Chennai Court October 1893 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.
Namasivaya Gurukkal and ors. Vs. Kadir Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ31
1. The seven defendants were salt manufacturers holding pans in the factory at Vattanam and they entered into the contract A. dated the 16th November 1884 with one Nur Mahomed engaging themselves in consideration of the said Nur Mahomed discharging the Government taxes and executing certain repairs and paying them at the rate of Rs. 11 1/2 per garce of salt, to manufacture and store in the factory in the name of, and for the benefit of, the said Nur Mahomed such quantities of salt as he might require them to manufacture each season for seven years from 11th April 1885 to 10th April 1892.2. It has been found as a fact by both the lower courts on the 4th issue raised in the case that the 1st plaintiff Mahomed Aliar Row-ther (now deceased but represented by respondents Nos. 1 to 4) was a party with Nur Mahomed to the contract, though he is not expressly mentioned therein. The 1st plaintiff's share was 2 in 5f shares ; and Nur Mahomed's share was the balance 3| shares. Nur Mahomed assigned...
Velu Pillai and ors. Vs. Ghose Mahomed Rowthar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ140
1. The only point argued in this appeal is as to the correctness of the judge in holding that the account on which plaintiffs rely is not a mutual account within the meaning of Article 85 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act.2. The reason assigned by the District Judge is that with one trifling exception, and that beyond the period of limitation, the account has been invariably in favor of plaintiffs. He says, 'although it may not be necessary in order to bring the case within Article 85 of Act XV of 1877 that there should be actual demands, it is necessary that the balance should fluctuate, being at times in favor of one party and at times in favor of the other,' and in support of this proportion he refers to Narrandas Hemraj v. Vissandas Hemraj I. L. R 6 B 134 and Hajee Syud Mahomed v. Mussamut Ashrufoonnissa I. L. R 5 C 7593. In the former case it was said by Sir Charles Sargent, C. J., that the corresponding clause of Act IX of 1871 appeared to have been intended to apply to 'cases...
Srinivasa Ayyangar Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad105
1. The clause of the Letters Patent to which the petitioner refers has nothing to do with criminal jurisdiction. It does not, therefore, justify the appeal. The case of Navivahoo v. Narotamdas Candas I.L.R. 7 Bom. 5 has been cited. This point, however, is only mentioned incidentally and does not seem to have been considered. We are unable to agree with the decision. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code is also inapplicable.2. The petition is therefore dismissed....
Kandathil Padinhare Veetil Karnavan and Manager Sankunni Nair and Puth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ64
Best, J.1. These two appeals are against the same decree--the appellant in No. 779 being the 2nd defendant, and appellant in No. 943 the 1st defendant.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for possession of two items of land alleged to be the jenm property of plaintiff's house and demised by plaintiff's ancestor on kanom for Rupees 412-9-2 to a former karnavan of defendants 2 to 15 in Kollam 1040 (1864-5). Plaintiff's case is that, on the land being sold (in 1874) in execution of decree in O. Section 232 of 1868 obtained against plaintiff's father, it was purchased by 1st defendant's late karnavan Rainan Nambiar benami for plaintiff's mana (house), the said Raman Nambiar having been appointed by plaintiff's mother, manager of plaintiff's mana--plaintiff being an infant aged two years in 104-8 (1872-3) when his father died ; that Ramau Nambiar continued as such manager till 1054 (1878-9) when 1st defendant was appointed as his successor and is still the kariastan; that in 1064 (1888-...
Naranayyan Vs. Nageswarayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad389
1. We are of opinion that the decision of the Judge cannot be supported.2. It is not necessary, for the purposes of this suit, to determine whether it is open to the plaintiff in a suit brought under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ask for consequential relief in addition to a declaration establishing his right to the property. If it were necessary to decide the question, we should certainly hold that even a plaintiff could do so, and thus avoid a multiplicity of suits. Such is also the opinion of Jardine and Telang, JJ. in Sadu Bin Raghu v. Ram Bin Govind I.L.R. 16 Bom. 6083. The question before us is whether a defendant in such a suit is precluded from showing that the decree, in execution of which the property in dispute was attached, was collusively obtained. Such a defence would not be ordinarily available or necessary when the defendant is an utter stranger, in no way connected with the judgment-debtor, unless, it may be, the decree makes the debt a charge on the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›