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.
Paramananda Das and anr. Vs. Mahabeer Dossji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad378
1. No doubt in Jagat Narain v. Jag Rup I.L.R. 5 All. 452 OLDFIELD J., observed that the word representative in Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, has no more extended meaning than heir, devisee or executor. But in Badri Narain v. Jai Kishen Das I.L.R. 16 All. 483 EDGE, C.J., and BANERJI, J., give strong reasons for holding that the term in question has in the contest a wider signification. Accordingly when a person purchased mortgaged property from the mortgagor after a decree had been obtained against him by the mortgagee for the enforcement of the latter's right such purchaser was held by the Calcutta and Allahabad Courts to be within the meaning of Section 244 (a) ' representative ' of the mortgagor, defendant Gour Sundar Lahiri v. Hem Ghunder Ghoudhury I.L.R. 16 CAL. 355 and Janki Prasad v. Ulfat Ali I.L.R. 16 All. 284.2. This being so, it is difficult to distinguish on principle the case of the respondent here from the decisions just cited. For, though, in the present instance, th...
Krishna Patter Vs. Srinivasa Patter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad124
1. On the 4th December 1894 a decree was passed in favour of the appellant enabling him to redeem certain lands mortgaged to the respondent by way of kanom. At the time of the decree improvements to the value of Rs. 1,429-11-3 were on the land. But when, on the 3rd of April 1895, i.e., within the six months' time allowed by the decree for the redemption, the appellant applied for execution, it appeared that of the improvements which had existed at the date of the decree, trees to the value of Rs. 157-14-3 had withered owing to want of water.2. The question is whether the appellant is bound to pay to the respondent the said sum of Rs. 157-14-3. It does not appear that the kanom instruments, on which the decree was obtained, contained any agreement as to compensation for improvements. The claim for it rests therefore upon the local custom, and the covenant implied according to that custom is to pay for all' unexhausted improvements' (Wigram's Malabar Law and Custom, page 137). In other w...
Narasimma Chariar Vs. Sinnavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad365
1. We agree with the District Munsif that Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act is applicable. The plaintiff may, however, recover reasonable remuneration for the work done by him for the benefit of the client on the principle quantum meruit, Krishnasami v. Kesava I.L.R. 14 Mad. 63 .2. The District Munsif refused to go into this question on the ground that the person benefited, viz., the second defendant, in the criminal case, was no party to the present suit. We observe, however, that the plaintiff would not have gone into Court at all but for the guarantee given by the first defendant, and the latter would have been in that case undefended. The first defendant then derived benefit from the plaintiff going into Court to defend him and the second defendant jointly. We think, therefore, that the plaintiff may recover reasonable remuneration for the services he rendered. We therefore set aside the decree of the District Munsif with costs and direct him to restore the suit to his file...
Rangayya Appa Rau Vs. Kameswara Rau and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad367
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 wishes 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 former 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 ...
Kamakshi Nayakan Vs. Ramasami Nayakan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ131
1. So far as the claim for a declaration that the hypothecation bond is not binding, the action is barred.2. As regards the rest of the claim, the mortgage and sale relied upon executed by the plaintiff's mother and guardian are void as against him except in so far as they can be shown to be for his, benefit or executed under circumstances otherwise rendering them binding upon him. Therefore in this suit for possession of the property comprised in such deeds, it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to set them aside as a condition precedent to a decree for possession We think, therefore, that neither Article 44 nor Article 91 applies.3. We must, therefore, modify the decree of the District Judge as to the possession of the land referred to in the mortgage and sale, and direct the appeal to be heard on the merits and disposed of according to, law. The respondents must pay and receive the proportionate costs of this appeal....
Queen-empress Vs. Kandappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad88
1. We do not think this is a case for interference.2. In the first place the Magistrate, whose action is impugned, gives in our opinion good reasons for his order. But secondly we are disposed to agree with the view taken in other Courts of Section 88, Criminal Procedure Code. What may be said with regard to that section would equally apply to Section 386.1 In both cases we think, if the Magistrate errs, the remedy of the aggrieved party is by civil suit. All that we can say is that, in cases of dispute, the Magistrate should stay the sale of the property seized to give the claimant time to establish his right.1Warrant for levy of fineSection 386--Whenever an offender is sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may, in its discretion, issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by distress and sale of any moveable property belonging to the offender, although the sentence directs that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned....
Kumarasami Pillai Vs. Orr and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad145
1. If the plaintiffs have, in fact, suffered any damage from a neglect of a duty imposed by statute on the kamam, they are entitled to bring a suit to recover such damage.2. Section 11 of Regulation XXV of 1809 does not restrict or take away this right. As regards that portion of the plaintiffs' action, which relates to their claim to remove the kamam from his office, the first question is whether the plaintiffs in their right as lesseos (independently of the clause in their lease purporting to transfer to thorn the right to bring such a suit) can maintain chat portion of their claim. Section 11 clearly gives this power to the zatnindar or proprietor and to no one else. Inasmuch, therefore, as tho plaintiffs' assign ment does not make them proprietors or amindars within the meaning of the Regulation, they cannot sue.3. Section 5 of Regulation XXIX of 1802 cannot be read as conferring a general right to bring such an action on any person interested, but must be read in conjunction with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›