Chennai Court September 1902 Judgments
Ghulam Ghouse Sha and Sahib Kadiri Aergal Vs. Venkatachalam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ316
1. It is shown that the 28th August 1899 was gazetted as a general public holiday. Such being the case, it is clear that that day should have been looked on as a dies non for purposes of limitation and excluded from the 30 days allowed. The fact that the Sub-Collector chose to attend office on that day cannot affect the question.2. We set aside the decree of both the lower Courts and direct the Divisional Officer of Kumbakonam to retake the suits on his file and dispose of them according to law. Costs in this and the lower appellate Court will be costs in the cause. The Court-fees paid in this Court and in the lower appellate Court will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Adilakshmi and anr. Vs. Venkataramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ359
Arnold White, C.J.1. The main contention put forward on behalf of the appellants in this case was that the claim is barred as res judicata by reason of the adjudication in a suit brought in 1896 by another reversioner, the plaintiff's elder brother, in which the then plaintiff sought to have the alleged adoption set aside. This suit was dismissed upon the ground that it was barred by limitation. The point now relied on was not raised in the issues and was not taken in the Courts below. Strictly speaking, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to raise it here. We, however, allowed the question to be argued. The period of limitation prescribed by Article 118 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877 for obtaining a declaration that an alleged adoption is invalid, or never in fact took place, is six years from the time when the alleged adoption became known to the plaintiff. The arguments urged on behalf of the appellants have failed to satisfy me that a meaning other tha...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Setti Vs. Srinivasa Row Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ371
1. The objection that a second pattah could not be issued for the second crop on land for which a pattah had already been issued cannot be insisted upon, so far at any rate as Fasli 1308, to which the suit relates, is concerned, inasmuch as the appellant accepted the first pattah for that fasli without demur, according to the practice in force for several years preceding. Such practice amounted to the pattah being reduced to writing in two separate papers, which is unobjectionable so long as both the papers are tendered within the fasli, as was done in this case. It may be that neither party is bound to continue the practice in future, but whichever party objects must give timely notice to the other of his objection, The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Pandaram Vs. Kuppu Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ471
1. The suit is to enforce the payment by the defendant of a certain quantity of paddy, that the defendant is liable under Exhibit A to pay to his sister whose right the plaintiff has bought in court auction.2. The first objection is that the allowance that the defendant had to pay to his sister was an allowance for her maintenance, and therefore this suit as being one relating to maintenance is not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The allowance, however, was not made to the defendant's sister by way of satisfaction of her right to maintenance ; she had no such right. The allowance was to be paid out of the income of her own property which she was making over to the defendant. It was therefore, in the nature of an annuity.3. The petition is dismissed with costs,[This judgment was subsequently confirmed in L.P.A. No. 46 of 1902 by Mr. Justice Benson and Mr. Justice Bhashyam Aiyangar: ED.]...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanasami Gurukkal, Vs. Irulappa Nadan and 13 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ355
ORDER1. In these petitions three persons seek to be joined as respondents in Appeal Suits Nos. 11 and 77 of 1900 pending in this court. Both appeals are identical, but were filed in two courts owing to a doubt as to jurisdiction. The respondent, who was plaintiff in the suit, does not oppose the petitions, but appellants who were defendants in the suit, object on two grounds, via., (1) that there is no ground shown in the petitioner's affidavits for joining them, and (2) that they ought not to be joined as respondents in the appeals, but if at all, as plaintiffs in the suit.2. The plaintiff, as Zemindar of Ramnad, is the hereditary trustee of the Minakshi Sundareswaraswami temple and as such trustee he brought the suit (O.S. No. 33 of 1898) for a declaration that neither the defendants nor other Shanars were entitled to enter the temple and for an injunction restraining them from so doing, and he obtained a decree to that effect after a protracted trial. The Shanars filed the appeals n...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Vs. Sobhanadri Appa Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ134
1. In Second Appeal No. 80 of 1901 affirming the decision of the District Judge we have found that the resumption of the 15 kattis by the Zemindar was legal. The parties in the present appeal were parties therein and the above matter was litigated between them. The present claim is, therefore, barred as res judicata by the decision in that suit. Subbammal v. Huddleston I.L.R. 17 M. 273Ahmed v. Moidin I.L.R. 24 M. 444 Gururajamma v. Venkatakrishnama Chetti I.L.R. 24 M. 350 and Balkishan v. Kishan Lal I.L.R. 11 A. 148.2. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur Zemindar Vema Reddy Abbuta Row Naiy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ209
1. The finding of the District Judge that the lands were given to the Nayaks as remuneration for services of a private nature to be rendered to the Zemindar has not been attacked on any legal ground, and we are bound by it. That being so, it was competent to the Zemindar to gave notice and resume the lands. It is found that since 1882 the services have been discontinued, and that shortly after 1882 the Zemindar took possession of the 15 kattis of land which had been in possession of the peons. In 1886 the Zemindar gave formal notice to the Nayaks that he would at the end of the fasli resume possession of the 3 kattis of land which were in their possession It is contended for the appellants that as there was no similar notice in regard to the 15 kattis, the resumption thereof was unlawful. But as the services had been discontinued and possession of the 15 kattis had been resumed by the Zemindar since 1882 to the knowledge of the Nayaks, we must hold that the Nayaks acquiesced in what wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Chetty Vs. Pachaiappa Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ354
1. In our judgment the present suit is not 'a suit... against the certified purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of any other person' within the meaning of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The certified purchaser is no doubt a defendant to the suit, but there is no contest between him and the plaintiff, the former has never disputed the plaintiff's title, and, in fact, at the trial of the suit he deposed that he purchased the property on behalf of the plaintiff and delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff. On this ground the case appears to be clearly distinguishable from Viraraghava v. Venkata I.L.R. 16 M. 290 upon which the District Judge relied. There is apparently no case in which it has been held, that from the mere fact that the certified purchaser is a defendant, there being no contest between the plaintiff and the certified purchaser, Section 317, C.P.C. is a bar to the suit against persons who, as the plaintiff alleges, are wrongfully in...
Tag this Judgment!The Sub-collector of North Arcot (Through the Collector of North Arcot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ65
ORDER1. On a careful consideration of the evidence we think it is clear that the pleader meant that the letter should reach the hands of the Sub-Collector as an anonymous letter and we think he aggravated his original offence by attempting to make out that he intended the letter to be signed by his clients and he thought it was going to be so signed before it was despatched to the Sub-Collector.2. On the other hand, the Pleader's conduct in making no attempt to conceal the fact that the letter was written and sent by him although it purports to have been written by 'one of the witnesses in this case,' seems to show that he entirely failed to appreciate the impropriety of his Act.3. The evidence establishes that the pleader wrote a letter which he did not sign, to an officer who was conducting an enquiry into a charge of bribery against a Revenue Inspector, in which letter he made allegations which were intended to prejudice the mind of the officer in connection with the matter which he...
Tag this Judgment!Achutan Nambudri Vs. Koman Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ217
1. The finding that the plaintiff had notice of the agreement to renew, evidenced by Exhibit I, is not seriously impugned. We accept the finding.2. But it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the kanom held by the 2nd defendant is really a lease, and that Exhibit I, as an agreement to renew a lease, is a lease, according to the definitions of that term in Section 3 of the Indian Registration Act, and that its registration is therefore compulsory under Section 17(d) of the Act, and also that though Exhibit I contemplates the execution of a further document, yet Clause (h) of Section 17 of the Registration Act does not exempt Exhibit I from registration, in as much as the exemption under Clause (h) is limited only to the instruments specified in Clauses (6) and (c) of Section 17. It is further contended that if the kanom held by the 2nd defendant is to be regarded in law as a mortgage, not as a lease, the agreement to give a renewed kanom will be for the original kanom amount of 200...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »