Chennai Court August 1903 Judgments
Chidambara Mudaliar Vs. Koothaperumal, Minor, by His Guardian Renganat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ181
1. It is now established by a uniform course of decisions that a debt incurred by the father which is not shown to be illegal or immoral is even during the lifetime of the father binding upon the son's interest in the family property and that any alienation voluntary or involuntary made to discharge the debt is binding upon the son. In the case of a mortgage debt incurred by the father the debt is the primary obligation and is binding upon the son if it is not for an illegal or immoral purpose and the mortgage is only a collateral security for the discharge of the debt either by receipt of the rents and profits by the mortgagee or by causing it to be sold after the debt has become payable. If the debt is binding upon the son the discharge of the debt either by making a usufructuary mortgage, or by enforcing the security by sale is equally binding upon the son inasmuch as he has thereby become exonerated from liability to discharge the debt of the father by means of. other, joint family...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Vs. Bappu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ484
1. In this case a preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies.2. The appeal is from an order directing that the security given by a surety under Section 336, C.P.C. should be realized in execution against the surety.3. Section 336 extends the provisions of Section 253 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the enforcement of the bond against the surety, and there is a uniform course of decisions in the case of an order against a surety under Section 253 of the Code that the order is appealable in the same manner as orders passed under Section 244 of the Code in execution of decrees. These decisions must in principle be equally applicable to orders against sureties under Section 336. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection and hold that an appeal lay to the lower appellate court and a second appeal to this Court. The cases cited in Krishnan Nayar v. Ittinan Nayar I.L.R. 24 M. 637--and Banna Mal v. Jamna Das I.L.R. 15 A 183 do not apply. The former applies to the case of a su...
Tag this Judgment!Parthasarathy Appa Row Vs. Rangiah Appa Row and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ501
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Court of Godavari directing the payment out of Court of one-third of certain moneys standing to the credit of Original Suit No. 35 of 1895 in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Masulipatam on security being furnished. The material facts and dates with reference to the circumstances in which the application was made are as follows:In 1895 the Medur Renee instituted Original Suit No. 34 of 1895 in the Masulipatam Court to recover possession of the Medur Estate. One Papamma Row and the Court of Wards were made defendants to that suit. For the purposes of to-day it will be sufficient to say generally that Papamma Row alleged that she had validly adopted Narayya Appa Row, the son of the Medur Ranee. The boy died during the life-time of the Medur Ranee and of Papamma Row. The Medur Ranee claimed the Medur property on the ground of her rights as natural mother, whilst Papamma Row claimed it on the ground of her righ...
Tag this Judgment!Mulji Dhanji Seit and anr. Vs. the Southern Mahratta Railway Company, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ396
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The first question for determination in this appeal is whether on the facts found, the defendant companies are protected from liability by reason of the terms of the special contract described as a Risk Note Form B subject to which the plaintiff's goods were carried by the defendants. The contract is in these terms.2. T.K. Station, 5--10--99.3. Whereas the consignment of 162 bags grain tendered by me (us), as per forwarding order No. 4 of this date, for despatch by the S.M. Railway administration or their transport agents or carriers to Calicut Station and for which I (we) have received Railway Receipt No. 4 of same date, is charged at a special reduced rate instead of at the ordinary tariff rate chargeable for such consignment. I (we), the undersigned, do in consideration of such lower charge, agree and undertake to hold the said Railway administration and all other Railway administrations working in connection therewith and also all other transport agents...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Musani Chenchi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ102
1. In S.A. Nos. 92 and 93 of 5 902. In those two cases, we must hold that the plaintiff was entitled to refuse to accept the relinquishments proposed to be made by the tenants inasmuch as these relinquishments were of portions of the entire dry lands comprised in the holdings which portions, are not earmarked and not capable of identification. It appears that what is virtually a consolidated assessment is imposed on the whole of the dry land in each holding although in ariving at the total sum the rent on a portion of the area is calculated at a higher rate than on the rest of the dry land. Under such a system, it is clear that a tenant cannot relinquish a portion of his dry holding as if that portion was a separate field bearing a separate assessment. We accordingly allow these two second appeals with costs in this Court and in the Lower Appellate court, set aside the decrees of the District Judge and restore the pigments of the Sub-Collector.2. In S.A. No. 94 of 1902. Here the holdin...
Tag this Judgment!Sankarachariar of Kumbakonam by His Agent, Pattabhirama Aiyar Vs. Vara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ429
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. In this case the suit was brought by the petitioner, a landlord, against the defendant, his tenant, for the recovery of rent of the Fasli year 1310. Before suit a patta had been tendered, but was not accepted. At the trial the defendant urged that certain terms in the patta, to be referred to and considered later on, were such as to entitle him to refuse to accept the patta. The District Munsif agreed with the contention and dismissed the suit. The petitioner whilst denying that the terms of the patta referred to were open to such objection contended that, even if they were, the defendant was estopped from raising any such question in the present suit inasmuch as pattas containing precisely similar terms had been accepted for a series of years in respect of the same holding. 2. Without taking any evidence as to the truth of the allegations on which this contention was based the District Munsif held that even assuming the allegations to be true they could not sup...
Tag this Judgment!Sankarachariar of Kumbakonam by His Agent, A. Pattabhiramier Vs. Murug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ438
1. The order of the District Munsif transferring these suits from his regular file to the small cause side was improper. We must therefore set aside his order and decree that the suits be restored to his file on the regular side and proceeded with according to law.2. Costs of these petitions will abide and follow the event....
Tag this Judgment!Veeranna Pillai and anr. Vs. Muthukumaru Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ439
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs in the present suit had brought a previous suit O.S. No. 510 of 1898 on the tile of the District Munsif's Court of Madura, against nine persons inclusive of the first two defendants in the persent suit who were the 8th and 9th defendants therein, The plaint in that suit, in effect stated that on the 9th august 1864, Suppan Asari, fatner of the plaintiffs in that suit, had for the sum of Rs. 245, stipulated to be re-paid in 3 years, obtained from Palani Kumaru Pillai, grandfather of the then 1st and 3rd defendants and father of the 2nd defendant's husband and Muthu karuppa Pillai, father of the then 4th and 5th defendants, a mortgage of the lands now in dispute, which had vested in the mortgagors to the exclusion of third brother, the then 6th defendant, father of the 7th defendant, and after certain other averments, to which reference will be made later on, prayed for a decree for re-payment of the mortgage amount, as well as of certain other sums...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chetti Vs. Murugappa Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ341
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura (East) in a suit which was brought by the respondent to enforce his trun of management of the plaint temple and its endowments, for a period of 3 years commencing from the 15th July 1899.2. It is admitted that the plaint temple (with its endowments) is a public religious institution that the trusteeship thereof is hereditary in the family of the parties to the suit, but that the family has no beneficial interest in the property or income of the temple. Mayandi Chetti, the grandfather of the respondent and the great-grandfather of the appellant, was the last sole trustee, and on his death, the office devolved by inheritance on his male descendants by his two wives. Four of them were his grandsons or great-grandsons through his first wife, and the other four grandsons or great-grandsons through the second (see paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge). Under the notion apparently, that Mayandi's proper...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Subbanna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ426
1. It is urged that as the notice sent by the plaintiff to the Municipal Council of Kurnool on the 7th September 1901 was obviously defective the suit should have been dismissed. The notice was defective in that it did not, as required by Section 261 of the District Municipalities Act, specify the amount claimed as compensation or damages. I am, however, of opinion, that applying the principle on which the decision in Eales v. Municipal Commissioners of Madras I.L.R. 14 M. 386 was decided it should be held that the District Munsif was right in not dismissing the suit on the ground that the amount of the loss or damage sustained was not clearly specified in the notice, especially as it is shown that when on the Municipal Council having informed the plaintiff that the notice was defective, he asked them to inform him in what respect it was wanting and that they took no notice of his not unreasonable request, It is further contended that the provisions of Section 262 of the Act are a bar ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »