Chennai Court November 1901 Judgments
Valambal and anr. Vs. Logambal Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ94
Moore, J.1. It is impossible to uphold, the order of the Subordinate Judge in so far as Valambal is concerned. There is nothing in Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code to warrant the conclusion arrived at by the Subordinate Judge that it is only when the decree-holder fails to certify under Section 258 that the judgment-debtor can apply under paragraph 2 of that Section. That paragraph gives her full liberty to apply as soon as she has paid the money and when she does so the Court is bound to enquire into the matter after issue of notice to the decree-holder and also, of course, to the assignee of the decree if it is alleged that there has been any assignment. The Subordinate Judge is directed to do so now and to dispose of Valaiubal's application on the merits of the case. This petition is allowed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Zamindar of Vizianagram Vs. Suryanarayana Patrulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ249
1. Respondent as the lessee under the late Maharajah of Vizianagram, the predecessor in title of the defendant, under a registered instrument in writing, dated 11th November 1893, for a term of 7 years and 8 months ending with June 1901, brought this suit on the 11th November 1899, alleging that he has not been put in possession of the villages let to him and that in February 1898, defendant had recovered possession of the villages from the vendor who on the 23rd October 1893, executed a registered sale-deed in favour of the late Maharajah of Vizagapatam, and praying that he may be put into possession of the village for a term of 8 years (meaning apparently 7 years and 8 months) either from the date of the plaint (11th November 1899) or from February 1898. He also claimed Rs. 2,000 for damages from February 1898 to the end of July 1899, presumably in the event of the term commencing from February 1898. He also claimed in the alternative that in the event of the Court holding that he ca...
Tag this Judgment!The Zamindar of Vizianagram Vs. Behara Suryanarayana Patrulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad587
1. [After setting out the above statement of facts the judgment continued:] On the 23rd April 1900, the District Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to deliver possession of the villages to the plaintiff for eight years from February 1898, together with profits for the year 1899--1900, and subsequent profits till date of delivery besides paying Rs. 2,000 on account of damages for the plaintiff having been kept out of possession from February 1898 to the date of the suit (11th November 1899).2. Against this decree the defendant appeals and the chief contentions raised in support of the appeal are--(1) that the decree for possession for eight years from February 1898 is in any event clearly wrong;(2) that it was owing to the plaintiff's obstruction that the Jessor (the defendant) was unable to get possession from the vendor and put the plaintiff in possession of the villages;(3) that the plaintiff (respondent) has forfeited the lease by reason of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Aiyar Vs. Muthusami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ62
1. The application lniving been made within one yeai1 after the passing of the decree, no notice of the application for an order absolute for sale is necessary. Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act does not require any notice to be given. We may add that the appellant does not show that he was in any way prejudiced by the want of such notice.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ayyar Vs. Muthusami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad506
1. The application having been made within one year after the passing of the decree, no notice of the application for an order absolute for sale is necessary. Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act does not require any notice to be given. We may add that the appellant does not show that he was in any way prejudiced by the want of such notice.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Krishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad534
1. The Sessions Judge will be informed that there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires a Court, when dismissing an appeal summarily under Section 421 of that Code to write a judgment in conformity with the provisions of Section 367. This has been so decided by all the High Courts, by this Court in Proceedings of the Madras High Court, dated 18th April 1883 Weir's Crl. Rul. p. 1009, and by the other High Courts in the cases of Bash Behari Das v. Balgopal Singh I.L.R. 21 Calc. 92 Queen-Empress v. Warubai I.L.R. 20 Bom. 540 and Queen-Empress v. Nannhu I.L.R. 17 All. 241.2. In the last-mentioned case the Full Bench decided that it was advisable for the Court to state its reasons in view of the possibility of a petition for revision.3. There is nothing in Rule No. 7 of the rules printed at pages 167 to 175, Criminal Rules of Practice, 1896, in conflict with the above decisions. The meaning of that rule is that, in all cases other than those dealt with under Section 42...
Tag this Judgment!Sambasiva Ayyar Vs. Vydinadasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad535
1. The words of the Section 307 of the Code of Civil Procedure are clear and imperative, and must be given effect to.2. The fact that the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor do not ask for a re-sale but consent to the original sale being allowed to stand, is no reason why the Government should forego the forfeiture. The forfeiture is imposed by the Code in order to prevent waste of the Court's time in conducting re-sales in consequence of defaults like the present.3. There was nothing, we may add, so far as appears, to have prevented the purchaser from sending the money to the Court within time even if he was unable to attend in person....
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Alagarisami Pathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad546
1. This Court has, in its order in the case of Venkatesalu Naidu v. Durvasa Rangayyan Criminal Revision Case No. 263 of 1901, (unreported) pointed out to the learned Sessions Judge that his reading of Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, is incorrect. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to act under Section 202 and his failure to record his reasons was at most an irregularity, and unless it, in fact, occasioned a failure of justice it could be no ground for setting aside his order. The Sessions Judge does not suggest that the order was wrong on the merits and we see no reason to hold that it was so.2. We set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, dated 5th September 1901....
Tag this Judgment!Kasinatha Aiyar Vs. Uthumansa Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ1
Moore, J.1. Nammalwar Chetti in whose favour a mortgage had been executed under a document, dated 25th June 1884 with respect to the properties to which the present appeal relates, brought a suit (O.S. No. 172 of 1887) on that mortgage, and having obtained a decree brought this property to sale in 1890 and purchased certain of the items of property while others were bought by Saminada Tevan. Of the several items of property thus purchased, Nos. 8 to 12 were sold by the purchasers to the brother of Uthumansa Rowthen and Ahammad Rowthen, the 1st and 2nd respondents, while items 13 and 14 were sold by Nammalwar to Saminada and by him to the father of the 3rd respondent. The 1st, 2nd and the father of the 3rd respondent were duly put in possession of the items of property purchased by them. In 1897 Kasinatha Iyer, the present appellant, brought a suit (267 of 1897 on the file of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam) on a mortgage document, dated the 8th July 1884, which had been executed in h...
Tag this Judgment!Chelapathi and ors. Vs. Surayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ375
1. In this case the finding of the District Judge that the contract between the parties was one of pledge cannot be supported. The District Judge's view was that if the contract was not one of pledge from the beginning, it became one as from the time when the plaintiff began to make advances in compliance with the 1st defendant's letter of July 17th 1897 (B5). There are no doubt expressions in the defendant's letters of July 15th and 17th which, taken by themselves, may be said to support the view that the goods in question were pledged by the defendant to the plaintiff as security for money advanced. In the letter of July 15th (B4) he writes, 'Therefore we mean to deposit these bales with you for sale and get money.' In the letter of July 17th he writes, 'Therefore we mean to send you one hundred or two hundred bales to be held in deposit. We require money also upon those goods.' But taking the evidence and the correspondence as a whole, we feel no doubt that the relation between the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »