Chennai Court February 1902 Judgments
Sreepada Brahmayya Pantulu Vs. Parasuramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ348
1. The application of 20th April 1898 was made under Section 232, Civil Procedure Code, in accordance with law and was made to the proper court. The applicant was the only person who could have applied for execution at that time, and the fact that the decree was afterwards reversed could not affect the legality of his application, or whatever legal effect it had in saving the bar by limitation.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Meiyyalu Nadan Vs. Anjalay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad672
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 second defendant.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Pottivadu and anr. Vs. Veerayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ447
ORDERCharles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the petitioners were convicted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal trespass) and an order was subsequently made which purported to be under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question is, was this order under Section 522 a legal order or is it bed as having been made without jurisdiction. The conditions precedent that must exist before an order can be made under Section 522 are (1) some person must have been convicted of an offence attended by criminal force and (2) some person must have been dispossessed of immoveable property by such force.2. It is clear that the use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient of an offence under Sectopm 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The Calcutta High Court have held1 that 'an offence attended by criminal force' means an offence of which criminal force is an ingredient Ram Chandra Boral v. Jityandria I.L.R. 25 C. 434. I am inclined to think that this is ...
Tag this Judgment!Trilochana Bakshi Vs. Brojo Patro
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ349
1. The facts in our opinion show that the plaintiff's legal cause of action was for trespass in the defendant's having wrongfully caused the plaintiff's house to be searched. The facts would not support an action for a malicious prosecution, inasmuch as the information given was only to the police, and the steps taken were only in a police investigation preparatory to a prosecution before a Magistrate. So regarding the suit as one for damages for trespass, it is not exempted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes, and as the damages claimed do not exceed Rs. 500, no second appeal lies under Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This appeal is, therefore, rejected with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Vedapuratti and ors. Vs. Vallabha Valia Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ128
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The question which has been referred in this case is whether, notwithstanding the institution, of a suit and the passing of a decree for redemption, a subsequent suit for redemption of the same mortgage can be brought when the decree in the former suit lifts not been executed. I take it that for the purposes of this reference the words 'when the decree in the former suit has not been executed' mean when the order provided for by Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act for foreclosing the right to redeem, or for sale, as the case may be, has not been made.2. The view which has been generally adopted by this High Court, though the decisions are not altogether uniform, is that a second suit will lie. The Bombay and Allahabad High Court have held otherwise.3. The answer to the question appears to me to depend not upon whether or not at the time of the bringing of the second suit the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee subsists between the parties, but upon w...
Tag this Judgment!Seshamma Shettati and ors. Vs. Chickaya Hegade and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad507; (1902)12MLJ119
1. The proprietor of the land in question mortgaged it with possession to one Davappa Kamti in 1832. The plaintiffs, as the assignees of the equity of redemption, discharged the mortgage-debt and redeemed the mortgage in 1894. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants have been holding the land as tenants from year to year under the usufructuary mortgagee, that the tenancy has been terminated by due notice to quit given by the plaintiffs and the suit is accordingly brought to eject them from the land. The defendants contend that the land was given to their assignors by the proprietor, apparently in conjunction with the mortgagee, on a permanent lease, that out of the total annual rent of Rs. 130-14-9 they have been paying Government assessment and the balance of Rs. 60 to the mortgagee and that subsequent to the redemption of the mortgage by the plaintiffs, they remitted the said sum of Rs. 60 by postal money order to the plaintiffs who refused to accept the same. They also confi...
Tag this Judgment!Vedapuratti and ors. Vs. Vallabha Valiya Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad300
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question which has been referred in this case is whether, notwithstanding the institution of a suit and the passing of a. decree for redemption, a subsequent suit for redemption of the same mortgage can be brought when the decree in the former suit has not been executed. I take it that for the purposes of this reference the words 'when the decree in the former suit has not been executed' mean when the order provided for by Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act for foreclosing the right to redeem, or for sale, as the case may be, has not been made.2. The view which has been generally adopted by this High Court, though the decisions are not altogether uniform, is that a second suit will lie. The Bombay and Allahabad High Courts have held otherwise.3. The answer to the question appears to me to depend-not upon whether or not at the time of the bringing of the second suit the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee subsists between the parties, but upon whether th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lakshiminarayana Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad515
1. In this case the testatrix by her will exercised a general power of appointment created by the will of her deceased husband. The will of the testatrix recites that by the will of her deceased husband it was stated that Rs. 7,000 out of his property should be lent out on interest, that the interest derived from time to time should be added to the principal amount and that the amount so accruing should be paid to those whom the testatrix might appoint by will. The fund has been paid into Court under an order made in a suit to administer the husband's estate and now stands invested in Government promissory notes. The will of the testatrix appointed an executor and directed that he should take the 'aforesaid amount' after payment of debts and funeral expenses, should pay certain specified amounts to certain specified persons and the residue to A. B.2. On the death of the husband of the testatrix, his will was proved and probate duty was paid on the principal amount of Rs. 7,000. The exe...
Tag this Judgment!ittappan Kuthiravattath Nair Vs. Nanu Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ101
1. In a suit for redemption the onus is on the plaintiff not only to prove that the defendant's ancestor obtained the lands on mortgage from the plaintiff's ancestor but also that ho has a subsisting title. In Exhibit A, the counter-part executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants' ancestor the year alone appears but the portion in which presumably the month and date were inserted has been destroyed by age, and no secondary evidence has been adduced to prove that the date of the document was some day in Malayalam year 1001 (which alone is now visible) prior to 28th July in which case alone the suit would be within time irrespective of the acknowledgment relied upon in Exhibit Cr. There is no proof that the mortgage deed was executed and delivered by plaintiff's ancestor to 1st and 2nd defendants' ancestor and that the defendants being in possession thereof, withhold its production. Even if it were proved it cannot be presumed simply from that circumstance that its date was some day prior to...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhunha Umma Vs. Valoth Assenar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ405
1. It appears that the property was purchased by the plaintiff at a sale held in order to recover the amount due to Government as stamp fees in O.S. No. 26 of 1892. The property now in question was a portion of its subject-matter. Such being the case, the sum recoverable by Government was a first charge on the property under Section 411 of the Civil Procedure Code. The 2nd defendant was a subsequent purchaser of the same property in execution of a decree which he obtained against the estate of the deceased for debts due by him. The Crown having a first charge on the property, the plaintiffs purchase prevails as against that relied on by the 2nd defendant. On this ground, we confirm the decision of the District Judge and dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »