Chennai Court February 1895 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Subbaraya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad487
1. Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, does not make any particular form of application for sanction necessary, nor does it enact that application shall be made by any particular person. The section merely provides that no Court shall take cognizance of certain offences without a sanction.2. In the present case the sanction might have been given by the Second-class Magistrate or by some other Court to which his Court is subordinate, and for the purpose of Section 195 that other Court is denned to be the Court to which appeals from the Second-class Magistrate ordinarily lie.3. Under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal lies to the District Magistrate, but, if the District Magistrate has directed that all appeals from Second and Third-class Magistrates in the Kallakurichi taluk shall be heard by the Deputy Magistrate--and we understand this to be the case--it follows that all appeals from their decisions shall be presented to the Deputy Magistrate, and the Deputy Magistrate'...
Tag this Judgment!Orr and anr. Vs. Neelamegam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad395
1. The question is whether a karnam in a settled zamindari is an 'officer of Government' within the meaning of Article 3 of Schedule II of the Small Cause Courts Act IX of 1887. The Subordinate Judge appears to have considered that the phrase 'officer of Government' is synonymous with 'public servant.' Officers of Government are, no doubt, public servants, but every public servant is not an officer of Government. This is clear from the Article itself in which the Court of Wards is expressly mentioned, indicating that otherwise it would not come within the Article.2. We are clearly of opinion that the karnam in question is not an officer of Government, and that Article 3 is no bar to the suit in the Small Cause Court....
Tag this Judgment!Thurai Rajah Vs. Jainilabdeen Rowthan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad484
1. This is an application to admit an appeal to Her Majesty in Council from the decree of this Court in Appeal No. 23 of 1884. The decree was passed on January 20th, 1885. The appellant was at that time a minor under the Court of Wards. No appeal was preferred by the Court of Wards or by any other person on the minor's behalf, but this appeal is presented within six months of the minor's attaining majority. It is objected that the application to admit the appeal is barred, though not denied that in other respects the requirements of Section 596, Civil Procedure Code, would be satisfied.2. Article 1771, Schedule II of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of six months for the admission of such an appeal, and the contention of the appellant's pleader is that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 7 of the Limitation Act, since in January 1885 the appellant was under a legal disability to make the application in consequence of his minority. To the argument that Section 7 grants no ind...
Tag this Judgment!Prahhala Pullamma Vs. Garlapati Bradosham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ148
1. Burra Surya Naraina, the 5th defendant, one Thamrna Narasimnian and certain others jointly applied to the revenue authorities and obtained from them some waste lands which belonged to the Government. They proceeded ,to make a division of the property. But disputes having arisen among them, they submitted their differences to the arbitration of Mr. Koralla Subrayudu, a Deputy,| 'Collector. According to the settlement made by this officer the lands in question 7-76 acres were allotted (with other land's) to the share of the said Thamma Narasimrnan, who sold the share : thus obtained by him to the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff, however, failed to, get possession. He brought a suit in 1882 against the 5th defendant and others, got a decree in his favour, obtained possession of the lands and leased them to 1st and 2nd defendants.3. The 5th defendant under whom the other defendants claim as will presently appear, had, however, mortgaged to the 7th defendant the lands in question before the s...
Tag this Judgment!Pullamma Vs. Pradosham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad316
1. Burra Surya Narayana, the fifth defendant, one Thamma Narasimman and certain others jointly applied to the revenue authorities and obtained from them some waste lands which belonged to the Government. They proceeded to make a division of the property. But disputes having arisen among them they submitted their differences to the arbitration of Mr. Koralla Subrayudu, a Deputy Collector. According to the settlement made by this officer, the lands in question, 776 acres, were allotted (with other lands) to the share of the said Thamma Narasimman, who sold the share thus obtained by him to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, failed to get possession. He brought a suit in 1882 against the fifth defendant and others, got a decree in his favour, obtained possession of the lands and leased them to first and second defendants.2. The fifth defendant, under whom the other defendants claim, as will presently appear, had, however, mortgaged to the seventh defendant the lands in question before...
Tag this Judgment!Pragada Krishnamma Naidu and ors. Vs. Vajja Akhula Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ82
1. It is objected on behalf of appellant that the remand order of 11th May 1893 was made without jurisdiction as the suit had not been disposed of on a preliminary point, and that consequently all the subsequent proceedings are invalid.2. We must accede to this contention. It is supported by the decision of this Court in Section A. No. 1580 of 1892.3. Following that decision, we set aside the order of remand and all the proceedings subsequent thereto, including the decree now appealed against, and direct the Judge to dispose of the Original Appeal No. 56 of 1893 according to law.4. The costs hitherto incurred will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!R. Krishna Pillai and ors. Vs. K. Rengasamy Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ187
1. The Subordinate Judge has agreed with the District Munsif in finding that the Kanom sued on is not proved to be genuine. But he has nevertheless given plaintiff a decree on the ground that Exhibits A, B, C & E, contain ad-missions of 1st defendant and his brother being Kanomdal, under those through whom plaintiff claims, and that these, are i admissions made within the statutory period so as to prevent the plaintiff's claim to redeem being time barred. We agree with West J, in Govindrav Deshmuk v. Bagho Deshmukh I.L.R. (1884) Section 548 in holding that a plaintiff failing to establish the mortgage on which the suit was based should not be allowed to fall back upon some other as to which admissions may have been made by the defen-dants in other proceedings. In Unnian v. Rama I.L.R. (1884) M. 415 the decree was passed on a mortgage expressly pleaded, and relied on by the defendant; so also in Unicha Kandyib Kunhi Kutti Nair v. Valia Pidigail Kimhanied Kutti Maraccar 4 M.H.C.R. 3592. ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Pillay and ors. Vs. Rangasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad462
1. The Subordinate Judge has agreed with the District Munsif in finding that the kanom sued on is not proved to be genuine. But he has, nevertheless, given plaintiff a decree on the ground that Exhibits A, B, C and D contain admissions of first defendant and his brother being kanomdar under those through whom plaintiff claims, and that these are admissions made within the statutory period so as to prevent the plaintiff's claim to redeem being time-barred. We agree with West, J., in Govindrav Deshmukh v. Ragho Deshmukh I.L.R. 8 Bom. 543 in holding that a plaintiff failing to establish the mortgage on which the suit was based should not be allowed to fall back upon some other as to which admissions may have been made by the defendants in other proceedings. In Unnian v. Rama I.L.R. 8 Mad. 415 the decree was passed on a mortgage expressly pleaded and relied on by the defendant; so also in Kunhi Kutti Nair v. Kutti Maraccar 4 M.H.C.R. 3592. We therefore set aside the decree of the lower App...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Reddi Vs. Thiruvengada Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ65
1. It is not denied that the question put on 27th April 1891 were protected by privilege--but it is contended that there was no privilege as regards any statements made by defendant on the 2nd May 1891. The plaint, however does not set out the precise defamation alleged on May 2nd in such a way that the allegation can be proved or answered. Independently of this, the plaintiff's wife is sui juris and can sue herself, and we agree in the view of the Allahabad Court expressed in Daya v. Param Sukh I.L.R. (1884) A 104 that in such a case the husband cannot sue in his own right. This view has also been taken by Muthusami Aiyar and Best J.J. in Section A. No. 107 of 1894 on the file of this court. There is nothing in the plaint set out to justify the contention that the husband was himself defamed.2. The second appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniam Vs. Perumal Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad454
1. We are of opinion that what was sold by Exhibit A was a debt secured by a charge upon immoveable property. Such a debt is an actionable claim and the assignee will be entitled to a personal decree for the debt as well as to the charge. Under Section 8[1] of the Transfer of Property Act, the operation of the transfer of the debt is to pass to the transferee the securities for the debt, but what is sold is primarily not the charge, but the debt. So far as the sale creates a charge in favour of the plaintiff it is a charge for Rs. 70[2] only, and falls within the provisions of Section 18 of the Registration Act. See Satra Kumaji v. Visram Hasgavada I.L.R. 2 Bom. 97.2. Though it is true that the term 'other intangible thing' in Section 54[3] of the Transfer of Property Act might include a charge, the expression must be construed with reference to its context and to the heading of the chapter. The chapter relates to 'sales of immoveable property,' and the context classes other intangible...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›