Chennai Court April 1901 Judgments
Mohammad Khumarali Vs. Ranga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad654
Shephard, J.1. It is objected that Rule 428 is ultra vires for the reason that it is in conflict with Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. But this is not so. The rule and the section proceed on different lines, the rule providing for cases in which the Judge is in doubt and not for cases covered by the section.2. I am of opinion that as endorsee the plaintiff cannot sue on the note, but that as assignee of the actionable claim he may sue to enforce it. Accordingly I answer the question referred in the affirmative.Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.3. I concur with my learned colleague that the rule is not ultra vires. The plaintiff, one of the two joint payees of a negotiable promissory note payable on demand made by the defendant on 11th July 1889, sues the defendant for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 261-7-0, being the principal and interest due on the note. The plaintiff sues alone on the strength of the other joint payee V. Miligiri Rao having endorsed the notes in his favour on...
Tag this Judgment!Milathai Amir Alias Manonmani Amir Vs. Subbaraya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ309
1. The evidence of the expert witness must be accepted as putting it beyond doubt that according to the French Law prevailing in French territory the testatrix on the death of her husband became by inheritance absolute owner of his property. But it is said that by her migration to British territory and acquisition of a British Indian domicile the character of her estate was changed and that her rights were henceforth no other than those of a widow according to the Hindu Law administered by our court.2. It is impossible in our opinion to hold that the change of domicile assuming there was any change which is disputed could have any such effect. It is not suggested that she adopted the system of law prevalent in this part of British India.3. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Mailathi Anni Vs. Subbaraya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad650
1. The evidence of the expert witness must be accepted as putting it beyond doubt that, according to the French law prevailing in French territory, the testatrix, on the death of her husband, became by inheritance absolute owner of his property. But it is said that by her migration to British territory and acquisition of a British Indian domicile, the character of her estate was changed and that her rights were henceforth no other than that of a widow according to the Hindu law administered by our Court.2. It is impossible, in our opinion, to hold that the change of domicile assuming that there was any change, which is disputed could have any such effect. It is not suggested that she adopted the system of law prevalent in this part of British India.3. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Muhammad Ashruff HussaIn Saheb and ors. Vs. Syed Muhammad Ali Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad652
1. Of the several causes of action alleged in the plaint the only one which could possibly be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court would be the claim in respect of damages for breach of promise of marriage.2. But the contract here alleged is a contract between the parent of the girl intended to be married and the intended bridegroom. The suit is not a suit for breach of promise of marriage within the meaning of Article (q) of Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, for the phrase there used must clearly have referred to the action for breach of promise of marriage as understood in English law. Seeing that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction, we must set aside the decree and direct the return of the plaint.3. We make no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kristnama Naicken and ors. Vs. Srinivasavarathachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ308
1. We think the District Munsif was wrong in holding that an order for payment of money could be made under Section 27 of the Rent Recovery Act. But no injustice has been done; the District Munsif having jurisdiction to try a suit for the same purpose and it appearing that the defendant raised all the defences which he could have raised in a regular suit we dismiss the petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Krishna Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad641
1. The ground of this appeal is that the accused has already been acquitted on the same facts, and that by virtue of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code he cannot be tried for the offence for which he has now been convicted.2. The accused was first charged with abetment of dacoity with murder. Ha was tried by the Sessions Court with the aid of assessors and was acquitted. He was afterwards charged with the offence of receiving stolen property and was tried before the Sessions Judge and a jury, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The Judge accepted the verdict and convicted the accused of the offence of receiving stolen property. The Public Prosecutor concedes that he is unable to show that the facts on which the accused was convicted of the offence of receiving stolen property differ from the facts on which he was acquitted of the offence of abetment of dacoity with murder. But he relies on Sub-section (4) of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is in the fol...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council of Chidambaram Vs. Venkatanarayana Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad644
1. The question is whether a money-lender whose income is below Rs. 30 a month is chargeable with any tax under Section 53 of the District Municipalities Act. There is no doubt that be exercises one of the trades specified in schedule A. Apart from the proviso, that schedule does not include persons whose income is under Rs. 30 It is said that the proviso has the effect of bringing such persons within the schedule, because, as it is argued, every money-lender shall be placed at least in Class VII irrespectively of his income.2. If the income was not under Rs. 30 no doubt that would be the effect of the proviso, and that is all we think that the Legislature intended, but not to bring within one of the classes persons who, apart from the proviso, would be in no class at all. This is indicated by the words immediately preceding the proviso, viz., every person described in Class I whose pay, salary or pension amounts, or whose income is estimated to amount to Rs. 30 a month or upwards--Re....
Tag this Judgment!Visvanathan Chetti Vs. Ramanathan Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad646
1. It was open to the petitioner, relying on the second paragraph of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to appeal under Section 540 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree as amended, notwithstanding the expiration of one month from the data when the decree was passed. This being so, we are of opinion that a petition under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure complaining of the variance of the decree is not admissible. Mr. Justice Mahmood in discussing the question in Mania Ray v. Raghunandan Singh I.L.R. 7 All. 282 overlooks the possibility of an appeal against the decree as amended, and for that reason comes to the conclusion that Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be applied. It must be admitted that Mr. Justice Mahmood's view has been followed in one or two cases in this Court, but no repotted case is cited in which a Bench of Judges has held that an appeal against the amended decree will not lie.2. We dismiss the petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Seshachala Naicker Vs. Varada Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ318
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree of Mr. Justice Shephard directing the defendant to pay, with future interest to the plaintiff, the sum of Rs. 7,345-0-0 being the amount claimed in the plaint as the balance of the amount of consideration for a sale deed, dated 19th May 1894, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant.2. The only ground on which this appeal is preferred is that the suit is barred by limitation.3. The consideration for the sale of the house and other properties comprised in the sale deed was Rs. 10,000, and the plaint sets forth that part-payments amounting to Rs. 2,655-0-0 were, subsequent to the execution of the sale deed and delivery of the property, made by the defendant from time to time, the last of such part-payment having been made on 9th September 1897.4. The suit was brought for the recovery of the balance, viz., Rs. 7,345, and it is seated in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the cause of action arose on the 9th September 1897, t...
Tag this Judgment!Kadir Bacha Saheb and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahiman Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad639
1. It is argued that it is not competent to the Court to apply the provision of Section 2 of the Partition Act, because a preliminary order defining the share of the plaintiff and directing partition has been passed. We are unable to accept this view of the Act. There is nothing in Section 2 to limit its operation to cases in which no order has been passed; and Section 10 makes it quite clear that the Act can be applied until the scheme of partition has been finally approved, i.e., until a final decree has been passed under section '2 of the Act. It is for those who object to partition representing at least a moiety of the interests in the property to show that partition cannot, by reason of the circumstances there stated, be reasonably or conveniently effected, and that a sale of the property will be more beneficial for all the share-holders. Having regard to the nature of the property, namely, a dwelling house, the size of the house and the number of shares. We cannot doubt that a pa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »