Chennai Court January 1892 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.
Mahadeva Vs. Kuppusami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad233
1. We are of opinion that the receiver is entitled to remuneration at the rate fixed by the late Subordinate Judge, but for the amount of that fee, he is only entiled to a lien to the extent of 5 per cent, upon the sum remaining as net assets after the charges specified in Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Section 356 have been paid. The question whether the opposing creditor's claim is a debt secured by mortgage is not before us. See ex parte Browne in re Maltby L.R. 16 Ch. D. 497...
Atchayya and anr. Vs. Gangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad138
1. The only parties to these proceedings are the first and second defendants. So far as they are concerned the order of the Sessions Judge must be set aside inasmuch as the sanction of the Registrar is required by Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, for their prosecution. The order of December 3rd, 1890, staying proceedings is discharged....
Annamalai Chetti Vs. Subramanian Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ15
1. The preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondent that no second appeal lies under Section 586 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the value of the suit does not exceed Rs. 500, and it is of a nature cognizable by a court of small causes, and we think the objection must prevail.2. It is argued for the appellant that the case falls within Clause 31 of Sched. II of the Provincial Small Cause Court's Act IX of 1887, and that the suit is therefore not cognizable by a court of small causes.3. The question is what is the nature of the suit as originally filed, and in our opinion the suit in its inception was not a suit for the profits of immovable property, within the meaning of Clause 31 of Sched. II of Act IX of 1887. This Suit is in effect brought to recover the value of the crops alleged to have been illegally carried away See The Secretary of State v. R. Fischer 1 M. L. J. 166. by defendant while plaintiff was in possession. This is not a snit in our opinion exempted from th...
Annamalai Vs. Subramanyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad298
1. The preliminary objection is taken on behalf of respondent that no second appeal lies under Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the value of the suit does not exceed Rs. 500, and it is of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and, we think, the objection must prevail. It is argued for appellant that the case falls within clause 31 of schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act IX of 1887, and that the suit was therefore, not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The question is. what was the nature of the suit as orginally tiled, and, in our opinion, this suit, in its inception, was not a suit for the profits of immoveable property within the meaning of clause 31 of schedule II of Act IX of 1887. This suit is in effect brought to recover the value of crops alleged to have been illegally carried away by defendant while plaintiff was in possession. This is not a suit, in our opinion, exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court by clause 31, A...
Mariathodi Vs. Appu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad296
1. We think the lower Courts were right in holding that the suit was not barred in any part by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. The former suit by plaintiff was for a general partition of the family property and in that suit he obtained a declaration that he was entitled to 1/4 of the debts due to the family. In the present suit he sues for some of the debts which, he alleges, were collected by the managing member, first defendant, without his knowledge. It is clear that plaintiff's omission to claim from 1st defendant in that suit a share of debts, which he did not know had been recovered, cannot be a bar to his now suing for that purpose. The words ' omit to sue ' in Section 43 must refer to an omission which might have been avoided, not to an omission to claim that which a party could not know he was entitled to.2. As to the items 1 to 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14, the Subordinate Judge finds that they are clearly proved, and that decision cannot be questioned in second appeal. A...
Chinnammal and anr. Vs. Varadarajulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad307
1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that the plaintiffs are precluded from obtaining a declaratory decree by the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act. The oral evidence as to possession of the disputed lands is, as the Judge admits, very conflicting, and the documents on which he relies in coming to the conclusion that possession is with the defendant are, in our opinion, worthless as evidence of possession. Exhibit V is a rent agreement in favour of the defendant, dated 11th January 1888, long after the dispute arose, between the plaintiffs and the defendant. It is not proved that the executant of this rent agreement obtained possession of the house to which it relates. If he is the same person as the defendant's ninth witness, he was not asked about this, and he is the defendant's gumasta. And even if it were proved that the house in question is occupied by a tenant of the defendant, it is a small portion of the property in dispute, and against such a fact, ...
Kunhi Raman Nambiar Vs. Kottarattil Pakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1892
Reported in: (1892)IIMLJ36
Subramania Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of the amount alleged to have been paid by him on account of the Government assessment on certain lands belonging, to the defendant. The material allegations of the parties either in this suit or in the previous one to be presently referred to, are not very clearly stated. So far as 1 have been able to ascertain they are as follow.2. The case for the plaintiff is that as the land stands registered in his name, he was compelled to pay the assessment, the defendant having omitted to pay it. The defendant denied that the registry was in the name of the plaintiff and contended that he was the pattadar and that he had paid the assessment for the whole of the land in his holding. Assuming that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain a suit on the facts alleged by him, the issues for determination were, (1) was the registry for the land in the plaintiff's name (2) was he compelled to pay and did he pay the assessment ?3. In Small Cause...
Kotta Penta Reddi and anr. Vs. Varithi Reddi Anki Reddi Alias Pichi Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ34
Subramania Aiyar, J.1. The question argued before me is whether the dismissal of a suit for want of a certificate under Act VII of 1889, is right. The contention for the plaintiff is that the suit is one for the recovery of unliquidated damages for breach of contract. If this were correct, no certificate would be necessary, as even the amount of a verdict in an action for unliquidated damages was held not to be a debt until judgment, (Jones v. Thompson 27 L. J. (Q. B). 234.2. The claim here however is for the refund of the price alleged to have been paid for goods sold but not delivered. To determine the amount of damages in these cases it is no doubt necessary to know what the contract price was, but the payment of the price has nothing to do with the matter, as the vendee would be entitled to recover damages from the vendor who has broken the contract, whether the price agreed has been paid by the vendee to the vendor or not. When property is sold and the vendor cannot perform his pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›