Chennai Court November 1894 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Veeradu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad230
1. The words 'person who professes the Christian religion' as used in Act XV of 1872 mean in our opinion not only adults who profess that religion, bat also their children, who are in law presumed to follow their father's religion; and it is in evidence that the child in this case was baptized.2. We must set aside the order of acquittal and direct that the case be re-tried....
Tag this Judgment!Sayyad Azuf Vs. Ameerubibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad163
1. The suit was brought for an order directing defendant to close a window opened by him in a wall newly built by him. Plaintiff's case is that the window opens on to a passage immediately to the west of the wall, which passage leads to the plaintiff's house, and the privacy of which is invaded by reason of the window. The District Munsif found it to be a fact that plaintiff's privacy was thus invaded and gave her a decree directing the closing of the window.2. On appeal the District Judge affirmed the District Munsif's decree.3. Hence this second appeal, in which we are referred to the decision of Holloway and Innes, JJ., in the case of Komathi v. Gurunada Pillai 3 M.H.C.R. 141 where it was held, following the English law on the subject, that the invasion of privacy by opening windows is not a wrong for which an action will lie. As observed by Innes, J., the person whose privacy is so invaded has it in his power to build on his own ground so as to shut out the view from the offending ...
Tag this Judgment!Palamalai Padiachi and anr. Vs. Shanmuga Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ99
1. 'This is clearly a suit within Section 3 of the Regulation and we must therefore answer the question in the affirmative. There is no necessary conflict between the two cases cited in the order of reference.'2. [This case again came on for final disposal before Muthusami Aiyar and Best, J.J, who, in accordance with the opinion of the Full Bench, setting aside the decree of the District Judge, restored that of the District Munsif, and decreed that respondent must pay appellant's costs in this Court and also in the Lower Appellate Court.]...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Kabeloola Sahib Vs. Mahomed Naseerudeen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ40
1. The plaintiff is the sole heir of late Ghouse Begum Sahiba, widow of the late Prince Oomdath-ud-Dowlah Bahadur. This lady died on 4th June 1892 and by an instrument dated 20th December 1886, she endowed certain rnoveable and im-moveable properties for the upkeep of her husband's tomb and for ceremonies connected therewith including ceremonies to be performed for herself after her death. The sole question argued in this appeal is whether an endowment for such a purpose is a valid wakf under Mahomedan law. Other pleas have been abandoned.2. The objects of the endowments as stated in the deed are 'for the daily, monthly and annual expenses of the aforesaid Mausoleum, such as lighting, frankincense, flowers, and the salaries of Hafigees (repeaters of the koran) and Daroodies (readers of benediction, &c;), as well as for the annual Fatheha (prayers for the dead) ceremonies of the deceased (may he be in paradise); and after my death for my annual Fatheha ceremony'.3. The learned judge hel...
Tag this Judgment!Kaleloola Sahib Vs. Nuseerudeen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad201
1. The plaintiff is the sole heir of the late Ghousee Begam Sahiba, widow of the late Prince Oomduth-ud-Dowlah Bahadur. This lady died on 4th June 1892, and by an instrument, dated 20th December 1886, she endowed certain immoveable and moveable properties for the upkeep of her husband's tomb and for ceremonies connected therewith including ceremonies to be performed for herself after her death. The sole question argued in this appeal is whether an endowment for such a purpose is a valid wakf under Muhammadan law. Other pleas have been abandoned.2. The objects of the endowment as stated in the deed are 'for the daily, monthly, and annual expenses of the aforesaid mausoleum, such as lighting, frankincense, flowers, and the salaries of Hafizes (repeaters of the Koran) and Daroodies (readers of benediction, etc.), as well as for the annual Fatheha (prayers for the dead), ceremonies of the deceased (may he be in paradise); and after my death for my annual Fatheha ceremony.'3. The learned Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Achanath Ittichiri Ammah, Manager and ors. Vs. Chingarath Alias thekka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ81
1. From the District Munsif's report, submitted in obedience to this Court's order of 11th July last, it appears that no objection was taken to the admission of Exhibit VIII in evidence. Such being the case, it is not competent to the Appellate Court to raise or entertain the objection to its admissibility. Cf. Akbur Ali v. Bhyea Lal Jha I. L. R. (1880) C. 666 and Chimnaji Govind Godbole v. Dinkar Dhondev Godbole I. L. R. (1886) B. 320 We must not, however, be understood as holding that it is not competent to the Judge to consider what weight is due to the document as evidence in the absence of the original.2. We set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and remand the appeal for disposal afresh.3. The costs in this Court will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Orr and ors. Vs. Ambalum Kumaraswamy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ27
Parker, J.1. Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act enacts that Section 107 of that Act shall be read as supplemental to the Indian Registration Act, but Section 3 of the Registration Act includes 'juice in trees' among the enumeration of things defined as 'moveable property.' Gum certainly appears to fall within the description of 'juice in trees' and therefore is moveable property with reference to the consideration of registration. It is argued that Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, is not to be read as supplemental to the Registration Act but that section does not define 'immoveable property.' It merely excludes for the purpose of that Act standing timber, growing crops or grass from the definition of immoveable property thus to a limited extent modifying the definition of the General Clauses Act. I must hold then that the lease is one of moveable property and does not require registration.2. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the suit remanded for det...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusami Ayyar Vs. Natesa Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad464
Parker, J.1. The decree in Original Suit No. 50 of 1891 allowed one set of costs and vakil's fee (Rs. 304-6-3) to defendants Nos. 1-3 and 10-18, and this is an application by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to execute for Rs. 152-2-0, which, they say, is their share of the vakil's fee. The application is resisted by defendants Nos. 10 and 16, who say that they have received the sum (Rs. 304-6-3) from plaintiff, and that the decree is satisfied and satisfaction recorded.2. The District Judge stated that satisfaction of the decree had not been recorded, and all that had been done was to record the petition of defendants Nos. 10 and 16. Refusing to recognize the alleged payment by plaintiff to defendants Nos. 10 and 16, he allowed defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to obtain fractional execution for Rs. 134, which he held to be their share.3. Plaintiff appeals.4. In support of the contention that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to execute for their fractional share, I am referred to Tarruck Chunder Bhu...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasachariar Vs. Rangammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad94
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. It is conceded that but for the endorsements on the hypothecation bond A, the suit would be barred by limitation. The District Judge concurs in the finding of the District Munsif on remand that the endorsements are not genuine. It is contended, on behalf of the appellant that the finding is illegal, as it rests upon evidence improperly admitted on appeal. It is urged that the District Judge was in error in remanding the case for further evidence and that the remand is illegal. The third issue recorded in this suit was whether the claim was barred by limitation; and upon the evidence originally adduced by the parties with reference to that issue, the District Munsif came to the conclusion that the endorsements were genuine and that the suit was not barred by limitation. On appeal, however, defendants objected to the finding. Thereupon, the District Judge considered it desirable that further evidence should be taken as to the handwriting of the two endorsements of p...
Tag this Judgment!Hassan Alli Khan Bahadur and anr. Vs. Kopparti Ekambaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ29
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. This was a suit to enforce the registration of an instrument of mortgage under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The first question arising for determination is whether a plea that there was no consideration for the document except to the extent of Rs. 2 is good. The object of registration is to guarantee the execution of an instrument and I agree with the judge that the question of consideration is wholly irrelevant. Neither Section 77 nor any other section of the Registration Act mentions it as a pre-requisite of registration.2. The next question is whether the failure of the defendant to appear within four months from the date of execution bars under Section 34 the registration of the instrument. That section provides subject to the provisions contained in Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 78, 88 and 89 that no document shall be registered under this Act unless the persons executing such document or their representatives or assigns or agents as aforesaid ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »