Chennai Court April 1902 Judgments
Madhavaya Vs. Kerala Varma Arasu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ68
1. We do not think that the decrees of the courts below can be sustained. We think that the suit is barred as res judicata.2. The only fact relied on by the Lower Courts as proof of want of diligence and want of honesty in the conduct of the suit No. 171 of 1896 on the file of the District Munsif of Kasargod is the fact that certain Karars were not produced which the courts now think ought to have been filed in the interest of the tarward. This is certainly not sufficient to show that the suit was not conducted bona fide by the plaintiffs therein, viz., the successor of the Karnavan against whom the decree in O.S. 192 of 1894, on the file of the Kasargod Munsif's Court was passed and the senior Anandravan of the family, who was the de facto manager of the family under a Karar. The suit was actively and earnestly prosecuted, and the plea founded on the conditions in the Karars was strongly pressed by the plaintiffs, but was overruled by the court. It is not suggested that there was frau...
Tag this Judgment!Meenatchee Achi Vs. Ananthanarayana Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ380
1. Following the decision in Suhbayya v. Saminadayyar I.L.R. 18 M. 496 we overrule the preliminary objection that S.A. No. 1132 of 1900 does not lie. As an appeal lies, C.R.P. No. 386 of 1900 which was presented in the alternative is rejected, but without costs. We also overrule the preliminary objection that C. R. P. No. 343 of 1900 which is preferred against the order of the District Judge in O.M.A. No. 9 of 1900 does not lie, by reason that the appeal did lie to the District Court, and that though the Munsif who passed the order appealed against acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction with raptorial irregularity, yet the order passed by the District Judge on appeal cannot be revised by this court under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code, though in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction he failed to set aside the order appealed against which was erroneous in consequence of the Munsif having acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. The suit was instit...
Tag this Judgment!The Aryan Bank of Vizagapatam (Unlimited) by the Ag. Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ212
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 37 of 1896 (Pauper Appeal No. 5 of 1900 on the file of the High Court) against the order of the District Judge of Vizagapatam, dated 30th August 1901, declaring in Court under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act the amount due to the decree-holder for principal and interest on the mortgage up to 7th August 1901, on taking an account as directed by the decree of this Court, dated 7th February 1901, in the above appeal. The respondent's pleader raises the preliminary objection that no appeal lies to this Court against the said order, and he admits that, if this objection were well-founded, the account itself should have been taken in. this Court and the order fixing the amount should have been declared in Court by this Court on the 30th of August 1901. In our opinion the objection is not well-founded and the order appealed against is really one falling under Section 244(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, being a question arising b...
Tag this Judgment!Velu Rengasami Chetty and ors. Vs. Balakrishna Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ366
1. Exhibit C the Razinama between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 149 of 1893 conclusively shows that the plaintiff herein relinquished the debts due to him by the 1st defendant therein under certain mortgage bonds the property comprised in which along with other property was allotted to the one-half share of Gangadara, the plaintiff therein and that in consideration of this relinquishment the plaintiff herein was to receive 4 kanis of land therein described. In proof that plaintiff entered into such a transaction, his attestation was taken to Exhibit C in which such transaction was recited. Acting on this transaction Gangadara obtained a decree on the compromise he entered into in C with the 2nd defendant. But for the plaintiff's consent to the transaction, Gangadara would have insisted on an allotment to him of additional property in satisfaction of his full half share. We may add that as between the plaintiff herein on the one hand and the plaintiff and 2nd defendant in ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Bhagavathar Vs. Sundararaja Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ267
1. In support of this second appeal it is urged that the plaintiff (appellant) is entitled to a decree against the 5th defendant (the 1st respondent), firstly, because the 5th defendant has not proved that he suffered any damages for want of notice of dishonour of the bill, secondly, because no notice of dishonour is necessary, since the 5th defendant, the drawer, and the 6th defendant, the drawer and acceptor, are partners, and thirdly, because the 5th defendant received notice of dishonour of the bill by the acceptor, within the# meaning of Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The 1st contention is governed by Section 98(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act which runs as follows--' No notice of dishonour is necessary when the parties charged could not suffer damage for want of notice'. It is clear that the onus is upon the plaintiff who relies upon this exception to the general rule enacted by Section 30,that the drawer of a bill of exchange is bound, in case of dishonour ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Iyengar Vs. R.G. Orr and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ449
1. The plaintiffs are the lessees of the Sivaganga Zemindari in Madura District. The defendants are ryots with permanent occupancy rights in their lands. The question for decision is whether babul trees which have grown on the defendants' pattah land belong by law to the plaintiffs or to the defendants. The Courts below have held that they belong to the plaintiffs. Against this decision the 1st defendant appeals. We have no doubt the appeal is well founded. The plaintiffs do not rely on agreement or any custom whereby their right to the trees is established. The first issue as to the ownership of the trees was originally in general terms, but at the request of the plaintiffs' vakil it was restricted to 'whether the plaint trees belong, by law, to plaintiffs or to defendants.' The plaintiffs contend- and the courts below have held, that 'according to Regulation XXV of 1802 the proprietary right in the soil vests in the Zemindar, and as it is a well established principle of law that the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›