Chennai Court July 1891 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Sevudappayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad91
Parker, J.1. The complaint against the accused was they 'let out sewage water to run into the street.'2. By Section 222 of the District Municipalities Act every owner or occupier, who allows the water of any sink, drain or privy, or the drainage from any stable or place, or any other offensive liquid matter belonging to him or being on his land or in his building or in any building or land occupied by him to run down on or to be put upon, any street or into any drain in or alongside of any street, except in such a manner as shall prevent any avoidable nuisance from any such liquid or offensive matter soaking into the walls or ground at the side of the said drain, shall be liable to a fine of Rs. 10.3. The first witness deposed that the accused had let 'stagnant water' run into the street (presumably the word stagnant is a clerical error or misdescription for 'sewage') and that such water could not be kept inside the house. The Bench of Magistrates did not record any finding upon the fa...
Tag this Judgment!Appu and ors. Vs. Raman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1891
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad425
1. The plaintiffs (respondents) are junior members of the Payyan Puthen Vittil tarwad, of which defendant No. 2 is the karnavan. Defendant No. 3 is also a member of this tarwad. Defendants Nos. 1 and 4 are members of Payyan Kandan Chirakal tarwad. All these were originally members of one tarwad, but at present there is only Ataladakkam right between the members of these two tarwads. Defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 (the appellants) are members of distinct tarwads who have obtained a decree awarding to them as uralers of the Parakoth devasom, the right to recover possession of certain devasom lands. The plaintiff's ask for a declaration that neither defendants Nos. 5 to 7 nor their tarwads have any uraima right in the Parakoth devasom, and that, if they ever had such right, they have lost it by lapse of time. They also seek a perpetual injunction to prohibit defendants Nos. 5 to 7 from executing the decree they have obtained.2. The Subordinate Judge found that defendants Nos. 5 to 7 had not m...
Tag this Judgment!Patcha and ors. Vs. Mohidin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad57
1. The plaintiff's rights are derived through his mother Lal Bee who died in 1879. The rights of this lady were derived from her father who died about 1840 and from her mother who died in 1872, but she never obtained any distribution of her share. The Judge has held that the property was joint family property from which Lal Bee was never excluded during her life, and from which plaintiff was not excluded till 1882, and that the suit is governed by Article 127, Limitation Act.2. The Judge finds that the family was a trading family of Mussalmans, upon whom the Muhammadan law set very lightly. It was not alleged, however, that there was any special family custom by which the rules of Hindu law, as to joint family property, would apply. On the contrary, the Judge points out that when in plaintiff's own family he had at first by mistake (under the rules of Muhammadan law) been allowed a share in his paternal grandfather's property, it had afterwards been taken from him when the mistake was ...
Tag this Judgment!Burla Runga Reddi and anr. Vs. Vidavalur Chenna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ501
1. We are of opinion that the proper article of the schedule to the Limitation Act to apply to the suit was Article 116. The suit is founded on a settlement of accounts made between plaintiffs and the partners, the plaintiffs seeking to recover the defendants' share of the loss which was the result of the partnership business. The contract of partnership creates an express obligation that the partners should according to the shares pay the loss, and thus the origin of the obligation now in suit was a registered contract. The account stated had reference to the registered contract and did not constitute in itself an independent contract It was argued that Article 64, the article relating to suits on account stated, should be applied. That would be so, if the partnership contract had not been registered, but that circumstance renders Article 116 applicable, as in the case of the suit against an agent it was held that the general ArticleS 88 and 99 would not govern the suit, Because the a...
Tag this Judgment!Sura Vittil Vayanda Valappil Kunhi MoidIn and ors. Vs. Kypatt Ambu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ764
1. The question argued in these appeals had regard to the nature of the title created by Mayan Kutti and others in favour of the plaintiff's father, Kadar Kutti. It was. argued on the one hand that Kadar Kutti and the fellow donees took the property as tenants in common, each being entitled to deal with his own share of it, and in support of that view the case reported in Narayanan v. Kantian I.L.R. (1881) M. 315 and cases following it were citeo. On the other hand it was contended that the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the donees taking under Exhibit, I took the property as tarwad property and that therefore no one of them could deal with any part of it as his own. We are disposed to think that the principle laid down in Sreemutty Rabutty Dossee v. Sibchunder Mullick (1851) 6 M.I.A. 1 and Mahomed Sumsool v. Shewukram (1874) L.R. 2 IndAp 14 is applicable to the present case. The decision however in Narayanan v. Kannan I.L.R. (1881) M. 315 appears to be in conflict with th...
Tag this Judgment!Ranga Reddi and anr. Vs. Chinna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad465
1. We are of opinion that the proper article of the schedule to the Limitation Act to apply to this suit was Article 116. The suit is founded on a settlement of accounts made between plaintiffs and their partner, the plaintiffs seeking to recover the defendants' share of the loss, which was the result of the partnership business. The contract of partnership contains an express stipulation that the parties should, according to their shares, pay the loss, and thus the origin of the obligation now in suit was a registered contract. The account stated had reference to the registered contract and did not constitute in itself an independent contract. It was argued that Article 64,* the article relating to suits on accounts stated, should be applied. That would be so, if the partnership contract had not been registered, but that circumstance renders Article 116 applicable, as in the case of the suit against an agent it was held that the general Articles 88$ and 89 would not govern the suit, b...
Tag this Judgment!Apparau Vs. Narasanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad47a
Parker, J.1. The facts found are that a general village rent was paid up to fasli 1280, in which year a system of individual holdings with rates per acre was introduced. For four years there were quarrels and disturbances about the rates of rent which the Zamindar wished to levy, but for faslis 1285--1291 the rates paid have been Rs. 2-9-0 for dry and Rs. 8-8-0 for wet. The tenants object to the wet rate, and claim that they are only liable to pay the dry rate Rs. 2-9-0 per acre plus Rs. 4 Government tax upon dry land converted into wet by the water of the Kistna canal, thus distinguishing this wet land from the old mamul wet for which nanjah rates have to be paid to the Zamindar;2. After careful consideration I find myself unable to distinguish this case from Narasimha v. Ramasami I.L.R. 14 Mad. 44.3. The six years (fasli 1285--1291) during which these rates have been paid are not sufficient to establish an implied contract. No extra peishcush is levied from the Zamindar, nor is it fo...
Tag this Judgment!Maramittath Narayanan Nambudri Vs. Mayilkakhodath Narayanan Nambudri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ499
ORDERParker, J.1. The transmission of the money order was not in itself a tender, and the post office peon was not the agent of the judgment-creditor. It is no doubt a hard case, but the order of the District Munsif was right. The order of the District Judge must be set aside and that of the District Munsif restored. The appellant is entitled to his costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Puthia Vittil Govinda Nambi and anr. Vs. Puthia Vittil Parameshwara Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ548
1. The suit is of a declaratory nature, and therefore the District judge was wrong in requiring an ad valorem, court fee. The cases cited do not apply. We observe that the judge dismissed the original suit on 5th March 1890, on the ground that, plaintiff had not paid the ad valorem fee. On the 13th March, he rejected; the appeal of the 2nd defendant on the ground that the latter had not paid the ad valorem fee on the appeal. Until the appeal was admitted it was not competent to the judge to pass any order dismissing the original suit.2. The 2nd defendant, however has filed no appeal against the order dismissing the appeal, and therefore we cannot make any order in his favor. No one appears for the respondents. We set aside the order 'dismissing the suit, and restore the decree of the District Munsif....
Tag this Judgment!Koyakolli Kunnathathil Kunhunni Nair Vs. Shugapura Vittil Konna Panika ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ682
1. It is argued that there was a forfeiture by reason* of the respondent's denial of title in their written statement. It is true that the defendants including the. respondents all questioned the title of the plaintiff, but it does not appear that the denial so far as regards the respondents was made under circumstances such as to render their conduct fraudulent. The question is, whether the plaintiff or the judgment-debtors have derived a valid title from the same jenmi. And when the plaintiff sought to raise the attachment which had been levied on the land, he did not appear to support his petition or produce his title-deed. The case is similar to that of a tenant who, his lessor having died, bona fide, denies the claim of one of two rival claimants to the inheritance.2. We agree with the District judge that there was no forfeiture. As to the other point turning on the construction of Exhibits III and IV, we see no reason to differ from the judge. There is nothing in the documents to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »