Chennai Court May 1892 Judgments
Takore Doss Kasi Doss Vs. Abdoollah Hanjee Kassim Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ215
1. A minor cannot be treated as if he was of full age during the investigation of any material averment in a suit. He must always be represented by a guardian, and no order made without his being so represented is valid under Section 444 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The general rule is that though a minor may appear by an Attorney or pleader, he can only plead or conduct the defence by his guardian. Section 443 is taken from Rule II of the Calcutta High Court, dated 10th June 1874, the words, 'on being satisfied of the fact of his minority,' being added. The apparent intention is not to treat one who alleges that he is a minor as not being a minor, and thereby to ignore the general principle that a minor cannot act for himself, but to indicate that a finding that he is really a minor is necessary to the appointment of a guardian for the suit to act on his behalf generally in the conduct of the case. No sufficient reason appears from the letter of reference for trying the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Sabapathi Pillai Vs. T. Somasundram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ244
1. The appellant is the plaintiff, an infant of 41/2 years, who sues, nominally by his next friend his maternal uncle, to set aside, so far as his share is concerned, certain alienations made by his father, the 1st defendant. The appeal relates to items 4, 5, 10 and 12. Items 4 and 5 were sold to the 5th defendant in July 1887, two months before plaintiff was born. Item 10 was sold to 6th defendant in September 1888 a year after plaintiff's birth, and item 12 in April 1887.2. With reference to these transactions the Subordinate Judge found that the sale of items 4 and 5 was bona fide, and supported by consideration, and that the sale was valid and binding on the plaintiff, that the sale of item 10 took place in discharge of antecedent debts which are not shown to have been immoral: and that as the plaintiff was not born at the time when item 12 was sold to the 8th defendant, he cannot object to the alienation.3. [After holding that the sale of items 4, 5 and 10 was valid the judgment p...
Tag this Judgment!Muttusami and ors. Vs. Muttukumarasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR15Mad23
1. The contest in this appeal is as to the right of succession to the property of one Muttusami Mudali deceased. He died without issue in 1879, leaving him surviving a widow Swarnathammal, who died in the year 1888. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons and appellant No. 3 is the son's son of Parvathammal, sister of Arumugatta Mudali, who was Muttusami Mudali'a paternal grandfather. The respondent claims under one Nagappa Mudali and his sons, the former being the step-brother of Muniyammal, Muttusami's mother. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether, as held by the Judge, a maternal uncle of the half blood is entitled to succeed in preference to the son of the father's paternal aunt. It was alleged for the respondent that Parvathammal was only the stepsister of Arumugatta Mudali, but the Judge did not consider it necessary to determine this question, as he was of opinion that the distinction between the whole blood and the half blood was not material for the purposes of...
Tag this Judgment!Sabapathi Vs. Somasundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad76
1. The appellant is the plaintiff, an infant of 4 1/2 years, who sues nominally by his next friend, his maternal uncle, to set aside, so far as his share is concerned, certain alienations made by his father, the first defendant. The appeal relates to items 4, 5, 10 and 12. Items 4 and 5 were sold to the fifth defendant in July 1887, two months before plaintiff was born. Item 10 was sold to sixth defendant in September 1888, a year after plaintiff's birth, and item 12 in April 1887.2. With reference to these transactions the Subordinate Judge found that the sale of items 4 and 5 was bona fide, and supported by consideration, and that the sale is valid and binding on the plaintiff: that the sale of item 10 took place in discharge of antecedent debts which are not shown to have been immoral: and that as the plaintiff was not born at the time when item No. 12 was sold to the eighth defendant, he cannot object to the alienation.3.The fifth defendant is the paternal uncle of the first defend...
Tag this Judgment!Kaai Doss Vs. Kassim Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad344
1. A minor cannot be treated as if he was of full age during the investigation of any material averment in a suit. He must always be represented by a guardian, and no order made without his being so represented is valid under Section 444 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The general rule is that though a minor may appear by an attorney or pleader, he can only plead or conduct the defence by his guardian. Section 443 is taken from Rule 11 of the Calcutta High Court, dated 10th June 1874, the words 'on being satisfied of the fact of his minority' being added (See Belchamber, 570). The apparent intention is not to treat one who alleges that he is a minor as not being a minor and thereby to ignore the general principle that a minor cannot act for himself, but to indicate that a finding that he is really a minor is necessary to the appointment of a guardian for the suit and to act on his behalf generally in the conduct of the case. No sufficient reason appears from the letter of reference for...
Tag this Judgment!Kondapati Ayyappa Vs. Sree Raja Dantaluri Venkatakrishnamarazu, Zamind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ219
1. We think that the Acting District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff as the registered Zamindar had a right under Act VIII of 1865 to compel defendant to accept a patta. The decision in c v. Virappa, I. L. R 5 M 145 is an authority for the proposition that in a Zamindari the only Zamindar is the registered Zamindar and we do not think that (Sic) this point the authority of that decision has been shaken by one case in Subbu v. Vasanthappan I. L. R 8 M 351. In a Zamindari the only landholder entitled to proceed under Act VIII of 1865 against the tenants of the Zamindari must be the Zamindar and the only Zamindar for the time being is the registered Zamindar.2. We dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ayyappa Vs. Venkatakrishnamarazu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad484
1. We think that the Acting District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff, as the registered zamindar, had a right under Act VIII of 1865 to compel defendant to accept a patta. The decision in Valamarama v. Virappa I.L.R. 5 Mad. 145 is an authority for the proposition that in a zamindari the only zamindar is the registered zamindar, and we do not think that, upon this point, the authority of that decision has been shaken by the decision in Subbu v. Vasanthappan I.L.R. 8 Mad. 351. In a zamindari the only landholder entitled to proceed under Act VIII of 1865 against the tenants of the zamindari must be the zamindar, and the only zamindar for the time being is the registered zamindar.2. We dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Bava Ramasami Chetti Vs. Venkatasa Tawker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ221
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. In August 1888, the appellant obtained a decree against respondents for Rs. 5,804 and for costs in O. S. No. 10 of 1888 on the file of the District Court of Trichinopoly. The respondents had at that time applied to the High Court to be declared insolvent. In December 1888 they entered into an arrangement with their creditors, whereby the insolvency was cancelled and their property was vested in trustees under a composition-deed (Exh. A). Under this document to which the appellant was a party, the trustees administer respondents' estate for the benefit of their creditors. In September 1889, however, the appellant applied for execution of the decree and prayed for the attachment and sale of respondents' movable properties. The 2nd respondent contended that he had no property in his hands and that the appellant was not entitled to take out execution under the terms of the composition-deed. The judge upheld this objection observing that the appellant who signed the co...
Tag this Judgment!Rama and anr. Vs. Varada
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad142
1. It is argued that the application for execution is barred by reason of the application of 1889 having been returned for amendment with reference to Clause (f) of Section 235 of the Code, and the amendment not having been made within the time allowed for the purpose. The defect in the previous application consisted in omitting to state the earlier of two previous applications and its result. It is admitted that this omission was in no way calculated to prejudice the judgment-debtor or to mislead the Court; such being the case, though the application was formally defective with reference to the provisions of Section 235, it substantially complied with them.2. We are, therefore, unable to hold that it was not an application made in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 179 of schedule II of the Limitation Act. This view is in accordance with the decision in Ramanadan v. Periatambi I.L.R. 6 Mad. 250.3. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of a Full bench of the Calcu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›