Chennai Court September 1909 Judgments
Sri Raja Chelikani Rama Rau and ors. and Sri Raja Ballapragada Venkata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ66
1. These are appeals by the claimants against the decrees of the District Court of Godavari in Appeal Suits Nos. 591 and 593 of 1903 confirming the decisions of the Forest Settlement Officer of Godavari in Claims Nos. 1 and 2 of 1902. These were claims by the Mallavarm and Nadavapalli Estates, respectively, to land at the mouth of the Godavari which Government, by a Notification dated the 2nd December 1901, proposed to form into a reserved forest. Both claims being intimately connected were dealt with by the lower appellate Court in one judgment, and in this Court the same arguments were put forward on behalf of both sets of claimants. It was first con-tended that, as the appellants were in possession at the date of the notification the lands should not have been notified as a reserved forest. This contention was properly dealt with and overruled by the Forest Settlement Officer in paragraph 7 of his judgment in Claim No. 1. The appellant's pleader did not attempt to argue the matter b...
Tag this Judgment!Palanisawmy Gownden and ors. Vs. Vanjiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.36
1. We agree with the District Judge in holding that the widow has failed to prove any authority from her husband. The evidence to this effect is very meagre. As to the alleged consent of the Dayahdies after his death, the evidence for the plaintiffs that no such consent was given is supported by Exhibit F, the petition put in by the widow a few days before making the adoption. In this petition which was drawn up for her by a pleader she mentions the husband's authoritation and says Kumara Govindan, her husband's brother, was intending to oppose it. If he had previously consented and then changed his mind this would have been stated in the petition. We agree with the District Judge on this point also.2. As to the point of law we think the decision in Subrahmanyam v. Venkammna 26 M.k 627 affirmed by the Privy Council in Jonalgodda Venkamma v. Jonalgadda Subramaniam 4 A.L.J. 150 establishes that it was the duty of the widow to consult Kumara Gownden, the nearest sapinda, as well as other ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kadir Ibrahim Rowther Vs. Mohammad Rahumadalla Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.136
1. The question for decision in this second appeal is, whether right to recover a sum of money under a decree can be made the subject of wakf according to Muhammadan Law. We are of opinion that it cannot. Even if the proposed subject of the wakf be regarded as the money which may (problematically) be recovered under the decree, we think that the weight of authority and argument is opposed to the plaintiffs' contention that the wakf is valid. The question has lately been discussed in a most elaborate judgment by Mr. Justice Woodroffe in the Calcutta High Court, and his conclusion is that 'unless a moveable is accessory to land or allowed because of certain traditions concerning the prophet and the sacred writings or there is a custom to make wakf of it, it cannot be lawfully appropriated'. Kulsoom Bibee v. Gulam Hussain Cassim Asiff 10 C.W.N. 449 and this decision has been followed by Mr. Justice Russell in the Bombay High Court Bai Fatmabai v. Gulam Husain 9 Bom. L.R. 1337. No doubt th...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Chetikani Rama Rau and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.882
1. These are appeals by the claimants against the decrees of the District Court of Godavari, in Appeal Suits Nos. 591 and 593 of 1903, confirming the decisions of the Forest Settlement Officer of Godavari, in Claims Nos. 1 and 2 of 1902. These were claims by the Mallavaram and Nadavapalli Estates respectively to land at the mouth of the Godavari which Government, by a Notification dated the 2nd December 1901, proposed to form into a reserved forest. Both claims being intimately connected were dealt with by the lower appellate Court in one judgment, and in this Court the same arguments were put forward on behalf of both sets of claimants. It was first contended that as the appellants were in possession at the date of the notification the lands should not have been notified as a reserved forest. This contention was properly dealt with and overruled by the Forest Settlement Officer in paragraph 7 of his judgment in Claim No. 1. The appellant's pleader did not attempt to argue the matter b...
Tag this Judgment!Seeni Asan Usan Rowthen, Vs. T. Sethu Ram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.145
1. In our opinion the plaintiffs were not entitled to rateable distribution, because at the date on which the assets were realized there was no application for execution presented by them, pending in the Court which conducted the execution.2. The plaintiffs applied in April 1900 for attachment of the 1st defendants' right to Veceive a monthly allowance and for an injunction directing the disburser of the allowance to pay it into Court as it fell due. The Subordinate Judge did not attach the right, but in his order of the 23rd of April 1900 directed notice to be issued as regards the prayer for injunction. On the 4th of May he made an absolute order directing the disburser of the allowance, the Dewan Trustee of Ramnad, to pay the allowance into Court, and on the 18th of July payment not having been made, he struck off the execution application of the plaintiffs.3. It is not denied that this last order closed the proceeding on the plaintiffs' application unless the order of the 4th May d...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras and as Such the Assignee of the Proper ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ428
Munro, J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee against an order of the learned Chief Justice sitting as Commissioner in Insolvency.2. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent had, on the 5th August 1906, Rs. 600 standing to the credit of his current account with Arbuthnot & Co. On the above date he wrote to Arbuthuot and Co. and requested them to buy on his behalf a Government Promissory Note for Rs. 1,000, when the amount of his current account reached that sum. On the 30th September 1906 he again wrote and requested Arbuthnot & Co. to buy the promissory note as there was then Rs. 1,000 to his credit. He received no reply up to the 10th October. He then called at the Bank and was told by two officers of the Bank that his instructions would be carried out in due course. The promissory note had not, however, been purchased when Arbuthnot & Co. suspended payment on the 22nd October 1906, though it could have been bought for Rs. 5,000 between the 30th September and the 22nd Oc...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Ganesha Row Vs. T.V. Tulja Ram Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1909
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1093
1. The facts are fully set out by the learned Judge and we think it unnecessary to recapitulate them. It is sufficient to say that the decree in the original suit (C.S. No. 266 of 1886) made Tulja Ram Rao, the 18th defendant, accountable to the family, consisting of three branches besides that of Tulja Ram for a sum of Rs. 3,26,000 and odd. On appeal (Original Side Appeal No. 33 of 1892) he was held to be accountable for an additional sum of Rs. 1,40,000 and the half share in the Scottish Press purchased by him was declared to be family property, and it was also held that he must further account for a sum of Rs. 1,03,000 for his drawings from the press. The share of the plaintiff's branch in the total sum for which Tulja Ram was held accountable was about Rs. 86,000. While Tulja Ram's appeal against that decree was pending, a compromise was entered into between the parties by which the plaintiff's father (the 2nd defendant) renounced his share of the amount decreed; the plaintiff in th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kanniappa Chetty Vs. Rangammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.818
1. We agree with the find-dings arrived at by the Judge. Whether a transaction was unconscionable or not depends. upon the facts of each case. The 1st defendant is an old woman, the others are her sons who are coolies, and the plaintiff is a moneylender. The bond is for a larger sum than what was paid and the higher interest was only inserted to secure the prompt execution of a mortgage-deed. In these circumstances we think the Judge was right in not enforcing payment of the full rate of interest. The interest decreed is reasonable.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sadagopachariar Vs. Ragunadachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.938
1. The only question which need be considered is, whether the suit is maintainable. The 1st defendant owed money to the plaintiff. To discharge the debt the 1st defendant on the 28th January 1904 transferred to the plaintiff by assignment in writing under Exhibit-B the decrees in Original Suits Nos. 61 and 62 of 1902 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Valangiman. On the 22nd April 1904 these decrees were attached before judgment by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Kumbaconam in a suit brought by a third party against the 1st defendant. The plaintiff did not apply for execution of the decrees until 1905. His application to the District Munsif of Valangiman in respect of the decree in Original Suit No. 61 was dismissed on the 27th March 1905 on the ground that the decree had been attached by the Subordinate Judge's Court. The application in respect of the decree in Original Suit No. 62 was put in on the 13th July 1905, and was dismissed by the District Munsif on the 18th July ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanti Bhimappa Vs. Seshanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.951
1. The Judge holds that the contract on which the suit is brought is illegal as the taking of another person into partnership in a toddy contract is a violation, of Rule 27 of the license which directs that the licensee shall, not except with the collector's permission, sell or transfer his privilege. It has been held by this Court in S.A. No. 822 of 1904 that the condition in question is not legally imposed as the Notification No. 58, Fort Saint George Gazette dated the 4th February 1890 does not delegate any power to the Commissioner to impose such condition.2. The subsequent Notification of the 29th September, 1896, does not effect the partnership deed in question executed on the 9th September. We accordingly hold that the partnership was not illegally entered into and direct the Judge to restore the appeal to his file and dispose of it in accordance with law.3. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »