Chennai Court January 1903 Judgments
Sappani Asari Vs. the Collector of Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ472
1. It is not necessary for us to consider the question of the validity of the first grant upon which the plaintiff relies, since we are clearly of opinion that under the second grant to the 1st defendant the plaintiff had, at the date of the institution of this suit, a good title to the site in question. The grant of the site was duly made by the Tahsildar. Section 9 of Regulation II of 1803 does not apply since the matter is not governed by any Regulation in force in 1803 or by any Regulation subsequently enacted. The matter is governed by executive orders of Government, which direct that the right of appeal from a Tahsildar's order with reference to the grant of a house-site shall be to the Sub-divisional officer (not to the Collector) and that the order of the Sub-divisional officer shall be final. At the time the 2nd grant was made by the Tahsildar an appeal lay from his decision to a Divisional officer, An appeal from the decision of the Tahsildar was brought to the Sub-Collector....
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Bavu Sahib Vs. the District Judge of Madura
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ272
ORDER1. Notice was issued to the District Judge, but the Government Pleader does not appear. Objection is taken by the petitioners to the action of the District Judge on the ground that he acted on affidavits. We think that it was open to the District Judge, under Sections 194, 195 and 647, Civil Procedure Code, to act upon affidavits filed in support of the application made by the Vakils to have the petitioners declared to be law touts; though in a matter of this kind we think it would have been more regular and satisfactory to have examined the deponents in Court as witnesses. We observe, however, that no objection was taken before the District Judge on this score, nor did the petitioner even apply as they might have done to have the deponents examined or cross-examined in Court. We must, therefore disallow this objection. We, however observe that the District Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in extending the operation of this order to the Criminal Courts in the District oth...
Tag this Judgment!Singaravelu Udayan Vs. Ramayer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ306
1. The plaintiff's contention is that he has a lien on the moneys in the hands of the 3rd and 25th defendants on the ground that these moneys are the proceeds of the sale of the 1st defendant's (the plaintiff's mortgagor's) interest in the land. No authority has been cited which supports this contention, and we do not think it is well-founded. Section 138 of the Transfer of Property Act relates to. the transfer of a debt and has no application to the present case, Gurney v. Seppings 15 L.J. Ch. 385. No question of the right to follow moneys into the hands of third parties was involved.2. The only question was with reference to the rights of the parties to the mortgage transactions, and this case, so far as it is in point at all, is an authority against there being anything in the nature of a charge from the mere fact of realization. The fact that the 3rd and 2 5th defendants received the moneys with notice of the plaintiff's mortgage does not, it seems create any equity in his favour a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ari Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ271
1. The notification which authorized the adjournment of the Court for the vacation makes provision only for the receipt of certain papers and the grant of copies of documents on certain days during the vacation.2. The Court must be regarded as closed for other purposes. The payments therefore made on the first day after the vacation must be regarded as made in time....
Tag this Judgment!Kattai Mahammad Meera Mohiden and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ269
1. The appellants and others were the joint owners of certain assessed dry lands and held a joint puttah for them. At the settlement of the district in 1873-74, they appear to have requested the Collector to remit the assessment in order that the land should be used as a gramanattam, that is, village house sites. The actual application and order are not produced by either side, but the Settlement Register is filed and it shows that the lands now in question were entered therein as gramanattam poramboke, and unassessed and were removed from the puttah.2. The Settlement Register is a document which is published and which is within the knowledge of all the villagers and it is not denied that the plaintiffs must have had knowledge of how the land had been classified and registered. The plaintiff took no exception to what was done. In 1894 the revenue authorities found that the plaintiffs were in occupation of the land without permission and imposed a penal assessment in order to force them...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Ramanujachariar Vs. Subbachariar by His Next Friend, Sriniva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ267
1. The plaintiff's right has been established in both the courts below, and that right has not been successfully impugned in this Court.2. The plea strongly relied on by the appellant is that the declaratory relief as to the Tasdik amount is barred by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, and that Article 131, relied on by the District Judge, is inapplicable to the case. We accept the contention that Article 120 is applicable, and that the prayer for a general declaration of the plaintiffs' right to receive annually the Tasdik amount direct from Government is therefore barred inasmuch as the right to sue for such declaration accrued long before six years prior to the suit. But though the remedy for such relief is barred, the right to receive the Tasdik as it accrues from year to year is not extinguished, and inasmuch as the plaint also prays for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the amount of Rs. 554 in deposit with the Collector on account of arrears for eight years, the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Patumma and ors. Vs. Idivi Beari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ265
1. We think that the view taken by the learned District Judge is erroneous. The application made by Pathumma to execute her decree was made to the proper Court and was made in accordance with law. The fact that the Court could not, by reason of the attachment of the decree, immediately execute it on Pathumma's application, does not render her application one not in accordance with law. All that Section 273 of the Civil Procedure Code requires is, that the Court receiving notice of attachment '' shall stay execution ' unless and until certain events take place, that is, it prevents the Court from proceeding with the execution until such events take place, but it does not render the decree permanently incapable of execution by the decree-holder, or destroy the decree-holder's interest in it. It merely delays the realisation of his interest in it. To hold otherwise would manifestly open a wide door to fraud by collusion between the judgment-debtor and persons attaching the decree with the...
Tag this Judgment!Sabapathy Patter and anr. Vs. Murukhan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ266
1. Having regard to the fact that under the decision of the Courts prior to the recent Full Bench decision reported in Vedapuratti v. Vallabha Valia Raja I.L.R. 25 M. 300, a redemption decree was not regarded as a bar to a second suit for redemption, and that the petitioners were thereby misled as to the necessity for redeeming strictly within the time limited by the decree on pain of altogether losing the right to redeem. We think the Subordinate Judge might properly in the exercise of his discretion have extended the time for redemption granted by him in the appeal against the decree. We accordingly extend the time to three months from this date, but we direct the appellants to pay the respondent's costs in this appeal and in the lower Court....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›