Chennai Court August 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.
Lingamalla Rajamannar and anr. Vs. Saridey Subbalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ182
ORDER1. The 1st respondent was the concubine of one Chinna Venkata Gopalam Garu, who died on the 14th September 1888, leaving him surviving a minor son named Rajamannar. The deceased left a will and a codicil on the 27th April 1887, and on the 25th July 1887, respectively. The will recites (paragraph 10) that 1st respondent had been looking to the testator for protection and depending on him for a long time and that she had deposited with him monies to the extent of Rs. 2,000, and directs that Rs. 3,000 be added to the Rs. 2,000, and that the total sum of Rs. 5,000 be paid to her. It then goes on to state that interest should continue to be paid to her at the rate at which it is paid on Government bonds and that if it is not acceptable to her, the principal amount should be paid in cash. The appellants are executors of the will and guardians of the minor son. The plaint stated that although 1st respondent had often demanded payment of the Rs. 5,000, subsequent to the testator's death, ...
Joseph (on Behalf of the Secretary of State for Indai in Council) Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1892
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad371
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition put in on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decision of the District Judge of Tanjore and the assessors in Compensation Case No. 4 of 1890.2. The first question which arises is whether the High Court has power to entertain the petition under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code. The Judge and assessors agreed as to the amount of compensation to be awarded, and, under Section 29, Act X of 1870, their decision is final. But under Section 34, the Judge and assessors are bound to state the grounds of their award under Clauses 1-4 of Section 24, and if it can be shown that they have refused to take into consideration any of the matters prescribed by that section or have improperly taken into consideration any of the matters prohibited under Section 25, we think such procedure would amount to material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction which would justify interference under Section...
In Re: Reference Under Stamp Act, Section 46
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ178
1. As the persons are unconnected and have no common interest in joint property, we are of opinion that separate powers of attorney must be executed. In Ref. Case No. 21 of 1891, (The judgment of the Full Bench in Ref. Case No. 21 of 1891 is as follows .--' We are of opinion that the document is a power of attorney and must be stamped with a five Rupees stamp.') the subject matter of the agency was one in which the executants had a joint interest.2. It follows that separate documents should be executed by each of the individuals referred to in para 7 of the Reference....
Purathat Kishakot Kunhacha Umma Vs. Pudiakath Kutti Mammi Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ226
1. The properties in question originally belonged to one Taruvai and they were given after his death to his wife Ayishamma and her children in accordance with his orally expressed wish. The question referred to us is whether Ayishamma and her children took the properties with the incidents of property held by a tarwad. In the case before us the donor expressed no intention as to how the property should be held by the donees and in the absence of such expression the presumption is that he intended that they should take them as properties acquired by their branch or as the exclusive properties of their own branch with the usual incidents of tarwad property in accordance with the Marumakkatayam usage, which governed the donees. This view is in accordance with the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Sreemutty Soorjeemoney Dosses v. Denobundoo Mullick 6 M. I. A 526 and Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram L. R 2 I. A 14. The decision reported at I. L. R M 315, Narayanan v. Kannan, was not ...
In Re: Reference Under Stamp Act, Section 49
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad419
1. The deed is not an instrument of gift but purports to transfer to Chidambaram Pillai the property of the executant's husband, subject to the payment of his debts. It also purports to reserve 1/4 cawni for the maintenance of the executant and provides for the re-transfer of the property in case she should give birth to a son. There is nothing to show that the value of the interest transferred exceeded Its. 64. The value of the property cannot be taken as the value of the interest actually transferred. We are unable to hold that the document is liable to stamp duty....
Rathnammal Vs. Manikkam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad455
ORDER1. 'There is no legal proof that the marriage was performed according to the rites of the Christian religion. We must send back the case to the District Judge and direct him to take proof of the marriage of the parties if possible. The mere bare assertion of the petitioner that she married the respondent is insufficient. Strict proof of the marriage is required.'2. The evidence of the clergyman who solemnized the marriage between the parties was then taken by the District Judge and an extract from the marriage3. The proof of the marriage has now been given. We confirm the decree for the dissolution of the marriage....
In Re:
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad459
1. We are of opinion that the view of the Board of Revenue is correct, and that refund may be given under Section 51 (d), (6) of the Stamp Act....
Narasimmulu Vs. Gulam HussaIn Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad71
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of Mr. Justice Wilkinson dismissing the suit.2. The plaintiff, an infant, by his next friend, brought a suit against the defendants, alleging that the defendants were tenants of certain premises under a lease granted by plaintiff's adoptive father since deceased, that the rent of the premises is in arrear, and that defendants refuse to pay the same to the plaintiff. It was alleged in the plaint that, since the death of testator, defendants held the premises as plaintiff's tenants, but that point was not pressed. It appears that the late C. Lutchminarasu Chetty, plaintiff's adoptive father, granted a lease of certain premises on the 18th June 1886. In March 1887, G. Lutchminarasu Chetty died having made a will appointing his wife, Chenchammal, the executrix, and leaving the bulk of his property to his adopted son, the plaintiff. It was not disputed that C. Lutchminarasu Chetty's property was self-acquired. Chenchammal, the executrix...
Shunmugam Pillai and ors. Vs. Venkateswara Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ290
ORDER1. The right asserted by the defendants and found by the District Munsif was not an easement, but a customary right. The question for decision was whether (as found by the District Munsif) the right to the property vesting in the choultry was burdened with the right of passage claimed by the defendants.2. Though the Subordinate Judge observes that the ovidence as to the customary right was hardly worth anything he has not discussed that evidence, nor referred to the admissions relied on by the District Munsif in paras. 12 and 13 of his judgment.3. The Vakil was not examined as to the precise duration of the user and we also observe that the whole of the evidence which the parties had to adduce was not heard by the District Munsif in consequence of his refusal to adjourn the case.4. The contention of the respondent that the right claimed by the defendants is a more profit a prendre cannot be supported. See Race v. Ward 4 Ellis & B1. 702.5. If the customary right as asserted by the ...
Veeraraghava Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Venkata Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ25
1. The suit is one to recover possession of land with mesne profits. Veeraraghava Aiyangar, the 1st defendant, obtained a decree for money against the plaintiff Venkata Chari, in Original Suit No. 104 of 1876. In execution of that decree he attached and brought to sale the plaint and other lands. In July 1878, at the court auction, 1st defendant himself purchased the plaint land and was put in possession. Plaintiff thereupon filed a suit to set aside the sale on the ground that 1st defendant had purchased without the permission of the court. It was held in second appeal, Viraraghava v. Venkata I. L. R 5 M 217, that a suit would not lie and that plaintiff's remedy, if any, was in execution. Plaintiff then applied to the Subordinate Court which passed orders cancelling the sale. Plaintiff now brings a suit for possession. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that as the matter is one which arises in the execution of the decree, the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 244 of the C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »