Chennai Court July 1894 Judgments
Krishnabhupati Devu Vs. Vikrama Devu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad13
1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by the plaintiff (appellant) to obtain a declaration that the instrument of gift, (Exhibit E) which his father, Lingam Lakshmaji, executed in his favour on the 13th October, 1878, is true and valid; that he is entitled under it to the village of Venkatarajapuram and the hamlet of Sitanna Cheruvu Istuva, which is the property now in litigation, and that the execution sale at which respondent purchased them for Rs. 15,900 on the 15th October 1888 is void and inoperative as against him.2. The sale was held in Original Suit No. 3 of 1885 on the file of the District Court of Vizagapatam, in which, one Ohodimella Ramamurti, had obtained a decree against Lingam Lakshmaji for fl^] Rs. 6,456-10-0 for interest on Rs. 5,000 from the date of suit to date of decree at 9 per cent, per annum, for costs of the suit and for interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum from date of decree to date of payment. Subsequent to the date of this decree (Exhibit VI), viz.,...
Tag this Judgment!T.R.M. Arunachelam Chetty Vs. Kulandasami Tevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ70
ORDERMuthusami Aiyar, J.1. This was an application to set aside the court-sale held in Original Suit No. 33 of 1887 on the file of the Subor-'dinate Court of Madura (East). In that suit one Subramanya Servai obtained a decree against appellant and since assigned it to 2nd respondent and another.2. The first objection taken to the sale is that in publishing it, the provisions of Section 289 and Section 290 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have not been complied with.3. The court-sale was originally fixed for the 19th January 1891, but on 1st respondent's application, it was adjourned to the 20th idem on which date it actually took place. It is provided by Section 289 of the Code that the sale should be proclaimed in the manner provided in Section 274, that is to say, 'at some place on or adjacent to the property to be sold by beat of drum or other customary mode and a copy of the proclamation should be fixed up in a conspicuous part of the property.' Another direction contained in Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnasami Mudali and ors. Vs. Advocate-general of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad406
1. We agree with the learned Judge that the plaintiffs have not been able to show that the position of themselves or their party has, in a canonical point of view, been materially affected by the concordat of 1886. The plaintiff's, no doubt, belong to the caste of Christian boatmen, for whose religious benefit the fund was originally intended. But by the decree in Original Suit No. 105 of 1863, it was decided that it was for the majority of the caste to determine whether in spiritual matters, the Church of St. Peter at Royapuram should be placed under the Vicar Apostolic or under the Goanese Bishop of Mylapore. Although the result of the first caste meeting held in pursuance of that decree was to place the Church under the Bishop of Mylapore, the order of 30th January 1867 recognized the election of the Rev. T. Gnanaprakasa Nadar as the successor of the Rev. Vincent de Silva. The Rev. T. Gnanaprakasa Nadar was subordinate to the Vicar Apostolic, and ever since 1867 the Church of St. Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Periakaruppan Vs. Palaniyandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad28
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This was a suit for compensation due to defendant having wrongfully obstructed the flow of water to plaintiff's cowle land, and the question raised for determination on revision is whether Sub-clause i, Clause 35 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes from entertaining such suit. The contest is as to whether obstruction to the flow of water which is referred to by the Subordinate Judge in his judgment must be taken to imply necessarily a 'diversion' of the water within the meaning of the provision of law cited above. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that mere obstruction does not amount to diversion, and that the use by the Subordinate Judge of the words 'obstructed the flow of water' was not felicitous. It appears from the record that plaintiff has certain cowle lands in Sivaganga, that a channel led off from the Puthur tank to those lands, and that petitioner's obstru...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Deposit and Benefit Society Limited Vs. Oonnamalai Ammal and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad29
1. It is urged that, though the document cannot be used or proved as a mortgage instrument, it may be proved as containing a personal covenant to pay and we are referred to the decision in Gomaji v. Subbarayappa I.L.R. 15 Mad. 253 In that case, however, there was no statutory bar to receiving the document in evidence, though by reason of want of registration it could not affect the immoveable property comprised therein. In the present case the document is itself excluded by the provisions of Section 68[2] of the Indian Evidence Act, since it purports to create a legal mortgage.2. Nor can the plaintiff company fall back upon the deposit of the title-deeds. There was no antecedent debt to secure which the title-deeds were deposited, and it is clear from the plaint itself that the intention from its inception was to effect a legal mortgage. A legal mortgage was prepared and accepted, but owing to neglect to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act it is i...
Tag this Judgment!Namasivayam Pillai Vs. Nellayappa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad43
1. This was a suit brought by appellant as purchaser to recover possession of a house which was alleged to have been sold to him by first and second defendants for Rs. 250 on the 23rd November, 1888. Exhibit A is the sale-deed sued upon, and it was registered on the 7th December 1888. The appellant's case was that on the 6th October, 1888, first and second defendants agreed to sell their house to him for Rs. 250, and received Rs. 12 in advance, that they received afterwards the balance of Rs. 238 and executed and registered the sale-deed A. The third defendant or respondent who resisted the claim contended that first and second defendants contracted to sell the house to him for Rs. 300 on the 11th October, and, receiving Rs. 50 in advance, placed the house in his possession, and that the balance was paid by him on the 11th November, 1888. He urged further that the contract set up by the appellant as made on 6th October was not true, that document D was spurious, and that first and seco...
Tag this Judgment!Queen Empress Vs. Abbi Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ196
Parker, J.1. I do not think we are bound to set aside the conviction and sentence of the Sessions Court merely on the ground that the Committing Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The order of commitment was an order under Section 531, Criminal Procedure Code, not liable to be set aside because the proceedings were taken in a wrong place unless the error occasioned a failure of justice. The Magistrate was himself empowered to commit to the Sessions, and did not in so doing usurp an authority to which, he was not entitled. I do not think Section 532, Code of criminal Procedure, applies--See The Queen Empress v. James Ingle I. L. R 16 B 200 ; nor am I of opinion that the institution of proceedings in the wrong sub-division has occasioned a failure of justice, The Sessions Court which tried the case had territorial jurisdiction even though the Committing Magistrate had not. Under Section 537, Code of Criminal P...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›