Chennai Court May 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.
Abboyi Naidu and ors. Vs. Ponrangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ248
1. It is admitted that the cause of action against the sons arises on the same day as it does against the father, but the obligation, it is said, is different, and therefore the same article of the schedule of the Limitation Act does not apply. In our opinion this contention cannot prevail. The obligation of the sons arises simultaneously with that of the father and is subject to the same incidents, so that if by the father's payment or other act the debt is extinguished, the said obligation is also extinguished.2. The position of the sons is analogous to that of a surety. In that case it is clear that on the debt being barred against the principal debtor the surety has a good defence. And the same is the case in England in regard to the husband's liability for the wife's ante-nuptial debts, Beck v. Pierce 23 Q.B.D. 321. The plaintiff practically contends that she can have a right of action against the sons, though against the father she has no longer any remedy. This seems to us an ab...
Ramabhadrachar Vs. Srinivasa Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad85
1. The material facts and dates are as follows: In 1883 one Srinivasa Ayyangar mortgaged certain lands which belonged to him and his three sons to one Rangayya Goundan for. Rs. 20,000. The mortgaged property may be conveniently described as items Nos. 1-4. Subsequently to the mortgage there was a partition between Srinivasa Ayyangar, and his three song. Under the partition the father and the three sons each took a one-fourth share, and each became liable for one-fourth of the mortgage-debt. On August 9th, 1886, one of the sons, Krishna Ayyangar, Bold the greater portion of his share in the mortgaged property to the plaintiff. The sale-deeds are exhibits A, B and C. These deeds state that the lands are sold free from incumbrances. The total purchase price was Rs. 10,500. Nine days after the sale on August 18th, 1886, Krishna Ayyangar gave an indemnity bond (exhibit I) to the plaintiff, This bond, after reciting the mortgage to Rangayya Goundan and stating that Rs. 5,000 is due in respec...
Nalliappa Goundan Vs. Kailappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad59
1. We think the District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the falsity of the charge brought against him. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff for the purpose of proving the falsity of the charge consisted of (a) the order of the Magistrate dismissing the charge under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (b) the oral testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The District; Munsif, however, appears to have placed no reliance on the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses and to have relied entirely on the order of dismissal as establishing the falsity of the charge. In this he was wrong--see the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Baboo Gunnesh Dutt Singh v. Mugneeram Chowdhry 11 B.L.R. 321. With regard to proving the falsity of the charge the law is thus laid down by Lord Bowen in Abrath v. North Eastern Railway Co. L.R. 11 Q.B.D. 440: 'In an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff has to prove, first, that he was innocent, and that h...
Vasudevan Nambudripad Vs. Valia Chathu Achan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad47
1. The question for our decision is whether a kanomdar during the period of his occupation is entitled to remove and appropriate to himself all, or any, of the trees that he has himself planted on the land demised to him on kanom. It is found that the (plaintiff) jenmi has not proved any custom forbidding the (defendants) kanomdars to cut and appropriate such trees, nor have the kanomdars proved any custom allowing them to do so, On behalf of the plaintiff it is argued that, in the absence of custom or contract to the contrary, the general law forbids a tenant to cut trees on land held by him under a landlord, and a number of cases decided by the High Courts in other parts of India have been cited in support of this proposition. We do not, however, think it necessary to refer in detail to these oases. Many of them relate to trees not planted by the tenant, which of course stand on a footing totally different from that of those planted by the tenant himself. Others depend on the inciden...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›