Chennai Court August 1891 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Venkatasami Vs. Venkatreddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad12
1. The Subordinate Judge was in error in holding that Exhibits A to D were inadmissible in evidence against the defendants. It is true they are not conclusive, since the defendants were not parties to them, but they are relevant evidence as tending to show that the plaintiff's ancestors had dealt with the site as their own for a long term of years.2. The Subordinate Judge has thus decided the case upon the oral evidence alone, the defendants not having, on their part, any title-deeds, and he has found a title in the defendants, acquired by adverse possession, as to which no issue was framed.3. We must ask the Subordinate Judge to re-try the first issue, taking into consideration the documents A to D, and return a revised finding thereon with reference to these observations.4. Finding is to be returned within one month from the reopening of the Court after the recess, and seven days, after the posting of the finding in this Court, will be allowed for filing objections.5. [In compliance ...
Shankaran and ors. Vs. Kesavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad6
1. The first contention is that the claim is not res judicata by reason of the decree in Original Suit No. 107 of 1876 or in Original Suit No. 389 of 1878. The District Munsif distinctly found that the claim was res judicata and the Subordinate Judge came to the same conclusion, though he does not refer to the decision in Original Suit No. 389 of 1878. Having regard to the decision of this Court in Sri Devi v. Kelu Eradi I.L.R. 10 Mad. 79 we are unable to uphold this finding.2. The Subordinate Judge has omitted to record any finding on the question of adoption. The plaint distinctly sets forth the adoption, and, if the adoption were true, no question of any reversionary right could arise, and the karar to which the adopted son was a party would prevail.3. We must therefore ask the Subordinate Judge to record a distinct finding on the question of the adoption of the tenth defendant on the evidence on record.4. As to the relationship the Subordinate Judge refers to certain documents and ...
Puthenpurayil Kumdipravam Kanara Kurup. Vs. Puthenpurayil Kumdipravam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ769
Parker, J.1. It appears to me thai plaintiff's application to execute the decree is barred.2. The decree was dated March 16th, 1889, and directed redemption on the kanom amount being paid within six months. The defendant appealed, but the appeal was withdrawn on 21st August 1889. Application for execution was not made till February 6th, 1890.3. No decree having been passed on appeal, there is no possible ground for the contention that time should be reckoned from the date of the final order of the Appellate Court. See Potlogi v. Ganu I.L.R. (1890) B 370. The fact that the mortgage is usufructuary does not matter. The question is one in execution.4. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.NOTE--Ses also Letters Patent Appeal 30 of 1890 in which Muthusami Aiyar and Parker, JJ., held that even where the appeal is decided on the merits where the appeal does not extend the time for redemption, the decree-holder is bound to redeem within the. time fixed from the date of the original decree....
Queen-empress Vs. Munisami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad39
1. Under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, the District Magistrate had power to make further inquiry himself or to direct the Sub-Magistrate to make further inquiry, but if he chose the latter course he had no legal authority to fetter the Sub-Magistrate in the exercise of his judicial discretion.2. A commitment to the sessions (assuming that the case was one which ought to be tried by the Sessions Court) would not be justifiable unless the committing Magistrate considered a prima facie case had been made out which in his judgment ought to be tried at the sessions. The order of the District Magistrate that the case was to be committed if the Sub-Magistrate thought it was possible for two views to be held, (the District Magistrate distinctly stating he held another view), was therefore ultra vires, and practically took away from the Subordinate Magistrate the exercise of his judicial discretion. In making the commitment the Sub-Magistrate does not profess to have exercised any judic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›