Chennai Court September 1894 Judgments
Sayyad Arief Vs. Ieerujada Arneeru Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ26
1. The suit was brought for an order directing defendant to close a window opened by him in a wall newly built by him. Plaintiff's case is that the window opens on to a passage immediately to the west of the wall, which passage leads to the plaintiff's house and the privacy of which is invaded by reason of the window.2. The District Munsif found it to be a fact that plaintiff's privacy was thus invaded and gave her a decree directing the closing of the window.3. On appeal, the District Judge affirmed the District Munsif's decree.4. Hence this second appeal in which we are referred to the decision of Holloway and Innes, J.J, in the case of Komathi v. Gurunatha Pillai (1866) 3 M.H.C.R. 141 in which it was held, following the English law on the subject, that the invasion of privacy by opening windows is not a wrong for which an action will lie. As observed by Innes, J. the person whose privacy is invaded has it in his power to build on his own ground so as to shut the view from the offend...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balamma and anr. Vs. Pullayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ22
Best, J.1. The land in question belonged to one Aswattha Rao and on his decease.devolved on his widow and then on his daughter Oakaramma, the wife of Govindappa, by whom the property Was mortgaged to the plaintiff in this suit, who is the present respondent. The judge has found the will by Onkaramma in favour of her husband Govindappa to be true.2. The appellants are (1) the widow of one Seshaiya, great grandson of the great grandfather of Aswattha Rao and (2) the alleged adopted son of the said Seshaiya.3. Both the courts below have found the alleged adoption of 2nd appellant to be untrue.4. His' Lordship expressed his concurrence in the finding and proceeded as follows.5. Such being the case, has 3rd defendant, as widow of Seshaiya,-any locus standi for opposing the plaintiff's claim? The law as settled in this Presidency is that a widow can only succeed; to her husband's property which was actually vented in him either in title or in possession at the time of his death. As observted...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Damara Lakshmikanthayamma Row Bahadur Vs. Omada Rajaha Raja Damar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ145
1. This suit was brought for a partition of the Kalahasti Zemindari and was based on the assumption that the Zemindari was partible. The action was compromised by the parties and a razinamah was presented to the District Court in order that it might be recorded and a decree passed thereon in accordance with the provisions of Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code. The preamble to the terms of the compromise expressly lays down that the Zemindari is impartible and has always descended and mast always descend according to the rule of primogeiture thus negativing the basis of the claim on which the suit is brought. Before the District Judge it was objected that some of the stipulations of the compromise do not relate to the suit and therefore should not have been embodied in the decree. The judge however decided that all the stipulations should be embodied and passed a decree accordingly.2. Two questions arise for decision (1) Whether the stipulations in the razinamah ' relate to the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Rau Vs. Devu Shetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad126
Best, J.1. The mortgage bond executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff was for a sum of Rs. 800, of which Rs. 500 were loft with plaintiff to pay off a prior mortgage-debt and of the balance Rs. 200 are stated in A to be the amount previously borrowed from plaintiff and the remaining Rs. 100 as received on the date of A.2. It appears that plaintiff did not pay off the prior mortgagee, who therefore sued the defendant, and recovered his debt by attachment and sale of defendant's moveables.3. Plaintiff's present suit is to recover the proportionate interest due on the Rs. 300 only for a period of eight years.4. I am unable to agree with the lower Courts in holding that he is not entitled to this proportionate interest, Cf. Chinnayya Rawutan v. Chidambaram Chetti I.L.R. 2 Mad. 212; but I think the suit as brought has been rightly dismissed.5. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff must wait till he can sue for the principal amount also, when the defendant will be able to set off the am...
Tag this Judgment!Balamma and anr. Vs. Pullayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad168
Best, J.1. The land in question belonged be one Aswartha Rau, and on his decease devolved on his widow, and then on his daughter Onkaramma, the wife of Govindappah (by whom the property was mortgaged to the plaintiff in this suit), who is the present first respondent. The Judge has found the will by Onkaramma in favour of her husband Govindappah to be true.2. The appellants are (i) the widow of one Seshayya, great-grandson of the, great-grandfather of Aswartha Rau, and (ii) the alleged adopted son of the said Seshayya.3. Both the Courts below have found the alleged adoption of second appellant to be untrue. This is a finding of fact; but it is contended that it is open to objection in consequence of the wrongful admission of Exhibits B and C which are decrees in suits to which this plaintiff was not a party. The finding against the alleged adoption rests not alone on B and C, but also on a consideration of the other evidence in the case including that of the appellants witnesses which ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatappa Nayanim and anr. Vs. Thimma Nayanim and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad410
1. This suit was brought for a partition of the Kalahastri zamindari and was based on the assumption, that the zamindari was partible. The action was compromised by the parties and a razinamah was presented to the District Court in order that it might be recorded, and a decree passed thereon in accordance with the provisions of Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code. The preamble to the terms of the compromise expressly lays down that the zamindari is impartible and has always descended and must always descend according to the rule of primogeniture; thus negativing the basis of the claim on which the suit was brought. Before the District Judge it was objected that some of the stipulations of the compromise do not relate to the suit, and therefore should not have been embodied in the decree. The Judge, however, decided that all the stipulations should be embodied and passed a decree accordingly.2. Two questions arise for decision: (1) whether the stipulations in the razinamah 'relate t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ayyan and ors. Vs. Vythianatha Ayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad252
1. We agree with Courts below that the suit is one relating to a trust, and is therefore one over which a Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction.2. It is next urged that the gift is invalid, since it is not one known to the Hindu law as stridhanam and since it lays down a course of descent inconsistent with the descent of stridhanam property. It is admitted that the Transfer of Property Act does not apply, but we are referred to the Tagore case Jatindra Mohan Tagore v. Ganendra Mohan Tagore 9 B.L.R. 377; Chandi Churn Barua v. Sidheswari Debt I.L.R. 16 Cal. 71 and Kristoromoni Dasi v. Narendro Krishna Bahadur I.L.R. 16 Cal 3833. We are of opinion that although the term stridhanam is used in Exhibit A as describing the gift, it is used in its primary sense of property given to a woman under coverture. We must look to the terms of the instrument to discover the intention of the donor. Though the donor intended that, after the lifetime of his daughter, the property should succeed in the lin...
Tag this Judgment!Ponaka Malla Reddy and ors. and Yindoor Rami Reddy and ors. Vs. Katam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ53
1. By the plaint the plaintiff sought to avoid certain alienations of his property made by his mother and guardian during his infancy and claimed to recover such property from the purchasers. It was averred that the first alienation, namely a mortgage of the property, was a sham transaction, the debt supposed to be secured by it having no existence, and that the subsequent sales were unjustifiable. The plaint also contained statements indicating that the plaintiff had other complaints against the defendant No. 2 with reference to certain monies alleged to have come into his hands. Although on the face of the plaint it was patent that these complaints contained in the 18th paragraph of the plaint constituted a cause of action wholly distinct from that arising with regard to the alienations, no objection was taken on behalf of defendants and the District Judge allowed the matter to pass unnoticed. If ever there was a case in which the wholesome rule laid down in Section 44 of the Civil P...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chetti Vs. Mangaikarasu Nachiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad113
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura (East), in so tar as it disallows appellant's claim upon the hypothecation bond 16, dated the 8th July, 1888. Respondents object to the decree so far as it allows his claim under Section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaint claimed Rs. 39,013-3-5, as principal and interest, simple and compound, due under Exhibit A, but the decree awarded Rs. 19,106-1-4 only. The contention on appeal is that the difference, viz., Rs. 19,900 and odd, has boen improperly disallowed, and the objection taken by respondents is that the bond A is not binding on the estate.2. The live issues upon which the parties proceeded to trial are set forth in paragraph 5 of the original judgment, and the Subordinate Judge decided the first, second, fourth and fifth in appellant's favour, but on the third issue he upheld respondents' contention and credited to the debts sued for two sums of money, viz., Rs. 3,90/5...
Tag this Judgment!Seeta Patta Mahadevi Vs. Suryudamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad128
Shephard, J.1. This appeal relates to the costs which the Subordinate Judge refused to allow to the defendant when dismissing the plaintiff's suit. So far as regards the vakil's fee, the appeal must, I think, be allowed, for the defendant's vakil is at least entitled to the sum for which he has certified, that sum not exceeding a moiety of the full ad valorem fee. With regard to the other costs incurred in connection with witnesses summoned by the defendant, there is more room for doubt. It is said that, as issues had been settled on all the questions of law and fact supposed to arise on the pleadings, the defendant was hound to have his witnesses ready, and that, if anybody was to blame, it was not the defendant's vakil but the Judge, who ought to have discovered that on the face of the plaint the suit as framed would not lie. This contention appears to me wholly unreasonable. The costs which a defeated plaintiff should be required to pay should be only the costs necessarily incurred ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »