Chennai Court February 1898 Judgments
Mahabala Bhatta and anr. Vs. Kunhanna Banta and ors. and Subbanna Bhat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ139
1. The material allegations for the plaintiffs were briefly, that their father Ramiah Bhatta obtained benami in the first defendant's name the usufructuary mortgage deed bearing date the 25th April 1884 for Rs. 4,700 due to him by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, that these defendants were, however, permitted to retain possession of the lands (mortgaged by them) as lessees under the lease granted to them at the time the mortgage was executed, that subsequent to the plaintiffs' father's death, which took place in 1887, the 1st defendant, about September 1889, denied the right of the plaintiffs under the mortgage and that he fraudulently obtained possession of the mortgage instrument and certain other documents from Kambar Subbanna Bhatta, the plaintiffs' maternal uncle, to whom the documents had been entrusted pending certain disputes between, the plaintiffs and their brother Subbanna Bhatta respecting the division of their property.2. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration that the mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Nadar and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ61
Boddam, J.The District Judge is wrong. The plaintiff's present claim for repayment of the deposit money forms part of the damages he might and should have claimed alternatively in his action for specifics performance. Even if this were not so, the plaintiff's action is barred; for the statute begins to run from the time when the plaintiff first sought to enforce his tight by bringing his action for specific performance. The money was then repayable at once if the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for specific performance, and in that very action he could have recovered it. The general rule is that every suit speaks from the date of plaint and not from the date of the decree though there may be cases (of which this certainly is not one) in which limitation may begin to run from the date of the decree and not the plaint (Bassu Kuar v. Dhum Singh I.L.R. 11 A. 47. The decree of the District Judge is reversed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Seshadri Ayyangar Vs. Nataraja Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad179
Shephard, J.1. These are appeals by the plaintiff against the decrees in two suits brought by him against the same parties, being the members of the temple committee constituted under the Act of 1863. It seemed to us convenient to hear first the appeal in which the question of the plaintiff's dismissal from the office of trustee arose, and I will accordingly deal with that question first and afterwards with the question arising in the suit in which damages are claimed.2. The plaintiff was appointed a trustee of the Srirangam pagoda on the 1st May 1892, and he assumed office on the 15th of the same month. On the 25th February 1893 a notice was addressed to him signed by three of the defendants--Nataraja Ayyar, Krishna Ayyangar, and Ramasami Chetti,--intimating to him that he was dismissed from the office of trustee and requiring him accordingly to surrender to a person named all the temple property in his possession. The Advocate-General, who appeared for the plaintiff-appellant, did no...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi Chetti Vs. Deputy Collector, Bellary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad269
1. The Government Pleader draws our attention to the fact that this appeal should have been on a stamp of Rs. 235 under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, instead of being as it is on a stamp of Rs. 10 under Articleicle 17 (iv) of schedule II of the Court Fees Act. There can be no doubt but that the objection is well founded. Article 17 (iv) Article 17 (iv) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Plaint or memorandum of appeal | | Ten rupees.] in a suit to set aside an award. | | _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________2. The vakil for the appellant, however, contends that the appeal having been admitted by the Registrar on a stamp of Rs. 10, no objection as to the amount of the stamp can now be taken, and he relies on the authority of the decision in Ranga Pai v. Baba I.L.R. 20 Mad. 398.3. In that case, however, the Court assumed that there was a 'decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Health Inspector, Taluk Board Vs. Govinda Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1898
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.591
ORDERWallace, J.1. This series of revision petitions is presented, on behalf of the Taluk Board, Kumbakonam, asking this Court to revise the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Tiruvadamarudur, dismissing a series of complaints under b, 203, Criminal Procedure Code. The complaints were put in under Section 221 of the Madras Local Boards Act for the purpose of recovering license fees due to the Taluk Board, The fees were said to be due under Section 193 of the Act. The accused were conducting trades which under that section required licenses. They failed to take out licenses and the Board did not take steps in time to compel them to take out the licenses. Now, the Board maintains that even so the fees for these licenses are due to the Board and seeks to recover them under Section 221. The lower Court has dismissed the complaints, holding that in the circumstances, the Taluk Board has no right to the fees, and it is this order which is now under revision. It appears to me that the Magistrate wa...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Ayyakannu Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad293
1. We do not agree with the Sub-Magistrate that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that a cart-stand is 'offensive' or 'dangerous,' or that fees are levied in the cart-stand in order to justify a conviction under Section 189 of the Madras District Municipalities Act IV of 1884, though, no doubt, those are matters regarding which the Court would usually require evidence to be given in order to guide it in finding whether the alleged cart-stand is such as the Section contemplated and also to guide it in passing sentence in the event of conviction.2. The heading 'Offensive and dangerous trades' is manifestly not exhaustive of the matters dealt with in the succeeding Sections, nor can it be taken to restrict the plain terms of the Sections. Again, the levying of fees is not necessary in order to constitute a place where carts stand a 'cart-stand' within the meaning of the Section. On the other hand, we think that a place is not necessarily a 'cart-stand' within the meaning of the...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council of Srivilliputtur Vs. Chinnaboothanayagam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ73
1. Most of the dealings that the contractor (respondent) had with the Department of Public Works in connection with his contracts took place in the Division Office of Srivilliputtur. The contract was executed there, instructions regarding the execution of works, the subject of the contract, were given him there, and payments on account of the contract were made to him there. Notwithstanding that the actual work was done outside municipal limits, the contractor was in the circumstances stated above clearly exercising his profession in the town. His case is analogous to that of the pleader in Ramasami Ayyar v. Municipal Council of Salem I.L.R. 18 M. 183 .2. The respondent was, therefore, liable to be taxed, and in reversal of the lower Court's decree, we dismiss his suit with costs throughout.3. In the view of our finding that the respondent 'exercised' his profession in the municipal limits and is, therefore, liable to the tax, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether the Court had ju...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Holla and anr. Vs. Savitri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ91
1. The Courts below were wrong in supposing that the decree was passed in favour of one plaintiff only. On referring to the original decree, we find it was in favour of the plaintiffs. But any one of the plaintiffs may under Section 231-c of the Civil Procedure Code apply for execution subject to the rights of the other plaintiffs being protected by order of the Court. None of the other plaintiffs has objected to the execution having been granted to the respondent. It is not for the judgment-debtors (appellants) to object. If any arrangement has been come to between them and any of the plaintiffs, that arrangement cannot be recognized by the Court as it has not been duly certified. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chetti Vs. Pulikutti Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ121
1. The property in dispute in this case consists of 12 pangus or shares in an inam village. The lands appertaining to the shares are in the occupancy of raiyats who own the kudivaram right. The shareholders or inamdars are the melwaramdars, and, as such, are entitled to take their share of the crops and enjoy the other incidents appertaining to the tenure. Admittedly, the plaintiff's vendor had before the sale to the plaintiff granted a lease of the shares in dispute to the late 1st defendant for Faslies 1804 and 1305. The present suit was instituted before the expiration of the term of the said lease and while it remained in force. The plaintiff claimed a decree for possession of the shares against the contesting defendants, who, it was alleged, had ousted the 1st defendant, the lessee. On behalf of the defendants, it was objected that the plaintiff's suit as framed was unsustainable, the lease being treated in the plaint itself as subsisting and valid. The Subordinate -Judge overrule...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanadan Chetti Vs. Pulikutti Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad288
1. The property in dispute in this case consists of 12 pangus or shares in an inam village. The lands appertaining to the shares are in the occupancy of raiyats who own the Kudivaram right. The share-holders or lnamdars are the Melvaramdars and as such are entitled to take their share of the crops and enjoy the other incidents appertaining to the tenure. Admittedly, the plaintiff's vendor had, before the sale to the plaintiff, granted a lease of the shares in dispute to the late first defendant for Faslis 1304 and 1305. The present suit was instituted before the expiration of the term of the said lease and while it remained in force. The plaintiff' claimed a decree for possession of the shares against the contesting defendants who, it was alleged, had ousted the first defendant, the lessee. On behalf of the defendants it was objected that the plaintiff's suit as framed was unsustainable, the lease being treated in the plaint itself as subsisting and valid. The Subordinate Judge overrul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »