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.
Muttukaruppan Vs. Sellan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad98
1. The suit was of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and did not cease to be so by reason of the Court having exercised its discretion under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to direct the plaint to be presented to the Court on its regular side. This point has been previously decided by this Court. No second appeal lies under Section 586 of the Civil Procedure Code, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs....
In Re:
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad480
1. The question referred to me by the Registrar is whether in a suit for the redemption of a kanom, institution fee ought to be paid on the kanom debt as it originally stood, or on so much of it as was actually due at the date of the suit after setting off against it arrears of rent. The answer must depend on the construction of Sub-section IX, Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. The sub-section is in these terms.ix.--In suits against a mortgagee for the recovery of the property mort-' gaged, and in suits by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage, or where the ' mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute.according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage.2. The language of the sub-section is clear and unambiguous, and according to it institution fee is payable on the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage. The intention it suggests is to make the principal money so secured the criterion of the ...
Acham Vittil Kelu Menon Vs. Panikot Karathodiyil Vikirsha Menon and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ617
1. The 2nd respondent obtained a money-decree against the 1st respondent in O.S. 310 of 1888, on the file of the Shernad Munsif. Appellant also obtained a decree against the 1st respondent on the small cause side of the subordinate court at Calicut in Small Cause suit No. 154 of 1889.In its execution, appellant attached the judgment-debtor's interest in certain Kurt or benefit fund, brought it to sale and realised Rs. 488. Meanwhile 2nd respondent had his decree transferred to the subordinate judge for execution and then applied for rateable distribution under Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellant objected to the proceeding on 3 grounds, (1) that the decree in 2nd respondent's favour was collusive, (2) that it was not transmitted to the subordinate judge for execution through the District Court and (3) that the decree being one passed in a regular suit was not capable of being executed on the small cause side of the subordinate court. The subordinate judge disallowed th...
Vaguran and ors. Vs. Rangayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad125
1. It is argued that upon the true construction of Exhibit C, the last clause which relates to forfeiture does not apply to the failure to pay rent, but to failure to comply with the other terms of the lease. We have no doubt that the last clause does refer, inter alia, to the covenant for payment of rent on the due date. The words 'further' and 'as per terms of the abovementioned lease' leave no room for doubt on this point.2. We agree, however, with the appellant's pleader that the clause is a penal one which should be relieved against There is a series of cases in this and in the Bombay High Court in which the right of relief against forfeiture in oases like the present has been recognised and acted on. The Transfer of Property Act does not apply to agricultural leases and the landlord had, prior to the institution of this suit, obtained a decree for the payment of rent for fasli 1294.3. As to the right of re-entry we are of opinion that the decisions of the Courts below are right. ...
Alfred Schonlank and anr. Vs. A. Muthunayana Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ57
1. The question referred to the High Court is, 'was the defendant justified in revoking his proposal to sell indigo to the plaintiff before the expiry of the time which the defendant without consideration allowed to the plaintiffs, to express their acceptance or refusal?' Both on principle and authority it is clear that in the absence of consideration for the promise to keep the offer open for a time, the promise is a mere nudum pactum. This is indeed conceded by the learned Counsel, but it is urged by him that upon the finding of the Chief Judge, there was consideration for the promise, but the learned judges, who made the reference to the High Court, distinctly find that there was no consideration, and differ from the opinion of the Chief Judge.2. In the absence of any reference on the question of consideration, we must accept the fact as found by the Bench, and answer the question referred to in the affirmative....
Gopireddi Pedda Pulla Reddi and anr. Vs. Keruva Chinna Mahanandi Reddi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ613
1. The District judge is clearly in error in supposing that no suit will lie upon an award. Section 525, Civil Procedure Code only provides that a party may apply to the court to have an toward filed. This is no bar to his right to sue upon the award ; and if the award cannot be produced, secondary evidence of its contents will be admissible on proof of its loss.2. We must therefore set aside the order and direct the judge to entertain the plaint. The costs will be provided for in the reverse judgment.Note--Hill v. Townsend, Taunton, 45 and Muhammad Newas.Khan v. Alain Khan I.L.R. 18 O.C. 414....
Chithambaram Chetti Vs. Natesan Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ616
1. Section 40 of Act II of 1864 directs that the court shall cause the proper process to be issued for putting the purchaser in possession. The intention, which the language suggests, is S that the purchaser shall be placed in possession without being under the the necessity of instituting a suit for that purpose. It' the execution of '4 the process is obstructed, the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure became applicable. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the intention of Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act, which gives a certificate the same force, which a decree of court has under the Code of Civil Procedure.2. We set aside the order of the District Munsiff and direct that the petition be restored to the file and disposed of in accordance with law. Counter-petitioner will pay the costs of this petition....
Gopi Reddi and anr. Vs. Mahanandi Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad99
1. The District Judge is clearly in error in supposing that no suit will lie upon an award. Section 525, Code of Civil Procedure, only provides that a party may apply to the Court to have an award filed; this is no bar to his right to sue upon the award, and, if the award cannot be produced secondary evidence of its contents will be admissible on proof of its loss.2. We must therefore set aside the order and direct the Judge to entertain the plaint. The costs will be provided for in the revised judgment....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›