Chennai Court August 1892 Judgments
Syed Ameer Sahib and ors. Vs. Venkatarama and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad296
1. It is contended in the first place that the lower Courts were in error in holding that the suit was barred by limitation and that the special limitation of six months provided by Section 156, Act V of 1884, is not applicable to the case. The suit was one in ejectment brought on the ground that the land upon which the defendants had entered belonged to the plaintiff's. We do not think that Section 156 of the Local Boards Act applies to such a suit. As observed by Garth, C.J., in the Pull Bench case [Chunder Sikhur Bundopadhya v. Obhoy Churn Bagchi I.L.R. 6 Cal. 8] the section is only applicable to suits for compensation claimed for wrongful acts committed under colour of the Act. The decision in that case had reference to Section 87, Bengal Municipal Act III of 1864, but the language of that section was substantially the same as that of Section 156. The Bombay High Court have decided the question in the same way with reference to Bombay Municipal Act VI of 1873 [Joharmal v. The Munic...
Tag this Judgment!Marudayya Pillai and ors. Vs. Ravutha Perumal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ286
ORDER1. The objection to the jurisdiction of the 2nd Class Magistrate is clearly untenable. The charge is one of forgery and it is argued that because the document in respect of which the forgery is alleged was registered, therefore the sanction of the registrar before whom it was registered is necessary for the prosecution under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Clause (c) of that section provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463, Indian Penal Code (forgery) ' when such offence has been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of a document given in evidence in such proceeding except with the previous sanction or on the complaint of such court.' It has been held (Atchayya v. Gangayya I. L. R 15 M 138) that a registrar, acting under Sections 72-75 of the Registration Act is a court within the meaning of this section but it has never been hold, and there seems no reason for so holding, that a registrar in exerc...
Tag this Judgment!Sharifa Bibi Alias Beeju Bibi Vs. Gulam Mahomed Dastagir Khan Sahib an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ14
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. This appeal relates to the immovable property left by appellant's father, named Sheriff Mahomed Khan Sahib alias Syed Miyan Sahib, a Mittadar at Dharampuri in the District of Salem. He died on the 6th March 1886, leaving him surviving a widow, three sons and three daughters including the appellant. Under the Mahomedan law which governs the parties, her distributive share is 7 7/2th part, but on the 27th February 1886, her father prepared two schedules of his immovable properties valued at Rs. 20,000 and 7,000 respectively and gave the one to his three sons and the other to his three daughters by documents I and II. Document I which was executed in favor of the sons is attested by all the daughters and document II executed in favor of the daughters is attested by all the sons. They purport to have been executed in order to prevent disputes among the sons and daughters after the death of the Mittadar who was at the time of their execution between 60 and 70 years of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharifa Bibi Vs. Gulam Mahomed Dastagir Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad43
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This appeal relates to the immoveable property left by appellant's father, named Sheriff Mahomed Khan Sahib alias Syed Miyan Sahib, a Mittadar at Dharmapuri in the district of Salem. He died on the 6th March 1886, leaving him surviving a widow, three sons and three daughters including the appellant. Under the Muhammadan law which governs the parties, her distributive share is 7/12 part, but on the 27th February 1886, her father prepared two schedules of his immoveable properties valued at Rs. 20,000 and 7,000 respectively, and gave the one to his three sons and the other to his three daughters by documents I and II. Document I, which was executed in favour of the sons, is attested by all the daughters, and document II, executed in favour of the daughters, is attested by all the sons. They purport to have been executed in order to prevent disputes among the sons and daughters after the death of the mittadar, who was at the time of their execution between 60 and 70 ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Bartlett
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad308
1. We are unable to accept the view of the District Magistrate as to the interpretation of Section 454, Criminal Procedure Code, which must, we think, be read along with Section 443. The Second-Class Magistrate was disqualified to try the accused solely because the accused was a European British subject. When the accused appeared before the Magistrate he relinquished his right to be dealt with as such British subject and therefore lost all the benefit of the special procedure laid down in chapter XXXIII. This is the view taken of the law by both the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts, and we think it is the proper construction to be put upon Sections 443 and 454.2. We decline to interfere....
Tag this Judgment!Brahmayya and anr. Vs. Lakshminarasimham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad310
1. The appeal is from a decree which directed ejectment and awarded mesne profits. The Court-fee should be calculated on the land and the mesne profits which are the subject-matter of the appeal.2. The Judge is right in his opinion that Section 7 of the Court-Fees Act is applicable to the case....
Tag this Judgment!Papireddi and ors. Vs. Narasareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad464
1. It is argued that the decision of the lower Court is contrary to the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, by which it is enacted that the transfer of immoveable property above Rs. 100 in value can be made only by registered instrument. In this case the value of the property, which was the subject of the contract, was upwards of Rs. 2,000. All that has been found is that there was an oral contract for sale, possession given to defendant, and part-payment of the purchase money Rs. 150. We cannot concede that possession can take the place of the registered deed required by Section 54. Moreover, possession was only given pending the completion of the contract for sale. It did not amount to any transfer of the property. The cases referred to by the District Judge were decided prior to the Transfer of Property Act and have therefore no application. The decision relied on by Mr. Rama Rau in Janki v. Girjadat I.L.R. 7 All. 482 is not on all fours with this case, and the...
Tag this Judgment!Chokkammal Anni Vs. Murugathal Anni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ240
1. As regards the gift set up by respondent, the Subordinate Judge discusses the evidence in support of it and comes to the conclusion that it is true and valid in paragraphs 103 to 105 of his judgment. The oral evidence is that of respondent's witnesses 2, 4, 7 and 23 and the Subordinate Judge himself considers it worthless and on referring to it we see no reason to form a different opinion. The Subordinate Judge considers, however, that documents A and B may be taken to have operated as instruments of gift. Document A is a petition presented by appellant in March 1862 to the Tahsildar of Nannilum Taluq praying that Miras standing then in her name be transferred to that of respondent's husband and the material words in it are, 'I have adopted Alagasundara Mudaliar, natural younger brother of my husband, with my husband's permission and appointed the said Alagasundara Mudaliar heir to all the villages, the Miras of which stands in my name'. Document B is a Sammathi patram or deed of co...
Tag this Judgment!Anantayya and ors. Vs. Padmayya Heggade and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ247
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 Grurumanna Heggade by whom the original pro-note was executed was not the party to the suit in which the 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 A, which was executed by Grurumanna 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 contention is...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kadar Vs. Ayishamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ200
1. It appears to us that the question whether there is any conflict between Sithamma v. Narayana, I. L. R 12 M 487, and the cases, Patcha v. Mohidin, and Kasmi v. Ayish, amma, reported in I. L. R 15 M 57, does not really arise in this suit. The plaintiff's case is that, since the death of her grandfather and mother, she and the defendants have enjoyed the property in common, but that she has never been excluded from the common possession and enjoyment. Hence her cause of action arises from the date of her exclusion or dispossession, and not from the date when her share became deliverable on the death of the person to whom the property originally belonged. In I. L. R 15 M 57, it was held, that Article 127 does not apply and that plaintiff had never obtained any distribution of her share. In I. L. R 15 M 60, the suit was for partition, and participation in the possession and enjoyment of the property was not alleged. In both these cases it was held that Article 123 applied. The decision ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »