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.
Avuthala Vs. Dayumma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad233
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 barred by limitation, since it was not brought within three years from the date above mentioned, 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 hold by this Court in Natesan Chetti v. Soundararaja Ayyangar I.L.R. 21 Mad. 141, notwithstanding the prior decision in Bombay, that this article and not Article 132 should he applied to such a case. We are asked to re-consider that decision on the strength of a recent case in Har Lal v. Muhamdi I.L.R. 21 All. 454, 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...
Annasami Pillai and ors. Vs. Ramakrishna Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad219
1. The main questions to be determined in this appeal are--(1) whether the first respondent (defendant) hereinafter referred to as the responded is the rightful trustee of the temples of Malleeswara and Kesavaperumal situated in Black Town; (2) if so, whether the suit, in so far as it relates to the charge of neglect of duty alleged against him, is unsustainable because no leave was obtained under Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act, XX of 1863; and (3) whether the respondent has been guilty of neglect of duty calling for notice at the hands of the Court.2. Now, as regards the first question the facts bearing thereon are beyond dispute. Prior to the year 1777 a temple, dedicated to Malleeswara and Kesavaperumal, existed at the site on which the old light-house stands. But that site having been taken up by Government on payment of compensation, the temple was pulled down. Mudukrishna Mudali (senior), who was at that time the manager of the temple, caused the present temple to be ...
Narayana Reddi and ors. Vs. Venkata Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad202
1. We must take it as found that the respondent; has for a period of twenty years kept the calingula at the height at which it now is, and has not raised it. The effect has been to submerge at times the appellants' land. On the authority of Robinson v. Ayya Krishnama Chariyar 7 M.H.C.R. 37. it is contended that the right claimed by the respondent is not one which can be recognized in law. In that case Mr. Justice Hollo way was dealing with the question whether the defendants could be prohibited from draining their own land of the water falling upon it and naturally accumulating there, and he held that such a right could not be recognized. That is not the right directly claimed in the present case. Here the respondent merely claims to be allowed to maintain his band at its usual height so as to give him the fall advantage of his tank. There is no question as to what the appellants may be entitled to do in order to get rid of water which is thrown back on to their land, and while decidin...
The Municipal Council Vs. the Standard Life Assurance Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad205
1. The decree in favour of -the plaintiff is impugned on the ground that the substantial question in the case has been wrongly decided and on the ground that the action to recover the money paid was barred by the provisions of Section 262 of the Ant IV of 1884 (Madras).2. In regard to the substantial question there are two points to be considered--it has to be ascertained whether the Company was exercising any art, profession, trade or calling specified in the schedule to the Act, and whether the company exercised such art, profession, trade, or calling within the Municipality within the meaning of the 53rd section. The business of Life Insurance does not appear in the schedule as one of the businesses or trades in respect of which a tax may be levied, and therefore it would seem that, the plaintiff's company, whose business is that of Life Insurance, could not by any possibility be liable. But it is said that as the schedule includes in its list of denominations 'carrying on business ...
Venkatagiri Iyer Vs. Sadagopachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1900
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ359
Bhashyam Aiyangab, J.1. The respondent in Appeal Against Order No. 105 of 1902 who is also the respondent in Appeal Against Order No. 109 of 1902 and the appellant in Appeal No. 69 of H900 is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 12 of 1886 which was brought upon a hypothecation bond for Es. 3,000 executed in September 1880. The decree was passed on the 22nd November 1887 for Rs. 6,000 with interest at 18 per cent, per annum and the amount of the decree was recoverable both personally against the mortgagors and by sale of the mortgaged property subject to a prior mortgage in favour of the 8th defendant in that suit whose suit on his prior mortgage was then pending in O.S. No. 8 of 1881 to which the puisne mortgagee, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 12 of 1886, was no party. O.S. No. 8 of 1881 was compromised and the decree in the terms of the compromise was passed on the 80th day of September 1890 for the sum of Rs. 68,300 which was to be recoverable subject to the conditions therein provided by sale...
The Municipal Council Vs. the Standard Life Assurance Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ401
1. The decree in favour of the plaintiff is impugned on the ground that the substantial question in the case has been wrongly decided and on the ground that the action to recbver the money-paid was barred by the provisions of Section 262 of the Act IV of 1884 (Madras).2. In regard to the substantial question there are two points to be considered--it has to be ascertained whether the Company was exercising any art, profession, trade, or calling specified in the schedule to the Act and whether to the Company exercised such art, profession, trade, or calling within the Municipality within the meaning pi the 53rd section. The business of life insurance does not appear in the schedule as one of the business or trades in respect of which a tax may be levied, and therefore, it would seem that the plaintiff Company whose business is that of life insurance could not by any possibility be liable. But it is said that, as the schedule includes in its list of denominations, 'carrying on business as...
Subbarayadu Vs. Chenchuramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad200
1. We are told that the practice is, if a case is not reached on a given day, for fresh summons to witnesses to be required. This is altogether a mistake. Section 16 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the form of the summons itself shows that the possibility of witnesses being detained beyond one day has not been overlooked. The proper course was to warn the witnesses on the 10th that they would be required to appear on the 17th [see Proceedings of the Madras High Court dated 18th January 1870 M.H.C.R. Appx 15 and other cases cited in Mayne's 'Criminal Law', page 85.]2. We must reverse the decree and remand the case. Costs will abide the result....
Soundaramier and anr. Vs. Sennia Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ329
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case, I am unable to agree with the view which was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Vedachala Mudali v. Ramasami Raja I.L.R. (1899) M. 229. The question turns upon the construction to be placed upon the words ' any suit of the nature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes' as used in Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The object of the section, as it seems to me, is to takes, away the right of second or special appeal where the value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed Us. 500 in the case of all suits which as regards their subject-matter would be within the jurisdiction of Courts as Small Causes, but which are outside that jurisdiction by reason of the amount claimed being beyond the pecuniary limit of the Small Cause jurisdiction. This section is a reproduction of Act XXIII of 1861, Section 27, which provided that no special appeal should lie in any suit of the nature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes und...
Queen-empress Vs. Allan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad195
1. The Bench of Magistrates have in effect held that the tax imposed upon Mr. Allan's lands by the Municipal Council is an illegal one and have accordingly acquitted him of the charge laid under Section 103 (2) of Madras Act IV of 1884.2. According to Section 63 of the Act read with Section 50, to which it refers, it is lawful for the Municipal Council with the approval of the Governor in Council to notify that a tax shall be levied on buildings or lands.3. Sub-section (2) declares the maximum rate at which such tax shall be levied in cases other than those to which Sub-section (3) of Section 63-A may be made applicable, the maximum rate-being, according to the Sub-section, 8 1/2 per centum on the annual value of the lands.4. In the third sub-section power is given to the Chairman subject to the approval of the Municipal Council and the sanction of the Governor in Council 'to impose a tax on lands' at an annual rate not exceeding four annas for every 80 square yards thereof in lieu of ...
Venkataramanamma Vs. Purushottam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad188; (1900)10MLJ342
1. The facts of this cage are briefly as follows: On the 4th November 1895, the decree-holder applied to the Court; 'to attach and get' a sum of money belonging to the judgment-debtor, but which was in the hands of the Salt Department. The application did not ask that the money should be paid to the decree-holder. An order purporting to be under Section 272, Civil Procedure Code, was made on the 19th November 1895.2. On the 29th April 1898, the Treasury Deputy Collector informed the Court that there was a balance of Rs. 62-14-11 due to the judgment debtor.3. On the 12th December 1898 the present application was put in by the decree-holder asking the Court to send for the Rs. 62-14-11 and pay it to him.3. The question is whether this application is barred by Article 179, Schedule II, of the Limitation Act, having been made more than three years after the application of the 4th November 1895.4. The District Judge decided that it was not barred, and we think his decision is right.5. We do...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›