Chennai Court November 1902 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.
Sabapathy Chetty Vs. Rangappa Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ225
1. We do not think that the District Judge was right in holding that the day on which the property was put up for sale and knocked down was the date on which the plaintiff's cause of action arose. The provisions of Section 38 of the Act II (of 1864), which were first enacted as an amendment by Act III of 1884, show that until confirmation by the Collector the sale proceedings are incomplete, and are liable to be set aside or confirmed by the Collector either on the application of the parties, or of his own motion. It is the confirmation of the sale which gives to the purchaser the right to possession, and to have the lands registered in his name. Until the sale proceedings have been confirmed, it cannot properly be said that the rights of persons whose interests will be affected by the sale are injured so as to give them a right of suit as persons aggrieved within the meaning of Section 59 of the Act. To hold otherwise would lead to the unreasonable result that a party would be obliged...
Venkataramanuja Reddiar and anr. Vs. Subbaraya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ299
1. A preliminary objection is taken that the suit is really one for damages, and as such one of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and that no second appeal lies, the claim being for less than Rs. 500. We think the objection is well-founded. The prayer for possession of the land is a futile one, that could not possibly be given effect to, as the land is in possession of third parties, who have already as stated in the plaint established their right to possession as against the plaintiff. We must dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Vaikuntam Ammangar Vs. Kallapiran Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ25
1. That the defendant was liable to be charged with the expenses for the marriage of the plaintiff's daughter was decided in the previous case Vaikuntum Ammangar v. Kallapiran Aiyangar I.L.R. 23 M. 512. So the only question before us is whether the expenses herein claimed, which were subsequently incurred, are legitimate marriage expenses. Upon the authorities it is perfectly clear that the ceremonies of Griha Pravesam and Ritusanti are essentially connected with the disposal in marriage of a girl of the Brahmin caste and invariably form a part of the marriage ceremonies. The circumstances that all the ceremonies are not now conducted consecutively as of old, does not affect the liability to pay for them by the person responsible in law to meet the charges connected with the girl's disposal in marriage, who in this case is the defendant. The amount allowed by the Munsif, which the judge also considers proper, was Rs. 15 for the Griha Pravesam and Rs. 140 for the Ritusanti, and we allow...
Ramaswamy Iyah and anr. Vs. Kuppusawmi Iyah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ351
1. We concur with the learned Chief Justice in his construction of Section 96 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 128 implies that the executor survives the testator. It, therefore, cannot apply to a case where the executor predeceases the testator. That section, therefore, does not affect the case contemplated by Section 96. This latter section can only apply to a case where the legatee predeceases the testator, whether he has been named an executor or not.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›