Chennai Court May 1898 Judgments
Sankara Nambiar Vs. Kanara Kurup
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ175
1. The plaintiff obtained a decree for the surrender of land in O. S. No. 168 of 1893. On the 3rd September, 1896, the 2nd defendant, alleging that defendants had surrendered the land to the plaintiff in March 1894, asked the District Munsif to record an order stating that the decree-holder had obtained possession of the land.2. The District Munsif, after enquiry, recorded a finding that the land had been surrendered. The District Judge, on appeal, observed that the application was one made under Section 258, Code of Civil Procedure, and that under Article 173-A of Schedule III of the Limitation Act, such an application must be made within 90 days of the delivery of possession. He, therefore, dismissed the application as barred by limitation.3. The 2nd defendant appeals on the ground that Section 258 applies only to cases in which the decree is for money, not for land, as in the present case; and the questions for decision are whether Section 258, Code of Civil Procedure, refers only t...
Tag this Judgment!Putta Hegade Vs. Kusamma Hegadathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ168
Benson, J.1. The defendant obeyed the order of the Court by producing the money in Court within 15 days. The Court, however, without receiving the money and without rejecting it as improperly tendered, i.e., as not being deposited in the Treasury as required by the Rules of Practice, handed it back to the party with orders to produce it again on the 28th idem in Court. I think that the Court must, in these circumstances, be held responsible for the money not having been paid into the Treasury within the time allowed. Had the Court simply rejected the money as not properly tendered, the case might have been different, but when it gave the party instructions as to the further custody of the money, and the party obeyed those instructions, I think the party cannot be held to have made default. The cases (Gujadhur Pauree v. Naik Pauree, I. L. R., 8 C, 528 and Srinivasa Bhutta v. Malayacha Mannadi, Ib. 7. M., 211) relied on by the appellant do not support his contention, but show rather that...
Tag this Judgment!The Adoni Municipal Council Vs. Kallamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ153
The object of the gift was mere charity and was in no way connected with the spiritual benefit of the donor's husband. No authority is shown in support of the contention that a gift made in such circumstances is binding on the reversioners. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Kaviroyau Vs. Kandasami Gonndan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ147
1. We are of opinion that the right to possession arose coincidently with the right to the execution of a conveyance by the defendant. Both rights are declared under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, and in the case cited in Nathu Valad Pandu v. Bhudu Valad Bhika, I.L.R., 18 B., 537. It is admitted that the contract of sale created in the purchaser a right of possession. The decision appears to proceed on the peculiar facts of the case. The District Munsif was, therefore, right in his conclusion.2. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif. Respondent must pay costs in this and in the lower appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›