Chennai Court February 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.
Konee Subhadra Vs. Subbarayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ83
1. We are of opinion that the decree of the District Judge is Wrong, and must be set aside. The plaintiff in the course of a quarrel with a dancing girl is apostrophised by her. The word used by the defendant was one which might-convey an evil imputation if it was used for that purpose. As used, however, in the course of heated language, it could not bear any such meaning. It was used merely as vulgar abuse. The District Judge has, assumed that, if the word could in any circumstances convey an evil imputation, it necessarily must do so. That is not the law. Where the words were used as in this case, it is clear that they are not actionable. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif with costs in this and the Lower Appellate Court....
Sivaswami Naicker and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ314
1. A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies. The ' order appealed against was made on an application by the defendants that an application for execution put in by the plaintiff should be dismissed. In substance the application was for an order that the sale under an execution should not be proceeded with on the ground that in the sale proclamation the value of the property had been under-estimated. The Subordinate fudge dismissed the defendant's application on 'the ground that the fact that the value of the property had been under-estimated was immaterial. The effect of the Subordinate Judge's order would be that the sale would be proceeded with notwithstanding the fact of under valuation. We think the question raised by the defendant's application was a question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, and relating to the execution of the decree within the meaning of Section 244 of the Civil ...
Subbaraya Aiyer Vs. Srinivasa Raghavaiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ211
1. In this case the respondent is an assignee of a mortgage decree. The 9th defendant to the suit put in a petition asking that a certain item (Item No. 2) of the proprety described in decree should be sold after the other items on the ground thatitem, No. 2 had been mortgaged to him and was in his possession An order was made by the Court with the original decree-holder's consent in the terrns of this petition. The original decree-holder afterwards assigned his decree to the respondent. Item No. 2 was. after wards sold by the respondent in contravention of the terms of this order. The respondent takes the decree subject to any equities or limitations attached to it. He is in no better position than the original decree-holder. We think the sale must be set aside on the ground that it was in contravention of an order of Court which the Court was perfectly competent to make. The appeal will be allowed with costs here and in the Court below, and the sale of item No. 2 will be set aside....
Srinivasa Row Vs. Ramaswami Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ144
1. It is difficult to understand the principle upon which the Acting District Judge disallowed to the successful plaintiff, appellant, interest from the date of the plaint to the date of the appeal.2. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the District Munsif and the plaintiff appealed fixing the valuation at the same amount as in the plaint and adding nothing for subsequently accrued interest. We think he was not obliged to assess prospectively and pay a stamp upon the amount of the interest. The interest is a matter in the discretion of the Court under Section 209 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case is totally different to that in which future interest has been given by a decree of the Court below and an appeal is lodged against such decree. No authority has been cited to support the ruling of the Acting District Judge. We, therefore, modify the decree of the Court below by allowing the plaintiff interest at 6 percent, from the date of the plaint till the date of presenting the a...
Abdurahiman Kutti Haji Vs. Kunhammed Koya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ85
1. In this case the decree is a personal decree against the Judgment-debtor. The Judgment-debtor has preferred a claim to the property which has been attached under the decree, on behalf of the members of his family on the ground that the properties form the common tarwad property and are in the joint possession of the members of the family. The claim is made by him in a representative capacity, while the decree against him is in his personal capacity. It has recently been held by a Full Bench of this Court (Judgment in appeal against Order 6 of (1899) 10 M.L.J. 64 in C.M.P. 633 of 1897, Subordinate Judge's Court of Negapatam that when a person against whom there is a personal decree claims attached property on the ground that he holds it as a trustee for persons not parties to the suit, the claim falls under Section 278 and not under Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code. In our opinion the principle of this decision applies to the facts of the. present case as set out in the judgme...
Vaikuntam Ammangar Vs. Kallapiran Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ111
Shephard, J.1. The plaintiff a widow, seeks to recover from her husband's brother money expended by her on the celebration of her daughter's marriage. The plaintiff's deceased husband and the defendant were members of an undivided family, the property of which is in the hands of the defendant. It is found that the defendant, though he professes to have been ready to get his niece married, did not in fact take any steps to that end but, on the contrary, improperly refused to perform the girl's marriage. Accordingly the girl was married at her mother's cost and it must be taken that the marriage was a proper one. In the Court of First Instance no question was raised by the defendant except as to the alleged refusal of the defendant to have the marriage performed and as to the amount spent by the plaintiff.2. The District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the defendant was under no obligation to provide for the expense of his brother's daughter's marriage. In support of this opi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›