Chennai Court February 1905 Judgments
R.G. Orr and ors. Vs. Nagappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ30
1. Assuming that the Subordinate Judge was right in making the order directing a further written statement to be put in by the plaintiff (a question upon which we do not wish to express an opinion) we are clearly of opinion that that order was complied with so far as the information of the plaintiffs permitted.2. We think the Subordinate Judge was altogether wrong and there was no ground whatever for proceeding under Section 113.3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit, and direct that the suit be restored to the file and disposed of according to law.4. The costs will abide and follow the event.5. With reference to the question of costs, it was urged on behalf of the respondents that they should be allowed on the footing that this appeal is one against an order under Section 588(10) and not an appeal against a decree. No doubt in acting under Section 113, the Court may pass a decree if the circumstances admit of any decree being passed, but to operate ...
Tag this Judgment!Vibudha Priya Thirtha Swami Vs. Yusuf Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ202
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. For the purposes of the question to be decided in these appeals, the material facts and dates are as follow:One Kalinga Hebbara obtained a decree against one Krishnaraya; On 5th July 1900, he attached certain property belonging to Krishnaraya and the sale was fixed for 22nd August. Yusuf and Banubibi (the defendants in these suits) had also obtained decrees against Krishnaraya. On 19th July, Yusuf applied for an order for rateable distribution under Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on 27th July, an order for rateable distribution was made. On 23rd July, Banubibi applied for a similar order and on 1st August, the order was made. Meantime on 18th July, the plaintiff bought from Krishnaraya, the judgment-debtor, the property which had been attached by Hebbara. The consideration for sale was a sum of Rs. 1,500. The property had been mortgaged to the plaintiff by Krishnaraya. The sale-deed recites that the amount due to the plaintiff on his mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadisa Aiyar Vs. Kuppusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ142
1. The proposition of law to which the District Judge refers as laid down by Lord Justice Lindley is as follows :- 'If one partner paid money of his own to his co-partner, in order that it might be applied by him for some specified partnership purpose, and it was received for that purpose and no other and was misapplied, an action lay for the recovery of such money; for ex-hypothesi, it never was the money of the firm, and the duty of the partner who received that money was either to apply it as agreed or to return it in tact. (Lindley on Partnership 6th Edition, p. 558). This proposition is based mainly on Wright v. Hunter, 1 East. 20 but there are also many other decisions which proceed on the same principle. The passage quoted above is to be found in a note on the law as it stood before the Judicature Act, and it will be seen on referring to the main body of the chapter in Lord Justice Lindley's work to which the note is appended, that the old rule that a decree for an account betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Prayag Doss Ji Varu, Mahant Vs. Srirangacharluvaru and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ133
1. The temple of Sri Venkateswara in Tirumalai or Tirupati in the North Arcot District is a very ancient Hindu Temple to which worshippers resort from all parts of India, and is in receipt of an annual income of between 2 and 3 lakhs of rupees. Prior to the establishment of the British Government, the management of the institution was directly under the ruler of the country for the time being. After the advent of the British, the management passed into the hands of the East India Company, and subsequent to the enactment of Regulation VII of 1817 of the Madras Code, it was carried on under the control of the Board of Revenue through the Collector of the District. With reference to a despatch of the year 1841 from the Court of Directors ordering the immediate withdrawal from all interference on the part of officers of Government with native temples and places of religious resort, the management of the temple was in 1843 made over to Seva Doss, the head of a Mutt called Hathiramji Mutt si...
Tag this Judgment!Alayakammah Vs. Subbaraya Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ219
1. We find that the Subordinate Judge was in error in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The appeal relates only to sums paid by the plaintiff on account of Government revenue in March 1888, and in March 1891 viz., the first two items in the plaint. In accordance with the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Rajah of Vizianagaram v. Rajah Setrucherla Soma-sehhara Raz I.L.R., 26 M.p. 686 the person paying Government revenue due on land has a charge on the land for the amount so paid to the extent to which he is entitled to contribution from the other shareholders, and the article applicable to a suit to recover such a charge is Article 132. The suit is not barred until the expiry of 12 years from the time when the money was paid.2. It is urged that, in respect of the first of the sums to which this appeal relates, the claim should be held to be barred even under Article 132 as the stamp duty on the plaint was not paid until after the expiry of 12 years from March 1888....
Tag this Judgment!Subba Naidu Vs. Gopalaswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ185
1. This appeal has been argued at considerable length but the main questions arising for determination may be shortly disposed of. 2. It was first contended that the appointment of the defendant Gopalaswami Naidu by three out of the five members constituting the committee of the Madura Meenakshi temple was absolutely null and void because it was not made at a meeting but by the votes of the three members given on papers sent in circulation.3. We agree in the opinion that the committee as a body constituted under statutory authority should, in the absence of specific provisions in the statute, follow as far as practicable in the transaction of its business, the usual procedure adopted by public bodies entrusted with duties of a more or less public character. It would follow therefore that the committee should ordinarily transact its more important business at a meeting held after due notice to the members and it would specially be incumbent upon it to do so, if any member so required. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›