Chennai Court March 1891 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Balasinnatambi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad334
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This reference arises out of Calendar Case No. 133 of 1890 on the file of the Second-class Magistrate of Cuddalore taluk in the district of South Arcot. There is a place of worship called Muniyanar Kovil in the midst of a jungle in the village of Perumathoor in that taluk. One Aruna-chela Gounden, who was its pujari, died about 19 months ago, and upon his death, a dispute arose between his widow and the second accused as to the right of succession to the office of pujari. There is no temple at the place of worship, but the property of the shrine was secured in a building adjacent to the house of the late pujari's widow, the first witness for the prosecution. Her complaint was that the building was in her possession, and that on the 14th April last, the ten accused assembled together in order to take forcible possession of the property, committed a riot, broke into the building, and breaking open a box containing jewels carried them off. Several witnesses gave evid...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Vs. Muppil Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad478
1. As the plaintiff has never been brought on the record as decree-holder in Suit No 247 of 1885, it is clear that the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot apply to him, Halodhar Shaha v. Harogobind Das Roiburto I.L.R. 12 Cal. 105. There was no appeal against the order refusing him leave to execute if he had not been brought on the record as transferee plaintiff, Sambasiva v. Srinivasa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 511.2. The decree of the District Judge must be reversed and the appeal remanded to be heard on the merits. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal, and the costs in the lower Appellate Court will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Peramanayagam Pillai Vs. Arunachella Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ401
1. The plaintiff sued for Rs. 2,352-15-9 being the balance due on two hypothecation bonds. The defendants answered that nothing was due on the first bond ; that Rs. 1,000 of the consideration for the second bond had not been received and hence that that sum and its interest Rs. 722-8-0, should be deducted from the amount due on the second bond, that a sum of Rs. 13-13-0 was wrongly claimed and that the payments had not' been properly. credited, and finally that only Rs. 587-13-7 remained due. The case was posted for final hearing on September 14, 1888 On that the plaintiff's Vakil (or one of them) got leave till 3 P.M. At some hour later than 3 PM., the District Munsif called the suit when plaintiff and his Pleader were not present, though defendant 's Vakil and their witnesseswere present. The District Munsif then passed 'the order ' case closed,' but did not give judgment. A petition was filed by plaintiff on the 20th and dismissed on the 22nd and the District Munsif gave judgment on...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Balasinnatambi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ358
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. This reference arises out of Calendar Case No.133 of 1890 on the file of the 2nd Class Magistrate of Cuddalore Taluq in the District of South Arcot. There is a place of worship called Muniyanar Kovil in the midst of a jungle in the [345] village of Perumathoor in that Taluq. One Arunachela Gounden who was its Pujari died about 19 months ago, and upon his death, a dispute arose between his widow and the 2nd accused as to the right of succession to the office of pujari. There is no temple at the place of worship, but the property of the shrine was secured in a building adjacent to the house of the late pujari's widow, the first witness for the prosecution. Her complaint, was that the building was in her possession and that on the 14th April last, the ten accused assembled together in order to take forcible possession of the property, committed a riot, broke into the building, and breaking open a box containing Jewels carried them off. Several witnesses gave evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Byreddi Chinna Narayana Reddi Vs. Byreddi Peda Rama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ498
1. The contract was in writing and registered' and was made on October 19th, 1883. By Section 55, Clause 2 of the Transfer of Property Act, the seller must be deemed to have given a covenant for title. Article 116 of the Limitation Act will therefore apply and the suit 'is not barred, (see A. Section 141 of 1888, heard by Muthusami Aiyar J. and myself).2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Note.--See per contra, Sawaba Khandapa v. Abaji Jotira v. Cf. S.A. No. 227 of 1887....
Tag this Judgment!Abbum Suryanarayana Pantulu Vs. Nilamani Gantayet and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ497
1. It was certainly irregular on the part of the judge, who disallowed the appellant's claim, not to have dated the order, whereby he disallowed it. But this irregularity does not, in our opinion, invalidate the order. There being a valid order, the date may. be proved by other evidence, and in the case before us, the evidence of the Sheristadar and the A diary initialled by the judge show that the order disallowing the appellant's claim was.really made, as stated by the judge, on the 15th March 1887, more than one year prior to the date of the present suit. As regards the contention that the date cannot be proved except by the order itself under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, we think it cannot be supported. If it were to prevail, there would be no limitation. at all in the cases of orders which are not dated from oversight. Having regard to Sections 578 and 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we cannot consider the omission to date the order fatal to its acquiring legal operation fr...
Tag this Judgment!Pichayee Ammal Vs. Sivagami Ammal Widow of Subbaraya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ349
SJ.H. Collins Kt., C.J.1. The point submitted to the Full Bench is what is meant by the phrases 'value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of First Instance,' and 'value of the matter in dispute on appeal,' occurring in Section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeals to the Privy Council.2. It is contended on the one side that the market value is meant and on the other side that it is the value as calculated in the Court of. First Instance.3. The rules of the Privy Council, dated 1838, declared that no appeal shall lie to the Privy Council unless the value of the matter in dispute in such appeal shall amount to the sum of Rs. 10.000 at least.4. In Mohanalal Sookul v. Bebee Doss (1860) 7 M.I.A. 428 the Privy Council held that in a case in which the value was laid in the plaint as being under Rs. 10,000, as the calculation was estimated with reference to the stamp-duty only, if satisfactory evidence was produced that the real or market value of the property exce...
Tag this Judgment!Pichayee Vs. Sivagami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad237
1. The affidavits put in by the petitioner and counter-petitioner will be forwarded to the Subordinate Judge, who will be directed to ascertain and report what is the market value of the subject-matter of the suit. It is argued by the counter-petitioner's pleader that the second clause of Section 596, Civil Procedure Code, does not apply to this case. We do not now decide that point, but it will be open to argument on receipt of the report of the Subordinate Judge. Both sides will be at liberty to adduce evidence.2. The finding is to be returned within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and seven days, after the posting of the finding in this Court, will be allowed for filing objections.3. [In compliance with the above order, the Subordinate Judge submitted a finding to the effect that the market value of the lands in question exceeds Rs. 10,000.]4. This petition coming on again for hearing before Muttusami Ayyar and best, JJ., on receipt of the finding of the lower Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Vs. Veloo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad301
1. The question for the Full Bench is whether the third respondent, the samudayam of Puthukulangarai devasom, had power under the instrument of 916 or A.D. 1741 to create the melkanom of the 2nd July 1885 upon which this suit was brought. The appellant (plaintiff) sued to recover from the first and second respondents ten items of lands together with arrears of rent. The lands in question belong to a Hindu temple called Puthukulangarai Bhagavathi devasom in the Nedunganad taluk of South Malabar. In 1741 the Uralers or trustees of the institution executed in favour of the third respondent's predecessor a 'teet' or document in respect of devasom properties and their management, and in July 1885 the third respondent granted a melkanom to the appellant. The first and second defendants are the parties in possession of the lands in dispute which have been demised to them on kanom on behalf of the devasom. Unless the document of 1741 created a mortgage with possession, the third respondent, it...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhikutti and anr. Vs. Achotti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad462
1. As members of a Moplah family in North Malabar the plaintiffs claimed, with subsequent mesne profits, a moiety of certain items of property which, as they alleged, belonged to the joint family. The ninth and nineteenth defendants claimed, inter alia, item No. 40 under a koyi panom settlement of 1832. The value of the share claimed by plaintiffs was below Rs. 5,000, though the family property to be divided was of more than Rs. 5,000 value. The Subordinate Judge held that a koyi panom settlement of family property was subject to any arrangement which might be made at a future division and declined to exclude it from partible property. From this decision the ninth and nineteenth defendants appealed to the District Court, but the Acting District Judge returned the appeal for presentation to the High Court on the ground that the value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeded Rs. 5,000. From this order, the ninth and nineteenth defendants have preferred this second appeal, and have also...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »