Chennai Court August 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.
Subbarow and anr. Vs. Seetharamayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ26
1. The defendant's tenancy terminated in 1891. When this suit was brought there was no relation of landlord and tenant subsisting between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant was a trespasser, and the claim was one for mesne profits. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that it appears from the claim itself that the mesne profits cannot be ascertained without the taking of an account, and it is sought to distinguish this case from the case reported in I.L.R. 22 M. 196 Seshagiri Aiyar v. Marakathammal, where it was held following a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, that a suit for mesne profits is cognizable by a, court of small causes. In a sense no doubt every claim for mesne profits involves the taking of an account but a suit for mesne profits is not a suit for an account, but a suit for damages and is not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court Act under Article 31st of the 2nd Schedule to that Act. We think that the suit was a suit...
Sri Raja Ramachendra Suru Vs. President, District Board of Ganjam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ381
1. A sum of money was collected from an inamdar in Ganjam District as land-cess under Section 57, Act V of 1884, Madras (Local Boards' Act).2. The amount was assessed by the Collector (Sec. 64 Clause II), collected by him and paid in by him to the credit of the District Fund (sec. 149). The inamdar filed a suit against the President, District Board, to recover the sum on the ground that it had been illegally collected from him. He did not claim damages., The District Munsif decreed as prayed for. The District Judge reversed the decision of the District Munsif on the ground that the Collector as the person who had collected the money was liable and not the President, District Board. For the appellant (inamdar) it is urged that the money was illegally collected from him, that it has been paid over to the President, District Board, by the Collector who collected it and that he is entitled to recover it from the former in whose possession it now is. For the President, District Board the ma...
Kandasami Gramani Vs. Jagathamba Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ353
1. We think the District Judge is mistaken in holding that there is an estoppel which can operate to affect the plaintiff's claim.2. The only question between the parties is, whether where a mistake has been made in a decree to which both plaintiff and 2nd defendant were parties, the result of which is 'that one or the other must be a loser, the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant should, in the circumstances, be the sufferer., In the previous suit the present 2nd defendant was plaintiff in an action for specific performance of a sale of land against the 1st defendant, of which the present plaintiff was a mortgagee. The present plaintiff was 3rd defendant in that suit. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff in that suit 2nd defendant in this suit), which directed him to pay to the purchaser money (in which was included the mortgage amount) into court to the credit of the 1st defendant, the mortgagor. The decree, no doubt, was wrong. It should have provided for the payment of the mor...
Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Sitaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad118
1. The defendant's tenancy terminated in 1891. When this suit was brought there was no relation of landlord and tenant subsisting between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant was a trespasser and the claim was one for mesne profits. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that it appears from the claim itself that the mesne profits cannot be ascertained without the taking of an account, and it is sought to distinguish this case from Seshagiri Ayyar v. Marakathammal I.L.R. 22 Mad. 196. where it was held, following a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, that a suit for mesne profits is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. In a sense, no doubt, every claim for mesne profits involves the taking of an account, but a suit for mesne profits is not a suit for an account, but a suit for damages, and is not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Courts under Article 31 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. We think that the suit...
Harischandra Devu Vs. President, District Board of Ganjam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad114
1. A sum of money was collected from an inamdar in Ganjam district as land cess under Section 57, Act V of 1884, (Madras Local Board's Act).2. The amount was assessed by the Collector (Section 64, Clause II), collected by him and paid in by him to the credit of the District Fund (Section 149). The inamdar filed a suit against the President, District Board, to recover the sum on the ground that it had been illegally collected from him, He did not claim damages. The District Munsif decreed as prayed for. The District Judge reversed the decision of the District Munsif on the ground that the Collector, as the person who had collected the money, was liable, and not the President, District Board. For the appellant (inamdar) it is urged that the money was illegally collected from him, that it has been paid over to the President, District Board, by the Collector who collected it, and that he is entitled to recover it from the former in whose possession it now is. For the President, District Bo...
Kothandarama Aiyar Vs. Sivagnana Desikar Alias Gnana Sambanda Pandaras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ128
1. We set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to return the records to the arbitrator in order that he may deal with the cases under the submissions to arbitration. The Subordinate Judge should fix a time for the Submission of the award. The costs of these petitions will be costs in the causes. ...
Sesha Aiyar and anr. Vs. Krishniengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ383
1. The plaintiffs are the holders of a mortgage for Rs. 10,000 executed on the 24.th April 1889.Besides seeking to enforce the ordinary remedies of mortgagees against their mortgagors and against the property comprised in the mortgage, they claim on the principle of contribution to charge any balance which may still remain due to them against certain other property which,. with the property comprised in their own mortgage, was included in a prior mortgage executed in favour of Rangayya Gounden. It will be convenient to deal first with this latter claim as to which it is argued firstly, that that point of law it cannot be maintained, and, secondly, that it cannot properly be joined in a Suit by the mortgagee on his own mortgage. The claim arises in this way:2. In execution of the decree on Rangia Gounden's mortgage some of the property which is included in the later mortgage of the plaintiffs was sold, and to that extent the plaintiffs' security has been diminished. It was not compelent...
Sesha Ayyar and anr. Vs. Krishna Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad96
1. The plaintiffs are the holders of a mortgage for Rs. 10,000 executed on the 24th April 1889. Besides seeking to enforce the ordinary remedies of mortgagees against their mortgagors and against the property comprised in the mortgage, they claim on the principle of contribution to charge any balance which may still remain due to them against certain other property which, with the property comprised in their own mortgage, was included in a prior mortgage executed in favour of Rangayya Goundan, It will be convenient to deal first with this latter claim, as to which it is argued, firstly, that in point of law it cannot be maintained and, secondly, that it cannot properly be joined in a suit by the mortgagee on his own mortgage. The claim arises in this way--2. In execution of the decree on Rangayya Goundan's mortgage, some of the property which is included in the latter mortgage of the plaintiffs was sold and to that extent the plaintiffs' security has been diminished. It was not compete...
Queen-empress Vs. Subrahman1a Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad161
1. In our judgment this Court has jurisdiction to make an order, in this case, releasing the accused on bail pending the decision of the Privy Council.2. Having regard to the rule laid down by the Judicial Committee in Ex parte Carew [1897] A.C. 719 as to the circumstances in which an appeal in a criminal matter will be admitted by the Privy Council, we think we ought to allow the accused to be released on bail in the present case.3. The accused will be released on bail on entering into his own recognizances for Rs. 10,000 and on the recognizances of two sureties for Rs. 5,000 each....
Narasayya Vs. the Collector of Anantapur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad95
1. We think that the preliminary objection taken by the Government Pleader is wall founded, and that no appeal lies against the order of the District Judge passed under Section 16, Clause 7, of Madras Regulation III of 1802.2. The vakil for the appellant argues that an appeal is given by Section 647, Civil Procedure Code, and relies on the decision of this Court in Sultan Ackeni Sahib v. Shaik Bava Malimiyar I.L.R. 4 Mad. 285.3. That decision must, however, he held to be overruled by the decision of the Privy Council in Meenakshi Naidoo v. Subramaniya Sastri L.R. 14 IndAp 160 : I.L.R. 11 Mad. 26. In the case of Hureenath Koondu v. Modhoo Soodun Saka 19 W.R. 122. it was held that no appeal was given by Section 38 of Act XXIII of 1861 against an order passed under Regulation I of 1798. We do not think that, so far as the present matter is concerned, Section 647 of the present Civil Procedure Code differs in any material degree from Section 38 of Act XXIII of 1861, and in our opinion, the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›