Chennai Court August 1902 Judgments
Aiyyagari Venkataramayya and anr. Vs. Aiyyagari Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad690
Arnold White, C.J.1. In the case of Rangasami v. Krishnayyan I.L.R. 14 Mad. 408 the point which was before the Full Bench for consideration was whether, where the purchaser from a member of an undivided family of his share of the family property sues for partition, the share to be awarded to the plaintiff is to be computed with reference to the state of the joint family at the date of the purchase or at the date of the suit. The Full Bench held that the share was to be computed with reference to the state of the family at the date of the suit. In the course of the judgment the question now before us was considered. In discussing the contention which had been put forward (though the question did not arise on the facts of the case then before the Court) that if the vendor died before the purchaser effected a partition, the purchaser would take nothing, the Judges point out that the purchaser acquires a vested interest by the sale and that the vendor being competent to sell, his subsequen...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeva Pandia Vs. Rama Narayana Pandia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ75
1. The following are the undisputed facts of this case. The plaintiff and the defendant's father were brothers. They both got employment about the year 1870 in the Public Works Department as Overseers with decent salaries. The defendant's father died in 1875 leaving three infant boys aged from 6 years downwards, the present three defendants. After his death these three children lived with their paternal grandfather, the plaintiff's father, in Saint Thomas Mount, Madras. The plaintiff lived in distant places whenever he was posted for work. The family had then property consisting of houses and land valued at some Rs. 6,500 yielding a rental of from Rs. 300 to 400 a year, and a fund of Rs. 8,000 invested in Government promissory notes of the 4 per cent. loan. There were also valuable family jewels which the plaintiff values at Rs. 8,200. The defendants admit that the plaintiff is entitled to his half share of the houses and land and to a half share of the fund of Rs. 8,000, which convert...
Tag this Judgment!MoidIn Kutti Vs. Abdulla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1902
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ207
ORDER1. It appears that ther is a market in Pathipala village and that one Moidin Kutti set up a rival market close to it. The Head Assistant Magistrate issued a notice to Moidin Kutti under Section 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code to show why cause, why he should not be ordered to discontinue holding the new market and having heard the rival market holder passed an order under Section 136 Code of Criminal Procedure, closing the new market. The District Magistrate having referred the matter to us as a Court of Revision, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order.2. It is utterly impossible to hold that because there is already one market in a village a man who opens another market close to it can be held to be carrying on a trade or occupation that is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community. It is not even alleged that the new market causes any injury to any one's health or comfort. All that is said here in support of this order is that people in one market ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaraman Chetty and anr. Vs. Kuppumuthu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ72
1. The judge should not have remanded the suit to the District Munsiff. The whole case and all the materials necessary for adjudication were before him and he should have disposed of the appeal. The 1st defendant having obtained a decree on his prior mortgage without forming the plaintiff as a party and having in execution purchased the mortgaged property, the right of the plaintiff as a puisne mortgagee to redeem the 1st mortgage is not affected by either the decree or sale. The only effect of the sale will be to transfer to the 1st defendant, the purchaser, the equity of redemption of the mortgagor who alone was a party to that suit. The plaintiff is therefore clearly entitled to redeem the prior mortgagee in favour of the 1st defendant without prejudice to the right of the 2nd defendant as assignee from the 1st defendant of the mortgagor's equity of redemption to redeem the plaintiff on payment of the amount of the mortgage on the item of property mentioned the plaint and the propor...
Tag this Judgment!Manjunatha Kamti Vs. Devamma Alias Gunthiamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ444
1. We are clearly of opinion that this case comes under Article 64 of the 2nd Schedule attached to the Limitation Act. It is urged that there were no reciprocal demands between the plaintiff and the defendants in this case and that, consequently, Exhibit A cannot be looked on as an account stated. The judgments in Ganga Prasad v. Ram Dayal I.L.R. 23 A. 502 and Shankar v. Mukta I.L.R. 22 B. 513 are relied on in support of this contention. If these judgments do bear the interpretation put on them, we should not be prepared to follow them, as we are clearly of opinion that in order to bring a case under Article 64 it is not necessary that there should be reciprocal demands between the parties. Even if, however, we did accept their view, there would be no ground for interference with the decision of the learned Judge, as the evidence of the 1st defendant examined as the 1st witness for the plaintiff shows that there were reciprocal demands. Under Section 251 of the Contract Act, it is clea...
Tag this Judgment!Seni Chettiar Vs. Santhanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ70
1. Section 497 of the Civil Procedure Code has no application to this case. Damages under that section must be awarded by an order of the court in the suit and can only be given if it appears to the court deciding the suit that there was no probable ground for instituting the suit. We agree with the Subordinate Judge in the view he has taken of this case in paragraph 7 of his judgment and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Suri Venkata Subbaraya Sastri Vs. Darappareddi Kristnaiya and O
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1902
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ526
1. It appears that these lands were held by Timmalapally Ramakrishnamaiya and others, but as to when they got possession there is no evidence, They fell into arrears and Meruvu Gopalaswami, the vendor to the defendants, was allowed to come into possession of the lands on condition of his paying the arrears. Such being the case it must be assumed that Meruvu Gopalaswami continued to hold the lands on the same terms as his predecessors. In 1891 Meruvu Gopalaswami sold his rights over the lands to the defendants. The plaintiff is a purchaser from an Inamdar, but it is not alleged or proved that the lands themselves were given to his vendor as Inam, or, in other words, that the kudivaram or any portion of it was granted to him as Inam. There is consequently no presumption that the predecessors in title of the defendants derived their title to the kudivaram from the Inamdar. Such being the case the Subordinate Judge has rightly thrown on the plaintiff the onus of proving that be is entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Suri Venkata Subbarayya Sastri Vs. Darappareddi Kristnaiya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1902
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.358
1. It appears that these lands were held by Timmalapally Ramakrishnamaiya and others, but as to when they got possession there is no evidence. They fell into arrears and Meruva Gopalaswami the vendor to the defendants, was allowed to come into possession of the lands on condition of his paying the arrears. Such being the case it must be assumed that Meruvu Gopalaswami continued to hold the lands on the same terms as his predecessors. In 1891 Meruvu Gopalaswami sold his rights over the lands to the defendants. The plaintiff is a purchaser from an inamdar, but it is not alleged or proved that the lands themselves were given to his vendor as inam, or, in other words, that the Kudivaram or any portion of it was granted to him as inam. There is consequently no presumption that the predecessors in title of the defendants derived their title to the kudivaram from the inamdir. Such being the case the Subordinate Judge has rightly thrown on the plaintiff the onus of proving that he is entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!Suri Venkata Subbaraya Sastri Vs. Darappareddi Kristnaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1902
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.566
1. It appears that these lands were held by Timmalapally Ramakrishnamaiya and others, but as to when they got possession there is no evidence. They fell into arrears and Meruvu Gopalaswami, the vendor' to the defendants, was allowed to come into possession of the lands on condition of his paying the arrears. Such being the case it must be assumed that Meruvu Gopalaswami continued to hold the lands on the same terms as his predecessors. In 1891 Meruvu Gopalaswami sold his rights over the lands to the defendants. The plaintiff is a purchaser from an Inamdar, but it is not alleged or proved that the lands themselves were given to his vendor as Inam, or, in other words, that the Kudivaram or any portion of it was granted to him as Inam. There is, consequently, no presumption that the predecessors-in-title of the defendants derived their title to the Kudivaram from the Inamdar. Such being the case, the Subordinate Judge has rightly thrown on the plaintiff the onus of proving that he is enti...
Tag this Judgment!Nagasawmy Aiyar and ors. Vs. Ramaiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ445
1. In suit No. 213 of 1900 the plaintiffs, who are defendants to the present suit, sued the plaintiffs in the present suit for dissolution of partnership. Among the terms and conditions of the partnership as set out in the plaint (and apparently not denied by defendants in that suit) are the following : That 'the defendants should work in the business as working partners for a period of five years, but that should during the said' period disputes arise between the parties or only a small profit 'be returned, then the plaintiffs should have the option of dissolving the partnership'. In this suit the defendants (the present plaintiffs) raised the following plea:Defendants submit that this suit should be dismissed with' costs, or if the court is of opinion that the partnership ought not 'to continue, plaintiffs be ordered to pay the defendants in addition to their share of the profits already earned damages for the' unexpired portion of the said period of 5 years calculated on 'the said p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »