Chennai Court December 1901 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.
Akkanna and anr. Vs. Venkiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ5
1. The main facts are sufficiently stated by the District Judge. This appeal is preferred by defendants 3 and 24 against so much of the decree as awards to the plaintiffs 5/9th share in certain inam lands, which are partly in possession of the 3rd defendant, and partly in possession of the 24th defendant. The District Judge decided the case on the footing that Parvatamma inherited certain property from her husband, and with the income thereof acquired the lands in question in 1864 on a usufructuary mortgage for 52 years from certain Mahomedans who were the owners thereof. The usufruct was to extinguish the debt at the end of the 52 years. The District Judge further held that Parvatamma assigned in 1877 under Exhibit K the unexpired portion of the term of the mortgage to Hannah, the brother of the 3rd defendant, and received a portion of the sum named therein, viz. Rs. 290, as consideration for the assignment.2. The questions argued in support of the appeal are, (1) that there is no pro...
Sellamuthu Servagar Vs. Ramaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ66
1. The order of the Subordinate Judge is right, as the District Munsif's order requiring the plaintiff to pay stamp duty on an additional sum of Rs. 1,000 when the case was formerly remanded was clearly erroneous. In a suit for an account like this, the valuation first fixed in the plaint is final for purposes of jurisdiction and stamp duty on the plaint, but does not preclude the plaintiff from getting a decree for such higher amount as the accounts may show he is entitled to. He must, however, pay extra stamp duty in execution on such higher amount.2. We may add that the relinquishment by the plaintiff made in consequence of such erroneous order of the District Munsif, will not bind him, especially where, as in this case the District Munsif has refused to allow the plaintiff to make the relinquishment.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Akkanna and anr. Vs. Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad351
1. The main facts are sufficiently stated by the District Judge. This appeal is preferred by defendants Nos. 3 and 24 against so much of the decree as awards to the plaintiffs five-ninths share in certain inam lands, which are partly in the possession of the third defendant and partly in the possession of the twenty-fourth defendant. The District Judge decided the case on the footing that Parvatamma inherited certain property from her husband and with the income thereof acquired the lands in question in 1864 on a usufructuary mortgage for 52 years from certain Muhammadans who were the owners thereof. The usufruct was to extinguish the debt at the end of the 52 years. The District Judge further held that Parvatamma assigned in 1877 under exhibit K the unexpired portion of the term of the mortgage to Ramayya, the brother of the third defendant, and received a portion of the sum named therein, viz., Rs. 290, as consideration for the assignment.2. The questions argued in support of the app...
Alayakkammal Vs. Arunachala Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ97
1. The first matter pressed is as regards the rate of interest. We agree with the District Judge that Mr. Horsfall's order on execution petition. No. 24 of 1893 is binding on the appellant as ho was a party to the proceedings and did not appeal against the order.2. We are, however, satisfied that the sale was adjourned from the 22nd to the 29th 'October 1897 without any order from the judge, there being' no such order on the record. Such order is required by Section 291, Civil Procedure Code, as the sale was within the precincts of the court-house. The evidence also shows that the properly was sold for fur less than its value, and it is a fair inference that this was due to the irregularity in adjourning the sale.3. We must, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and set aside the sale and direct that the property lie again put up for sale after a fresh proclamation....
Appathura Pattar Vs. Gopala Panikkar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad674
1. We think the Subordinate Judge was wrong in admitting exhibit XV in evidence as proving that in 1862 a deed was in fact executed by the parties referred to, and in the terms set out, in that exhibit. In the circumstances, exhibit XV was admissible as secondary evidence under the provisions of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. But it is only secondary evidence of the contents of a document. There is no evidence that the document, of the contents of which the exhibit is evidence, was in fact executed in 1862 between the parties mentioned, and in the terms stated in the exhibit. No doubt the document of which exhibit XV is a copy purports to have been executed in 1862 and therefore purports to be more than thirty years old, but it is not produced, and this being so, we think the presumption which, under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, may be made where a document over thirty years old is produced from proper custody, ought not to be made. It is not necessary to consider whether w...
Pathambi Vs. Mytheen Bibi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ96
1. The Judgment of the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit is baaed on the view that when the present suit was instituted, the decree in the former suit remained unexecuted and that tins plaintiff might have applied for execution of that decree.2. It seems to us that the decree in the former suit had been executed at the time the present suit was instituted. Under the original decree the plaintiff entered into joint possession and satisfaction of the decree was entered up. She then applied for and obtained an amendment of the decree, without taking steps to have the order recording1 satisfaction of the decree set aside.3. The amendment of a decree the satisfaction of which had been recorded was a nullity. The state of thing's, therefore, is that in satisfaction of her decree the plaintiff entered into joint possession. She alleges she has been ousted, from her joint possession.4. The fact that she has been ousted from joint possession (if she has been so ousted) gives her a fresh...
Seetamraju Kondalrow Vs. the Collector of Godavari on Behalf of the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad632
1. The plaintiff apparently asks for a decree directing the defendants to construct a new channel for the purpose of irrigating his land. The Railway Company, in the execution of the works authorized by Section 7 of the Indian Railway Act, have, the plaintiff alleges, interfered with his right to the flow of water to his land. It is not suggested that the Company acted beyond the powers conferred on them by Section 7. If, as the result of the exercise of these powers, the plaintiff has sustained damage, he can recover compensation if he adopts the special procedure prescribed by Section 10. The plaintiff, however, does not ask for compensation but says the Railway Company have failed to discharge the obligation imposed by Section 11 (b) to make the necessary accommodation works and he asks the Court to decide that such works shall be executed. Under the English Railway Clauses Act 8 Vict., cap. 20, differences as to the sufficiency of accommodation works are decided by two Justices (se...
Arogya Udayan Vs. Appachi Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ35
1. This is a suit for an account and in such a suit the valuation for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction does not disentitle the plaintiff to recover in the suit such higher amount as the evidence may show he is entitled to. The only restriction is that he cannot execute the decree without paying such additional court fee as may be due on the amount decreed. The valuation of the suit in the present case was made by the plaintiff in the bona fide belief that his valuation was correct and in law, that valuation determined the grade of court which had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The valuation made indicated the District Munsif court as the proper court and the District Munsif was therefore legally seized of the case. A revision of that valuation by the plaintiff cannot be permitted so as to oust the jurisdiction of such court. In the present case the revision of the valuation had that effect, and the District Munsif returned the plaint and it was presented to the Subo...
Krishnama Chariar Vs. Appasami Moodaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ280
1. The decision in Sambasiva v. Srinivasa I.L.R. 12 M. 511 by which the District Judge considered himself bound, was not passed with reference to the last clause of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code which clause was added by Act VII of 1888. The effect of the amendment was considered in Manikkam v. Tatayya I.L.R. 21 M. 388 and the decision in Badri Narwin v. Jai Kishen Das I.L.R. 16 A. 483 was referred to with approval as deciding the question. We are of opinion that the effect of the amendment is to give the right of appeal against an order determining whether a party applying for execution is or is not the representative of the decree-holder.2. We allow this second appeal with costs and remand the appeal to the District Judge for disposal according to law....
Karuppanan Servai and ors. Vs. Srinivasan Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad215
1. Their Lordships are of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed.2. There is no question of law. The facts have been found by two Courts; and there being two concurrent findings of fact, the decree that was pronounced by the lower Court, and affirmed by the High Court, must be sustained.3. In their Lordships' opinion the High Court ought not to have given leave to appeal in this case. The Code is clear upon the point. The words are:-'Where the decree appealed from affirms the decision of the Court, immediately below the Court passing such decree, the appeal must involve some substantial question of law.'4. Now in the present case, Mr. Mayne has had considerable difficulty in stating what the question of law is, and the Court that gave the leave to appeal seems to have had equal difficulty, because they say in their order: 'There seems to be a point of law, which however does not appear to have been argued here'; and upon that ground they have given leave to appeal.5. That appears t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »