Chennai Court September 1896 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Paul and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad12
1. We cannot accept the Judge's interpretation that the word 'solemnize' as used in the Act applies to only such marriage ceremonies as are performed by some person possessing or claiming authority to perform Them by virtue of ecclesiastical authority. The Judge's view is quite inconsistent with the provisions of the Act which use the word ' solemnization' with reference to marriages before the Marriage Registrar who is an official possessing no ecclesiastical character, and before whom no ceremonies are necessary. A marriage before him is a mere civil marriage and yet the word in question is applied to such a marriage equally with marriages accompanied by religious ceremonial. We, therefore, take the meaning of the word to be equivalent to conduct, celebrate or perform. In this view any person, not being the persons being married, who actually took part in performing this marriage, that is in doing any act that was supposed to be material to constitute the marriage was clearly guilty ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Kutti Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad16
ORDER1. We are of opinion that stores and carts belonging to the Government jails come within the words 'Government stores and equipages' in Section 87 of Act V of 1884, and are free from tolls under that Act.2. The First-Class Magistrate was, therefore, wrong in discharging the accused on the grounds assigned by him in his Judgment.3. We, therefore, direct the said Magistrate to restore the case to his file and proceed to dispose of it in accordance with law. The Acting Government Pleader informs us that the object of Government in moving the Court to interfere in this case is merely to ascertain the law. We are of opinion that, if a conviction is obtained against the accused, a purely nominal fine will suffice, as the sense in which the word 'Equipages ' is used in the Act is not free from doubt and the construction placed upon it by the toll keeper was not an unnatural one or, in our opinion, so far as the records show, dishonest....
Tag this Judgment!Kuppu Nayudu Vs. Venkatakrishna Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad82
1. The first ground of appeal urged is that the suit is not sustainable with regard to Section 43, Civil Procedure Code, and we are referred to the decision of this Court in Muthunarayana Reddi v. Rayalu Reddi Second Appeal No. 181 of 1895 unreported. The case referred to is not in point, for there the plaintiff in his first suit ignored the existence of the defendant's mortgage and falsely alleging that the defendant was a trespasser sued to eject him as such. In the present case, the. plaintiff in his earlier suit (Original Suit No. 259 of 1888) did not ignore the defendant's earlier mortgage. On the contrary, he recited it and the sale under it, but he complained that the defendant had fraudulently failed to make him a party to the suit (Original Suit No. 859 of 1884 on the mortgage and he, therefore, sought for a declaration that the auction sale was not binding on him and that the land should he restored to him (plaintiff). The final decree in that suit was that plaintiff could no...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Vijia Raghunatha Ramachandra Vacha Mahali Thurai Vs. Venkatachal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad35
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The late third defendant, father of the appellant, on the 9th August 1886, executed to the first defendant a simple mortgage on the security of the third defendant's moiety of eight villages attached to the Zamindari of Elayathakudi in Madura. The first defendant on the 10th idem sub-mortgaged his mortgage interest to one Avichi Chetti. This man assigned his rights to the plaintiff who instituted this suit upon the sub-mortgage transferred to him.2. In the Court below the Subordinate Judge took an account of the amount due by the third defendant to the first and by the latter to the plaintiff, and among other reliefs, granted the usual order for the sale of the third defendant's interest in the property originally mortgaged, if payment of the amount, due by him, be not made within the time fixed.3. The first question for decision is whether a sub-mortgagee is entitled to an order for sale of the original mortgagor's interest, if other circumstances justifying suc...
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Ayyan Vs. Mangalathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad29
1. A preliminary objection is raised that no second appeal lies in this case, inasmuch as the suit is one for Rs. 138-0-6, and is of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The suit is to recover the above sum under an agreement, Exhibit A, Whereby the defendant's father and Ors. promised to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7 per mensem to the plaintiff. In other words, it is a suit to recover arrears of maintenance fixed by contract at a certain monthly sum.2. We are of opinion that this is 'a suit relating to maintenance ' and therefore excluded from the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court (Article 38, schedule 2 Act IX of 1887). It is argued that the decision in Komu v. Krishna I.L.R. 11 Mad. 134 is an authority opposed to this view; but we observe that this is not so, for that ease was decided under the law Act XI of 1865 in force before Act IX of 1887 was passed, and the terms of that Act were quite different from those of the present Act.3. Under the old Act certain sui...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnasami Aiyangar Vs. Kuppusami Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ50
1. The plaintiff has made no claim for the mortgage money, but only for the possession of the land, and for an injunction, and, in fact, his claim is inconsistent with any claim for money. The only relief he was entitled to in such an action was relief ejusdem generis with his claim.2. In the absence of any claim for money, the plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment for the mortgage money.3. We, therefore, set aside the decree in both the lower courts and dismiss the suit. Bach party must pay his own costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Allapichai Ravuthar Vs. MohidIn Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad3
ORDER1. The question before us is whether the maximum sentence which may be imposed on any one occasion under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is one month, or whether a longer term may be imposed at the rate of one month's imprisonment for each month's arrear remaining unsatisfied. In High Court Proceedings, dated 19th April 1871 6 M.H.C.R. App., 22, this Court remarked that only one month's imprisonment could be awarded, but this observation was made with reference to the terms of Section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code then in force (Act XXV of 1861) which runs as follows: The Magistrate may, for every breach of the order by warrant, direct the amount due to be levied in the manner provided for levying fines; or may order such person to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month.2. The words of Section 488 of the present Code are very different. They are:The Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying...
Tag this Judgment!Sheshama Nayani Vs. District Forest Settlement Officer of North Arcot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1896
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ83
1. We are of opinion that on the allegations in the affidavit, which are uncontradicted, the appeal ought to be re admitted and disposed of according to law and we direct that this be now done. Inasmuch as some Collectors hold office in the building where the correspondence branch of the office is located, and some at the Collector's own house which is some half mile away from the former building, notices to appear before the Collector when acting in a judiecial capacity should specify at which building he will sit.2. Costs in this appeal will follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kanakammal and ors. Vs. Rangachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad25
1. We think that the District Munsif did decide the suit on a preliminary point within the meaning of Section 562, Civil Procedure Code Ramachandra Joishi v. Hazi Kassim I.L.R. 16 Mad. 207. The order of remand was therefore legal.2. As to the merits of the remand order, it is urged that Exhibit I is merely a transfer, of the life-interest of the first defendant so as to accelerate the succession of the next heir. We observe that there is no statement in Exhibit T, that a life-interest merely is transferred, and the concluding -words in which she speaks of the donee possessing henceforth full powers of sale, etc., indicate that the woman purported to transfer such absolute interest. We observe further that the donee at once proceeded to exercise the rights of an absolute owner and transferred the property to the defendants Nos. 3 to 5. In these circumstances, we think that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is correct, and that plaintiffs had a cause of action.3. We therefore dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubbaraya Chetti and anr. Vs. Zamindar of Karvetinagar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad159
1. Though such irregularities as have occurred are mainly due to the zamindar's repeated applications for adjournment, yet, on considering all the facts of the case, we are not prepared to hold that the District Judge was wrong in regarding the irregularities, especially the omission to have the sale tom-tomed, as material and we think that where a material irregularity is proved and it is also proved that the price realized is much below the true value, then it may ordinarily be inferred that the low price was a consequence of the irregularity, even though the manner in which the irregularity produced the low price be not definitely made out. We therefore dismiss this appeal but without costs.2. We observe that the orders of the District Judge adjourning the sale did not comply with the provisions of Section 291, Civil Procedure Code, which require that adjournments shall be to a specified day and hour. It is of the utmost importance that in these matters the exact provisions of the C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »