Chennai Court March 1893 Judgments
Battini Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Jutta Papayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ205
1. It is conceded that Gangamma obtained the land in dispute as a gift from her father some forty years ago and that she was in possession from that time till her death three years ago. The plaintiffs are her son and grandson. Defendants are her brothers and brother's sons. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the land and not the defendants. The contention on appeal is that under Hindu law it must be presumed that a gift to a female is only for her life and reference is made to Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram, L. R 2 I. A 7 and Bhujanga v. Ramayamma, I. L, R 7 M 3872. It is no doubt remarked by the Lords of the Privy Council in L. R 2 I. A 7 that it may be assumed that a Hindu knows that, as a general rule at all events, women do not take absolute estates of inheritance which they are enabled to alienate, and that in construing the will of a Hindu it is not improper to take into consideration what are known to be the ordinary notions and wishes of Hindus w...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Konda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad347; (1893)3MLJ180
1. In these cases the Magistrate dismissed the charge laid under Section 2 of Act XIII of 1859 on the ground that the term for which the contract between the parties had been made had expired. In our opinion this affords no reason why the Magistrate should not have adopted the alternative course provided in Section 2, and have directed the accused to repay the money advanced or such part thereof as might seem to the Magistrate just. The mere fact that the advance was made so long ago that the money could not be recovered by action is in our judgment no sufficient ground for refusing altogether to give effect to the penal provision of the Act.2. In cases in which there has been great or unexplained delay on the part of the complainant the Magistrate can use his discretion as to the amount which he may direct to be repaid. The orders of dismissal are set aside and the Magistrate directed to proceed according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Veeravara Thodhramal Rajyalakshmi Devi Garu, Widow of the La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ100
1. The real defendant in this case is the widow of the sixth Zamindar who died in 1888. He and the plaintiff were great-grandsons of a common ancestor, the third Zamindar, who died in 1865. The other defendant is the plaintiff's younger brother. Apart from the special defence raised by the Late Zamindar's widow, there can be no doubt that the plaintiff was either on the Zamindar's death entitled to the Zamindari as an impartible estate or was antecedently entitled as a coparcener with the deceased Zamindar. Admittedly there was no other person entitled, whether the Zamindari be regarded as partible or impartible. The plaint is framed on the footing that the Zamindari is partible and accordingly it is asked that a division of it be made between the plaintiff and his brother. The defence raised, on the assumption that the property is partible, is two-fold. It is said that all right to the Zamindari was renounced by the plaintiff's grandfather and that that renunciation is now binding on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Vagricherla Veerabhadra Razu Bahadur, Minor by His Guardian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ220
1. We do not consider that the order of the District Judge can be supported. The Merangi Zamindar became a transfer decree-holder on December 12th, 1890. The order for set-off was made on June 27th, 1890. That order appears to us to be valid under Section 247 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question whether Parabrahmam's representatives were only the nominal decree-holders for the benefit of the Merangi Zamindar cannot be investigated in execution. We must take the decree as it stands - and the judge was not at liberty to go behind it. If Parabrahmam was only a benamidar, the proper course for the Merangi Zamindar to take was to have brought a fresh suit. We further observe that although Parabrahmam and the Merangi Zamindar stated in the plaint that the promissary notes belonged to the latter, the Zamindar of Kuruppam traversed the statement and denied the Merangi Zamindar's claim. It is conceded that the judge has taken no evidence and has assumed that the benefit of the decree do...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›