Chennai Court September 1901 Judgments
King-emperor Vs. MohiuddIn Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad143
Moore, J.1. Six men were charged before the Sessions Judge with the murder of one Nabi Sahib. He has convicted Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and acquitted Nos. 5 and 6. No. 1 has been sentenced to death and Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to transportation for life, They appeal.2. The case against the first prisoner is very strong. The third prosecution witness, an approver, has described in detail the manner in which Nabi Sahib was killed and has shown that this prisoner took a prominent part in the attack on him. His evidence is corroborated in certain important particulars by the fourth witness, a boy of about 13 years of age, who is the nephew of the first prisoner. This boy was present when the attack commenced, but ran away before Nabi Sahib received very serious injuries. The fifth and seventh witnesses also saw the first prisoner with others strike Nabi Sahib, but they also left the place before the man was killed. Nabi Sahib was killed on the 12th May. His body was discovered on the 16th and on the 19th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah M. Bhaskara Sethupathi and Vs. Narayanasamy Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ360
ORDER1. In this petition the plaintiff and the defendants in, O.S. No. 33 of 1898 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura (East), now pending in appeal in this Court, state that they have entered into a compromise of the suit on certain stated terms and ask that the agreement may bo recorded and a decree passed in its terms in lieu of the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge in the suit. The petition is made under Section 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides as follows:- 'If a suit be adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, or if the defendant satisfy the plaintiff in respect to the whole or any part of the matter of the suit, such agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded, and the court shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the suit, and such decree shall be final so far as relates to so much of the subject-matter of the suit as is dealt with by the agreement, compromise or satisfaction...
Tag this Judgment!Watson and anr. Vs. Lloyd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad402
1. This is an appeal from an order of Boddam, J., dismissing an application for the attachment of a moiety of the pay of a Major in the Indian Staff Corps.2. The Army Act of 1881, Section 151 (3) provided: 'A Civil Court or Court of Small Causes, upon adjudging payment of any sum by any person subject to military law other than a soldier of the regular forces, may either award execution thereof generally, or may direct specially that the amount named in the direction, being the whole or any part of the said sum, shall be paid by instalments or otherwise out of any pay or other public money payable to the debtor, and the amount named in the direction, not exceeding one half of such pay and public money, shall, while the debtor is in India, be stopped and paid in conformity with the direction.'3. Section 136, of the same Act provides--'The pay of an officer or soldier of His Majesty's regular forces shall be paid without any deduction other than the deductions authorized by this or any o...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad MohidIn Sait Vs. the Municipal Commissioners for the City of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad118
Abnold White, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for an injunction to restrain the defendants (the Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras) from continuing to use a certain plot of ground as a burning and burial ground, and he claimed damages for special injury which he alleged he had sustained by reason of the use of the ground in question as a burning and burial ground.2. The first question for consideration is whether the evidence shows that the use of the ground as a burning and burial ground constitutes an actionable nuisance.3. The second issue in the case is whether the user of the defendants' land in the manner alleged in the plaint is a nuisance to the plaintiff and is as such actionable? The finding of the learned Judge upon this issue was in the negative.4. In the Court below the plaintiff sought to make out that the water in his well had become polluted by reason of corpses having been buried in close proximity to his well, and that the smoke and smell from the b...
Tag this Judgment!Vappakandu Marakayar and anr. Vs. Annamalai Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad561
Moore, J.1. It is shown that, on the 3rd August 1896, the defendants entered into an agreement (exhibit D) with the first plaintiff under which it was provided that the first plaintiff should lend to the defendants a sum of Us. 1,500 on the risk 'yogyam' as to the meaning of this term--vide Asan Kuthu Sahib Mercoyar v. Ramanathan Chetti I.L.R. 22 Mad. 26 of a ship called the Henrietta Elisabeth which had started from Negapatam on the 23rd July 1896 for the Nicobars. The terms of this agreement, as I read them, were that the vessel was to sail from the Nicobar Isles to Rangoon and Moulmein and thence to Negapatam, that if she returned safe to Negapatam the defendants should, on the 20th March 1897, repay to the first plaintiff the sum Borrowed from him together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum, but that if the vessel did not return the first plaintiff lost his money. There are certain other provisions as to what should happen in case the vessel should not have returne...
Tag this Judgment!Duraisami and ors. Vs. Venkataseshaiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ373
ORDER1. Assuming that the original bond has not been discharged, we think it is clear that the suit would not be barred by limitation, because in the subsequent document there is an acknowledgment that a debt was still due beyond the Rs. 1,500 for which the security was then taken.2. The question when the original bend was discharged was clearly raised by the first issue and there was a decision on that issue. It was therefore not competent to the District Judge, under Section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to frame a fresh issue and allow fresh evidence to be taken. We must ask the District Judge to return findings on the first and second issues, dealing with the' matter as if no fresh issue had been framed and no additional evidence taken. The findings should be submitted within one month from this date and seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the findings have been posted up in this Court.[The District Judge returned the finding that the amount of the interest...
Tag this Judgment!Dorasami and ors. Vs. Venkataseshayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad108
1. The revised findings submitted by the District Judge, in accordance with the order of this Court, dated 13th March 1901, must be accepted, as they are not open to any legal objection; and the case has now to be decided with reference to the question of law raised in the eighth ground which has now been argued. That question is whether the plaintiff, who claims to have two mortgages on one and the same property, can maintain a suit, on the first mortgage alone, for sale of the mortgaged property, such sale being subject to the subsequent mortgage in his own favour.2. The first mortgage, dated 20th December 1880, is a simple mortgage and the balance alleged to be due thereupon is Rs. 220. On the 22nd October 1886 the lands comprised in the simple mortgage, were mortgaged to the plaintiff, with possession, for the sum of Rs. 1,500, and the plaintiff was to enjoy the usufruct in lieu of interest; and there is a covenant in the mortgage bond for re-payment of Rs. 1,500 and redemption of ...
Tag this Judgment!Suthersanam Maistri Vs. Narasimhulu Maistri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ353
1. The Chief Justice stated the facts of the case and agreed with the learned Judge below that the alleged partnership between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was not proved and proceeded as follows: In the view I take of the facts, it is not necessary for me to consider the question of limitation. With regard to this question, however, I am of opinion that if there ever was an agreement between the brothers in the nature of a partnership agreement, that agreement came to an end in 1894 and the plaintiff's claim is consequently barred by limitation. 2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.3. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the Judgment of Mr. Justice Boddam in C.S. No. 159 of 1900, dated 16th January 1901, dismissing the suit with costs. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for taking an account of property alleged to have been jointly acquired by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as undivided brothers, for ascertaining the respective shar...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsanam Maistri Vs. Narasimhulu Maistei and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad149
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of Mr. Justice Boddam in Civil Suit No. 159 of 1900, dated 16th January 1901, dismissing the suit with costs. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for taking an account of property alleged to have been jointly acquired by the plaintiff and the first defendant as undivided brothers, for ascertaining the respective shares of plaintiff and first defendant therein and for a decree awarding to him his share in such properties.2. The cause of action, as disclosed in the plaint, is that the plaintiff and the first defendant carried on jointly some contract business until the year 1894, when, disputes and differences having arisen between them, the first defendant and his wife, the second defendant, left the house in which they were till then living with the plaintiff, as members of an undivided family, and went and lived separate. The property acquired from the funds of the contract business both prior ...
Tag this Judgment!Chennu Menon and ors. Vs. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad399
1. The appellant contends that the leave to sue given under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure is irregular and therefore the suit should be dismissed.2. The plaintiff who is the manager of a samuham applied for leave to sue the defendants Nos. 1 to 12 on behalf of the samuham to recover certain property. This was refused. The plaintiff thereupon filed the suit in his own name and claimed to recover as manager of the samuham joining other members of the samuham as defendants also. The defendants raised the question as to whether all the members of the samuham were made parties and also contended that the suit would not lie as leave to sue under Section 30 had not been given.3. The Munsif in the course of the case gave leave to sue under Section 30 and ultimately the plaintiff succeeded in both Courts.4. The only question before us is whether the leave given is valid and sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, the leave having been given (a) after suit commenced and (b) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »