Chennai Court February 1902 Judgments
Puthia Valappil Barga Alias Kunhunha Umma Vs. Veloth Assenar and Two o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad733
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 Original Suit No. 26 of 1892 in which the plaintiffs therein succeeded. 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 second 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 plaintiff's purchase prevails as against that relied on by the second defendant. On this ground we confirm the decision of the District Judge and dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Subba Row Vs. Purushottam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ262
1. Even assuming that under the Hindu Law texts, in case the lameness was congenital there would be a bar, a matter regarding which we give no opinion, it is admitted in the present case that the lameness was not congenital and that the plaintiff for years after his birth had the use of his limbs.2. No case has been quoted where any court has held that lameness, congenital or otherwise, is a bar to inheritance. In the only case that has been quoted Futtick Chunder Chatterjee v. Juggut Mohinee Dabee 21 W.R. 348 the decision proceeds upon the assumption that lameness would be no bar unless it were proved that the person proposed to be excluded was a cripple from birth. Such being the case, we cannot uphold the decision Of the Subordinate Judge.3. We must, therefore, set aside the decree of both courts and hold that there should be a partition and that the plaintiff is entitled to a one-half share in the lands and houses in Chinamutevi village (as per Schedule A) with costs throughout and...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjunadu Setti and Narayanamurti Ayyar Vs. Lingamurti Pantulu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad244
Davies, J.1. In Appeal against Appellate Order No. 35 of 1901 and Appeal against Order No. 48 of 1900.--There can be no doubt that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to cases tried under special Acts, if the trials are in a Court of Civil Judicature and if there are no rules in the special Acts inconsistent with, or substituted for, the general rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. Now, in the Transfer of Property Act, after an order for sale in a mortgage suit has been made, no further rules are laid down as to the subsequent steps to be taken for the conduct of the sale and other incidents attaching to it. These matters must therefore be governed by the Civil Procedure Code as the Transfer of Property Act is silent in regard to them. The rules for the conduct of sales by a Civil Court are to be found in Chapter XIX (G) of the Civil Procedure Code and there is nothing in that chapter excluding from its operation sales in pursuance of mortgage decrees under th...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarami Reddi Vs. Rajamannar Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ396
1. The petition requesting the court to refer the matter to arbitration in a case for winding up of a partnership should not have been granted except on the application or with the consent of all the parties. Neither the 3rd defendant nor his representative was a. party to the-petition of the 11th September 1897. The reference to arbitration was illegal and. therefore, the award being void, there is an appeal against the decree notwithstanding that it is in conformity with what purports td1 be an award. The decrees of the Courts of the District Munsif and District Judge are set aside and the suit is sent back to the District Munsif for trial on the merits, everything done subsequent to the order of remand by the' District Court being set aside as irregular. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Akkineri Seeeramulu and Two ors. Vs. Mullapudi Ramayya and Eight ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad731
1. The Judge is right in holding that in so far as the alienation of 1874 is concerned, this suit is barred by limitation. There is, however, also a further prayer in the plaint that the alienation made by way of confirmation of the prior alienation, by the (withdrawal) application put in, in 1892 by the third and fourth defendants should be set aside. As to this the Judge holds that there was no doubt a prayer to this effect in the plaint, but that it had not been granted by the District Munsif and that the plaintiffs have not appealed against that decree in so far as it omitted to grant that prayer. As the decree of the District Munsif was in favour of the plaintiffs, there was nothing for them to appeal against. The judgment of the District Munsif, moreover, shows he did not disallow this prayer. We must hold that the withdrawal of the suit of 1892 on the ground that the alienation was valid without permission to bring a new suit is a confirmation of the alienation of 1874 and gives...
Tag this Judgment!Fischer Vs. Bapu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ99
1. We find that both the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge on appeal, have founded their judgments, to a very great extent, on facts observed by them when making a local inspection of certain places and on impressions conveyed to their minds by what they observed on such inspections. These notes, which are in considerable detail are, set out in pages 21 to 25 of the printed papers. We must hold that the course thus adopted by the, judges was most irregular and that the judgments now before us are in certain material points based on what was in no sense legal evidence. We have no option, therefore, but to set aside the decisions of both the lower Courts and remand the suit to the Subordinate Judge of Madura (West.) for re-trial on the evidence already on record and such additional evidence as ho may consider it advisable to allow either party to adduce. The notes of inspection of the judges already alluded to must be expunged from the record, and the. Subordinate Judge in re-tryi...
Tag this Judgment!Chalaban Tholan and anr. Vs. Kunhambu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ406
1. The petitioners are agricultural tenants of some lands for paddy cultivation and the respondent is a subsequent lessee under the landlord of the right to dig up and take shells from the holding without causing any detriment to the use of the land for agricultural purposes by the tenants. It is found that the agricultural tenants dug up a. large quantity of shells and converted them to their own use. But they have not alleged or proved any local custom entitling them to do so. Tucker v. Linger L.R. 8 A.C. 508 Whether the tenant was or was not justified in digging up shells for cultivating the land properly and in a husband-like manner, the property in the shells is not in him but in the landlord or rather the plaintiff-respondent, the assignee of the landlord Tucker v. Linger 8 A.C. 508Elwes v. Briggs Gas Co. 33 Ch. D. 562. In the absence of a local custom, the defendants had not a right to convert the shells which they dug up to their own use. Section 43, Civil Procedure Code, is, i...
Tag this Judgment!Chaladom Tholan and anr. Vs. Kakkath Kunhambu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad669
1. The petitioners are agricultural tenants of some lands for paddy cultivation and the respondent is a subsequent lessee under the landlord of the right to dig up and take shells from the holding without causing any detriment to the use of the land for agricultural purposes by the tenants. It is found that the agricultural tenants dug up a large quantity of shells and converted them to their own use. But they have not alleged or proved any local custom entitling them to do so Tucker v. Linger L.R. 8 A.C. 508. Whether the tenant was or was not justified in digging up shells for cultivating the land properly and in a husband-like manner, the property in the shells is not in him, but in the landlord, or rather the plaintiff, the respondent, the assignee of the landlord Tucker v. Linger L.R. 8 A.C. 508; Elwes v. Briggs Gas Coy. 33 Ch. D. 562. In the absence of a local custom the defendants had not a right to convert the shells, which they dug up, to their own use. Section 43, Civil Proced...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›