Chennai Court August 1905 Judgments
Jalasutram Lakshminarayana and ors. Vs. Zemindar Ofvallur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ35
1. The present suit is for the recovery of kattubadi for Faslis 1308 to 1310 stated to be due to the plaintiff, the Zemindar, by the defendants in respect of certain Inam Unas held by them in the Zemindari. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the present claim was res judicata by the decision in A.S. No. 20 of 1900, but the District Judge reversed the decree being of opinion that there was no res iudicata.2. We think the District Judge is right. In the previous suit in which the appeal decision referred to above was given, the present plaintiff sought to recover from the present defendants the kattubadi for the same Inam for eleven faslies from 1295 to 1305. The papers connected with the original trial of the former suit have been placed on the present record and what were the several issues framed and tried at such original trial does not appear in the appellate judgment, the only document filed. The judge after stating that 'the defence was inter alia, that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Manian Patter and ors. Vs. the Madras Railway Co. by Its Agent and Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ37
1. One Syed Ismal entered into a contract with the respondent, the Madras Railway Company, to supply for a term of 12 months 2 tons of fuel at 200. tons per month at Rs. 4 per ton. It was also agreed between the parties that even after the expiry of the year all the terms of the contract were to hold good for an indefinite further period of time and quantity of fuel, subject to 3 months' notice from either side of an intention to withdraw from the engagement. The written contractcontained various stipulations as to the proper performance of the contract and provided that the contract; should be liable to be considered at an end and the sum of Rs. 350 deposited with the Company for the due fulfilment of the contract should be liable to be forfeited for the benefit of the Company, if the contractor failed to make punctual delivery in accordance with the terms of the contract and the specification thereto annexed. The contractor having failed to supply duly, the Company in June 1901 cance...
Tag this Judgment!Nanuvien and anr. Vs. Muthusamy Dikshadar and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ445
1. A usufructuary mortgage for two years of two plots of land items Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule, for Rs. 170 was made in 1855 by the present 4th defendant, the father of the plaintiffs, to the deceased father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In execution of a money decree obtained by the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of a claim against the 4th defendant arising independently of the mortgage, the fourth defendant's equity of redemption in item No. 1 was brought to sale and purchased by the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in 1870. [Here their Lordships state the facts relating to another item, about which they say the appeal was not pressed].2. As regards item No. 1 it was urged for the appellants that they were entitled to redeem their share at least of that item. With reference to the decisions in Muthuraman Chetty v. Ettappasami I.L.R. M. 372 and Martanda Balakrishna Bhat v. Dhondo Damodar Kulkarni I.L.R.B. 694 the former rests entirely upon the ground that the sal...
Tag this Judgment!Jalasutram Lakshminarayan and ors. Vs. Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad42
1. The present suit is for the recovery of kattubadi for faslis 1303 to 1310 stated to be due to the plaintiff, the Zamindar, by the defendants, in respect of certain inam lands held by them in the zamindari. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the present claim was res judicata by the decision in Appeal Suit No 20 of 1900, but the District Judge reversed the decree being of opinion that there was no res judicata.2. We think the District Judge is right. In the previous suit, in which the appeal decision referred to above was given, the present plaintiff sought to recover from the present defendants the kattubadi for the same inam for eleven faslis from 1295 to 1305. No papers connected with the original trial of the former suit have been placed on the present record; and what were the several issues framed and tried at such original trial, does not appear. In the appellate judgment, the only document filed, the Judge after stating that the defence was inter alia t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ayyangar and ors. Vs. Venkatarama Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad115
1. The dispute in the present case is between two parties who are both bandhus under the Mitakshara Law. The plaintiff is the deceased owner's paternal grandfather's sister's son. The defendant is his father's sister's daughter's son. The lower Courts have held that the defendant is the heir and they are dearly right. Undoubtedly he is an atmabandhu, and, as such, nearer to the last ownter than the plaintiff who is the owner's pitirbandhu. It was, however, urged that the defendant has to trace his relation to the common ancestor through two females while there is the intervention of but one female between the plaintiff and the ancestor common to him and the deceased, and that this circumstance gives the plaintiff a preferential right. Whether having regard to the preponderating influence in the Hindu system of law of relationship through males with reference to the devolution of the heritage of a man such a circumstance as that relied on may or may not avail when the competition is bet...
Tag this Judgment!Nannuvien and anr. Vs. Muthusami Dikshadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad421
1. A usufructuary mortgage for two years of two plots of land, items Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule, for Rs. 170, was made in 1855 by the present fourth defendant, the father of the plaintiffs, to the deceased father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In execution of a money decree obtained by the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of a claim against the fourth defendant arising independently of the mortgage, the fourth defendant's equity of redemption in item No. 1 was brought to sale and purchased by the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in 1878 The equity of redemption in item No. 2 was sold in execution of another decree against the fourth defendant obtained by the third defendant's uncle and was purchased by the third defendant's undivided brother. The third defendant redeemed item No. 2 from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on payment of what was decided in the suit brought by him for the redemption to be the amount properly chargeable on that item out of the mortgage amount of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnasami Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Ambalavana Wudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad48
1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that the second defendant is not his adopted son the District Judge granted the declaration. Mr. Soshagiri Aiyar contends that such a suit does not lie. No doubt, as pointed out by him, there is nothing in the evidence to show that the second defendant himself has said or done anything with reference to the adoption. He is, however, a minor, and according, to the case for the defence, he was a child under 18 months when the gift and acceptance are said to have taken place. He cannot therefore be expected to speak to the actual adoption considering that persons are taken in adoption when they are children, it would be impossible to hold that absence of proof of the kind commented upon by Mr. Seshagiri Ayyar would disentitle a person in the position of the plaintiff from maintaining such a suit.We are unable to accede to the suggestion that what has been shown in this case amounts to mere idle assertions by persons having no interest in the matter,...
Tag this Judgment!Thammanna Alias Lingai Goundan and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ373
ORDER1. The provisions of Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, are explicit, but have not been observed by the District Magistrate. The offence with which the accused were charged is not one triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The District Magistrate therefore had no power under Section 436 to direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to commit the accused for trial. In any case the District Magistrate should have given the accused an opportunity of showing cause before himself why the commitment should not be made. The opportunity given to show cause before the Assistant Magistrate cannot be regarded as a compliance with the law, though the Assistant Magistrate forwarded a statement of the accused to the District Magistrate. We set aside the commitment, and the order of the District Magistrate, directing the commitment to be made.2. It is open to the District Magistrate to pass fresh orders on the complainant's petition in accordance with law under Section 436 or 437, Criminal P...
Tag this Judgment!Subraya Prabhu Vs. Manjunath Bhakta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad44
1. The application for filing the award was, in our 81 opinion, rightly presented to the District Court, as the matter to which the arbitration related, involved a claim exceeding in value of Rs. 2,500 see Narsingh Das v. Ajodhya Prosad Sukul I.L.R. 31 Calc. 208 though the amount allowed under the award was less.2. The next point for determination is whether the District Judge is right in holding that the award is invalid on the ground that notice of the meetings of the 21st and 23rd July was not given to the respondent. The facts bearing upon the question are these. There was a meeting on the 15th at which both the parties were present. Further enquiry was then adjourned to the 20th. On the 16th the respondent sent exhibit V to the arbitrators purporting to revoke the submission. The last paragraph of the notice runs thus: 'I have cancelled the Muchilika in this respect (in the matter of the submission) and withdrawn it from arbitration. There is no need that you should proceed with t...
Tag this Judgment!Manickam Pillai Vs. Ramalinga Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad120
1. The reversioner had nothing to sell. The right of a presumptive reversionary heir under the Hindu Law is no more than a spes successionis or expectancy of succeeding to the property. This has been clearly ruled by Privy Council in Bahadur Singh v. Mohor Singh I.L.R. 24 All. 94. Such an expectancy cannot be transferred under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act Narasimham v. Madavrayulu 13 M.L.J. 323. 2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »