Chennai Court November 1894 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.
Subba Sastri and ors. Vs. Balachandra Sastri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad421
1. We are of opinion that the order of remand passed by the District Judge in Appeal No. 72 of 1892 was illegal. The suit had not been decided by the District Munsif upon any preliminary point; on the contrary he had decided all the six issues framed; and if he had based his judgment upon evidence improperly taken, it was open to the District Judge to exclude that evidence or to call for or take further evidence.2. It is open to the appellants to take this objection now, although they might have appealed against the order of remand Section 591, Code of Civil Procedure; see also Savitri v. Ramji I.L.R. 14 Bom. 2323. The order having been ultra vires, the subsequent proceedings are also ultra vires and must be treated as non-existent--Rameshur Singh v. Sheodin Singh I.L.R. 12 All. 5104. We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and the second decree of the District Munsif and remand the Original Appeal No. 72 of 1892 to the file of the District Court of Tanjore to be disposed...
Tirumalayappa Pillai and ors. Vs. Swami Naikar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad469
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In these connected appeals, appellants are the ostensible purchasers at revenue sales or their nominal vendees, and respondents are tenants in possession of the lands put up to sale. The lands in question are Karisal punja in the village of Theevasilapuram, which is one of the ten villages forming the endowment of a chattram founded at Seenalparai by an ancestor of the Dalavoy Mudaliars. They are separately assessed and registered in the Collector's accounts in the names of the managers or hakdars of the chattram, who are descendants of its founder. The plaintiffs' case was that, as purchasers at revenue sales or as persons claiming under them, they were entitled to eject the tenants in possession. On the other hand, the tenants contended, inter alia, that the plaintiffs purchased benami for the hakdars; that as mere benamidars, they were not entitled to maintain the suits in their own names; that the tenants had a right of permanent occupancy and that the revenue...
Tirthasami Vs. Annappayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad131
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This was an application for execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 121 of 1882 on the file of the District Munsif of Udipi in the district of South Canara. The appellant is the representative of the Puttige Mutt at that station, and respondent, Annappayya, is the execution-creditor. The decree was passed against appellant's predecessor, but on his dismissal from his office and on appellant's succession to the office, respondent attempted to execute it against the latter. The District Munsif refused the execution, but on appeal the Judge held that execution should be granted if respondent showed in execution proceedings that the decree debt was one contracted for purposes of the Mutt. From this order respondent preferred no second appeal and it became final. The application for execution in which the above orders were made was not further proceeded with.2. Meanwhile, execution was taken out by other decree-holders against the appellant and similar orders were...
Gopal Reddi Vs. Chenna Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad158
Shephard, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendants are riparian proprietors, the former occupying lands lower down the stream than those occupied by the defendants. The stream is a jungle stream, not used for irrigation purposes and apt at times to rise suddenly and flood the lands through which it flows. In order to protect their lands against flooding and to keep the water to its proper channel, the defendants recently raised the bund along the bank of the stream and fortified it with stone. This is the act complained of by the plaintiff as wrongful, it being charged that the plaintiff's lands were, in consequence, inundated and sustained damage.2. The complaint is that the bunds have been raised above the height at which they stood before, for it is found or admitted that it has been long the practice to have some sort of bunds. It is not suggested that the act complained of was done otherwise than with the object of protecting the defendants' lands. On the contrary, the District Judge...
Venganna Aiyar and 10 ors. Vs. Ramasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ263
ORDERMuthusami Aiyar, J.1. The first issue recorded for decision in this case was whether the plaintiff was the next reversionary heir of Sitaramaiyen deceased. The court of first instance determined the question against the plaintiff, and dismissed the suit without deciding the other issues. On appeal, the District Judge found upon the evidence that the plaintiff was Sitaramaiyen's reversionary heir and reversing the decree of the first court, remanded the case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure for disposal on the other issues. Hence this appeal from the order of remand under Clause 28 of Section 588 Civil Procedure Code. It is conceded that the order of remand satisfies the requirements of Section 562 both in form and substance. It was held in Ramachandra Joshi v. Haji Kassim I. L. R 16 M 207 that it was competent to the lower appellate court to pass an order of remand under Section 562 when the Court of first instance records evidence on all the issues, and at the fin...
Gade Venkatramadoss Pantulu Vs. the Honorable Maharaja Mirza Sri Pasup ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ142
1. The first point raised was that there was no legal agreement to enhance the Kattubadi in 1854. At that time the village was under attachment and defendant's mother and guardian executed the vakalat A to vakil Roya Charlu to authorize him to make terms for the release of the village. The petition, B was presented by the vakil on the same day as also the sannad B. Having regard to the language of exhibit A, we are not prepared to hold that these documents were beyond the scope of the vakil's authority. Nor do we think that such an arrangement made to put an end to a bona fide dispute was beyond the power of defendant's mother and guardian. A precisely similar settlement was recognized in Suryanarayana's case I. L. R. (1886) M. 307 The arrangement might therefore be valid without necessity of ratification. But the defendant attained majority in 1871, and it was not until the Privy Council Judgment was given in 1886 that the settlement was questioned. It was then decided that such enhan...
Subbarayudu Vs. Adinarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad134
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff and the original defendant were partners. The former paid the amount due by the latter under a decree passed in Original Suit No. 911 of 1890. Thereupon he brought the present suit in the Small Cause Court for contribution. It was contended for defendant that the suit did not lie, and that the claim is one which ought to be adjusted when the partnership account is settled. The District Munsif decreed the claim.2. It is urged on revision that the suit does not lie and is not cognizable by a Small Cause Court. It is no doubt a settled rule of law that advances made by one partner to the partnership concern can only result in matters of account and cannot be made the subject of a separate suit. But to this general rule there are exceptions when advances are made by one partner not to the partnership concern, but to the other partner in respect of what he is to contribute to the joint capital as in French v. Styring 2 C.B.N.S. 365; or when two partners b...
Shangunni Menon Vs. Veerappan Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ84
1. As the appellant did not choose to take the money out of court, he has no right to complain that the plaintiff withdrew it. He is liable for the interest upon the kanom amount. No reference to Exhibit III, as bearing upon the genuine-ness of the Purankadom document II seems to have been urged in the Courts below, and there is nothing to show any negligence on the part of the Vakil. We are unable to accede to the contention that appellant is entitled to the capitalized value of the produce of the cocoanut trees for the period of the life of those trees. See Valia Tamburati v. Parvati I. L. R. (1889) M. 454 We are referred to explanation (a) Section 6 of Madras Act I. of 1887 as showing that the legislature intended the probable life of the trees to be taken into consideration. The enumeration in Section 6 of the matters to be taken into consideration evidently refers to the different classes of improvements specified in Section 3, and the matters to be considered will vary according ...
Jootoor Acchanna Vs. Vanamala Venkamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ24
1. The District Judge has found that the strip of land on which defendant has been attempting to build a wall is a piece of Government poramboke between plaintiff's house and the public street and that it does not belong to defendant stall, Such being the case we think the judge was right in holding that it was not necessary for plaintiff to establish prescriptive rights of easement against a wrong-doer and that the mere fact of plaintiff's enjoyment is sufficient to entitle him to an injunction. See Jeffries v. Williams L.R. 5 Ex. 792 Goddard on Easements, 4th Ed. 467.2. The Decree of the District Judge is confirmed and this Second Appeal dismissed with costs....
Kailasa Padiachi Vs. Ponnukannu Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad456
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. It is conceded that but for the payment of Rs. 10 on account of interest made on the 22nd December 1889, the suit would be clearly barred; but it is contended that the Subordinate Judge is in error in holding that first counter-petitioner had no authority to make such payments. This contention, I consider, is well founded. The Subordinate Judge relies on the decision in Wajibun v. Kadir Buksh I.L.R. 13 Cal. 292 but that decision was dissented from chinnaya v. Gurunatham I.L.R. 5 Mad. 169; Sobhanadri Appa Rau v. Sriramulu I.L.R. 17 Mad. 221 and Bhasker Tatya Shet v. Vijalal Nathu I.L.R. 17 Bom. 512 The principle laid down in these cases is that a guardian is legally competent, in the ordinary course of management, either to acknowledge a debt due by his or her ward, or to make a part-payment, or to pay interest. This being so, the only question that arises for decision is whether the first counter-petitioner can be treated upon the facts found as a person duly auth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »