Chennai Court January 1894 Judgments
In Re: Reference Under Court Fees Act, Section 5
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ22
1. The appeal is capable of being valued and it is for the appellants under Section 7, Clause IV,(f), of the Court Fees Act to say what the value is....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference Under Court Fees Act, Section 5
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ98
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. I consider that it is competent to the judge to make an order under Sections 411 and 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the payment of the court fee. It is contended for the plaintiff that the sections are not applicable to cases in which a decision is passed in terms of a compromise. The words in the sections are 'succeeds' and 'fails in the suit' and they refer to the ultimate decision or the result of the suit and not to the mode in which the decision is arrived at. I should be doing violence to the language of the section if I introduced into them the words 'after contest' which I do not find an them, and on this ground, I am not prepared to follow the decision reported in The Collector of Kanara v. Krishnappa Hegde I. L. R 15 B 78 Costs of this reference will be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Thapita Pater Vs. Thapita Lakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad235
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. Thapita Peter brought a suit against Thapita Lakshmi, his wife, alleging her adultery with Lunkapalli Gauth, and praying, therefore, that his marriage may be dissolved. The District Judge of Kistna granted a decree dissolving the marriage under the provisions of Act IV of 1869, and the decree now comes before the High Court for confirmation under Section 17 of Act IV of 1869.2. The petitioner and his wife were married according to the rites of the Hindu religion in 1879, petitioner and his wife being Hindus at that time. About a year after the marriage the petitioner's wife left him and has since been living in adultery with the second respondent. In 1882 the petitioner became a Christian, and about 1890 his wife and the second respondent also became Christians. The question to be decided is--can the Courts of this country pass a decree dissolving his marriage under Act IV of 1869 ?3. Section 1 of the Act enables relief to be granted where the petitioner pro...
Tag this Judgment!Shunmuga Pillai Vs. Ramanathan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ91
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal and the first is, whether the District Munsif had jurisdiction to execute the decree in Original Suit No. 19 of 1888. Though the objection was not taken in either of the courts below, it relates to the inherent jurisdiction of the District Munsif and is patent on the face of the proceedings and I am of opinion that such objection may be taken at any stage of the case. The decree which is being executed by the District Munsif was passed upon a hypothecation bond for more than Rupees 5,000 which is considerably in excess of his pecuniary jurisdiction and it is contended on appellant's behalf that the judge had no power to transfer such, decree for execution to a District Munsif. As to the question whether this contention ought to prevail, there is a conflict of opinion among the different High Courts. It was decided in the negative in the case reported at I. L. R 7 M 397 Narasayya v. Venkatakrishnayya, and in C. M...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Fakrudeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad278
Best, J.1. No rules sanctioned by Government under Section 10 of Act XXIV 1859 have been brought to our notice, and in the absence of such rules the accused is liable to be prosecuted under Section 44. The mere fact of a departmental punishment having been awarded is not sufficient to exonerate from liability under Section 44, though the circumstance may be taken into consideration in passing sentence. I would set aside the order of acquittal and direct the Magistrate to dispose of the case on its merits.Muttusami Ayyar, J.2. I am also of the same opinion. In the absence of any rules framed by Government, the departmental punishment inflicted on the accused under Section 10 of Act XXIV of 1859 does not bar his prosecution under Section 44 of the same Act, unless the Magistrate thinks that the breach of duty is not grave but trivial. It is a grave violation of duty on the part of a police officer to go to sleep whilst on guard, and I would follow the principle laid down by this Court in...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmuga Pillai Vs. Ramanathan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad309
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal and the first is whether the District Munsif had jurisdiction to execute the decree in Original Suit No. 19 of 1888. Though the objection was not taken in either of the Courts below, it relates to the inherent jurisdiction of the District Munsif and is patent on the face of the proceedings, and I am of opinion that such objection may be taken at any stage of the case. The decree which is being executed by the District Munsif was passed upon a hypothecation bond for more than Rs. 5,000 which is considerably in excess of his pecuniary jurisdiction, and it is contended on appellant's behalf that the Judge had no power to transfer such decree for execution to a District Munsiff. As to the question whether this contention ought to prevail, there is a conflict of opinion of among the different High Courts. It was decided in the negative in Narasayya v. Venkatakrishnayya I.L.R. 7 Mad. 397 and in Civil Miscellaneous App...
Tag this Judgment!Orr Vs. Muthia Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad501
Muttusami Ayyr, J.1. In Original Suit No. 415 of 1884 on the file of the District Munsif of Sivaganga, appellant obtained a money decree against respondent. In execution of the same, the produce of the village of Kumbanur in fasli 1299 was attached by appellant, and on his application, a receiver was appointed under Section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure to superintend the harvest and to recover the melvaram. The receiver collected a sum of Rs. 845-2-7 on account of the melvaram, but instead of remitting the amount to the Court, misappropriated it to his own use. Thereupon, respondent instituted criminal proceedings against him, and the receiver absconded and is still absconding. Appellant then applied for execution against respondent in respect of the balance due under the decree, and the latter contended that the decree must be taken as satisfied to the extent of the sum of money misappropriated by the receiver, from whom, it would appear, no security was taken, for the due perfo...
Tag this Judgment!Syed HussaIn Vs. Madan Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad265
1. The Judge's finding is that there was no completed sale. He gives his reasons for so finding, and it is not open to us in second appeal to consider that question of fact. This appeal, so far as the plot A is concerned, must therefore fail.2. It is contended further with regard to the plot C, in which the other respondents disclaim all interest, that sixth defendant not having appealed from the District Munsif's decree, the District Judge could not disturb that decree so far as it affected this plot C. On the other hand the fifth respondent's vakil refers to the cases in Seshadri v. Krishnan I.L.R. 8 Mad. 192 and Nagamma v. Subba I.L.R. 11 Mad. 197 and urges that when the ground of decision is common, the Court is entitled under Section 544 of the Code of. Civil Procedure to alter a decree in favour of a party who has not appealed, even in respect of property in which those who have appealed disclaim all interest. We are not prepared to accept this contention. Section 544 appears to ...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanamuthu Upadesi and Vs. Vana Koipillai Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad379
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. These appeals have been preferred from two orders passed in connection with a previous order made on an application for probate, which was registered as Certificate Case No. 9 of 1892 on the file of the District Court of Tinnevelly. The facts of the case, in so far as they relate to that application, are shortly these. A lady at Tuticorin called Ponniya Muthu Nadathi died on the 12th June 1891. Appellant is her father and respondent is her husband. The former applied for probate, alleging that she had left a will and appointed him executor, but the latter contended that the alleged will was a forgery and repudiated appellant's claim to probate. He urged further that she died intestate leaving a son surviving her, though he survived her but for three months, and that respondent was entitled to letters of administration in regard to her estate. But when the application for probate came on for disposal on the 16th February 1892, as the appellant's vakil stated that h...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Mohideen Rowther Vs. Haruthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ57
ORDER1. It is objected that the suit was not cognizable by the Village Munsif as the claim is for rent of a house and therefore excluded by Clause 6 of Section 13 of the Village Munsif's Act. The question is whether the phrase 'rent for land' in the clause referred to includes house-rent as contended by petitioner. A grant of land, no doubt, includes a house standing on it. But I do not think the word 'land' as used in the Act can be intended to include houses. As appears from Wharton's Law Lexicon p. 418 it required special legislation in England to include houses in the word land as used in Acts of Parliament. The word is not defined in the Village Munsif's Act or in the General Clauses Act.2. I am unable to say that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the Village Munsif.3. This petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »