Chennai Court December 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.
Sundrammal Vs. Kullappa Chetti Alias Thambianna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ36
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. One Anga Muthu Chetty, residing in the District of Salem, died on the 20th February 1893. He left a widow named Sundrammal and a brother named Kullappa alias Thambianna Chetty. The former applied for a certificate to collect the debts due to her husband alleging that he had divided from his brother. The Judge ordered on 25th August 1893 that a certificate do issue to the widow on her furnishing security. He also granted her one month's leave to file an amended schedule. She since applied for two months' time to file a complete schedule. The brother then opposed her application on two grounds, viz. (1) that Sundrammal had not stated in her application all the debts, and (2) that he should have had notice of her tendering personal security as sufficient on the 31st March 1894. The judge overruled both objections and held that the widow was entitled to have the certificate for the debts mentioned by her in the schedule on the personal security of one Krishnaswami Che...
Krishnaswami by His Mother Savithri Ammal and anr. Vs. Sundrappa Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ164
1. Several objections have been argued in support of this appeal.2. The first of them is that specific performance cannot be decreed against a minor.8 of the Specific Relief Act mentions the persons against whom specific performance cannot be decreed and a minor is not mentioned as one of them.3. No doubt Section 11 of the Contract Act mentions persons who have attained majority as persons competent to enter into contracts. But this does not exclude the power of a guardian of a minor to represent him and enter into contrasts on his behalf either beneficial or necessary to the minor.4. The English law is, it is true, that a minor cannot claim specific performance and this proceeds on the ground of want of mutuality. It is on this ground that Mr. Justice Norris acted in Fatima Bibi v. Debnauth Shah I.L.R. (1893) C. 508 citing as his authority Flight v. Bolland (1828) 4 Russ 298 But there is reason to believe that Flight v. Bolland (1828) 4 Russ 298 was a case in which the contract was ma...
Nagamoney Mudaliar Vs. Janakiram Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad142
Best, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mr. Justice Shephard, deciding against the defendant, the preliminary issue 'whether this Court has jurisdiction in the case, the mortgaged property being alleged to be situated beyond the Court's local jurisdiction.'2. The learned Judge says, 'In the face of the leave which stands uncancelled I must decide for plaintiff.'3. The cases cited before the learned Judge appear to have been De Souza v. Coles 3 M.H.C.R. 384 and Vythelinga Mudelly v. Cundasawmy Mudelly 8 M.H.C.R. 214. In the former it was held that an appeal lies from the decision of a Judge refusing an application made under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent for leave to institute in this Court a suit on a cause of action which arises in part only within the local limits of this Court's jurisdiction. In Vythelinga Mudelly v. Cundasawmy Mudelly 8 M.H.C.R. 21 it was held that where such an application was refused by one Judge, it was not proper for another Judge in Chambers to gra...
Queen-empress Vs. Andi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad228
1. Section 125, Clause (1) of the Railway Act, makes punishable the negligence of the owner or person in charge of any cattle which stray upon the line. The section recognizes the obligation of the owner to prevent the cattle from straying, while at the same time it provides that the negligence of the person in charge may be punished. There is nothing in the clause to restrict the discretion of the Court in ascertaining upon whom the fault really lies and awarding the punishment accordingly.2. The second Clause of the same section makes punishable wilful acts of driving or knowingly permitting cattle to be upon a railway line, and provides that, at the option of the railway administration, the owner, instead of the person in charge, shall be punishable. This provision is of a very penal character, and it removes the discretion as to the person to be held liable to punishment from the Court to the Railway authorities. No such discretion is given to the railway administration when the st...
Krishnasami and anr. Vs. Sundarappayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad415
1. Several objections have been argued in support of this appeal.2. The first of them is that specific performance cannot be decreed against a minor. Section 28[1] of the Specific Relief Act mentions the persons against whom specific performance cannot be decreed and a minor is not mentioned as one of them.3. No doubt Section 11[2] of the Contract Act mentions persons who have attained majority as persons competent to enter into contracts. But this does not exclude the power of a guardian of a minor to represent him and enter into contracts on his behalf either beneficial or necessary to the minor.4. The English law is, it is true, that a minor cannot claim specific performance, and this proceeds on the ground of want of mutuality. It is on this ground that Mr. Justice Norris acted in Fatima Bibi v. Debnauth Shah I.L.R. 20 Cal 508 citing as his authority Flight v. Bolland 4 Buss. 298 But there is reason to believe that Flight v. Bolland 4 Buss. 298 was a case in which the contract was ...
Seetaramayya Vs. Venkatarazu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad420
1. The decision of the Subordinate Judge is correct. It is in accordance with the decision in Krishnamma v. Papa 4 M. H. C. R. 234 where it was held that a daughter's son was to be preferred to a brother's son, on the ground that the 'heirs of the preceding karnam' in Section 7 of Regulation XXIX of 1802, mean his next of kin according to the order of succession of the several grades of legal heirs, and not heirs in the order of succession to undivided divisible ancestral property.2. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›