Chennai Court July 1897 Judgments
Ponnambala Pillai Vs. Sundarappayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad354
1. The facts of this case lie in a small compass and there was so little dispute about them that no issues of fact were raised in the Court of First Instance. In 1872 before the birth of the plaintiff, his father together with his brother Saminada having certain debts to pay off entered into an oral contract with the defendant to sell to him their family lands in the village of Anakkudi and their share of the palace in the same place for the sum of Rs. 29,000. On the 10th May 1872 the vendors wrote to the defendant the letter marked XVIII. In it they say that three velies and odd have not yet been delivered into their possession under the Court decree and they ask the defendant to let the matter stand over and take a sale-deed in respect of the remaining properties for Rs. 25,000, expressing their willingness to execute a sale ' in respect of the said maniam punjah, etc., lands for a sum of Rs. 3,500 as soon as we get possession of the same.' To this request the defendant acceded, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Cheiti Vs. Ragunatha Rau and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad418
1. The only point argued in support of the memorandum of objections was that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in refusing to direct an account to be taken with a view of ascertaining the sum due to the first defendant and give him a decree therefor. It was argued that the plaintiff's suit was in reality a suit for an account, and that the defendant in such a suit was entitled to the benefit of the account if it turned out to be in his favour; and in support of this view it was contended that the first defendant was precluded by the provisions of Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure from himself bringing a suit for an account against the plaintiff. The answer to these arguments is, in our opinion, clear. If it were true that the suit was a suit for an account in the proper sense of that term, then it would follow, according to the decision in Hurrinath Rai v. Krishna Kumar Bakshi I.L.R. 14 Cal. 147 which decision illustrates the English practice, that the first defendant would be en...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi Ammal Vs. Sundara Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad459
1. The parties to Exhibit I are Hindus related to each other as mother-in-law (under whom defendant claims) and daughter-in-law (plaintiff) By this instrument they arranged for their respective enjoyment of the property left by the late husband of the plaintiff. They divided the property between them. The mother-in-law alienated a portion of the property assigned to her enjoyment. She has since then died, and the plaintiff now sues to recover the property from the alienee. The question is whether, under Exhibit I, the deceased took a life-estate only, or a larger interest. The District Judge has held that she took an absolute estate, the intention being to transfer the property absolutely in lieu of all future claims for maintenance. We cannot accept this construction. There are no express words to indicate such intention.2. The words referring to enjoyment do not indicate anything more than an enjoyment for life. The respondent relies on the provision in the document that neither part...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Muthayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad457
1. We are clearly of opinion that Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to warrants issued under the provisions of the Act XIII of 1859. There are no words in that Section limiting the operation of it to warrants issued under the Code. The reference to warrants issued under the Code made in Sections 75 and 93 cannot, we think, be taken to have the effect suggested. It cannot be supposed that, if when the Codes of 1861 and 1872 were in force, the Sections in them corresponding to Section 83 of the present Code were applicable to warrants issued under Act XIII of 1859, that state of the law was intended to be altered in the Code of 1882. To hold that none of the provisions of chapter VI of the Code apply to such warrants would lead to the conclusion that there is no provision made for the issuing or executing of them. It is not necessary to say whether under the Act of 1859, breach of contract is constituted an offence. The language of the Act appears to us to indicate ...
Tag this Judgment!Pokree Sahib Beary Vs. Pokree Beary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ238
1. The lower Courts have properly held that Exhibit 3 is not binding upon the plaintiff and that the 1st defendant is not therefore entitled to the sum therein mentioned. The next question is whether the 1st defendant is entitled to all or any of the sums allowed by the District Judge as payable by the plaintiff before ho can recover possession of the mortgage property. The sums are claimed as due in respect of costs incurred by the 1st defendant in certain suits (Exhibits V, VI and VII). The sum in Exhibit V represents costs incurred by 1st defendant in a suit for rent due by the original mortgagor as a tenant of the 1st defendant. The tenancy was created subsequent to the mortgage, and the rent was not made a charge on the property by the contract between the parties. Moreover the decree in the suit was only a personal decree. In these circumstances, we are unable to hold that these costs are incurred for the due management of the property and the collection of the rents within the m...
Tag this Judgment!Bulasami Pandithar Vs. Narayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ207
1. This is a suit fora declaration that certain alienations made by the 1st defendant, the widow of one Vasudeva. Pandithar, are not binding upon the plaintiff (respondent) as the nearest reversionary heir of Vasudeva. The 3rd defendant (appellant) also claims to be Vasudeva's nearest heir. There is no dispute in this Court as to the actual relationship of these parties to Vasudeva. The plaintiff is the son of the maternal uncle of Vasudeva and the 3rd defendant is his sister's adopted son's son.2. As to the plaintiff, it is not denied that he belongs to the first of the three classes into which bandhus, or cognate kindred entitled to inherit the estate of a deceased man, are divided, vis., his own or atma bandhus, his father's or pitr bandhus and his mother's or matt bandhus, inasmuch as the plaintiff is a relation of the exact description specifically mentioned by Vijnaneswara as an atma bandhu (Mitakshara Chap. II. Section VI, V, I). As to the 3rd defendant, the learned vakil for th...
Tag this Judgment!Appalamma and Perianayagam Vs. Yellayya and Krishna Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ303
Arthur Collins, Kt. C.J.1. I think it would be wrong to limit the meaning of the word, 'adultery' in Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, to the very limited definition of the word in S, 497 of the Penal Code. Adultery is a crime under that section that can only be committed by a man having sexual intercourse with the wife of another without the consent or connivance of the husband of that wife. Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the maintenance of the wife and enacts that a Magistrate may make an order of maintenance in favour of the wife, even though the husband offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband is living in adultery. The term adultery is used in that section in the ordinary sense, that is, a married man having sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife. It appears to me that this construction is not affected by the last words of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but i...
Tag this Judgment!Balusami Pandithar Vs. Narayana Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad342
1. This is a suit for a declaration that certain alienations made by the first defendant, the widow of one Vasudeva Pandithar, are not binding upon the plaintiff (respondent) as the nearest reversionary heir of Vasudeva. The third defendant (appellant) also claims to be Vasudeva's nearest reversionary heir. There is no dispute in this Court as to the actual relationship of those parties to Vasudeva. The plaintiff is the son of the maternal uncle of Vasudeva, and the third defendant is his sister's adopted son's son.2. As to the plaintiff, it is not denied that he belongs to the first of the three classes into which bandhus, or cognate kindred entitled to inherit the estate of a deceased man, are divided, viz., his own or athma bandhus, his father's or pitru bandhus and his mother's or matru bandhus, inasmuch as the plaintiff is a relation of the exact description specifically mentioned by ' Vijna neswara' as an athma bandhu (Mitakshara, Chapter II, Section VI, V. 1.) As to the third de...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Kattcayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad235
ORDER1. We are clearly of opinion that Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to warrants issued under the provisions of the Act XIII of 1859. There are no words in that Section limiting the operation of it to warrants issued under the Code. The reference to warrants issued under the Code made in Sections 70 and 93 cannot, we think, be taken to have the effect suggested. It cannot be supposed that, if when the Code of 1861 and 1872 were in force, the Sections in them corresponding to Section 83 of the present Code were applicable to warrants issued under Act XIII of 1859, that state of the law was intended to he altered in the Code of 1882. To hold that none of the provisions of Chapter VI of the Code apply to such warrants would lead to the conclusion that there is no provision made for the issuing or executing of them. It is not necessary to say whether, under the Act of 1859, breach of contract in constituted an offence. The language of the Act appears to us to indi...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Raman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad83
1. This is an appeal on behalf of Government against the acquittal of six prisoners tried on a charge of dacoity. The appeal is supported on the ground that the Sessions Judge has in several matters misdirected the Jury. As regards the first two prisoners, the evidence consisted of statements made by them shortly after their arrest and the discovery of things said to be part of the stolen property in the houses or under the control of these prisoners. These two prisoners were both arrested on the 4th of June, and they appear to have been brought before the Second-Class Magistrate on the 6th. On the 9th of June they were again brought before him, and each of them made a statement implicating himself in a qualified way in the dacoity. They mention the circumstances of their arrest in their houses and admit that they gave over the things produced at the trial to the Police. The usual certificate is appended by the Second-Class Magistrate to the statements made by these two prisoners.2. On...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »