Chennai Court August 1906 Judgments
Kesavaloo Naidu Vs. Murugappa Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ537
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge rejecting a petition presented tinder Section 189 of the Indian Companies Act by a creditor of a company now in voluntary liquidation praying that the winding up may be continued under the supervision of the Court. A preliminary objection has been taken that under Section 169 appeals only lie from* orders or decisions made or given in the matter of the winding up of a Company by the Court, and that an order refusing to make a supervision order under Section 191 is not an order made in the matter of the winding up of the, Company by the Court. We are, however, of opinion that this construction of the section is erroneous, and that an appeal is given from any order or decision made by the Court in the matter of the winding up of a Company whether the winding up be compulsory, voluntary or under supervision. The language of the first part of Section 169 is taken from Section 124 of the Companies Act of 1862, substituting the 'words ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamahopadyaya Ranga Chariar Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ582
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. This case was argued fully and ably on both sides. The important questions for determination are:1. Whether this second appeal cannot be prosecuted by the appellant as against the present Municipal Councillors;2. Whether the suit, in so far as the prayer for injunction is concerned, is unsustainable for want of notice under Section 261(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act; and3. Whether the appellant was disentitled to raise the ridge put up by him on his own land adjoining the highway vested in the Municipal Council, for the purpose of keeping off from his land water on the surface of the highway which otherwise would flow by gravitation on to his land.2. Now as to the first question, by the notification of the Government, dated the 29th August 1905, issued under Section 4B(1)(b) of the District Municipalities Act (Madras Act IV of 1884), the Municipal Council of Kumbakonam then existing was superseded for a period of seven months till the 31st March 19...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Salem Vs. Pur Batcha Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ468
1. The question is as to the costs of the plaintiff which have been, by the Court below, ordered to be paid to him by the 1st defendant, the Collector of the District. Under Madras Act I of 1876, the Collector is authorised to order separate registration and sub-division when there has been an alienation of a. portion of a peramanently settled estate, if the parties to the alienation concur in applying for an order and if objections, if any, taken by other parties interested and disallowed by him.2. In the present case, the plaintiff claims under an alienation made by the deceased father of the 2nd defendant, and the 2nd defendant who is the representative of the alienor concurred in the application to the Collector for separate registration and subdivision.3. The 3rd defendant who holds a share in the mitta in which the plaintiff is a shareholder under his alienation, raised an objection to the separate registration and sub-division of the plaintiff's portion on the ground that the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kooni Mohamadan Meera Sahib Tharagan and anr. Vs. M. Mamadu Meera Sahi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ471
1. This case has been disposed of on the pleadings, and we take the material averments in the plaint to be that the plaintiffs who are Shan Muhammadans resident in Thenkasi, have a right to bury their deceased relations in the mosque mentioned in the plaint and situated in the same town. That in the usual course of burial the body is taken into the compound of the mosque to the enclosure in front of the prayer hall, then certain prayers are said over the body by the relations of the deceased or persons selected by them, and the body is afterwards removed to the place of sepulchure and interned; that the 1st defendant who claims to be entitled to the office of Labbai denies the right of the deceased relations or their delegates to recite the prayers and asserts an exclusive right to do so in himself.2. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that it is one relating to mere rituals which it is not competent to the Civil Courts to entertain.3. That in suits relating to ritu...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Iyen Vs. Venkatachellam Patter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ554
1. It is clear that under Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Exhibit A is not a negotiable instrument. It is urged, however, that the endorsement on Exhibit A 'The amount due under this pro-note must be paid to Kolaththooran Patter's son Venkatachelam Patter of Thathamangalain Patinharay Gramam, 7th Chingam 1075' is an assignment. (Vide Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act.) This question has not been decided by the Subordinate Judge.We accordingly direct the present Subordinate Judge to decide the following issue on the evidence on record:Does the endorsement on Exhibit A amount to a valid assignment in favour of the plaintiff?The finding should be submitted within three months from, this date when seven days will be allowed for filing objections.In compliance with the above the Subordinate Judge submitted the followingFINDING : - The issue that I am directed to try in the above case is:Does the 'endorsement on Exhibit A amount to a valid assignment in favour of the p...
Tag this Judgment!V. Krishnamacharlu, Manager, Karvengar Estate, Raja Kumara Tirumala Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ489
ORDERMoore and Sankaran Nair, JJ.1. It is contended before us on behalf of the defendant that no exchange of pattas and muchilikas is necessary as the plaintiff holds the land as an Inamdar and the amount payable by him is not rent in the ordinary acceptation of the word, payable by a tenant to a landlord but only road-cess and russum.2. An affidavit is filed before us on behalf of the plaintiff to show that he is a cultivating tenant paying rent and that the case, therefore, does not fall within the rule in Lakshminaraynna Pantulu v. Venkatrayanam I.L.R(1897) M. 116.3. It is not clear from the judgments what is the nature of the tenure under which the land is held. We, therefore, direct the lower appellate Court to return a finding on the question what is the nature of the tenure on which the land now in suit is held by the plaintiff. Fresh evidence may be taken. The, finding should be returned within two months and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.4. In compliance wit...
Tag this Judgment!Jathavedan Nambudri, (Dead) Narayanan Somayajipad, Legal Representativ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ433
1. The appellant's case has little or no merit. He claims by virtue of an assignment obtained from several of the sons of Krishna Pattar, a mortgagee of the plaintiff. All these persons were parties to a suit by the plaintiff for redemption of the mortgage and after issue of notice, but before settlement of issues, the suit was compromised between the plaintiff on the one hand and the 1st and 2nd defendants, two of the brokers, on the other. By the compromise it was arranged that a renewal should be granted within a given time and in the event of the defendants failing to do all that was necessary to obtain the renewal, the plaintiff was to obtain possession of the land on payment of the mortgage money. A decree was passed in terms of this compromise. In the compromise it was stated that it was entered into without reference to the other defendants, and though their names were entered in the heading of the decree there was no order as regards them, which could be taken as adjudicating ...
Tag this Judgment!Cheruvath Parkuru Thalangal Bappu Vs. Neroth Parkuru Thalangal Kanaran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ548
1. Under Clause 5 of Article 179 of the Limitation Act time begins to run from the date of issuing a notice under Section 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure but there has been a difference of opinion in the other High Courts as to what should be considered the date of issuing notice, and the point does not appear to have as yet arisen in this Court. In Hari Ganesh v. Yamunabai I.L.R(1897) B. 35 where the Court had ordered notice to issue, but no notice had in fact been issued because batta had not been paid, it was held that time did not begin to run from the date of the order of the Court directing notice to issue in that particular case as the clause only applies 'where the notice next hereinafter mentioned has been issued,' and here it had not in fact been issued. The Court, however, proceeded to observe that it might be that where the notice had been issued, the date of issue would be the date on which the issue was ordered by the Court, as had been ruled in Udit Narain v. Ram Part...
Tag this Judgment!Muthan Chetty Vs. Ramaswamy Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ550
1. We are of opinion that the husband's brother has a better right to the certificate than the sister's son.2. If the property in question was the property of the deceased husband it passes to the husband's heirs. If it was the widow's stridhanam, and if she left no issue, it passes to the husband's heirs if the marriage was in one of the approved forms. See Thayammal v. Annamalai Mudali (1895) M.p. 35 and the judgment of the Privy Council in Mussumat Thakoor Debhee v. Rai Baluk Ram (1866) 11 M.I.A. 139. In the absence of evidence to the contrary there is a presumption that, a marriage was in one of the approved forms.3. We set aside the order of the District Judge and direct that the certificate issue to Muthan Chetty, the husband's brother, with costs throughout.Note : - Cf. Ganeshi v. Ajudhia I.L.R(1906) A. 345 : - Ed....
Tag this Judgment!Kumaratta Servaigaran Alias Chinnasami Servaigaran, Minor, by His Adop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ545
1. The appellant was a party defendant in a suit in which a mortgage decree was passed ordering the sale of specified mortgaged property. On an application to make the decree absolute and for an order for the sale of the property, the appellant seeks to stop the sale, contending that the decree which has been passed against him is not binding on the property on the ground that he has been adopted into the family of another person to whom the property belongs. The. Subordinate Judge overruled this objection and made the order asked for. We think he was clearly right. The objection taken by the appellant is that though the decree to which he is a party is a decree for sale of specified immoveable property, he is entitled to object, in execution, to the sale of the property. In other words, the objection is an objection to the decree itself, and not to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Unless the objection relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »