Chennai Court November 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.
Muthappudayan and anr. Vs. Ammani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ9
1. Certain property was given to one Sellayi by her father after her marriage. She died leaving a son and a daughter her surviving. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff who is the daughter of Sellayi was entitled to the inheritance to the exclusion of her brother.2. The rule of succession for such a case is clearly stated in the Mitakshara. The author after mentioning the various sorts of woman's property recognized by Manu and others and referring particularly to gifts made after marriage, proceeds to discuss the distribution of such property. 'In all forms of marriage' he says 'if the woman leave progeny' that is, if 'she have issue, her property devolves on her daughter or her daughters.' Then he explains the matter further declaring that unmarried daughters are to take first, but on failure of them married daughters. He cites Gautama as an authority--'A woman's property goes to her daughter unmarried or unprovided.' Then he gives the exception from the rule 'But this ...
Rego Vs. Abbu Beari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad151
1. Inasmuch as the plaint alleges that the original transaction was a mortgage and that was not denied by the defendant, we must treat it as such. It is contended that, as the mortgagee purported to transfer a title acquired since the mortgage and independently of it, the case is not governed by Article 134 of the schedule to the Limitation Act. In effect the defendant's vendor purported to transfer the full ownership, when in point of law he had only a mortgage right to transfer. This is exactly the case for which the Article is provided.2. We must dismiss the appeal with costs....
Arunachalam Chetti Vs. Meyyappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ28
Subramania Aiyar, J.1. Murugappa Chetti, the deceased father of the present 1st defendant (1st respondent'), sued the plaintiff (appellant) in O. S. No. 42 of 1879 for a sum of money alleged to be due by the father of the plaintiff the late Kamasami Chetti. The plaintiff, being then a minor, was represented in the suit by his mother and guardian ad litem. At first she contested the suit, but during the trial she entered into a compromise consenting to the sum claimed being decreed against the estate of the plaintiff, the father of the 1st defendent giving up his costs. A decree was given in accordance with the compromise. In 1882, litigation again arose between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant's father. One Palaniappa Chetti, as the next friend of the present plaintiff, instituted O. S. No. 48 of 1882 against the 1st defendant's father for the purpose of setting aside the decree in the previous suit No. 42 of 1879, on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud practiced on the pl...
Subramania Aiyar Vs. Saminatha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ319
1. On the 1st March 1891, the plaintiff and the defendant executed an instrument of exchange and mutually transferred possession of the respective lands comprised in the instrument. It contains no provision by way of covenant for title, for quiet enjoyment or for re-entry, in case either party be evicted. On the 7th June 1891, however the parties executed to each other documents styled ' security bonds'. The bond executed by the defendant to the plaintiff on that date, after reciting the exchange which had taken place, runs :--If any claim or dispute arises, I hereby bind myself to settle it. If Ida not so get (the dispute) settled, I hereby, bind myself to pay an amount not exceeding Rs. 4,014-8-6 at the rate of Rs. 1-4-0 per kuli of laud for lands which go out of your possession. This, security bond shall be sustainable for twelve years from this date.' The plaintiff alleging that he was induced to enter the transaction of exchange by certain untrue representations of the defendant a...
Subramania Ayyar Vs. Saminatha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad69
1. On the 1st March 1891 the plaintiff and the defendant executed an instrument of exchange and mutually transferred possession of the respective lands comprised in the instrument. It contains no provision by way of covenant for title, for quiet enjoyment or for re-entry, in case either party be evicted. On the 7th June 1891, however, the parties executed to each other documents styled 'security bonds' The bond executed by the defendant to the plaintiff on that date, after reciting the exchange which had taken place, runs: 'If any claim or dispute arises I hereby bind myself to settle it. If I do not so get (the dispute) settled I hereby bind myself to pay an amount not exceeding Rs. 4,014-8-6 at the rate of Rs. 1-4-0 per kuli of land for lands which go out of your possession. This security bond shall be sustainable for twelve years from this date.' The plaintiff, alleging that he was induced to enter into the transaction of exchange by certain untrue representations of the defendant a...
Subbaraya Ravuthaminda Nainar Vs. Ponnusami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad364
1. As to the plea of discharge it is dismissed under our judgment in Subbaraya Ravuthaminda Nainar v. Ponnusami Nadar Appeal No. 48 of 1896 unreported. As to the rate of interest allowed by the Subordinate Judge his decree must be modified by directing that the twelve per cent, per annum, the contract rate, be allowed only for the six months within which payment was ordered by the decree [see our judgment in Subbaraya Ravutha-minda Nainar v. Ponnusami Nadar Appeal No. 13 of 1896 unreported and Surya Narain Sinqh v. Jogendra Narain Roy Chowdhury I.L.R. 20 Cal. 360. Subsequent to that period, the plaintiff is entitled, in our opinion, to interest at six per cent, per annum, and it will be so decreed Poresh Nath Mojumdar v. Ramjodu Mojumdar I.L.R. 16 Cal. 246 and Achalabala Bose v. Surendra Nath Dey I.L.R. 24 Cal. 766. the ruling in Amolak Ram v. Lachmi Narain I.L.R. 19 All. 174 notwithstanding. The parties will bear their own costs....
Reference Under Stamp Act
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad358
1. In our opinion this is a usufructuary mortgage under which the rents and profits were estimated to satisfy both principal and interest, and accordingly no accounting on either side would become necessary. The case is quite different from that to which the Board refer....
Queen-empress Vs. Mahalingam Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad63
1. In these cases the Government appeals against the acquittal of certain accused persons who were guilty of certain acts in breach of the abkari licenses granted to their employers.2. The Second-Class Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that, under Section 56 of the Abkari Act I of 1886, only the holder of the license, but not his servants or employees can be convicted.3. This view is erroneous. It was held by this Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 639 of 1886 that Sections 56 and 64 of the Abkari Act must be read together and that the words ' being the holder of a license ' in Section 56 must be taken to include any person in his employ and acting on his behalf for the time being, as otherwise the words in Section 64 ' for any offence committed by any person in his employ and acting on his behalf under Section 56' would have no meaning or application. This view of the law is, in our opinion, correct.4. We set aside the acquittal in each case and we convict each of th...
Karuppanan Ambalam Vs. Ramasami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ165
1. The suit was to recover back money paid in excess of the amount due, under pressure. It was not a suit to recover compensation for illegal, improper or excessive distress or attachment within the meaning of Article 35, Clause j of the 2nd Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Court's Act of 1887. This has been hold to apply only to cases where the suit is brought to recover damages for the tort, Dewany Roy v. Sundar Tewary, I. L. R., 24 C., 163 and not for many paid in. excess, and with this ruling we agree. The suit is therefore one cognizable by a Court of Small Causes as the Munsif held....
Giddayya Vs. Jagannatha Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad363
1. The District Munsif has treated the matter as an appeal and has exceeded his jurisdiction, which, by Section 73 of the Village Courts Act, 1889, is confined to the revision of village courts' proceedings on the grounds there specified, on none of which did his judgment in this case proceed. His judgment in this case is on the appreciation of evidence as if it were an anneal.2. We must allow this petition and reverse the order of the District Munsif and restore the decree of the Village Munsif with costs in this and in the District Mnnsifs Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »