Chennai Court January 1901 Judgments
Raman Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ315
1. It has been objected on behalf of the respondent that the order of the lower Appellate Court remitting the case to the Court of First Instance for a finding on the issue as ; to title was made without jurisdiction and that anything done hi' pursuance of that order must be treated as a nullity. The objection is based on under-valuation In a case like this, the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is to cure the want of jurisdiction unless the Appellate Court is satisfied that the undervaluation has prejudicially affected the cause on the merits. If the lower Appellate Court had finally disposed of the appeal on the merits, it might be said that the party against whom the decision went had been prejudicially affected, but there has been no disposal on the merits, and it is open to this Court to deal with the findings and go into the question of their correctness. We are unable to accept the respondent's suggestion that Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act only applies when...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad427
1. It has been objected on behalf of the respondent) that the order of lower Appellate Court remitting the case to the Court of First Instance for a finding on the issue as to title Was made without jurisdiction and that anything done in pursuance of that order must be treated as a nullity. The objection is based on undervaluation. In a case like this the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is to cure the want of jurisdiction unless the Appellate Court is satisfied that the undervaluation has prejudicially affected the cause on the merits. If the lower Appellate Court had finally disposed of the appeal on the merits, it might be said that the party against whom the decision went had been prejudicially affected, but there has been no disposal on the merits, and it is open to this Court to deal with the findings and go into the question of their correctness. We are unable to accept the respondent's suggestion that Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act only applies when there ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasada Naidu and anr. Vs. Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ238
1. This is an appeal under Article 15 of the Letters Patent against an order made by Mr. Justice Boddam refusing a stay of execution.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies since the order appealed against is not a judgment within the meaning of Article 15 of the Letters Patent.3. We think the objection is well founded. The order appealed against does not affect the merits of the question between, the parties by determining any right or liability in dispute in the suit or appeal. Section 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that execution of a decree shall not be stayed by reason only of an appeal, having been preferred against the decree, but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause'order the execution to be stayed.4. Section 608 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with the powers of the High Court in the case of appeals to the Privy Council gives a sinnlar discretionary power to the High Court in language which is substantially the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Nayadu and anr. Vs. Srimantu Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad358
1. This is an appeal under Article 15 of the Letters Patent against an order made by Mr. Justice Boddam refusing a stay of execution.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies since the order appealed against is not a judgment within the meaning of Article 5 of the Letters Patent.3. We think the objection is well founded. The order appealed against does not affect the merits of the question between the parties by determining any right or liability in dispute in the suit or appeal. Section 545 of the Civil Procedure Code expressly provides that execution of a decree shall not be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred against the decree, but the Appellate Court may, for sufficient cause, order the execution to ha stayed Section 608 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with the powers of the High Court in the case of appeals to the Privy Council, gives a similar discretionary power to the High Court in language which is substantially the same as th...
Tag this Judgment!Marudamuthu Pillai Vs. Rangasami Mooppan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad401
1. According to the plaintiff he entered into an agreement with the defendant that they should be partners in the business of vending arrack and toddy, the plaintiff having a. license for toddy, and the defendant having a license for arrack. At the time this contract was entered into, it was a rule of the Government under the Abkari Act that no person having a toddy license should be interested in an arrack business and vice versa. So that the contract between the parties was clearly in contravention of that rule. Such a rule was not made merely for the protection of the revenue, but also to regulate the liquor traffic in the interest of the public see Boistub Churn Naun v. Wooma Churn Sen I.L.R. 16 Calc. 436. The contract was therefore void ab initio as being opposed to public policy.2. Apart from this, we should hold that the contract was invalid also on the ground that the license in each case was to be obtained by only one of the partners. The provisions of the Abkari Act, as a who...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataratnam Naidu and anr. Vs. Ramaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad361
1. Mr. Ross, the District Judge, held that the suit No. 15 of 1892 on the file of the District Court of Godavari, was not sustainable as causes of action were wrongly joined, and the consequence was the plaintiff had to bring three separate suits in the Munsif's Court. The period during which the original combined suit was pending in the District Court, viz., from the 30th September 1892 to 23rd October 1893, is a period, which the plaintiff is entitled to deduct under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, this case being analogous to that decided in Assan v. Pathumma I.L.R. 22 Mad. 894 following the Full Bench decision of this Court in Venkiti Nayak v. Murugappa Chetti I.L.R. 20 Mad. 48 see also Mathura Singh v. Bhawany Singh I.L.R. 22 All. 248. When such deduction is inside from the period to which the plaintiff was entitled under exhibit F, which is the latest acknowledgment, this suit is in time if the former suit was prosecuted with due diligence. We must ask the Subordinate Judge to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mithiram Bhat and anr. Vs. Somanatha Naickar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad397
1. The plaintiffs are the infant sons of the first defendant and they sue by their next friend who is the mother of the first defendant.2. The plaintiffs ask for a declaration that a mortgage of a certain house executed by the first defendant in favour of the second and third defendants and a decree passed thereon in favour of second and third defendants are invalid and inoperative against the plaintiffs, and for an order boat possession of the house be given to the plaintiffs.3. The circumstances in which the suit is brought are shortly as follows: On March 18th, 1893, the plaintiffs by their next friend instituted a partition suit against the first defendant.4. On July 24th, 1893, the first defendant executed a deed by which he purported to mortgage the house in question to the second and third defendants for Rs. 1,000.5. On December 13th, 1894, a razinamah decree was passed in the partition suit.6. It seems clear that by the agreement upon which the razinamah decree was based the fi...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Thammana Reddi and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad667
1. We think that the view of the District Magistrate is correct. We set aside so much of the Second-class Magistrate's order as was made under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, and direct that the amount, if any, levied as compensation be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Karunakarakurup Vs. Muniperanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad356
1. The contract alleged as to some specific liability of the tenants' improvements for arrears of rent does not appear to be in writing nor is the allegation in the plaint with regard to it intelligible. In a case like this, if arrears of rent are due on the one aide and value of improvements on the other, the two items should ordinarily be dealt with as cross-demands arising under the same contract, but give rise to no ground for treating the suit otherwise than as a suit for rent.2. Such suit is therefore triable by a Court of Small Causes.3. We therefore direct the suit to be received by the Court of Small Causes....
Tag this Judgment!Maharajah of Jeypore Vs. Jayakota Jammanadora and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ70
1. This is an application presented by the Maharajah of Jeypore under Rule 20 of the Agency Rules praying the High Court to direct the Agent tohe Governor at Vizagapatam to review his judgment in Appeal Suit No. 5 of 1898 reversing the decision of the Senior Assistant Agent giving a decree in favor of the Maharajah for possession of certain villages on the ground that he was entitled to resume the villages as the terms on which they had been granted to the defendants had been violated.2. On behalf of the defendants two preliminary objections are raised:(1) that the latter part of Rule 20 under which the application is made is ultra vires and that, therefore, no such application can be entertained by this Court; and(2) that even if the latter part of Rule 20 is not ultra vires this application should not have been presented to this Court but to the Governor in Council under Rule 31.3. As regards the first objection Rule 20 runs as follows: All decrees passed by the Agent on appeals from...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »