Chennai Court January 1897 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.
Narayanasami Mudaliar Vs. Lokanibalammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ220
1. There can be no doubt that in the letter the defendant's husband merely asked for a loan of money. The letter does not amount to a promise, and no obligation would have arisen unless the addressee had consented to comply with (he request and to lend the money, Acceptance on the defendant's part of the offer made in the letter was necessary before any obligation could be said to' arise, whereas if the letter were equivalent to a promissory note, it would follow that on mere proof of the writing and signature the plaintiff would.have been entitled to recover. We cannot understand how such a letter can be construed as a promissory note, or how the; request of the writer to send the letter back can make any difference. The terms of the letter in Ayyanna v. Nagabhooshanam I.L.R. 16 M. 283 are not quite the same as they are in the present case. The case more closely resembles the ease of Dhondhat Narharbhat v. Atmaram Moreshvar. I.L.R. 13 B. 659. We must reverse the decree. There must be ...
Vasudevan and ors. Vs. Sankaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad129
Shephard and Subramania Ayyar, JJ.1. It is said on the appellants behalf that there was a prior judgment in their favour, of which they might have availed themselves if they had known that the view of the law now taken would be maintained. But this prior judgment was not pleaded, though it was open to the appellants to put it forward.2. On the facts as found by the District Judge, we must hold that he was right in dismissing the suit, and therefore the appeal is dismissed, but without costs....
Nathuram Siviji Sett Vs. Kutti Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad446
1. The Judge is in error in stating that the defendant was sued only as legal representative of the deceased. He was in fact sued as the heir and possessor of the assets of the deceased. It having been proved in the suit that the defendant had received sufficient assets to meet the plaint debt, the Court of First Instance was justified in passing a personal decree against him in the suit for that debt, and it was not necessary to wait for execution proceedings to determine the extent of the defendant's personal liability as contemplated in Section 252 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ease of Magaluri Garudiah v. Narayana Rungiah I.L.R. 3 Mad. 359 is in point rather than the case of Janaki v. Dhanu Lall I.L.R. 14 Mad. 454 quoted by the Judge. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif. The defendant (respondent) must pay the plaintiff's costs in this and the lower Appellate Court. This disposes of the memorandum of obje...
Nallappa Reddi Vs. Ramalingachi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad250
1. The plaintiff's sale-deed having been lost, he was entitled to claim that the first defendant should execute a fresh deed of sale and register it, and assuming, as found by the Munsif, that second and third defendants had notice of the sale to the plaintiff, he was further entitled to possession.2. The cases applicable to this are Nynakka Routhen v. Vavana Mahomed Naina Routhen 5 M.H.C.R. 133 and Nagappa v. Devu I.L.R. H Mad. 55. In Venkatasami v. Kristayya I.L.R. Mad. 341 relied on by the District Judge, the sale-deed had not been lost, and so there could be no claim for specific performance. The District Judge's decision on this point is therefore wrong, and he is requested to find, on the evidence on record upon the issue, whether defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had notice of the sale to the plaintiff; in which case the Munsif's decree will have to be restored, and that of the District Judge reversed. The District Judge is requested to submit his findings within one month from the date o...
Bapu Ammal and ors. Vs. Govinda Padiyachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ261
ORDER1. It appears to us that the real question has not been decided by the District Judge, namely, whether the delay in actually returning the plaint was due to the negligence of the plaintiff or to the act of the Court. If the District Munsif retained the plaint, notwithstanding the application made by the plaintiffs or their pleader, we are of opinion that he ought not to have dated his order on the 8th of May, but on the day on which he was really prepared to deliver out the plaint. Until this date, we think the proceedings would not be ended within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act; for, according to Section 57 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs are clearly entitled to have their plaint returned to them with the final order upon it.2. It is stated in the affidavit that the plaintiffs, by their pleader and in person applied on the 8th May for the return of the plaint and that it was refused. There ought to have been an affidavit by the pleader himself on this...
Queen-empress Vs. Subramania Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad385
ORDER1. We agree with the decision in the Bombay case, Queen-Empress v. Kutrapa I.L.R. 18 Bom. 440. We decline to interfere....
Queen-empress Vs. Venkataram Jetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad444
ORDER1. We think it was competent to the Magistrate to pass a sentence which should take effect at the only time when it could take effect, viz., after the expiration of the sentence in foreign territory.2. We therefore decline to interfere....
Subrahmanian Chetty and ors. Vs. Rakku Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ100
1. As the Munsif found that the debt was adjoint debt, and that finding was not disputed in appeal, we must decide following. Venkataramanna v. Venkayya I.L.R. M. 877 that no succession certificate was necessary. The strict interpretation put on that case by the Subor dinate Judge, viz., that it is only when the fact of the debt being a joint one appears on the face of the document, that a certificate is not necessary, has not been adopted by this Court itself which has recognized other proof of the debt being joint beyond what appears on the face of the document.2. It has further been argued that this being a suit on a mortgage for sale of the mortgaged property, the Succession Certificate Act does not apply, and the case, Baid Nath Das v. Skamanarid Das I.L.R. 14 M. 877 has been relied on in support of the contention. That case, however, is in conflict with the Full Bench case, Feteh Gharid v. Muhammad Baksh I.L.R.(1894) A. 259 . We are not called upon to decide the matter now as we ...
Arumugam Pillai Vs. Arunachallam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad254
1. The bar of limitation could not avail if the plaint was. originally presented in the proper Court, and we consider that it was so presented in that the Munsif had jurisdiction. On this ground, but not on the grounds given by the Judge, we hold that the suit was not time-barred.2. With regard to the question whether the alleged minority of the testator was a valid reason for the Registrar refusing registration, we agree in the conclusion arrived at by the Judge. A clear distinction is made in Section 41 of the Registration Act between the case of a will presented by the testator himself, and that of a will presented by any other person entitled to do so. In the former case the rules laid down in Section 35 are made applicable, but in the latter case special rules are given. In these special rules no provision is made for an enquiry as to the testator's minority or sanity, for which enquiry provison is made in the rules in Section 35. It would not be reasonable to bold that the specia...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›