Chennai Court December 1893 Judgments
Raghava Mudaliar Vs. M. Narayanasami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ88
1. On the 8th February 1882 a document described as testamentary was executed in favor of Narayanasami Mudali by Unnamalai Animal the widow of Pachayappa Mudali the adopted son of Kondappa at the date of the execution, and at the time of Unnamalai's death a few days later, there was living one of her two sons who had survived her husband's death. It is found by the District Judge that this son Thoppai by name though not congenitally insane was insane when his father died in 1868 and continued to be so afterwards. It is also found by the District Munsif that Vaithinada the next reversioner entitled to the property of the family after the widow's death, it being assumed that she took a widow's estate, consented to the execution of the document.2. On these facts two questions arise, viz., first, whether Thoppai on account of his insanity was incapable of possessing the ordinary rights of a member of a, Hindu family, and secondly on the assumption that the first question is answered in the...
Tag this Judgment!Ananthaya Vs. Vishnu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad160
1. Both Courts have found that respondent is the illegitimate son of appellant's father Krishnaraya, who was a Brahmin by caste. As observed by the District Munsif, it is a settled rule of Hindu law that among the regenerate classes illegitimate sons are entitled to maintenance. The District Judge considered Rs. 4 a month to be a suitable provision for respondent and decreed to him future maintenance and arrears, of maintenance for fourteen months before suit at the rate of Rs. 4 per mensem. From this decision the defendant has preferred this second appeal.2. There can be no doubt that under the Mitakshara law, by which the parties are governed, an illegitimate son is entitled to maintenance among the regenerate classes. The Smriti of Yajnyavalkya and its exposition in the Mit., chapter I, Section XII, leaves no room for doubt on this point. An illegitimate son is one of that class of persons who, by reason of their exclusion from inheritance, are allowed maintenance by the Hindu law, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirathi Vs. Anantha Charia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad268
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. Appellant is a Hindu widow and defendants 1 to 16 are her husband's brothers and nephews. In Original Suit No. 137 of 1870 the former obtained a personal decree against Vadiraja Charia, her father-in-law, for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30 per annum. To that suit her husband's five brothers were also made parties, but there was no personal decree against them. Nor did appellant then ask that her maintenance be made a charge on ancestral or family property. Vadiraja Charia died since and defendants 1 to 16 repudiated their liability to pay maintenance under the decree passed against him. On the death of Vadiraja Charia, the family property devolved on respondents, and at the date of the suit there were arrears of maintenance under the former decree to the extent of Rs. 90. The first 16 defendants sold items of property 3 and 4 to the 17th defendant, and appellant's case is that the alienation can only be upheld subject to her claim for maintenance. The plaint pr...
Tag this Judgment!Orr and ors. Vs. Sundra Pandia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad255
1. The District Judge has disposed of the appeal on a point of law without deciding the issues of fact which are raised. Assuming that the execution of the lease by the late zamindar in the plaintiff's favour was obtained by fraud, he has held that, with reference to the fifth issue, it is not open to the defendants now to raise the plea of fraud, because a suit by them to set aside the plaintiff's lease would be barred by limitation.2. The case cited by the District Judge certainly furnishes some authority for the view adopted by him Juqaldas v. Ambashankar I.L.R. 12 Bom. 501 Hargovandas Lakhmidas v. Bajibhai Jijibhai I.L.R. 14 Bom. 222 and Sundaram v. Sithammal I.L.R. 16 Mad. 311 In our opinion, however, this view involving the proposition that a party in possession may be affected prejudicially by the law of limitation is unsound and cannot be maintained.3. The Act XV of 1877 is an Act relating to the limitation of suits and does not in terms refer to defences. Section 28 presuppose...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Davud Saiba and ors. Vs. HusseIn Saiba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ48
ORDER1. It is urged on appellants' behalf that the committee constituted under Act XX of 1863 acted ultra vires in appointing six additional trustees to the plaint mosque without any necessity for so doing.2. It is certainly competent to the committee when there is no hereditary trustee to add to the number of the existing trustees and it has the same powers which the Board of Revenue had under Regulation VII of 1817. Section 13 of that Regulation authorizes the Board of Revenue to make provision for the administration of religious and charitable endowments. It was also held by this Court in Regular Appeal No. 31 of 1888 that the committee might validly appoint new trustees where the right of management is not hereditary. It is then contended that the power conferred on the committee, it is bound to exercise reasonably, and in good faith, in furtherance of beneficial administration, and this contention is entitled to weight. The power conferred on the committee is no doubt discretionar...
Tag this Judgment!Cheriamakantagath Mammad Vs. Uthama Chund Rama Chund Sett
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ87
Best, J.1. The preliminary objection is taken that this is not a case in which revision is allowed by Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in support of this objection reference is made to the case reported in L. R 11 I. A 237 Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh.2. On the other hand I have been referred on behalf of the petitioner to Birj Mohun Thakoor v. Rai Uma Nath Chowdhry L. R 19 I. A 154 In this latter case, however, it was expressly found that the Subordinate judge had 'declined to exercise a jurisdiction which he had, and exercised one which did not belong to him;' the former, in not confirming under Section 312, a sale for the setting aside of which no application had been made under Section 311; and the latter, in setting aside the sale under Section 313 on the application of a persons not entitled to make such application under that section.3. The present case is one in which the District Munsif clearly had jurisdiction and the mere fact of his decision bei...
Tag this Judgment!Kora Nayar Vs. Ramappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad267
1. The Judge's finding that the full amount was not tendered cannot be accepted. It is clear from the plaintiff's petition that the amount of Rs. 674-3-9 was tendered in full discharge of what was due under the mortgage. Defendant agreed to accept the amount and to pass a receipt. He did not then say that the tender was deficient by annas 4-4, as is now pleaded. Beading the two petitions together, the reasonable inference is that defendant agreed to accept the tender in full satisfaction as provided in Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. That such was the case is clear from the receipt registered by him on the day that the present suit was brought, in which he has accepted this very amount in full discharge of the mortgage.2. It is next argued that the tender was conditional. No doubt Section 83 is silent as to a receipt. But defendant not only waived the objection to this demand, but, acceding to it, produced a draft receipt for approval. Nor do we think that the request for r...
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu Pillai Vs. Krishnasami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ60
1. Two questions arise for decision in this appeal and the first of them is whether the promissory note A was executed for money lent or subject to the agreement set up by the appellant. The finding of the judge is that the note was given for money lent and the contention in appeal is that the judge has refused credit to the evidence adduced by appellant on insufficient grounds.[Upon the evidence the court held that there was consideration for the note and proceeded as follows.]2. The 2nd question is whether property in the promissory note A vested in Lakshmana Chetti at the date of suit so as to enable him to maintain it. The facts so far as they bear on this point are shortly these : Lakshmana Chetti endorsed the promissory note to one Patnam Subbayyar but appellant refused to pay when the note was presented for payment. Thereupon, Subbayyar applied to a Notary Public at Trichinopoly for noting the dishonor and the note was accordingly protested. Thereupon the endorsee sued the maker...
Tag this Judgment!Maria Susai Vs. Michael Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ182
1. We cannot agree with the District Judge that there is anything in Act VIII of 1890 to prevent the court from making a declaration that a person appointed by Will is the guardian of a minor. The terms of Section 7 are general enough to include such guardians and the proviso to Section 39 seems expressly to contemplate declarations with respect to guardians appointed by Will or other instrument.2. Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 7 only take away the power of the court to appoint another person as guardian as long as the powers of a guardian appointed by a Will or other instrument have not been lawfully determined.3. The order must be set (sic) and the case remitted to the District Court for disposal on (sic) merits.4. Costs of this appeal to aside and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›