for plaintiff. The question is whether plaintiff is bound by the decision in that case. The presumption is that the benamidar instituted the suit with the authority and consent of the true owner (Gopi Nath Chobey v. Bhugwat Pershad I. L. R 10 C 697), and the Lower Courts have found Upon the evidence that the suit was instituted with the knowledge of the plaintiff. He is therefore as much bound by the decree as if he had himself instituted the suit, and the present suit is barred as being res judicata. The plaintiff stood by and permitted his undivided brother to sue for possession. There was nothing to put the person in possession upon inquiry as to who was the real owner, and it is too late now for plaintiff to be allowed to recover on his secret t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »