Chennai Court February 1903 Judgments
Edamanna Vs. Kannan Nayar and ors. and Manya Umma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ322
1. We are of opinion that the answer to the question referred must be that one of two co-uralans may bring a suit to redeem a mortgage without averring or proving that the other uralan was asked to join as plaintiff in the suit.2. It would be impossible to hold otherwise in the face of Sections 91 and 85 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. These sections were apparently not considered when I.L.R. 24 M. 296 was decided....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vijiaraghavachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ171
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. It is necessary first to consider the charges against the 3rd and 7th accused, whom the 11th accused has been charged with abetting.2. Taking up the charge under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code, the question on which practically the case turns is whether the recitation by the two accused during the procession in question of Prabandhams or Tamil hymns was illegal, not on the ground that it was against any usage of the institution, but with reference to the decision in O.S. No. 295 of 1886 in the District Munsif's Court of Conjeevaram. That decision only declared that the Tengalais were entitled to the Office of Adhyapakam, and in that capacity, as usual to recite the Prabandham on all the prescribed occasions of worship, without let or hindrance by the Vadagalais. It did not in the least affect the rights of the Vadagalais as ordinary worshippers. Having regard to the fact that that suit was entirely in relation to an office, it must, even if the decision ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppusamy Aiyar and anr. Vs. Venkataramier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1903
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ462
1. The question which has been referred to a Full Bench is whether, on the facts of this case, the claim of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 95 of 1898 for mesne profits in respect of the period between the institution of O.S. No. 21 of 1804 and the decree therein is res judicata or is barred by the provisions of Section 373 of the Code. The facts are as follows:On January 26th 1894 the plaintiff instituted a suit (O. S. No. 21 of 1894) in which he claimed the recovery of possession of certain land, mesne profits for the three faslies prior to the institution of the suit and future mesne profits until delivery of possession. This suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal and in his memorandum of appeal stated that mesne profits would be made the subject of a separate suit. The Lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and allowed the plaintiff's claim with mesne profits as claimed in the plaint. The defendants then preferred a second appeal to this...
Tag this Judgment!Subrahmanyam Vs. Venkamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ239
1. This is a suit to obtain a declaration that the adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant- the widow of one Ramayya is invalid on the grounds that the 1st defendants had no authority from her husband to make the adoption, and that the alleged assent of the 3rd defendant alone to the adoption is invalid and insufficient in law. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are divided brothers, being the nearest existing cousins of the deceased Ramayya, who died issueless about 20 years ago, leaving him surviving no undivided member of his family. The 2nd defendant, who is the son of a remote gnati of the deceased, was, shortly before the institution of this suit, adopted by the 1st defendant, who purported to adopt him in pursuance of her husband's oral authority and of the assent of the 3rd defendant and some other gnatis. The District Judge disbelieved the evidence as to the oral authority given by the husband, but upheld the adoption on the grounds that, according to the proper co...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundara Mudaly by His Guardian, Salakshi Anne Vs. Duraisami Mudali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ283
1. The appellant (1st defendant) alleges that the adoption was made under an authority to adopt given in the so-called will, Exhibit 1. This document is in no sense a will, i.e., a testamentary disposition of property (Vide Section 3, Act V of 1881). It is an authority to adopt and nothing else and the direction therein given to put the adopted son into possession of the property cannot be construed as a devise of the property. It is simply a statement of the consequences that should legally follow on the adoption. Musmmat Bhoobun Moyce Debia v. Ram Kishore Acharjee Chowdhry 10 M.I.A. 2792. The authority to adopt being in writing and not contained in a will, its registration is compulsory, and, unless registered, it is inoperative to confer such authority (Sections 17 and 49, Indian Registration Act 111 of 1877). We may add that there is no evidence except Exhibit I to prove that authority was given, assuming that such evidence could be adduced-an assumption that is doubtful, the quest...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Nambudri and anr. Vs. Krishna Pisharoti Karnavan and Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ274
1. Even assuming that Exhibit I operates as an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, (as to which we express no opinion), we see no reason to doubt the soundness of the principle upon which the judgment in the case reported in Krishna Pillai v. Rangasami Pillai I.L.R. 18 M 462 proceeded. Following that case we hold that this second appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasawmy Mudaliar Vs. the Official Assignee to the Estate of S. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ278
1. This is an appeal from an order of Boddam, J., allowing the claim of the Official Assignee of the estate of one Raghavalu Naidu, an insolvent, as against an attaching creditor of the insolvent. The material dates are these: On February 6th, 1900, the creditor obtained an order under Section 483 of the Code of Civil Procedure attaching before judgment, a sum of Rs. 40,000 which had been deposited with Messrs. Parry & Co. by the insolvent as security for the performance of his duties as a dubash, and a further order under Section 268 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the insolvent from receiving this sum of Rs. 40,000 from Messrs. Parry & Co., and restraining Messrs. Parry & Co. from paying it to the insolvent. On July 25th, 1900, the creditor obtained a decree against the insolvent for Rs. 12.000 odd. On February 18th, 1901, an order of adjudication in insolvency was made on the petition of the insolvent, and an order was subsequently made under Section 7 of the Insolvency A...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Chetty Vs. Subbier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ308
1. The appellant sued on a promissory note made by the 1st defendant alone and joined the undivided nep-new of the 1st defendant as a party (2nd defendant) to the suit on the ground that the promissory note was for a debt binding on the family including the 2nd defendant.2. Neither defendant appeared and District Munsif on the 25th August 1899 passed a decree ex parte against both the defendants, which, as properly construed, means that the 1st defendant the maker of the note, is personally liable for the sum sued for and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount decreed also from the interest of the 2nd defendant in the Joint family property. This decree proceeds on the footing that the debt was incurred for a family purpose. The 2nd defendant alone applied under Section 108, C.P.C. alleging that he was not duly served with a summons and praying that the decree passed against him ex parte might be set aside. The District Munsif set aside the decree in to to, that is, as aga...
Tag this Judgment!Amirdam, Minor by Her Guardian, and Maternal Uncle Muthukumara Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ303
1. The document the registration of which the plaintiff seeks, to compel is in part a deed of gift (subject to a obligation) and in part an appointment of a guardian of the person and property of certain minors.2. We are unable to uphold the ground on which the District Registrar refused registration. The document so far as it appoints a guardian is not a document relating to immoveable property within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Registration Act any more than a power of attorney authorizing an agent to collect rents of immoveable property is such a document. Registration, therefore, of that part of the document can be compelled as against the legal representatives of the executant if the document was really executed by the executant just as its registration could have been enforced against the executant himself if alive.3. But so far as the document is a deed of gift though an onerous one, its registration cannot be compelled either against the donee or his legal represent...
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Mudali Vs. Ponnusami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ275
1. This is a revision petition against an order of the District Munsif of Vellore setting aside an award. The dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration without the intervention of the Court under Section 525 of the Code. Consequently Sections 525 and 526 are the governing sections. Section 526 provides if no ground such as is mentioned or referred to in Section 520 or Section 521 be shown against the award, the Court shall order it to be filed, and such award shall then take effect as an award made under the provisions of this chapter-' The Munsif in making the order setting aside the award purported to act under Section 526. It seems to me that, in making an order under this section, it was only competent for him, either, if he was satisfied that no ground such as is mentioned in Section 520 or Section 521 was shown, to order the award to be filed or, if he was satisfied that such ground was shown, to dismiss the application to file the award, In my opinion it was not co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›