Chennai Court December 1895 Judgments
Sreeman Sadagopa Srinivasa Swami, Alias Vangipuram Rangachariar Vs. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ75
1. We do not think that Section 622, Civil Procedure Code, applies, since, under Section 591, the order may be made ground of objection in the appeal against the final decree.2. See Motilal Kashibhai v. Nana I.L.R. 18 B. 35 in which a previous decision of this Court has been followed.3. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sadasook Gambir Chund Vs. Knnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad96
Shephard, J.1. This petition raises an important question with regard to the practice of the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court in dealing with applications under the 37th Section of the Act of 1882. The application in this case was made on behalf of the defendants, against whom a decree had been passed. It is made in the form of an appeal against the decision of the Second Judge, and is based on various grounds, three of which relate merely to questions of the appreciation of evidence. In their judgment on the application the learned Chief Judge and his colleagues discuss the evidence, and deal with the case precisely in the manner in which an Appellate Court might have treated it. They differ from the conclusion of fact at which the Second Judge had arrived and find in favour of the defendants. They hold that the case is one in which, under the rules of the 16th February 1886, they are justified in entertaining the application and dealing with the case accordingly. The result was th...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras Vs. Sarangapani Mud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad154
1. This is a suit in ejectment brought by the Municipal Commissioners for the Town of Madras for the purpose of recovering from the defendant a small piece of ground in Mint Street now covered by the pavement and pial in front of the defendant's house. The plaintiffs allege that this piece of ground was originally included in the street which, by successive Acts of the Legislature, has been vested in the Municipal Commissioners for the use of the public. They are unable to state the exact date of the encroachment, but say the same came to their knowledge in February 1893, when the defendant applied for a certificate for the said ground from the Collector of Madras. They allege that the defendant could acquire no statutory title to land which forms part of the public highway, but that even if the Act of Limitation does apply, the suit is not barred.2. The defendant bought the house in 1861 and it is admitted that the site now covered by the pial and pavement is not included in the measu...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalakshi Vs. Ramasami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad127
Subramania Ayyar, JJ.1. The first question raised in this case is whether the presentation of the plaint and the prosecution of the suit by the plaintiff (appellant) when she was yet a minor and without the aid of a next friend were void or were mere irregularities which the defendants had by their conduct waived.2. In the recent case of Doorga Mohun Dass v. Tahir Ally I.L.R. 22 Cal. 274 Sale, J. said: 'The reason why no proceeding can be taken by an infant without the assistance of a next friend is, as stated in Daniell's Chancery Practice, 6th Edition, p. 105, 'on account of an infant's supposed want of discretion, and his inability to bind himself and make himself liable for costs.' And it would seem that the rule was intended for the protection and benefit of defendants, for it has been held that when a defendant waives this benefit and protection, the suit may proceed without a next friend.' In ex parte Brocklebank L.R. 6 Ch. D. 358 cited by the learned Judge in support of his opi...
Tag this Judgment!Virasangappa Shetti Vs. Rudrappa Shetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad110
1. One Virasangappa, who originally held considerable property, including that in litigation in the present suit, by his will dated 10th January 1826 devised it to his daughters Kusavva, Malakavva and Dadavva on terms and conditions which it is unnecessary to state fully. It is sufficient for our present purpose to say that he directed that the three ladies should live in union and enjoy the property jointly, and that, if they should find it inconvenient to do so, the same should be divided into four shares, of which Kusavva and Malakavva should each take one share and Dadavva and her husband the remaining two shares. Up to 1860 no separation took place, but in September of that year an arrangement was made, which was brought about by Kusavva, and to which all the descendants of Virasangappa that were then alive were parties, they being (i) Kusavva, the eldest daughter; (ii) Nanjavva, daughter of Malakavva, the second daughter, who had died before that time; (iii) Nanjavva's daughter R...
Tag this Judgment!Kariyadan Pokkar Vs. Kayat Beeran Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad461
ORDER1. It is not denied that the defendant is the father of the three children for whom maintenance is sought. The complainant is the karnavan of the mother's tarwad and presumably comes forward as the de facto guardian of the children. The Joint Magistrate has dismissed the petition on the ground that there is a ruling of the High Court that an order for separate maintenance cannot be made against a father if he is willing to take the children. The ruling is not quoted, but apparently it is an order of Best, J., passed in In re Kunhammavu Criminal Revision Case No. 89 of 1893, unreported.that is referred to. That is an order of a single Judge issued without any hearing in Court and without notice to the parties, and, with great respect, we venture to question the soundness of the decision.2. In that case, like the present, the parties were Moplahs, and it was alleged that the defendant had divorced his wife. In the present case a divorce is also alleged, but it is not found whether t...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Kota Bapanamma Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad165
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plots three and four in the plan which have been taken up as forest reserve belong to the Government village of Pedda Kopalli or to the claimant's village of Lakshminarayana devupeta. The District Judge found in favour of the claimant.2. It is admitted that the two plots have, for the last thirty years, been in the possession of the claimant, but the Government Pleader contends that, under the Madras Forest Act, it is for the claimant to make out his title in the first instance; that claimant has not produced his sale-deed, nor has he proved as against Government an adverse possession of sixty years. It is alleged that the Bhubund accounts prove Government possession up to 1854, and therefore that the presumption that claimant's thirty years' possession continued from an earlier period is rebutted.3. There is, however, a clear finding of the District Judge in paragraph 15 of his judgment that there is no satisfactory proof of possession at ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarau Nayudu Vs. Yagana Pantulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad90
1. This suit No. 6550 of 1895 was instituted in the Presidency Small Cause Court on the 26th April last under Section 18(a)1 of Act XV of 1882, the leave of the Court having first been given as was necessary, because the defendants do not reside within the local limits of its jurisdiction but in the Kistna District. A precisely similar suit had been filed on the 25th of March 1892 by the leave of the Registrar of the Court, and it was pending until the 26th April, last, when it was thrown out on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it, because the leave of the Registrar was not the leave of the Court as had recently been declared by the High Court Rajam Chetti v. Seshayya I.L.R. 18 Mad. 236. Up till then, the Registrar had been exercising the power for many years under a rule passed by the High Court in 1885, which was now found to be ultra vires. The plaintiff's present suit is barred by limitation if he cannot claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›