Chennai Court September 1903 Judgments
ismai Kani Rowthan Vs. Nazarali Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ25
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. The only ground urged and argued in this appeal is that the decree appealed against should have provided for payment to the appellant of compensation, before he is evicted from plots A, B and C, the measure of compensation being the present market value of the buildings erected thereon by him, after he had taken a lease of plots A and B in 1875 for a term of 20 years and of plot 0 in 1887 for a term of 3 years. In Exhibits B and C--counterparts of the leases relating to plots A and B--it is. expressly stated that the appellant took a lease of the lauds for constructing a building thereon for carrying on trade and in Exhibit D, which relates to plot 0, it is provided that the appellant, who was then erecting a thatched house on the plot, would remove the same and vacate the site in case the lessor (1st respondent's father) wanted it to construct a building thereon, for the Thaikkal to which the plots belonged.2. In regard to plot C, no question of compensation th...
Tag this Judgment!Gangathara Aiyar and anr. Vs. Veta Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ144
1. The stamp duty on the memorandum of second appeal has now been paid on. Its. 714 being the amount for the realization of which the property was attached. Before the lower appellate Court could have called upon the respondents in that Court to pay the deficiency of ad valorem fee on the said amount on their plaint in the original Court, the defendants, the appellants in that Court, should have been ordered within a time to be fixed to pay the deficient stamp duty on the memorandum of appeal presented by them. The lower appellate Court having failed to do this, we reverse the order of the lower appellate Court and remand the appeal to the lower appellate Court and direct that it be restored to the file of that Court and disposed of according to law with reference to the foregoing observations. The costs of this second appeal will be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Sessions Judge of South Arcot
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1903
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.802
ORDER1. The Political Agent under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code certified that the offence which the accused was alleged to have committed out of British India was one which ought to be inquired into in British India. He did not, as the Sessions Judge assumes, sanction a prosecution for an offence under certain specified sections of the Penal Code.2.The charge upon which the accused has been committed is in connection with the offence which the accused is alleged to have committed out of India in respect of the prosecution of which the Political Agent granted his certificate. The order of commitment is good not with standing it is an order of commitment on a charge which is not specified in the certificate.3. We, therefore, decline to interfere....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Masha Sabjee Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1903
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.856
ORDER1. In the circumstances, in which the order of transfer was made, to which our attention has now been called by the Public Prosecutor, we are of opinion that the order was perfectly proper. No adequate explanation is forthcoming as to the extraordinary delay in the disposal of this simple case. It has been on the file of the 3rd Class Magistrate of Vaniambadi for 15 months and has now been ripe for judgment for 6 months. We do not hesitate to characterise the delay in the disposal of this case as scandalous.2. It has been urged that the order of transfer was illegal on the ground that no opportunity was given to the accused to show cause against the making of the order. Although as a general rule, notice should be given [See the case of Alagirisami Naidu 26 MN. 41, the failure to give notice does not render an order of transfer illegal.3. The circumstances of this case are so special that we decline to say that the order of transfer was bad on the ground that no notice was given t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Thiruvengidachariar Vs. Ranganatha Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ500
1. The decision is clearly right as regards items Nos. 2 to 5.2. As regards item No. 1 whether the same was transferred by the father or by the brothers, it is not invalid by reason that it is not in writing registered. It is clear from paragraph 17 of the Munsif's judgment that some other land belonging to the sister was sold by the plaintiff and his brothers about three years before the partition from which item No. 1 was excluded. The sister, therefore, had a claim against the brothers in respect of their having disposed of her land. It is, therefore, dear that plaint item No. 1 was allowed by the brothers to be retained and enjoyed by the sister by way of compromise of her claim in respect of the land belonging to her which they had sold. Such being the real character of the transaction it is not a gift nor a sale nor an exchange under the Transfer of Property Act. No writing therefore was necessary and this appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Achutan Nair and anr. Vs. Kunjunni Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ499
1. The suit is brought by the junior members of a tarwad against the karnavan and their claim is to enforce their right to participate in the joint enjoyment of the tarwad property in accordance with the terms of the family karar. The case referred to by the Subordinate Judge is the claim of a female member of a joint Hindu family under the Mitakshara law to separate maintenance and is wholly different inasmuch as she is not a joint owner with the other members, but is entitled only to maintenance.2. This suit, therefore, is not 'a suit relating to maintenance' within the meaning of Article 38 of the 2nd Schedule of Act IX of 1887, but it is within the meaning of Article 11 of the same schedule 'a suit for the enforcement of right to or interest in immoveable property' of the tarwad, and in that view it is not cognisable by a Court of Small Causes....
Tag this Judgment!Chinnammal Vs. Mahomed Madarsa Ravuther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ343
ORDER1. The valuation for purposes of jurisdiction is also determined by the value fixed by plaintiff (See Section 8 of Act VII of 1887).Where, therefore, a plaintiff sued for cancellation and delivery of a mortgage bond for Us. 4,000 but valued the relief at Rs. 50, such valuation cannot be revised by the Court and the suit is triable by a District Munsif s Court.2. No rules are framed by the Madras High Court under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act with reference to suits referred to in Section 1, para, iv of the Court Fees Act.3. Valuation of suits referred to in paragraph, iv of Section 7 of the Court Pees Act and for determining the jurisdiction of courts, but no such rules have been framed applicable to the cancellation and delivery up of an instrument in writing. Until such a rule is framed the valuation given in the plaint by the plaintiff cannot be revised. Sivaiyama v. Minammal I.L.R. 23 M. 490 and Gururajamma v. Tenkatakrishnarnma Ghetti I.L.R. 34 M. 34.4. We, therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuvaien Represented by His Agent, Venkataramier Vs. Periasami Iyen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ497
1. Although the matter immediately dealt with by the Privy Council in Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry v. Kalisundari Debi L.R. 9 C. 482 and by this Court in Sabapathi v. Narayanasami I.L.R. 25 M. 555 related to the opening sentence of Section 588, Civil Procedure Code, and it was held that Section 585, does not operate to control Section 15 of the Letters Patent which provides for an appeal from the Judgment of single judge of the High Court, to the High Court yet the reasoning open which the decisions proceed and particularly the decision in Subapathi v. Narayasami I.L.R. 25 M. 555 are equally applicable to the construction to be placed on the concluding sentence of Section 585, Civil Procedure Code, declaring that orders passed in appeals under that section shall be final,2. It is clear that the word 'final' is not used in the sense that it is not subject to review by the same Court or to revision by the High Court or to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Section 595 Civil Procedure Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Chettiar Vs. Appa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ485
1. Prior to the institution of the former suit by the same plaintiff against the same defendant, O.S. No. 140 of 1882, the plaintiff had tendered to the defendant a permanent patta fixing the rent at the rate now claimed, and it was decided in that suit that the defendant was bound to accept that patta, and that accordingly he should accept it and execute a muchilika. As a matter of fact the patta was not accepted nor the muchilika executed by the defendant after that decree. The present suit is for the recovery of arrears of rent for over four years prior to the suit at the rate specified in the patta already referred to which had been registered prior to its being tendered. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's claim for rent for three years and disallowed the prior rent claimed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Both parties appealed to the District Judge with the result that the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that no pattas and muchilikas had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasami Solinga thevan Vs. Gopalasami Sivaji Mohithei and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ281
1. The 1st respondent as the holder of a decree for money in O.S. No. 237 of 1886 against one Rajagopalasami, the step-brother of the appellant and his two younger brothers, attached the three items of property mentioned in the plaint and purchased the same in Court sale. The appellant has brought this suit to obtain a declaration that he is solely entitled to the property and that his step-brother the judgment-debtor has no right, title or interest therein. He relies upon the decrees in O.S. Nos. 193 and 142 of 1890 and O.S. Nos. 146 and 147 of 1889 as res-judicata in his favour. The respondents (the 2nd respondent being the undivided brother of the 1st respondent) denying the exclusive title of the appellant, apparently contended that Rajagopalasami and his step-brothers were not divided, that they (the respondents) as purchasers in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 237 of 1886 against Rajagopalasami acquired his one-fourth share in the plaint items and that so far as item No. 3 wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »