Chennai Court July 1902 Judgments
Rathnam Pillai Vs. Pappa Pillai Alias Sundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ292
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. On an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis the District Munsif fixed a day under Section 408 and held an investigation under Section 409 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At this investigation no evidence appears to have been given either in proof or in disproof of the pauperism of the applicant, but certain documents were put in evidence on behalf of the defendant ; and the Court, relying on the decision reported in Vijendra Thirthaswami v. Sudhindra Thirthaswami I.L.R 19 M. 197 dismissed the application on the ground that the evidence on record showed the applicant had no subsisting cause of action. I think the evidence referred to in. Section 409 is evidence in proof or disproof of the pauperism of the applicant-not evidence as to the merits of this case.2. I cannot adopt the view taken by Sir Subramania Aiyar ,J., in the case of Vijendra Thirthasami v. Sudhindra Thirthaswami I.I.R. 19 M. 197 and I think K. Ranganayaka Ammal v. K. Venkatachellapa...
Tag this Judgment!Viraraghava Perumalayya Vs. Sitaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ401
1. Under Section 16 of the Religious Endowment Act XX of 1863, it was open to the Judge to refer any matter in difference in the suit for decision by an arbitrator, but it was not open to him to refer the whole suit for decision to an arbitrator as he has done in this case.2. One result of this irregularity has been that the arbitrator has drawn up a scheme for the management of the temple which not even the District Judge had the power to do under the Act.3. On this ground we allow the appeal, and reversing the decree, remand the suit to be replaced on the tile and disposed of according to law.4. Costs of the appeal to abide and follow the result. The memorandum of objections is dismissed without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Kani Rowthan Vs. Visvanatha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ471
1. Though in the former suit the question whether each of the defendants had mortgages upon the property was a matter which was in issue between the plaintiff and the respective defendants, there was no such issue as between the defendants themselves. So long as the interests of the 5th defendant were protected by the decree for sale being subject to his mortgage, it was entirely immaterial to him whether it was subject to other mortgages or not. There was no question of priority or of redemption gone into and the rights of the parties were not further dealt with than by making the decree for sale subject to certain encumbrances of which the 5th defendant's was one. In these circumstances there was no res judicata as between the 5th defendant and his co-defendants.2. The decrees of both the lower Courts must be reversed and the suit remanded to the Court of First Instance for disposal according to law. The costs in this and in the lower appellate Court will be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Narasinga Row Vs. Muthaya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ389
1. We think the decree of the appellate Court should be reversed.2. The only person who can be sued in an action for malicious prosecution is the person who prosecutes. In this case though the 1st defendant may have instituted criminal proceedings before the police, he certainly did not prosecute the plaintiff. He merely gave information to the police, and the police after investigation appear to have thought fit to prosecute the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is not responsible for their act, and no action lies against him for malicious prosecution (see judgment in S.A. No. 805 See 12 M.L.J. 349.3. We must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the Additional District Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Ramamurthi Aiyar and anr. Vs. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ385
1. The plaintiffs' representatives, who tog ether with the plaintiff (since deceased) were appellants to the lower Court, put in their appeal some time after the period allowed for entering the appeal had expired.2. They had made no application for copies of the decree or judgment appealed from but put in copies obtained by the 2nd defendant who was one of the respondents to the appeal. The Subordinate Judge held that the appeal was in time, because he held that the time taken by the 2nd defendant in obtaining the copies put in could be considered, and also because the plaintiffs' representatives were minors and limitation did not run against them.3. We are of opinion that neither of these grounds can be supported and must hold that the appeal was out of time. The memorandum to appeal to the lower Court must be rejected, the decree of the lower Court set aside and the decree of the District Munsif restored with costs of the 3rd and 4th defendants who are appellants here, in this and in...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad603
1. The material facts of this case were not in dispute before their Lordships, and they can be briefly stated.2. The Raja of Ramnad was the proprietor of the zamindari of the same name. On the 4th July 1895, he executed a reversionary lease of portions of his zamindari in favour of Ramasami Chettiar. The lease recited that there were subsisting leases affecting the properties demised, some of which would not expire till the fasli year 1318, corresponding to A.D. 1911. The new lease was accordingly made to commence with the fasli year 1319; it was expressed to be perpetual, the annual rent was fixed, its recovery, as well as that of road-cess and other charges, was provided for; and the rights and obligations of both parties defined. A counterpart of the lease was executed; and both lease and counterpart duly registered.3. During the negotiations for the lease it was agreed between the Raja and Ramasami that, in consideration of his obtaining the lease, Ramasami should pay to the Raja a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›