Chennai Court April 1905 Judgments
M. Nagu Chetty and ors. Vs. M. Bhaskara Sethupathi Avergal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1905
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.41
Sankaran Nair, J.1. These are appeals against the decrees of the District Judge of Madura reversing the decrees of the District Munsif of Paramakudi.2. The appellants are ryots in the village of Tirupullani in the Ramnad Zemindari. The respondents are the Ramnad zemindar, the trustee of the Tirupullani temple, and one Arunachellam Chettiar, the lessee under the zemindar of this and certain other villages belonging to the temple. The questions for decision refer to the terms of certain pattas tendered to the appellants under the Rent Recovery Act. That the lands belong to the temple makes no difference. They are held on the same tenure as the ordinary zemin lands. The temple derived its title to the same by gift from the zemindar.3. In the early part of the century there were lands in the village under wet cultivation which depended upon a tank for their irrigation. That tank has now disappeared. Whether there were any dry or punja lands then under cultivation is one of the points now i...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraja Chetty Represented by Panchanada Chetty Vs. Kolandavelu Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ456
1. After the argument when this case was heard some weeks ago, we thought that the plaintiff might be allowed an opportunity of amending the plaint so as to make it one for consequential relief by obtaining possession of the trust property and otherwise; and we allowed it to stand over in order that the plaintiff may amend the plaint accordingly on payment of the stamp duty due in this and in the lower court. The plaintiff's Vakil now states that his client is not in a position to pay the stamp duty.2. The claim of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the adopted son of the first defendant acquired an interest in the management of the trust. With reference to the devolution of the office of hereditary trustee vested in the first defendant only one of two views can be taken. Either it is governed by the analogy of the rules bearing on the holding of joint family property or by the analogy of the rules regulating the descent of separate property.3. If the former be the correct view then t...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimham Vs. Mohamud Valizulla and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ404
1. It is objected that this appeal has abated because the 1st respondent (plaintiff) died in June 1903 and his legal representatives were not brought on to the record until August 1904, the time limited by the Limitation Act for bringing on a respondent, being 6 months under Articles 175 C. On the part of the appellant it is contended that this article does not apply to the case of a respondent in second appeal but only to a respondent in first appeal and that the article applicable to second appeals is Article 178 of the Limitation Act. He contends that Article 175 C. confines the limitation to cases coming within Section 368 or Sections 368 and 582, and does not apply to cases coming within Section 587, Civil Procedure Code, which section alone applies to second appeals. The other side contends that as this application is in fact made under Sections 368 and 582 of the Code of Civil Procedure he is bound by the limitation contained in Article 175 C. of the Limitation Act.2. Section 58...
Tag this Judgment!Harold Clive Johnson and ors. and Porto Novo Cundasamy and ors. Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ363
1. In one of these cases the plaintiffs are the minor children of one, Johnson, a railway passenger who was killed in the Mangapatam railway accident. The plaintiffs sue with their mother, the widow of the deceased, as their next friend; in the other suit the plaintiffs are the minor children of a Hindu named Narayanasamy Mudali, another Railway passenger who lost his life in the same accident. They also sue with their mother, the widow of the deceased as their next friend. In neither case is there any executor or administrator of the deceased. The suits are brought against the Madras Railway Company for compensation under Act XIII of 1855 and were instituted after the expiry of one year from the death of persons referred to. The question is whether the suits are time-barred. The answer to this question must be in the affirmative with reference to Art, 21 of Schedule IT of the Indian Limitation Act unless the bar is saved by the provisions of Sections 7 or 8 of the Act.2. Before procee...
Tag this Judgment!Yarlagadda Veeraraghavyya, and 4 ors. Vs. Gorantla Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ484
1. The District Judge has not fully appreciated the law or the facts in this case. The plaintiff sued on the original contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant alleging that the promissory note (which was not admissible in evidence for want of a stamp) did not constitute the contract between the parties. The law is clearly laid down by Garth, C.J. in Shikk Ahtar v. Shihk Khan I.L.R., 7 C.256 with which we entirely agree. He says at page 259 : ' When a cause of action for money is once complete in itself, whether for goods sold or for money lent or for any other claim, and the debtor then gives a bill or note to the creditor for payment of the money at a future time, the creditor, if the bill or note is not paid at maturity, may always, as a rule, sue for the original consideration, provided that he has not endorsed or lost or parted with the bill or note under such circumstances, as to make the debtor liable upon it to some third person. In such cases, the bill or n...
Tag this Judgment!Yarlagadda Veera Ragavayya and ors. Vs. Gorantla Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad111
1. The District, Judge has not fully appreciated the law or the facts in this case.2. The plaintiff sued on the original contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant alleging that the promissory note (which was not admissible in evidence for want of a stamp) did not constitute the contract between the parties.3. The law is clearly laid down by Garth, C.J., in Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Khan I.L.R. 7 Calc. 256 with which we entirely agree. He says at page : 'When a cause of action for money is once complete in itself, whether for goods sold, or for money lent, or for any other claim, and the debtor then gives a bill or note to the creditor for payment of the money at a future time, the creditor, if the bill or note is not paid at maturity, may, always as a rule, sue for the original consideration, provided that he has not endorsed or lost or parted with the bill or note, under such circumstances as to make the debtor liable upon it to some third person. In such cases the bi...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidinatha Thambiran and ors. Vs. Chandrasekara Dikshitar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ469
1. The plaintiffs sue (on behalf of themselves and other Kattalaikars of the temple, under Section 30, C.P.C. for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to celebrate the 7th day's festival in the months of Ani (June) and Margali (January) of Chidambaram Sri Natarajaswami temple which they and other Kattalaikars have been celebrating long time since--without disturbance by the defendants and other Deekshitars.2. The defendants (the Deekshitars) are the trustees of the temple and they alone can actually perform these festivals; but to do so, they have to depend upon such funds as they obtain either by voluntary subscription or in consequence of pressure brought to bear upon worshippers for that purpose. Prior to 1901, this particular festival appears to have been celebrated with funds obtained either voluntarily or in consequence of pressure, from Kattalaikars. Kattalaikars are worshippers who subscribe to the temple festivals, either this festival or others, and the plaintiff's claim is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›