Chennai Court October 1893 Judgments
Maddi Ramayya and anr. Vs. Chidella Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ52
1. Appellant's father, Maddi Chidambarayya, was judgment-debtor and respondent Venkataratnam was execution-creditor in Original Suit No. 5 of 1877 on the file of the District Court of Kistua. Besides the minor appellants who were twins, Chidambarayya had two other sons named Veerayya and Rama Murbi and subsequent to the decree in the above suit, the former died in co-parcenary without issue and the latter died leaving him surviving two minor sons, 3rd and 4th defendants in the present suit. Prior to 1873, Chidambarayya had dealings with Venkataratnam for several years and on the 19th March of that year the former executed in favor of the latter the mortgage A as security for the sum of Rs. 8,000 then found due by the one to the other. It was upon this mortgage, Original Suit No. 5 of 1877 was brought against Chidambarayya and his two elder sons Veerayya and Rama Murti but only a money decree was obtained against them. The decree directed them to pay respondent Rs. 9,677-2-5 with intere...
Tag this Judgment!Ramayya and anr. Vs. Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad122
1. Appellants father, Moddi Chidambarayyar, was judgment-debtor and respondent Venkataratnam was execution-creditor in Original Suit No. 5 of 1877 on the file of the District Court of Kistna. Besides the minor appellants, who are twins, Chidambarayyar had two other sons, named Veerayya and Rama Murti, and subsequent to the decree in the above suit, the former died in coparcenary without issue and the latter died leaving him surviving two minor sons, the third and fourth defendants in the present suit. Prior to 1873, Chidambarayyar had dealings with Venkataratnam for several years, and on the 19th March of that year the former executed in favour of the latter the mortgage Exhibit A as security for the sum of Rs. 8,000 then found due by the one to the other. It was upon this mortgage, Original Suit No. 5 of 1877 was brought against Chidambarayyar and his two elder sons Veerayya and Rama Murti, but only a money decree was obtained against them. The decree directed them to pay respondent R...
Tag this Judgment!Tirtha Sami Vs. Seshagiri Pai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad299
1. Assuming that the suit is one to which the six years' rule applies, we do not think that the plaintiff can take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as his previous suit against the same defendant failed, not by reason of any want of jurisdiction on the part of the Court, but by reason of misjoinder of causes of action and parties. In our opinion that is not a cause of a like nature within the meaning of the section. We are unable to agree with the decision in Deo Prosad Singh v. Pertab Kairee I.L.R. 10 Cal. 86 The Courts of Allahabad and Bombay seem to take the same view as we do.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kurungot Parkum Cheruvally Kanaran Nair and anr. Vs. Kunyil Parkum Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ46
1. It is found that there was no waiver on the defendant's part of his right of pre-emption. It is also found that he was apprised of the fact that an auction sale of the property was about to take place on the 17th October. Notice to that effect was given to him by the decree-holder, the present plaintiff and ultimate purchaser at the sale. Such being the facts of the case it appears to us that when the property was put up for sale the defendant had clearly not lost his right of pre-emption. According to the decision in Cheria Krishnan v. Vishnu I. L. R 5 M 198 he was entitled to know the price for which the property was being offered for sale in order that he might make up his mind whether or not he would buy. Until he had that information, he was not put to his election. In the case cited and relied on for the appellants, Ammotti Haji v. Kunhayen Kutti I. L. R 15 M 480 it may be that there was evidence on which it could be held that the ottidar had been placed in a position to elect...
Tag this Judgment!Queen Empress Vs. Mannatha Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ83
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. The term 'adultery' in Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, must be construed with reference to its definition in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no finding in the present caso that the concubine is a married woman and the Joint Magistrate seems to suppose that every illicit connection with a woman whether she is marriel or not, and whether, i married, with her husband's consent or connivance or not, is adulterous. This view cannot be accepted as the legal conception of adultery, and the ground on which the Joint Magistrate rests his decision cannot be supported without further enquiry. The complainant stated in her evidence that her husband insisted on her getting her meals from the concubine and it was held in Criminal Revision Case No. 118 of 1888, (Marakkal v. Kandappa I. L. R 6 M 371 that the offer to maintain must bo an offer to maintain with the consideration due to her position as wife. A question may, therefore, arise if the complaint is w...
Tag this Judgment!Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi and ors. Vs. Somasundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad199
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. There is an ancient temple called Sri Tiyagaraja Swami temple in the town of Tiruvalur in the Negapatam taluk of the district of Tanjore. Respondents are its 'panchayatdars' or managers, and appellants are trustees of two of the 'katlais' attached thereto called Abhisheka Katlai and Rajan alias Saba Katlai. In ordinary parlance, the term 'katlai,' as applied to temple endowments, signifies a special endowment for certain specific service or religious charity in the temple. Ardajama Katlai or endowment for midnight service is an instance of the former, and Annadana Katlai or an endowment for distributing gratis food to the poor is an example of the latter. In this sense, the word 'katlai' is used in contradistinction to the endowment designed generally for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple. In the case of some important temples, the sources of their income are classified into distinct endowments according to their importance; each endowment is placed under a...
Tag this Judgment!Seshamma Vs. Subbarayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1893
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad403
1. The contention in this appeal is that the Judge is in error in disallowing arrears of maintenance claimed for six years prior to the suit. It is true that the right to maintenance is inherent in her status as brother's widow and is a legal right. So it was observed in Venkopadhyaya v. Kavari Hengusu 2 M.H.C.R. 36 that it is a legal right and that the only bar to the enforcement of a purely legal right is the lapse of the time required by the statute of limitations to bar the remedy. It was held also by the Bombay High Court in Jivi v. Ramji I.L.R. 3 Bom. 207 that this legal right exists irrespective of demand and refusal, and that demand and refusal do not create the right, though they may limit it. As observed by Mr. Mayne in his treatise on Hindu Law, 4th edition, Section 417, the award for arrears of maintenance is in the discretion of the Court; and it may be refused where a widow has chosen to live apart from her husband's family without sufficient cause, and has sued not only ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Fakira
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad103
Best, J.1. It appears that the accused had been apprehended on a hue and cry being raised as he was running away after committing a robbery. He was handed over to the village magistrate and was by the latter placed in charge of the taliyaries for detention till next morning, when he was to be taken to the police station. Early in the morning, he asked to be allowed to go and case himself, and availing himself of this opportunity, made his escape. He has been convicted under Section 224 of the Penal Code and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment. The District Magistrate has referred the case under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to the conviction being set aside as illegal on the authority of Queen v. Bojjigan I.L.R. 5 Mad. 222. In that case the accused had escaped from the custody of a taliyari and a toti by whom he had been arrested on suspicion. The custody was held to be not lawful, because the taliyari and toti, not being police officers, could n...
Tag this Judgment!Narana Maiya Vs. Vasteva Karanta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad208; (1894)4MLJ62
1. There is nothing to show that the decree was obtained against the widow Mahalakshmi as the representative of her husband's estate, nor are we referred to any proceedings in that suit showing that the decree was not a personal one simply.2. In Jugul Kishore v. Jotendro Mohun Tagore I.L.R. 10 Cal. 985 the decree was passed against the husband. In Bisto Beharee Sahoy v. Lalla Byjnath Pershad 16 W.R. 49 the husband's property was expressly made liable by the decree. Neither of these cases is, therefore, on all fours with the present one, which is governed by the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Baijun Doobey v. Brij Bhookun Lall Awusti L.R. 2 IndAp 275 : I.L.R. 15 Cal. 1333. The razinamah does not, on its true construction, amount to a gift of an absolute estate to the widow. It merely recognizes the widow's right to possess the property during her life without making alienations.4. The dismissal of the claim petition cannot affect the plaintiffs' claim as reversioner, a clai...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa Udayan Vs. Armugath Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ30
1. We think the case quoted by the Subordinate Judge at I. L. R. 14 M 149 Nallanna v. Ponnal, is sufficient authority for holding that a daughter's daughter is a bandhu on the principle laid down that consonquinity may be recognized as the basis of title to succession in the absence of preferential male heirs, Minakshi was a direct relation by blood to her grandfather through her mother his daughter.2. The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »