Chennai Court March 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.
Rarichan Vs. Perachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad281
1. The judgment of the District Judge appears to he based upon the assumption that, because a community is said to follow Makkatayain, it must be taken to be governed by the Hindu law of inheritance with all its incidents. This is not so. The word 'Makkatayam' is generally used in Malabar to denote the succession of sons in contradistinction to Marumakkatayam or succession of nephews.2. The case set up in the plaint was that, under the law by which plaintiff's family was governed, the brother succeeded to self-acquired property in preference to the widow. The fourth issue settled was what is the law of succession which governs the parties. The Munsif held that it was proved that by the law of succession governing Tiyars of Calicut, the brother succeeded in preference to the widow.3. The Judge has treated the succession of the brother as a special custom deviating from the ordinary law. This way of treating the case rests upon the fallacy abovementioned; that the ordinary law of the Tiy...
Krishnamacharlu Vs. Rangacharlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad73
1. The only question argued is as to the validity of document A. It is urged that Vencatachari, being himself a trustee, had not the power to assign the trust to the plaintiff, and that the lower Courts are in error in decreeing plaintiff's claim.2. The general rule as laid down by Lord Langdale in Turner v. Corney 5 Beav. 517 is that trustees who take on themselves the management of property for others have no right to shift their duty on other persons, and if they do so they remain subject to responsibility towards their cestuis que trustent for whom they have undertaken the duty. As observed by BOWEN, L.J. in re Speight 22 Ch.D. 727, the rule that a trustee cannot delegate means simply this, that a man employed to do a thing himself has not the right to get somebody else to do it; but when he is empowered to get it done through others, he may do so. On referring to document A we find that the plaintiff is authorized merely to take possession of the land for nine years, and after ded...
The Most Reverend Joseph Colgan and anr. Vs. Administrator-general of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad424
1. This appeal relates only to the sum of Rs. 28,000, part of the sum of Rs. 42,000 bequeathed by the testatrix Hosannah Arathoon to her granddaughter Maria Hosannah Chambers, afterwards Mrs. Supple, and her children, which sum of Rs. 28,000 in the event, which has happened, of Maria Hosannah Chambers dying without issue, testatrix directed should go and be added to the therein-before mentioned sum of Rs. 28,000, so that the income of the last-mentioned sum of Rs. 28,000 should be added to the income of the former Rs. 28,000 and be given to perpetual masses for the benefit of her (testatrix's) soul and for the souls in purgatory. The first point raised in appeal is that this sum of Rs. 28,000 does not form part of the estate of Hosannah Arathoon and therefore that the Administrator-General has nothing to do with it, because, by the settlement made upon the marriage of Maria Hosannah Chambers with Mr. Supple, the Government promissory note, then representing the sum of Rs. 42,000, of wh...
Venkataraghava Vs. Rangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad498
1. This is an appeal from the order of remand made by the Subordinate Court of Ellore in Appeal Suit No. 208 of 1890. It is first urged that the Subordinate Judge erred in holding that respondent was at liberty to question the appellant's adoption, though it was upheld as between them in Original Suit No. 315 of 1882 on the file of the District Munsif of Ellore. We think that this objection must prevail.2. In support of his opinion, the Subordinate Judge observes that, prior to the decision in Ganapati v. Chathu I.L.R. 12 Mad. 223, there was an erroneous notion, even among District Munsifs, that a declaratory suit might be instituted, whatever was the value of the property to which it related, in the Court of a District Munsif, and that the respondent's ignorance of law on the subject was excusable, and relies further on the decision of the Privy Council, referred to in Ganapati v. Ghathu I.L.R. 12 Mad. 223 and on Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act.3. But we are unable to agree with...
Karuppashami Alias Kunjapan Vs. Pichu Putter and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ116
1. This is a petition presented under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887. As plaintiff in Small Cause No. 879 of 1889 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Palghaut, petitioner sued to recover from the first counter-petitioner money lent to the latter by one Suppammal since deceased. His case was that after Suppamma's death, her adopted son, second counter-petitioner assigned the debt to him, but it appeared that neither the assignee nor the assignor had obtained a certificate under Act VII of 1889. The Subordinate Judge called upon the petitioner to produce a certificate and granted him two months time for doing so. Petitioner, however, failed to produce the certificate and contended that as the debtor had agreed to pay the debt to him, he was entitled to recover it without producing a certificate. The Subordinate Judge disallowed the contention and dismissed the suit with costs. It is argued before us that Act VII of 1889 is applicable only to the representatives of deceased persons and ...
Alapati Narasayya and ors. Vs. Mullapudi Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ149
1. The property in dispute was the stridhanam of plaintiff's mother who died three years ago, leaving her surviving, plaintiff a son, a maiden daughter since deceased, 2nd defendant her father, 3rd to 5th defendants her brothers, and 1st defendant her maternal uncle. Both the courts below held that on the death of the plaintiff's mother the property devolved on his sister, and the question for determination was whether the plaintiff was the heir of his aiden sister. The District Munsif held that the rule of succession applicable to this case was the same as that which would be applied if the last holder were a male instead of a female, and that the plaintiff was no heir as his father was alive.2. On Appeal however, the Subordinate Judge was of opinion that as a female the plaintiff's sister took but a qualified heritage and that upon her death the last full owner's heir was her heir. On this view of the law he considered that the son, the plaintiff, was his mother's heir and setting as...
Queen Empress Vs. J.W. Hayes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1892
Reported in: (1892)IIMLJ142
1. The appellant Mr. J.W. Hayes, a barrister by profession, appeals against a conviction for defamation under Section 500, Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that on 2nd September 1891, Mr. Hayes was prosecuted for defamation, the complainant being Mr. Christian who is described as being a Minister of the Gospel. Mr. Hayes was represented by counsel and when Mr. Christian was in the witness-box, Mr. Hayes said to him 'yon cheated people at Hyderabad and had to leave the ministry.' For using this expression Mr. Hayes was prosecuted before the Court of the 1st Assistant to the Resident of Mysore and convicted under Section 500,. Indian Penal Code. Mr. Hayes through his counsel admitted that he used the defamatory words complained of but contended that being an accused person he was privileged. It is argued before us that an accused person is absolutely privileged as to any statement he makes or any words that he utters during the progress of the case and that no proceeding can be taken agai...
Karuppasami Vs. Pichu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad419
1. This is a petition presented under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887. As plaintiff in Small Cause No. 879 of 1889 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Court at Palghat, petitioner sued to recover from the first counter-petitioner money lent to the tatter by one Suppammal since deceased. His case was that, after Suppammal's death, her adopted son, second counter-petitioner, assigned the debt to him, but it appeared that neither the assignee nor the assignor had obtained a certificate under Act VII of 1889. The Subordinate Judge called upon the petitioner to produce a certificate and granted him two months 1 time for doing so. Petitioner, however, failed to produce the certificate, and contended that, as the debtor had agreed to pay the debt to him, he was entitled to recover it without producing a certificate. The Subordinate Judge disallowed the contention and dismissed the suit with costs. It is argued before us that Act VII of 1889 is applicable only to the representatives of deceased perso...
Hayes Vs. Christian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad414
1. The appellant, Mr. J.W. Hayes, a Barrister by profession, appeals against a conviction for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that on the 2nd September 1891 Mr. Hayes was prosecuted for defamation, the complainant being Mr. Christian, who is described as being a Minister of the Gospel. Mr. Hayes was represented by Counsel, and when Mr. Christian was in the witness-box Mr. Hayes said to him: 'You cheated people at Hyderabad and had to leave the ministry.' For using this expression Mr. Hayes was prosecuted before the Court of the First Assistant to the Resident of Mysore and convicted under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Hayes through his counsel admitted that he used the defamatory words complained of, but contended that, being an accused person, he was privileged. It is argued before us that an accused person is absolutely privileged as to any statement he makes or any words that he utters during the progress of the case, and that no proce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›