Chennai Court December 1901 Judgments
Ameer Ammal Vs. Sankaranarayanan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad658
1. The decision of the District Judge is, in our opinion, right. A widow's claim for dower under Muhammadan Law is not a lien on her husband's property such as is obtained by a mortgage. The Muhammadan Law has nowhere placed a claim for dower as high as a mortgage, but has ranked it on a par with ordinary debts Mussamut Wahidunnissa v. Mussamut Shubrathen 6. Beng. L.R. 54. In the present case the widow has no doubt been in possession since the death of her husband, but such possession can give her no right as against a purchaser in execution of a decree for sale passed on a mortgage executed by her husband. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sangilia Pillai Vs. the District Magistrate of Trichinopoly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad659
1. The Public Prosecutor has conceded that the order of the District Magistrate, dated 28th August 1901, cannot be upheld as an order for sanction to prosecute such as is required by Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the District Magistrate is not the Court to which the Sub-Magistrate is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195 (7), Criminal Procedure Code. He has contended, however, that the order is valid as an order made under the powers conferred by Section 476. Assuming the order was intended to be made under Section 476, its validity depends on whether the alleged offence was brought to the notice of the District Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceeding. The Public Prosecutor has argued that the District Magistrate must be assumed to have called for the records under the powers conferred by Section 435, and that an order made on consideration of the records called for under that section is a judicial proceeding for the purposes of Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Chettiar Vs. Chokkappa Mudaliar and Seven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad655
1. We cannot say that there was not evidence on which it was open to the District Judge to say that the transaction was benami. The sale in the present case, however, was one under Act II of 1864 (Madras) and the question therefore as to whether it is open to the third and fourth defendants to contend that the real purchaser was Dandayuda Chettiar and that Palaniappa Chettiar was merely a name lender must be considered with reference to Section 38 and more especially to Section 39 of that Act. The former section provides that the certificate granted by the Collector shall state the name of the purchaser and shall be conclusive evidence of the fact of the purchase, and Section 39 goes further and directs that the Collector shall publish the name of the purchaser with a declaration of the lawful succession of such purchaser to all the rights and property of the former landholder. We must hold that the effect of this proclamation is to vest the property absolutely in the purchaser as ther...
Tag this Judgment!Thirtha Swami Vs. Thirtha Swami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ34
1. A preliminary objection has been raised as to whether an appeal lies under the Letters Patent against the order of Benson, J. As the effect of that order refusing to receive the sum ordered to be paid as security, would be to finally deprive the appellant of the power of prosecuting his appeal, we consider that the order of Mr. Justice Benson amounts to a judgment within the meaning of Section 15 of the Letters Patent and that there is consequently an appeal against it. As the order of Mr. Justice Boddam ordering security to be furnished was indefinite in that it did not fix an exact date on or before winch security was to be given, we consider that the sum tendered to this Court as security should have been received. We accordingly direct that the same be received provided it be tendered in cash to the Registrar of this Court on or before the 20th instant and the time for furnishing security is extended to that day. The Advocate-General on behalf of the appellant states that he doe...
Tag this Judgment!Vidhyapurana Thirthaswami Vs. Vidyanidhi Thirthaswami Vidyanidhi Thirt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad654
1. A preliminary objection has been raised as to whether an appeal lies under the Letters Patent against the order of Benson, ,T. As the effect of that order, refusing to receive the sum ordered to be paid as security, would be to finally deprive the appellant of his power of prosecuting his appeal, we consider that the order of Mr. Justice Benson amounts to a judgment within the meaning of Article 15 of the Letters Patent and that there is consequently an appeal against it. As the order of Mr. Justice Boddam ordering security to be furnished was indefinite in that it did not fix an exact date on or before which security was to be given, we consider that the sum tendered to this Court as security should have been received. We accordingly direct that the same be received provided it be tendered in cash to the Registrar of this Court on or before the 20th instant and the time for furnishing security is extended to that day. The Advocate-General on behalf of the appellant states that he d...
Tag this Judgment!Siva Panda Vs. Jujisti Panda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ13
1. In O.S. No. 156 of 1899 a decree was passed jointly against the plaintiff and the defendant in the present suit decreeing them to deliver to the plaintiff in the former suit certain lands and to pay him Rs. 43-15-10 on account of the profits of such land and Rs. 31-3-6 for costs of the suit. The defendant in the present suit did not appear and defend the former suit. In execution of the said decree the whole amount decreed with costs was recovered from the present plaintiff alone, and he now sues the defendant for contribution and claims payment of Rs. 41-3-2 being one-half of the amount realised from him. The defendant resists the claim on the following grounds.(1). That the decree in O.S. No. 156 of 1899 was passed against him ex parte; (2) that he had no concern in that suit and that he appeared and stated so before certain commissioners appointed in that suit under the Indian Oaths Act to administer a special form of oath to be taken by the plaintiff therein by which oath the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Aiyar Vs. the Madura Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ37
1. In the plaint, the plaintiff claims as owner three items of property, each, of which he describes as a plot of certain dimensions with the granite pial built thereon, immediately to the east of his dwelling house and to the west of the street and prays that a permanent injunction may be issued restraining the defendant (the Municipal Council of Madura) 'from interfering with or from causing obstruction to the plaint sites, from removing the granite pials built on the plaint sites or from taking any steps to remove the same.'2. The defendant in his written statement states that the slab-stones which the plaintiff was required to remove, have been only recently put up, that as the defendant has all along been using the drain below the slab-stone, the plaintiff cannot acquire any prescriptive right against the defendant, that the construction in question being admittedly a projection over the drain in front of plaintiff's house, the defendant has every right to remove the same under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Siva Panda Vs. Jujusti Panda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad599
1. In Original Suit No. 156 of 1899 a decree was passed jointly against the plaintiff and the defendant in the present suit directing them to deliver to the plaintiff in the former suit certain lands and to pay Rs. 43-15-10 on account of the profits of such land and Rs. 31-3-6 for costs of the suit. The defendant in the present suit did not appear and defend the former suit. In execution of the said decree the whole amount decreed with costs was recovered from the present plaintiff alone and he now sues the defendant for contribution, and claims payment of Rs. 41-3-2 being one-half of the amount realized from him. The defendant resists the claim on the following grounds : (1) That the decree in Original Suit No. 156 of 1899 was passed against him ex parte; (2) that he had no concern in that suit and that he appeared and stated so before certain Commissioners appointed in that suit under the Indian Oaths Act to administer a special form of oath to be taken by the plaintiff therein, by w...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sundaram Ayyar Vs. the Municipal Council of Madura and the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad635
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. In the plaint, the plaintiff claims as owner three items of property, each of which he describes as a plot of certain dimensions with the granite pial built thereon, immediately to the east of his dwelling house and to the west of the street and prays that a permanent injunction may be issued restraining the defendant (the Municipal Council of Madura) 'from interfering with or from causing obstruction to the plaint sites, from removing the granite pials built on the plaint sites or from taking any steps to remove the same.'2. The defendant, in his written statement, states that the slab-stones, which the plaintiff was required to remove, have been only recently put up, that as the defendant has all along been using the drain below the slab-stone the plaintiff cannot acquire any prescriptive right against the defendant, that the construction in question, being admittedly a projection over the drain in front of plaintiff's house, the defendant has every right to r...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswarulu Vs. Brahmaravutu Raja Kristnaji and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad634
1. The extension of a certificate under Section 10 of Act VII of 1889 to additional debts is not the grant of a certificate so as to give a right of appeal under Section 19 of the Act against the extension.2. The appeal is rejected with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »