Chennai Court September 1904 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lakshmamma Vs. Krishniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ490
1. We are clearly of opinion that the suit as brought will not lie neither as a suit for possession nor as a suit for the recovery of the money The plaintiff is not entitled to possession, for the property was not mortgaged to him and he is not entitled to another decree for the recovery of the money as he has already got one. We must, therefore, reverse the order of the District Judge remanding the suit for trial and restore that of the District Munsif dismissing the suit with the defendant's costs in this and in the District Court....
Mothu Rangaya Chetty Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ226
1. The plaintiff, a trader delivered a parcel containing silver jewellery of the value of Rs. 115 to the Post-Master of the Kotwal Chavady Post Office, Trichinopoly for transmission to one Krishna Chetty at Colombo, Ceylon, as a value payable Article. He also registered and insured the parcel for Rs. 115. He duly paid the fees and obtained receipts and the Post Office took charge of the parcel.2. This action was brought to recover from the Secretary of State for India in Council the value of the jewellery as the Post Office would neither pay the money nor return the article to the plaintiff. The defence is that by some mistake of a clerk in the Post Office the parcel was delivered to and accepted by the addressee without its value being collected from him, and liability is disclaimed as regards the insurance because the article was duly delivered and as regards the non-collection of its value under the proviso to Section 34 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. That proviso runs as foll...
In Re: Subbaraya Vathyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ489
ORDER1. The District Magistrate professes to have been acting in a judicial proceeding so as to give himself jurisdiction to act under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His calling up the records under Section 435 is not a judicial proceeding as declared in Queen-Empress v. Kuppu I.L.R. 7 M. 560 and as he did nothing else that would constitute a ' judicial proceeding,' he had no power to make the order that he did under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further to adopt, the procedure under Section 476, immediate action is contemplated and to take such procedure after the lapse of several months is illegal.2. The order of the District Magistrate is accordingly reversed....
Ramaswamy Pantulu and anr. Vs. Narayanamoorthy Pantulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ480
1. In O.S. No. 157 of 1864 in the District Mun-sif's Court at Berhampore, the widow of one of five brothers who were Hindus, brought a suit against her husband's surviving brothers, four in number, for her maintenance and got a decree making them laible to pay the same to her periodically. The maintenance, however, was not made a charge on any property. Venkatasubba Rao was the judgment-debtor who survived last and the decree-holder took out execution against him after the death of the other judgment-debtors and recovered Rs. 197 and odd, The plaintiffs, who are the sons of Venkatasubba Rao, sue the defend-ants who are the sons of one of the judgment-debtors that prede-ceased Venkatasubba Rao for a fourth of the amount paid by the plaintiffs in execution of the decree as aforesaid. The lower appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. It is contended for the defendants that no second appeal lies in the case and this objection is clearly well founded as the suit is one which does ...
Muthana Kone and anr. Vs. Kumarasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ6
1. We are clearly of opinion that the decree in the suit of 1876 under which the sale, now impeached, took place was not intended to confine the judgment creditor's right to a sale of the mortgaged property. The provision in the decree that the judgment-creditor should not be entitled to proceed against the person of the judgment-debtor implies that the court did not prohibit the sale of property other than that mortgage, should it be necessary to sell such property for the realization of the decree amount. In this view the sale in question was not open to any objection. 2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Seetaramayya Vs. Ramachandrudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ1
1. When a judgment-debtor is declared an Insolvent under Section 351, Civil Procedure Code, after an enquiry under Section 350, Civil Procedure Code, he is entitled to be discharged from jail and cannot again be arrested under the decree in execution of which he was imprisoned (Section 341, Civil Procedure Code).2. With the declaration of insolvency, the Court may also discharge the insolvent under Section 851, Civil Procedure Code, or if a Receiver is appointed by the Court he may be discharged under Section 356, Civil Procedure Code, after a certificate from the Receiver that the insolvent has placed him in possession of all his property or has done everything in his power for that purpose. After he has obtained his discharge as above under Section 351 or 355, Civil Procedure Code, he cannot again be arrested or imprisoned on account of any of the scheduled debts (Section 357, Civil Procedure Code). In the case before us, a Receiver has been appointed, and the question for decision i...
Ramalinga Mudaly Vs. Aiyadorai Nainar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ493
1. Both the courts are agreed as to the import-ant facts in the case. Though what purports to be a sale-deed for money was executed and registered by Sabapathy Pillai to the 1st defendant, yet the instrument was not delivered to him but retained by Sabapathy Pillai himself, who also remained in possession of the property until he made the transfer in favour of the temple repre-sented by the plaintiffs and subsequently held possession under the temple as their tenant until his death. It was subsequently to his death, ten years after the supposed sale to him that the 1st defend-ant took possession of the property. The defendants' plea that the intended transfer to him was in consideration of Rs. 300 actually paid was untrue. The explanation on behalf of the plaintiffs of the transaction was that Sabapathy Pillai intended to marry the 1st defendant's daughter and that the transfer was to be in consideration of such marriage which, in fact, never took place and that the 1st defendant havin...
Suppa Reddiar Vs. Avudai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ401
1. We think that the application in this case should be treated not as an application for execution, but as an application to revive or continue an application for execution that had been wrongly dismissed as a competent Court has declared. The Article applicable is therefore 178 of the second Schedule of the Limitation Act and time began to run from the date of the appellate decree declaring the respondent's right to execute, which was the 20th February 1901. This application was therefore in time We follow the decisions of the other High Courts cited in the order of reference and overrule the decision in Narayana Nambi v. Pappy Brahmani I.L.R. M. 22. Our answer to the reference is in the negative....
Krishnier Vs. Arappuli Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ488
1. The defendant obtained a mortgage from the plaintiff in January 1891 and was put into possession of the mort-gaged land. Under the mortgage instrument the mortgagee was to pay the Government revenue payable on the land mortgaged and to take the profits in lieu of interest without reference to whether the profits were more or less in particular years. The mortgage money was payable on the 11th May 1898. In 1895 the Govern-menb revenue on the land mortgaged was enhanced from Rs. 5 to Rs. 41 and this the mortgagee paid for three years and then declined to pay more than Rs. 20 and the mortgagor paid the balance and brought this suit in 1901 for the amount so paid by him.2. It may be a question whether in the absence of a specific con-tract to that effect a mortgagor in the position of the plaintiff could claim the amount except in a suit to redeem. As, however, no such objection was taken in this case in the courts below and as the decree in the Court of First Instance against the defen...
Gurusami Aiyar Vs. Kaveri Boyee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ485
1. This is a suit to recover the amount due under a deed of hypothecation, dated the 6th September 1884 and for sale of the property hypothecated. Both the Courts below have given decrees for the plaintiff; but in this Court it is contended that the suit should have been dismissed because the matter is (1) Res-judicata within Explanation II of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code and (2) because the plaint mortgage has ceased to exist as such having become merged as the plaintiff had become owner as well as mortgagee of the property hypothecated prior to the suit.2. The facts are as follows:--On the 6th September 1884, the hypothecation bond now sued on was executed to Ranganatha Butt by Ranganatha Davay and his three sons, Balakrishna, Ramachandra and Venkatesa. Afterwards Ranganatha Davay and two of his sons, Balakrishna and Ramachandra, executed a simple debt bond to one Appasawmy Josier. Appasawmy died and his widows (of whom the present 1st defendant is one) brought Small Cause ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »