Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Second-grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad83
1. In this case the District Judge, under proceedings, dated 30th December 1899, framed two charges against the petitioner under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The charges related to two distinct matters. The proceedings directed that the charges would be heard on 24th January 1900. On the day on which the charges were framed (30th December 1899), the Judge passed an order suspending the petitioner from practice as from 1st January 1900, pending the disposal of the charges framed against him.2. In passing this order the District Judge overlooked the provisions of Section 40 of the Act. That section provides as follows: Notwithstanding any thing hereinbefore contained 'no pleader, mukhtar or revenue agent shall be suspended or dismissed under this Act unless he has been allowed an opportunity of defending himself before the authority suspending or dismissing him.' This section governs the provisions of Section 14 which gives to a Judge a power of suspension pending the inves...
Manikapalli Ramayya Vs. Chinna Rangayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ234
1. On the facts found we do not think that the sale to the plaintiff by Hanumanthappa was a fraudulent transaction within the meaning of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was genuine to the extent of Rs. 400 at least, and the result was that a creditor of Hanumanthappa's was paid off to that amount (see Ramasamia Pillai v. Adinarayana Pillai I.L.R. (1897) M 465.2. We also think there was no misjoindr in this matter agreeing with the Munsif. We agree with the decision in Raghunath Mukund v. Sarosh E.R. Kama (1871) M.H.C.R. 6 and following that we hold there was no misjoinder here. The result is that we reverse the decrees of the Courts below and declare plaintiff's title to the plaint properties and cancel the attachments made by the 1st defendant. The 1sl and 2nd defendants must pay the plaintiff's costs throughout in proportion to the value of their respective properties....
Subba Reddi Vs. Munshoor Ali Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad81
1. The District Magistrate has overlooked the rulings of this Court, dated 23rd October 1878, No. 1759, reported at page 232, Weir's 'Law of Offences,' 3rd edition, and in the note to Queen v. Reva Pothadu I.L.R. 5 Mad. 390.2. It was there held that fish in an ordinary open irrigation tank are not in possession of any person, so as to be capable of being3. the subject of theft. The question whether the removal of such fish constitutes any other offence is fully discussed in Bhagiram Dome v. Abar Dome I.L.R. 15 Calc. 388 and is answered in the negative, These rulings are evidently referred to by the Sub-Magistrate, though he has failed to note them with exactness.4. The District Magistrate should have referred to them before setting aside the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Following those rulings we must set aside the order of the District Magistrate and restore that of the Sub-Magistrate dismissing the case....
Muthuramalingam and Muthalagu and ors. Vs. the Queen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ127
1. This case is a very clear one, and there can be no doubt that the prisoners have been properly convicted. No one appears for the 1st prisoner, and in his appeal petition all that he says amounts to nothing more than a plea that he is a feeble old man and has been made a tool of by others. That such is the case appears to be true, and we accordingly reduce the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for three years.2. The defence put forward here on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd prisoners is that they never signed Exhibits C and D and that Kantha Pandaram was actually before the Sub-Registrar and was accordingly identified by them as such. It is absolutely impossible to accept these assertions which are not supported by anything that can be called evidence. It is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the 1st prisoner was brought before the Sub-Registration to personate Kantha Pandaram and that this could have been done when Kantha Pandaram himself was present, it is impossible ;to bel...
Pachiakutti Udaiyan Vs. Panchanada Patten and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ204
1. We think the Acting District Judge was wrong in holding that the case was barred by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff when suing for the possession of the land for which he had admittedly paid the money he now seeks to recover, could not have anticipated the necessity which now arises to claim the repayment of his purchase money and he therefore, could not be expected to claim it in that action.2. The Acting District Judge having disposed of the case upon this preliminary point alone, we must reverse his decree and remand the case for disposal according to law. Costs to abide and follow the event....
In Re: Venkatanarasimha Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ216
ORDERShephard, J.1. The decree of the Subordinate Judge did not accord with the judgment. There was an appeal to the District Judge who confirmed the decree and a second appeal to this Court which terminated in the same way. Now it is sought to have the decree amended so as to make it accord with the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and the question is whether the application for that purpose is rightly made in the High Court.2. The question is narrowed by the decision of the Full Bench in Pichuvayyangar v. Seshayyangar I.L.R. (1894) M. 214 for there it was held in a case where there had been an appeal from the District Munsif's decree to the District Judge, that it was not competent to the District Munsif to amend his decree. The reason of that decision is that when there has been a judgment of a Court of Appeal passed in accordance with Section 577 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a decree consequent thereon, it is that decree and not the original decree which is the operative dec...
Tayaramma Vs. Seetaramaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ214
1. Having regard to the facts found and to the terms of the will, we think that the lower Courts were entitled to find that the bequest was made conditional on the continuance of the immoral relations between the plaintiff and the testator.2. According to the principle of English Law which 'finds expression in Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act X of 1865, such a condition renders the bequest void. We are unable to agree to the suggestion that as the Indian Succession Act is not appplicable to Hindus in the mofussil, we should, therefore, regard the principle to which we have referred as inapplicabfe, to the present case. The same principle his been followed in Section 25 of the Transfer of Property Act in 'regard to the tranlcrs inter' vivos, and in the Indian Contract Act in regard to contracts both of which Acts apply to Hindus in the mofussil. We must, therefore, take it that the principle is 'applies'ale to the present case as a rule of equity and good conscience. The princip...
Venkatramier Vs. Venkata Subramanien
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ217
1. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is right. The questions argued before us for the appellants are, (1872) B.L.R. 10 that the suit is barred by Section 43, Civil Procedure Code, and I.L.R. (1896) B. 548 that it is barred by limitation.2. The defendant agreed, to convey certain property belonging to him and his son to the plaintiff. Disputes having arisen before the conveyance was executed, plaintiff sued for specific performance and got a decree in pursuance of which the price was fully paid and a conveyance was executed. The plaintiff not having been given possession sued for possession. It was then ,. found that the sale did not bind the son's interest in the property and that though the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the father's share a division ought not to be effected on the ground of the inconvenience attending the division of the house. Plaintiff was awarded the value of the defendant's share, and the present suit is to recover the balance of the price paid on the ...
Kathappudayan Vs. Muthappudayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ230
1. The District Munsif found that the defendant entered the plaintiffs'house without his consent, and during his absence with intent to commit adultery with the plaintiffs wife but that no adultery was committed as the defendant and plaintiffs wife were surprised almost immediately. He dismissed the suit for damages on the ground that no adultery was committed. On appeal the District Judge agreed with the District Munsif that adultery. was not committed and dismissed the appeal. He did not find whether or not the trespass was committed, nor whether such trespass would by itself be a ground for damages.2. If the house-trespass with intent to commit adultery found by the District Munsif was true, we are of opinion that a case for house-trespass existed apart from the question of any actual adultery. The intention to commit adultery is a circumstance to be taken into consideration in assessing the amount of damages for the tort. Cf. Merest v. Harvey, This view of the case does not appear ...
Venkatarama Ayyar and ors. Vs. Venkata Subrahmanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad27
1. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is right. The questions argued before us for the appellants are--(1) that the suit is barred by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (2) that it is barred by limitation.2. The defendant agreed to convey certain property belonging to him and his son to the plaintiff. Disputes having arisen before the conveyance was executed, plaintiff sued for specific performance and got a decree, in pursuance of which the price was fully paid, and a conveyance was executed. Plaintiff not having been given possession, sued for possession. It was then found that the sale did not bind the son's interest in the property, and that though the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the father's share, a division ought not to be effected on the ground of the inconvenience attending the division of the house. Plaintiff was awarded the value of the defendant's share, and the present suit is do recover the balance of the price paid, on the ground of failure of co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »