Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad479
1. We are of opinion that the order of remand was ultra vires and illegal, since the District Munsif had decided the case on the merits, not on a preliminary point. The proper course was for the District Judge to have himself admitted Exhibit B and to have considered its effect along with the other evidence in the case and to have then arrived at findings on the material issues. If further evidence was required, he might have called on the District Munsif to record it and certify it, or he might have himself admitted it, and he might then have considered it also before arriving at a finding on the issues. Subba Sastri v. Balachandra Sastri I.L.R. 18 Mad. 421.2. We have considered how far the provisions of Section 578, Civil Procedure Code, should effect our procedure in this case. If we were satisfied that the District Judge did himself consider the evidence and did himself arrive at findings thereon, we should be inclined to hold that, under Section 578, Civil Procedure Code, the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad422
1. No appeal is allowed by law in this case....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1897)ILR20Mad152
1. Plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers. Third defendant is their father. All four form an undivided family of Tiyans following the Makkattayam rule of inheritance. A kanom was granted by a land owner in the name of the first defendant. On redeoming the kanom, the landlord paid into Court the amount of the kanom, together with compensation for trees and a house on the land redeemed. The decree in the suit (Original Suit No. 29 of 1892) directed that all the money should be paid to first defendant, as the kanom was in his name, 'unless defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 5' (the present second and third defendants and plaintiff) 'sue to establish their right to it.'2. The plaintiff alleged that the kanom and the trees, for which compensation was paid, were joint family property, but that the house was his own solo property, having boon built solely with his own funds. He sued-for a declaration of bis right to recover his one-fourth share of the money deposited for the kanom and as co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad464
1. The accused in this case, two of the residents of the village of Thirukodikaval, were convicted by the Magistrate under Sections 188 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the Sessions Judge reversed the conviction under the former section, but confirmed that under the latter. The act for which they were convicted was the cremation of the corpse of one Vyapuri Pillai, father of the first accused, on a spot close to the ghaut on the Cauvery used by the inhabitants of the adjoining village of Thiruvaduthorai for bathing and other lawful purposes. Both the Courts find that the cremation caused substantial annoyance and discomfort to the persons who were at the ghaut and to the passers-by on the occasion. The spot where the body was burnt appears to have been used for such purpose by the Thirukodikaval people from time immemorial and to have been originally situated to the north of the river. But the place where the ghaut referred to now exists came to be used as a place of public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad445
1. As regards suits tried by the Munsif under the extended small cause jurisdiction, which is now withdrawn, we are of opinion that execution proceedings in such suits must be had in that Court in which the jurisdiction now vests, that is, the Subordinate Judge's Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad440
ORDER 1. The Subordinate Judge has decided the suit on the ground that, in the absence of proof of a special custom, the ordinary Hindu Law must be followed, and hence that the widow will succeed in preference to the mother. 2. But he holds at the same time that the family property belonging to Raman and Sankaran was impartible on the strength of the decision in Raman Menon v. Chathunni I.L.R. 17 Mad. 184. If this be so, a special custom in deviation of the ordinary rule of Hindu Law has so far been proved. 3 The question then arises--if the property be held as tarwad property, in the marumakkathayam sense--who is to hold it on the death of the last male? Is it the senior surviving female, the property being impartible; or the widow of the last male-holder as in Hindu Law? When once the Hindu Law has been deviated from as to the nature of the property, it may be that the succession would go as in a tarwad. See Rarichan v. Perachi I.L.R. 15 Mad. 281. 4. We think the following issues sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad485
1. The plaintiff, as trustee of a certain temple at Negapatam, sued to recover from defendants certain lands which the plaintiff alleged they held under the temple as tenants, from year to year, under a lease (Exhibit A). The defendants claimed to have a right of permanent occupancy in the lands, subject only to payment of rent to the temple.2. Both the lower Courts have decreed for plaintiff.3. Against those decrees the defendants now appeal.4. The defendants claimed to have had permanent occupancy rights for the past two hundred years, but of this no proof was given. It is, however, clear from Exhibit I that, so long ago as 1813, the then manager of the temple gave a permanent lease of one-half of the lands to Chokkanatha Pillai, an ancestor of the defendants 1 to 14, and of the other half of the lands to Nalla Pillai. It is also clear from Exhibit II that in 1820 Nalla Pillai transferred his half share to Vriddhachala Pillai (the son of Chokkanatha Pillai), and that the manager of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad482
1. Independently of the confessions, the evidence for the prosecution is admittedly not sufficient to warrant the conviction of either of the accused. But, if the confessions can be acted on as true, they do, if taken together (one prisoner's with the other's) conclusively prove the guilt of both. We see no reason to believe they were not true for the chief reason that they were not coerced, for, even when the prisoners retracted them, they did not allege that the confessions had been extorted from them by the police, nor is there any allegation that they were obtained by inducement. In withdrawing their confessions the prisoners still admitted that they obtained a gun on the night of the murder from the boy Velu Rutti, who, as sixth witness, confirms their statements, thereby corroborating their confessions in a most material particular. The fifth witness also corroborates the two prisoners in stating that they were in company together on the night of the murder and proceeded together...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad368
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiffs advanced a sum of money to the defendant on his promising to supply certain goods. He, however, having failed to do so, the plaintiffs instructed their solicitors, Messrs. Wilson & King, to take steps for the recovery of the amount advanced. When the defendant learnt this, he requested the solicitors, through his vakil Mr. Ambrose, that they should defer taking legal proceedings. Thereupon Messrs. Wilson & King addressed to Mr. Ambrose, on the 2nd May 1896, Exhibit I, which is as follows:'With reference to my conversation with you this morning regarding Messrs. Carl Simon's claim against Ghouse Sheriff Sahib and Co., I am instructed to inform you that they are prepared to stay proceedings on your clients giving them an on-demand promissory note for the amount due up to date, viz., Rs. 7,189-9-11, plus Rs. 21, costs already incurred by them, such promissory note to carry interest at 9 per cent., and on your client undertaking to ship fortnightly thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)ILR19Mad398
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. Some years ago one Mr. R.S. Sheppard published four books, viz., 'Manual of English for Matriculation Candidates,' 'English Lessons for P.A. and B.A. Candidates,' 'Middle School Manual of English' and 'Lower Fourth Class Manual of Grammar.' On the 21st April 1888 Mr. Sheppard executed Exhibit II to Manickavaloo and Company authorizing them to print and publish and sell at their own risk and expense and for their own advantage the seventh, eighth and ninth editions of the 'Manual of English for Matriculation Candidates' at 6,000 copies per edition, the fifth, sixth and seventh editions also at 6,000 copies each edition, and the third edition of English Lessons for P.A. and B.A. Candidates' to consist of 1,500 copies. Further by this contract he bound himself, whilst the contract remained in force, not to publish or arrange with any others for the publication of the above books, or of any other books that may prejudicially affect the sale of any of the three books....
Tag this Judgment!