Chennai Court April 1896 Judgments
Fischer Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad292
1. In Original Suit No. 14 of 1892 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Madura (East), Mr. R. Fischer, claiming to be the duly registered holder of the village of Kondagai in the Sivaganga Zamindari, sued the Secretary of State for India in Council, for a declaration that the order of the Madras Government No. 1088, dated 14th November 1891, directing the Collector to cancel his separate registration and assessment of the village, was ultra vires and illegal.2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit with costs, and the plaintiff now appeals (Appeal Suit No, 10 of 1895) to this Court against that decree.3. In Original Suit No. 20 of 1893 on the file of the same Subordinate Court, the plaintiffs, who are the present lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari, sued Mr. R. Fischer for the balance of poruppu, magamai and road-cess, with interest, alleged to be due on the said village of Kondagai for fasli 1300. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree for the sum which he found to be due, but in ap...
Tag this Judgment!Volkart and ors. Vs. Sabju Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad304
1. Our answer to the question referred to us is that the terms of the contract in Exhibit A are clear, and under it the plaintiffs are, in our opinion, entitled to bring two separate suits as they have done one in respect of each shipment....
Tag this Judgment!Tirumalaswami Ayyangar Vs. Tirumalai Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad324
1. In our opinion the grant of a patta must, as long as an appeal against the decision of the Collector remains possible, be held to be conditional and subject to the result of the appeal. Here an appeal was presented within due time, and it was ultimately successful. Even under the old Standing Order Collector of Salem v. Rangappa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 404 this is clearly implied.2. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal for disposal on the other issues.3. Costs to abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kollipara Pullamma Vs. Maddula Tatayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad340
1. The plaintiff lent certain sums to the defendants, and the account between them was last settled on the 18th December 1888. In November 1892, the plaintiff sued for the balance of principal and interest due. In order to take the case out of the statute of limitations, certain alleged payments were relied on. The District Munsif found that one of these, viz., of Rs. 200 on the 6th October 1891, was true, and that there was no bar by limitation. The Subordinate Judge, however, found that the payment was not made and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, except as regards a small sum admitted by defendants. The finding of the Subordinate Judge as regards this payment is a finding of fact, and although we do not regard his reasons for the finding as altogether satisfactory, we have no power in second appeal to go behind it.2. It has, however, been found by both Courts that a sum of Rs. 303 was credited in the defendants' books (Day-book and Ledger) to the plaintiff's account with them on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghu Gowdo Vs. Gowdo Chandro Naiko
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ243
1. We cannot agree with the view taken by the District Judge to the effect that registration is conclusive.2. The judgment cited I.L.R. 15 M. 484 by him does not support that position. It appears from the judgment of the Deputy Collector that the appellant had given muchilikas to, and accepted puttahs from, Jagannadha for prior faslies, and even for this very fasli for which puttah is now demanded. This being so, it being clear that the appellant having attorned to another landlord who is not and could not properly be made a party to this suit, the suit must fail.3. Of course, it is open to the plaintiff, if so advised, to bring a regular suit against Jagannadha to declare his title.4. We must allow the appeal and restore the judgment of the Deputy Collector with costs in this and in the Lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Mullapudi Balakrishnayya Vs. Venkatanarasimha Appa Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad329
1. This is a suit of a small cause nature, being a suit for kattubadi. The mere fact that the plaintiff asserted that the kattubadi was chargeable on land cannot be taken to alter the nature of the suit when, in fact, it was not so chargeable. Notwithstanding the decision in Venkatarama Doss v. Maharajah of Vizianagram I.L.R. 19 Mad. 103 we must say that in our opinion kattubadi is not, in the absence of any custom or contract to the contrary, chargeable on land. The plaintiff, it is to be observed, abandoned the claim for a charge and obtained a decree for money only. Then it is argued that the claim for the money due on account of emolument payable to karnams is a claim within Article 13 of the schedule to the Small Cause Courts Act. It is said that it is a due payable to the plaintiff by reason of his interest in immoveable property. If the claim were made by the karnam, it would not be of that character, although it might come under other words of the same article. As the claim is ...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachella Chetti Vs. Sithayi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad327
ORDER1. The finding of the Subordinate Judge is very unsatisfactory. In one passage he says that the work done by the defendant was in the nature of repairs, and in another place he uses language implying that substantial improvements were effected. What has to be determined is whether the expenditure was necessary to preserve the house from destruction. (See Transfer of Property Act, Section 72). A mortgagee is not at liberty to effect improvements and charge the mortgagor therewith.2. It is suggested that the plaintiff is liable because he consented to the work being done. But this consent would not make him liable unless given under circumstances to make it equivalent to a promise to reimburse the cost to the defendants.3. We must ask the Subordinate Judge to find(i) whether the expenditure was necessarily incurred for the preservation of the property;(ii) whether, if not, the plaintiff agreed to repay the cost.4. The findings are to be submitted within one month after the re-openin...
Tag this Judgment!Rev. Father Caussavel Vs. Rev. Saurez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad273
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. This is a revision petition presented by the Rev. Father A. Caussavel, S.J., against the decision of the District Magistrate of Tinnevelly, discharging an accused person, the Rev. L.M. Saurez, under Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The accused was charged under the Indian Christian Marriage Act with solemnizing marriages without authority and without publishing or causing to be affixed notices of such marriage, and thereby committing offences under the said Act.3. It appears to be admitted that the accused did solemnize two marriages between Roman Catholic Christians according to the Roman Catholic ritual at a chapel at Vellapatti, and did not comply with the provisions of Part III of the Indian Christian Marriage Act. The District Magistrate has found that the accused has received episcopal ordination, and that he is a priest of the Syrian Church under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch, and he is also satisfied that the accused is authoriz...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Kalian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad310
1. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Chidambaram convicted eighteen pariahs of Puthur, who had been arrested by officers of the Salt Department on the 18th March 1895, of having escaped from lawful custody on the same day, an offence punishable under Section 224, Indian Penal Code.2. On appeal, the Head Assistant Magistrate acquitted them on the ground that the salt officers had made the arrest unlawfully, and that escape from such custody was no offence.3. Against this acquittal the Public Prosecutor now appeals on behalf of Government.4. It is admitted that the Sub-Inspector of the Salt Department had no other authority to make the arrests than that given by Section 47 of the Madras Salt Act, 1889. The question is whether, under the circumstances, his action was in accordance with the provisions of that section. It empowers an officer of the Salt Department whenever he 'has reason to believe that contraband salt is being...kept in any place and that the delay in obtaining a search-war...
Tag this Judgment!Muthunarayana Reddi Vs. Balakrishna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad306
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The objection taken is that, unless all the decree-holders join in assigning the whole of the interest possessed by them under the decree, no order should be passed under Section 232, Civil Procedure Code. The decision in Kishore Chand Bhakat v. Gisborne and Co. I.L.R. 17 Cal. 341 is an authority against this contention. Following that case, I hold that there is no prohibition in law against one of several decree-holders assigning his interest under the decree. Whether such an assignment ought to be recognised under the section of the Code referred to above and the assignee permitted to take out execution must depend upon the circumstances of each case. Here, however, I see no objection to the first respondent being permitted to execute the decree according to law. The appellant was not able to show how he would have been prejudiced by the respondent being allowed to execute the decree. The order of the District Judge was right. The appeal is rejected with costs ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »