Chennai Court November 1896 Judgments
Ariya Pillai Vs. Thangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad442
ORDER1. We are unable to agree with the learned Judge that an appeal does not lie. The Allahabad case on which he relies was considered and dissented from by a Bench of this Court in Venkatasami Naik v. Chinna Narayana Naik Appeal against Order No. 32 of 1894 (unreported) which, however, does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judge.2. We agree with the previous ruling of this Court.3. On the merits, however, we find no ground for the appeal. There is no affidavit or other evidence to show that the District Judge refused to examine any witness whom the appellant desired to examine The Vakils on both sides were heard. We dismiss the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Pillai Vs. Thangathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad78
1. The decree was not so formal as it should have been under the Transfer of Property Act. This is no doubt due to the fact that that Act had only just come into force at the time when the decree was passed. The decree is in reality a decree for sale. There is nothing to show that the property to be sold is not liable to the debt.2. The appeal is dismissed under Section 551, Code of Civil Procedure....
Tag this Judgment!Thillai Chetti Vs. Ramanatha Ayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad295
1. In this case the plaintiffs and defendants are the owners in shares of a certain village.2. In 1840 the owners of the village mortgaged it to the first defendant's ancestor for Rs. 75-4-0. The plaintiffs sued to redeem the mortgage. The first defendant claimed to own the largest share of the village and objected to plaintiff's right to redeem the mortgage without the consent of the co-mortgagors. He specially objected to the plaintiff's right to redeem his (first defendant's) share of the mortgage. The District Munsif found that it could not be satisfactorily decided in the present suit to what share the first defendant was entitled, and on the strength of Naro Hari Bhave v. Vithalbhat I.L.R. 10 Bom. 648 decided that plaintiff's had a right to redeem the mortgage. He, therefore, decreed that, on payment of the mortgage money into Court, the first defendant should put the plaintiffs into possession of the mortgaged property with its title-deeds. In appeal before the District Court it...
Tag this Judgment!Nalla Karuppa Chettiar Vs. Iburam Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ76
1. The plaintiff sued in the Tanjore Subordinate Judge's Court in British India to recover certain sums under decrees passed in his favour by the District Court of Kandy in Ceylon. The defendant raised a number of pleas, but the Subordinate Judge found against him on all the issues and decreed the claim.2. On appeal the District Judge tried three main questions, viz.--(i) whether notice of the suit in the Kandy Court was so served on the defendant as to justify the British Indian Court in passing a decree on the judgment of the Foreign (Kandy) Court;(ii) whether the Foreign Court had jurisdiction over the person of the defendant who was domiciled and resident in British India; and (iii) whether the defendant was a minor when the judgment was given and whether, in consequence, the judgment was one which could be made the basis of a suit in British India.3. On all these issues the District Judge decided in defendants' favour and, therefore, dismissed the suit.4. The plaintiff now appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Chetti and anr. Vs. Ganga Razulungaru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ18
1. Two points are raised in this appeal. The first relates to the claim for interest accruing after the due date fixed for the payment of the principal in the mortgage instrument of the 19th December 1882. The District Judge considers that the instrument contains no stipulation, express or implied, to pay interest after the 14th July 1886, by which day the mortgagor undertakes to pay the principal. He refers to one of the numerous cases dealing with the question of interest payable under a mortgage. It is not necessary to discuss those cases, firstly, because the question is entirely of the construction to be answered with reference to the language of the particular instrument, and secondly, because we have a recent ruling of the Judicial Committee by which we must be guided in construing that instrument. In appeal Mathura Das and Anr. v. Baja Naming Bahadur Pall and other from the Allahabad High Court.2. In this case, after stating how the sum of Rs. 4,797-10-6 has come to be due, the...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Thatha Chariar and ors. Vs. Appanaiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ23
1. It is not disputed that plaintiff has bought the right to certain dignities and emoluments under the name of Malji Dharmakarta Miras in the Gonjeevaram Devarajaswami Devastanam and also that these rights have been accorded to him and to his predecessors in title by the defendants.2. The only question before us is whether these rights are recoverable at law. It is. contended that they are only honours and dignities of a religious nature of which the civil courts have no cognizance. The character of the various rights claimed by the plaintiff are set forth in paragraph 29 of the lower Court's judgment. As regards Nos. 6 to 18 there can he no doubt that they possess a money value consisting as they do of the right to take money and food on the periodical occasions referred to. So that, the question is really narrowed down to items Nos. 1 to 5, which do appear to be only honours without any appreciable money value. We should have been inclined to think, had we been disposing 6i the matt...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppusami Aiyar Vs. Kuppusami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ73
1. The Subordinate Judge has found that there was fraud, and on the facts found by him, there can be no doubt of it.2. The result is that, upon that finding and uponbur, former order in this case, the appeal is allowed. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is, therefore, reserved and that of the District Munsif restored with the appellant's costs in this and the Lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Appa Rao Vs. Rameswara Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ59
1. If the document in question was nothing more than a mere relinquishment presented by a tenant, the first defendant, to his landlord, the plaintiff, under Section 12 of Act VIII of 1865 which authorises the former to relinquish his holding at the end of any revenue year, by a writing signed in the presence of witnesses irrespective of the landlord in the matter, there can be no doubt that the document did not require to be registered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. But that the document was one given for a consideration which moved from the plaintiff to the first defendant, viz., the waiver by the forrner of his right to the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 600 due at the time of the relinquishment, is clear from the terms of the instrument itself. It is true that the passage in the plaint, upon which stress was laid on behalf of the plaintiff, suggests that the paper in question had been delivered to the servants of the plaintiff before he signified his consent to f...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi Ammal Vs. Saminatha Gurukal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad40
Shephard, J.1. There is no doubt that the plaintiff knew of the first defendant' adoption as long ago as in 1885, that is more than six years before the institution of the present suit. The Subordinate Judge finds that since the death of Swarna Gurukal, the adoptive father, the defendant has been in possession, though for a time after his father's death his possession was disturbed. In 1890, a suit was brought by the plaintiff, alleging that she had all along, since her husband's death, been in possession of all his property. It was found in that suit that the plaintiff was not and never had been in possession of the property. It was necessary for the Judge to find whether the plaintiff was in possession at the date of that suit, because she asked for a declaration of her title. It having been found that she was not in possession, the suit was dismissed on the 28th February 1891. In her present plaint, she alleges that she was dispossessed in that very same month. No attempt is made to...
Tag this Judgment!Pedda Subbaraya Chetti and ors. Vs. Ganga Razulungaru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad149
1. Two points are raised in this appeal. The first relates to the claim for interest accruing after the due date fixed for the payment of the principal in the mortgage instrument of the 19th December 1882. The Dis trict Judge considers that the instrument contains no stipulation, express or implied, to pay interest after the 14th July 1886, by which day the mortgagor undertakes to pay the principal. He refers to one of the numerous cases dealing with the question of interest payable under a mortgage. It is not necessary to discuss those cases, firstly, because the question is entirely one of construction to be answered with reference to the language of the particular instrument, and secondly, because we have a recent ruling of the Judicial Corn-mittoo by which we must be guided in construing that instrument. Mathura Das v. Raja Narindar Bahadur I.L.R. 19 All. 39 .2. In this case , after stating how the sum of Rs. 4,797-10-6 has come to be due, the instrument goes on to say that 'for th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »