Chennai Court February 1902 Judgments
Meiyallu Nadan Vs. Anjalay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ409
1. The voluntary registration of the deed of gift by the legal representative of the donor has the same effect as its voluntary registration by the donor himself in his life-time. There was, therefore, a valid gift to the 2nd defendant.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Subramania Sastrial and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ276
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. This is a petition against an order for rateable distribution made under Section 295, Code of Civil Procedure. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the judgment-creditor at whose instance the land was sold in execution as. judgment-creditor No. 1 and to the judgment-creditor who made the application to the Subordinate Judge's Court, under Section 295 and who is the petitioner before this court as judgment-creditor No. 2. The land which was sold in execution at the instance of judgment-creditor No. 1 was sold in parcels, or in four items, and it would seem that these four items exhaust the whole land which was sold in execution of the decree in question. Now judgment-creditor No. II, put in his application under Section 295, C.P.C, before the proceeds of the sale of items 3 and 4 had been paid into court, and after the proceeds of the sale of items 1 and 2 had been paid into court; and in this state of things the Subordinate Judge held that as regard...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chettiar Vs. R.G. Orr and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ264
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the defendants are the 'tenants of the plaintiffs under an agreement, dated 10th April 1889, Exhibit A in this case. The first paragraph of the agreement recites that the plaintiffs had leased to the defendants certain villages at a certain rent. The third paragraph of the agreement states that' you (meaning the plaintiffs) have authorised us (the defendants) to enjoy all your rights in the said villages for the said period of 19 years including certain rights to which you (the plaintiffs) are entitled in the Zemindttri.' The lease agreement contains this covenant' we (the defendants) shall not cut nor shall permit any one to cut the trees which have been already taxed or which are liable to be taxed or which are growing in the Zenrindari forests. The rights of the plaintiffs referred to in paragraph 3 of the agreement have to be ascertained by reference to the agreement between the plaintiffs and the Zemindar. By a supplemental agreement betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Sriramamoorthy Chetty and ors. Vs. Pandara Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ117
1. Under the ruling in Kumaraswami Reddiar v. Subbaraya Reddiar I.L.R. 28 M. 314 the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to hoar this appeal. His decree is, therefore, set aside and the appeal restored to the file of the District Court for disposal according to law. Costs of this second appeal will be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Beauchamp Vs. Sir George Moore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ413
1. This is an appeal from a conviction of the Editor of the Madras Mail on a charge of defamation. The complainant is the President of the Madras Municipality. The charge alleges that the defendant published certain untrue and defamatory statements concerning the acting Health Officer of the Municipality and the subordinate officers of the Municipal Health Department, for whose efficient working the complainant is directly responsible, intending, thereby, or knowing, or having reason to believe, the publication of such untrue and defamatory imputations would, injure the reputation of the complainant.2. The charge then proceeds to set out the alleged untrue and; defamatory imputations. They are as follower--' That on Friday night (meaning the night of Friday, August 23, 1901) there were three attacks in two native houses in Chintadripet in Singanna Chetty Street. In one of the houses both the cases proved fatal. * * * There was one more attack in that very house and a Eurasian resident ...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottama Patnaik Vs. Choitana Naiko and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ188
1. When it was represented to the District Munsif's Court on the 6th of February 1900, that the 3rd defendant was dead, as in fact he was, the Court had no power to adjourn the suit if the cause of action did not survive against the surviving defendants alone. It is not alleged or shown that it so survived. On the contrary, it was shewn that the deceased 3rd defendant left 3 minor sons, as his legal representatives who were not already on the record. As the Court had no power to grant an adjournment, the order of dismissal of the suit passed on the adjourned date was, of course, inoperative. That order is accordingly set aside and the suit must be re-admitted under its original number in the register to be dealt with under Section 368, C.P.C. Costs in this and in the lower appellate Court will then be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Gangi and anr. Vs. Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ103
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. The point arising in this second appeal is whether the appellants (plaintiffs) are precluded by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code from bringing this suit by reason of their having- omitted to include the present claim in their former suit O.S. No. 490 of 1687, assuming, as in apparently found by both the lower Courts, that at the institution of the former suit they were aware that the land now sued for was in the possession of the present defendant and that the same formed part of their father's estate. The first suit was brought by these plaintiffs for the recovery of some other land which was in the possession of the defendant in that suit and the same was awarded to them by the decree of the appellate Court therein, which was confirmed by the High Court in second appeal on the 13th August 1890 (Exhibit (sic).2. The present suit was brought in 1896 for the recovery from defendant herein, of the land mentioned in Schedule A to the , plaint which is differe...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubramany Iyer Vs. Koran Kunnan Ammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ113
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. As regards the question of the construction of the bond (Exhibit A), the District Munsif hold that the only remedy open to the plaintiff on default by the defendants was to apply for the execution of the decree mentioned in the bond. The District Judge apparently took the same view. It seems to me clear that, on the true construction of the bond, the document purports to give a two-fold remedy to the plaintiff on failure by the defendants to pay the instalments mentioned in the bond, firls, a right to sue for the balance of Rs. 7,500, secondly, a right to recover the balance by executing the decree. This appears to be the true construction of the document whether the words in default of this are read as meaning in default of payment of the instalments or in default of payments of the lump sum. There is an express agreement to pay the lump sum on failure to pay the instalments and an express agreement that the decree shall be kept alive and the rights of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakishore Dosjee Vs. the Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co., Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ439
1. The main argument advanced in support of this appeal is that the application made by Mahant Bagavan Dosjee for shares in the Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co., was made by him in his capacity as Mahant of the Mutt at Tirupati, that the money paid by him for these shares was a portion of the funds of the Mutt, that the Mahant being a Byragi had not and could not have had any funds of his own out of which he could have purchased these shares, that the Directors of the Company must have been well aware that such was the case and that consequently, on Bagavan Dosjee vacating the post of Mahant, the Company was bound to transfer the shares standing in his name to the name of the plaintiff, his successor in the office of Mahant. The evidence on the record does not bear out these contentions. It cannot be held that Exhibit XXIII shows that Bagavan Dosjee applied for the shares in his capacity of Mahant on behalf of the Mutt. The applicant there applies for certain shares, states that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Dampanaboyina Gangi and anr. Vs. Addala Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad736
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. The point arising in this second appeal is whether the appellants (plaintiffs) are precluded by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code from bringing this suit by reason of their having omitted to include the present claim in their former suit, Original Suit No. 490 of 1887, assuming, as is apparently found by both the Lower Courts, that at the institution of the former suit they were aware that the land now sued for was in the possession of the present defendant and that the same formed part of their father's estate. The first suit was brought by these plaintiffs for the recovery of some other land which was in the possession of the defendant in that suit and the same was awarded to them by the decree of the Appellate Court therein, which was confirmed by the High Court in second appeal on the 13th August 1890 (Exhibit B).2. The present suit was brought in 1896 for the recovery from the defendant herein, of the land mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint which is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »