Chennai Court April 1895 Judgments
AjijuddIn Sahib Vs. Sheik Budan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad492
Best, J.1. The appellant is assignee of the decree in Original Suit No. 76 of 1890, which directed that the amount decreed should be recovered on the responsibility of the first and second defendants' shares in the land mortgaged by the bond on which that suit was brought.2. That bond was executed by the first and second defendants (mother and son) on account of a debt contracted by the formers deceased husband, the father of second defendant. Three other children of first defendant were also joined as defendants in that suit, but they and their shares in the property were exonerated from liability for the debt.3. Since the passing of the decree, one of those three children of first defendant has died and the decree-holder applied to have attached and sold in execution of his decree not only the 9/24 share in the mortgaged property to which the first and second defendants were entitled at the date of the decree, but also the shares which have now devolved on the above two defendants ou...
Tag this Judgment!Tholappala Charlu Vs. Venkata Charlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad62
1. The District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it was not maintainable. He based his decision on the ground that the suit was analogous to that decided in Subbaraya Chetti v. Venkatanarasu Chetti Second Appeal No. 200 of 1891 (unreported) in which it was held that a suit for a declaration that a person was entitled to the exclusive right to the office of a desayi would not lie, the right of desayi being alleged to be a right to settle casba disputes in certain villages. It is urged upon us in appeal that the right claimed by plaintiff is a right to an hereditary office, to which titles have been attached by the former ruling power ; that the right of the Anagundi Baja guru carried with it a monopoly, and that it had been found by the District Munsif that defendants had been guilty of personation and deceit, assuming the hereditary titles of the plaintiff, and under such false pretences receiving fees, which would otherwise have been paid to plaintiff and not to...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesa Tawker and ors. Vs. Ramasami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad338
1. This suit was instituted in the District Court at Trichinopoly for an injunction restraining first defendant from executing a decree obtained by him against first and second plaintiffs, on the ground that the debt in question is included in a composition-deed executed by the general body of first and second plaintiff's creditors (including first defendant) appointing the other plaintiffs and second defendant trustees for the realization of the debtors' assets and payment of their debts, including the judgment-debt in question, in consideration of which all the debtors' assets were made over to the joint trustees.2. The suit was dismissed by the District Judge under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure as being opposed to Section 56, Clauses (a) and (b) of the Specific Relief Act, No. I of 1877.3. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs, on whoso behalf it is contended (i) that the Judge was wrong in dismissing the suit under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure after it had be...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaraman Chetti Vs. Iburam Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad327
1. Appellant sued the respondent in the District Munsif's Court at Negapatain for the recovery of Rs. 1,031-13-10 as due to him from respondent under a decree obtained by appellant in the French Court at Karikal. The District Munsif gave appellant a decree for the whole amount, but on the defendant's appeal the Subordinate Judge modified the decree by disallowing the present appellant's claim to a sum of Rs. 700, which had been awarded as damages.2. Hence the present appeal with regard to this sum of Rs. 700, while respondent has objected under Section 561 to the rest of the decree on the ground that the decree of Karikal Court was a nullity in consequence of its being passed against one who was a British subject over whom the French Court had no jurisdiction.3. First, as to the appeal, there can be no doubt that the Subordinate Judge was right in disallowing the Rs. 700 claimed as damages, which were altogether prospective at the time when the suit was instituted in the Karikal Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaramayyar Vs. Nigamadullah Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad342
1. The plaintiff sues for recovery of Rs. 10,628,, principal and interest said to be due to him upon a mortgage bond executed on the 19th June 1888 by one Nidashah, deceased, and the first defendant jointly for Rs. 5,000.2. The defendants Nos. 2 to 5 have been made parties as being persons in possession of or claiming interest in the village of Ponmanatham mortgaged under the document sued on.3. The first defendant admitted the plaintiff's claim. The second and third defendants contested the suit. Seven issues were raised [3^4] and evidence was adduced by the parties on the various questions in controversy between them.4. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the bond sued on and the previous transactions which led up to it were unsupported by any consideration, and had been got up collusively in the names of the plaintiff and certain others who are his relations by the plaintiff's seventh witness, Subramania Ayyar, formerly the agent of Nidashah.5. T...
Tag this Judgment!Narasamma Vs. Subbarayadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad364
Best, J.1. It is contended on behalf of appellant (i) that, as Exhibit I contains no description of the property sufficient to identify the same, as required by Section 21, Clause (a) of the Registration Act, it could not be registered, and consequently its registration was ultra vires and inoperative for the purposes of Section 48 of the Act; and (ii) that even if the registration be held to be valid, as it was entered only in book No. 4 and not in book No. 1 prescribed by Section 51 of the Act, it is not such as to affect immoveable property.2. As observed by Pigot, J., in Baij Nath Tewari v. Sheo Sahoy Bhagul I.L.R. 18 Cal. 556 the object of the Registration Act is to provide not only a guarantee of the genuineness of instruments, but also a record from which persons who may desire to enter into dealings with respect to property may be able to obtain information as to title--or to quote the words of the Privy Council in Mohammed Ewaz v. Birj Loll L.R. 4 IndAp 166 'Registration is ma...
Tag this Judgment!Edward Clarke Vs. the Chairman, Ootacamund Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad310
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree passed by the District Judge of Coimbatore reversing a decree of the Acting Subordinate Judge (Mr. Elliot) of Ootacamund.2. The suit was brought by the chairman of the Municipal Council of Ootacamund against Mr. Edward Clarke, the owner of certain lands within the municipal limits, called Bishopsdown and Belmont, for certain taxes levied under the authoriuy of the Madras Act IV of 1884.3. The municipal council on the third of March 1892 resolved that a tax on all lands unappropriated to buildings be imposed according to area under Section 63, Clause (2) of the above Act, and that it be fixed for 1892-93 at Rs. 1-8-0 per acre or 476 pies per 80 square yards. The council allege that about 248'83 acres of the defendant's holding comes within the definition of land unappropriated to any building and therefore becomes subject to the tax of Rs. 1-8-0 per acre.4. Two questions arise--(1) Has the municipal council power to levy a tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Meer HussaIn Saib, Son and Legal Representative of Silaman Saib ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ230
Subramania Aiyar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the decree in favour of the appellant in Original Suit No. 116 of 1888 Subbaramappa Nayanivaru (died) 2. His representative Kumarasami Nayanivaru now called Kumara Timmappa Nayanivaru on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Chittoor, is a decree for sale within the meaning of Section 88 of Act IV of 1882 as is contended by the appellant or merely a decree for money as contended by the Judgment-debtor, the respondent. I am of opinion that the appellant's contention is well-founded, notwithstanding that the decree has been drawn up inartistically. In determining a question like this regard must be had to the intention of the parties as disclosed by the pleadings in the suit in which the decree was passed as well as the intention of the court which passed the decree so far as it can be gathered from the judgment and the decree. See Bam Prasad Barn v. Baghunandan Bam I. L. R. (1880) A, 239 Debi Charan v. Pirbhu Din Bam. I....
Tag this Judgment!Thayar Ammal and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad331
Best, J.1. The sole question for decision in this appeal is whether plaintiffs (appellants) are entitled to interest post diem. The Judge has given them a decree for the principal amount with interest at the rate stipulated in the bond to 31st December 1882, the date mentioned in the bond as that on which the principal amount was to be paid and the property redeemed.2. The Judge is right in holding that Exhibit A contains no provision for interest post diem and that Exhibit B cannot be said to contain any admission of liability to pay such interest.3. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Mansab Ali v. Gulab Chand I.L.R. 10 All. 85 and Bhagwant Singh v. Daryao Singh I.L.R. 11 All 416 also by the Calcutta High Court in Gudri Koer v. Bhubaneswari Goomar Singh I.L.R. 19 Cal 19 and two other cases therein referred to--one of which is reported as a note at page 23,--and also by this Court in Badi Bibi Sahibal v. Sami Pillai I.L.R. 18 Mad. 257 that post diem interest is awarded in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kelu Mulacheri Nayar and ors. Vs. Chendu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad157
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. As laid down in Ramachandra Joishi v. Hazi Kassim I.L.R. 16 Mad. 207 the condition necessary to a remand under Section 562 as the section now stands is the omission to determine the merits. This condition did not exist in the present case as the District Munsif had disposed of the case on the merits. The order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge must, therefore, be held to be illegal. The case to which I was referred on behalf of the respondent is distinguishable from the present case, inasmuch as there the order of remand was passed by the High Court, which could not deal with the merits under Section 565, the provisions whereof have to be read with those of Sections 562 and 564. And these sections are under Section 587 applicable to second appeals only as far as may be. There is thus in the matter in question no analogy between the position of the High Court hearing a second appeal and that of a Court hearing the first appeal Ganesh Bhikaji Juvekar v. Bhi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »