Chennai Court December 1902 Judgments
The Maharaja of Vizianagaram by His Guardian and Next Friend, F.W. Gil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ83
ORDERBhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. The Permanently Settled estate of Merangi in the district of Vizagapatam was registered in the Collector's office in the name of one Jagannatha Raz as its sole proprietor. A suit was brought for its partition by three of his co-parceners, including the present defendant, which was unsuccessfully resisted by Jagannatha Raz on the ground that it was an impartible estate. Both the Indian Courts and finally the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by its decree in 1891, Sri Raja Satmcharla Jagannadha Razu v. Sri Raja Satrucharla Ramabhadra Razu I.L.R.R. 14 M. 237 held that the estate was partible and directed its partition into four equal shares.2. On the 23rd October 1893, the late Maharajah of Viziana-garam, the testator under whom the plaintiff claims, purchased from Jagannatha Raz his undivided one-fourth share in the estate which purchase became absolute in the events that followed. There was no delivery of possession to the purchaser and on the 5th May...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja of Jeypore Vs. Neladevi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ151
ORDER1. Objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that Rule XXXI of the Vizagapatam Agency Rules gave no general right of petitioning the Government, but only presented the channel through which petitions that were otherwise provided for should pass. If this view were correct, the rule would have been quite unnecessary, as at the time it was enacted there were no cases in which petitions were otherwise provided for. The cases to which our attention has been drawn were provided for subsequently to the passing of Rule XXXI. Rule XXXI must therefore have been intended to provide for cases for which no previous provision had been made--such as petitions relating, like this, to matters in execution of decrees, for which no appeal was allowed, It is unlikely that Government should have overlooked the necessity for providing for revision by them of the orders of the agent and his assistants in the very important subject of execution of decrees when several rules have been made regardin...
Tag this Judgment!Gandham Veeraswami and ors. Vs. Manager, Pittapur Estate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ296
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge reversing a finding of the Sub-Collector in proceedings under Act VIII of 1865 and remanding the suit for disposal on the merits. The order purports to have been made under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. In support of the objection it has been argued that the adjudication by the Sub-Collector was not a ' decree' within the meaning of Section 562 of the Code, that this being so, the order of remand cannot be taken to have been made under that section, and that inasmuch as Section 588(28) of the Code only gives a right of appeal when the order is made under Section 562, if the order was not under that section no appeal would lie.3. We are of opinion that it was competent for the District Judge to make the order under Section 562.4. No doubt Section 69 of Act VIII of 1865 uses the word ' Judgment,' but we think the Judgment, or adjudication, by the Sub-Collec...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalinga Nadar Vs. Ganapati Subbien
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ445
Subrahmania Aiyar and Benson, JJ.1. There can be no question but that the plaintiff is entitled to sue for the sale of the property pledged to him, notwithstanding that he is also entitled under Section 176, Indian Contract Act, to sell the property without reference to the Court.2. It is obvious that a right to sue for the sale of the property exists even in the absence of a right to sue for a personal decree against the debtor for the money lent. It would be clearly so if it had been agreed between the parties that no personal liability for the debt was to accompany the pledge of the jewels.3. It would follow therefore that in a case where both rights exist they are concurrent rights and the right to proceed against the property pledged is not merely accessory to the right to proceed against the debtor personally.4. This has been clearly laid down in regard to the right to proceed against immoveable property hypothecated for a debt, Chetty Goundan v. Sundaram Pillai 2 M.H.C.R. 51 and...
Tag this Judgment!Subudhi Rantho and 14 ors. Vs. Balaram Padhi (Deceased)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ123
ORDER1. This is not the case of a farm labourer or cultivator for wages, nor that of a person entitled to the crops jointly with others as partners. It is the case of an ordinary ryot in a zemindari holding on a varam tenure. Until the delivery by the tenant to the zemindar of the share of the crop payable to the latter, the possession of the whole crop, inclusive of such share, is clearly with the tenant. This being so, the removal of even the whole crop by the tenant is not a taking of anything out of the possession of the zemindar. Consequently the first element in the offence of theft is wanting. But the removal, if dishonest or fraudulent constitutes an offence under Section 424 of the Penal Code even if, as contended for the petitioners, the zemindar acquires no property in the share due to him until delivery--a point on which it is unnecessary for us to express an opinion in the present case. None of the unreported cases to which cur attention has been drawn conflict with this v...
Tag this Judgment!Rangan Pattar Vs. Lakshmi Neithiar and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1902
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ137
1. As regards the first point relied on by the appellant, viz., that no appeal lay from the order of the District Munsif we are concluded by authority. See the judgment of the Full Bench in Ramaswami Sastrulu, v. Kameswarumma I.L.R. 23 M. 361. The Judgment of the Privy Council in Chowdry Wahed Ali v. Mussamat Jamee 11 B.L.R. 149 a case in which, in the language of that Judgment, the circumstances were peculiar and exceptional, is not in conflict with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court.2. As regards the facts, it is not necessary to determine whether the burden of proof was on the execution creditor the 6th defend-ant. There is a finding of fact by the lower appellate Court that the 6th defendant proved chat the property in question formed the tavazhi property of the defendant. There is evidence to support the finding. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Veruputti Penchalugaddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1902
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1061
ORDER1. We think the discharge was right. A person who answers questions put to him by a Police officer making an investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not institute or cause to be instituted criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, nor does he thereby charge any person within the meaning of that section....
Tag this Judgment!Sami Aiya Vs. the King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ263
ORDER1. In this case the accused were charged with being members of an unlawful assembly, rioting, hurt and theft. The 2nd Class Magistrate acquitted them on the charge of theft on the ground that they have acted without dishonest intention. He convicted them on the other charges.2. The accused appealed. On appeal the Deputy Magistrate was of opinion that on the facts as found by the 2nd Class Magistrate, the offence of theft must be held to have been committed and that the offence committed by the accused amounted to dacoity, and he committed them to Sessions.3. One of the facts as found by the 2nd Class Magistrate was that the accused had acted without dishonest intention. The finding of the Deputy Magistrate, in the face of this, that the accused must be held to have committed theft, cannot possibly be supported, the Public Prosecutor, in fact, did not attempt to support it.4. A further point taken on behalf of the accused was that it was not competent for the Deputy Magistrate to r...
Tag this Judgment!Veerasokkara' a minor represented by the Collector of Salem as Agent t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ258
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The decree in execution of which the present question arises was obtained by the respondent on a promissory note against the appellant as the son and heir and legal representative of his mother, the executant of the promissory note, the decree directing payment from the estate of the deceased debtor. The respondent having attached certain jewels of the deceased in the possession of the officers of the Court of Wards who were in charge of the estate of the appellant (a minor), a claim was put forward on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the respondent as attaching creditor was entitled to only so much of the sale proceeds of the jewels as might exceed the sum of Rs. 1,562 due to the appellant (made up of Rs. 361 paid after the death of the appellant's mother for the redemption of two of said jewels from the creditor to whom they had been pledged by her and of Rs. 1,091 also paid subsequent to the mother's death to certain of her other creditors and Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Jambu Chetty and anr. Vs. N.P.L. N. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ252
1. This is an action for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 5, 421-14-10, being the balance alleged to be due on accounts for goods sold and sums lent from time to time, by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant admitted his liability only to the extent of Rs. 521-3-2 and objected among other items to his having been debited by the plaintiff with the several sums of Rs. 1,547-4-9, 1,500-0-0, 1,765-8-3. and 1,100-0-0, being the amounts of 4 hundis drawn by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff, which were dishonoured by the drawee at Rangoon. The Subordinate Judge overruled the defendant's objection, and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff as sued for The defendants appeal against that decree and urge in support of their appeal that the plaintiff having accepted the hundis in discharge of the debt due to him, he cannot sue upon the consideration for the hundis, and that his remedy, it any, is upon the hundis Apparently, the 1st defendant contended in the Court bel...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›