Chennai Court December 1907 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Punnayil Kutt Vs. Raman Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ19
1. This case has been dealt with in the lower Courts as if the question were whether the suit is one for money had and received by the defendant for the plaintiffs' use and so governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, or one for money paid upon an existing consideration which afterwards failed and so governed by Article 97. In our opinion, neither of these Articles is applicable to the present suit. The plaint states that as a result of auction chit fund transactions Rs. 405 was found due by the defendant to the plaintiff; that the defendant represented that Rs. 511-14-0 was due to him by Pathummi Umma and two others' who were also members of the chit fund and asked the 1st plaintiff to take an assignment of this debt which the 1st plaintiff did; that the 1st plaintiff subsequently sued Pathummi Umma and the two others making the present defendant a party when it was found that Pathummi Umma and others were regularly paying the subscription and the defendant was receiving them, til...
The Madras Electric Tramways Co. Vs. the Madras Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ149
1. We agree with the Magistrate that the trailer cars in question are liable to pay a tax of Rs. 15 each under Schedule VI of the Act (Madras Act III of 1904). They are vehicles with springs and we have no doubt that they are propelled. 'Propelled' in this Schedule indicates that the vehicle must have the motive power within itself as contended by Mr. Osborne on behalf of the Tramway Company.2. If that contention were admitted, it would exclude the leading tram car as well as the trailer, for the leading car does not itself generate the electricity or carry a store of it. It merely contains appliances by which the electricity carried along the wires from the generating station causes the car to move.3. We think that electricity is the power that makes all the cars move and that all are equally propelled by the electricity.4. The Municipality is entitled to costs....
Pattatherunath Chettumindaiakath Parkum Siyali Kundy Thayethunkandy Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ16
1. In this case it appears that one Uthothi, a Moplah made a gift of land to his wife, Ayissa, who belonged to a tarwad governed by the Marumakkathayam law and the question is, to whom does the land descend on Ayissa's death. The District Judge has dealt with the case as if the question were to whom it descended on the death of Uthothi. Uthothi being a Muhammadan, the presumption may be that his property would descend according to Muhamadan Law according to Assan v. Pathumma1 and Kunhunbi Umma v. Kandy Moithin I.L.R. (1903) M. 77 the cases relied on by the District Judge. We think, however, that the present case is governed by the decision of the Full Bench on facts very similar to the present in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee I.L.R. (1892) M. 201 which has been followed and explained in Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar I.L.R. (1906) M. 322. In the first of these cases, property given to one Ayissamma and her children after the death of her husband Taruvai in accordan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›