Chennai Court August 1902 Judgments
Raja Simhadri Appa Row Vs. Ramachandrudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ23
1. The decision of the Court of Appeal in O.S. No. 1 of 1897 on the file of the District Munsif of Gudivada that the rate of rent for the class of lands now in question is Rs. 6 per acre is clearly res judicata in favor of the landlord, the defendant in this suit, and the fact that by virtue of Section 586, C.P.C. no second appeal lay to the High Court in that case, does not make such decision inoperative as res judicata in the present suit Ahmed v. Moidin I.L.R. 24 M. 444. The contention that, as the former suit was a regular suit and the present only a small cause suit, the decision in such former suit cannot operate as res judicata in the present suit because the District Munsif of Gudivada cannot take cognizance on his regular side of this suit which is a Small Cause Suit is manifestly untenable, Under the Small Cause Courts Act a suit cognizable by a Small Cause Court is not to be instituted and tried by an ordinary Civil Court if, and so long as, within the local limits of its ju...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarayana Reddyar Vs. Subhadri Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ7
Arnold White, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued on a promissory note executed in her favor by the defendant. The execution of the note was admitted by the defendant. The defendant's plea was that he executed the note in consideration of an undertaking by the plaintiff that the plaintiff would bring her daughter to the defendant's village in South Arcot, and put her under his protection as his concubine during the rest of her life, and that she (the plaintiff) failed to carry out the undertaking. The issue was 'was the consideration for the plaint promissory note immoral, and is it void for failure of consideration as alleged in the written statement? 'It seems to me that the latter portion of the issue is unnecessary. If the defendant was able to show that the consideration for the note was immoral, the question whether the consideration failed or not would be immaterial.2. At the trial the execution of the note having been admitted by the defendant, and the onus being on him, he went into the...
Tag this Judgment!Sinnu Pandaram Vs. Santhoji Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ398
1. We are of opinion that the application for execution should have been dismissed absolutely. The transfer of the decree in O.S. No. 39 of 1897 to the appellant will take effect against the judgment-debtor (Santhoji) in respect of the cross decree which he obtained for a larger amount against the transferrer in O.S. No. 7 of 1895 on the 3rd February 1900 only on some day subsequent to the 23rd October 1900, when alone he had notice of the assignment, it not being alleged that he had notice prior thereto. That being so, on 3rd February 1900 the decree for a smaller amount in O.S. No. 39 of 1897 became incapable of execution under the equitable principle enunciated in Section 246, Civil Procedure Code, and at the date of the completion of the transfer by notice as against Santhoji, the decree in O.S. No. 22 of 3897 was subject to such equity and therefore under Section 233 the appellant as assignee of the decree sought to be executed was subject to such equity.2. In our opinion Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmuga Mudaly and ors. Vs. Palnati Kuppu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad613
Arnold White, C.J.1. In Second Appeals Nos. 1095 and 1096 of 1900.--The construction of the last paragraph of Section 10 of the Rent Recovery Act, 1865, seems to me to be clear. The section enacts that if within a given period from the date of the Collector's judgment the defendant does not accept the patta as approved or amended the defendant may be ejected. The word 'accepted' implies an offer and the use of the word 'default' also shows that the Legislature intended there should be an offer as a condition precedent to an order for ejectment being obtained. In the case of Court of Wards v. Darmalinga I.L.R. 8 Mad. 2 the suit was for rent. I cannot adopt the view that the judgment of the Collector amending the patta constitutes a sufficient tender to entitle the landlord to eject the tenant and if the decision is to be regarded as an authority for this proposition, I respectfully dissent from it. The provision in Section 10 is a penal one and ought to be construed strictly. It seems t...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Iyer Vs. Doraisami Tevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ22
1. This suit clearly falls under Article 18 of the second schedule to Act IX of 1887 being a suit relating to a trust. The plaintiff was appointed by the author of the trust and not by the trustees as editior, and relying upon that appointment he claims that the defendants as trustees should carry out the direction in the instrument of trust and pay him his salary as therein provided until his resignation. If the plaintiff, therefore, has any cause of action, it is to enforce the carrying out of one of the directions in the instrument of trust, i.e., to enforce the performance of the trust in so far as it relates to the plaintiff. In this view the plaint should have been returned to be presented to the proper court, and it is accordingly now ordered to be returned. The revision petition is otherwise dismissed but without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja of Vizianagaram Vs. Lingam Krishna Bhupati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ473
Davies J.1. In Appeal No. 17 of 1901. - Following the decision of this Court in the case of Gilkinson v. Subramania Aiyar I.L.R. 22 M. 211 I must bald that there is no appeal in this case and accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.2. In appeal against order No. 12 of 1901. - I agree with the District Judge that there was no sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the plaintiffs' Vakil in court when the case was called on for hearing and therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.3. In Civil Revision Petition No. 40 of 1901. - In this case the Judge dismissed the suit under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure for default of the appearance of the plaintiff's Vakil at the time the case was called on. As the case was part-heard and this was an adjourned date of hearing, the appropriate section of the Code under which the Judge ought to have acted was Section 157. Under that section he could either have dismissed the suit for default or passed such other order as he thought fit....
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami Konan Vs. Sellaperumal Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ3
1. In 1877 the 1st defendant purchased out and out certain plantain trees from the party from whom he took on the same day a lease of the land upon which the trees were growing. In the recital to the lease deed the trees are described as the ' entire plantain plaintation on 1,100 guils.' In 1887 the 1st defendant purported to mortgage the trees on 1,600 gulis. At the time of the mortgage the 1st defendant was certainly the absolute owner of the trees on 1,100 gulis. As regards these trees the plaintiff acquired the rights of a mortgagee and his rights were not affected by the fact that in 1896 the 1st defendant's lease was determined.2. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 177-4-0 with interest at 12 per cent, per annum from November 6, 1887, by the sale of the plaintain trees on the 1,100 gulis as described in Exhibit II.3. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs through out payable by 3rd defendant....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›