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.
Pamu Sanyasi and anr. Vs. Zamindar of Jayapur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad540
1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies in this case since the suit is of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes. The way in which the plaint is drawn shows that the suit is in substance a suit for compensation for illegal distress or attachment and not a suit for the recovery of specific property. The case relied on in support of the preliminary objection Chakradharudu v. Venkataramayya I.L.R. 22 Mad. 457 is clearly distinguishable. In that case certain attachments had been set aside by the Revenue Court and the Revenue Court had ordered that these properties should be restored. The properties were not restored and a suit was brought to enforce their restoration. In that case no question of illegal distress was involved. The preliminary objection must be overruled. We are of opinion that the suit is time barred. The District Munsif finds that the distraint was made on 25th January. The plaintiff's cause of action arose when the distraint was made. In Ya...
Appa Rao and anr. Vs. Krishna Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad537
1. The order of the District Judge cannot be sustained. He is in error in holding that an account of the profits of the land should now be taken for the purpose of being set off against the amount decreed. This is going behind the decree instead of executing it as it stands. The District Judge is also wrong in holding that the present application cannot be granted in the absence of a prior order absolute for sale. It is stated by the appellant that such an order for sale was passed on the 13th December 1897, but whether that is so or not, the present application, in which the decree-holder states that there has been default in payment of the decree amount and applies for sale, is in our opinion an application for an order absolute for sale.2. The respondent raises before us several objections by way of limitation and otherwise, to the grant of the application, but these are not matters which we need decide at this stage.3. We allow the second appeal, with costs, and remand the appeal t...
Krishnama Chariar Vs. Appasami Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad545
1. The decision in Sambasiva v. Srinivasa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 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 Mad. 388 and the decision in Badri Narain v. Jai Kishen Das I.L.R. 16 All. 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....
Arogya Udayan Vs. Appachi Rowthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad543
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 bond 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's 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 S...
Dargavarapu Sarbapu Vs. Rampratapu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad580
1. The second contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff cannot sue for the balance of the price of opium sold and delivered between the 15th June 1896 and 12th September 1896, and that his cause of action, if any, is only upon the promissory notes which he obtained for the value of the opium, is clearly untenable upon the admitted facts, viz., that the promissory notes were made and given, for the value of opium, by the vendees themselves, payable on demand to the plaintiff--the vendor or order--and the notes have not been negotiated by the plaintiff and have been produced by him in the suit. 'When a bill or note is given for the price of goods sold and delivered, the presumption is that it is only a conditional payment with a recourse to the original debt (Goldshede v. Cottrell 2 M. & W. 20 Maillard v. Argyll 6 M. & G. 40 and Bottomley v. Nuttall 5 C.B.N.S. 134. So far as exhibit 0 is concerned, it is a promissory note made and given by both Veerabhadrudu and the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›