Chennai Court November 1897 Judgments
Sivathi Odnyan and anr. Vs. Ramasubbayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ21
1. We cannot accede to the contention that the District Judge is wrong in holding upon the issue remitted to him that the sum payable by the appellants to the respondent is not Rs. 270, the price paid by latter for the property when he purchased it at the court-sale held in execution of the decree obtained by the mortgagee, but Rs. 1,050, which the Judge found to he the proportion of the mortgage debt chargeable in, respect of the property,2. The decision is in accordance with the principle stated in Fisher on Mortgages in the following words: 'The assignee stands in the place of the assignor; and, as the latter might have assigned to him gratis, it is hut just that the measure of the allowance should be what was due and not what was paid. The assignee taking the hazard should also have the benefit of the bargain, of which neither the mortgagor nor any subsequent incumbrancer can have any equity to deprive him.' (5th Edition, Section 1784). Davis v. Barret is one of the modern cases in...
Tag this Judgment!Salamma Vs. Lutchman Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ14
1. The land in dispute formed part of the emoluments attached to the office of Maniem in a Government village.2. The second defendant formerly held the office, but having been found guilty of embezzlement he was dismissed. The land was a few years afterwards enfranchised in favour of his wife, Ellammal, since deceased. With reference to the issue remitted for trial, viz., what right, if any, and under what circumstances the land was en. franchised in favour of Ellammal, the District Judge states in effect that the evidence does not enable him to do more than find that the enfranchisement took place because Ellammal was in possession of the land at the time.3. The District Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff, being of opinion that she, as the unmarried daughter of Ellammal, was her heir and entitled to the property. But the District Judge on the strength of an observation contained in Section 616 of Mnyne's Hindu Law, held that the property, though acquired by Ellammal, became on her ...
Tag this Judgment!Yalla Gangulu Vs. Mamidi Dali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad74
1. under Section 413, Criminal Procedure Code, the Sessions Judges was precluded from entertaining the appeal.2. We set aside his proceedings.3. In exercise of our powers of revision we set aside so much of the Deputy Magistrate's order as awards compensation to the deceased man's widow....
Tag this Judgment!Salemma Vs. Lutchmana Reddi and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad100
1. The land in dispute formed part of the emoluments attached to the office of maniem in a Government village, The second defendant formerly held the office, but having been found guilty of embezzlement he was dismissed. The land was a few years afterwards enfranchised in favour of his wife Ellammal since deceased. With reference to the issue remitted for trial, viz., what right, if any, and under what circumstances the land was enfranchised in favour of Ellammal, the District Judge states in effect that the evidence does not enable him to do more than find that the enfranchisement took place, because Ellammal was in possession of the land at the time.2. The District Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff, being of opinion that she, as the unmarried daughter of Ellammal, was her heir and entitled to the property. But the District Judge, on the strength of an observation contained in Section 616 of Mayne's 'Hindu Law' held chat the property, though acquired by Ellammal, became on her dea...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarayadu and ors. Vs. Rangayya Appa Rau ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad152
1. Objection is taken to the maintenance of this appeal as being made against an order in respect of which no appeal is allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal could only be justified on the ground that the order of the District Judge amounted to a decree within the meaning of the code. But as the District Judge had no appeal before him, it is impossible to say that he passed a decree. It must be assumed, and indeed it is not disputed, that the Judge was right in determining the amount of the fee chargeable, and it follows that the memorandum of appeal not being properly stamped, was of no validity whatever ( Section 28, Court Fees Act). Consequently there having been no appeal and no appellate decree, there can be no second appeal2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kuppusarni Chetty Vs. Papathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ6
1. The Judge is in error in supposing that the plaintiff having purchased a portion of the mortgaged property: is at liberty to redeem that portion only without redeeming the rest. This is clear on principle, and is expressly enacted in the last clause of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See: also Tadiqotla Timmappa v. Lakshmamma, I.L.R. 5 M. 385. Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act on which the Judge relies does not permit the redemption of a mortgage piecemeal. It merely provides for contribution towards the mortgage debt rateably by each of several properties when they are owned by different mortgagors, or when being all the property of one mortgagor, there are prior encumbrances on some of the properties. (See also Roghu Nath Perahad v. Harlal Sadhu I. L. R 18 C. 320. We must therefore, reverse the decree of the lower Court and dismiss plaintiff's suit with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Fischer Vs. Twigg and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad367
1. It must be assumed that the school buildings are buildings exclusively used for charitable purposes. That being so, the buildings are exempted from the operation of the notification that may be made under Section 63 of the Act. A tax upon such buildings and other similar buildings mentioned in the exception is not one which can be in legal existence, and therefore it cannot be said that the tax was collected under the Act. The case is thus distinguishable from the case relied upon by the petitioner's vakil--Municipal Council, Nellore v. Rangayya I.L.R. 19 Mad. 10 . We prefer to base our judgment on the grounds that an imposition, which is expressly prohibited by the Act, cannot be deemed to be made under the provisions of the hot, rather than on the ground that the case is one in which the party aggrieved is protected by the proviso to Section 262.2. We dismiss the petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu Vs. Saminatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad366
1. All we have to say is whether, on the face of the plaint, a good cause of action is disclosed. The allegation of partnership dealings and of the settlement of accounts between the partners followed by a promise on the part of one partner to pay a liquidated sum to the other amounts to a contract supported by good consideration, and the law does not require it to be in writing. The case of Amuthu v. Muthayya I.L.R. 16 Mad. 339 does not appear to be a case of mutual dealings. The case in Hirada Karibasappah v. Gadigi Muddappa 6 M.H.C.R. 197 is more in point.2. We must reverse the decree and remand the suit for disposal on the merits. Costs will be provided for in the revised decree....
Tag this Judgment!Rasibi Ammal Vs. Olaga Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad115
1. We are of opinion that, the provisions of the Succession Certificate Act apply to suits in the Village Munsifs' Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Haji Mahomed Abdul Aziz Badsha Sahib and ors. Vs. Subba Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad490
1. Section 59 [If a plaintiff sue upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. If he realy on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint.] of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates the production and deposit with the plaint of documents sued on, and which therefore form part of the plaint. They have to be marked under rule No. 39 of the High Court Rules and should be considered as 'annexed thereto as exhibits' within rule No. 47 of the High Court Rules and may be furnished to a defendant under rule No. 44, High Court Rules. Rules Nos. 43 and 47 are intended to apply to documents deposited under Section 140, Civil Procedure Code, and inspection of these should not be allowed until they are offered and rec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »