Chennai Court March 1895 Judgments
Ambalavana Pandaram Vs. Vaguran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad52
1. The only question is whether the claim for rent more than three years prior to suit is time-barred. Plaintiff's contention is that it is not, as the document is registered and therefore Article 116 is applicable, the rent being for a period within six years prior to the suit. The Subordinate Judge has held Article 1161 to be inapplicable on the authority of the decision of Kernan and Brandt, JJ. in Ramasami Chetti v. Sokkanada Chetti 1 Mad. L.J. 737. This decision is, however, not reported in the authorized Law Reports, and is consequently not a binding authority. See Act XVIII of 1875, Section 3. Were it otherwise, we should have felt it our duty to have referred the question for decision by the Full Bench, as we are very clearly of opinion that the decision referred to is erroneous. In our opinion a contract which has, in fact, been registered is no less a 'contract in writing registered' within the meaning of Article 116, because it bears the signature of only one of the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Paloor Rajam Chetti Vs. C. Seshiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ114
Collins, C.J.1. This is a case stated for the opinion of the High Court under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, by the Chief Judge of that Court.2. On the 23rd November 1885, the High Court declared that under Section 33 of the Presidency Small, Cause Courts Act XV. of 1882 the granting of leave to sue a defendant out of the jurisdiction under Section 18, Clauses (a) and (6) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act XV of 1882 was a non-judicial or quasi-judicial Act within the meaning of that section which might be done by the Rgistrar of the Court of Small Causes, Madras.3. The question the High Court has to decide is--Has the High Court power to make such a rule, or is the rule, ultra vires?4. The 33rd section of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act XV of 1882 enacts that, 'any non-judicial or quasi-judicial Act which the Code of Civil Procedure as applied by this Act requires to be done by a judge...may be done by the Registrar of the Small Couse Court or b...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Rau and ors. Vs. Kandasami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad498
1. It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that there has been no final and valid dissolution of the nidhi or company, but that is not a point that has been referred for our consideration.2. The question referred assumes there was a dissolution and asks whether subsequent to such dissolution Seshayyar had power to endorse the notes.3. Our answer to this question must be in the negative, as, with the dissolution of the nidbi, the powers of the liquidator also come to an end.4. Cf. In re Pinto Silver Mining Co. Ch. D. 273 and In re London and Caledonian Marine Insurance Co. 11 Ch. D. 140....
Tag this Judgment!Vijayendra Tirthaswami Vs. Sudhindra Tirthaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ193
Subramania Aiyar, J.1. It is contended for the petitioner that the, Subordinate Judge acted illegally and without jurisdiction in taking evidence and going into the question whether the plaintiff's claim was res judicata and whether it was barred by limitation. I cannot accept this contention : Section 409 Civil Procedure Code permits the court to take evidence and hear the parties for the purpose of determining whether the applicant is or is not subject to any of the prohibitions specified in Section 407. Under the latter Section the application may be refused if the appellant fails to satisfy the court that he has a right to sue. This has been construed to mean that the appellant should show that he, has a good subsisting cause of action capable of enforcement in Court. Chat-tarpal Singh v. Raja Ram I.L.R. (1885) A. 661 I think therefore the Subordinate judge was entitled to consider the questions raised before him by the Counter-petitioner. The case in K. Ranganayaka Animal v. Venka...
Tag this Judgment!Vijendra Tirtha Swami Vs. Sudhindra Tirtha Swami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad197
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. It is contended for the petitioner that the Subordinate Judge acted illegally and without jurisdiction in taking evidence and going into the questions whether the plaintiff's claim was res judicata and whether it was barred by limitation. I cannot accept this contention. Section 409, Civil Procedure Code, permits the Court to take evidence and hear the parties for the purpose of determining whether the applicant is or is not subject to any of the prohibitions specified in Section 407. Under the latter section, the application may be refused if the appellant fails be satisfy the Court that he has a right to sue. This has been construed to mean that the appellant should show that he has a good subsisting cause of action capable of enforcement in Court Chattarpal Singh v. Raja Ram I.L.R. 7 All. 661.2. I think, therefore, the Subordinate Judge was empowered to consider the questions raised before him by the counter-petitioner. The case of Koka Ranganayaka Ammal v. Ko...
Tag this Judgment!Eshoor Doss Vs. Venkatasubba Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad306
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The only question to be decided in this appeal is what was the intention of the parties when they entered into the transaction in question. The appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Davies was originally heard by the late Sir T. Muttusami Ayyar and Mr. Justice Best, and there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges as to the intention of the parties at the time the contract was entered into. The plaintiff, a sowear, alleges that he entered into a contract with the defendant to buy from him Government 4 per cent, paper, that it was an honest commercial transaction, and that he expected the defendant to deliver to him the amount he bought, viz., Rs. 4,25,000 on the date named in the contract, and he would have been ready to pay for the same. The defendant, a retired vakil, on the other hand contends that it was a gambling transaction, that neither he nor the plaintiff intended that any paper should be delivered, but that the differences on...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanasami Gramani Vs. Periathambi Gramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad460
1. The plaintiff (respondent) is a devisee. The clause of the will under which he claims runs thus: 'One kani punja land in Ambili Mottu Palla punja should be given to Periathambi (plaintiff), my elder sister's son.' The said plot Ambili Mottu Palla punja measures one and a three-quarters kanis. The plaintiff sued for the possession of a particular portion measuring one kani out of the plot in question. The District Munsif decreed the claim. On appeal the District Judge, after rejecting the contention raised by the defendant, that the devise was void for uncertainty, confirmed the decree. He, however, observed in his judgment that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to choose which particular part of the field he shall have, that the field must be divided into two portions, one containing one kani and the other containing the remainder of the field with reference to quality of soil and the plaintiff shall have the portion containing one kani.2. It is argued before us that the Lower Courts ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanuja Ayyangar and ors. Vs. Narayana Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad374
1. The Judge's finding is that the purchase by plaintiff from first defendant was a speculative transaction though not champertous. It has been held by the Bombay High Court in Gopal Ramchandra v. Gangaram Anandishet I.L.R. 14 Bom. 72 that a similar transaction was not bad on the ground of being against public policy. Following that decision, we set aside the decree of the Court below and remand the appeal for disposal according to law.2. The costs in this Court will abide and follow the event....
Tag this Judgment!Muthu K.A.M. Rarnanadhan Chettiar Vs. Alkonda Pillai by His Next Frien ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ197
1. It is found by both the Courts that the mortgage to plaintiff under A was boria fide and for consideration, and this is a finding of fact not open to question in second appeal. The other facts of the case are :--Plaintiff obtained a decree on A against his mortgagor in O.S. No. 18 of 18.89 and in execution of that decree purchased the property on 29th June 1889 and was placed in possession on the 28th August 1889. See Exhibits F. G. and H. The property mortgaged to plaintiff was only his mortgagor's share which was unascertained till partition took place in June 1881 (Exhibit B), the date of A being 9th January 1880. ' Defendant is the assignee of a prior mortgage (Exhibit I, dated 28th October 1876) which comprised the whole of the family property, including the portion subsequently mortgaged to plaintiff under A (by one of the branches of the undivided family). Defendant as such assignee sued in O.S. No. 30 of 1888 and in execution of the decree obtained by him purchased the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanadhan Chetti Vs. Alkonda Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad500
1. It is found by both the Courts that the mortgage to plaintiff under Exhibit A was bond fide and for consideration, and this is a. finding of fact not open to question in second appeal.2. The other facts of the case are; Plaintiff obtained a decree on Exhibit A against his mortgagor in Original Suit No. 18 of 1889, and in execution of that decree purchased the property on 29th June 1889 and was placed in possession on the 28th August 1889. See Exhibits F, G and H. The property mortgaged to plaintiff was only his mortgagors' share which was unascertained till partition took place in June 1881 (Exhibit B), the date of A being 9th January 1880. Defendant is the assignee of a prior mortgage, (Exhibit I, dated 28th October 1876), which comprised the whole of the family property including the portion subsequently mortgaged to plaintiff under Exhibit A by one of the branches of the undivided family. Defendant as such assignee sued in Original Suit No. 30 of 1888, and in execution of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »