Chennai Court September 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.
Queen-empress Vs. Kuppayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad51
Best, J.1. I concur in the opinion expressed in re Gopal Burnawar 3 B.L.R. App. Cr. 13 that an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is binding only on the actual parties to the case in which it was passed.2. The mere fact of a person being examined as a witness in such a case does not make him a 'party ' bound by the order.3. The inconvenience pointed out by the District Magistrate can be avoided by care being taken to include as parties to proceedings under Section 145 all persons interested in, or claiming a right to, the property in dispute. Cf. Ram Chandra Das v. Monohur Roy I.L.R. 21 Cal. 294. This case is not one calling for interference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure....
Narasimha Charyulu and ors. Vs. Appa Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad122
1. We agree with the construction placed by the Subordinate Judge on the clause relating to default in payment of three instalments. The suggestion that the clause provides only for the case of the first two instalments not being paid on the due dates is an unreasonable one and it is not supported by the language of the instrument.2. We also think the Judge was right in charging the defendant with the full amount of the costs calculated on the amount originally claimed in the plaint, notwithstanding that Rs. 2,771 was paid before the plaint was filed. It is said that the plaintiff might have recovered Rs. 75 or at least some part of the value of the stamped papers used for the plaint, and we are referred to Section 51(a) of the Stamp Act and Section 54.3. In our opinion, Clause (a) of Section 51 applies only to cases of accidental spoiling of the paper of which the stamp is made, and does not cover cases in which a person has used the paper in the ordinary way, but has made a mistake i...
(Sic) Gurulingaswamy Vs. Shri Balusu Rama-lakshmamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ237
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. There are two proprietary Estates called Kapileswarapuram and Kesanakuru in the District of Godavari. Their last male owner was one Buchi Sarvarayudu. He died without male issue leaving him surviving a widow named RamaLakshmamma. On the 10th November 1888 she adopted the 2nd defendant, Pattabhiramayya and this suit was brought to have it declared that his adoption is invalid and inoperative.2. It is not alleged in the plaint that Buchi Sarvarayudu authorized Rama-Lakshmamma to adopt and it is the case of both parties that the adoption was made under the sanction or with the consent of his sapindas or gnatis. The plaint alleged that their consent was given under corrupt inducement. It is an undisputed fact that the 2nd defendant was the only son of hid father and he was given in adoption by his mother after the death of his father. On this point the plaintiff's case was that a Hindu widow in Southern India is incompetent to give as well as take a son in ad (sic) wi...
Gurulingaswami Vs. Ramalakshmamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad53
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. There are two proprietory estates called Kapileswarapuram and Kesanakuru in the district of Godavari. Their last male owner was one Buchi Sarvarayudu. He died without male issue, leaving him surviving a widow named Rama Lakshmamma. On the 10th November 1888 she adopted the second defendant, Pattabhiramayya, and this suit was brought to have it declared that his adoption is invalid and inoperative.2. It is not alleged in the plaint that Buchi Sarvarayudu authorized Rama Lakshmamma to adopt, and it is the case of both parties that the adoption was made under the sanction or with the consent of his sapindas or gnatis. The plaint alleged that their consent was given under corrupt inducement. It is an undisputed fact that the second defendant was the only son of his father, and he was given in adoption by his mother after the death of his father. On this point the plaintiff's case was that a Hindu widow in Southern India is incompetent to give as well as take a son in ...
Sundara Boyi Ammal Vs. Sama Rayer Alias Rama Rayer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ260
Muthusami Aiyar, J1. This was a suit on a hypothecation bond for Rs. 200, dated the 14th September 1883. It provided for repayment with interest at 12 per cent per annum on or before the 30th June 1885, but contained no express provision for interest after the due date. Two payments were made on account of the bond, Rs. 48 on the 5th June 1885 and Rs. 48 on the 9th September 1887. The first payment is endorsed on the bond as made for interest due for two years up to the 5th January 1885 and the 2nd payment is endorsed as made on account of interest due from September 1885 to September 1887.2. The plaintiff claimed interest up to date of suit. The defence was that there was no provision in the hypothecation bond for post diem interest, that it should not be charged on the property under hypothecation and that the payments should be credited to interest due up to due date and the balance to the principal. The District Munsif decreed post diem interest on the ground that the payments evid...
Duddu Gopaludu Vs. Gudata Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ257
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. This was a suit on a hypothecation bond, dated the 19th April 1882. As regards the principal amount Rupees 200 both the Courts below decreed the claim. As regards interest, the bond provides that the principal shall be paid back, in two instalments with interest at 21 per cent per annum, Rupees 100 with interest on the 8th May 1883 and the remainder with interest on the 27th April 1884. The bond then proceeds to stipulate that if each instalment is not paid on the due date, then interest shall be paid at 36 per cent per annum from the date of the bond.2. The plaint stated that there was default in paying both instalments and claimed Rupees 699-1-0 as interest due at the enhanced rate from the date of default.3. Relying on the case reported at I. L. R 12 M 161 the District Munsif decreed the interest claimed. But on appeal, the judge was of opinion that there was no provision in the bond for interest from the due date to date of payment and that the agreement to pa...
V.S.S.K. Narayana Aiyar Vs. Simha Astanasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ254
1. We are clearly of opinion that the subordinate Judge was in error in holding that it was necessary for plaintiff to ask for consequential relief by canceling the decree in original suit No. 19 of 1892.2. It is not necessary for plaintiff who is not bound by that decree to seek to set it aside. His only interest is in showing that the attachment obtained under that decree in the Cochin Court has no priority over the attachment before judgment which he obtained in his own suit against the same defendants--See Pachamuthu v. Chinnappan, I. L. R. 10 M 213 and Unni v. Kunchi Anma, I. L. R. 14 M 263. All that is necessary for plaintiff to obtain is a declaratory decree showing that the decree obtained by 4th defendant against defendants 1 to 3 is collusive and will not affect the attachment he has made.4. If he obtains that decree, it is for him to produce it in the Anji Kammal Zillah Court on his application for execution and claim priority over the attachment made by 4th defendant. No co...
Andi Achen Vs. Kombi Achen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad187
Best, J.1. As observed by the Subordinate Judge, the difference between the present suit and the former one is that in big former suit plaintiff asked only for a declaration of his status without seeking further Relief in the shape of payment to him of hid share of the malikana, whereas he now seeks both for the declaration and the further Relief.2. The former suit was expressly held to be not barred by the Pensions Act XXIII of 1871 on the ground that it was merely for a declaration as to the plaintiff's status and that though 'no doubt malikana is paid by Government on behalf of the stanom of the fifth Raja,' the suit 'did not seek a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to anything so payable.'3. As the malikana in question is clearly money paid by Government within the meaning of Section 4 of the Pensions Act cf. the recent decision of the Privy Council in Deo Kuar v. Man Kuar L.R. 21 IndAp 148 the present suit is, in my opinion, not maintainable in the absence of a certificat...
Venkatachella Chetti Vs. Venkata Subba Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad496
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The learned Judge rests his decision in this case against the plaintiff on his practically admitting that the contract sued on was for payment of differences only, and on the reasons assigned by him for his decision in Original Suit No. 74 of 1892. I concur in that opinion for the reasons mentioned in my judgment in Regular Appeal No. 36 of 1893. I would dismiss this appeal also with costs, and disallow the memorandum of objections.Best, J.2. This suit was tried with Original Suit No. 74 of 1892, which forms the subject of appeal in Original Suit Appeal No. 36 of 1893.3. The learned Judge has dismissed the suit for the reasons given in his judgment in the connected suit with the remark added that the plaintiff in this suit has 'put himself out of Court by practically admitting that the contract was for payment of differences only.' But on referring to the evidence in the case I am unable to find any such admission on the part of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's statemen...
Eshoor Doss Vs. Venkatasubba Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad480
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is a regular appeal from the decree of Mr. Justice Davies. Plaintiff (appellant) is a sowcar and defendant (respondent) is a Pleader of the High Court, both residing at Madras. On divers dates between the 24th October and the 4th November, 1891, the former agreed to buy and the latter to sell promissory notes of the Government of India, 4 per cent, loan, to the extent of 41/4 lakhs of rupees at premia varying from Rs. 5-4 to Rs. 5-11 per cent., the promissory notes themselves being deliverable on the 30th November 1891. On the 28th November 1891, two days prior to the date fixed for delivery, defendant agreed to buy and plaintiff to purchase [sell?] a similar amount of securities of the same kind to be delivered on the same date but at a premium of 7 per cent. The plaint stated that defendant broke his contract to sell and thereby became liable to pay plaintiff a compensation of Rs. 7,109-6-0, which represents the difference between the price at which he was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »