Chennai Court December 1894 Judgments
Balambal Ammal Vs. Arunachala Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad255
1. The plaintiff sued to compel the defendant to register a conveyance executed by him to her on 26th January 1892 and to recover possession of the property comprised therein. In consequence of objections raised to the frame of the suit the plaintiff withdrew the prayer for delivery of possession and the sole point tried was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree that the deed should be registered. The instrument was presented for registration on 26th May 1892.2. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the contract of sale was cancelled after execution of the instrument and the earnest money returned. On appeal the District Judge confirmed the decision on a different ground, which he allowed to be argued though it does not appear to have been taken before the District Munsif or in the grounds of appeal. The Judge held that the question of the cancellation of the contract of sale was immaterial in the suit; that the only question was whether plaintiff had obser...
Tag this Judgment!Muniappa Naik and ors. Vs. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ60
1. We agree with the learned Judges who decided the cases reported in Debendra Kumar. Mandel v. Rup Lall Dass I.L.R. (1886) C. 546 and Kasinath Das v. Sadasiv Patnaik I. L. R. (1893) C. 8052. The object of attachment is to take the property out of the disposition of the judgment-debtor. Though the omission to attach under Section 274 of the Code of Civil Procedure was an irregularity; we are not able to hold that the irregularity was material, or that plaintiff has been prejudiced thereby.3. It is next contended that the document contains no provision for interest post diem and that consequently the claim is one for damages and barred under Article 116 of the Limitation Act. But on the true construction of the document the last clause appears to provide for interest up to date of payment and to make the same a charge on the property; and as interest is not asked for at the enhanced rate, there is no question of reasonable compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act, nor is the su...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Santappaya Vs. Darmastal Rangappaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ66
1. The question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether respondent's adoption can be upheld. Both the courts below have found that the adoption is proved and that Mangamma had her husband's permission to make the adoption. These findings of fact we must accept in second appeal. As regards appellant's contention that Mangamma was under pollution when she adopted respondent, the Subordinate Judge has found that when the pollution was over the Dattahomam was performed and the defect was cured. As to this it is urged by appellant's pleader that unless the gift and acceptance and the Dattahoman take place at the same time, there can be no valid adoption. To this contention, however, we are unable to accede. The learned pleader overlooks the fact that during the ceremony, a formal gift and acceptance are repeated and they are then consecrated by sacrifice by fire or Homam. If therefore the first gift was invalid as a religious act, because there was pollution, the second was...
Tag this Judgment!Maridu Bramhanna Vs. Sonti Ramaswamy Having Died Pendente Lite His Min ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ89
Muthuswami Aiyar, J.1. I do not think that this is a case in which we should depart from the rule that it is the person who is slandered that ought to sue. The plaintiff's wife is sui juris and she may sue for the slander. No other person is permitted to sue because however closely he may be related to the person slandered and whatever pain of mind he may suffer from the slander of his relation the injuiy caused to him is mediate or remote and not immediate or proximate. If the rule were otherwise, the defamer might be liable for as many actions as there are near relations of the person defamed. It is said that the detainer's object was to villify the plaintiffs. But the slanderous words spoken do not impute any personal misconduct to him. They do not state the plaintiff knew of his wife's want of chastity and with that knowledge lived with her. The language used is consistent with plaintiffs' belief in his wife's chastity. The object was no doubt to cause intense pain of mind to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Narasimha Naidu Vs. Ramasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad216
ORDER1. There is no finding as to what are the rates that the Judge considers to be binding. The Government Order to which he refers is not in evidence. Nor do the judgments of either of the Courts below specify the settlement rates. The parties were at issue on the question of rates and the appellant is therefore clearly entitled to a finding as to what those rates are. There is no decree of the Assistant Collector on record and the decree of the District Judge does not mention any rates. Under Section 11 of Madras Act VIII of 1865, the settlement rates prescribed for adoption must have been on a survey made previous to 1st January 1859, as noted by the Judge, but the Judge has not decided this question. It does not appear that the plaintiff had an opportunity of showing that what was assigned under the Government Order was not limited to the Government revenue. We must, therefore, ask the Judge to return findings on the following questions:(1)Whether the lands have been surveyed by G...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmanna Vs. Ramakrishnama and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad250
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. I do not think that this is a case in which we should depart from the rule that it is the person who is slandered that ought to sue. The plaintiff's wife is sui juris and she may sue for the slander. No other person is permitted to sue, because however closely he may be related to the person slandered and whatever pain of mind he may suffer from the slander of his relation, the injury caused to him is mediate or remote and not immediate or proximate. If the rule were otherwise, the defamer might be liable for as many actions as there are near relations of the persons defamed. It is said that the defamer's object was to vilify the plaintiff. But the slanderous words spoken do not impute any personal misconduct to him. They do not state that the plaintiff knew of his wife's want of chastity, and with that knowledge lived with her. The language used is consistent with plaintiff's relief in his wife's chastity. The object was no doubt to cause intense pain of mind to ...
Tag this Judgment!Santappayya Vs. Rangappayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad397
1. The question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether respondent's adoption can be upheld. Both the Courts below have found that the adoption is proved, and that Manjamma had her husband's permission to make the adoption. These findings of fact, we must accept in second appeal.2. As regards appellant's contention that Manjamma was under pollution when she adopted respondent, the Subordinate Judge has found that, when the pollution was over, the datta homam was performed, and the defect was cured. As to this, it is urged by appellant's pleader that, unless the gift and acceptance and the datta homam take place at the same time, there can be no valid adoption. To this contention, however, we are unable to accede. The learned pleader overlooks the fact that during the ceremony a formal gift and acceptance are repeated and they are then consecrated by sacrifice by fire or homam. If, therefore, the first gift was invalid as a religious act, because there was pollution, th...
Tag this Judgment!Muniappa Naik and ors. Vs. Subramania Ayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad437
1. We agree with the learned Judges who decided the cases of Debendra Kumar Mandel v. Rup Lall Dass I.L.R. 12 Cal. 546 and Kasinath Das v. Sadasiv Patnaik I.L.R. 20 Cal. 8052. The object of attachment is to take the property out of the disposition of the judgment--debtor. Though the omission to attach under Section 274 of the Code of Civil Procedure was an irregularity, we are notable to hold that the irregularity was material or that plaintiff has been prejudiced thereby.3. It is next contended that the document contains no provision for interest post diem, and that consequently the claim is one for damages and barred under Article 116 of the Limitation Act. But on the true construction of the document the last clause appears to provide for interest to date of payment and to make the same a charge on the property; and as interest is not asked for at the enhanced rate, there is no question of reasonable compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act, nor is the suit barred under the...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasami Naik, by His Guardian Timmaya Naik Vs. Chinna Narayana Nai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ28
1. The preliminary objection is taken that there has been no order granting a certificate within the meaning of Section 19 of the Act. We are of opinion, however, that the order that certificate be granted on security being furnished, sufficiently meets the requirements of the section, though it is only intended to take effect on security being furnished.2. We are unable to accept the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwani v. Manni Lal I.L.R. (1891) A. 214 to which our attention has been drawn.3. As the widow did not appear though notice was served on her, we cannot say the judge was wrong in granting the certificate to the brother.4. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference Undera Stamp Act, Section 46
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad233
1. We are of opinion that the deed is not an instrument of partition within the meaning of Section 3, Clause 11 of the Stamp Act since it is not a deed by which co-owners agree to divide the property in severalty. It is a deed by which one co-owner renounces his claim for partition against the family property in consideration of a certain income to be enjoyed by him for his life out of certain lands over which he has no power of alienation. The case is similar to Eknath Section Gownde v. Jagannath S. Gownde I.L.R. 9 Bom. 4172. We are of opinion that the deed is a release and should be stamped under schedule I, Article 54 of the Stamp Act....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »