Chennai Court March 1897 Judgments
Subbaryar and ors. Vs. Upadesiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ201
It is contended that, as the plaintiffs' father purchased the land at a sale for arrears of revenue, Section 38 of Act II of 1864 (Bevenue Recoyery Act) precludes the defendants from proving that the purchase was roally made by the plaintiffs' father, not solely on his own behalf, but on behalf of the villagers generally. The words of Section 38 are ' such sale certificate shall state the property sold and the name of the purchaser, and it shall be conclusive evidence of the fact of the: purchase in all courts and tribunals, where it may bo necessary to prove the same, and no proof of the Collector's seal or signature shall be necessary, unless the authority before whom it is produced shall have reasonto doubt its genuineness.'The intention clearly was to prevent any plea from being raised that the defaulters interest did not pass by the sale. There is nothing in the language of the section to warrant the contention that' the Legislature intended thereby to preclude proof being giventh...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarayar and ors. Vs. Asirvatha Upadesayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad494
1. It is contended that, as the plaintiff's father purchased the land at a sale for arrears of revenue, Section 38 of Act II of 1864 (Revenue Recovery Act) precludes the defendants from proving that the purchase was really made by the plaintiff's father not solely on his own behalf but on behalf of the villagers generally. The words of Section 38 are 'such sale certificate shall state the property sold and the name of the purchaser, and it shall be conclusive evidence of the fact of the purchase in all Courts and tribunalswhere it may be necessary to prove the same, and no proof of the Collector's seal or signature shall be necessary, unless the authority before whom it is produced shall have reason to doubt its genuineness.'2. The intention clearly was to prevent any plea from being raised that the defaulter's interest did not pass by the sale. There is nothing in the language of the Section to warrant the contention that the Legislature intended thereby to preclude proof being given ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarayana Vs. Ramajogigaru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ66
1. We do not consider that Exhibit A is an instrument chargeable with stamp duty of one anna under Article 1, Schedule I of the General Stamp Act, (I of 1897).2. It is a letter setting forth the terms of compromise arranged between the parties with regard to the dispute between them regarding the plaintiff's share in the partnership business. There is no doubt an approximate statement of the value of that share, but this does not make it an acknowledgment intended to be used as evidence of the debt so as to fall within the article. When read with the letter to which it is a reply, it must, in our opinion, be treated as an agreement not otherwise provided for by the Stamp Act, and. it was, therefore, chargeable with a duty of eight annas under Article I, Clause 5 (c) of Schedule I. As, however, it was admitted in evidence by the District Munsif without payment of stamp duty and penalty, the District Judge in appeal was precluded by Section 34 of the Stamp Act from rejecting it as inadmi...
Tag this Judgment!Ragavendra Rau and anr. Vs. Jayaram Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad283
1. That the late Narasinga Rau's widow Seshammal did in fact adopt the respondent as the son of her husband, was practically admitted on behalf of the appellants, the first of whom is Narasinga Rau's undivided nephew and the second that of appellant's son, a minor. It was, however, contended on their behalf that Narasinga Rau did not authorise Seshammal to make the adoption, and even if it is found that he did so authorize her, the adoption is invalid in consequence of the relationship which existed between Narasinga Rau and the natural mother of the rospondent.2. Now as to the authority, we are satisfied that the evidence on the point adduced on behalf of the respondent fully establishes that a few days before his death, Narasinga Rau gave Seshammal power to take the respondent in adoption. The testimony of the witnesses who speak to this point is highly probable. It is clear that, for several years before Narasinga Rau died, both he and Seshammal had been on unfriendly terms with the...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupathi Goundan Vs. Rama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad49; (1897)7MLJ291
1. The question is whether the document of the 2nd February of 1891 relied on by the plaintiff is a promissory note within the meaning of Section 4 [Section 4.--A 'promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being a bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking,'Promissory note.' signed by the maker, or to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument.]2. If it is a promissory note, the suit must fail as rightly decided by the lower Courts. The correct translation of the document is set out in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. The only question is whether the words therein 'I am liable to pay' can be held to be an 'undertaking' to pay within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act. The construction depends on the actual words used rather than what their effect may be as regards the rights of the parties. Examining the document in this light, we are of opinion that the words...
Tag this Judgment!Seshammal Vs. Munisami Mudaliari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ105
1. The answer to the first question referred to us is that there is a right and a moral duty in the mother, but no legal obligation. The answer to the second question is that the duty of the father is a religious one and not a legal obligation. The third question is answered in the affirmative and the fourth in the negative.2. We give no costs for this reference....
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramayya and anr. Vs. Venkatalakshmamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ204
1. The District Judge while stating the law correctly has failed to properly apply it.2. The last male owner died in 1880, and the defendant at once took possession of the property. The last male owner's daughter, who was the party entitled to possession, died in 1889. The present suit by the reversioners to recover possesison was filed in 1893. Under Article 141, Sched. ii of the Indian Limitation Act, XV of 1877, the reversioners had 12 years from the date of the daughter's death, and their suit was therefore clearly in time (Srinath Kur v. Prosunno Kumar Ghose I.L.R.(1833) C. 984 . Sham Lall Mitra v. Amarendra Nath Bose Ib 28 C. 460 Cursandas v. Vendravandas 14 B. 482 Mukta v. Dada Ib 18 B. 215 Tai v. Ladu Ib 20 B. 801 Bam Kali v. Kedar Nath Ib. 14 A. 156 . The respondent relies on the Privy Council case reported in Lachhan Kunwar v. Manorath Bam I.L.R. 22 C. 445 . If that case was a decision with reference to Article 141,. Schedule ii of the present Act (XV of 1877) or the correspo...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Kaundan Vs. Rangaya Kaundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ225
1. This was a suit by a tenant to recover specific property alleged to have been wrongfully distrained by his landlord. The plaint prayed for the recovery of the property and of its price, Rs. 100. The defendant pleaded that the suit was barred by the special limitation prescribed under Section 78 of the Rent Recovery Act (Madras) VIII of 1865, as the suit was brought more than six months after the cause of action had accrued. Section 78 enacts that ' nothing in this section shall be construed to debar any person from proceeding in the ordinary tribunals to recover money paid or to obtain damages in respect of anything professedly done under the authority of this.Act--provided that civil courts shall not take cognizance of any suit instituted by such parties for any such cause of action, unless such suit shall be instituted within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose.' The District Judge held that the distraint was not an professedly done under the law, but in de...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Goundan Vs. Rangaya Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad449
1. This was a suit by a tenant to recover specific property alleged to have been wrongfully distrained by his landlord, the defendant. The plaint prayed for the recovery of the property, or of its price, Rs. 100.2. The defendant pleaded that the suit was barred by the special limitation prescribed under Section 78 of Rent Recovery Act (Madras) VIII of 1865, as the suit was brought more than six months after the cause of action accrued. Section 78 enacts that 'nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to debar any person from proceeding in the ordinary tribunals to recover money paid, or to obtain damages in respect of anything professedly done under the authority of this Act:Provided that Civil Courts shall not take cognizance of any suit instituted by such parties for any such cause of action, unless such suit shall be instituted within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose.3. The District Judge held that the distraint was not an act professedly done under...
Tag this Judgment!Srimant Rajah Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasad Naydu Bahadur Garu Vs. Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad162
Hobhouse, J.1. In this case the first defendant, who is the principal defendant, and appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000 out of the funds of a charitable endowment called a choultry, and he gave a promissory note to the founder of the endowment, who was then its manager.2. The founder died, and be left the bulk of his estate to his son and heir, but taking notice that the son and heir should have nothing to do with the Rs. 12,000, which were the endowment of the choultry. No doubt his son succeeded him in the management. He died within six months of his father, and his heir was his widow. Then the widow succeeded in the management, and received interest on the Rs. 12,000. She, under a power given her by her husband, adopted a son in the year 1884, but that son was an infant, and the widow remained, until after the institution of this suit, in the management of the choultry.3. The infant brought a suit against his adoptive mother and against his guardian for an account of his adoptiv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »