Chennai Court November 1902 Judgments
Murkanat Alias Kattayat Pattumayi Insane by Guardian and Husband Murka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ237
1. The question which has been raised in this case is a pure of question of law, and the facts on which it depends are beyond dispute The question is as to the right of suit, and we have therefore to decide it, though it was not raised in the Courts below.2. The plaintiff was the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 409 of 1880 and became purchaser of the plaint property which was sold in execution of that decree. He applied under Section 318, Civil Procedure .Code, for delivery of the property purchased, but his application was rejected as barred by limitation having been made more than 3 years after the confirmation of the sale, and he brings the present suit to recover possession of the land from the defendant who was the judgment-debtor in C. S. No. 409 of 1880.3. The appellant's Vakil contends that the suit is barred by Section 244, Civil Procedure Code. If the question were not already settled by more decisions than one of this Court and of the Calcutta High Court, we should entert...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi and ors. Vs. Anantharam Thivari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ248
1. Until 1863 the Government was paying from the Public treasury in cash Rs. 233-5-3 to the trustees of a charitable mutt, of which the plaintiffs are the present trustees. In 1863 the Government in lieu of the cash payment directed the predecessor of defendants 1 to 4, who was the holder on ryotwari tenure of 5 and odd velis of land, to pay the first crop assessment payable on the land amounting to Rs. 233-5-3 to the trustees of the mutt instead of to the Government revenue officers and obtained from him an agreement (Exhibit D) that he would do so, and from that time the trustees were apparently collecting the said amount and the Government was collecting the 2nd crop assessment on the land amounting to Rs. 120 as well as the whole of the landcess and villagecess from defendants 1 to 4 and their predecessors. In 1893, at the time of the revision of the Tanjore assessment, the assessment for the 1st crop was raised to Rs. 299-8-0, the difference (Rs. 66-2-9) between that and the forme...
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu Udaiyan and ors. Vs. Subbaraya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ231
1. The 1st defendant sued the 1st and 8th plaintiffs and the 9th defendant in O.S. Suit No. 503 of 1885 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Salem, on a mortgage bond executed by them, and in execution of the decree obtained therein, the mortgaged properties were sold on the 27th October 1887 and were purchased by the 2nd defendant, who was placed in possession of the same after the sale had been confirmed and certificate issued to him.2. In April 1881, the 3rd defendant, father of defendants 4 to 7, became the purchaser of the property from the 2nd defendant and obtained possession of the same. 3. In June 1888 plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, all these minors, the sons of the 1st and 8th plaintiffs and of the 9th defendant applied under Section 294, Civil Procedure Code, to have the sale set aside an the ground, among others, that the 1st defendant himself purchased the property through his agent the 2nd defendant without having obtained the permission of the Court to bid at the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Periasami Thalavar Vs. Subramanian Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1902
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ136
1. There is no allegation that the defendant did not enter into the transaction with his eyes open, or was deceived as to its terms. The bond was entered into in accordance with the rules of the Chit fund, which are not in any way illegal. There is no ground for not allowing the rule to be given effect to.2. We set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the Lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Kandasami Asari and ors. Vs. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ370
1. The defendants presented a petition to the Divisional Deputy Magistrate giving him information that it was necessary that security should be taken from the plaintiff and others under Sections 107 and 110, Criminal Procedure Code. The Deputy Magistrate referred the petition to the Sub-Magistrate for enquiry and report as to the truth of the allegations in it. On receipt of his report the Deputy Magistrate recorded his opinion that no further action was necessary, and no further action was taken. It is therefore clear that whatever other remedy the plaintiff may have, an action for damages for malicious prosecution will not lie. To sustain such an action there must have been a prosecution by the defendants of the plaintiffs for an offence. The second appeal is allowed ; and the suit dismissed with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingam Chettiar Vs. Ramasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ379
1. The District Judge when he says that there was an implied contract to pay tiruppani cess which was voluntary and unconnected with the holding, as well as the other cesses which were connected with the holding evidently did not mean to say that there was a legally enforceable contract, for he held that the trepan cess Tiruppani means service of God and the cess was levied for the purpose of reparing certain buildings dedicated for charitable purposes was not legally enforceable. He appears only to have meant that the period for which the cess had been paid was long enough to support an implied contract if the cess was of such a character that a contract to pay it might reasonably and properly be implied.2. The cess is one of an essentially voluntary character, and therefore its payment for a number of years cannot be a ground for implying that there was a legal contract or obligation to continue to pay it.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Zemindar of Tarla Vs. Latchiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ211
1. The land-cess can be included in the rent under Section 4 of the Rent Recovery Act. It can therefore be treated in the nature of rent. However this may be, it does not fall under Article 13 of the 2nd Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. The total amount of rent including the land-cess not being Rs. 500 in value, no second appeal lies. This second appeal is therefore rejected with costs: The memorandum of objections is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Periakaruppan Vs. Palaniappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ210
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. I see no reason for reducing the amount awarded as damages. Nor, in my opinion, is there any reason to disturbing the order as to costs made in the courts below in the due exercise of the discretion vested in them by law. I would dismiss the second appeal with costs.Davies, J.2. I agree that there is no reason for reducing the damages awarded to the plaintiff. I am, however, unable to support the order of the courts below granting the plaintiff his costs on the whole amount of his claim instead of only on the amount decreed him in as much as it is opposed to the uniform practice of the courts in this Presidency, which is to grant costs only on the amount decreed. Velu Pillai v. Ghose Mahomed I.L.R. 17 M. 293. Under Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Subbammal Vs. Muthu Pathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ228
1. The plaint is not drawn up with sufficient clearness to disclose exactly the cause of action on which the suit is based nor does it appear clearly that the property over which the plaintiff claims a charge was purchased subject to a pre-existing mortgage which the plaintiff undertook to discharge. In O.S. No. 22 of 1893, the plaintiff relying upon his title as purchaser sued to eject the defendant, but it was held by the Court of appeal that the defendant was the real purchaser and that the sale deed was taken only nominally in plaintiff's name. The finding therein being conclusive in the present suit, the plaintiff now sues to recover the sum of Rs. 311-5-6 as a charge upon the said property on the ground that he paid the principal of that sum, partly on the 21st May 1892 and partly on the 15th March 1893, to one Krishna Pathan in discharge of a mortgage on the said property made to him by the plaintiff himself on the 16th April 1888 ; and as appears from para, 3 of the District Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Sinnu Sastryal Alias Ramaswamy Sastryal and Venkatrama Sastryal and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ227
1. We think that the order of the Subordinate Judge to sell the property subject to Krishnaier's mortgage was wrong. The Subordinate Judge had previously, with Krishnaier's consent, ordered that the property should be sold free of his mortgage, and that order ought not, on the application of the decree-holder, to have been virtually revoked, and that without notice to, or the consent of, Krishnaier or his representatives or the Judgment--debtor. The Judgment-debtor justly complaints that if the property was to be sold free of incumbrance (as originally ordered) it could be sold in conveniently small lots, for which there would be a larger circle of bidders, and that a higher price would thus have been realized.2. We may add that on the 29th January 1902, while the sale, which began on the 23rd, was still in progress, the Judgment-debtor obtained an order from the High Court for an interim stay of the sale, and his local Vakil at Kumbakonam informed the Subordinate Judge of the fact, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »