Chennai Court October 1899 Judgments
Perimbra Nayar and ors. Vs. Subrahmanya Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ61
1. The appellants vakil contends that the lower Appellate Court had no power under Sections 562 and 564 of the Civil Procedure Code to remand the suit for retrial, and that, therefore, the order appealed against is wrong. It is true the remand in this case was not made on grounds which come within the language of Section 562, Civil Procedure Code, which provides for a case where there has been a decision upon a preliminary point which is reversed by the Appellate Court. But we think that, notwithstanding-those sections, an Appellate Court has inherent power-in a case, such as the present, not only to reverse a decree passed on evidence given by the plaintiff only, the defendant being exparte, but also to direct a retrial of the case. For it has that power on an appeal against an order passed on an application under Section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code refusing to set aside an exparte decree; and it can hardly be supposed, therefore, that if on an appeal against such an exparte decre...
Tag this Judgment!Pathmanabha Chettiar Vs. Mrs. Mercy Williams and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ10
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. Under the will of the late Thomas Edmonds, the house--plaint item No. 2 which is the only property in dispute in this appeal, should be taken to have been devised by the testator to his children, eleven in number. The plaintiffs, who are two of the eleven children, became, therefore, on their father's death, entitled each to her share. Assuming for the present that the transactions, under which the sixth defendant (the appellant) claims the property in question, are, as contended on behalf of the plaintiffs, not binding on any of the devisees, the plaintiffs cannot get relief beyond the extend of their interest: They have certainly no right to ask for possession of more than their shares should they seek any possession. It is clear, therefore, that the decree of the Lower-Court, which awards possession of the whole property to the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the other devisees, cannot, as it stands, be sustained.2. The question for consideration is wh...
Tag this Judgment!Samulo and anr. Vs. Gowrachandra Gajapathi Narayana Deo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ206
1. The first question is whether the decree makes all the defendants jointly liable for the whole of the mesne profits. We think having regard to the judgment that this is not so. The 4th issue distinctly raises the question as to the amount recoverable from each and in deciding that issue, the District Judge says the amount of profits will be reserved for decision in execution and nothing more. This tends to show that the question whether each were liable to pay the whole or a pare was not before his mind. Moreover the conduct of the parties throughout these proceedings shows that that have considered the question as undetermined by the decree. The next question raised is whether there can now be any appeal as to the liability of the defendants to pay the mesne profits jointly and severally: an order having been made in March 1897, in these proceedings and '. not having been appealed from, it is argued that it cannot be gone into upon appeal on the final order passed in execution as i...
Tag this Judgment!Veerabhadra Varaprasada Row Vs. Vellanki Venkatadri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ114
Subrahmania Aiyar, O.C.J.1. The right set up by the appellant--the present holder of the hereditary office of karnam in the village of Pinakadimi--that he is entitled to an annual payment as rusum is of course a periodically recurring right falling within Article 131 of the Limitation Act, and as to the difference between the four annas claimed by the appellant and the two annas admitted by the respondent, the right, if it ever existed, must, as taken by the lower appellate Court be held to be barred, the plff's predecessor in office having, according to that Court's finding, which, as a finding of fact, is finding on us, been first refused the enjoyment of the right more than thirty years before the institution of the present suit It is scarcely necessary to say that the fact that the appellant himself succeeded to the office within twelve years before the suit is immaterial,, since, in consequence of the identity of interest which exists in the case of successive office holders of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ana Kumarasami Reddiar Vs. Subbaraya Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ51
1. The only substantial objection raised in this second appeal by the appellant is that the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal in the Court below had no jurisdiction.2. The case was originally tried in the District Munsif's Court of Tinnevelly and the appeal was entered and came on for hearing before the District Judge and certain, documents were put in at the appeal. The District Judge thereupon remanded the suit under Section 56(5, Civil Procedure Code, to the District Munsif for findings upon fresh issues and ordered that fresh evidence might be taken and the findings returned. When the findings had been returned the District Judge transferred the appeal to the Subordinate Judge who, after hearing the parties, reversed the decree of the District Munsif and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.3. It is contended that the District Judge had no power to transfer an appeal which had been part heard by the District Judge to the Subordinate judge under Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act (Act...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumantu Mallesam Naidu and ors. Vs. Jugala Panda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ34
1. The question referred in this case is ' whether a creditor in the position of the plaintiff has a further ' right to sue the son for his father's debt on the death of the father, apart from the right to sue him in the father's life-time for such debt.'2. The plaintiffs recovered a decree for moneys borrowed from them for family purposes by two persons--Balakrishnama Chowdari and Appala Naidu,--in an action against those two brothers and an undivided brother of Appala Naidu in 1882. Balakrishnama Chowdari and Appala Naidu, who had borrowed the money died in 1893, and the plaintiffs, having recovered no part of their decree in 1895 sued the present five defendants for the full amount of the decree and interest. The first two present defendants are the undivided brothers of the first defendant Balakrishnama Chowdari in the suit of 1882, and have succeeded as such to the property of Balakrishnama Chdwdari by right of survivorship. The third, fourth and fifth defendants are the sans of A...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Vava Levvai Macakayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ64
O'Farrell, J.1. The question evidently intend ed to be referred is whether an appeal lies against an order passed with regard to a party to a suit against whom there is a personal decree, in respect of any claim he may set up to hold property attached in execution of that decree, as a trustee on behalf of third persons not parties to the suit. The answer to the question depends upon whether such a claim falls under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code or under Section 278. It is conceded that the Privy Council decision relied on in Upendra Bhatta v. Ranganatha Bhatta I.L.R(1893) .M., 399 does not touch the point. The addition of, the words ' or their representatives ' to the words ' parties to the suit ' in Section 244 as it orginally stood i really beside the point where the claim is put forward by the representative, not as representative of the parties, but on behalf of third persons. A large number of decisions have been cited but a good many of them, in my opinion, throw no light upo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›