Chennai Court September 1891 Judgments
T.R.M. Arunachellam Chetti Vs. V.R.R.M.A.R. Arunachellam Chetti and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ1
1. This is an appeal from an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Madura with reference to the order of Her Majesty in Council, dated the 29th June 1888. The appellant is the purchaser at the court sale held in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 46 of 1879 on the file of the Subordinate Court and respondents 1 and 2 are the 8th and 10th minor defendants in that suit. The properties which the appellant purchased were pat up to sale as belonging to the 1st respondent and to the 9th defendant, the father of the 2nd respondent, and knocked down to the appellant as the highest bidder on the 28th July 1882. An application was afterwards made on behalf of the respondents under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale on account of certain irregularities, but the Subordinate Judge disallowed their objection. He then passed an order confirming the sale under Section 312, granted a certificate to the appellant under Section 316, and placed him in possession of...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachellam Vs. Arunachellam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad203
1. This is an appeal from an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Madura with reference to the order of Her Majesty in Council, dated the 29th June 1888. The appellant is the purchaser at the Court sale held in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 44 of 1879 on the file of the Subordinate Court and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the eighth and tenth minor defendants in that suit. The properties, which the appellant purchased, were put up to sale as belonging to first respondent and to the ninth defendant, the father of the second respondent, and knocked down to the appellant, as the highest bidder, on 28th July 1882. An application was afterwards made, on behalf of the respondents, under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the sale on account of certain irregularities, but the Subordinate Judge disallowed their objection. He then passed an order confirming the sale under Section 312, granted a certificate to the appellant under Section 316, and placed him i...
Tag this Judgment!Manavikravan, ZamorIn Maharajah Bahadur of Calicut Vs. Agavanda Karupp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ23
1. The plaintiff obtained a decree on December 19th, 1887, entitling him to redeem certain property on payment of the redemption amount to 2nd defendant within six months from 'the date of that decree. The 2nd defendant appealed and the District Court on 29th September 1888 ordered that the decree of the Lower Court be confirmed and this appeal be dismissed. The plaintiff then applied for execution, but was resisted by 2nd defendant under Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act on the ground that as plaintiff had nob paid the redemption amount within six months of the original decree, the right to redeem was barred. The District Munsif held upon the authority of Noor Ali Chowdhuri v. Koni Meah I. L. R. 13 C 13, and Daulat v. Bhukandas Manek-chand I. L. R. 11 B 172, that the appeal decree of the District Court incorporated the decree of the first court and thus became the only decree capable of execution, hence that the petition for execution was not barred. On appeal the District Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Manavikraman Vs. Unniappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad170
1. The plaintiff obtained a decree on 19th December 1887 entitling him to redeem certain property on payment of the redemption amount to second defendant within six months from the date of that decree. The second defendant appealed, and the District Court, on 29th September 1888, ordered that the decree of the lower Court be confirmed and this appeal dismissed. The plaintiff then applied for execution, but was resisted by second defendant under Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act on the ground that as plaintiff had not paid the redemption amount within six months of the original decree, the right to redeem was barred. The District Munsif held, upon the authority of Noor Ali Chowdhuri v. Koni Meah I.L.R. 13 Cal. 13 and Daulat and Jagjivan v. Bhukandas Manekchand I.L.R. 11 Bom. 172 that the appeal decree of the District Court incorprated the decree of the first Court and thus became the only decree capable of execution, hence that the petition for execution was not barred. On appe...
Tag this Judgment!Sambasiva Chari Vs. Ramaswami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1891
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ265
1. We are clearly of opinion that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to extend the time of 30 days limited by Sections 18 and 51 of Act VIII of 1865 for bringing a Summary Suit to set aside a destraint. The cases at Veeramma v. Abbiah I. L. R. 18 M. 99 and Appa Rau Sanayi Aswa Rau v. Krishnamurthi Ib. 20 M. 249 and Kumara Akkappa v. Sithala Naidu 476 place the matter beyond all doubt. Nor is Section 10 of the General Clauses Act or Section 11 of the Madras General Clauses Act applicable, inasmuch as they do not refer back to Acts of the year 1865.2. But there is a general principle of law which has been recognized in two recent cases by the High Court of Calcutta Shooshee Bhusan v. Gobind Chunder (I. L. R. 18 C 231 and Peary Mohund Aich v. Anunda Charan Biswas Ib. 631) that 'where parties are prevented from doing a thing in Court on a particular day, not by any act of their own, but by the act of the Court itself they are entitled to do it at the first subsequent opportu...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Mudali Vs. Muthusami Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ42
1. The District Judge found the plaintiff's case was established, the averment in the plaint being that the loan was made on 30th September 1885, and was repayable in one month from that date. The plaint was presented on 24th October 1888. There was also evidence to support the finding of the judge.2. Even therefore if the admission contained in the will does not amount to an acknowledgment the suit is not barred. We agree with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rameshwar Mandal v. Ram Chand Roy I. L. R. 10 C 1033, that such a suit will fall under Article 115 of the Limitation Act and not under Article 57.3. The decree of the learned judge must therefore be reversed and that of the District Judge restored, but as this point was not taken before, we shall make no order as to costs in this court. The plaintiff is entitled to the other costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Vs. Muttusami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad380
1. The District Judge found the plaintiff's case was established the averment in the plaint being that the loan was made on 30th September 1885 and was repayable in one month from that date. The plaint was presented on 24th October 1888. There was also evidence to support the finding of the Judge.2. Even, therefore, if the admisssion contained in the will does not amount to an acknowledgment, the suit is not barred. We agree with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rameshwar Mandal v. Ram Chand Roy I.L.R. 10 Cal. 1033, that such a suit will fall under Article 115 [Article 115: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description of suit. | Period of | Time from which period begins to run. | limitation. | ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For compensation for the breach | Three years ... | Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Kuttiana Gounden Vs. Muttia Gounden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ14
1. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage bond executed in favour of himself and 6th defendant, alleging that 6th defendant was only a benami holder of the mortgage. The 6th defendant contended that he had equal rights with plaintiff and the District Munsif found that each was entitled to a moiety. Instead however of making 6th defendant a co-plaintiff, the District Munsif decreed in favour of plaintiff for half the mortgage-amount and in favour of 6th defendant, for the other half.2. No appeal was preferred, and the plaintiff in execution of his half share brought the mortgaged property to sale. Then 6th defendant applied that it should be again sold for his half share, but was informed it could not be sold twice over and that he should apply for an order that half 'the sale proceeds be paid to him. Hence the present application for half the sale proceeds which the District Munsif and District Judge have decided in favour of the 6th defendant.3. It appears to me that the order of the courts...
Tag this Judgment!Vaikunta Prabhu and anr. Vs. MoidIn Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad89
Parker, J.1. In the execution of Small Cause Suit No. 417 of 1885 on the Mangalore District Munsif's file, the defendants applied to be declared insolvents. This application was filed as Insolvency Suit No. 7 of 1888, and was dismissed by the District Munsif. Their appeal to the District Court has been dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies; hence this revision petition under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code.2. The ground on which the District Judge has dismissed the appeal is that it is one from an insolvency order passed by the District Munsif in the exercise of his small cause jurisdiction, and that under Section 24 of Act IX of 1887, an appeal is only given from one of the orders specified in Section 588, Civil Procedure Code (Clause 29), chapter XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code (in which Sections 588 and 589 occur), is not included in the chapter of the Procedure Code extended to Provincial Courts of Small Causes by schedule II, Civil Procedure Code.3. On appeal it is argue...
Tag this Judgment!Madavarayachar Vs. Subba Rau and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad94
1. Village Magistrates are not Magistrates under the Code, of Criminal Procedure, and, therefore, we do not think that the Joint Magistrate had power under Section 528 to withdraw the case and transfer it for disposal to the Second-Class Magistrate.2. The order must be set aside....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »