Chennai Court January 1898 Judgments
Marudamuthu Nadan and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad128
1. In accordance with the judgment of the Full Bench we must hold that the alienation is not binding on the plaintiffs. 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 coats throughout. If the payment is duly made each party will bear their own coats throughout.]...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Rama Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ135
1. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants were entitled to payment of the amounts adjudged to them only out of the sale proceeds. There were no sale proceeds in this case inasmuch as the sale was set aside under the provisions of Section 310 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure by payment, so far as this case is concerned, of the amount due to the decree-holder, the appellant, who was, therefore, entitled to the whole of that amount. We cannot accept the contention that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants were also decree-holders. It is true the decree recognizes certain charges in their favour, but they could obtain no orders in execution on account of those charges until there were sale proceeds available for distribution according to the decree. They have, therefore, never become decree-holders. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the Judge, and hold that the appellant is entitled to the whole of the sum of Rs. 8,127-11-0; and if any portion thereof has been paid to respondents (defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Daramma and ors. Vs. Mariamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1898
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ397
ORDER1. We are unable to agree with either of the Lower Courts that there is anything in the language of the mortgage instrument or exhibit A to indicate that the intention of the parties was that the mortgagee should forego any claim to the value of improvements, if he was entitled thereto by the customary law. The 5th issue seems to have been raised to try the question whether there was a custom in South Canara by which usufructuary mortgagees were entitled to the value of their improvements. No finding has been come to as to the existence or non-existence of this custom, and the question must now be tried, as we find that, the parties did not contract themselves out of the custom, if it existed. The question will be whether there is a custom in South Canara entitling a usufructuary mortgagee to the value of improvements effected by him; and if so, what are treated as improvements to be paid for under the custom. In trying this question the Judge should take not only the evidence add...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Poomalai Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad296
1. Upon the facts, we agree with the finding of the Subordinate Magistrate that there was a resistance by the accused to the attachment, and we cannot agree with the Assistant Magistrate that such resistance was not proved. The evidence of the Union servants is corroborated by the probabilities as well as by the official report that was submitted at once, and it is impossible to believe the defence story that the Chairman of the Union with a large escort should have come to make the distraint and then have gone away without doing so, although there was no resistance.2. The next question is whether the resistance was lawful as has been ruled by the Assistant Magistrate on the ground that the provisions of the Local Boards Act (V of 1884) under which the distraint was made were not regularly complied with in regard to (1) the preliminary steps for making the demand, (2) the service of the notice, and (3) the subjects of seizure. In regard to (1) the only defect appears to have been an om...
Tag this Judgment!Manakkal Bhattathiripad Vs. Manakkal Damodaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ115
1. The ground upon which the Judge seems to have based his conclusion was that there was no decree in execution of which the sale had taken place, for the Judge seems to have held that the original decree of the 10th March 1893 had been entirely superseded or cancelled on review, and was, therefore, a mere nullity. The application for review was made only by the 11th defendant and was not directed against the whole decree but only against that part of it which affected the 11th defendant. The judgment on review treats the original decree as existing and final in all other respects than that in which it directs a modification. So that the Judge was clearly in error in treating the original decree as a mere nullity. There is no doubt but that there should be only one decree in a suit, and though here the original and the revised decrees are written on separate papers, they must be taken together and read as one. In this view, it cannot be said that the appellant hero was executing a decr...
Tag this Judgment!Muniappan Chetty and ors. Vs. Mannarkat Muppil Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ117
1. In this case it has been found that the jenmi title to the plaint land was in the plaintiffs, and that in 1863, one Koru obtained from Government a cowle to cultivate the land, and that he and his assignees, defendants 5 to 8, have been in possession ever since. It was alleged that Koru originally got possession of the land under an oral lease from the 1st plaintiff in 1861-62, but the Subordinate Judge did not decide the question holding that even if Koru took possession of the land on the strength of the Government cowle without reference to the jenmi, such possession must be regarded as not hostile to the jenmi who was, therefore, entitled to recover at any time on the strength of his title. The Subordinate Judge, therefore, decreed that plaintiffs should recover possession on payment of compensation for improvements.2. Against this decree the defendants 5 to 8 appeal on the ground that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. We have no doubt but that this is so, unless the...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Aiyar Vs. Srinivasa Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ64
1. The only point urged on behalf of the appellant (the 2nd defendant) was that the respondent's (the plaintiff's) right to proceed against the property in question in the hands of the appellant for the debt due under the decree obtained against the deceased father of the appellant had, at the time of the institution of the suit, become barred by limitation. The lower appellate Court held that it had not become barred, and that conclusion is clearly right.2. No doubt, the decree against the father was for money only. But during the father's life-time an attachment in execution of the decree was made. The attachment was not of the father's share alone, but of the whole property; and, as the debt for which the decree was passed is not shown to have been incurred for an illegal or immoral purpose, the respondent was entitled to attach the whole property for the debt. The effect of the attachment was to create as against the appellant a lien or charge in respect of the debt upon the whole ...
Tag this Judgment!Rathnamaiyar Vs. Kristna Dos Vital Dos
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ75
1. The respondent obtained against the appellant and others a decree for the division of some lands held in common by the parties to the suit and for the delivery of the respondent's share thereof. In execution of the decree, some lands were delivered to the respondent. The appellant presented an application objecting to the delivery of certain of the parcels and complaining that he was dispossessed of them improperly. Both the lower Courts dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. There can be no doubt as held by the lower appellate Court that Article 165 is applicable to a case where the applicant is a party bound by the decree as well as where he is a stranger (See C. M. S. A. No. 25 of 1889), and that Article, therefore, is the one by which the present case is governed. But, though the application here was presented after the expiry of thirty days from the date of dispossession prescribed by that Article, yet it is clear that the application was in t...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Srinivasalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad124
1. The Full Bench has decided that we have the power to inter-fere to prevent a prosecution ordered under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, from being proceeded with. On the merits, however, we find no case whatever for interference. We dismiss both the petitions....
Tag this Judgment!Ratnam Ayyar Vs. Krishna Doss Vital Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad494
1. The respondent obtained against the appellant and others a decree for the division of some lands held in common by the parties to the suit and for the delivery of the respondent's share thereof. In execution of the decree some lands were delivered to the respondent. The appellant presented an application objecting to the delivery of certain of the parcels and complaining that he was dispossessed of them improperly. Both the Lower Courts dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. There can be no doubt as held by the Lower Appellate Court that Article 165, schedule II, Indian Limitation Act, is applicable to a case where the applicant is a party bound by the decree as well as where he is a stranger see Vythilinga Mupanar v. Sithalakshmi Ammal Appeal against Appellate Order No. 25 of 1889 unreported. and that article therefore is the one by which the present case is governed. But though the application here was presented after the expiry of thirty days fr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »