Chennai Court September 1891 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mahomed and ors. Vs. Sitaramayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad50
1. The argument addressed to us by the learned vakil for the appellants may be summarised as follows. Accepting the findings of the lower Courts that there was no fraud, misrepresentation or concealment on the part of defendants as to the title of the properties they professed to sell and mortgage, the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed because Section 55, clause 2 of the Transfer of Property Act imports into the contract of sale an absolute covenant for title on the part of the defendants, and the facts as they appear in the judgments of the lower Courts show that the defendants could not make a proper title to the properties sold and mortgaged.2. It is to be observed that this was not the case set up for appellants (plaintiffs) in the lower Courts. The plaintiffs sued to set aside the sale and mortgage in question on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of facts relating to the title by the defendants. Both Courts found that there was no misrepresentation or con...
Fazal Shau Khan Vs. Gafar Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad82
1. The first point taken is that there was no judgment of a foreign Court on which an action would lie. This point is clearly not maintainable. From the record it is apparent that there is a Court in the Bastar territory, and that by that Court the plaintiff's claim was heard and determined after consideration of evidence adduced on both sides in the usual way.2. It is then argued that the Bastar Court had no jurisdiction, because the defendant did not reside or possess property, and the cause of action did not arise within the Bastar territory.3. It appears, however, from the evidence that the appellant carried on business by his agent within the limits of the territory. Moreover the defendant did not protest that the Court had no jurisdiction, but appeared by an agent and defended the suit. Having done so, and having taken the chance of a judgment in his favour, he cannot now, when an action is brought against him on the judgment, take exception to the jurisdiction--see Schibsby v. W...
Anderson Vs. Periasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad169
1. This application for the admission of an appeal to Her Majesty in Council is put in 92 days out of time, and the time taken by the petitioner in obtaining copies of the decree and judgment cannot be excluded.2. An application of this nature under Article 177, Clause 4 of the Limitation Act does not fall within the provisions of Section 12, Act XV of 1877.3. We agree with the view taken by Stuart C.J., in Jawahir Lai v. Narain Das I.L.R. 1 All. 644 and the same view was taken by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 254 of 1886.4. We may also observe that Section 599 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been repealed by Act VII of 1888. We cannot see that the argument based upon the alleged harshness of the law has any foundation. The period of six months, which is allowed by law, seems ample, and in this case the petitioner was actullay in possession of copies of the decree and judgment on August 26th, so that he had ample time before November 6th to prepare a memorandum of gro...
Virasami Vs. Rama Doss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad350
1. The sales sued upon are in terms admittedly absolute, and the alleged agreement to resell, whenever the purchase-money is repaid, is found by the Judge not to have been proved. This being so, the title to the property is in the plaintiff, and as registry follows title, it is clear on the merits the plaintiff must succeed, unless the suit is, as held by the Judge barred by limitation. The Judge finds that the Collector refused to register the plaintiff's name in May 1876, and, upon that finding, he considers that the claim is barred by Article 120 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. He appears to us to have misapprehended our former judgment, wherein it was stated that the time would begin to run from the Collector's refusal to register. The refusal must be absolute and unqualified, negativing the plaintiff's right to the property, of which registry was sought. The evidence in the case discloses only a conditional refusal, and it does not show that the Collector ever denied...
Queen- Empress Vs. Viranna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad132
1. It appears to us that under Section 40, the Sub-Registrar was competent to exercise on his transfer to Gannavaram the powers conferred upon him as Sub-Registrar of Ponnur unless the local Government directed him not to exercise them. In the Government order of 29th May last the Government declined to invest him with those powers as Sub-Registrar of Gannavaram. The order was passed apparently under the impression that the powers had to be conferred again whilst no such fresh grant of powers was necessary under Section 40. Again the Government order was not communicated to the Sub-Registrar until after he had decided the cases under reference. We do not think that under these circumstances there is any necessity to interfere....
Abdulkadar Vs. Mahomed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad15
1. It is argued that the defendant, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the written statement, has been in possession of the mosque and its endowment and that the suit for a declaration of title and an injunction without seeking possession is not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. No specific issue has been framed as to this; and the fifth issue appears to have been framed on a special application with reference to the question whether a suit will lie for an injunction under Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act. Some evidence as to possession appears to have been given by the defendant and considered by the Subordinate Judge under that issue. If, as some of the witnesses assert, the defendant is in possession of the mosque and some of its emoluments, and if the tenants have attorned to him or paid rent to him and executed fresh marupats and agreed to hold under him, we should be inclined to hold that plaintiff must sue for possession. As plaintiff had to begin, and, as...
Queen-empress Vs. Samiappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad63
1. In Calendar Case No. 2 of 1889 on the file of the District Magistrate of Bellary, one Murtinjayalu, a classifier in the Revenue Settlement Department, was convicted of an attempt to receive a bribe from a body of raiyats at the rate of four annas an acre of their holdings and was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. In April last he complained to the District Magistrate against ten raiyats upon whose evidence he was convicted, and charged them with having conspired to bribe him. The District Magistrate transferred the complaint for disposal to the Deputy Magistrate, who, after examining the complainant, issued process. In his examination Murtinjayalu denied that he attempted to take a bribe, whilst he stated that the accused admitted having conspired to bribe him in the evidence which they gave in Calendar Case No. 2 of 1889. Seeing that the complaint was in its nature vindictive, the District Magistrate asked the High Court to interfere in revision. In Queen-Empress v. Su...
Ramachandra Vs. Jaganmohana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad161
1. The appellant is the Zamindar of Salur and respondents are the descendants of the grantee of an inam. The questions for decision were whether the original grant was rent free or subject to the payment of kattubadi of Rs. 30 a year and whether the present suit for arrears of kattubadi for a period of twelve years was barred by limitation. The District Munsif determined both questions in appellant's favour, but decreed his claim to arrears of kattubadi for five years only, commencing with fasli 1293 on the ground that kattubadi had been paid for fasli 1292, and that, in the circumstances of the case, he was entitled to presume that there had been no arrears due for the prior period. From this decree defendants Nos. 3--6 appealed, and on appeal the District Judge found that payment of kattubadi for 1292 was not proved, and that the entry in Exhibit G as to a part payment in 1871-72 was not reliable and, in the view which he took of the facts, he held that the appellant was not entitled...
Kelu Vs. Vikrisha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad345
1. The second respondent obtained a money-decree against first respondent in Original Suit No. 310 of 1888 on the file of the Shernad Munsif. Appellant also obtained a decree for money against first respondent on the small cause side of the Subordinate Court at Calicut in Small Cause No. 154 of 1889. In its execution, appellant attached the judgment-debtor's interest in certain kuri or benefit fund, brought it to sale, and realized Rs. 488. Meanwhile, second respondent had his decree transmitted to the Subordinate Judge for execution, and then applied for rateable distribution under Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellant objected to this proceeding on three grounds, viz., (i) that the decree in second respondent's favour was collusive; (ii) that it was not transmitted to the Subordinate Judge for execution through the District Court; (iii) that the decree, being one passed in a regular suit, was not capable of being executed on the small cause side of the Subordinate Cou...
Venkatacharlu Vs. Kandappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad95
1. In our opinion the District Judge was right in holding that plaintiff had not proved his right to eject defendant. On the findings of both Courts, it must be taken that the only facts proved are that plaintiff is the Inamdar of the village, that defendant and his father have been in occupation of the lands for 40 or 50 years as tenants. Plaintiff's case, as set up in his plaint, was that of an occupancy commencing with the execution by defendant of a muchalka for 10 years in 1874-75. This is clearly not supported by the evidence. It was for plaintiff to show that, under the terms of the tenancy and in the circumstances that exist, he has a right to eject defendant, and this he has not shown. The cases of Appa Rau v. Subbanna I.L.R. 13 Mad. 60 and Venkan v. Kesavalu S.A, No. 1078 of 1887, unreported there referred to, are distinct authorities for the position that, when the plaintiff does not prove what the terms of the tenancy are, he cannot eject, although defendant may fail to pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »