Chennai Court October 1894 Judgments
Subbamma and ors. Vs. Meenakka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ61
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. It is urged in support of the appeal that this money claimed from Beeru Gounden by the respondent was not a debt due to Venkataramana within the meaning of Act VII of 1889. This contention appears to me to be well founded. The word 'debt' is described in Sun-section 2 to Section 4 as including any debt except rent, revenue, or profit payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. Though to constitute a debt it is not necessary that there should be a loan, still it is necessary that there should be a sum of money due by Beeru Gounden to the deceased. In the case before me the deceased left some sheep with Beeru Gounden. Beeru Gounden failed to return the same. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the original transaction was anything more than entrustment of the sheep for safe custody and that Beeru Gounden was under any obligation to pay a liquidated sum as the value of the sheep. Any promise made to respondent to pay Us. 45 for its value woul...
Tag this Judgment!Subbanna and ors. Vs. Munekka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad457
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. It is urged in support of this appeal that the money claimed from Beera Gowdoo by the respondent was not a debt due to Venkataramanna within the meaning of Act VII of 1889. This contention appears to me to be well founded. The word 'debt' is described in Sub-section 2 to Section 4 as including any debt except rent, revenue or profit payable in respect of lands used for agricultural purposes. Though to constitute a debt it is not necessary that there should be a loan, still it is necessary that there should be a sum of money due by Beera Gowdoo to the deceased. In the case before me the deceased left some sheep with Beera Gowdoo. Beera Gowdoo failed to return the same. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the original transaction was any thing more than entrustment of the sheep for safe custody, and that Beera Gowdoo was under any obligation to pay a liquidabed sum as the value of the sheep. Any promise made to respondent to pay Rs. 45 for its value would ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ackrill
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad24
Shephard, J.1. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows: Among the assets of the insolvent was a policy of insurance on his own life for Rs. 2,500, which was sold by the Official Assignee and realized Rs. 180. Shortly after the sale the insolvent, who had obtained his personal discharge, died, and the purchaser collected the amount due on the policy. It was then brought to the notice of the Administrator-General by the purchaser himself that he had not bought the policy entirely for his own benefit, but mainly for the benefit of the insolvent, and accordingly the money received on the policy minus the price paid for it and a small sum due by the insolvent to the purchaser was paid over to the Administrator-General. The question is whether the money rightly came to the hands of the Administrator-General or whether it is affected by the vesting order.2. I think that the money must be treated as after-acquired property. By the sale the Official Assignee parted with all int...
Tag this Judgment!Bedhathakota Parvatibayamma Vs. Bedathakota Ramakrishna Row, by His Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ44
Shephard, J.1. The plaintiff claims as the adopted son of the late Seetharamiah. This title he fails to make good because he has not proved that the widow by whom the adoption was made acted underauthority from her husband. There is admittedly no evidence of such authority having been given, and the circumstances are not such as to raise any presumption in the plaintiff's favour. This being so, the plaintiff charges that the defendant is estopped from denying his adoption and on the strength of that estoppel claims to recover the property to which as adopted son he would be entitled.2. At first sight it certainly would seem somewhat anomalous to hold that an adoption, invalid according to Hindu Law, may nevertheless become effectual so as to confer on the person concerned the right in the family of a stranger which he could only acquire by a valid adoption. No doubt under certain circumstances Che law may raise a presumption in favour of the validity of an adoption as it may in questio...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Mudaliar Vs. Sivarama Sundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ288
ORDER1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit without costs. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge which on the substantial issues of fact (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th is in the plaintiff's favour, proceeds upon contain grounds of law upon which also the arguments in the hearing of the appeal turned. The judge's findings on the facts were not questioned. It is found as a fact that by agreement between the three brothers a sale of certain properties by auction was effected and the plaintiff became the purchaser. The terms of the whole arrangement are set out in Exhibit E. This sale included among other things the huk right of Vachakarapatti Choultry, the lands attached to the Choultry and certain other lands the Kudivaram of which is vested in the family. As to these latter it is asserted on the defendant's behalf that they also are part of the charity property. There has been no finding on the point.2. The Vachakarapatti Choultry is one of several...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Iyengar Vs. Seetharama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ151
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. Three persons hold money-decrees against one Seetaramiah and one Venkatasami had with him certain stamps and other things of Rs. 95-2-0 value belonging to the-j judgment-debtor.2. Petitioner had the property attached by prohibitory order on the 22nd December 1892. Anotherjudgment-creditor Muni Ammal attached the same on 16th January 1893 in execution of her own decree. Venkatasami paid Rs. 95-2-0 due by him to the judgment-1'', debtor into court on the 3rd February 1893. On the same day but after payment into court one Manickam Chetty attached it as money due in the custody of the court on the 30th March 1893. 'The District Munsiff paid out of the deposit petitioner's costs and,' divided the balance rateably among the three creditors. To this order petitioner objects in revision and urges that Manickam Chetty attached after the money was realized and that this was not a case for rateable distribution under Section 295, Code of Civil Procedure. Neither of these con...
Tag this Judgment!Minakshisundrum Pillai Vs. Ayyathorai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad136
4. We must accept the finding. We cannot say that the Judge dealing with the whole evidence has omitted to take into account that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff.5. The appeal is dismissed with costs.[1] [Section 43: When any action or prosecution shall he brought or any proceeding held against any Police Officer for any act done by him in such Plea that act was done capacity, it shall he lawful for him to plead that such act was under a warrant. done by him under the authority of a warrant issued by aMagistrate. Such plea shall be proved by the production of the warrant directing the act, and pur- porting to be signed by such Magistrate, and the defendant Proviso. shall thereupon be entitled to a decree in his favour, notwith- standing any defect of jurisdiction in such Magistrate. No proof of the signature of such Magistrate shall be necessary, unless the Court shall see reason to doubt its being genuine. Provided always that any remedy which the party may have against t...
Tag this Judgment!Damodara Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad88
1. The question raised by this appeal is whether the defendants being the proprietors of certain villages irrigated by the Parayankulattur tank, can be made liable for the costs of repairs of that tank incurred by the Government. Inasmuch as other villages held under Government are irrigated by the same tank the Government were under an obligation to make the repairs, and it is found as a fact, and not disputed, that the repairs were necessary for the preservation of the tank. There are no definite findings by the District Judge, and the evidence is not clear as to the circumstances under which the repairs were undertaken by Government. But it seems clear from the defendants' own statements that they were aware that the repairs were being executed (see BB). The averment to that effect made in the plaint is not denied in the written statement, and it is not the defendants' case that they were themselves anxious to execute the repairs except in the capacity of contractors, or that the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Veeramma Vs. Abbiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad99
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The question referred to a Full Bench is whether the provisions of Section 7 of the Limitation Act are applicable to, and govern, a suit for which special provision is made by Section 77 of the Registration Act.2. Act III of 1877 appears to be a Special Act complete in itself, and according to a well-established rule for the construction of statutes it should be presumed that the Legislature did not intend by a general enactment to interfere with it. Lord Hatherley, when Vice-Chancellor in Fitzgerald v. Champneys 50 L.J. (Ch.) 777 at page 782, thus states the proposition of law: 'The reason is that the Legislature having had its attention directed to a special subject and observed all the circumstances of the case and provided for them, does not intend by a general enactment afterwards to derogate from its own act when it makes no special mention of its intention to do so.'3. Section 77 of Act III of 1877 enacts that, when the Registrar refuses to order the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mana Vikraman Tirumalpad Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1894
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ13
1. The appellant is the jenmi of certain land in Malabar. By karars, dated 9th January 1843 (Exhibit I) and 18th January 1858 (Exhibit A), he and his predecessors had granted to Government perpetual permission to fell timber on kuttikanom on certain properties subject to a payment of one rupee per tree. The karars further stipulated that no permission to fell timber should be granted to any one else, but that Government should not object to the jenmi washing for gold or digging pits for the capture of elephants,2. On the 17th of January 1888, Government published a notification in the Fort St. George Gazette under Section 33 (a) of the Madras Forest Act, declaring that the Governor in Council was pleased to undertake from the 1st February 1888 the management of those forests, accounting to the persons interested in the same for his or their interests. This notification was published under Chapter IV of the Madras Forest Act, which deals, with the control over forests and lands not at t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »