Chennai Court December 1897 Judgments
Kuthiravatttath Nair Vs. Manavikkrama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ92
Shephard, J.1. The first point taken in the argument of this appeal is that raised by the 3rd issue. It appears from the evidence, and indeed is in a measure admitted in the plaint itself, that before this suit was launched several suits were brought by the plaintiff or his predecessor against the defendant or his predecessor, in some of which suits decrees were obtained by the Zamorin for the partition of the particular parcels comprised in such suits. In each of these suits the tenant, who, as the plaint states and is admitted, held half under the Zamorin and half under the Nair, was joined as a party. So far as regards the tenant, the plaint made such allegations and asked for such relief as would be made and asked for against any tenant holding under a jenmi, while as regards the Nair, the plaint asked for partition, so that in the result the tenant might be left in undisturbed possession of the moiety allotted to the Nair. Independently of these suits there was another suit brough...
Tag this Judgment!ittappan Vs. Manavikrama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad153
Shephard, J.1. The first point taken in the argument of this appeal is that raised by the third issue. It appears from the evidence, and indeed is in a measure admitted in the plaint itself, that before this suit was launched several suits were brought by the plaintiff or his predecessor against the defendant or his predecessor, in some of which suits decrees were obtained by the Zamorin for the partition of the particular parcels comprised in such suits. In each of these suits the tenant, who, as the plaint states and is admitted, held half under the Zamorin and half under the Nair, was joined as a party. So far as regards the tenant, the plaint made such allegations and asked for such relief as would be made and asked for against any tenant holding under a Jenmi, while as regards the Nair, the plaint asked for partition, so that in the result the tenant might be left in undisturbed possession of the moiety allotted to the Nair. Independently of these suits there was another suit brou...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralinga Mudali Vs. Rathnasabapathi Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ58
1. The Advocate-General raises a preliminary objection to the effect that inasmuch as an order was passed against the 2nd defendant (appellant) under Section 101, Civil Procedure Code, and as no appeal was made against the ex parte decree so as to enable the appellant to impeach that order, the appellant was not entitled to make an application under Section 108, raising the same question as had been already decided against him under Section 101, nor should he be now allowed to appeal against the order made against him under Section 108.2. This contention, at first sight, may seem to be reasonable, but having regard to the very wide words 'in any case' used in Section 108, we are unable to hold that the defendant was not entitled to make an application under Section 108. That being so, he was under Section 588 entitled to prefer the present appeal. Nor can we agree with the Advocate-General's contention that even if an appeal lie and the ex parte decree is set aside, the proceedings wil...
Tag this Judgment!Jagapathy Mudaliar Vs. Ekambara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ40
1. We are unable to accept the view taken by the District Munsif. In England no doubt, as urged for the plaintiff, an attorney, though he has not obtained express authority from his client for the purpose, has yet power to enter into a compromise on behalf of the latter. However, as pointed out in the note to Section 24 of Story on Agency (9th edition, page 27), such power has given rise to much litigation in England., It is not surprising, therefore, that even many of the American Courts administering the English Common Law have declined to follow the English rule referred to. It is true that in the note in Story, cited above, it is said that the American decisions on the point generally agree with those of the English Courts. But the accuracy of that observation has been questioned in Levy v. Brown where the Court says:-'In the elaborate note to Section 24 in Story on Agency and also in Wharton on Agency, Section 592, it is said that the American rule is the same as the English. If t...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarayana Pantulu Vs. Venkatrayanam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ43
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is a Zemindar and is, therefore, undoubtedly a landholder mentioned in Section 3 of the Rent Recovery Act (VIII of 1865). The defendants own a village in the plaintiff's zemindari as mokhasa-inamdars and as such they have to pay kattubadi or fixed money rent annually to the plaintiff.2. The Learned Counsel for the defendants urged that they being inamdars, ought not to be held to be, within the meaning of the Rent Recovery Act, tenants in any sense.3. This contention is, however, opposed to the course of decisions since 1883. In Appasami v. Rama Subba I.L.R. 7 M. 262 it was held that an inamdar who paid quit-rent to a superior inamdar was in respect of that quit-rent liable at the instance of the superior inamdar to be summarily proceeded against under the Act as a tenant. In Subbaraya v. Srinivasa Ib. 580 it was ruled that a permanent lessee of a village forming part of a mittah--though he was not an agricultural tenant--was nevertheless a tenant ...
Tag this Judgment!Periatambi Odayan Vs. Vellaya Kavundun and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ51
ORDER1. The finding is that the money was paid in full discharge of the judgment-debt, the 1st defendant undertaking to enter up satisfaction. No satisfaction was entered up, and no application to compel him to do so was made by plaintiff within 90 days of the payment. It was, therefore, not competent to the executing court to determine whether the payments had been made or not. The only course open to the plaintiff was that which he followed, viz., to bring a suit for the amount. The fact that no application was made within 60 days, distinguishes the present case from Guruvayya v. Vudayappa I.L.R. 18 M. 26 ; as the court then held that it was open to the plaintiff to seek relief in execution, it must be taken that the application was made within 60 days, though the report does not expressly state this. In Ramayyan v. Srinivasa Pattar Ib. 19 M. 230 the person relying on the adjustment was not entitled to make an application under Section 258 C.P.C. within 60 days from the date of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnayyar Vs. Soundararaja Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad245
1. A person like the defendant in the present case holding the office of manager of a temple, though he possesses no hereditary right and is subject to the superintendence of a committee appointed under Act XX of 1863, has been held to be a trustee Sethu v. Subramanya I.L.R. 11 Mad. 274 . A claim against such a person for damages said to have been caused by his neglect in the discharge of his duties as manager must, therefore, be held to be a suit relating to a trust falling under Article 19 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts' Act.2. The answer to the question submitted is that the suit is not cognizable by a Small Cause Court....
Tag this Judgment!Koti Pujari Vs. Manjaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad271
1. We think that the Courts below were in error in holding that the claim either for post diem interest or for the portion of principal said to have been disallowed in a previous suit were unwarrantable additions to the claim made for the purpose of changing the venue, nor do we think that the Courts could properly entertain such a plea as a matter preliminary to determining the Court in which the suit ought to be brought. There is, in the present case, no question of over-valuation of the subject-matter of the suit. The contest is as to whether the plaintiff can recover the whole or only a part of the sums claimed by him in the suit, viz., a portion of the principal and post diem interest. These are the very questions involved in the suit and are not preliminary questions connected with the proper valuation of the subject-matter of the suit. Very grave inconvenience and confusion would result if pleas raised by the defence as to the right of the plaintiff to portions of the relief sou...
Tag this Judgment!Periatambi Udayan Vs. Vellaya Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad410
1. The finding is that the money was paid in full discharge of the judgment-debt, the first defendant undertaking to enter up satisfaction. No satisfaction was entered up and no application to compel the first defendant to fulfil his undertaking was made by plaintiff within sixty days of the payment. It was; therefore, not competent to the executing Court to determine whether the payment had been made or not. The only course open to the plaintiff was that which he followed, viz., to bring a suit for the amount. The fact that no application was made by the plaintiff within sixty days distinguishes the present case from Guruvayya v. Vudayappa I.L.R. 18 Mad. 26. As the Courts there held that it was open to the plaintiff to seek relief in execution, it must be taken that the application was made within sixty days, though the report does not expressly state this. In the case of Rama Ayyan v. Sreenivasa Pattar I.L.R. 19 Mad. 230. the person relying on the adjustment was not entitled to make ...
Tag this Judgment!Marudamuthu Nadan and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ69
1. In accordance with the judgment of the Full Bench we must hold that the alienation is not binding on the plaintiffs.2. In the result, we set aside the decrees of the Courts below and give judgment for plaintiffs for possession of the land sued for on their paying Rs. 230 within three months from this date, failing which the suit will stand dismissed with costs throughout. If the payment is duly made, each party will bear their own costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »