Chennai Court October 1895 Judgments
Kuppusami Naidu Vs. Smith and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad178
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff Coopooswamy Naidu sues the defendants Messrs. Smith and Company for the sum of Rs. 21,984-13-4 said to be due to him in consequence of their having broken the contract entered into by him with them on the 23rd August 1893, with reference to the construction of their new premises on which he had been working from October 1893 till May 1894 when he stopped building. The defendants deny the breach alleged and their liability to pay the amount claimed. The main questions for determination are (1) Did the defendants break the contract? (2) What amount, if any, are they bound to pay? These questions involve the decision of certain subsidiary points which will be dealt with in their proper place under the respective heads. Now as to the first question the facts, so far as they are material to it, appear so clearly in the written communications, which passed from time to time between the parties and between one or other of them, and Mr. Pogson appointed as ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhan Mayan and ors. Vs. the Bank of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad234
Shephard, J.1. The real question to be decided in this appeal is whether, under the circumstances, the defendant had a general lien on the jewels and was at liberty to retain them until the other debt owing by the plaintiff Kunhan Mayan was paid off. I see no reason to differ from the Subordinate Judge in his opinion on the evidence given with reference to the second issue, but the alleged fact of notice having been given to the agent that the jewels belonged to other persons is not, in my opinion, material, for it is not said that Kunhan Mayan was acting otherwise than with their consent in pledging the jewels. Indeed, the evidence in the case of one pledge is to the effect that the real owner was actually present and took part in the transaction; in another case, the husband of the alleged owner is said to have been present. Under these circumstances and seeing that the bank agent was, as the discharged cash-keeper admits, careful to deal with the plaintiff Kunhan Mayan only, I do no...
Tag this Judgment!Walluvanad Vallabha Valia Rajah Avergal Vs. Mankata Kovilakath Vedapur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ282
H. Collins Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to a Full Bench by Shephard and Best, JJ., is ' whether after the time mentioned in the decree and before any order for sale, the mortgagor is precluded from redeeming the property?' The decree in question directs that, upon the plaintiff (the mortgagor) paying a certain sum into Court on or before a certain day, the defendants (the mortgagees) 'shall deliver up the mortgaged property to the plaintiff and, that, if such payment be not made on or before the said date, the said property be sold.' The money was not paid within the time limited, but it was paid into Court after that date, and the property was put in possession of the plaintiff under the decree. The mortgage refused to receive the money and applied for restoration of the property on the ground that it was no longer open to the plaintiff, after the expiration of the time limited, to apply for execution of the decree. The District Judge ruled in favour of the mortgagee on the autuh...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramakrishna Rau and anr. Vs. Bhujanga Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad107
1. The substantial question in issue is whether Ramayamma took an absolute or a qualified estate. The property was stridhanam in the hands of her mother but it is settled law that such property, when inherited by a daughter, ceases to be stridhanam in her daughter's hands. The decision in Sengamalathammal v. Valayuda Mudali 3 M.H.C.R. 312 is the leading case upon this subject, and it has been followed in numberless cases in this Presidency as also in Calcutta. See Prankissen Laha v. Sreemutty Noyanmoney Dassee I.L.R. 5 Cal. 222. No doubt at all would have been felt in this case had it not been for the decision of this Court in Narasayya v. Venkayya 2 Mad. L.J. 149 which has been represented as being inconsistent with the earlier decisions. The District Judge who decided the case evidently considered it inconsistent, though he followed the earlier decisions, and so also did a Division Bench of this Court in Virasangappa Chetti v. Budrappa Chetti I.L.R. 19 Mad. 110 to which we have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Velu Pandaram Vs. Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad243
1. The ancestors of plaintiff' and of second defendant were hereditary trustees of the charity called Nakshathramalai Kattalai attached to a temple of Thirukadaiyur, and were jointly entitled to its management. It was at one time taken under the control of Government, but was redelivered in 1850-57 to Velu Pandaram, plaintiff's grandfather, as hereditary audinakarta, since which time Velu Pandaram and his divided coparcener Kuppa Pandaram-continued in joint management. In 1868 Velu Pandaram had been succeeded by his son (plaintiff's father), and Kuppa Pandaram had also died, leaving a minor son (second defendant) and a widow, Visalakshi. On 17th September 1868 Visalakshi, on behalf of her minor son, executed a registered deed of conveyance of his share in the joint management to first defendant's predecessor, the then Pandara Sannadhi of Dharmapuram mutt (Exhibit A), and in the following year (February 13, 1869) plaintiff's father executed a similar deed in respect to his half share in...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Chetti and ors. Vs. Arunachellam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad140
1. It will be convenient to deal first with the contention on the part of the defendants (appellants in No. 40) that there was no consideration for the undertaking given by them, because the order of this Court, dated the 13th April 1885, was an order which the Court had no power to pass under Section 608 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is said that such an order could not be made against a respondent in a Privy Council Appeal, who had already been put in possession in execution of the decree appealed against.2. On the other hand, we are referred to a decision of the Privy Council in Mussumat Jariut-ool-Butool v. Mussumat Hoseinee Begum 10 M.I.A. 196 in which this point was considered with reference to the law as it stood under the Bengal Regulation of 1797. In that case it was held that it was competent to the Court to require security for protection of property during an appeal even after the execution of the decree. See also Sooruj Monee Dayee v. Sudanund Mohapattur 12 W.R. 296. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Vs. Parvathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad145
1. It was open to the first defendant to plead in Original Suit No. 37 of 1884 that he was already in possession and therefore that a suit for a declaration would not lie. He did not choose to do this, and therefore cannot fall back upon the fact that his possession dates from March 1884 as a ground of defence to the present action (Section 13, Code of Civil Procedure, Explanation 2). Independently of this, however, it is found as a fact that plaintiffs did not actually know that first defendant had obtained possession. We cannot infer that they had constructive knowledge, because their karnavan had notice of the application for execution in December 1883. The plaintiffs are not acting with their karnavan, whose conduct has necessitated their acting independently of him, and therefore they are not affected by his knowledge if such knowledge be proved. We do not think the decision in Kunhiamma v. Kunhunni I.L.R. 16 Mad. 140 expresses dissent from the ground on which Ambu v. Ketlilamma I...
Tag this Judgment!Suryanarayana Vs. Narendra Thatraz
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad255
1. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 6,583-13-6 as balance due under the document A, alleged to have been executed by the defendant's father to plaintiff's father on the 29th September 1879, for Rs. 7,000 repayable on 21st July 1880 with interest at 6 annas per cent, per mensem. The Judge has dismissed the suit, finding (1) that the genuineness of A is not proved; and (2) that the claim is barred by the law of limitation.2. A number of letters were produced before the Judge as containing acknowledgments of the debt, and therefore saving the suit from the time-bar. The Judge rejected these letters as inadmissible by reason of their not bearing a one-anna stamp under Article 1 of schedule I of the Stamp Act. It is contended for appellant that, in thus holding, the Judge was in error--a contention that must be allowed to be good see Bishambar Nath v. Nand Kishore I.L.R. 15 All. 56 Fatechand Harchand v. Kisan I.L.R. 18 Bom. 614. It is however, also found by the Judge that, even if admitt...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tirunarasimha Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ249
ORDER1. On the 27th April 1895 an order was issued by the Taluk Magistrate of Madurantakam under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code forbidding the erection of a stonecut Vadagalainamam over the entrance of an Odayavar shrine in a certain temple on the ground that such erection would lead to a riot. The Magistrate took proceedings in the first place on the report of the Village Munsif,--which was followed by a Police report and a petition from various persons. Before passing the order he took depositions from the Dharmakartha (Tirunarasimha Chariar) and several others.2. There is no question as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to pass the order and under Section 453 of the Criminal Procedure Code his proceedings are not subject to revision by the High Court. But after the issue of the order viz on May 10th 1895, the Magistrate under Section 476 Criminal Procedure Code directed the prosecution of the trustee Tirunarasimha Chariar for giving false evidence (Sections 181 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!Paya Matathil Appu Alias Kesava Nambi Vs. Kavumel Amina and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ279
JUDGMENT 1. We think it is competent to the court to add parties who were defendants in the Court of First Instance, though not joined as respondents in the Lower Appellate Court. In the case referred to, Section A. 165 of 1894, the party was not added by the Court, but by the appellant himself. Section 559 occurs in the chapter of the Code relating to appeals from original decrees and it is by Section 587 that this section is, so far as may be, made applicable to second appeals. We do not think it was intended to preclude the court from adding in second appeal persons who had been originally joined in the suit. We are unable to follow the decision in Chunni v. Lala Ram (1893) I. L. R. 36 A. 6. 2. The Judge considers that a veruntpattom tenant claiming under a lease executed by the Ottidar is not in a position to redeem the prior kanom. He observes that the lessee is not mentioned specifically in Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act as belonging to the class of persons entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »