Chennai Court November 1896 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Court of Wards and anr. Vs. Venkata Surya Mahipati Ramakrishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad167
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge who has decreed in favour of the plaintiff's right to succeed to the ancient zamindari of Pittapur in the Godavari District, The plaintiff claims as the adopted son of the late Rajah of Pittapur. As such he claims to recover the estate and effects of his adoptive father. The appellant alleges himself to be the natural-born son of the late Rajah, it being said that his birth took place in the month of October 1885--some twelve years after the date of the plain tiff's adoption. The adoption of the plaintiff in 1873 is admitted, The defence is rested on two independent grounds: Firstly, it is said that the appellant is entitled to succeed in virtue of his being the natural-born and legitimate son of the deceased Rajah by his first wife Mangayamma, and secondly, it is said that the late Rajah left a will bequeathing to the appellant practically his whole property, making some provisions for the adopted son and other members of...
Kommachi Kather Vs. Pakker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ66
1. The facts of the case are correctly stated in paragraph 8 of the District Munsif's judgment.2. The District Munsif, assuming that the plaintiff had a 'decree for money' within the meaning of Section 295, Civil Procedure Code, still dismissed the suit on the ground that it was incapable of execution, except as against the mortgaged property at the time when.the plaint property was sold at the instance of the first defendant.2. The District Judge confirmed the District Munsif's decree for two reasons: firstly, because Section 295(c) in his opinion barred the plaintiff's decree, and, secondly, because the plaintiff's decree was not 'a decree for money' within the meaning of Section 295, Civil Procedure Code.3. The plaintiff appeals and we think with good reason. The District Judge is manifestly in error in supposing that clause (c) of Section 295 governs the case. That clause refers only to property sold 'in execution of a decree ordering its sale for the discharge of an encumbrance th...
Chengama Nayudu Vs. Munisami Nayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad75
1. There was a partition between the appellant's brothers, the first and second respondents, and their deceased father before the appellant was born. At that partition the father reserved no property to himself. The lower Courts have held that the appellant is entitled to a share out of the property taken by the said respondents at the partition. The appellant was, however, not allowed a share out of certain other items of property in the hands of his brothers. Those were excluded from the partition decreed to the appellant, not because they were the separate property of the parties in possession having been acquired by them without the aid of the ancestral estate, but, as we understand the Subordinate Judge, simply on the ground that acquisitions after the partition, even though made with the aid of the property obtained at the partition, belong solely to the acquirer. This view is clearly not supported by the authorities, to some of which the Subordinate Judge himself refers. The wor...
Mahadevi and anr. Vs. Neelamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad269
1. We agree with the Judge that there was no such necessity for the gift by the widow as would be binding on the reversioners. As the plaintiff was already in receipt of a regular income as Po-Brahman, and the ceremonies performed by him at Gaya were performed in the same capacity, and many years before the gift, there was no justification for the grant which was purely voluntary.2. The next finding of the Judge is that the question of title in regard to the plaint property is res judicata by reason of the decision under Section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1870. Assuming that the appellants were made parties to the proceedings under that Section, though the question is. doubtful owing to the faulty character of the notice (Exhibit III) served on the first appellant, we do not think that the finding in the Land Acquisition case in favour of the validity of the plaint gift operates as res judicata in this case, inasmuch as the litigation under that Act is a special form of proceedi...
Narasinga Pillai Vs. Muthusami Naickar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ218
1. We cannot accept the contention that the bond was executed to Nizamudeen as agent alone, for he was entitled to a portion of the rent himself as a co-sharer and a contract with him by the defendant for consideration appearing on the document, e.g. the giving of time for payment is valid and binding even though given at a time when his authority to act as agent for his co-sharers had in fact been determined. No notice of such determination is alleged to have been given to defendant who is protected by Section 208; Contract Act, from any possible claim by the other co-sharers for the rent due to them.2. The plaintiff as the assignee of the bond is therefore entitled to recover the amount due.3. We must set aside the decree of the District Munsif and decree the amount sued for with costs and interest at six per cent, per annum from the date of the plaint till date of payment. Defendant must pay the costs in this Court also....
Kondayya Chetti Vs. Narasimhulu Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad97
1. Plaintiff and defendant are merchants trading in Madras. The defendant used to consign goods to Messrs. Von Glehn and Co. of London for sale. The consignments were made through the plaintiff. As each consignment was shipped, the defendant drew on Von Glehn and Co. for the value in favour of the plaintiff, who negotiated the drafts with a Bank, and paid the proceeds to the defendant. The course of business was to have the goods valued and sold in London by Von Glehn and Co., who repaid themselves out of the proceeds, and in case of a shortfall, drew on defendant for the amount. If defendant failed to pay the redraft plaintiff was bound to do so. He, in fact, guaranteed Von Glehn and Co. On certain transactions of the above character which took place in 1893-94, there was a shortfall amounting in all to Rs. 4,765, Von Glehn and Co., drew on defendant for the amount, but he refused to honour the drafts, and the plaintiff then paid them. The plaintiff's present suit was to recover the s...
Puthiandi Mammed Vs. Avalil Moidin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad157
1. All that the plaintiff got in law for the money he paid to the defendant for the transfer of his decree was an agreement to transfer it, not a complete transfer until recognized by the Court. The completion of the transfer in this case was prevented by the attachment of the decree for the defendant's debts, and it was the defendant's duty to do all that was necessary to complete the transfer by removing the obstacle, the attachment. This he did not do and made it impossible for the transfer to the plaintiff to be completed by the recognition of the Court.2. In these circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to succeed in his action. We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and decree the claim with costs and interest at 6 per cent, thereon from the date of plaint till date of payment.3. The petitioner is entitled to his costs in this Court....
Perumal Ayyan Vs. Alagirisami Bhagavathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ222
1. The only question argued before us is that of limitation. The decision on that question depends upon the construction to be placed on the term of the bond as to the time when the money became due and payable. The bond runs as follows:As I have received Rs. 300 (three hundred) in respect of both items in accordance with the said particulars, I shall pay you every month Rs, 3, being the interest on the said amount at 1 per cent, per mensem and (shall pay) the principal Rs. 300 in two years' time and receive back this and the three deeds and the former debt bond. If, in the meantime the hypothecated chits fall to my lot, I shall receive the sums due thereon, and pay them endorsing payments herein below. If there he default in making payments as aforesaid, in subscribing to the said chits, or in paying the interest every month, I shall pay in full the principal with interest at 1 1/2 per cent, on demand by the holder out of my said hypothecated properties. I shall pay the. commission du...
Seeni Chettiar Vs. Santhauathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad58
Collins, C.J.1. This Second Appeal No. 319 of 1894 was originally heard before SHEPHARD and BEST, J.J., and those learned Judges disagreed in the conclusion they arrived at; and in consequence of BEST, J., having left the Court, the Letters Patent appeal had to be heard before three other Judges.2.The principal point in dispute was whether the yadast, dated 1st January 1891,created an interest in immoveable property, and, if so, whether it could be used as evidence, not being registered. The yadast is as follows: 'In respect of the transaction of business heretofore taken on contract from Madura Pattamars in fasli 1294 by me and A.N. Meenakshisundaram Settiar Avergal, I have paid, on 16th December 1890 in current fasli 1300, value for the said Meenakshisundaram Settiar half share, excluding my share, in the karuvela, velvala, margosa and manjanati trees, etc., in Pattambudur tank to the north of the said village, and in the gum (resin),karuvela nuts, grass, korai, etc., standing thereo...
Subramania Ayyar Vs. Sitha Lakahmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad147
1. The Subordinate Judge has found as a fact that the property given was delivered to and accepted by the deceased minor, wife of the plain tiff, who now sues for the property given. It is contended before us that inasmuch as the deed of gift imposed an obligation on the donee and the donoe died a minor, there is no complete gift which binds the donor.2. We think the gift is complete. Section 127 Section 127: ['Where a gift is in the form of a single transfer to the same person of several Onerous gift things of which one is, and the others are not, burdened by an obligation, the donee can take nothing by the gift unless he accepts it fully. Where a gi ft is in the form of two or more separate and independent transfers to the same person of several things, the donee is at liberty to accept one of them and refuse the others, although the formor may be beneficial and the latter onerous. A donee not competent to contract and accepting property burdened by any obligation is not bound ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »