Chennai Court December 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.
Abbu Vs. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad355
1. In our opinion the learned Judge in the Court below was right in holding that on the true construction of the will of K. Naraina Chetty the gift of his estate to plaintiff on the death of testator's widow was contingent on his being adopted by the widow, and that not having been so adopted, he cannot maintain this suit. The question in such cases is, as pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Fanindra Deb Raikal v. Rajeswar Das I.L.R. 11 Cal. 463 one of intention, and reading the whole will we have no doubt that the gift to plaintiff was made in contemplation of his adoption, and with the intention that he should take as the adopted son, and was, therefore, conditional on his being adopted. The arrangement made by the will is that after the return of plaintiff's natural father the widow shall take the boy in adoption, then that the widow shall enjoy the estate during her life and after her death the same shall be taken possession of by the aforesaid adopted son.' The adoption is an...
C. Subramania Sastri and ors. Vs. Minakshi Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ128
1. The suit was brought in the District Munsif's Court for a declaration of the invalidity of the appointment of the defendant Minakshi Naidu as a member of the Committee of the Minakshi Devastanam at Madura, and for an injunction against his acting as such member, on the ground that the temple is one dedicated to Shiva, whereas the appointee is a Vaishnavite.2. The appointment in question was originally made in 1881 by Mr. Hutchins, the then District Judge of Madura, acting under the powers conferred on a District Judge by Section. 10 of Act XX of 1863. On appeal, the appointment was cancelled by this court, but this court's order was declared by the Privy Council to be without jurisdiction on the ground that no appeal lies from an order passed under Section 10 of the Pagoda Act, (XX of 1863). This decision of the Privy Council appears to have been given effect to by an order of the District Judge dated 15th August 1887, which order however, is not to be found in the records of this s...
Krishnamma Vs. Suranna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad148
Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether, when it is proved that a subsequent encumbrancer under a registered conveyance had notice of a valid prior unregistered encumbrance and of possession by such encumbrancer, or of such conveyance without possession, the Courts are bound to interpret Section 50 of the present Registration Act so as to defeat the title of the prior encumbrancer.2. The first attempt to compel the registration of deeds, etc., in Madras was by Regulation XVII of 1802, a regulation for establishing a registry for wills and deeds for the transfer or mortgage of real property, and it was enacted by Section 6, Clause 3, that ' it being the object, however, of the rules in the two preceding clauses, to prevent persons being defrauded by purchasing, or receiving in gift, or taking in mortgage, real property which may have been before sold, given, or mortgaged, subsequent to the period fixed for the operation of this regulation; and...
Queen-empress Vs. Kyajabhoy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad423
1. Section 31 of the Court Fees Act must be read with Section 19. No process fee is leviable under Section 19 on complaints made by Municipal officers and we do not think that the accused were liable to refund, under Section 31, what was illegally levied from the complainants.2. The orders, so far as they direct the accused to pay the process fees, are set aside....
Srinivasa Pillai Vs. P. Rathnasabapathi Pillai, Chairman, Municipal Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ124
1. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge is in error in holding that the suit is barred under Section 261, Madras Act IV of 1884, The cases contemplated in that section are suits for compensation and for damages and the principle is to allow public bodies time for tender of amends to the parties so as to avoid litigation. See S. A. No. 319 of 1892 Agling v. Narayana Chetti 3 M.L.J. Rep.12 and cases quoted therein; also Chunder Sikhur Bundopadhya v. Obhoy Churn Bagchi I. L.R. 6 C 8, and Kalidas v. Vallabhdas I. L. R 6 B 80.2. Upon the second point we are of opinion that the penalty prescribed by the muchilka of 22nd March 1887 is one which cannot be enforced since the contract renders the penalty altogether irrespective of the importance of the breach. See Soper v. Arnold, 37 Ch.D 96 and Lachman Das v. Chater I. L. R. 10 A 29. The contract does not fall within the exception to Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, since the bond was not given under the provisions of any law for ...
Krishnan Chetti Vs. Arunachalam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ126
1. The appellant obtained a money-decree against respondents father in Original Suit No. 295 of 1877 on the file of the Shivagunga Munsif. Prior to its execution the judgment-debtor died and his sons, the respondents, were made parties to the execution proceedings, as his legal representatives. The appellant then attached some land which was their ancestral property, brought it to sale and himself bought. The sale was confirmed under Section 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure and respondents objected subsequently to its validity on the ground that the property attached and sold was not that of the judgment-debtor and not liable to be sold as such in execution. For the appellant it was contended that non-sale ability was not an objection which could be raised after the sale had been confirmed except by a separate suit and that the sale was valid.2. The courts below held that the objection ought to be dealt with under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the sale was not v...
Krishnan Vs. Arunachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad447
1. The appellant obtained a money-decree against respondents' father in Original Suit No. 295 of 1877 on the file of Sivaganga Munsif. Prior to its execution the judgment-debtor died and his sons, the respondents, were made parties to the execution proceedings as his legal representatives. The appellant then attached some land, which was their ancestral property, brought it to sale, and himself bought it. The sale was confirmed under Section 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and respondents objected subsequently to its validity, on the ground that the property attached and sold was not that of the judgment-debtor, and not liable to be sold as such in execution. For the appellant it was contended that non-saleability was not an objection, which could be raised after the sale had been confirmed, except by a separate suit and that the sale was valid.2. The Courts below held that the objection ought to be dealt with under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the sale was ...
Srinivasa Vs. Rathnasabapathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad474
1. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge is in error in holding that the suit is barred under Section 261, Madras Act IV of 1884. The cases contemplated in that Section are suits for compensation and for damages, and the principle is to allow public bodies time for tender of amends to the parties so as to avoid litigation--see President of the Taluk Board, Sivaganga v. Narayanan I.L.R. 16 Mad. 317 and cases quoted therein: also Ghunder Sikhur Bundopadhya v. Obhoy Churn Bagchi I.L.R. 6 Cal. 8 and Joharmal v. The Municipality of Ahmednagar I.L.R. 6 Bom. 580 Upon the second point we are of opinion that the penalty prescribed by the muchalka of 22nd March 1887 is one which cannot be enforced since the contract renders the penalty altogether irrespective of the importance of the breach--see Soper v. Arnold 37 Ch. D. 96 see also 14 App. Case 429 and Lachman Das v. Chater I.L.R. 10 All. 29 The contract does not fall within the exception to Section 74 of theIndian Contract Act, since th...
Kunhacha Umma Vs. Kutti Mammi Hajee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad201
Best, J.1. The following are' the facts of this case:2. The present respondent obtained a decree for money to be paid ' out of the assets of the deceased Uthotti' in the hands of defendants 2 and 3 in Original Suit No. 485 of 1888, on the file of the District Munsif of Badagara. In execution of that decree property was attached, and the present appellant objected to the attachment under Section 2. 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The property so attached consisted of seven items. The Munsif allowed the appellant's objections with regard to all seven. The District Judge, on appeal, modified the Munsif's order to ' the extent of making the judgment-debtor's share in Nos. 2 to 6 liable.' He did this on the authority of the decision in Narayanan v. Kannan I.L.R. 7 Mad. 315. This decision of the District Judge was upheld on appeal to this Court by Shephard, J., who further referred to the decision in Parvathi v. Koran S.A. No. 1066 of 1889. Hence the present appeal in which it is conte...
Anantayya and ors. Vs. Padmayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad278
1. The first contention on behalf of the appellants is that Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners' Act is inapplicable to this case in that Gummanna Heggade by whom the original promissory note was executed was not a party to the suit in which plaintiffs' father acted as pleader on behalf of the defendants. The section is, however, too comprehensive to limit it to agreements entered into by pleaders with the parties themselves. The words include all agreements entered into by a pleader with ' any person retaining or employing him in respect of business done or to be done by such pleader.' The consideration for the plaint promissory note is merely the previous note, Exhibit A, which was executed by Gummanna when employing plaintiffs' father as pleader for the defendants in the suits which they were defending. Such being the case, the lower Courts are right in holding the agreement to be invalid under Section 28 of the Act by reason of its not having been filed in Court.2. The next conte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »