Chennai Court September 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.
Komappan Nambiar and ors. Vs. Ukkaran Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad214
1. The present suit is brought by twelve persons alleged to belong with Chabhu Nambiar, the twelfth defendant, to a branch tarwad. They claim a property hold under lease by the thirteenth defendant. In 1887 the first defendant in the suit who is karnavan of the tarwad, brought a suit to recover the same property. In that suit the tenant was joined as first defendant and the other two defendants were the above-mentioned Chathu Nambiar and another member of the branch, Raman Nambiar. The main contention in that suit was that these two, Chathu and Raman, belonged to a branch having no community of interest with the main tarwad. That contention was overruled and a decree was passed in favour of the then plaintiff, the karnavan. This decree, it has been held by the District Judge, is binding on the present plaintiffs, because in the former suit they were represented by Chathu and Raman, respectively, the karnavan and senior anandravan of their branch. The District Judge held that the questi...
Vaidyanatha Ayyar and ors. Vs. Chinnasami Naik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad108
1. There can be no doubt that a surviving partner can sue alone for the recovery of a partnership debt, and, in that case, no certificate will be necessary. On this point we agree with the Bombay High Court in Motilal Bechardoss v. Ghellabhai Hariram I.L.R. 17 Bom. 62. We are also of opinion that the suit is maintainable if brought by the surviving partner conjointly with the heir of the deceased partner. In the latter case a certificate of heirship will be necessary, unless it appears, on the face of the document sued on, that the debt is a coparcenary debt--compare Venkataramanna v. Venkayya I.L.R. 14 Mad. 3773. The above is, we think, a sufficient answer to the questions referred to us....
Queen-empress Vs. Marian Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ38
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 or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›