Chennai Court February 1898 Judgments
Maiden Vs. Janakiramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad371
1. Having regard to Ramakrishna Bhikaji v. Bhimabai I.L.R. 15 Bom. 416 we must hold that no stamp duty was payable in espect of the mesne profits, subsequent to the institution of the suit, viz., for fasli 1305, which profits are comprised in the appeal.2. The only contention urged with reference to the merits is that the Subordinate Judge's conclusion that the plaintiff's vendor had consented to the arrangement under which the third defendant held possession is against the weight of evidence. The sole evidence in support of the contention is that of the third defendant himself. We think the Subordinate Judge was right in declining to accept that evidence for the reasons given by him. We see no reason to interfere with the order made as to costs.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Agent and Manager of the Madras Railway Company Vs. Govinda Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ85
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff, a tailor, with a view to make special profits during the car festival at a place called Karamadai, in the Coimbatore District, entrusted to the defendants, the Madras Railway Company, on the 29th February 1896, his sewing machine and a cloth bundle to be carried from Erode and to be delivered to him at Karamadai. The defendants were, however, not told why the articles were sent. Through the fault of the defendants' servants, the articles were not carried to Kararnadai until long after the date by which they should, in the usual course, have arrived at that station. Before they reached the place, the festival had come to an end. The plaintiff who had waited at Kararnadai for a number of days, expecting the arrival of the articles, having returned to Erode, the articles were transmitted back and were delivered to him there on the 26th March 1896.2. The plaintiff sued for damages said to have been sustained by him in consequence of the delay in the d...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Railway Co. Vs. Govinda Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad172
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff, a tailor, with a view to make special profits during the car festival at a place called Karamadai in the Coimbatore District entrusted to the defendants, the Madras Railway Company, on the 29th February 1896, his sewing machine and a cloth bundle to be carried from Erode and to be delivered to him at Karamadai. The defendants were, however, not told why the articles were sent. Through the fault of the defendants servants the articles were not carried to Karamadai until long after the date by which they should, in the usual course, have arrived at that station. Before they reached the place the festival had come to an end. The plaintiff, who had waited at Karamadai for a number of days expecting the arrival of the articles, having returned to Erode, the articles were transmitted back and were delivered to him there on the 26th March 1896.2. The plaintiff sued for damages said to have been sustained by him in consequence of the delay in the delivery ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference Under Stamp Act, Section 46
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad422
1. The first case is clearly distinguishable from that decided in 1884--[Reference under Stamp Act, Section 46 I.L.R. 7 Mad. 349 for there, there was an absolute and unqualified disposition of property by way of gift. Here there was a provision merely for the life of the donee with reversion to the settlor and his heirs. We think this document (No. 417 of 1897) is a settlement within the meaning of the Stamp Act.2. The other document No. 1364 of 1897 is certainly neither a settlement nor a gift. There was consideration other than that of marriage. We think it must be treated as a conveyance and stamped accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›