Chennai Court April 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.
Ramachandra Joishi Vs. Hazi Kassim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad207
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred under Letters Patent against the order of Mr. Justice Parker. In the suit to which it relates, three issues were raised for decision, viz., (1) whether the plaintiff performed puja to certain idols, (2) whether the rice claimed in connection with it was a charge on the land mentioned in the plaint, and (3) what was the price of such rice. The parties to this appeal adduced evidence on all the three issues and though the District Munsif recorded it, yet he held on the second issue that the rice claimed was not a charge on the land and dismissed the suit without determining the other issues. On appeal the Subordinate Judge determined the second issue in the affirmative and remanded the case. Mr. Justice Parker considered that the decision on the second issue was not a decision on a preliminary point, and that the order of remand was illegal. He was also of opinion that neither the partition deed nor the sale subject to the plaintiff's cla...
Subban Vs. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad487
1. We think that, under Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is necessary to make Lakshumanan Chetti a party, as he has an interest in the property comprised in the mortgage, even though the plaintiff may not ask for a personal decree against him. He is, at any rate, interested in item 4.2. The subsequent encumbrancers must also be made parties unless the items of property sold or mortgaged to them have been excluded from the properties against which plaintiff seeks a decree. It may be that sales or mortgages made with plaintiff's concurrence have excluded such items from liability; but, if so, they must be excluded from the suit. It is not clear that such is the case. The decrees of the Courts below must be reversed and the suit remanded to the Court of First Instance for disposal.3. We will give the appellant the costs of this appeal and the other costs will abide and follow the result....
Sah Man Mull and anr. Vs. Kanagasabapathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR15Mad20
1. It is contended that, as an appeal lies from the order made by the District Judge, the appellant's petition under Section 622 was not maintainable, and that, therefore, it was properly rejected. It must be conceded that the order is appealable under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure--Vallabhan v. Panqtmni I.L.R. 12 Mad. 454 and Muttia v. Appasami I.L.R. 13 Mad. 504.2. It is urged on behalf of respondent that as he is not an assignee of the decree, but one who attached it under Section 273, the above rulings are not applicable. This, however, makes no difference in principle, as one who attaches a decree is the decree-holder's representative within the meaning of Section 244, as was also held by the Calcutta High Court in Peary Mohun Chowdhry v. Romesh Chunder Nundy I.L.R. 15 Cal. 371.3. It is further contended that the objection that the District Judge's order is appealable was not urged before the learned Judge or before us when we made our former order. This is true; but ...
Paluvindeagath Ammothi Haji Vs. Pudiamadathumel Kunhayen Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ231
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether an otti-holder in Malabar loses his right of pre-emption in consequence of his refusal to bid at a court-sale on the invitation of the purchaser at such sale. The contention for the appellant is that he abstained from bidding because he was under the apprehension that the junior members of the judgment-debtor's tarwad might contest the validity of the court-sale on behalf of their tarwad. The decision, must, I think, depend on the further question how far an invitation to bid at a court-sale is equivalent to an offer to sell from the jenmi or the real owner. There is no reason to doubt that if the decree is binding on the tarwad, the otti-holder is bound to elect either to bid at the court-sale or to relinquish his right of pre-emption. In the present case, the decree was one against the karnavan and the senior Anandravan of the tarwad and as such it was prima facie binding on the tarwad, and no valid ground of o...
Puthen Purayil Kurudipravan Kanara Kurup Vs. Puthen Purayil Kurudiprav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ89
Best, J.1. The case is not on all fours with that reported at I. L. R 15 B 370, Patloji v. Ganu, as supposed by the learned judge under the mistaken impression that the defendant's appeal was withdrawn on the 21st August 1889. It appears that only so much of the appeal as objected to the surrender of the property was withdrawn ; but so far as it related to the amount payable by plaintiff before he could redeem, the appeal was not withdrawn, but it was dismissed and the lower court's decree affirmed, on the 6th June 1890. Plaintiff's application for execution, which was made on the 10th February 1890, was therefore during the pendency of the appeal. It was however after expiry of six months allowed in the decree then under appeal, the date of which is 16th March 1889.2. It has been held by this Court in L. P. A, No, 30 of 1890, Manavikraman v, Unniappan I. L. R 15 M 170 that the mere pendency of the appeal will not extend the time and that though the decree passed on an appeal preferred...
Ammotti Haji Vs. Kunhayen Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad480
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether an otti-holder in Malabar loses his right of pre-emption in consequence of his refusal to bid at a Court-sale on the invitation of the purchaser at such sale. The contention for the appellant is that he abstained from bidding, because he was under the apprehension that the junior members of the judgment-debtor's tarwad might contest the validity of the Court-sale on behalf of their tarwad. The decision must, I think, depend on the further question how far an invitation to bid at a Court-sale is equivalent to an offer to sell from the jenmi or the real owner. There is no reason to doubt that, if the decree is binding on the tarwad, the otti-holder is bound to elect either to bid at the Court-sale, or to relinquish his right of pre-emption. In the present case, the decree was one against the karnavan and the senior anandravan of the tarwad, and, as such, it was prima facie binding on the tarwad, and no valid ground...
Atchayya Vs. Bangarayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad117
Best, J.1. appellantand petitioner Atchayya Garu obtained, in Original Suit No. 10 of 1886 on the file of the Vizagapatam District Court, a decree for money against the respondents, while the latter obtained, in Original Suit No. 3 of 1886 of the same Court, a decree for land, mesne profits and costs against the appellant's father and another. The amount due to appellant under his decree was Rs. 6,392, whereas that due to respondents under their decree against appellant's father is nearly Rs. 9,000. Respondents tried to get the amount due from them to appellant set off in part satisfaction of the amount due to them from appellant's father; but this was disallowed on the ground that appellant is not a party to the respondents' decree, and as respondents were unable to execute their decree against appellant's father in consequence of the appellant having attached the same in execution of his decree the respondents paid into Court the amount due under the latter decree, and asked that thi...
Kanara Kurup Vs. Govinda Kurup
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad214
Best, J.1. The case is not on all-fours with Patloji v. Ganu I.L.R., 15 Bom., 370 as supposed by the learned Judge under the mistaken impression that the defendant's appeal was withdrawn on the 21st August 1889. It appears that only so much of the appeal as objected to the surrender of the property was withdrawn; but so far as it related to the amount payable by plaintiff before he could redeem, the appeal was not withdrawn, but it was dismissed and the lower Court's decree affirmed on the 6th June 1890. The plaintiff's application for execution, which was made on the 10th February 1890, was therefore during the pendency of the appeal. It was, however, after expiry of the six months allowed in the decree then under appeal, the date of which is 16th March 1889.2. It has been held by this Court in Manavikraman v. Unniappan I.L.R. 15 Mad. 170 that the mere pendency of the appeal will not extend the time, and that though the decree passed on an appeal preferred by the defendant may give pl...
Narayanasami Vs. Natesa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad424
Beat, J.5. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Parker, which sets aside an order passed by the District Munsif of Tiruvalur, amending a decree under Section 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure.6. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge acted without jurisdiction (1) because an order passed under Section 206 of the Code is appealable, and, therefore, not open to revision under Section 622, and (2) because even if such an order is not appealable, the Munsif had jurisdiction to amend the decree under Section 206 and the mere fact of his having acted illegally (assuming such to be the case) would not give this Court jurisdiction to interfere under Section 622, and it is contended finally that the Munsif's order was correct, as he merely brought the decree into conformity with the judgment.7. As to the first of these objections it is contended that, though an order passed under Section 206 is not appealable as an order under Section 588, the decree, as ame...
Chathu Vs. Virarayen Alias Cheria Thambiran Avergal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1892
Reported in: (1892)IIMLJ253
1. It is conceded that if secondary evidence of the contents of the document filed as Exh. VIII in O. S. No. 747 of 1878 on the file of the District Munsif of Calicut is admissible under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, the present claim will not be barred; but it is contended that on the true construction of para. 2 of Section 19 such evidence is not admissible even though the document may be lost, destroyed or even withheld by the opposite party. We are unable to accept this contention. We agree with the Calcutta High Court, for the reasons mentioned in Shambhu Nath Nath v. Ram, Chandra Shaha I. L. R 12 C 267, that Section 19 of the Limitation Act must be read with Sections 65 and 91 of the Evidence Act and that it does not exclude secondary evidence of contents of documents in cases in which such would be admissible under Section 65.2. This second appeal fails therefore and is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »