Chennai Court March 1892 Judgments
Nallaparazu Anandarazu Vs. V. Chittapragada Viyyanna, Minor by His Gua ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ258
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the lower courts are wrong in dismissing the suit as barred by Article 120 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act. The suit was brought for the apportionment of Kattubadi and quit-rent payable on the land in possession of the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff's case is that of an entire area of 164 acres charged with Rs. 516-6-6 as Kattubadi and quit-rent, he is in possession of 128.92 acres as purchaser from, and of 7.32 acres as tenant under, 8th defendant, that defendants 2 to 7 are in possession of the remainder in several portions as purchasers, that the average amount payable for each acre is Rs. 3-2-4 1/2, but that defendants 1 to 5 have been paying less than the amount so calculated on the acres 18.22 in their possession, which has in consequence been levied from plaintiff since 1882. Hence this suit to have the Kattubadi and quit-rent apportioned in the several shares and for the recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 55-5-3 (at Rs. 18-7...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Rama Tevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad352
1. The procedure of the Sessions Judge in the disposal of this case was extremely irregular. Certain persons were charged with having committed dacoity. During the pendency of the case before the Magistrate two of these persons, viz., M. Peryakaruppan and Ocha Tevan, made confessional statements on the 3rd and 27th October. On the 19th November the District Magistrate tendered a conditional pardon to these two persons, who were thereupon examined by the Magistrate as witnesses on the 22nd November. They were not committed to the Sessions Court, but were sent up as witnesses. At the trial in the Sessions Court they were examined on behalf of the prosecution as witnesses 1 and 2, and denied that they had been taken as approvers. This statement was undoubtedly false. The Sessions Judge thereupon placed them in the dock along with the other accused and called upon them to plead. The trial then proceeded. After the evidence for the prosecution and the statements of the prisoners 1--21 had b...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Razu Vs. Viyyanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad492
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the lower Courts are wrong in dismissing the suit as barred by Article 120 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Atricle 120: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description of suit. | Period of | Time from which period begins | limitation. | to run. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Suit for which no period of limita- | Six years ... | When the right to sue accrues.] tion is provided elsewhere in this | | schedule. | | ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2. Plaintiff's case is that of an entire area of 164 acres charged with Rs. 516-6-6 as kattubadi and quit-rent, he is in possession of 128' 92 acres as ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Veerammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad230
Best, J.1. In Criminal Revision Case No. 95 of 1892. One Veerammal has been convicted by the Second-class Magistrate of Periyakulam in the Madura District, of ' building contrary to the terms of a license '--an offence punishable under Sections 180 and 263 of the Municipal Act No. IV of 1884 (Madras), and sentenced to pay a fine of one rupee, and further ordered to pay a fine of four annas for every day during which the offence is continued.2. The Acting District Magistrate, being of opinion that the conviction is illegal, has referred the case for the orders of this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The following are the facts of the case: The abovementioned Veerammal being desirous of building a house on her own land applied to the Municipal Council at Periyakulam for a license as required by Section 180 of the Act. The application was considered at a meeting on 10th March 1890, when it was resolved that ' a piece of land (5 x 33 feet) is required for widen...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanambal Ammal Vs. Parvathi Alias Venkalatchmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ212
Best, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the District Judge is right in holding the suit to be barred as res judicata by the order F dated 25th October 1884.2. This order F allowed a claim preferred by the present respondents to this same house on its being attached in execution of a decree obtained by one Naranappa (in O. S. No. 31 of 1884) against Subbien and Rungaswami Iyen the former of whom is this respondent's maternal grandfather and also father-in-law being the adoptive father of the latter (Rungaswami Iyen) who is respondent's husband. It appears that on respondent's claim to the house being allowed as above, the then plaintiff brought a suit under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure (O. S. No. 331 of 1885) which was dismissed, see Exh. G.3. The present appellant does not claim through the former plaintiff Naranappa. She obtained her decree in O. S. No. 325 of 1888 against c son Rungaswami Iyen (respondents husband) for a debt due on a bond execute...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanambal Vs. Parvathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad477
Best, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the District Judge is right in holding the suit to be barred as res judicata by the order (F), dated 25th October 1884.2. This order (F) allowed a claim preferred by the present respondents to this same house on its being attached in execution of a decree obtained by one Naranappa (in Original Suit No. 31 of 1884) against Subbayyan and Rangasami Ayyan, the former of whom is this respondent's maternal grandfather and also father-in-law, being the adoptive father of the latter (Rangasami Ayyan), who is respondent's husband. It appears that, on respondent's claim to the house being allowed as above, the then plaintiff brought a suit under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Original Suit No. 331 of 1885) which was dismissed (see Exhibit G).3. The present appellant does not claim through the former plaintiff (Naranappa). She obtained her decree in Original Suit No. 325 of 1888 against Subbayyan's son (Rangasami Ayyan, r...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Varma Valiya Rajah Vs. Shangaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad452
1. The application of 23rd November 1886 for payment of money realized by attachment was in our opinion a step in aid of execution within the meaning of Article 179. This was the view taken in Venkatarayalu v. Narasimha I.L.R. 2 Mad. 174 and also Paran Singh v. Jawahir Sing. I.L.R. 6 All. 3662. As to the objection that the decree against the late Valiya Rajah was only personal, and not binding as against the present Valiya Rajah or his kovilagom, it appears from the execution petition that the plaint described him as 'Valiya Rajah of Chirakal Kovilagom,' and the expression 'Valiya Raja' is the one by which the representative of a kovilagom is ordinarily known. The appellant has not produced either the decree or the judgment, nor has he pointed out to us anything in the record which shows that the Valiya Rajah did not sue as head of the kovilagom.3. We dismiss the appeal. No costs, as respondent has not appeared....
Tag this Judgment!Subbarayadu Vs. Pedda Subbarazu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad476
1. In Small Cause Suit No. 1032 of 1886 on the file of the Sub-Court at Ellore, plaintiff obtained a decree against petitioner's brother Subbarazu, and upon his death made his widow a party to execution proceedings. He then attached certain property and brought it to sale, at which petitioner before us, became purchaser. Thereupon the brother of the judgment-debtor applied for the sale being set aside and stated that as undivided brother he was the judgment-debtor's legal representative; that the property sold in execution wan joint family property, and that there was material irregularity in conducting and publishing the sale. He did not, however, make the purchaser a party to his application, and the District Munsif held that no material irregularity was proved, and dismissed the application. On appeal, the Judge made the purchaser a party to the proceedings, and, being of opinion that there was irregularity in publishing the sale, cancelled the order refusing to make the appellant r...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala and anr. Vs. Fernandes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad127
Best, J.1. The appellants obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 43 of 1885 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of South Canara for possession of their shares in certain properties, moveable and immoveable. Execution of the decree was resisted by the respondent who claimed to be in possession of a part of the property under a mulgeni lease.2. Appellants thereupon complained to the Court under Section 328 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The respondent was summoned 'to answer to the complaint, and both parties were heard, with the result that the Subordinate Judge rejected the petition without even numbering and registering the claim as a suit, as required by Section 331 of the Code. Hence this appeal.4. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent, viz., that the claim not having been numbered and registered under Section 331, there was no suit and consequently no decree from which an appeal will lie.5. As was observed, however, in Fonindro Deb Raikut v. Ram Jugodishwar...
Tag this Judgment!Narasayya Vs. Ramabadra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad474
1. We think that the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiff (respondent) must prevail and that first defendant, who did not appeal against the decree of the Court of First Instance, is not entitled to argue that the suit ought to have been dismissed. It is then contended for the first defendant (appellant) that the procedure adopted by the District Judge was irregular and illegal. The facts are as follows:--Plaintiff lent money on promissory notes to Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. They, with third defendant, were partners or joint contractors, and the money was advanced for their work. Disputes having arisen, the matters in dispute were referred to arbitrators who made an award. Plaintiff applied to the Court under Section 525 of the Code. First defendant objected and the then Subordinate Judge referred the plaintiff to a regular suit. Plaintiff then instituted the present suit and prayed in the alternative either for a decree on the award or on the promissory notes. The first defenda...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »