Chennai Court March 1903 Judgments
Venkatasubbiah and anr. Vs. Pichamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ287
1. We are clearly of opinion that the decision of the lower appellate Court is erroneous as regards limitation and that the suit is saved from the bar of limitation by Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The former suit in the Ongole District Munsif s Court comprised all the items of property involved in the present suit. The two plaintiffs who prosecute the present suit are the only plaintiffs who instituted the former suit, though on application made by the son of a deceased reversionary heir of parallel grade with the plaintiffs, he was joined as a co-plaintiff. The defendants having objected to the jurisdiction of the Ongole District Munsif, a Commissioner was appointed to value the lands and in the result it was held that the value of the suit exceeded the jurisdiction of the District Munsif and the District Munsif, therefore, ordered the plaint to be returned. Within a few days of this order the present plaintiff presented a petition to the District Munsit offering to withdraw thei...
Tag this Judgment!Nagasamy Aiyar Vs. Perumal Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ475
1. Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code is clearly inapplicable and is no bar to the suit. The former suit was based on a specific lease for a term of years, which being unregistered, was inoperative. The former suit, therefore, was rightly dismissed on that ground. The former suit was really one for possession, not for an injunction. A prayer for an injunction to the defendant to have a house, is really nothing more than a prayer for possession.2. It was also found in that case that payment of rent was proved and that there was thus a tenancy from month to month which was not terminated.3. The present suit is one for possession based upon title, and therefore on a cause of action different from that on which the former suit was based. Section 43 therefore cannot bar the present suit. The District Munsif in this case finds that the defendants occupy the house as plaintiff's tenants which is really in accord with the finding in the former case that the tenancy is one from month to mon...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimham Vs. Madhavarayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ323
1. The 2nd defendant who was the presumptive reversionary heir of one Venkatrayudu on the death of the latter's widow, executed during his life-time a mortgage deed in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of a portion of Venkatrayudu's estate. This was in 1892. In 1896 the 2nd defendant purported to convey to the widow of Venkatrayadu for a consideration of Rs. 400, his interest in the whole of Venkatrayadu's estate. Some twenty days after that conveyance she made a gift of the mortgaged property and other property to the plaintiff on the footing that she became the absolute owner by reason of the 2nd defendant's conveyance to her. The 1st defendant subsequently and after the death of the widow brought a suit on the mortgage of 1892, and became the purchaser in execution of the decree and obtained delivery of the property. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover possession on the strength of the gift in his favour by the widow and his claim was allowed by the Court below.2. The 1s...
Tag this Judgment!Kothandarama Routh and anr. Vs. Murugesa Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ372
1. The question which has been principally argued in support of this second appeal is that the composition-deed to which among others the appellant was a party and which was executed after the order of the Insolvency Commissioner in the High Court was passed, and before the dismissal of the insolvent's petition and the re-vesting order, is inoperative to transfer the property comprised in the composition-deed to the plaintiff and other persons appointed as trustees and that it cannot therefore prevail against the attachment made by the appellant, though such attachment was made subsequent to the composition-deed.2. Having regard to Section 7 of the Indian Insolvency Act, 1848, we think that this argument is untenable. That section provides that in case after the making of any vesting order, the insolvent's petition should be dismissed, the vesting order shall from and after such dismissal become null and void subject, however, to the condition that all acts done by the Official Assigne...
Tag this Judgment!Kandiyil Cheriya Chandu Vs. the ZamorIn of Calicut and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1903
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad515
1. In the former suit (No. 212 of 1898), the present eighth defendant, claiming under an assignment by way of melcharth from the sixth defendant therein (the predecessor in title of the present plaintiff, the Zamorin of Calicut) sued to ejeot the then first defendant (now second defendant) as being in possession under a sub-lease given to by the then seventh defendant who was alleged to be a lessee under the then sixth defendant. The then sixth defendant supported the then plaintiff's claim. The then first defendant, however, claimed the property as his own jenm property and as having been in possession as absolute owner for more than 12 years. Though his jenm title was held not to be proved, it was held in that suit that the sub-lease was not proved, and that the then first defendant did not hold the property as a tenant of the Devaswom represented by the then sixth defendant. It was also held that then first defendant was in possession as owner for more than the statutory period and ...
Tag this Judgment!Suryanarayana and ors. Vs. Venkatarama Alias Kannepally Ramavadhaunlu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ318
1. The question is as to the validity of the adoption in 1898 of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant on behalf of her husband who died in 1861. This was a second adoption, a prior adoption having been made in 1885 but the son then adopted died shortly afterwards. Both adoptions were made on the authority of the 2nd defendant's husband, together with the assent of some of his sapindas, on each occasion.2. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the District Judge in finding that the 2nd defendant's husband did authorise his wife to adopt to him. The authority as proved by the witnesses was in general terms requiring her to adopt so as to continue his line and to provide for his spiritual benefit. He did not indicate any particular person for adoption either by name or otherwise and placed no restrictions whatever on his wife's discretion.3. Such being the case, the first question is whether to authority so given was exhausted by the first adoption, or whether on the death of the son t...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Thavaslandi thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1903
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1039
ORDER1. We are disposed to agree with the Head Assistant Magistrate that the facts alleged do not amount to an offence tinder Section 211, Indian Penal Code; but if the Magistrate believed as he apparently did believe, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Magistrate should have framed a charge of an offence punishable under Section 182(a) of the Indian Penal Code, as the facts clearly amount to an offence under that section, read it must be in connection with the obligation imposed on the Village Magistrate by Section 45(c), Criminal Procedure Code.2. The case of the Queen v. Periannan 4 M. 241 is not an authority against this view, since in that case the learned Judges only held that no offence punishable under Section 182(6) was committed. We set aside the order of the Magistrate and direct him to make further inquiry into the alleged offence under Section 182(a) of the Indian Penal Code....
Tag this Judgment!The Darmakarta of Sri Bhaktavatsala Swami Temple Vs. T. Luchimi Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ325
1. There is no enactment which in terms requires a ' landholder' to be registered before he can exercise the powers conferred by Act VIII of 1865.2. Section I of the Act enumerates two classes of persons who, for the purposes of the Act, are included in the term ''land-holders.' The enumeration of the persons in Clause 2 concludes with the words ' and all other registered holders of land in proprietary right.' It has been argued that these words have the effect of limiting the application of the word of Clause 1 to cases where the persons therein enumerated have been registered. We do not think the section can be so construed, Assuming on the true construction of the section that the words of limitation qualify the words of Clause 2, they cannot be taken to qualify the class of persons enumerated in Clause 1. The word 'Jaghirdars' as used in Sections 1 and 3 of the Act is not confined to registered Jaghirdars,3. We think the case Subbu v. Vasanthappan I.L.R. 8 M. 351 was rightly decide...
Tag this Judgment!Suryaprakasa Row Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ380
1. The suit is one brought to recover money alleged to have been illegally levied by Government on account of fees said to be due to the karnam of the village. The fees were levied under Madras Act II of 1864, and the plaintiff who is aggrieved by the action taken under that Act is required by Section 59 to bring his suit within six months of the date when the cause of action arose. The present suit is admittedly not brought within that time and is therefore barred and it is unnecessary to go into the merits. 2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Pundi Doraisami Tever Vs. Lakshmanan Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ285
1. Assuming without deciding that the defendant was bound to pay to the mortgagor, on the date of sale the amount of mortgage money subject to which the sale was made and that notwithstanding the absolute release given by the mortgagor to the defendant on the 4th July the date of payment of the mortgage amount--the plaintiff was bound to pay the mortgagor the interest between the date of sale and the 4th July following--not paid by the defendant--this suit for damages for breach of defendants covenant to pay the mortgage amount to the mortgagor on the date of sale cannot be sustained. The plaintiff does not aver in the plaint that he paid such interest but only that he gave promissory notes for the interest to the mortgagor which as his first witness says were 'purposely got executed and taken with a view that they may be required if litigation arises ' and he has therefore suffered no damage at the date of the suit by reason of the alleged breach of covenant by the 1st defendant which...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »