Chennai Court October 1898 Judgments
Chakkara Chappan Vs. MoidIn Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ231
H.H. Shephard, C.J.1. The first question is whether any appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from orders passed under the provisions of Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Considering this question with exclusive reference to the language used by the framers of the Letters Patent and the Charter Act, I should have great difficulty in holding that Clause 15, read as it must be with Section 13 of the statute, was intended to give a right of appeal in such matters. In order to hold that orders passed on revision come within the scope of Clause 13 it must be held that they are made by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. But for the opinion expressed in Allahabad shortly after the passing of the statute and practically acquiesced in by all the High Courts since that time, I should have thought that the power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts by Section 15 of the statute stood quite apart and distinct from their appellate jurisdiction...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasankaram Pillai Vs. Panchami Kesiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ302
1. As far as we can see, the suit was dismissed on the mere ground that a witness, viz., the assignor, said that the plaintiff was a benamidar for Mahomed Ibray Ravuthan. Assuming that to be true, we do not think it is sufficient ground for dismissing the suit. We are not aware that it has ever been held that a benamidar may not sue in his own name to recover a debt. Provided that the defendant is not in any way prejudiced and is allowed to raise any defence which would avail him against the person really entitled, there seems to be no objection to such a suit. It might even be necessary in the interests of the defendant to have the real party joined. Here it does not appear that any objection was taken by the defendant.2. We must reverse the decree and remand the suit for disposal on the merits. Costs to abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Gilkinson and anr. Vs. Subrahmania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ287
Moore, J.1. The Subordinate Judge of Calicut dismissed a suit under Section 102, Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff applied under Section 103 to have the order of dismissal set aside, but his application was rejected, and an appeal preferred by him against this rejection under Section 588 (Clause 8) was dismissed by the District Judge. He then preferred a regular appeal from the order of dismissal under Section 102 as if it were a decree to the District Judge who heard it and disposed of it on the merits. Against his judgment a second appeal has been preferred here. It is now urged on behalf of the respondent that there was no appeal to the District Judge from the order passed under Section 102 and that, consequently, there is no second appeal here.2. This contention is, in my opinion, a valid one. It must be held that an order passed under Section 102 is not a decree (vide Mansab Ali v. Nihal Chand I.L.R., 15 A., 359. Reference should also be made to the decision of their Lordship...
Tag this Judgment!Zamindar of Tuni Vs. Bangaru Peda Bennayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ304
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The appellant before us was the appellant in the lower appellate Court also. The memorandum of appeal, presented by him there, was returned to him for amendment on the ground that it contained language disrespectful to the Court of First Instance. It was, however, represented without amendment accompanied by a statement or petition to the effect that the imputations made in the paragraphs 1, 3 and 12 of the memorandum which were objected to, were borne out by the record and, therefore, they ought to be allowed to remain so as to entitle the appellant to rely upon them at the hearing; but that, if the Court still thought otherwise, the Court itself may direct them to be scored out.2. The lower appellate Court thereupon rejected the memorandum under Section 543 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The first point for determination is whether an appeal lies against the order of rejection. Now, Section 543, referred to, is apparently limited to cases in which the memor...
Tag this Judgment!Mayandi Chetty Vs. Samia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ296
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The point for decision in appeal is whether the respondent's liability as trustee to pay to the appellant the sum of Rs. 100 in accordance with the directions of the respondent's sister who left him her property subject to that trust, was extinguished as found by the District Judge. No evidence, oral or documentary, appears to have been produced to show that there was between the parties any agreement to extinguish that liability. The sole circumstance in which the Judge's decision that it was extinguished rests is the fact that subsequent to the creation of trust, the appellant took from the respondent, Exhibit A, a hypothecation bond for the sum in question which was made payable within a year from the date of the document with interest at 3 per cent, per annum and enhanced interest at 21- per cent, in default of payment within the time fixed. Now, is this circumstance by itself sufficient I legal evidence to show that the parties had come to an agreement that...
Tag this Judgment!Jathavedan Namboodri Vs. Parameswaran Namboodri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ309
1. The question for determination in this case is whether the appellant who owns the equity of redemption in the land-plaint item, which forms part; of the property originally mortgaged to the defendant for an entire sum, is entitled to redeem the whole of the land mortgaged or the said item only.2. The District Munsif held that the appellant was entitled to redeem the whole and gave a decree to him accordingly. But the Subordinate Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the suit, being of opinion that the appellant was not entitled to redeem the whole.3. The view taken by the District Munsif seems to be clearly right. Hall v. Haward 32 Ch. Dn. 430 cited for the appellant is a direct authority in favor of that view. The Court of Appeal consisting of Cotton, Lindley and Lopes L. J. 3.. there held, following the decision of Lord Hatherly in Pearce v. Morris I.L. R. 5 Ch. 227 that as the owner of the equity of redemption of one of two estates comprised in the same mortgage cannot insist o...
Tag this Judgment!Groves and ors. Vs. the Administrator - General of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ288
Boddam, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Acting Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris on a petition presented on the 6th July, 1896, by the Acting Administrator-General of Madras under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside a sale in execution which took place on the 8th July 1895.2. The facts are as follows: One Harvey owed Rs. 70,000 to Richard Woolley, and in March 1893 he executed a power of attorney to Richard Woolley authorising him to dispose of his coffee estates and pay himself. In April 1893, however, Harvey took P.W. Woolley, a son of Richard Woolley, into partnership with him. In October, 1894, Richard Woolley agreed with Harvey and P.W. Woolley not to exercise his rights under the power of attorney until 1st June 1896 but in the meanwhile they were to pay him 10 per cent, interest instead of 8 per cent, per annum. In November, 1894 one Groves, who had commenced an action for a debt of Rs. 17,342 against Richard Woolley (C. S. No. 74 of 1894), applied for and ob...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›