Chennai Court March 1894 Judgments
Bala Pattabhirama Chetti Vs. Seetharama Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad498
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. There was a controversy among three brothers governed by Hindu law as to the partition of their family property. They entered into an agreement on the 3rd October 1890, referring the matters in difference between them to two arbitrators and one umpire for decision. The arbitrators named in the agreement were one Kasturi Chettiar, nominated by one of the three coparceners called Bala Pattabhirama Chetti, and one Padmanabha Chettiar named by the other two coparceners, Seetharam Chetti and Subbaratnam Chetti. The agreement was filed in the District Court of Coimbatore under Section 523 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Judge made an order of reference in accordance therewith. But Kasturi Chettiar refused to act as arbitrator, and the late Judge, Mr. Irvine, appointed Adinarayana Chettiar in his place under Section 510 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The arbitrators, thus constituted made an award on the 3rd August 1891, and the Judge, modifying it in certain ma...
Tag this Judgment!Madhava Rau Vs. P.M. Fernandes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad368
3. Accepting the finding, we reverse the decrees of the Courts below and direct that the channel and cattle lane be repaired by the defendant, or else that he do pay plaintiff a sum of Rs. 30 (thirty) as costs of doing the work, and that defendant do pay plaintiff a further sum of Rs. 15 as damages, and that he do also pay plaintiff proportionate costs on the above in all three Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Sivamma Vs. Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad477
1. This was a petition for a certificate under Act VII of 1889 to collect the debts due to one Sesha Reddi, deceased. Sesha Eeddi had a son named Venkatanaraina Reddi, and the latter died in November 1886, leaving behind him a widow named Subbamma. The father died on 22nd of March 1889, leaving him surviving, besides Subbamma, a widow named Chalamma and a daughter named Sivamma. The daughter applied for the succession certificate and rested her claim on a will left by Sesha Reddi, dated 4th March 1889, and on a maintenance agreement executed by Subbamma on the 4th August 1889. Petitioner's case was that by the will she was constituted her father's heir, and that his daughter-in-law, Subbamma, acknowledged her preferential right. It is alleged that no application was made by Subbamma, and the order made by the District Judge is 'give certificate to Subbamma on security.' No reasons are assigned for the order, and it is urged for petitioner (and there is nothing to the contrary on the re...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralingam Chetti Vs. Subban Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad479
1. The question in issue is whether there has been a valid and legal divorce between plaintiff and second defendant, the District Judge finds in the affirmative.2. The only point argued before us is whether the caste custom is valid, appellant's pleader contending that it is immoral, and, therefore, that the Courts will not recognize it. Exhibits A and B go to show that it has been recognized by the caste as an ancient and reasonable custom.2. We do not think that the case of Uji v. Hathi Lalu 7 B.H.C.R. 133 is in point, since the question there was whether the caste could sanction a woman's re-marriage without a divorce, i.e., without a proceeding to which both husband and wife were parties. Here the finding is that there has been a divorce according to the custom of the potters in Tinnevelly.3. The finding further is that divorce in this form is consistent with the 'original' customs of the potters, and, if this be so, the custom is sufficiently ancient. We do not see that it is immo...
Tag this Judgment!C. Damodara Mudaliar and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ205
ORDER1. The question raised by this appeal is whether the defendants being the proprietors of certain villages irrigated by the Parayankolathur tank can be made liable for the costs of repairs of that tank incurred by the Government. In as much 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 finding 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 statement that they were aware that the repairs were being executed (See BB 1). 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 a...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Ongole Municipality Vs. Mounsey
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad453
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This was a suit to recover back the sum of Rs. 25 which was illegally collected by defendant from plaintiff as profession tax due by him to the Municipality for the year 1891-92. During that year, plaintiff held the office of Sub-Collector of Nellore. Defendant is the Chairman of the Municipality in the town of Ongole which is the head-quarters of the Sub-Collector. His office buildings are at Ongole, but it has been found by the District Munsif, that during the year 1891-92, he resided at Ongole and did his work there, except for 22 days in the first half, and for 20 days in the second half of the year. It is in evidence that he was appointed as the Acting District Judge of Salem on the 15th June, and reverted to his appointment as Sub-Collector on the 19th September. It is also in evidence that he obtained permission to hold his office at Nellore for two months from October. It is clear then that save for the forty-two days mentioned above, he was in circuit and...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppu Ammal Vs. Samunatha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad482
1. The decree sought to be executed directed payment of maintenance annually on a specified date. It was passed in 1870 when Act XIV of 1859 was in force. There was an application for execution in 1873, which was within three years from date of the decree. The next application was not made till 1879. The Limitation Act then in force was No. XV of 1877. That application was dismissed as being time-barred. The present application was made in 1891. It has been held by the Courts below that the question of limitation is res judicata by the previous decisions and also that this application is barred by lapse of time. Therefore the questions are:(1) Whether the question is res judicata, and (2) whether this application is time-barred.2. As to the first question we are of opinion that the present claim is not res judicata, as the relief now claimed is distinct from that previously claimed. The two applications are for money payable for two distinct periods. The former decision is not sufficie...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference Under Court Fees Act, Section 5
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ110
1. The suit is for partition and exclusive possession of specific moieties of property which is at present in joint possession of the parties. It is clearly not a suit for mere declaration; and the value of the property is easily ascertainable.2. The suit is similar to one for partition of joint family property which is chargeable with an ad valorem fee.3. We are unable to follow the decision in Kirty Churn Hitter v. Aunath Nath Deb I. L. R 8 C 757 and Mohendro Chandra Ganguli v. Ashutosh Ganguli I. L. R 20 C 7624. We hold that an ad, valorem fee is payable....
Tag this Judgment!Subbammal Vs. Huddleston and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad273
1. We fully agree with the Subordinate Judge that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief except with reference to the allegations made in the plaint. In the plaint the plaintiff alleges as his title to the land, in respect of which he sues, a karar executed on the 14th of July 1864. If the plaintiff fails, or is unable to prove the execution of this karar by his lessor, it is clear that the suit must be dismissed. It is pleaded by the defendants that the question of the genuineness of this karar has already been decided in a suit between plaintiff and the first defendant, and that therefore it is not how open to the plaintiff to rely on that title. The former suit was brought in the same Court and the issue tried with regard to this karar was identically the same as that raised in the present suit. It is objected, however, on behalf of the appellant that the Court which heard the former suit was not competent to try the present suit, because in the former suit the value of the sub...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu Vs. Durga Prasada Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad362
1. The plaintiffs and defendant are sons of the late Raja Ankinidu, zamindar of Challapalli, who died in the month of April 1875. The zamindari, as it has now been finally decided by the Privy Council, is an impartible one, and consequently the eldest, son of the late zamindar, that is the defendant, is in enjoyment. The present suits are brought against him for maintenance.2. The main question raised by the defendant is whether the family has, in consequence of proceedings in the suit ultimately determined by the Privy Council, become a divided one.3. A larger question was raised by the defendant's vakil with regard to the right of a younger brother of the holder of an impartible zamindari to any maintenance at the hands of the zamindar for the time being. Having regard to the pleadings and issues, this general contention, we think, cannot properly be allowed on this appeal. If it could have been successfully maintained, it ought to have been raised in the Court of First Instance. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »