Chennai Court September 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.
Pattabhiramayya Naidu and ors. Vs. Ramayya Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad23
1. The only plea urged before us is that the suit is barred under Articles 61 and 99, Schedule 2 of the Indian Limitation Act, on the ground that the suit was not brought until more than three year's had elapsed from the realization of the money from plaintiffs by sale of their property by the Court.2. We think that the words of Article 99 show that it cannot apply to a case like this where not the whole, but only a part, of the money due under a joint decree was realized from plaintiff's.3. We think, too, that it may be doubted whether Article 61 is applicable to the present case where there was no payment by plaintiffs, but where their property was seized and sold by the Court and the proceeds paid by the Court to the decree-holder. If, however, that article does apply, then we are disposed to adopt the view of the learned Judges in Fuckoruddeen Mahomed Ahsan v. Mohima Chunder Chowdhry I.L.R. 4 Cal. 529 and to hold that time begins to run from the date of the payment to the decree-ho...
Subbaraya Pillai Vs. Vaithilingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad91
1. The facts in this case have been set out with sufficient accuracy by the lower Appellate Court, but we are of opinion that some of the documents have been misconstrued, and the rights of the plaintiff have been misunderstood. We are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit as trustee appointed by the Mauritius Court under its order of the 22nd July 1887. The District Judge has misunderstood the intention of the composition deed, Exhibit C, and has not given due weight to the language and intention of the above order of the Court, made with a view to effectually carry out the object of the compensation deed. We do not doubt but that Naga Pillai Subbarayan (the plaintiff) was nominated in Exhibit C as trustee in consequence of his being the managing member of the firm of V. Subbarayan and Company, who had undertaken to pay the creditors of the insolvents--Coo. Vaithilingam and Company--for whose benefit the estate of the insolvents was to be collected. Bu...
Ragavendra Ayyar Vs. Karuppa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad33
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The facts of the case material for our present purpose are as follows: The land, for the possession of which the Appellant sues, was held by him under a mittadar who is a landlord within the meaning of the Rent Recovery Act (VIII of 1865) and the interest possessed by the appellant in the land was a saleable interest. The landlord, alleging that the rent due by the appellant for fasli 1297 was not duly paid, proceeded to recover the amount by sale of the latter's interest in the land under the provisions of the enactment referred to. On the notice Prescribed' by Section 39 of the Act being served by the landlord upon the appellant, he filed a summary suit under Section 40, questioning the legality of the landlord's proceedings, chiefly on the ground that exchange of patta and muchilka had not been dispensed with and that there' was neither an interchange of such engagements between him and the landlord, nor a tender of a proper patta to the former by the latter a...
Payyath Nanu Menon Vs. Thiruthipalli Raman Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad51
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. One Govindan Nair and his younger brother Nanu Menon were, in the year 1892, the only surviving members of a tarwad subject to the Marumakkatayam law. The former, who was the karnavan, adopted on the 21st April of that year four persons, viz., his son Raman the first defend ant, and his daughter Lakshmi the second defendant, and her children Paru and Krishnan the sixth and the seventh defendants. He made the adoptions without the express or implied consent of Nanu Menon, who had, prior to the date of the adoptions, been for many years on unfriendly terms with his brother, in June 1892 Govindan Nair died. Subsequently Nanu Menon brought the suit, out of which this appeal arose, for a declaration that the said adoptions were invalid, for possession of the property which had been held and managed by Govindan Nair as the karnavan and for certain minor reliefs. In the Court below, he got a decree for the property, etc., but his prayer as to the adoptions was not grant...
Ratnagiri Pillai Vs. Syed Vava Ravuthan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad477
1. The plaintiff sued the defendant on a promissory note. The parties reside at Palni and the money was to be paid there; but the note was executed at Dindigul, where the parties were on a temporary visit. The Subordinate Judge of Madura (West) has small cause jurisdiction over Dindigul, but not over Palni. One and the same District Munsif has ordinary original jurisdiction over both Palni and Dindigul. The question for decision is whether the suit was triable by the District Munsif, or whether it was triable exclusively by the Small Cause Court. The District Munsif found that it was triable by the District Munsif, and this finding was upheld by the District Judge on appeal. The defendant asks us to revise the proceedings under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that under Section 16 of the Small Cause Court Act IX of 1887 the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Section 7 of Act VII ...
Queen-empress Vs. Abdul Kadar Sheriff Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad8
1. The abetment of an offence is an offence of itself and is punishable under separate Sections of its own. None of those Sections is mentioned in Clause (b) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore sanction need not be obtained in respect to them.2. The fact that the Legislature has not included in Section 195 the Sections of the Penal Code relating to abetment is probably due to the circumstance that in the generality of cases the facts connected with the abetment are not likely to come before the Court.3. The costs of this reference must be paid by the accused at whose instance it was made....
Queen-empress Vs. Subramanian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad1
ORDER1. Reading Sections 98 and 100 of the Local Boards Act (V of 1884) together, it is clear that the notice prescribed by the former Section is a mere preliminary to the action to be taken by the president himself and not by the party under the latter Section. The notice in question is, therefore, merely a notice and not an order of the kind contemplated in Section 188 of the Penal Code.2. We accordingly agree with the District Magistrate that the convictions were wrong and set them aside and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded...
Chinna Krishna Reddi Vs. Dorasami Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad19
1. The case relied on by the District Judge Venkatasami v. Kristayya I.L.R. 16 Mad. 341 is not in point. In that case the plaintiff was in possession of the document, and it was solely by reason of his own negligence that he was unable to register the document; and it was for this reason that the High Court in that case decided that no suit would lie to compel the defendant to execute a fresh document.2. The present case stands on a totally different footing. In it the first defendant fraudulently made away with the document after its execution and before registration. It was therefore impossible for the plaintiff to register it In such a case the plaintiff is clearly entitled to have a fresh document executed and registered just as he would be so entitled if, after execution, the document had been accidentally lost or destroyed.3. The decision in Nynakka Routhen v. Vavana Mahomed Naina Routhen 5 M.H.C.R. 123 is exactly in point. There a document, after execution, but before registrati...
In Re: Under Stamp Act, Section 46
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad27
1. We are of opinion that the proper stamp duty leviable on the conveyance was Rs. 30, that being the amount payable on the consideration as set forth thedrein....
Queen-empress Vs. Duma Baidya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad483
1. We have no reason to doubt that the three appellants made an attack on the deceased Koraga in the manner described by the first and third prosecution witnesses. The effect of the blow given by the first appellant on the head of the deceased with a thick stick or 'bludgeon' was to cause his death, and we consider the first appellant was rightly convicted of murder. But the conviction of the second and third appellants for the same offence we cannot uphold. There is nothing to show that there was a common intention on the part of all the three accused to inflict such injury as would cause death; and no such intention as regards the second and third accused can be gathered from the particular acts of violence proved against them which in no way contributed to the death of the deceased. Though the object of all was no doubt to give the deceased a beating, the second and third accused neither instigated nor participated in the fatal blow dealt by the first accused. They cannot, therefore...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »