Chennai Court January 1896 Judgments
Kunhi Mamod Vs. Kunhi Moidin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad176
1. The Courts below have allowed plaintiff a share in items 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in schedule A on the strength of the decision in Mussummant Khanum Jan v. Mussummant Jan Beebee 4 S.D.A. 210. We have referred to the report itself, and are of opinion that the case is not one of any great authority. It is true that the majority of the Muhammadan law officers expressed the opinion that the renunciation was not valid on the ground that the right had not vested, but the opinion was not unanimous, and eventually the Sadr Court held that the receipt of the money had not been satisfactorily proved. Here, however, it is not denied that plaintiff received the money, and there is the further difference that the right had vested, but that provision was made for the mother by setting apart some property for her maintenance for her life, after which-the plaintiff accepted the money value of his share. Prima facie there is nothing illegal in the transaction and in the absence of clear proof that it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Seshagiri Rau and ors. Vs. Rama Rau and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad448
1. We agree with the learned Judge in the construction he has placed on Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. No portion of the immoveable property is situated in Madras and therefore leave to sue in the High Court could not be granted. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Naranappa and anr. Vs. Samacharlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad382
1. Sufficient attention has not been paid to the dates in this case. Before the 1st of July 1882, when the Transfer of Property Act came into force, the appellants had obtained their decree, dated 20th November 1881; they had got the property attached on the 9th March 1882, and in the month of April had obtained orders for sale.2. This being so, we are of opinion that a legal relation was constituted between the appellants and their judgment-debtor before the Act came into force and that out of this relation arose a right to have the order for sale carried out. They are entitled to sell under the order, whereas if Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable they cease to be so entitled when the Act came into force.3. We are therefore of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to rely on Section 99, and we are supported in this view by the decision in Dinendra Nath Sanityal v. Chandra Kishore Munshi I.L.R. 12 Cal. 436 .4. The decree of the District Judge must be reversed...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Bhashyam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad209
1. We cannot admit the affidavit of the petitioner which it is sought to use for the purpose of showing that he did not plead guilty. If there was any mistake about the matter, it is the vakil and not the client who ought to have made an affidavit.2. We cannot say that the sentence is excessive and must therefore dismiss the appeal.3. With regard to the articles forfeited, it is argued that money and securities for money being specially mentioned in Section 42 of the Act cannot be intended to be denoted by the term 'articles' used in Section 47. In our opinion, however, the phrase 'all or any of the other articles seized' is large enough to cover money or securities for money when seized. The narrow construction which it is sought to put on Section 47 would have the effect of making the seizure of money under Section 42 a useless ceremony.4. It is then said that the Magistrate ought to have enquired as to whether the money and other things seized were used or intended to be used for th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Vs. Streeramulu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad149
1. The learned Judge has written no judgment in this case, but, as far as we can gather his reasons for the dismissal of the application, he held that it was barred under Article 36 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. The application was made under Section 214 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882, by the liquidator appointed by the Court in 1891 praying that the directors and trustees of the company be ordered to pay over to the liquidator the sum of Rs. 5,550 which had been distributed among the shareholders.2. The application seems to have been before the learned Judge on several occasions, and on 27th February 1895 he had apparently decided to make an order against the directors, reserving for consideration the form of the order. But on the 7th March 1895 the objection was first started by Mr. R.F. Grant, the Counsel for the directors, that the application was barred under Article 36, inasmuch as the act complained of was a misfeasance and not a breach of trust, and that the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›