Chennai Court November 1893 Judgments
Juji Kamti and ors. Vs. Annai Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad382
1. Two questions are argued in support of this petition for revision. The first is that the bond sued on is void as an agreement falling under Section 257A of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section is inserted in the Code in the chapter relating to the execution of decrees and in the section headed 'mode of executing decrees.' This suggests that the intention was to render such agreement void only so far as it affects the right to execute the decree. As observed in Sellamayyan v. Muthan I.L.R. 12 Mad. 61 where the benefit of a decree is given up, and in consideration of it a bond is executed, it cannot be intended that the bond should not be the foundation of a fresh suit. This is also the view taken by the High Court of Calcutta. Hukum Chand Oswal v. Taharunnessa Bibi I.L.R. 16 Cal. 504; Jhabar Mohamad v. Modem Sonahar I.L.R. 11 Cal. 671 We are aware that the High Court at Bombay has held otherwise, but the scheme of the Code does not appear to have been allowed due effect in arriv...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakami Ammal Vs. Gopala Savundram Aiyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ50
1. We are clearly of opinion that the mortgage contains a covenant to pay and that therefore a suit for sale lies.[In accordance with the opinion of the Full Bench, the Division Bench, Collins, G.J., and Shephard, J., reversed the decree of the District Court and remanded the suit.]...
Tag this Judgment!Chathakelan Alias Thundu Alias Edathara Valia Nair Vs. Govinda Karumia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ59
1. Though the judge says there is authority for holding that the words 'legal representative' in Section 234 of the Code of Civil Procedure include any person who has taken possession of the property of the deceased judgment-debtor, he has not cited any such authority. It was held in the case reported in 15 W. R 476 Dunput Sing Bahadoor v. Ranee Rajessuree, that property in the possession of others than the legal representative might be taken in execution of a decree ; but it was so held with reference to the language of Section 210 of the Code of 1859, which allowed of execution being taken either against the legal represen-stative or the estate of the deceased judgment-debtor. But in Section 234 of the present Code the words 'against the estate of the deceased debtor' are not to be found, and execution is allowed only against the legal representative and 'to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of.'2. We do not think th...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Rajah Gounden Vs. M. Rajah Gounden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ85
Best, J.1. * * * * The period of limitation for a suit of this kind is six months from the date of the sale, (see Section 59 of Act It of 1864 and Venkata v. Chengadu I. L. R 12 M 168 The appellant's contention that the limitation prescribed by the above section, is inapplicable to sales which are open to the objection of illegality (as distinguished from mere irregularities) by reason of their contravening some express law--such as Regulation X of 1831, as alleged in the present case., is opposed to the recent ruling (dated 8th July 1893) of the Privy Council in Raja Gobind ,Lal Roy v. Ramjanam Misser now reported at I. L. R 21 C 70 (not yet reported I believe), where a similar contention in the case of a sale under Act XI of 1859 was disallowed on the ground that . 'a sale is a sale made under the Act within the meaning of the Act, when it is a sale for arrears of Government revenue, held by the Collector or other officer authorized to hold sales under the Act, although it may be con...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Goundan Vs. Raja Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad134
Best, J.1. The appellant was plaintiff in the lower Court, his suit being (1) for cancellation, so far as his share of the Puthur mittah (in Salem district) is concerned, of a sale held on the 16th June 1886 by which the entire mittah was sold; or (2) in case it is found that the sale is not liable to be set aside, for a declaration that defendants hold the plaintiff's share as trustees and for a decree directing them to convey to plaintiff his share of the mittah and of the income thereof since the date on which defendants got possession of the same.2. The Subordinate Judge has found that plaintiff's suit was not barred by, limitation, and that if the suit had been for the purpose of setting aside the first sale hold in February 1886, plaintiff would have been entitled to a decree, but that the second sale (of June 1886) is not one that is open to question by the plaintiff, as it was a sale of property no longer belonging to plaintiff, but belonging to Government as purchaser at the s...
Tag this Judgment!Rajabadar Naidu and ors. Vs. a Chandrappa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ13
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. It is provided by Regulation IV of 1831 as modified by Act XXIII of 1888 that the grants referred to in Section 11 of the former enactment shall not be liable to attachment in satisfaction of any decree or order of court. The two villages of which the melvaram right appellant seeks to attach were granted as shrotriem villages and they have not been enfranchised. The order made by the judge is at variance with Regulation IV of 1831 so far as it sanctions the attachment of melvaram which had not accrued due at the date of the application for execution. The principals on which C. M. A, No. 102 of 1889 was decided is also applicable to this case and under Section 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is only the saleable property of the judgment-debtor that is liable to be attached. It is unnecessary for the purpose of the appeal to determine, whether future rents might be attached in execution of a decree if the villages were not inalienable. So far as the melvaram ...
Tag this Judgment!Achutan Nayar Vs. Keshavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad271
1. It is contended that the kanom right is not liable to be sold in satisfaction of the decree before the expiry of twelve years from the date of the kanom to first defendant. No doubt, according to the custom of the country, a kanom is, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, redeemable only after the expiry of the period of twelve years. But this custom cannot supersede the general rule of processual law that a judgment-creditor is entitled to attach and sell the judgment-debtor's property. It is not denied that an ordinary judgment-creditor, who is not the jenmi, would be entitled to bring the kanom right to sale even before the expiry of twelve years. We see no reason why a jenmi, who is a judgment-creditor, should be in a different position. The right to set off arrears of rent against the kanom debt and value of improvements when the kanom becomes redeemable is an additional security for the benefit of the jenmi, but it does not follow that he cannot sell the kanom at an ea...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Marian Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad118
1. The act charged as an offence is the bringing a boat into the Negapatam river in disregard of a general order passed by the Port Conservator to the effect that boats should not be brought in while the flag W is flying. This act is said to be punishable under Section 8 of the Ports Act, That section authorizes the Conservator to give directions for carrying into effect any rule passed under Section 6 of the same Act, and goes on to make it penal to disobey any such lawful direction. It has therefore to be seen whether the Conservator was carrying into effect any valid rule passed under the Act. The rules to which we have been referred are those numbered V and VIII, being rules passed with reference to Clauses (f) and (k) of Section 6 respectively. In our opinion there is clearly no connection between the former of these rules and the direction which in this case has been disobeyed.2. Rule VIII is a rule of wider scope, for it requires boat owners to 'carry out at all times all orders...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Thommayya Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad397
Arhtur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The accused were convicted for refusing to take out their licensed boats to certain steamers when called on by the Port Officer to do so. The Acting Sessions Judge, who refers this case, admits that the accused were rightly convicted under certain boat rules made by the Local Government under the powers given by Section 6 of Act X of 1889, but suggests that those rules are ultra vires. Clause (k) is the clause in the Act under which the Local Government acted, and boat Rules 20 to 23 are the rules under which the convictions took place. It is contended on the part of the accused that at the time the Port Officer issued his orders they were not plying, and that therefore the order of the Port Officer was not a lawful one. I do not think that there is any power in the Local Government to make rules compelling owners! of licensed boats to' ply their boats at all times, and if they have a discretion to ply or not, the Port Officer's orders to ply are not lawful ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›