Chennai Court April 1898 Judgments
Revur Subba Row Vs. Papi Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ149
1. Both the Courts below have lost sight of the fact alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint and not denied or made the subject of an issue by the defendants and which we must, therefore, take to have been admitted, viz., that the debt was contracted by the 1st defendant as managing member for a purpose binding on the family. In this view the principle underlying the decision in Srinivasa v. Sivakolundu I.L.R. 12 M. 849 has no application; nor is the suit excluded from the Small Cause Jurisdiction by Clause 19 of Schedule II of the Small Cause Courts Act, since that clause applies only to suits for a declaratory decree properly so called, and not to a suit in which the declaration is merely introductory, as in this case, to the real relief sought for, Khursedji v. Pestonji, I.L.R. 12 B. 578. We are of opinion that the suit is one of a small cause nature, and being for a sum less than Rs. 500, no second appeal lies.2. We therefore, dismiss this second appeal with costs.3. We are, however...
Tag this Judgment!Nittukaruppa Goundan Vs. Kumarasami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ167
1. We think that in this case the words construed by the Sub-Judge as 'when yon require' imply a condition as was also decided in a case where the words actually used were 'on demand.' (S. A 200 of 1897). There the words were not considered as merely technical words, as they were interpreted to be in Perumal Ayyan v. Alagirisami Bhagacathar, I. L. R., 20 M., 245. The Sub-Judge was therefore right in holding the suit was not barred, and this appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Vayiravan Asary Vs. Ponniah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ151
1. A wide meaning has, no doubt, been given to the words of Article 116 of the schedule to the Limitation Act. But the present case--a suit for an account by one partner against another after dissolution of the partnership--in our opinion, is altogether beyond the scope of the article. The only case approching this one (Ranga Reddi v. Chinna Reddi I.L. R. 14 M. 165) is plainly distinguishable. We are not prepared to say that the article can be stretched to cover every case in which the plaintiffs claim may, in its origin, be referred to a contractual relation which is expressed in a registered agreement.2. The application is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Rathna Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Ragunadha Bhattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ173
1. In the life-time of Raghunatha Bhattar, his son Srirangaraja died, leaving a widow and having by will authorized her to adopt a son. She accordingly in 1888 adopted the plaintiff after Eaghunatha had died leaving brothers who took as his heirs. Some of these assent to the adoption and are willing that the plaintiff should succeed to the office which he claims.2. On the authority of the cases of which the leading one is Mussumat Bhoobun Moyee Debia v. Ram Kishore, 10 M. I. A., 279 we must hold that the plaintiff's claim by adoption fails. The adoption was not made to the last male holder and would, if valid, have the effect of divesting the estate taken on inheritance by Raghunatha's brothers, which estate includes the right to the office now claimed. An attempt was made to get over this difficulty by pleading that the brother's consent validated the adoption--but the decision in Annammah v. Mabbu Bali Ruddy, 8 M. H. C. R., 108 is against this view, and if the adoption was invalid we...
Tag this Judgment!Aravamudu Ayyangar Vs. Samiyappa Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad385
1. The last day for payment into Court would admittedly have been the 6th January 1895 but for the fact that on that day the Court was closed. The first question is whether the fact that the Court was then closed entitled the fifth defendant (respondent) to pay the money on the first day thereafter that the Court was open, i.e., on the 8th January. We think he was so entitled. The ease Dabee Rawoot v. Heeramun Muhatoon 8 W.R. O.E. 223 cited by the respondent is a direct authority in favour of this view. The principle on which the rule depends is thus stated in Shooshee Bhusan Rwlro v. Gobind Chunder Roy I.L.R. 18 Cal. 231 : Although the parties themselves cannot extend the time for doing an act in Court, yet if the delay is caused not by any act of their own, but by some act of the Court itself such as the fact of the Court being closed--they are entitled to do the act on the first opening day.'2. We must, therefore, hold that if the money was produced in Court on the 8th January, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Sitharama Sastrulu and ors. Vs. Suryanarayana Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ183
1. We are unable to accept the judgment of the lower appellate Court as one made in conformity with the law as laid down in Section 574, Civil Procedure Code. There is no express statement of the points for determination or of the decision on such points or the reasons for the decision. All we find is a general reference to the Munsif's judgment as containing the views of the Judge. Such a general and wholesale adoption of the judgment of the Court of first instance cannot be considered as a sufficient compliance with the law. The judgment of the appellate Court should show on the face of it that the points in dispute were clearly before the mind of the Judge and that he exercised his own discrimination in deciding them. There is no indication that such was the case here. We must, therefore, reverse the lower appellate Court's decree, and direct that the appeal be restored to the file and disposed of according to law.2. Costs will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›