Chennai Court October 1900 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ganne Kotappa Vs. Venkataramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ398
ORDER1. Notwithstanding the fact that for more than thirty years sperial or second appeals against judgment in cases originally tried before the Collector under Act VIII of 1865 have been frequently heard without any question being raised, Mr. Kuppuswami Aiyar had the courage to argue that no second appeal is maintainable in Such cases and he based his arguments on the language of sections 4 and 584 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Section 4 is a new section in so far as it relates to suits between landholders and their tenants. In the Code of 1859 there was no similar provision and, therefore, it may fairly be said that the cases decided while it. was in force, including the case in which it is held generally that the provisions of the Code are to be applied to suits which originate in a Collector's Court, are not conclusive to show that a second appeal lies. Nevertheless the known state of the law as it existed before the present Code was enacted is a fact to be taken into account w...
The Commercial Bank of India (Limited) Vs. Sabju Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad252
1. This was an application under Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Commercial Bank, the appellants, to be brought upon the record of Civil Suit No. 160 of 1895 as plaintiffs with T. Sabju Saheb, as the mortgagee from him of the subject-matter of the suit.2. The application was rejected by the learned Judge, and the first question is whether an appeal lies from his order. We can find nothing on record as to the Judge's reasons for refusing the application, and as, in our opinion, it was not made too late with reference to the facts of the case we must treat the order as one disposing of the application on the merits. In that view it wag a judgment within the meaning of Article 15 of the Letters Patent and therefore appealable.3. We think the application should have been complied with, as the Bank was directly interested in the matters to be settled by the decree, and was justified in asking the Court to postpone the passing of a final decree until the matters left undete...
Arumuga Mudali Vs. Viraraghava Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ69
1. There is no doubt according to the authorities to which our attention has been drawn that the husband is the legal guardian of his wife from the moment of marriage whether the marriage is consummated, or not. The real question in this case is whether the husband is entitled to the custody of his wife as against the parents, when she has not yet attained her maturity, and no special reason having been shown why the girl should be taken from their custody. As found by both the Courts below, it is the general practice of the Hindu community in this Presidency for a girl wife to be left with her parents until she attains puberty. The case of Ramien v. Kondammal (Sudder Decisions 1858, p. 154) is a direct authority on this point. To hold that the husband is not entitled by general custom to the custody of immature wife as against the parents does not really detract from his general rights as her legal guardian. Even in the matter of custody he would he entitled to it if it should appear ...
Arumuga Mudali Vs. Vibaraghava Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad255
1. There is no doubt, according to the authorities to which our attention has been drawn, that the husband is the legal guardian of his wife from the moments of the marriage whether the marriage is consummated or not. The real question in this case is whether the husband is entitled to the custody of his wife as against the parents when she has not yet attained her maturity, no special reason having been shown why the girl should be taken from their custody. As found by both the Courts below, it is the general practice among the Hindu community in this Presidency for a girl-wife to he left with her parents until she attains puberty. The case of Ramaien v. Condammal Sudder Decisions of 1858 p. 154 is a direct authority on this point. To hold that the husband is not entitled by general custom to the custody of this immature wife as against the parents, does not really detract from his general right as her legal guardian. Even in the matter of custody he would be entitled to it, if it sho...
Srinivasa Ayyar Vs. Muthusami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad246
1. Two points were raised on behalf of the appellants--(1) that the learned Judge misconstrued the two exhibits R and S in holding that their effect was to confer an occupancy right in perpetuity on the defendants' predecessor in title; (2) that the learned Judge erred in law in holding that a suit in ejectment was barred by limitation.2. With regard to the construction of documents exhibits R and S. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge. He was of opinion that the effect of exhibit S was to grant the kudivaram right in perpetuity to the defendants' predecessor in title (one Perumal) with a reservation of the right to lease the melvaram to some one else. The effect of exhibit S, in our opinion, was to constitute Perumal a tenant from year to year of the lands in question at an annual rent of Rs. 60. If the tenancy was put an end to he was entitled to receive from the landlords half the produce of the seeds, paikkaramboo and fruit trees which had been planted b...
Savitri Antarjanam and ors. Vs. Raman Nambudri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad296
1. The District Munsif found that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff without consulting the defendants Nos. 5 to 11 or even asking them to join and the Subordinate Judge does not disagree with this finding. We must assume therefore that he agreed with it. The Subordinate Judge proceeds to find that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to ask the defendants Nos. 5 to 11 to join because they had denied his title. We cannot agree with that opinion. If one uralan whose title is denied by the other may bring suits and do other acts without consulting his fellow-uralan, he is virtually constituting himself sole uralan, whereas it is clear law that two co-uralans must act jointly. It is only when one perversely declines to co-operate with the other after being invited to do so and when it is for the benefit of the institution that proceedings should be taken that one uralan can sue impleading the other as defendant.2. We think the original decree was right and we therefore reverse the d...
Muhammad Jafar and anr. Vs. Muhammad Ibrahim and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad243
1. This suit is brought under the Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863. As regards the second defendant the suit does not lie under the Act and as against him it must be dismissed, Sivayyav. Rami Reddi I.L.R. 22 Mad. 223.2. As regards the first defendant, it has been argued on his behalf that no suit lies inasmuch as the plaintiffs ask for a declaration and Section 14 of the Act does not, in terms, confer upon the Civil Court jurisdiction to make a declaration. The first defendant relied on the decision of this Court in Mahalinga Rau v. Vencoba Ghosami I.L.R.4 Mad. 157. In that case, however, there was no claim for the removal of the manager. In the present case the plaintiffs ask for the removal of the manager and their prayer for a declaration is introductory or ancillary to that claim. Upon this ground the present case is distinguishable from the case of Mahalinga Rau v. Vencoba Ghosami I.L.R. 4 Mad. 157.3. The fact that the inam which is the source from which the expenses of the mos...
Saldanha Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad241
1. The order of the District Judge was passed before the Court Fees Amendment; Act, 1899, came into operation. The question for determination is, therefore, governed by the Act of 1970. The stamp duty payable on an application for probate is 2 per cent. on the amount or value of the property in respect at which the grant is made. When the amount or value does not exceed Rs. 1,000 no stamp duty is payable. In the present case the deceased's estate consists of property in possession to the value of about Rs. 125 and a chose-in-action, viz., a suit which she instituted before her death in which she claims some Rs. 17,000. In a case like this there is nothing In enable the Court to determine the amount or value of the right which the deceased was seeking to enforce in her suit and we cannot Bay that the petitioner, in assessing the amount or value of the estate at a sum under Rs. 1,000 under-estimated its value.2. The case of In the goods of Ram Chunder Ghose I.L.R. 24 Calc. 567 was a case...
Queen-empress Vs. Chenchi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad238
1. So far as the words of Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code are concerned, we should have felt no doubt that the Deputy Magistrate was not disqualified to try the case. The terms of the illustration however give rise to a difficulty.2. The question whether a given case falls within the provisions of Section 556 must be a question of fact to be determined by the circumstances of the particular case. In the Calcutta case to which our attention has been called (Girish Chunder Ghose v. The Queen-Empress I.L.R. 20 Calc. 857 where the Magistrate was held disqualified to try the case, it appeared that he had taken a vary active part in connection with the case as an executive officer. On the other hand, in the two Allahabad oases (In the matter of the petition of Ganeshi I.L.R. 15 All. 192 and Queen-Empress v. Narain Singh I.L.R. 22 All. 340, the Court held the Magistrate was not disqualified. The illustration says: A, as Collector upon consideration of information furnished to him, ...
Uthanganakath Avuthala Vs. Dayumma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ349
1. The suit is brought to recover the unpaid purchase money, due in respect of a sale-deed executed on the 8th September 1894, and to enforce the vendor's lien. If Article 111 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act is the article to be applied, the suit is Darred By limitation since it was not brought within three years from the date abovementioned which, we think, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, must be taken to be the date for completing the sale.2. In terms the article precisely applies to this suit, and it has been held by this Court Natesan Chetti v. Soundararaja Aiyangar 2, notwithstanding prior decisions in Bombay, that this article and not article 132 should be applied to such a case. We are asked to reconsider that decision on the strength of a recent case in Bar Lal v. Muhamdi 3, where the subject is discussed at length by Strachey, C.J. with the result that the view expressed in Bombay is preferred to that which has been expressed in this Court. Notwithstan...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »