Chennai Court December 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.
Chintamallayya Vs. Thadi Gangireddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ61
1. The argument is that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to enquire into the grounds or validity of the award apart from such grounds as would fall under Sections 520 and 521 of the Code of Civil Procedure, his authority being limited under Section 526 to the matters mentioned in those two Sections2. It is true that different views of this matter have been taken by the different High Courts. In our opinion, the correct view is that held by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Amrit Ram v. Dasrat Ram I.L.R. (1894) A., 21. It is also in accordance with an opinion expressed by this Court so far back as 1881, in Miohraya v. Sadasiva Paramo I.L.R. (1881) M. 319, which we believe has always been acted on'. The weight due to that opinion and practice is not lessened by the fact that the decision in that case, so far as it relates to the right of appeal, has since been overruled in Husamanna v. Linganna I.L.R. (1895) M. 423. No doubt, Parker, J., has in this case expressed hi...
Udayar Pillai Vs. Muthia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ231
1. The decree of the District Munsif is right for the reason stated by him.2. The pro-note is not payable to a specified person or to bearer or to the order of a specified person, and it is, therefore, not a negotiable instrurieiit. There is therefore, no objection to its transfer otherwise than by endorsement. In both the cases relied on by the petitioner Pattat Ambadi Marar v. Kishnan I.L.R. 11 M. 290 and Abboy Chetti v. Ramachandra Rao I.L.R. 17 M. 461 the notes were payable to a specified person or order, which made them negotiable instruments, and therefore not transferable except by endorsement.3. We dismiss the petition with costs....
Muthu Ayyar Vs. Ramasami Sastrial and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad158
1. Admittedly the judgment-debtor paid the 5 per cent. required under Clause (a) of Section 310-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon the whole amount of the purchase-money including that deducted by the Court for poundage. Under that clause he is not required to do any more. Having also fulfilled the requirement of Clause (b) he was entitled to have the sale set aside, even though something more on account of the poundage was recoverable from him under the head of costs provided for in the last clause of the Section 310-A. The petitioner was therefore wrong in opposing the setting aside of the sale. His course was to have applied to the Court for the recovery of what he was entitled to under Sections 315 and 310-A.2. The petition is accordingly dismissed....
Tirupati Raju Vs. Vissam Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad155
1. The Collector having done all that he could do under the Land Acquisition Act was not, in our opinion, precluded from bringing this suit in an ordinary Civil Court, there being no prohibition by any enactment against his doing so. The next question is whether the suit should have been brought in a Small Cause Court, assuming that there was one having jurisdiction up to Rs. 500, which appears not to have been the case. Having regard to Article 14 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which excludes suits for the recovery of compensation paid under the Land Acquisition Act from the small cause jurisdiction, we think the present, which is a substantially similar suit, did not lie in the Small Cause Court, as it involved, not incidentally but necessarily, the determination of a title to land, and would consequently fall under Article 11. In this view, a second appeal lay, and a petition for revision is not admissible. It is accordingly dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›