Chennai Court November 1899 Judgments
Namburi Ghantiah Vs. Saladi Papiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ101
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The provisions of Exibit A, whereby the mortgagor undertook to pay interest on the mortgage amount, do not in express terms lay down that post diem interest was to be paid. On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing in the other provisions of the instrument which points to the view that past diem interest was not intended to be paid.2. The contention on behalf of the respondent that in such circumstances no post diem interest should be taken to be due implies that the dates fixed for the payment of the several instalments, specified in the instrument, were fixed not only for preventing the mortgagee from demanding payment before the arrival of those dates but also for marking the limit of time up to which alone interest was payable. It is obvious, however, that the object of fixing the dates referred' to was merely the former and that there was no necessary connection between the dates and the question of liability for interest, the determination of that que...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanarasu Vs. Buchamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ62
1. The question in this second appeal is whether a woman who has been kept by a man as his concubine for ' nine years continuously and then discarded, is entitled under the Hindu Law to claim maintenance from her paramour. The District Munsif decided in the negative, but the District Judge on appeal reversed the finding and decreed for plaintiff. Against this decree the defendant appeals.2. The question has been argued before us very fully on both sides and our attention has been drawn to all the authorities which have, or may be supposed to have, any bearing on the question. We do not propose to consider these authorities in detail, as almost without exception they refer to the right of a concubine to claim maintenance out of the estate of her deceased paramour. On the authority of certain texts of Hindu Law, the Courts have no doubt allowed this claim in the case of concubines continuously kept by the deceased to the time of his death. Whether the foundation of this rule was the noti...
Tag this Judgment!thesiga Aiyangar Vs. Srinivasa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ25
1. There was no need for the actual payment of money in order to save the bar by limitation. The transaction embodied in the endorsement was intended to operate as a payment. We. must set aside the decree of the District Munsif and direct him to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law. Costs will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Janardana Shetty Govindarajan and ors. Vs. Badava Shetty Giri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ54
Subramania Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs (appellants) along with the defendants 1 to 3 are the adhikaries (managers or trustees of a temple in British Cochin). The latter improperly appointed the 4th defendant to the office of pattamali under colour of which office the 4th defendant had been interfering in the affairs of the temple. The appellants sought in their plaint, as it originally stood, for a declaration that the appointment of the 4th defendant is invalid. Subsequently, on the defendants 2 to 4 raising an objection, that the 4th defendant having taken charge of the documents relating to temple lands, the temple jewels and the utensils specified in the plaint, schedules, a prayer for their surrender also should have been asked for, the plaint was allowed to be amended accordingly.2. The Subordinate Judge, being of opinion that the appointment was valid, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge found upon the evidence that the appointment was not made in accordance with th...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishna Aiyar Vs. Thiyagaraja Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ145
1. The question for decision in this case is whether an application for an order for sale under para. 4 of Section 93, Transfer of Property Act, should be made to the Court of first instance or to the Appellate Court in a case where it was the Appellate Court that made a decree for redemption under Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, modifying the decree of the Court of first instance. We have not been referred to any statutory provision which lays down the procedure to be followed. The question, therefore, has to be decided with reference to principle and analogy. The decree of the Appellate Court cannot be taken to be the decree which the Court of first instance should have passed if it had decided the case correctly. Had the decree been duly passed by the Court of first instance, the application' for an order under Section 93 would have been made to that Court. The same course should, in our opinion, be followed when the Appellate Court passes the decree which ought to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council of Tanjore Vs. Umamba Boy Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ138
1. In this case the Chairman of the Municipal Council of Tanjore professing to act under the authority of Section 71 of Act IV of 1884 inserted the name of the respondent as liable to pay a portion of the land and water taxes which had previously been levied from other parties who had an interest in certain land within the limits of the Municipality. The Sub-Judge found that the Chairman had omitted to give the respondent the notice prescribed by Sub-section 2 of Section 71 and gave the respondent a decree for the amount of the taxes paid by him under protest. The Municipal Council now asks us to revise this decree on the ground that 'the provisions of the Act relating to the assessment and levying of the taxes have been in substance and effect complied with' and that, therefore, Section 262(2) of Act IV of 1884 is a bar to the maintainability of the suit in a Civil Court.2. We are unable to admit the validity of this contention. Section 71(2) requires that no person's name shall be in...
Tag this Judgment!Thaleri Pathumma Vs. Thandora Muhammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ110
Shephard, J.1. The ground urged by the judgment-debtor for the cancellation of the sale is that the decreeholder being the mortgagee was not entitled to bring the mortgaged property to sale in execution of a decree for' money. This objection founded on Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, stands outside the scope of the Sections 311 and 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the question whether under Section 312 of the Code the sale should be confirmed does not arise.2. The real question in my opinion is whether the order for sale was an order to which the judgment-debtor was a party, in other words, whether it was made after notice given to her.3. If the judgment-debtor was a party to the order, she is bound by it and is now precluded from saying that it ought not to have been passed. (See Durga Gharan Mandal v. Kali Prasanna Sarhar I.L.R.(1899) C. 727. The District Judge finds that the judgment-debtor's assertion that she did not know of the intention to sell is not worthy o...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Naidu and ors. Vs. Sri Mahant Ramakissori Dossjivaru
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ26
ORDER1. In Second Appeal No. 1260 of 1898: The District Judge has held that the suit is not barred on the ground that the pattah was tendered within three years of the date of institution of the suit. But as has been held in recent decisions of this Court--Venkatagiri Raja v. Ramasami I.L.R(1898) . 21 M. 413 and Pardmasiva Goundan v. Kandappa Goundan (1897) 8 M.L.J. 201. Second Appeal No. 1091 of the cause of action accrues on the date when the rent becomesdue according to the contract, where a contract exists, and in the absence of a contract, according to usage. In the present case there was admittedly no contract and admittedly the respective dates when the instalments of rent for Fasli 1302 became due were all more than 3 years prior to the date of the suit. The suit is, therefore, barred, unless it be saved by any acknowledgments made which would have that effect.2. Having regard to the fact that the parties may have proceeded upon the view of the law taken in decisions to the con...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Pillai and anr. Vs. Sankaramurti Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ109
1. The District Judge declines, for reasons which we think wrong, to give sanction. His reasons have no regard to the substance of the application but merely to the power of the Court under the Act (XX of 1868), for he holds that the institution being one. that comes under Section 3 of the Act, Section 18 of the Act does not apply.2. We think that the District Judge has in effect declined to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law and, we must, therefore, set aside his order and direct him to reconsider the application on the merits.3. The District Judge will deal with the costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Munisami Naidu Vs. Krishna Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ258
Boddam, J.1. The only important question raised in this appeal depends upon the construction of Sections 9 and 51 of the Rent Recovery Act (VIII of 1865).2. The appellant tendered a patta to the respondent on the 17th June 1897, which the respondent on the same day refused to accept.' On the 5th August 1897, the appellant brought this. suit under the Rent Recovery Act to enforce the acceptance of patta., The acting Head Assistant Collector after varying the patta in some particulars ordered the defendant to accept it holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. On appeal the District Judge overruled all the objections to the patta except with regard to the rights as to indigo as settled by the acting Head Assistant Collector, but dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred having been brought more than 30 days after the respondent's refusal to accept the patta. He held that the landlord's rights to sue arose upon the tenant's refusal to accept the patta, and that the lan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »