Chennai Court August 1895 Judgments
Kanakayya Vs. Narasimhulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad38
Parker, J.1. The finding is that the wall in dispute is a party-wall, belonging to plaintiffs and defendants as tenants in common. It is also found that the agreement A has no reference to the plaint wall.2. The plaint asks that the part of the wall newly raised by the defendants shall be removed, and on the authority of Watson v. Gray L.R. 14 Ch. D. 192 I am of opinion that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief asked for. It is true that the refusal of plaintiffs to give the required permission may be ill-natured and that the raising of the wall will not really harm them; but, at the same time, the altered wall is no longer the same wall and the newly-erected portion will not be a common or party-wall. The erection of it might give rise to inconvenience and quarrels.3. I would give second plaintiff a decree for removing the portion of the wall newly raised, but as both parties have set up false pleas, I would direct that each pay his own costs throughout.Subramania Ayyar, J.4. I was a...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Kothan Vs. Kalianasundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad219
ORDERBest, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge is right in setting aside the sale held in execution of a decree (in Original Suit No. 58 of 1887) obtained by one Ramasami Sastri against the respondent's father Vythilingam Pillai. Appellant is the purchaser of the property at the said sale.2. The Subordinate Judge's order proceeds on the ground that, at the time of attachment and sale of the property, Vythilingam Pillai was a person adjudged under Act XXXV of 1858 to be of unsound mind and therefore a person who should have been represented by a guardian ad litem as required by Sections 456 and 460 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and not having been so represented, the sale must be held to be null and void.3. In Ramasami v. Bagirathi I.L.R. 6 Mad. 180 and Krishnayya v. Unnissa Begam I.L.R. 15 Mad. 399 it has been held that even where the judgment-debtor dies after attachment but before sale, and the sale takes place without making the represent...
Tag this Judgment!Timmanna Banta Vs. Mahabala Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad167
Best, J.1. The preliminary objection is taken that, as the order sought to be revised is one remanding the case and therefore appealable under Clause 28 of Section 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this petition for revision under Section 622 is not maintainable. On the other hand, it is contended for the petitioner that the order in question being one passed under Section 588 (Article 16), any further appeal is barred by the last paragraph of the same section, which says that 'orders passed in appeals under this section shall be final.'2. Clause 28 must, I think, be read with the final paragraph, and so read, it must, I think, be held not to apply to orders of remand made in appeals under the same section.3. The preliminary objection is therefore disallowed. Then the question is whether the Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding that the counter-petitioner has a locus standi under Section 311 of the Code. The case in Abdul Huq Mozoomdar v. Mohini Mohun Shaha I.L.R. 14 Cal. 240 on whi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Koothoor Subbarayar's Estate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ215
1. The only point argued on behalf of the Petitioner was that any proceedings under the 88th section of the Criminal Procedure Code were vitiated by the fact that the proclamation had not been published in due accordance with the provisions of the previous section. The 87th section authorizes the issuing of a proclamation requiring the absconding person to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. The section then '' proceeds :--The proclamation shall be published as follows:--(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court house. 2. The proclamation requiring the petitioner to appear on the. ...
Tag this Judgment!imbichi Kandan and ors. Vs. Imbichi Pennu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad1
1. The District Munsif clearly found that plaintiff's were divided from the late Changaran and had no community of interest with him. This finding was not questioned in the grounds of appeal to the lower Appellate Court, and the Subordinate Judge was, therefore, right in laying down that the question was whether, according to the law and custom followed by Makkatayam Tiyans of Calicut, the property of a deceased person goes to his father's brothers who are not joint in interest with him rather than to his mother, widow and daughter.2. The decision of the Subordinate Judge is entirely in accordance with the principles laid down in Rarichan v. Perachi I.L.R. 15 Mad. 281 and Raman Menon v. Chathunni I.L.R. 17 Mad. 184. It has been decided that the rule of impartibility applies to Makkatayam Tiyans of Calicut and in Rarichan v. Perachi I.L.R. 15 Mad. 281 following the principle that self-acquired property lapses to the tarwad, it was held that the undivided brother succeeded in preference ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Subbarayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad3
1. The only point argued on behalf of the petitioner was that any proceeding under the 88th Section of the Criminal Procedure Code was vitiated by the fact that the proclamation had not been published in due accordance with the provisions of the previous section. The 87th Section authorizes the issuing of a proclamation requiring the absconding person 'to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.' The section then proceeds:The proclamation shall be published as follows:(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; and(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house.2. The proclamation requiring the petitioner to appear on the 11th Decem...
Tag this Judgment!Daivanayagam Pillai Vs. Rangasami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad29
1. We agree with the learned Judge that there is no second appeal.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Rangammal Vs. Venkatachri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad378
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the widow and legal representative of one Virasami Ayyangar, deceased, sues to set aside (1) the mortgage of certain lands, dated the 3rd June 1891, executed by Virasami to the defendant, (2) the decree in Civil Suit No. 319 of 1891 on the file of this Court obtained by the defendant against Virasami in 1892 on a promissory note, also dated the 3rd June 1891, and (3) the deed of sale of a house, dated the 14th March 1893, executed by the latter to the former and for an injunction restraining him from enforcing the said mortgage and the sale and from executing the decree.2. The material allegations of the plaintiff are that the late Virasami, who traded and carried on business in Madras and in the mofussil, having got into debt about the year 1891, in collusion with the defendant, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, executed the mortgage and the promissory note for Rs. 5,442 of the 3rd June 1891, without receiving consideration for e...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nagappa Chetti, an Alleged Lunatic
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad472
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. This is an application under Act XXXIV of 1858 for a declaration that one Nagappa Chetti is of unsound mind incapable of taking care of himself and his property, and for the appointment of a committee to take charge of his person and his estate.2. Nagappa married two sisters, of whom the mother of the petitioner is the second wife, whilst the mother of the counter-petitioner is the first wife. The petitioner is the second of Nagappa's three sons, of whom the counter-petitioner is the eldest.3. The petitioner called three witnesses, who are some of the neighbours of Nagappa. The first witness, Muttusami Naidu, stated that the witness has known Nagappa for the last ten or twelve years, that he has for many years been subject to periodical mental derangement, that on such occasions he goes about interfering with people passing along the streets and behaving otherwise in an eccentric manner, that when this is the case he is locked up in his house until he gets better...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Rangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad10
Shephard, J.1. This action is brought to recover the sum paid by the plaintiff in respect of the first instalment of the tax on a house for the year ending with March 1894. The construction of the house not having been completed till August 1893, it is contended for the plaintiff that the tax was not leviable for the first half of the year and must, therefore, be recoverable by action. On the other hand it is argued on the defendant's behalf that any such action is barred by the 262nd Section of the Act of 1884. Unless it can be shown that the plaintiff is, under the circumstances, saved by the proviso to that section, this defence must clearly prevail.2. It is said that the provisions of the Act relating to the assessment and levy of taxes have not been in substance and effect complied with, because according to the right construction of the Act a house not completed at the beginning of the year cannot be made the subject of taxation. It is not said that in any other respect there has...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »