Chennai Court November 1900 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.
Queen-empress Vs. Kuppumuthu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad317
1. The order for transfer was in effect made at the request of the Sub-Magistrate, not on the application of a party. Such a case is an exception to the general rule that an order should not be made under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code without notice to the other aide. The Court to which the case was transferred was selected by the District Magistrate as the most convenient for the parties. We see no reason to interfere with the exercise of his discretion.2. The petition must be dismissed....
Palani Goundan Vs. Kuppandi Gounden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ189
1. Section 78 of the Village Courts' Act does not contemplate a Village Munsif being made a party to proceedings taken under that section. The section applies to proceedings as between litigants and empowers a District Munsif to set aside any decree or order affecting the rights of litigants for any of the reasons specified in the section--amongst others, corruption, gross partiality or misconduct on the part of the Village Munsif. Even if corruption, gross partiality or misconduct is made out, all that the District Munsif can do is to set aside the decree or order complained of. Ho cannot, while setting aside any decree or order, make any order for payment as against the Village Munsif himself. So far as the Village Munsif is concerned, the proper course, if he is satisfied that there has been corruption, gross partiality or misconduct on the part of the Village Munsif, is to proceed under Section 74 and report the case to the District Judge.2. The order of the District Munsif, in so ...
Chakrapani Chettiar Vs. Dhanji Settu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad311
1. It is not disputed that it was competent for the petitioner in the Court of First Instance who, as decree-holder in Suit No. 378 of 1897, was entitled to rateable distribution of the assets realized in the sale in execution of the decree in Suit No. 477 of 1898, to apply under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Code to have the sale in execution of the decree in Suit No. 477 set aside on the ground of irregularity. See Lakshmi v. Kuttunni I.L.R. 10 Mad. 57. The sale was twice adjourned with the consent of the judgment-debtor, and finally took place, also with the consent of the judgment-debtor, without a fresh proclamation. The argument of the petitioner before this Court is that by reason of the judgment-debtor having consented to the adjournments, and to the sale taking place without a fresh proclamation, the Court of First Instance, in setting aside the sale exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material ir...
Palani Goundan Vs. Kuppanda Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad335
1. Section 73 of the Village Court is Act does not contemplate a Village Munsif being made a party to proceedings taken under that section. The section applies to proceedings between litigants and empowers a District Munsif to set aside any decree or order affecting the rights of litigants for any of the reasons specified in the section, amongst others corruption, gross partiality or misconduct on the part of the Village Munsif. Even if corruption, gross partiality or misconduct is made out, all that the District Munsif can do is to set aside the decree or order complained of. He cannot, while setting aside any decree or order, make any order for payment as against the Village Munsif him-self. So far as the Village Munsif is concerned the proper course for the District Munsif, if he is satisfied that there has been corruption, gross partiality or misconduct on the part of the Village Munsif, is to proceed under Section 74 and report the case to the District Judge.2. The order of the Di...
Kunhunni Vs. Srivallabhan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ10
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the appeal was heard by a Bench of two Judges. As the two Judges did not concur in varying or reversing the decree appealed against, the decree was a (firmed in accordance with the provisions of Section 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. On behalf of the respondents a preliminary objection has been taken that, in this state of things no appeal lies under Article 15' of the Letters Patent. The precise point was raised before the Calcutta High Court in Sir Gridhariji Tickait v. Purushotum Gossumi I.L.R. 10 C. 814 and that Court held that in such circumstances an appeal lay under Article 15 of the Letters Patent. I agree with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court and with the grounds upon which it is based. Apart from authority, I should have been prepared to hold that we have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Assuming the effect of Section 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to substitute the concurring Judge for the senior Judge as was held i...
Subrahmania Ayyar Vs. Rangappa Kalakka Thola Udatar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad307
1. The plaintiff (appellant) seeks to set aside a sale of his immoveable property under a distress for rent.2. It is contended that, because a bid equal to the amount of the arrears was made for a portion of the plaintiff's property which had been so distrained for arrears of rent, the landlord's claims was thereby satisfied under Section 33 of Act VIII of 1865 though the amount bid was not paid; and also that a subsequent sale of the rest of his property was illegal as the only remedy lay in. taking proceedings against the defaulting purchaser. We cannot agree with this contention see Anandra v Bapuji v. Shekh Baba I.L.R. 2 Bom. 562. The arrear is only satisfied by a sale when the amount bid is paid, till when the debt is still subsisting Khiroda Moyee Dossee v. Golam Somdanee 21 W.R. 149. Notice to the plaintiff of the second sale was not necessary under Section 39 of Act VIII of 1865.3. There was no allegation in the plaint nor proof that the requirements of the law in regard to pub...
Krishnaswami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ7
1. Accepting the findings we must reverse the decree of the District Judge, and in lieu thereof, it is declared that the 3rd and 4th defendants have no interest in the mortgaged properties. It is further declared that the whole of the mortgaged property in its entirety (consisting of the shares of the 1st and 2nd defendants) is liable for the sum of Rs. 1,335-7-7. It is further declared that so much of the mortgaged property as consists of the 2nd defendant's share therein is liable in addition for a further sum of Rs. 568-8-5, being the difference between the amount found in this suit to be due from the 1st defendant on the said mortgage and the amount found to be due on the said mortgage in Suit No. 427 of 1889.2. The appellants' (plaintiffs') costs throughout must be paid by the 2nd defendant. The 3rd and 4th defendants must pay to the 2nd defendant the costs of the trial of the issues sent down by this Court. 3. The memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs....
Queen-empress Vs. Yamana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad305
1. In a reference of this kind the Sessions Judge should have stated the facts clearly and consecutively. They are as follows:2. One Yamana Rao was convicted of an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the Deputy Magistrate of Narsaraopat on the 24th April 1899, and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 15 and also to pay 'the complainant's costs of the prosecution.'3. In May 1900 the Deputy Magistrate issued a warrant for the collection of Rs. 12-4-0 from the accused. This sum was made up as follows: Rs. 2-4-0 Court and process fees paid by the complainant; Rs. 10 two fees of Rs. 5 each paid by the complainant to the medical officer for a certificate and for giving evidence in the case.4. The accused objected to the recovery of these sums on the ground that they were not assessed at the time when the judgment of the Deputy Magistrate was pronounced, but the Deputy Magistrate refused to review his order or withdraw the warrant.5. In the explanation furnished by the Deputy Ma...
Chinna Krishna Reddi Vs. Dorasami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1900
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ71
1. We have no materials for deciding whether the claim for possession ought to have been made in the previous suit. If under the contract for sale the plaintiff was entitled to immediate possession or if the rights to possession and a conveyance arose coincidently as in Narayana Kavirayan v. Kandasami Goundan I.L.R. 22 M. 24 the judgment is right.2. On the other hand it may be that the plaintiff acquired his right to possession only under the conveyance and that is the claim he makes. As it is alleged that the 1st defendant represented the defendants 2 to 4 in the original suit and that they are therefore bound by the decree therein, any bar which operates in favour of the 1st defendant must equally avail to the other defendants.3. We must, therefore, set aside the order and direct the District Munsif to re-try the case.4. Costs will abide the event....
Ramamitham and anr. Vs. Ranganathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad299
1. The words 'sons and grandsons' used in the will have, in our opinion, no other effect than the term 'heirs' would have in an English will.2. It is argued that because, according to the English Statute and the Indian Succession Act, a gift to the testator's child does not lapse on the legatee dying before the testator, leaving lineal descendants, the same rule must by analogy apply to this case.3. We cannot adopt this view. The provision in the Indian Succession Act is an exceptional one made for a certain class of cases only and we have no power to extend it.4. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »