Chennai Court April 1906 Judgments
Gangulakurti Sanyasi Lingam Vs. Nidugonda Gavaramma, Wife of Mallayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ411
1. It is objected that in this case there were two appeals to the District Judge from the original, decree of the District Munsif and that therefore there should be two second appeals to this Court. The District Judge, however, very properly heard the two appeals together and passed one judgment and one decree only upon both appeals.2. The rules of this Court (Rule 105) lay down the practice that when there are two appeals from the same decree they should, if possible, be heard together and only one decree passed.3. Here there is only one appeal entered, and we think that the course adopted is right and that there was no necessity to enter two appeals, and even if two appeals had been entered the proper course would have been to hear them together and to pass one decree. - See also Krishnama Ghariar v. Mangammal (1902) L.R. 26 M....
Tag this Judgment!R. Munisami Reddi Vs. Pothili Venkiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ369
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Court dismissing a suit for the recovery of certain lands formerly held as a Dasabandham inam i.e., lands granted for the upkeep and maintenance of certain tanks.2. For the purpose of the question we have to decide in the appeal, the material dates and facts are as follows:3. In 1830 a deed (Exhibit V) was executed by the then Zamindar of Kangundi granting certain villages to his younger brother the predecessor in title of the second defendant. Amongst the villages so granted was the village of Venkatapalli. The lands which form the Dasabandham inaru and which are the subject of this suit are situated in this village.4. The inam was granted for the upkeep of a tank in Venkatapalli village and of a tank in another village (Sogatapalli) wnich was not comprised in the grant of 1830.5. When this grant was made by the then Zamindar in 1830, the right to resume the inam lands on forfeiture by the inamdar was in the Zamindar and he became t...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Veera Vandayan Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad461
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff made an application to the Tahsildar under Rule 4 of Standing Order XV of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue for a grant of land. Under Rule 7, the Tahsildar made the grant. If the procedure laid down in the rules was followed, and it is not suggested it was not, the Tahsildar's order was communicated to the plaintiff (Rule 11) and a document was given to him (Appendix III, Form D) stating that his application had been accepted subject to the result of any appeal that might be preferred. The grant was made by the Tahsildar on May 10th, 1897.2. Certain parties appealed against this grant. One appeal was put in on July 15th, 1897, and the other appeal on November 2nd, 1897. Rule 13 provides that an appeal lies from the Tahsildar's decision in Darkhast cases if made within thirty days. Both the appeals were therefore out of time and one of them was nearly live months out of time. There is power under the rule to admit an appeal afte...
Tag this Judgment!Talapoori Appiah and ors. Vs. Maram Reddi Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ503
Moore, J.1. The District Judge has held that until an order making the decree in O. Section No. 369 of 1898.absolute was passed, that decree was incapable of execution and that consequently lime would not begin to run till the 6fch September 1901, the date of the order absolute for sale. It is impossible to uphold this view. The decision of the majority of the judges of the Pull Bench of this Court in the case of Mallikarjuna Ghetti v. Lingamoorthi Pantulu I.L.R. M. 244 is to the effect that a decree under 'Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act is capable of execution, and that an application under 8. 89 to make an order absolute for the sale of the mortgaged property, is an 'application for the execution of that decree. That Full Bench decision is one that the District Judge was bound to follow. Although the judgment of the District Judge cannot be upheld for the reasons given in it. I am of opinion that he has rightly held that ' there is no bar by limitation. In M. P. No. 863 o...
Tag this Judgment!Dose Thimmanna Bhatta Vs. Krishna Tantri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ413
1. The question is whether the plaintiffs mortgage is affected by the Lis pendens created by the suit brought by a Hindu widow against the mortgagor for the recovery of the amount due to her for maintenance. That suit was filed on the 10th January 1888, and there was a distinct prayer that her maintenance should be made a charge on the property which was afterwards mortgaged by the defendants in that suit to the plaintiff on the 23rd January 1889. On the 31st, a decree was passed 'on the responsibilities of the properties' sued for.2. It is argued before us on behalf of the plaintiff that this was not a sufficient Lis pendens as against him.3. It is not alleged that so far as the property in dispute before us is concerned, the mortgage debt due to him was contracted for the purpose of paying off any debt entitled to any priority over the widow's claim for maintenance, or already due by the mortgagor.4. In the case of Bazayet Hossein v. Dooli Chund I.L.R(1878) C 404 the widows of one Kh...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnavelu Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Kolandavelu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ281
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. It is found by the lower courts that the appellant's father having purchased the site in 1880, pulled down in 1883 the old dwelling houses and built a substantial terraced house which rose in height a good deal over the adjoining house of the plaintiff, his neighbour, on the east. He constructed a cornice partly for decoration and partly as a protection against the weather of the lower part of the wall. It is nearly a foot beyond the wall and overhangs the ground between, belonging to the plaintiff and also the roof of his house. The ground it overhangs has been found to be in the possession of the plaintiff from 1883, and as the cornice has not been in existence for 20 years, no easement has been acquired by the defendant : the lower Courts have accordingly declared that the plaintiff is entitled to remove the defendant's cornice when a new wall which the plaintiff's building reaches it, in so far as it stands in his way of raising t...
Tag this Judgment!Seetha Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Srinivasa Iyenger and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ412
Moore, J.1. The decree will be modified and it will be declared that the debt is to be paid out of the income derived from the trust property. If not so recovered, the plaintiff can recover it personally from the second defendant, as it appears that he was in management from May to December 1903, i.e., during the time that the firewood was supplied. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad558
1. In this case the appellant was the head clerk and cashier in the firm of Rungiah Gowndan & Co. He has been convicted of criminal breach of trust by a servant under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of two cheques for Rs. 18 and Rs. 54, respectively. He has been acquitted on a similar charge with respect to a sum of Rs. 60. This charge, as at first framed, was in respect of Rs. 611-11-0 and the items said to have been comprised in that sum numbered some 15 or 20 small sums. At the trial this charge was amended by reducing the amount to Rs. 60, which is the total of three items which, though not specified in the charge, might have been specified, and in respect of which separate evidence was, in fact, given. This amendment of the charge simplified it in the interest of the accused and it was clearly legal with reference to Section 227, Criminal Procedure Code.2. But the chief point taken in appeal is that as the sum of Rs. 60 in the third charge, as amended, was, in fac...
Tag this Judgment!Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. Sivasubramaniapandia Chinnayasami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ339
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The suit is to recover the amount due under a promissory note executed by the late Zemindar of Mannarkotai which, according to the appellant, plaintiff, is an impartible Zemindari.2. The first defendant was the undivided brother and is the successor of the late Zemindar, and the second defendant is his widow. The lower Courts have found that the debt was not contracted for family purposes or the use of the Zemin and have dismissed the suit. In second appeal it is contended before us, that as the Zemindary is impartible, it is not joint family property, but that it was the property of the late Zemindar and liable, therefore, in the hands of that first defendant, his heir, for payment of his debt irrespective of the nature of such debt. In the lower Courts, this plea was disallowed on the ground that it was not properly raised in the pleadings.3. I am of opinion that the lower Courts are wrong in not s deciding this question and that the plaintiff is entitled to a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Senthivelu Mudaliar Vs. Varada Chariar (Deceased) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ353
1. A preliminary objection is taken that as the suit is one of small cause nature and the sum sued for is under Rs. 500, there is no second appeal.2. The answer given is that the suit comes under Article 35(J) in the 2nd Schedule appended to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The objection is, in our opinion, a good one. This is not a suit for compensation for illegal, improper or excessive distress or attachment, but merely for the recovery of money paid. This second appeal must be dismissed with costs to be calculated on the reduced scale as notice of this objection was not given....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »