Chennai Court September 1895 Judgments
Maliaperumal Iyengar and anr. Vs. Nachiappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ294
Best, J.1. It is contended that the decree gives no remedy beyond the property ordered to be sold in default of payment within six months and that such 'payment was optional with the defendants. I am unable to accede to either of these contentions. The cases cited by the judge support his view that on the property being sold, and the proceeds being found to be insufficient, the decree-holder is entitled on application to a further decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act for recovery against the persons of, and by the sale of other properties belonging to, the judgment-debtors--provided the personal liability is not barred.2. It is next contended that in the present case, the personal liability is time-barred, itthe period of limitation is calculated from the date of the original cause of action to the date of the application under Section 90. But, in my opinion, the question is whether the personal remedy was barred when the suit was brought In the present case it was a...
Tag this Judgment!Dikshathar Seshagiri Iyer Vs. Marakathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ252
Shephard, J.1. I am unable to agree with the District Judge and think that he was bound to pass an order in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The judge refused to do so on the supposition that the decision in Baghunath Das v. Badri Prasad was in point. The facts of that case were, however, different. Here, as soon as the decree of the 21st December 1891 was passed, the order ceased to have any effect and the decree was substituted for it. The decree expressly declares that the order shall have no effect and that declaration must include the matter of costs as well as any other part of the order. This being, so, there was no foundation for the application subsequently made in respect of the costs given by the order.2. There must bean order in the terms of the prayer of the Petition 144 of 1894 and the respondent must pay the costs in this and in the District Court....
Tag this Judgment!The British India Steam Navigation Company Vs. Ibrahim Sulaiman and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad169
1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of Sir T. Muttusami Ayyar, J., upon a case referred to the High Court by the Chief Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court. It was objected on the plaintiffs' behalf that no appeal lay; but we were of opinion that the decision was a judgment within the meaning of the clause of the Letters Patent. Moreover, it has to be observed that, under the rules of the High Court, the reference ought, in the first instance, to have been heard before a bench of two Judges.2. The question raised is whether under the circumstances stated the defendants' company is liable for damage suffered by goods in consequence of their being exposed to rain on the pier where they were landed by the company. The opinion of Sir T. Muttusami Ayyar, J., which was in accordance with that expressed by the learned Chief Judge, was based on the finding that the landing of the goods by the company on the pier was an unusual and unauthorized act. It is fou...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnayya Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad24
Shephard, J.1. It seems to me desirable before we decide this appeal, which raises an important question, that we should have before us more distinct findings on the facts. It appears from the District Munsif's judgment that several questions of fact were raised before him and the District Munsif records his opinion upon them. In the judgment of the District Judge there is only one of the fourteen paragraphs of which it consists, which touches the particular facts of the case.2. Without any discussion of the evidence, the District Judge finds that the rainfall was insufficient and that the water which flowed to plaintiff's field did in fact save the crop and produce a harvest, whereas the Munsif finds that the plaintiff was neither a gainer nor a loser by the water. In my opinion, however, the circumstance that the plaintiff was in fact a gainer is not sufficient to justify the dismissal of the suit, or to distinguish the case from Venkatappayya v. The Collector of Kistna I.L.R. 12 Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Koopmia Sahib Vs. Chidambaram Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad105
1. The plaintiff has never been in possession, nor has he made his mortgagors parties to the suit. It is conceded he must fail unless Section 74 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to this case, the argument being that plaintiff stands in the position of first defendant, who has been mortgagee in possession for over twelve years.2. We think it is clear that this section does not apply. Section 74 contemplates the existence of two mortgages at one and the same time and the independent action of the subsequent mortgagee to put an end to the prior mortgage. It is difficult to see how two usufructuary mortgages could subsist at the same time, and the language of the instrument clearly proves that the intention of the parties was to extinguish the first mortgage by the execution of the second. In these cases it is the intention which must be regarded. See Mohesh Lal v. Mohant Bawan Das I.L.R. 9 Cal. 961.3. The second appeal fails and we dismiss it with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Saminadha Pillai and ors. Vs. Thangathanni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad70
1. We agree with the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge on the second and third issues. The question whether the rule of survivorship holds good among a group of heirs who succeed on the extinction of a divided branch of the family has not been actually decided in this Court. In Gopalasami v. Chinnasami I.L.R. 7 Mad. 458 the inclination of the Court was evidently in favour of the contention that the rule did not apply in the case of daughters' sons succeeding. In principle there is no distinction between that case and the present. In both it is an instance of obstructed heritage, the heirs being ascertained at the time of the death and taking per capita. Since the date of the Madras case the question has been considered in Calcutta, and the conclusion arrived at was that the rule of survivorship does not apply to property taken in the ordinary course of inheritance as distinguished from property in which persons have an interest on birth Jasoda Koer v. Sheo Pershad Singh I.L.R. 17 Ca...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Raju Vs. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ226
1. The petition presented to the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly prayed him under Section 435 to call for the records and revise the order of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram, dated April 29th, and to direct the stay of proceedings in the case pending the disposal of the petition. By his order of April 29th, the District Munsif had resolved under Section 478, Criminal Procedure Code, to complete himself the enquiiy into a charge of forgery alleged against the petitioners and to commit the case to the Sessions Court, if a prima facie case were made out. The forgery alleged to have been committed was in respect to certain beat-tickets filed for the defence in Small Cause suit No. 151 of 1895 on his file. By the same order the District Munsif ordered warrants of arrest to issue.2. This petition was presented to the Sessions Judge on May 1st, and on the same day he passed an order calling for the records and directing the District Munsif to stay proceedings, observing that as party spirit ...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Balusu Ramalakshmamma Garu Bahadur, Proprietrix of the Kapileswar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ244
1. We are satisfied upon the evidence adduced that At the lanka in dispute the river Godavari is not a tidal and navigable river. It may in a sense be navigable, but the observations taken clearly show that it is not tidal. The evidence shows that at the point in question there is no ebb and flow of the tide, and no current up-stream at any hour. All that occurs is that, in consequence of the influx of the tide lower down the river, the flow of water down-stream is held back for a time and thus rises between its banks, though it continues to flow down. This is precisely what might be expected supposing that the influx of the, tide exercised any appreciable effect at all. It is shown that the place is about thirty miles from the sea and that the fall is about '? one foot per mile. The rise of the tide at Coconada, which is the standard post is only 3 1/2 feet ordinary tide and 5 feet at springs, so that it would appear almost impossible the tidal have should reach a spot thirty miles in...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Bhagavathar Vs. Muni Nagendra Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ275
Shephard, J.1. The question is whether the association formed by the plaintiffs and the deceased Subbaiyan, not having been registered under the Companies Act, was an illegal one. ,If they were associated together for the purpose of carrying on a business and had in view the acquisition of gain, the action, being brought to enforce a contract made for an illegal purpose, clearly cannot be maintained. The facts are not fully stated in the judgment, but it was admitted before us that the chit-fand, or kuri as it is called, in which the deceased Subbaiyan and the plaintiffs took part, was managed in the following way. Periodically the subscribers pay each a certain sum to a stake-holder. The sum total of their subscriptions is then assigned by casting of lots to one of the subscribers who is thereupon required to execute a bond with a surety obliging him to continue his subscriptions to the end of the period for which the arrangement is agreed to hold good. The subscriber who at any one d...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Bhagavathar Vs. Nagendrayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad31
Shephard, J.1. The question is whether the association formed by the plaintiffs and the deceased Subbayyan, not having been registered under the Companies Act, was an illegal one. If they were associated together for the purpose of carrying on a business and had in view the acquisition of gain, the action, being brought to enforce a contract made for an illegal purpose, clearly cannot be maintained. The facts are not fully stated in the judgment, bat it was admitted before us that the chit fund, or kuri as it is called, in which the deceased Subbayyan and the plaintiffs took part, was managed in the following way. Periodically the subscribers pay each a certain sum to a stakeholder. The sum-total of their subscriptions is then assigned by casting of lots to one of the subscribers, who is thereupon required to execute a bond with a surety obliging him to continue his subscriptions to the end of the period for which the arrangement is agreed to hold good. The subscriber who at any one dr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »