Chennai Court March 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.
Manika Gramani Vs. Ellappa Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad271
1. The only point urged in appeal is that the decision of the lower Court on the first and second issues is incorrect.2. The lower Court has dealt fully with the evidence in regard to the first issue, and we concur in the finding.3. As regards the second issue we are also of opinion that the finding is correct. There is nothing in the plaint in Original Suit No. 34 of 1888 to show that the then plaintiff desired to charge the present plaint property with her maintenance. She merely enumerated it and the other property of the then defendant in order to enable the Court to determine what amount of maintenance might fairly be given. There was not then any right to immoveable property directly and specifically in question, and consequently the doctrine of lis pendens has no application.4. It would obviously be most inconvenient, if a man, no matter what his wealth might be, should be debarred from dealing with any of his immoveable property, merely because a suit for a petty sum as mainten...
Perumal Naik Vs. Saminatha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad498
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The learned vakil for the petitioner (second defendant) urged that the award of the arbitrators and the decree thereon were illegal in so far as they related to (i) the dismissal of the petitioner from his office as a member of the committee and (ii) the award of interest prior to the date of the plaint.2. Whether, if the contention were sound, the petitioner's remedy was not by appeal I refrain from determining, as I have come to the conclusion that the contention is unsound. Now with reference to the first point mentioned, viz., the dismissal from office, it was argued that it was not competent for the Judge to refer the point to the arbitrators, as it involved virtually a question of criminal punishment, which was for the Judge and not the arbitrators to deal with. I however fail to see how the jurisdiction to remove a trustee exercised by the Civil Courts has any reference to crimes or their punishment. In the first place it is a purely civil jurisdiction exe...
Rangammal Vs. Venkatachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad323
1. We have no doubt but that the finding of the Court below on both the issues raised before it is correct, and that the legal inferences drawn therefrom are also correct. It is urged in appeal that the appellant was materially prejudiced by the absence of an issue as to whether or not the fraud of the appellant's late husband was accomplished in a substantial manner. We cannot admit this plea; It was the appellant's case that her late husband's acts were without consideration and were done with a view to defraud creditors. The evidence of the appellant's own first, third and fifth witnesses shows that he Was successful, and induced his creditors thereby to give up their claims to large sums of money. It seems to us to be clear that the deceased could not, if now alive, come into Court and claim to have his own fraudulent acts set aside. But it is argued that the appellant, as his widow, is in a better position, and may claim relief against the consequences of her late husband's fraudu...
Queen-empress Vs. Lakshmi Nayakan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad238
1. The District Magistrate is right instating that no appeal lies against an order under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act (I of 1871) Queen-Empress v. Raya Lakshma I.L.R. 10 Bom. 230 and Dhiku v. Deno Nath Deb I.L.R. 15 Cal. 712 .2. There is evidence that the seizure was illegal and the Sub-Magistrate believed it. The Joint Magistrate, however, considered it 'insufficient.' The High Court, as a Court of Revision, will not, in such a case, weigh the evidence, for to do so would, in effect, be to admit an appeal where the law does not allow it. So much, however, of the Sub-Magistrate's order as directs that imprisonment be awarded in default of payment of compensation is illegal, and is set aside....
Somasundara Mudaliar Vs. Vythilinga Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad285
1. Mr. Ramasubba Ayyar for the counter-petitioners in this Court raises the preliminary objection that an order under Section 5, Act XX of 1863, is appealable, and that an application for revision under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code, is therefore inadmissible. He relies on Sultan Ackeni Sahib v. Shaik Bava Malimiyar I.L.R. 4 Mad. 295 ; but we are of opinion that this case is, in effect, overruled by the decision of the Privy Council in Minakshi v. Subramanya . That I.L.R. 11 Mad. 26decision was, no doubt, given with reference to an order made under Section 10 of Act XX of 1863. But we think that the principle on which that decision was based is also applicable to an order like the present made under Section 5 of Act XX of 1863.2. We are therefore of opinion that no appeal lies.3. We have now to consider whether we should interfere under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code.4. The petitioner in this Court contends that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Secti...
Krishna Panda and anr. Vs. Balaram Panda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad290
1. The effect of an award has been entirely misunderstood. An award duly passed in accordance with a submission of the parties is equivalent to a final judgment. To give effect to it, the subsequent consent or approval of neither party is required. After an award made for a partition of joint property neither party can sue for partition any more than he could if a decree in a suit for partition had been passed, in order that the parties should be remitted to their previous rights, it is not enough that the award was not enforced or that even both parties objected to it. There must be positive evidence that both parties agreed that the former state of things should be restored. There is no such evidence in this case. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Queen-empress Vs. Manikam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad263
ORDER1. In this case certain persons--five and more in number--were convicted of rioting under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, in that they forcibly entered upon the land of one Kandikkarappan and there committed mischief by destroying some of his young paddy plants. It appears that on the day after the complaint in the case was filed, the Second-Class Magistrate who tried the case went to make a local inspection of the scene of the alleged offence, not because he distrusted the truth of the complaint, for he had issued process against the accused, but apparently for the purpose of seeing what damage was done. The following is the account given by the Magistrate of the result of his inspection: 'As alleged in the complaint the said two fields were in a very disorderly and pitiable state. The young paddy plants and sprouts in the said fields were lying trodden down. There were innumerable pits in the field caused by the feet of the people. A greater part of the said fields was dug...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›