Chennai Court April 1897 Judgments
Ramasami Kottadiar and ors. Vs. Murugesa Madali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ229
1. The plaintiff's, as trustees appointed by one Venkatesa Tawker. for the payment of his debts, sued to set aside the attachment of Tawker's property made by one of his creditors and also to set aside certain sales made under the attachment. Before the order of attachment was issued, Tawker had applied to the Commissioner of Insolvency, Madras, to be declared an insolvent and a vesting order had been, made., Subsequent to the issue of the attachment the insolvency petition was dismissed and the vesting order discharged. The order of attachment was not objected to, nor was it withdawn before the vesting order was discharged. Some of the properties attached were afterwards sold in pursuance of the attachment and were purchased by the defendants. The rest of the property remained under attachment The plaintiffs were appointed trustees by an instrument of the same date as the discharge of the vesting orders. They contend that the attachment having been made during the continuance of the v...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Kanappa Pillai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad387
1. The District Magistrate does not appear to have given any reasons for distrusting the truth of the complaint and sending the case for enquiry to the Superintendent of Police. We infer that he acted upon the view expressed in paragraph 4 of his own circular No. 557, dated 18th April 1895. We are of opinion that the rule there laid down is illegal, as Section 202 of the Code directs the Magistrate to send a case for enquiry by the Police only when he distrusts the truth of the complaint, and it requires the Magistrate to give his reasons. The terms of the fourth paragraph of the District Magistrate's circular actually override the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 202.2. The orders of the Police are not binding on the magistracy.3. We are further of opinion that great caution should be shown in sending, for investigation by the Police, charges against members of that force. In such cases it would generally be better that the enquiry should be prosecuted by a Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Viravara Thodhramal Rajya Lakhshmi Devi Garu Vs. Sri Raja Vir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad256
Lord Davey, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Madras affirming a previous decree of the District Court of Vizagapatam. The appellant, who was defendant in the action, is the widow of the late zamindar of Belgam who died on the 29th October 1888 without leaving any issue and intestate. She claims to be entitled to a widow's estate in the entire zamindari. The respondent (plaintiff in the action) claims to be entitled in possession to one moiety of the zamindari on the ground that the zamindari was part of the joint property of his and the late zamindar's family and he alleges that the zamindari being partible in title his brother Sundara Narayana (who was made a defendant in the action, but is not a party to this appeal is entitled to possession of the other moiety. On the other hand the widow and appellant contends that the zamindari was impartible in title and that owing to certain family arrangements, it had become the separate property of her late husband....
Tag this Judgment!Yaramati Krishnayya Vs. Chundru Papayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad326
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. Both the lower Courts found that the lands (to the registry whereof in the Government Revenue accounts the present litigation relates) belonged to the respondent (plaintiff), that they were in his possession before and at the time of the plaint and that the sale relied upon by the appellant (first defendant) as giving him a title to the property was a mere sham transaction under which no interest passed to him. Upon those findings it was held that the appellant had no right to claim that the registry of the property be transferred to his own name, and a decree was given to the effect that the respondent was entitled to have his name retained in the register as it had stood hitherto.2. One of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant was that the respondent was precluded from asserting his title to the land by the decision passed in Appeal Suit No. 105 of 1889 on the file of the Cocanada Subordinate Court. This contention, though advanced for the first time...
Tag this Judgment!Pichuvayyan Vs. Vilakudiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ196
1. Blacksmiths' and carpenters' nams are within the purview of Regulation VI of 1831 (Letter from Sadar Adalat to Government, dated 30th June 1852, and Palamalai Padayachi v. Shanmuga Asari I.L.R(1894) . M. 302. The plaintiff did not allege in his plaint a title by adverse possession for over 12 years, nor was there any issue on such plea. Moreover as the plaintiff could have sued only under Regulation VI of 1831 in a Eevenue Court, but not in a Civil Court for recovery of the inam land and as the Indian Limitation Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for suits under the Regulation, the plaintiff could not under Section 28 of the Act acquire a title by prescription.2. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ranga Ayyar Vs. Srinivasa Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad56
1. The District Judge's finding that the transaction was benami and his reason for it do not commend themselves to us.2. Presumably he means to find that Srinivasa Ayyangar, when executing the sale-deed (Exhibit I), never intended it to have any operation and he relies on the fact that Srinivasa Ayyangar remained in possession, did not have the patta transferred and retained the instrument of sate. He also refers to the fact that no valuable consideration passed.3. We are of opinion that these circumstances afford no evidence of the supposed intention of Srinivasa Ayyangar, when considered in connection with the relationship of the parties and the previous circumstances. On the contrary, those circumstances are all consistent with the intention on the donor's part, which is otherwise clearly established, to benefit his wife and daughter and to save the property from falling into the hands of his next heir who was his enemy. But for the fact that his wife and daughter predeceased him, h...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhatta Vs. Subbaraya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ188
1. We have all the materials before us to form our opinion and have arrived at the conclusion that the District Judge acted illegally in admitting the appeal on the 12th June 1895. At that date the appeal was many months out of time and the affidavit shows no ground for excusing the delay. The Subordinate Judge considers that he was not entitled to question the order of the District Judge and relies on the case in I.L.E., 5 C, 1.2. But seeing that the order was ex parte and that the appeal was transferred by the District Judge to the Subordinate Judge, we think that upon that transfer all the powers of an appellate court became vested in the Subordinate Judge. Otherwise, an appeal would be partly in one court and partly in another.3. We do not agree with the decision in Jhotee Sahoo v. Omesh Chunder Sircar I.L.R. 5 C. 1. It is urged before us that the point of time cannot be taken on appeal from an order of remand, but, if the Subordinate Judge was wrong in entertaining the appeal, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Alli HussaIn and anr. Vs. Sajuda Begum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad27
1. The authorities in support of the Munsif's finding that a childless widow of the Shiya school is not entitled to any share in the land of her husband are to be found in Mussamut Asloo v. Mussamut Umdutoonnissa 20 W.R. 297 and Mussumat Toonanjan v. Mussumat Mehndee Begum 3 Agra High Court Reports 13. We see no reason to differ from those decisions. Elberling's work referred to by the Subordinate Judge in support of the contrary view is no authority.2. We, therefore, reverse the Subordinate Judge's decree and restore that of the Munsif, with this modification that, in place of the sum of Rs. 125 to be divided between the parties in the proportions stated, the sum of Rs. 2.8 be inserted.3. We make this modification in the Munsif's decree in accordance with the findings of the Subordinate Judge which were overlooked in the passing of his decree. We also modify the decree of the Munsif as to costs by directing that the costs of the parties be borne by themselves throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhatta Vs. Subraya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad228
1. We have all the materials before us to form our opinion and have arrived at the conclusion that the District Judge acted illegally in admitting the appeal on the 12th June 1895. At that date the appeal was many months out of time, and the affidavit shows no ground for excusing the delay. The Subordinate Judge considers that he was not entitled to question the order of the District Judge and relies on Jhotee Sahoo v. Omesh Chunder Sircar I.L.R. 5 Cal. 1.2. But seeing that the order was ex parte and that the appeal was transferred by the District Judge to the Subordinate Judge, we think that upon that transfer all the powers of an Appellate Court became vested in the Subordinate Judge. Otherwise an appeal would lie partly in one Court and partly in another.3. We do not agree with the decision in Jhotee Sahoo v. Omesh Chunder Sircar I.L.R. 5 Cal. 1 . It is urged before us that the point of time cannot be taken on appeal from an order of remand, but if the Subordinate Judge was wrong in...
Tag this Judgment!Kanthimathinatha Pillai Vs. Ramasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ184
1. This is a perfectly simple case which has been unnecessarily complicated in the Courts below.2. If the will is a valid one as we hold it to be, it is unnecessary to offer any opinion on the question of Hindu Law which the Subrodinate Judge has discussed at needless length. The District Judge holds the will to be invalid, giving no reason of his own, but merely referring to the authorities mentioned by the Subordinate Judge.3. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge is very puzzling, for in one part he inclines to the view that the Willis valid Whereas in para. 17 he indicates the opposite opinion and even remarks that both parties' equally challenge the will.4. The suggestion that the will is invalid is put on two grounds: It is said that the1 intention of the testator was to keep the estate intact and to prevent any partition of it in the hands of his sons and grandsons. We do not think the will bears that construction. There are no words prohibiting the alienation or partition of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »