Chennai Court October 1897 Judgments
Nainappa Chetti Vs. Chidambaram Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad18
1. Plaintiff, as purchaser of the equity of redemption of a certain village, sued to redeem on payment of the mortgage money.2. Various objections were raised by the contesting defendants, but they were disallowed by the Subordinate Judge, who gave plaintiff a decree for redemption. Against this decree the first, sixth, fifth, and fourth defendants separately appeal in Appeal Suits Nos. 75, 92, 145 and 146 of 1896. The plaintiff also appeals (Appeal Suit No. 62) against a small part of the decree.3. The facts, out of which the litigation has arisen, are complicated, but they are fully stated in paragraph 1 of the Subordinate Judge's judgment and need not be repeated here.4. The main appeal is that of the first defendant. His chief contention before us is that the only remedy of the mortgagor, or of the plaintiff, as assignee of the equity of redemption, was to have executed the decree in Appeal Suit No. 98 of 1880, and that, as execution of that decree is now barred, he has lost the ri...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyavayyar Vs. Virasami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad393
1. In this case Rs. 10. a month of the salary or wages of a peon in the Arni Jaghir have been attached in advance in execution of a decree.2. The District Judge has confirmed the order of the District Munsif and this is an appeal from that decision.3. We are of opinion that the decision is wrong and that, under Section 266, Civil Procedure Code, no salary can be attached until it becomes due and a debt exists. There is nothing in Section 266 of the Civil Procedure Code to alter the pre-existing law in this respect.4. It is suggested that, inasmuch as by the proviso to Section 266, the salary of public officers and of servants of a Railway Company is in part only made not liable to attachment, and the wages of labourers and domestic servants are entirely made not liable to attachment, it must be assumed that the wages of others who are not included in the proviso are liable to attachment before they have become due and are debts. This, we think, is a fallacy. There is nothing whatever i...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Mudaliar Vs. Rathna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad148
1. We do not think that Exhibit III is evidence of an implied undertaking by the plaintiff that he accepted the rates and terms of the patta, Exhibit A.2. But the second point urged that the suit was not brought within the fasli 1303 to which the patta relates is, we think, fatal to the suit, It has been held in Venkatasami Naik v. Setupati Ambalam 7 M.H.C.R. 359 that a patta must be tenderd by a landlord within the fasli for which rent is sought to be recovered, and we are of opinion that the same rule must apply to a tenant when he demands a patta from the landlord. This suit, being brought after the expiration of the fasli. for which the patta was demanded, was therefore barred by time. On that ground only, we reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Deputy Collector. The plaintiff must pay the costs of the appellant in this and in the lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramayya and ors. Vs. Krishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad319
Shephard, J.1. The question is whether the plaint, having been presented with an insufficient Court-fee stamp on the last day allowed by the law of limitation, viz., the 29th March 1893, and subsequently within the time fixed by the Court presented again with a proper stamp, can be said to have been duly presented within the time limited by the Act of Limitation. According to the 4th [Section 4: Subject to the provisions contained in sections five to twenty-five (inclusive) Dismissal of suits &c., every suit instituted, appeal presented, and application made instituted &c., after period after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the second of limitation. schedule hereto annexed shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.Explanation.--A suit is instituted in ordinary cases when the plaint is presented to the proper officer; in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is filed; and in the case of a claim aga...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamia Pillai Vs. Adinarayana Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad465
1. On the facts found by the District Judge we do not think he was justified in his conclusion that the transaction was in fraud of creditors.2. The Judge finds there was good consideration for the mortgage, but considers that the want of good faith brought the ease within the purview of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The reference to good faith occurs only in the proviso to the Section.3. It has first to be seen whether there was intent to defraud creditors within the meaning of the former part of the Section. When it is said that a deed is not executed in good faith what is meant is that it was executed as a mere cloak, the real intention of the parties being that the ostensible grantor should retain the benefit to himself [ex-parte Games I.L.R. 12 Ch. D., 314 There is nothing to show that there was want of good faith in that sense in the present case. Section 53 cannot be understood and correctly applied without reference to the English cases on which the Section is rea...
Tag this Judgment!Sooryanarayana Pandarathar Vs. Gurunatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ25
1. This is an appeal from the District Judge of Tanjore allowing an execution petition on the ground that though dated more than three years after the last preceding application, it is in effect a mere revival or continuation of it.2. In June 1892, the respondent had put in a petition which was dismissed, the petitioner being relegated to a regular suit to establish his right. He did not bring a suit, but in September 1892, put in a fresh application to execute. This was dismissed as he had not chosen to take the course suggested when his previous application had been dismissed. After this, the respondent filed his suit to have his right established, and that suit ended in his favour on the 18th March 1895. On the 3rd October 1895--more than 3 years after his last petition was dismissed--he put in the present application, asking to have the former application of September 1892 revived or continued. Both the Courts held that this application was not barred, because it was in effect a me...
Tag this Judgment!Suryanarayana Pandarathar Vs. Gurunada Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad257
1. This is an appeal from the District Judge allowing an execution petition on the ground that though dated more than three years after the last preceding application it is in effect a mere revival or continuation of it. In June 1892, the respondent had put in a petition which was dismissed, the petitioner being relegated to a regular suit to establish his right. He did not bring a suit, but in September 1892 put in a fresh application to execute. This was dismissed as he had not chosen to take the course suggested when his previous application had been dismissed. After this the respondent filed his suit to have his right established and that suit ended in his favour on the 18th March 1895. On the 3rd October 1895 more than three years after his last petition was dismissed, he put in the present application asking to have the former application of September 1892 revived or continued. Both the Courts held that this application was not barred because it was in effect a mere revival of th...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniandi Tevan and ors. Vs. Puthirangonda Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad389
ORDER1. The case set up in the plaint is that the well was not the private property of the defendants, but was situated in poramboke land and was used by the plaintiffs, and those on whose behalf they sue, as a matter of right for the past ninety years. This would indicate that the plaintiffs claimed what is called a 'customary right' such as is referred to in Section 2 (b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882,' and in Channanam Pillay v. Manu Puttur 1 Mad. L.J. 47 . The Subordinate Judge found that the well belonged to the defendants, but that it had been used by the plaintiffs and those on whose behalf they sued, openly and without obstruction, for upwards of thirty years, and he, therefore, held that they had established a customary easement over the well. The plaintiffs' claim was not put forward in the plaint as one of easement, and there is no allegation or issue or clear finding as to their possession of a dominant heritage entitling them to the easement.2. Without a dominant herit...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Nambiar and ors. Vs. Kannan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad8
1. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the appellants argues that, as the covenant of title was not embodied in words in the sale-deed, but is implied by law under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, it cannot be regarded as a contract in writing registered, and therefore does not fall under Article 116 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Article 116: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description of suit. | Period of | Time from which period begins to run | limitation. | __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For compensation for the breach | Six years ... | When the period of limitation would of a contract in writing registered. | | begin to r...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Chetti Vs. Lakshmana Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad256
1. According to the law declared in the Contract Act, Section 43, especially when taken with Section 29 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that it is not incumbent on a person dealing with partners to make them all defendants. He is at liberty to sue any one partner as he may choose, Lukmidas Khimji v. Purshotam Haridas I.L.R. 6 Bom. 700.2. The petition must therefore be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »