Chennai Court September 1897 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad114
1. The cases decided by this Court do not go further than to hold that, if an authorised pleader present an appeal by the hand of his clerk, the presentation should he accepted as if made by the pleader himself. It has nowhere been held that a pleader may present an appeal by a person who is not his clerk and over whose conduct and actions he has no control.2. We cannot therefore say that the Head Assistant Magistrate was wrong in rejecting these appeals....
Tag this Judgment!Boyamma Vs. Balajee Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad469
1. We do not think that the fact that the District Judge held Court on a gazetted holiday is sufficient to disentitle the appellant to regard the day as dies non in calculating the time allowed by law .for presenting an appeal.2. We, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge refusing to admit the appeal and direct him to now admit it and dispose of it according to law. Costs will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!theyya Velan Vs. Kochan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ290
1. Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure debars a suit against a certified purchaser by a person claiming to be the real purchaser or deriving title from the real purchaser.2. The contending parties here do not occupy the position contemplated in the section, as the 1st defendant is not the certified purchaser but an assignee of the certified purchaser. The assignment by the certified purchaser to the 1st defendant does not clothe him with the certified purchaser's right to object to the unsustainability of a suit as if it had been brought against himself. The protection given to the certified purchaser cannot be transferred by him. The 1st defendant did not therefore stand in the certified purchaser's shoes as the Sub-Judge has held.3. We must accordingly reverse his decree and remand the appeal for disposal upon the merits.4. Costs to abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanasundaram Aiyar and ors. Vs. Umamba Boyi Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ324
Shephard, J.1. The appellants are the, members of the two Devastanam committees of Tanjore and Kumba-konam. The 1st respondent is the senior Rani of the late Maharajah of Tanjore.2. The suit relates to certain Devastanams known as the fort or Palace Devastanams and their endowments of which the' 1st respondent; claims to be heriditary trustee in succession to her co-widov, H.H. Kamakshi Boyi who died in 1892. Numerous questions appear to have been raised at the trial in the Court below, bu; in this Court, the appellants' Vakil did not argue the questions involved in the last seven issues and confined himself to the con-teitions hereinafter mentioned.3. Whatever estate or interest, the late Kamakshi Boyi did acquire, fas undoubtedly acquired by her under the order of Government, lated 19th March 1863, which concludes with the words, 'It is desir-table that the connection of Government with the Jrogodas should cease ind they will accordingly be made over to Her Highness Kamakshi boyi Sah...
Tag this Judgment!Arunagiri Mudali Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad40
1. Two main contentions are urged by the appellant before us. The first is that the money with which Chinnathayammal purchased the house was derived by her from her first paramour, the father of the first defendant, and that, therefore, as a matter of law, the house devolves on the first defendant rather than on the plaintiffs who are the woman's daughters by another paramour. In support of this proposition of law, the appellant's vakil relies on the text in ' Manu,' chapter 9, Section 191 (see page 369, Max Muller's ' Sacred Books of the East '). The text is as follows:But if two (sons) begotten by two (different men) contend for the property (in the hands) of their mother, each shall take to the exclusion of the other what belonged to his father.2. In regard to this we may observe that the Section appears to refer not to the devolution of the property of a concubine or prostitute, but rather of a woman married in succession to two husbands, and it is so understood by the commentators...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalattanni and anr. Vs. Renga Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ310
1. The application was made under Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the removal of the obstruction caused by the counter-petitioner and to put petitioner in possession. That section contemplates that on the complaint the Court shall enquire into the matter and pass such order as it thinks fit.2. In the case before us, the Sub Judge considered the documents produced and heard the arguments on both sides and then came to the conclusion that the case was one that should be determined summarily. He then made an order rejecting the petition for possession and referr ing the petitioners to a regular suit.3. It appears to us that the only enquiry necessary to be made under Section 335 is with reference to the question whether a summary order for possession should be made. The Sub Judge has made enquiry and come to the conclusion that this was not such a case. We agree with the Courts below that the enquiry in this case was sufficient, and there can be no doubt that the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Motha Vs. Moral Motha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ311
1. In this case one Motha was said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, in a case before a Magistrate, and the Magistrate in giving sanction under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, for his prosecution, held an enquiry and recorded other evidence beside that in the case before him to show-that there was prima facie ground for the prosecution. It is contended for the petitioner before us that the original case before the Magistrate disclosed no foundation for the charge under Section 193 Indian Penal Code, and that, therefore, the Magistrate had no power to make any enquiry or grant the sanction. In support of this argument reliance is placed on Zamindar of Sivagiri v. The Queen I.L.R. 19 C. 816 and Abdul Khadar v. Meera Saheb I.L.R. 15 M., 224. We are unable to accede to the petitioner's contention. The decision in, Zamindat of Sivagiri v. The Queen I.L.R. 19 C. 816 was based on the language of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code then ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Motha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad339
1. In this case one Motha was said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, in a case before a Magistrate, and the Magistrate, in giving sanction under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, for his prosecution, held an enquiry and recorded other evidence besides that in the case before him to show that there was prima facie ground for the prosecution. It is contended for the petitioner before us that the original case before the Magistrate disclosed no foundation for the charge under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, and that, therefore, the Magistrate had no power to make any enquiry or grant the sanction. In support of this argument reliance is placed on the decisions in Zamindar of Sivagiri v. The Queen I.L.R. 6 Mad. 29 and Abdul Khadar . Meera Saheb I.L.R. Mad. 224. We are unable to accede to the petitioner's contention. The decision in Zamindar of Sivagiri v. The Queen I.L.R. Mad. 29 was based on the language of Section 468 of the Criminal Proced...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaran and anr. Vs. Kuttooly and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ62
1. The most important question in the case is whether the agreement in the mortgage, exhibit I, to sell the mortgaged property to the mortgagee in default of payment of the mortgage money is binding upon the mortgagor. Neither of the Courts below has considered this question. They have proceeded to deal with the agreement of sale as if it were valid. On the question as to its validity we have no hesitation in holding against it.2. It is the policy of the law that the right of redemption in a mortgagor shall not be fettered or clogged in any manner or to any extent by an agreement between mortgagor and mortgagee, saving such transactions between the parties as would operate as an extinguishment of the right (See Proviso to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act). A transaction to have this effect must naturally be one entered into after the mortgage (See Perayya v. Venkata I.L.R. 11 M. 403.3. The present case is no doubt not governed by the terms of the Transfer of Property Act, the...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council of Tanjore Vs. Visvanatha Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ273
1. The fact that Section 212 of the Act refers only to new buildings and not to repairs is highly significant and clearly indicates that a distinction was intended to be drawn between the two classes of cases. In the present case there was no erection of any new building over the drain. There was only a repair of the existing covering which had been there for the past forty years.2. We do not think that such repair can be said to be interference with the drain within the meaning of Section 211. The interference referred to in that section is, as the District Judge remarks, interference similar in character to the kinds of interference specifically referred to in the earlier part of the section.3. We, therefore, conclude that the decision of the Court below is correct, and we dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »