Chennai Court April 1891 Judgments
Sri Raja Row Venkatakumara Mahipati Suria Row Bahadur Raja of Pittapor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ624
1. We are of opinion that Section 4, 01. (b), Act VII of' 1889 does not apply to applications to execute decrees which were pending at the date of the passing of the Act, but refers to applications made after the Act came into force.2. Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act prima facie, the Ac cannot affect pending proceedings. If the legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the section, the language would have clearly indicated it.3. The same view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Balubhai Dayabhai v. Nasar Bai Abdul Habib Fazly. We dismiss the appeal with costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Honourable J.F. Price Vs. John Browne
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ560
1. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff hired from defendant at Ootacamund pair of carriage horses for 6 months from the 1st of April 1890. On May 6th, the horses were driven to Wellington and back. On May 7th defendant ,' took away the horses from plaintiff's stables on the ground that plaintiff had broken the conditions of the contract of hiring by. driving the horses beyond local and municipal limits. The plaintiff denies that there was any such condition in he contract and sues for damages. on account of the trouble and expense caused to him by defendant taking away the horses.2. The Subordinate Judge found that it was not proved that plaintiff had any express notice of the condition set up by the defendant, at the time the contract was made, and also that the drive to Wellington and back was not under the circumstances an unreasonable distance to take defendant's horses ; but he held that defendant had established ?' by evidence a valid trade custom as prevailing at...
Tag this Judgment!Price Vs. Browne
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad420
1. The facts of the case are as follows: the plaintiff hired from the defendant at Ootacamund a pair of carriage horses for six months from the 1st of April 1890. On May 6th the horses were driven to Wellington and back. On May 7th the defendant took away the horses from the plaintiff's stables, on the ground that the plaintiff had broken the conditions of the contract of hiring by driving the horses beyond local and Municipal limits. The plaintiff denies that there was any such condition in the contract and sues for damages on account of the trouble and expense caused to him by the defendant taking away the horses.2. The Subordinate Judge found that it was not proved that the plaintiff had any express notice of the condition set up by the defendant at the time the contract was made, and also that the drive to Wellington and back was not under the circumstances an unreasonable distance to take the defendant's horses; but he held that the defendant had established by evidence a valid tr...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Rau and anr Vs. Chellayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad458
1. We are of opinion that Section 4, Clause (6), Act VII of 1889 does not apply to applications to execute decrees which were pending at the date of the passing of the Act, but refers to applications made after the Act came into force.2. Under Section 6 of the General Glauses Act prima facie, the Act cannot affect pending proceedings. If the Legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the section, the language would have dearly indicated it.3. The same view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Balubhai Dayabhai v. Nasar Bin Abdul Habib Fazly I.L.R. 15 Bom. 79....
Tag this Judgment!Mayan Vs. Chathappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad473
1. The main question aruged in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit against the second defendant, the surety. It is contended on the one side that the bond executed under Section 5,Act XXVII of 1860, was executed in favour of the District Court of North Malabar and that plaintiff cannot sue the surety unless the Court assign that bond to him. On the other hand, it is argued that the second defendant undertook a liability to any person whom a competent Court declared to be the rightful heir of Kunkan Menon and that he was therefore under an obligation to pay the plaintiff. The decision must depend upon the construction which we put upon Section 5. That section authorizes the Court to take security from the person to whom a certificate is granted (1) for rendering an account of debts collected, and (2) for the indemnity of persons who may be found to be entitled to moneys received by the certificate holder and whose right to recover the same agains...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Chetti by Next Friend Saminatha Chetti Vs. Sengamalathachi an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ614
1. The plaintiff sued for possession of a house sold to her by 1st defendant,--alleging that 1st defendant had inherited it from Sivagami Achi who had bought it in execution of O.S. 83 of 1872 on the Kumbakonam District Munsif's file. 1st defendant admit-, ted the sale to plaintiff and claimed to have inherited the house under Sivagami's will 6th defendant alleged that she and Sivagami were the co-wives of one Veeraperumal Pillai and had together purchased the house, that she had enjoyed it exclusively since Sivagami's death and had sold it to 8th defendant, and that 1st defendant had no claim.2. The District Munsif found that the house was Sivagami's absolute property, but that the will set up was not proved. He however gave plaintiff a decree on the ground that 1st defendant was the sister's son and heir to Sivagami.3. On appeal the District judge agreed with the District Munsif that the will was not genuine, but reversed the decree on the ground that a sister's son was no heir under...
Tag this Judgment!Kuttyassan Vs. Mayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad495
1. The District Munsif found that plaintiff was the karnavan of his tarwad and that the plaint property was the self-acquisition of the former karnavan Kunhi Mayan, but that the so-called will (vasyat) was not valid since the property lapsed to the tarwad at Kunhi Mayan's death in 1859 [Kallati Kunju Menon v. Palal Erracha Menon, 2 M.H.C.R. 162], and hence that the suit was barred.2. On appeal the Subordinate Judge concurred with the District Munsif on the first two issues, but held on the authority of Alarmi v. Komu I.L.R. 12 Mad. 126, and S.A. No. 39.5 of 1887, that the will was valid, inasmuch as Kunhi Mayan had a power of disposition by gift inter vivos, and secondly, that the family had accepted and recognized the life interest of Urnmaya and that limitation could only run against defendants from the date of her death (1880); hence that the suit was not barred.3. In the case of Alami v. Komu I.L.R. 12 Mad. 126 the testator had no heirs of any kind, and the question was between his...
Tag this Judgment!Kyd and anr. Vs. Mahomed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad150
1. We are of opinion that the agreements A and B fall within the exemption. It is urged that the stipulations relating to the payment of godown rent and fire insurance as also those relating to reference to arbitration are extraneous to the contract of sale, but we are of opinion that they are only collateral and subsidiary incidents relating to the sale of the goods, which is the transaction evidenced by the documents.2. The test which should be applied is to see whether the document evidences only a transaction of sale or asale and some other independent transaction, and if the former the number of subsidiary stipulations it may contain cannot alter the nature of the transaction. The material words of the exemption are 'an agreement for or relating to the sale of goods or merchandize exclusively,' and the intention was to exempt bona fide sales and purchases of merchandize from stamp duty. If the contention were to prevail fair effect could not be given to that intention.3. We answer...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami Vs. Krishnayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad408
1. The decision of the Full Bench is that plaintiff is entitled only to one-tenth share of the house. It is argued that what was the actual share was not the question before the Full Bench, but we observe that the Division Court, which referred the case, distinctly held that one-tenth and not one-fifth was the share to which plaintiff was entitled, and this was expressly stated in the order of reference, and must have been considered by the Full Bench.2. We refuse to interfere with the decree of the Subordinate Judge, giving Its. 21, the value of the tenth share of the house, to plaintiff and not the share of the house itself.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs,...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Vajzeerally Khan Mokhasadar Vs. Sree Rajah Veerawara Thodadene ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ403
ORDER1. Whether the document A be treated as a pronote or a bond we are of opinion that the Judge was wrong in holding [390] in this case that the addition of an attesting witness, even if it were subsequent to the delivery of the document, is a material altera tion which invalidates the document. In this respect we agree with the judgment in Mohesh Chunder Chatterji v. Kamini Kumari Debia I.L.R. (1885) C. 313 and we adopt the words there quoted from the judgment of Lord Justice, Cotton in the case reported in Suffell v. Bank of England (1882) L.R. 9 Q.B.D. 555 that 'it must be a material alteration so that the party defending himself may be able to say that it is not the same instrument as that which he executed or to which he put his hand 'as well as. the words of the Calcutta judgment following the quotation viz., .' That seems a very different thing from an alteration which enables the defendant to say only, ' this is in every particular the instrument to which I put my hand ; but ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »