Chennai Court February 1896 Judgments
Chinnaramanuja Ayyangar, Vs. Padmanabha Pillaiyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad471
1. The question is whether the appellants are liable on the rental agreements executed by four of the defendants, but not executed by the deceased person whom they represent. The plaint alleges that the documents were executed on behalf of the agricultural association of which the deceased was a member. The 13th issue raises the question 'whether the defendants 2 to 5 executed the lease deeds on behalf of the defendants 6 to 18 also;' but there is no finding on that issue. Admittedly it is not stated in the documents that the executants were acting on behalf of others, nor do they sign in that capacity.2. The only questions argued are with reference to the third issue. We see no reason for differing from the Subordinate Judge in his finding as to nonpayment of Rs. 1,700, and in the finding that there was no such extraordinary rain as to make the special clauses applicable. The finding with regard to this point is that there was really no payment and no valid discharge. The appeal is di...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Upadyaya Vs. Visvaraja Tirthasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad331
Shephard, J.1. The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) being plaintiff in the suit claims certain property in virtue of a sale effected in 1879 by the appellant's uncles in his favour. The appellant claims the same property as purchaser at a subsequent sale held in execution of a decree, dated the 9th July 1877, and passed in a partition suit in which the appellant was plaintiff. In that suit the appellant's father and uncles were defendants and the respondent was also joined as a mortgagee of part of the family property. By the decree in the partition suit the respondent was made liable with his co-defendants for certain moneys payable to the appellant; there were other matters in the decree in regard to which the defendants other than the respondent were made liable. In 1889 application was made by the appellant for execution of the decree as against all the judgment-debtors including the respondent; and in pursuance of that application the abovementioned pro...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Pillai Vs. Periasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad160
1. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the mortgage of 1867 could not be proved, inasmuch as it was not registered, but we do not consider that the previous mortgages of 1856 and 1860 were altogether extinguished by the mortgage of 1867. They were no doubt consolidated in that mortgage. But when that mortgage is found to be inoperative owing to non-observance of the registration law, the two previous mortgages can be revived for the purpose, at least, of showing that the possession of the defendants is that of mortgagees of the plaintiff, the mortgagor. If this relationship is established between the parties, the plaintiff has clearly a right to redeem the earlier mortgages as his right of redemption has not been lost through the sixty years' bar of limitation. This is the principle laid down in Kunhi Kutti Nair v. Kutty Maraccar 4 M.H.C.R. 359 and followed again in Unnian v. Rama I.L.R. 8 Mad. 415 and we do not think it has been departed from in the case of Krishna Pillai v. Rang...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Subbanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad241
1. We have no doubt that the interpretation put by the Bench of Magistrates upon the meaning of the word ' renewed ' is wrong. It includes repairing. The acquittal is set aside and the accused must be retried....
Tag this Judgment!Subrahmania Aiyar Vs. Panchanada Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1896
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ109
1. The claim of the plaintiff was a claim for damages which arose in consequence of the wrongful distraint. The suit was not one as has been erroneously stated by the Subordinate Judge for the recovery of paddy that was undelivered, although it ought to have been delivered under the orders of the Head Assistant Collector. According to the plaint, there was no paddy in existence which was not delivered. The damages claimed by the plaintiff was on account of negligence on the part of the defendant in allowing the paddy to be wasted while it was in his custody. The cause of action did not therefore arise out of disobedience to the Head Assistant Collector's orders as held by the Subordinate Judge (assuming that such cause of action lay), but out of the legal distress itself. The negligence complained of was only an aggravation of the original wrong. See Bhagirathi Panda v. Padala Gopaludu, I.L.R. 3 M. 128, The same remark applies to the plaintiff's further claim for the costs incurred in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›