Chennai Court August 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.
Ahinsa Bibi and ors. Vs. Abdul Kader Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad26
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. It is alleged in the plaint that five persons, namely, the first defendant; one Chanda Mean, the deceased husband of the first plaintiff; one Pacha Mean, the deceased father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, and husband of fifth defendant; the sixth defendant, and one Mathari Bavudin Saheb, father of defendants Nos. 7 to 10 and husband of eleventh defendant, were carrying on partnership business at Ambur, the first-named three persons being brothers and the last named two being their brothers-in-law, and that on the death of Chanda Mean Saheb in August 1891 it was agreed that the first defendant and the other surviving partners should use the amount of capital and profits due to the share of Chanda Mean Saheb in carrying on the business of partnership, that interest thereon should be paid to plaintiffs at one per cent. per mensem, that the total amount due to the plaintiffs should be settled as per accounts and paid over to them on demand, and that the partnership busi...
The Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras Vs. Major Bell
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad15
Moore, J.1. The Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras made a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate against Major Bell, the Superintendent of the Gun Carriage Factory, alleging that he had, on certain occasions, specified in the written complaint, brought or caused to be brought from the Salt Cotaurs Station of the Madras Railway Company within the City of Madras certain logs of wood which had been consigned to him as Superintendent without obtaining a license on payment of the fees due thereon, and had thereby committed 'an offence punishable under Section 341 of the City of Madras Municipal Act. The Chief Presidency Magistrate rejected the complaint on the ground that before cognizance could be taken of the offence with which Major Bell was charged, the sanction of Government should be obtained under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is an application put in on behalf of the Municipal Commissioners praying the High Court to revise the proceedings of ...
In Re: Reference Under Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 5
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad24
1. We are clearly of opinion that, under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, the stamp-duty on objections made under Section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure need not be paid till the time of hearing. These objections, as Section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure now stands, have to be made by means of a document which has to be filed within one month after service of notice of the appeal, that is, on a date which is generally long prior to the date of hearing, The question that arises is whether that document is chargeable with Court fees at the time it is filed. It is clear that, under Section 4 of the Court Pees Act, it is not so chargeable unless it is a document of any of the kinds specified in the first or second schedule annexed to the Act. A memorandum of objections is not a document so specified in those schedules, Such being the case we must hold that no fee is leviable on a memorandum of objections until the time of hearing, and it is then leviable under the special provisi...
Venkatarazu and anr. Vs. Chinna Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad695
1. The decree in Original Suit No. 344 of 1895 on the file of the District Munsif of Narsapur, passed on the 30th August 1895, was a decree under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the 30th September 1896 Erra Chinna Ramayya (present respondent) the transferee of the original decree-holder (plaintiff) applied to the District Munsif for an order that a proclamation should be issued in accordance with Sections 286 and 287 of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of the mortgaged immoveable property mentioned in the decree, and the same brought to sale. On the 16th October it was directed that a notice should be issued and on the 30th of the same month the following order was passed: 'No opposition, petition granted. Batta for proclamation.' On the 19th December the application for execution was dismissed as no batta had been paid. On the 10th October 1896 another application for execution was presented, but from that date no further step in execution was taken till the present ...
Nambi Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Yajnanarayana Somayajial and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ431
1. Under Section 522, Civil Procedure Code, no appeal lies against a decree on an award passed under that section 'except in so far as the decree is in excess of, or not in accordance with the award.'2. Neither of these conditions exist in the present case, and we cannot accede to the contention of the appellant's Vakil that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to refer to the arbitration, the question whether the trustee should be removed as prayed for in the plaint. A similar 'contention was raised and overruled in the case of Perumal Naik v. Saminatha Pillai I.L.R. 19 M. 498.3. We must therefore reject this appeal with costs....
Nambi Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Narayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ337
1. Under Section 522, Civil Procedure Code, no appeal lies against a decree on an award passed under that section 'except in so far as the decree is in excess of, or not in accordance with, the award.'2. Neither of these conditions exist in the present case, and we cannot accede to the contention of the appellant's Vakil that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to refer to the arbitrator the question whether the trustee should be removed as prayed for in the plaint. A similar contention was raised and overruled in the case reported, in I.L.R. 19 M. 498 Perumal Naik v. Saminatha Pillai.3. We must, therefore, reject this appeal with costs....
Achutharamaraju Vs. Venkata Subbaraja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ370
1. The appellant brings this suit to redeem the plaint lands on the footing that they were really mortgaged to the 1st respondent's father though there was what purported to be an absolute conveyance of the lands to the respondent under Exhibit L, and it is contended that though Exhibit L is on the face of it an absolute conveyance, it was really agreed between the parties at the time of the transaction that the respondent's father should hold the lands conveyed as a usufructuary mortgagee and that the profits of the land should be applied to the discharge of the mortgage money and other debts due by the plaintiff to strangers. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the evidence in the case established that the transaction was really a sale, not a mortgage as contended by the plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals.2. Before going into the merits of the appeal, we required him to show how it was open to him, in the face of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, to adduce evid...
The Secretary to the Commissioner of Salt, Abkari and Separate Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ350
1. The question referred for opinion is, whether an instrument of lease, for a term of 3 years at a monthly rate of Rs. 190, with a covenant on the part of the lessor to renew the lease, at the option of the lessee, for a further term of one or two years from the expiration of the said term of 3 years, is rightly stamped only with the duty payable on a lease for a term of 3 years, or whether it should be stamped, with the aggregate of the duties payable on a lease for a term of 3 years and on an agreement to give a lease for a term of 2 years. We are clearly of opinion, that the instrument has been rightly stamped as a lease for a term of 3 years, and that the Collector was in error, in levying an additional stamp calculated upon an agreement to give a lease for a term of 2 years at the monthly rent of Rs. 190, Under Article 3,5 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act, 'lease'' includes 'an agreement to let,' and an 'agreement to let' has to be stamped with the same duty as a lease under Sectio...
Kanthu Punja Vs. Vittamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad385
1. We concur with the Subordinate Judge's finding that the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff is not sufficient to establish that the principal of the mortgage bond was lent out of the funds of the plaintiff's tarward. The evidence adduced on behalf of the first defendant coupled with the nature of the transaction evidenced by the mortgage bond, clearly establishes in our opinion that on the occasion of first defendant's marriage with Korga Chetti, the nephew of the plaintiff, the sum of Rs. 4,000 in question was settled by the first defendant's mother either on the first defendant herself or on Koraga Chetti, but it is. difficult to say upon which of the two it was really settled. But in the view which we take of the case it is immaterial upon whom it was really settled, or whether it was settled upon both jointly. Under the terms of the mortgage instrument which was executed by the mortgagors, the second and third defendants, in favour of both Koraga Chetti and first defenda...
King Emperor Vs. Alexander Allan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ393
ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred on behalf of Government from a judgment of the Bench of Magistrates in Ootacamund acquitting the defendant Mr. Allan who had been prosecuted by the Municipality under Section 103 of the Madras Municipalities Act (IV of 1884 as amended by Act III of 1897).2. The only question which has arisen for decision at the hearing of this appeal is as to whether all or any portion of the lands owned by Mr. Allan, the details as to which are given in Exhibit D, should be held to be lands used solely for agricultural purposes and as such exempted from the enhanced rates of taxation that may be imposed in certain cases under Section 68, Sub-section 3 of the Madras Municipalities Act.3. The expression 'agricultural' is not defined in the Act. The only decisions of this Court to which our attention has been drawn in which an attempt has been made to define the word 'agricultural,' are the case of Kunhayen Haji v. Mayan I.L.R. 17 M. 98 where it was held that a lease o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »