Chennai Court October 1892 Judgments
Abdul Kader Vs. Aishamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad61
1. It appears to us that the question whether there is any conflict between Sithamma v. Narayana I.L.R. 12 Mad. 487 and the other cases referred to in the order of reference does not really arise in this suit. The plaintiff's case is that since the deaths of her grandmother and mother, she and the defendants have enjoyed the property in common, but that she has now been excluded from the common possession and enjoyment. Hence her cause of action arises from the date of her exclusion or dispossession, and not from the date when her share became deliverable on the death of the persons to whom the property originally belonged.2. In Patcha v. Mohidin I.L.R. 15 Mad. 57 it was held that Article 127 of the Limitation Act did not apply, and that plaintiff had never obtained any distribution of her share. In Kasmi v. Ayishamma I.L.R. 15 Mad. 60 the suit was for partition and participation in the possession and enjoyment of the property was not alleged.3. In both these cases it was held that Art...
Tag this Judgment!Narasinga Rau Vs. Venkatanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad481
1. In 1879 first defendant hypothecated to plaintiff the lands in question in this suit by registered deed (Exhibit A) for Rs. 1,000. In default of payment within four years the deed provides that plaintiff 'shall take possession and enjoy the lands, this very bond being taken as a sale deed'. The deed contains a direct covenant by first defendant for payment of the mortgage debt, principal and interest. Plaintiff sued first defendant in Original Suit No. 116 of 1884 in the Vizianagram Munsif's Court for recovery of the mortgage debt from first defendant personally and by means of the mortgage property. It is admitted that none of the mortgaged lands are within the territorial jurisdiction of the Vizianagram Munsif. As against the land, therefore, plaintiff could have obtained no relief in that suit, and the District Munsif accordingly dismissed his suit so far as it related to the lands mortgaged. He also dismissed the suit for the principal of the mortgage debt, apparently on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Aiyangar Vs. Savuri Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ261
1. Following Narayana v. Krishna, I. L. R 8 M 218, we are of opinion that there is no presumption either way and that in the absence of proof that the property left by the widow was the property of the husband, appellant was not entitled to a, certificate. The case relied on by the appellant, Sreemutty Chunder Monee Dossee v. Joykissen Sircar, I. W. R, 107 was before the court when I. L. R 8 M 21.8 was decided.2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Mutharaju Venkata Row Vs. Kunnathoor Parthasaradhi Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ35
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. The main question arising for decision in this appeal is as to limitation. The suit is one brought to recover a debt alleged to be due upon a bond dated the 1st September 1879. The document provided for repayment of the debt within six months from the date of its execution, and on the 24th July 1882 the appellant paid Rs. 50 in part and endorsed the payment on the bond. The suit was, however, not brought till the 2nd April 1890, and it would clearly be barred unless the debt was acknowledged to be a subsisting debt within intervals of three years between the 24th July 1882 and the 2nd April 1890. The respondent's case was that Exhibits C, D and E contained . together 3 such acknowledgments, but for the appellant it was contended that they were not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S, 19 of Act XV of 1877. The judge overruled the appellant's contention and decreed the claim but it is urged before us that the decision of the judge is bad in law.2. Section 19...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Vs. Parthasaradhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad220
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The main question arising for decision in this appeal is as to limitation. The suit is one brought to recover a debt alleged to be due upon a bond, dated the 1st September 1879. The document provided for repayment of the debt within six months from the date of its execution, and on the 24th July 1882 the appellant paid Rs. 50 in part and endorsed the payment on the bond. The suit was, however, not brought till the 2nd April 1890, and it would clearly be barred unless the debt was acknowledged to be a subsisting debt within intervals of three years between the 24th July 1882 and the 2nd April 1890. The respondent's ease was that Exhibits C, D and E contained together three such acknowledgments, but for the appellant it was contended that they were not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 19 of Act XV of 1877. The Judge overruled the appellant's contention and decreed the claim, but it is urged before us that the decision of the Judge is bad in law.2. S...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Bibi Vs. Telukula Magata Savu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ9
ORDER1. It is argued that the District Judge erred in holding that the stipulation in the bond sued on excluded proof of the alleged payment by other evidence. Even if the judge, as is contended on the other side, did not refuse to consider the evidence of payment, there can be no doubt that his finding was influenced by his opinioin that evidence aliunde was inadmissible, for he himself says that he cannot 'in default of better proof than is offered accept any other evidence of payment than is prescribed in the document itself.' It is clear law that notwithstanding such a stipulation in the document evidence of payment is admissible.2. The law is expounded in the following cases : Sashachellum Ghetty v. Oovindappa 5 M.H. C. R 451, Narayan Undir Patil v. Motilal Ramdas I. L. R 1 B 45 and Kalee Doss Mittra v. Tar a Ghand Boy, 8 W. R 316. The District Judge does not, we observe, dismiss all the reasons given by the District Munsif for holding exhibit I genuine. We set aside his finding a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad234
1. We are of opinion that the District Magistrate is right. Section 20, clause II of the Court Fees Act has reference only to fees for processes issued in the case of 'offences,' and it has been held that an order for payment of maintenance is not a conviction for an 'offence' see Queen v. Golam Hossein 2. Chowdhry 7 W.R. Cr., 10; cf. Reg. v. Thakur Ira 5 Bom. H.C.R. 81.2. We, therefore, set aside the Head Assistant Magistrate's order dismissing the application and direct the Magistrate to proceed with the inquiry and pass an order in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!Natasayyan and anr. Vs. Ponnusami Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ1
1. Defendants appeal against so much of the decree as makes them liable to pay to plaintiff out of their family property the sum of Rupees 4,002-15-1 together with further interest and proportionate costs. This sum represents items 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the plaint schedule. Of these items 1, 2 and 3 are suras awarded to plaintiff against defendants' father Dorasami Aiyar by the decree in O. S. No. 20 of 1879 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam as modified by the decree of the High Court in Appeal No. 152 of 1882. Item 4 is the costs awarded to plaintiff against defendants' father by the same decree. Defendants' father died after the decree and plaintiff sought to execute the decree against the present defendants but was referred to a regular suit on the ground that defendants took the family property on the death of their father by survivorship and not as his representatives, and therefore the decree could not be executed against them as his representatives. Hence this suit in...
Tag this Judgment!Natasayyan and anr. Vs. Ponnusami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad99
1. Defendants appeal against so much of the decree as makes them liable to pay to plaintiff out of their family property the sum of Rs. 4,002-15-1, together with further interest and proportionate costs. This sum represents items 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the plaint schedule. Of these items 1, 2 and 3 are sums awarded to plaintiff against defendants' father Dorasami Ayyar by the decree in Original Suit No. 20 of 1879 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam as modified by the decree of the High Court in Appeal No. 152 of 1882. Item 4 is the costs awarded to plaintiff against defendants' father by the same decree. Defendants' father died after the decree and plaintiff sought to execute the decree against the present defendants, but was referred to a Regular Suit, on the ground that defendants took the family property on the death of their father by survivorship and not as his representatives, and therefore the decree could not be executed against them as his representatives. Hence this ...
Tag this Judgment!Konna Panikar Vs. Karunakara and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad328
1. Mr. Sankaran Nayar for respondents raises the preliminary objection that the appeal lies to the District Court and not to this Court, as the value of the subject-matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 5,000.2. We consider that there are two distinct causes of auction in the suit, namely, the claim for redemption and that for the arrears of rent, and that, therefore, the value of the subject-matter of the suit is the aggregate value of these two heads of relief, i.e., Rs. 5,000 for the suit to redeem and Rs. 122 for the claim for arrears of rent.3. We, therefore, overrule the objection and hold that this Court has jurisdiction to try the appeal. This is a suit brought by plaintiff as karnavan of his tarwad to redeem 26 parcels of land demised on kanom to the tarwad of which first defendant is the karnavan and defendants Nos. 2 to 67 are members by the karnavan and two members of the Kolathill illom, and to recover arrears of purapad.4. Plaintiff claims as melkanomdar of items 4, 5, 9...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »