Chennai Court July 1898 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad430
1. There seems to me to be no doubt that the rules, though passed under the old Act, must be deemed to have been passed under the existing Act. The orders must be amended so as to make the detention last till the offender in each case has attained the age of eighteen....
Tag this Judgment!Hammick Vs. the President, Madras Municipal Commission
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ164
1. The question referred to us is whether upon the facts stated Mr. Hammick did within the City of Madras hold the office of Inspector-General of Police for more than sixty days in the half-year The question is in our opinion really concluded by the decision in the Ongole Case in I. L. R., 17 M., 453 but it was sought to found a distinction in the admission made in the case to the effect that the office of the Inspector-General is a permanent one in Madras and that there is an Assistant Inspector-General of Police during the latter's absence on tour. We are of opinion that these circumstances will make no difference. The person liable to pay under Section 103 of the Act is the person who within the City exercises an art, profession or trade or holds an office. There are offices inseparably connected with Madras, the duties of which cannot be discharged elsewhere. The office of Inspector-General of Police is hot of that character; for it appears to be part of his duty to make tours. Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Subrahmania Pattar Vs. Valiya Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ187
1. We think the District Judge was wrong in refusing to allow the payment of the court-fee stamp with reference to the alternative prayer of the plaint and in dismissing the suit accordingly. The stamp paid was estimated on the footing of the mortgage of 1858, which was the only mortgage admitted by the plaintiff. The stamp amount did not cover the additional amount due under the mortgage of 1874. It was competent to the District Munsif on reading the plaint to call for the balance due. This he did not do. When the matter came up on appeal before the District Judge, the latter might have adopted the same course and given the plaintiff time to pay the difference as required by Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, Except for that Section, there is no provision of law entitling the District Judge to reject the suit unconditionally on account of the defective court-fee stamp.2. We must reverse the decree and direct the District Judge to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to pay the di...
Tag this Judgment!Blake Vs. Savundarathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ163
1. A Kasavargam tenant has, according to Wilson (see Glossary), a proprietary right to his house and the Sudder Court ruled in Appa Pillai v. Gopalasami Reddi (decision of 1860, page 41) that when ejected the Kasavargam tenant was entitled to compensation for his buildings. The Munsif found this was a recognised principle and there was no denial that it was an incident of Kasavargam tenancy. The Judge agreed with the Munsif; and as the decision is supported by express authority of old date, we have no doubt that it is correct in law. The amount granted as compensation is not a question of law. The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Arunachallam Chetti and anr. Vs. Ayyavayyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad476
1. The Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the instrument sued upon, which purports to be a usufructuary mortgage, contains no covenant to pay. Nevertheless as possession of the land comprised in the instrument was not given to the alleged mortgagees, this suit for the recovery of the money said to be due would lie under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act, if the instrument sued on represents a real transaction and is not a mere collusive document as alleged by the defendants and if the claim is not time-barred.2. As to the first point the Lower Appellate Court recorded no finding. As to the latter point, that depends upon the further question whether in a case like this a decree for the sale of land could be properly given.3. Before entering into the question of limitation it appears to us advisable that there should be a finding upon the question whether there was a real mortgage or whether the plaint mentioned instrument was a mere sham document. The District Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Aiyar Vs. Vengidusami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ170
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. One Seshappaien died in 1859, leaving him surviving a widow the late Thaiyyu Animal, a son and a daughter. The son as the sole surviving male member of the family to which Seshappaien belonged, took the whole of the joint estate. On his death a few years afterwards while remaining unmarried, his mother Thaiyyu Animal inherited the estate. Subsequently, she gave her daughter in marriage and at the time of the marriage made a gift of a portion of the lands, inherited by her, to her son-in-law. The District Munsif find the Subordinate Judge held that the gift was binding upon the appellant who as the heir of the last full owner has since the demise of Thaiyyu Ammal become entitled to succeed to the property. ON behalf of the appellant it was urged that a Hindu qualified owner in the position of Thaiyyu Ammal has no authority to make such a gift and even should it be held that she had, the gift in question in the present instance, ought, having regard to all the cir...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachellam Chetti and anr. Vs. Aiyavaiyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ154
The suit is barred under the Full Bench ruling. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Manicka Gramany and anr. Vs. Ramachandra Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ210
H.H. Shephard, C.J.1. The question we have to decide is whether a tenant, against whom a judgment has been properly passed by the Collector under Section 10 of the Rent Recovery Act, can in a separate suit in a Civil Court call in question the order of ejectment which under the same Section the Collector has passed on proof of the tenant's failure to obey the judgment ?2. In the case Ragava v. Rajagopal, reported in I.L.R., 9 M it was decided by a Divisional Bench that such a suit would not lie. 'Doubt has been thrown on that decision in recent cases, and we have accordingly to consider whether the decision was right. Section 10 of the Rent Recovery Act gives the Collector jurisdiction to decide with regard to the propriety of any puttah which the tenant to whom it has been tendered has refused to accept. The Collector has to say whether the puttah tendered was a proper one and if he holds that it was not, he has to decide in what respects it should be modified. By way of giving effect...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Rayaguru Vs. Modhu Padhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad326
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether Article 132 or Article 147 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act applies to a suit for sale by a mortgagee holding such a mortgage as that in the present case.2. The Allahabad High Court has held in Shib Lal v. Ganga Prasad I.L.R. 6 All. 551 that Article 147 is applicable to all mortgage instruments.3. The Calcutta High Court has held in Girivar Singh v. Thakur Narain Singh I.L.R., 14 Cal., 730 that Article 147 applies only to a special kind of mortgage known as ' English mortgage, ' and in other cases Article 132 applies.4. The Bombay High Court, in Motiram v. Vitai I.L.R., 13 Bom., 90 differs from Girwar Singh v. Thakur Narain Singh I.L.R., 14 Cal., 730 and holds that Section 147 applies.5. The Madras High Court in Davani v. Ratna I.L.R., 6 Mad., 417 and Aliba v. Nanu I.L.R., 9 Mad., 218 has held that Article 132 governed a suit upon a mortgage bond to recover the mortgage money by sale of the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Tiruvengada Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad428
1. We consider that the words 'to whom the collection, &c;, is entrusted' govern only the words 'contractor or agent' immediately preceding them. The introduction of the distributive word 'every' before 'contractor or agent' shows that the intention of the Legislature was to separate or distinguish these persons from the previous class of persons, viz., members and servants of the board.2. We, therefore, hold that the Sanitary Inspector appointed by the local board is a public servant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Local Boards Act V of 1884.3. The orders of acquittal are accordingly set aside, and the Magistrate will replace the cases on his file and dispose of them on the merits....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »