Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad466
..... , j.42. on the 8th february 1882 the plaintiff in this case was elected to be a municipal commissioner of salem under section 9 of the towns' improvement act (madras act iii), 1871, and under the provisions of that section he was entitled to continue in office for three years. the section, however, goes on to provide that 'the governor ..... plaintiff was elected by the rate-payers of salem one of the municipal commissioners of that town, under the provisions of section 9 of the towns' improvement act (madras act iii of 1871).2. notification of his election was published in the gazette of the 23rd of february 1882 and he entered on the duties of his office.3. in ..... there was admittedly no misconduct or neglect by the plaintiff.18. i am unable to see that the argument of the advocate-general is consistent with section 9 of act iii of 1871. if the general discretion contended for was intended by the legislature, the words 'for misconduct or neglect of duty' may be omitted as useless, inasmuch as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1914)ILR37Mad175; 24Ind.Cas.852
..... demand as a special class of loans which ought to have a special starting point. accordingly instead of one article dealing with loans payable on demand (article 58 in the act of 1871) they provided two articles 59 and 60 with different starting points. there is nothing to suggest that they thought deposits of money were covered by article 145. on the ..... be used and other things of the same nature and quality are to be returned instead. in my opinion there is no ground for holding that in the acts of 1859 and 1871 the word deposit in the sections and articles already referred to included so-called deposits of money or other things which were not intended to be kept but to ..... of 'deposition' (obviously a misprint for depositum) with which all lawyers are familiar.' i would venture to go even further and to say that when as in the acts of 1859 and 1871 there is nothing to suggest the use of the word deposit in any other sense it must be taken to mean the sort of bailment known to lawyers under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad300; 43Ind.Cas.760; (1917)33MLJ631
..... are owing have been given no direct remedy against the testator's estate either by proving against the estate or taking the asset in execution. in farhall v. farhall (1871) l.r. 7ch. ap. 123 james, l.j., was of opinion that neither authority nor principle was in favour of the view that an executor can by borrowing ..... executants of the promissory note and the fact that the working out of the right would make others liable does not contravene any of the provisions of the negotiable instruments act. subrogation does not necessarily rest on contract or privity. in krishnamurti v. the bank of burma ltd : (1911)21mlj620 which was a suit on a negotiable ..... striking analogy to that of an executor under a will on whom the whole estate of the testator vests by virtue of section 4 of the probate and administration act and who completely represents it.17. as regards heads of religious endowments the authorities are not uniform. in srimath daiva sikamani pandara sannadhi v. noor mohammed bowthan .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1893)3MLJ191
..... the mention of the name of the mortgagor but lays down that the acknowledgment is sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the right. under the act of 1871 an acknowledgment of the mortgagor's title or right of redemption was required and if it had been the intention of the legislature that the name of the mortgagor ..... that the mortgage of 1805 was true but relied on the act of limitations. he failed to show that there was any other mortgage to which the acknowledgment of the testator could have referred. under these circumstances the decision of the ..... kanom.' the question is whether this is such an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the property as to bring it within the requirements of section 19 of the limitation act. there can be no doubt that it was an acknowledgment by the testator, that he then held the estate on kanom title. the defendant in this suit admitted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 85Ind.Cas.268
..... jegon v. vivian (1871) 6 ch. a. 742, before the house of lords, the lord chancellor generally approves of the principle that in awarding damages a distinction may be made between a trespasser bona ..... placing a wrong doer upon precisely the same footing as one who enters with the owner's permission.' the learned judge proceeds further to indicate that the wilfulness of an act of trespass and that the trespass was done for the pecuniary benefit of the defendants' would be matters to be taken into consideration in assessing damages. in the case of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1893)ILR16Mad366
..... mention of the name of the mortgagor, but lays down that the acknowledgment is sufficient, though it omits to specify the exact nature of the right. under the act of 1871 an acknowledgment of the mortgagor's title or right of redemption was required, and if it had been the intention of the legislature that the name of the mortgagor ..... the mortgage of 1805 was true, but relied on the act of limitations. he failed to show that there was any other mortgage to which the acknowledgment of the testator could have referred. under these circumstances the decision of the ..... .' the question is whether this is such an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the property as to bring it within the requirements of section 19 of the limitation act. there can be no doubt that it was an acknowledgment by the testator that he then held the estate on kanom title. the defendant in this suit admitted that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)23MLJ715
..... the lower appellate court in holding that, assuming there was a forfeiture by reason of nonpayment'of rent, it could not be enforced as the plaintiff had not done any act to show he intended to avail himself of the forfeiture, would seem to have followed the decision of this court in venkalramana bhatta v. gundaraya 31 m.k 403. in ..... , it was not brought to the notice of the court that the lease in question was prior to the coming into operation of the transfer of property act. the lease in the present case, was made in 1871 before the transfer of property act came into operation and this being so, according to the decision in padmanabhaya v. ranga 34 m. k161 an ..... act on the part of the landlord showing that he elects to take advantage of the forfeiture is not a condition precedent to his right to sue in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad589
..... , the receiver cannot take action under order 21, rule 89, civil p.c. he relied on both order 11, rule 1, civil p.c., and section 20, provincial insolvency act. the argument of mr. govindarajachari is that order 40, rule 1(d) comes into operation only when the property has been committed to the possession of the receiver under order ..... power of appointment he was ordered to exercise all the powers of an owner under order 40, rule 1 (d), civil p.c., and he was also expressly empowered to act under order 21, rule 89, civil p.c., to set aside the sale of the said immoveable property after raising the necessary funds. therefore his appointment as interim receiver ..... of court and not an agent of the party. but this statement is not strictly accurate because for certain purposes he does act as the agent of the real owner. as observed by phear, j. in wilkinson v. gangadhar sircar (1871) 6 b lr 486 :whatever the receiver rightly does, with regard to the property he does it simply as the agent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1946Mad334; (1946)1MLJ131
..... the water from a neighbouring well in an adjoining land. to this general rule an exception has however been incorporated by the decisions in grand junction canal co. v. shugar (1871) l.r. 6 ch. a.c. 483 and english v. metropolitan water board (1907) 1 k.b. 588 which lay down the proposition that in drawing subterranean water from the ..... get at the underground water without touching the water in a defined surface channel you cannot get at it at all. you are not by your operations, or by any act of yours, to diminish the water which runs in a defined channel.' in the law relating to easements in india by peacock the following passage occurs at page 292:the ..... well or a pond be to cause damage to his neighbour by abstracting water from his field or land it does not in the least matter because it is the act and not the motive which must be regarded. no action lies for the obstruction or diversion of percolating water even if the result of such abstraction be to diminish or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1935Mad769; 160Ind.Cas.768
..... or in the plaintiff's pleading, to 'value received' or to payment of consideration : see hatch v. trayes (1840) 11 a & e 702, foster v. dawar (1871) 6 ex. 839. in later cases, this idea came to be embodied in the rule that a bill or note prima facie imports consideration or value : southal v. rigg ..... such considerations can justify the court in refusing to draw the presumption they must equally operate to help to rebut the presumption drawn under section 118, negotiable instruments act.17. it is well established in england that in cases where the court examines a transaction in the light of the foregoing principles, the creditor is only ..... chettiar 1916 nad, 278 and sami sah v. parthasarathy chetty 1916 mad. 862, practically ignores the marked difference in language between that section and section 114, evidence act, and illustration (c) thereto. whatever comment may be made upon the way in which the learned judges have expressed themselves in these cases, the principle underlying these .....
Tag this Judgment!