Chennai Court December 1903 Judgments
Pakkiam Pillay Vs. Seetharama Vadhyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ134
1. The mam appears to have been granted originally for the support of a spiritual office in the village, the right to appoint to the office being vested in the Brahman Community of the village. At the time when the inam title-deed was issued in 1865 the holder of the office was Rama Sastri, in whose name the title-deed was issued. But it is clear from the Inam statement (Exhibit H) of Rama Sastri that he did not claim the inam as his hereditary personal inam, but only as the then incumbent of the office. It is found that the 1st plaintiff is now the de facto and de jure holder of the office. The inam title-deed, no doubt, in terms declares that the inam is the absolute property of Raina Sastri which he may hold or dispose of, as he thinks proper, but this must be construed as intended to operate only as between Rama Sastri and the Government which could have resumed it under Regulation XXV of 1802.2. The inam title-deed, therefore, cannot confer on the 1st defendant any title or right ...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Consolidated Sugar and Spirit Factories, Limited Vs. Willia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ443
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies' Act against the judgment of Boddam, J., decreeing a sum of Rs. 89,421-0-5 (with interest) in favour of the plaintiffs carrying on business at Madras under the name and style of Parry & Co. The said amount represents the value of a certain quantity of char, bones, &c.;, which along with other property movable and immovable, was agreed to be sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant Company, under an agreement (Exhibit D) dated the 1st December 1897. The learned Judge has decreed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiffs discharged the defendant Company from its liability to them(sic) n respect of the sum of Rs. 7,97,460-11-0--in-cluding the above item of Rs. 89,421-0-5--by reason of a mistake, common to both the plaintiffs and the defendant. The mistake was in believing that the East India Distilleries' Company (incorporated under the English Companies' Acts 1862 to...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Narasiah Vs. Mangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ340
1. In these cases the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suits when they were instituted, viz., on the 30th June 1897.2. Madras Act, II of 1894, was extended to the office of Village Accountant in the Venkatagiri Estate during the pendency of the suits; but this did not take away the jurisdiction of the LJourt to decide the suits then pending before it and thus take away the plaintiff's right of action in the ordinary Civil Courts.3. It is a general rule that when the Legislature alters the rights of parties by taking away or conferring any right of action, its enactments, Unless in express terms they apply to pending actions, do not affect them. But there is an exception to this rule, namely, where enactments merely affect procedure, but do not extend to rights of action' per Jessel M.R. in In Be Joseph Suche and Co. 1 Ch. D. 50.4. There is nothing in the wording of Section 21, Madras Act III of 1895, to negative the application of this general rule.5. The only other p...
Tag this Judgment!Periasami Mudaliar and anr. Vs. T. Seetharama Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ84
Benson, J.1. With regard to the first question referred for our decision, it is difficult to see on what principle a judgment-debt due by a father should be less the subject of a pious obligation on the part of his son than any other debt due by the father. That the debt is not the same as the original debt seems clear. It may, in fact, be more, or it may be less. Even though it be more than the original debt the father by virtue of the judgment is bound to discharge it. A judgment of a competent court creates a duty on the part of the father to discharge the sum decreed and there is no reason why such a debt should be excepted from the rule of Hindu Law which imposes a pious obligation on the son to discharge his father's debts, provided they were not incurred for what are technically described as immoral or illegal purposes.2. I would, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative.3. As regards the second question, if the suit had been brought on the original cause of actio...
Tag this Judgment!Nellayappa Pillaiyan and ors. Vs. Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ81
1. The reference states the defendants are permanent lessees of the melvaram rights of the plaintiff who is a Zemindar. Although the defendants are the 'tenants' of the plaintiff in. the sense that they are bound to pay rent to the plaintiff, yet the defendants are obviously, we think, not tenants in the sense in which that word is used in Section 12 of the Act. The defendants being lessees of the melvaram are farmers under an Inamdar and belong to the class of landholders specified in Section 3 of the Act. Sections 3 to 12 inclusive refer to the relations between these landholders and their tenants. For the purposes of Section 12, the defendants are not in the position of tenants, but of landlords. The proviso in Section 12 embodies the common law rule with regard to tenants (ryots) holding under the landholders named in Section 3, but was n*ot intended to app]y to persons who like the defendants are landholders though bound themselves to pay rent to a superior landlord for a term of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council of Mangalore by Its Chairman Vs. Rev. L. Doneda, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ410
1. The preliminary question arising in. this case is whether the cognizance of this suit by a Civil Court is barred by Section 262, Sub-section (2) of the District Municipalities Act (Madras) IV of 1884; and that depends upon whether with reference to the proviso to that Sub-section it can be held that the provisions of the Act have been in substance and effect complied with by the Municipality, if as contended by the Respondent (the owner of a Printing Press in Mangalore) he is liable to be taxed under the Act, with reference only to the profits of his business and not the gross receipts. Under Section 53 and Schedule A to the Act, the class under which he is liable to be taxed depends upon his ' estimated income ' and if the meaning of the word 'income' in Schedule A be ' profits' or 'net income' and not gross income it will be impossi-ble to maintain that the provisions of the Act have been in substance and effect complied with if the municipality have, as admitted, taken the estima...
Tag this Judgment!Kristraya Vs. Venkataramaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1903
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1077
1. With regard to the re-union of the brothers Lakshimpati and Sitaramayya, alleged by the defendants, we think that Exhibits VIII, IX and IV amply support the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge, and prove the re-union. But the Vakil for the appellant contends that even if there was such re-union the death of one of the re-united brothers would have a special consequence under the Hindu Law, different from the consequence, which follows on the death a co-parcener of an ordinary Hindu family that has never, been divided. He contends that the son of the. brother who had re-united would be entitled to the share which his father could have obtained if he had divided from the family immediately before his death; and that he would not have the status of a re-united member with his uncle. We do not think that this contention can be supported by any text of the Hindu Law, or by any reported case, and it seems to us to be opposed to the fundamental conception of the status of an undivided Hind...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ37
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, Officiating C.J.1.The question raised in this case is indeed a very important one, though the amount in dispute is but a trifle--four annas and one pie--being the amount collected by Government from the appellant in connection with his having erected a platform and a shed over a portion of a path, by the side of which his house is situated in a village in the Kistna District. The effect of the findings by the Lower Court, I take to be that the owners of |the houses adjoining the path inclusive of the appellant, have only a right of way over it, the free-hold in the soil being vested in the Government.2. The point for determination is, whether the levy of the amount in question as land-revenue payable in respect of the site of the platform and the shed, is lawful. A levy of the kind under consideration is known in the language of Revenue Standing Orders as a ' prohibitory assessment.' That the practice of making such collections has been allowed to prevail so long ...
Tag this Judgment!isack Jesudasen Pillai Vs. Ramaswamy Chetty, the Official Liquidator o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ345
1. A preliminary objection is taken that notice was not given within the three weeks required by Section 169 of the Companies Act of 1882- Without deciding what this 'notice' is, we think, that if such notice is necessary, the present is a fit case for extension of the time.2. We accordingly extend the time to the 27th July 1903, the date on which, notice was, in fact, given.3. On the merits we think that the order of the learned Judge dismissing the petition is wrong.4. The petitioner admittedly failed to bring forward his claim within the time fixed in the notice published under Section 156 of the Act; but this omission does not preclude him from coming in at a later stage to prove his claim, nor does it necessitate his resorting to a suit to be instituted with special leave of the Court under Section 136, as contended by counsel for the Official Liquidator. The only penalty for failure to come in within the time stated in the notice is the penalty prescribed in the latter part of Se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›