Chennai Court February 1893 Judgments
Sattappa Chetti and anr. Vs. Jogi Soorappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad67
1. The application for execution was certainly defective, the error being not merely one of form. So far as respondent's claim to one-fourth, of the future profits of the zamindari was concerned, the decree in Original Suit No. 16 of 1887 was only declaratory and therefore incapable of execution, except for the mesne profits for fasli 1295. The decree that was capable of execution, as regards the mesne profits for other faslis claimed in the proceedings the subject of this appeal, was the compromise in the Suit of 1809 which has been treated as a decree from its date. This, therefore, was the decree which should have been mentioned in the application as the decree sought to be executed as regards the faslis subsequent to 1295. The substantial question is whether, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the amendment ought to have been allowed.2. We cannot agree with the contention of appellant's pleader that Section 2451 of the Civil Procedure Code is a bar to the amendment. That s...
Tag this Judgment!Ummanedi Ramalakshmi Vs. the Collector of Kistna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ188
1. As observed by the Calcutta High Court in Taylor v. The Collector of Purnea, I. L. R 14 C 423 the Collector is not competent to refer, and the judge is not competent to decide, any question arising under Section 55 of the Act. The Act confers only a special and limited jurisdiction to the judge to deal with two classes of questions, via, the award of compensation, and its apportionment among several claimants. When there is a difference of opinion as to whether the whole house should be taken up by Government or not, the proper course for the party is to institute a regular suit.2. We are of opinion that the view of the judge is correct.3. The costs of this reference will be the costs of the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Ramalakshmi Vs. the Collector of Kistna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad321
1. As observed by the Calcutta High Court in Taylor v. The Collector of Purnea I.L.R. 14 Cal. 423 the Collector is not competent to refer and the Judge is not competent to decide any question arising under Section 55 of the Act. The act confers only a special and limited jurisdiction to the Judge to deal with two classes of questions, viz., the award of compensation and its apportionment among several claimants. When there is a difference of opinion as to whether the whole house should be taken up by Government or not, the proper course for the party is to institute a regular suit.2. We are of opinion that the view of the Judge is correct. The costs of this reference will be the costs of the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Ramapurath Varioth Krishna Variar Vs. Iringaloor Taravath Kunji Tarava ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ190
1. The learned judge of this Court is right. Plaintiff was only entitled under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to a deduction of the time between the institution of the suit and the disposal of the appeal against the order directing the plaint to be returned. That time ended on the day the order of the appellate court was pronounced and the court to which the plaint was again presented had no power to allow any further deduction and the suit was out of time after deducting the only time which could legally be allowed. The same view has been taken by the High Court of Calcutta, see Abhoya Churn Chuckerbutty v. Gour Mohun Dutt, 24 W. R. (C. R) 262. The appeal is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Muthu and anr. Vs. Gangathara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad95
1. The first contention raised by the appellants, both at the grant of sanction and at the hearing of the suit, was that the provisions of Act XX of 1863 do not apply to the plaint temple. The District Judge overruled this objection, on the ground that it was not denied that the public have a right of service in the plaint temple.2. The suit was disposed of without taking any evidence, and we can find no note of the Judge or anything else on the record to show that any such admission was made. On the contrary, the second paragraph of the written statement commences with a denial that the temple is a common place of worship, either for plaintiff or other Kammalas or for other Hindu castes. It does not appear that the trustees were nominated by or subject to the confirmation of the Government or any public officer. Unless, therefore, the endowment was one which would have fallen under the provisions of Regulation VII of 1817, it will not fall under the provisions of Act XX of 1863. See F...
Tag this Judgment!Raghava Chariar Vs. Raghava Chariar, Executor to the Estate of the Min ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1893
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ726
1. The concurrent finding of both Courts that appellant has misappropriated Rs. 1,421 of the trust property is sufficient to support the decree for his removal from the office of co-trustee with plaintiff. There is evidence to support this finding and we cannot, therefore, interfere with the decision in second appeal.2. It is objected on behalf of appellant that the property--the subject of trust--being admittedly over Rs. 20,000 in value, the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The lower appellate Court has treated the case as coming within the class of suits which are incapable of valuation and therefore accepted the value put upon the suit by plaintiff with reference to the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by appellant. We are of opinion that the value of the trust property ought to have been taken as a guide to the determination of the question of jurisdiction. The objection was taken both in the Court of first instance and in the lower appellate Court. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mayen and anr. Vs. Alston and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad238
ORDER47. We shall therefore call upon the Subordinate Judge to submit a finding as to the actual amount of return commission received by respondents from their sub-agents in the matter of appellants' consignments within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and seven days after the posting of the finding in this Court will be allowed for filing objections.'48. Fresh evidence may be adduced by either party.49. In compliance with the above order the Subordinate Judge submitted his finding as to the amount of the return commission. When the appeal came on for final disposal, this finding was accepted by their Lordships and judgment was delivered accordingly.50. Wilson and King, Attorneys for Respondents....
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Chetti Vs. Periasami Mudali, Minor by His Guardian Chidamba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ211
1. We think the order appealed against is right. Both courts considered that the attachment in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 75 of 1885 of the decree in Original Suit No. 252 of 1881, was subsisting at the date of the purchase by defendant at the court sale on 5th July 1888. It is contended that an order was made on 19th March 1887 to the effect that the application for execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 75 of 1885 was dismissed on the ground that no further steps had been taken and that this order put an end to the attachment; whether the attachment ceased at the date of this order or continued to subsist is a matter to be decided with reference to the circumstances of each case as observed by the Privy Council in the case of Puddomonee Dossee v. Roy Muthooranath Chowdhry, 12 B. L. R 411; 20 W. R 1332. We observe that up to 16th March 1887 some steps had been taken and the application was dismissed on 19th March and it does not appear that any previous notice ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›