Chennai Court November 1903 Judgments
Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Vs. Nalla Kondayya and ors. and Lakshmanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ145
1. In Second Appeals 1035 and 1037 it is urged that there is no clear and distinct finding by the District Judge as to whether the landlord had shown that there was an implied contract between the parties, that notwithstanding the fact that a well had been dug by the tenant garden rates should be paid on the land irrigated by it. As the judgment is not perfectly clear as to this and as the point is an important one, we direct the District Judge to return a finding on the following issue :--' Was there an implied contract on the part of the defendants to pay jarib rates on lands cultivated by aid of wells dug by themselves.'?2. The question as to whether there is or is not an implied contract is one that must be decided on the facts of each case. The mere fact that garden rates had been paid for a few years would not necessarily lead to the inference that there was any such contract. This, it is clear, is the view taken by the judges in Venkatagiri Raja v. Pitchana I.L.R. 9 M. 27. On th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S. Ramasami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ394
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, C.J.1. The petitioner was ordered by the Head Assistant Magistrate of Madura to furnish securty for keeping the peace under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal to the District Magistrate the order was confirmed. The application for revision of the said order came on before Mr. Justice Benson and was rejected, apparently on the ground that sufficient cause was not shown for the interference of the court by way of revision. The present petition purports to be an appeal against the order of the learned Judge.2. The first question is whether an appeal lies in the matter and it depends upon whether the order as to security is or is not one in a criminal trial within the meaning of Section 15 of the Letters Patent. In construing these words, it is scarcely necessary to say that it is not admissible to refer to and rely on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which we were referred in the course of the argument. I do not, however, wish it...
Tag this Judgment!Kangay Gurukkal and ors. Vs. Kalimuthu Annavi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ61
1. Our answer to the reference is in the affirmative. The first sentence of the extract from the mortgage instrument quoted in the order of reference does, in our opinion, contain a promise by the mortgagor to pay on the date named, in which case there shall be a right in the mortgagor to get back his lands.2. The second sentence of the extract provides that in the event of the mortgagor not paying on the due date, but subsequently, he may pay only on the corresponding day of a future year and there shall then be an obligation on the part of the mortgagee to give up the land.3. The mortgage is therefore a combination of a simple and an usufructuary mortgage, within the meaning of Section 98, Transfer of Property Act and the mortgagee is entitled to a decree for the mortgage money under Clause (a) of Section 68 and to a decree for sale under Section 67, the right to cause the mortgaged property to be sold m default of payment being implied within the meaning of Section 58 (b) of the Tra...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Gounden Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ226
1. Officiating Chief Justice.--The accused Ramasawmi Gounden has been couvicted by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore of the murder of one Angayi and sentenced to death. The case for the prosecution briefly is, that after the deceased Angayi had been deserted by her husband some years ago, she used to work as a servant under the accused; that during that time the accused, who was a widower, kept her that he having since married again broke off the connection with the deceased; that the latter had been in the habit of dunning the accused for money for expenses, which she sometimes got; that on or about the 8th June last she again applied for pecuniary help to the accused, who was then in his field; that on his refusing to comply with her request she would not leave the place but lay down there threatening to disgrace him publicly before his relatives who had come for the festival fieri about to take place in the adjacent village of Malayampundi; that later on that night the accused struck...
Tag this Judgment!Sivagami Achi Vs. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ57
1. Our answer to the reference is that in our opinion none of the proceedings of a court under Section 287, C.P.C. and the rules framed thereunder in relation to the proclamation of sale is an ' order' within Section 244 and as such appealable as a ' decree'.2. We concur in the reasons given in the order of reference and we may add that the view that the proceedings in themselves under Section 287 are of an administrative and not a judicial character is further supported by the fact that special provision is made in Section 287 to summon witnesses and. make enquiry into the matters referred to in the section, a provision which would be superfluous if the proceedings were judicialWe are therefore constrained to dissent from the decisions in the cases reported in I.L.R. 23 M. 568.3. To allow an appeal and, as a consequence, a second appeal, in regard to proceedings under Section 287 as if they were orders made under Section 244 and therefore decrees, would enormously increase the difficu...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnipakam Rajagopalachari (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Lakshmidoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ67
1. Our answer to the question referred for our opinion is that the attachment of the plaintiff's immoveable property which was made more than one year after the date when the rent became due as specified in the puttah tendered, was not within the time limited by Section 2 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865. The decision reported in Appayasami Pillai v. Subba I.L.R. 13 M. 463 is in direct conflict with the decision in Thayamma v. Kolandavelu I.L.R. 12 M. 465 and we think that the view taken in the latter is correct.2. Section 14 makes it perfectly clear that the rent, or any instalment of rent, is deemed an arrear of rent if it is not paid on the date on which it is payable according to the terms of the puttah or custom; and it is not the less an arrear which accrued due on that date because the puttah had not been tendered prior thereto, the tender being postponed to the end of the fasli or revenue year. Such tender is only a condition precedent to the institution of legal proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chetti Vs. Annamalai Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ74
ORDER1. In C.M.P. No. 1319 of 1902:--This purports to be a petition presented under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, praying for the revocation of a sanction given by the District Judge of Madura for the prosecution of the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 193, 196 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, which sanction had been refused by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura (East), in which it is alleged that the offences were committed. The respondents' pleader takes the preliminary objection that no petition lies to this Court under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as the application for sanction has been considered and dealt with both by the Subordinate Judge's Court and the District Court, to which alone the Subordinate Judge's Court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-section 7 (a) of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. Taking the converse of the present case, viz., a case of sanction having been given by the Subordinate Judge's Court and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Aiyar Vs. Subramania Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ393
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. There is no provision of law which requires the Court to recognize the validity of the transfer of a decree before the transferee can apply under Section 232, C.P.C., to exe-cute the decree. The only application which a transferee who, according to the definition of the term decree-holder is himself a decree-holder, can make is an application under Section 232, C.P.C., for execution of the decree and he cannot make an application to the Court merely for recognizing him as transferee of the decree. The revision petitions are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathambi Sahib Alias Saiyid Gulam MuhiuddIn Sahib and ors. Vs. Muh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1903
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ221
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. Under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863 the Judge is to determine, on the perusal of the application itself, whether there are sufficient prima facie grounds for giving sanction to institute a suit under Section 14 for the removal of a trustee and for recovery of damages. In this case sanction is sought for, for instituting a suit against eight trustees of a Durga for their removal and for the recovery of damages from them. The petition alleges numerous acts of malfeasance, breach of trust and neglect of duty against all the eight trustees as counter-petitioners jointly extending over a period of 15 years without making any distinction between them. The petition does not even state when each of the eight trustees was appointed to the office of trustee or became trustee; nor does it allege that all the eight have been trustees during the period of the alleged mismanagement covered by the petition. When one application is made against several trustees; the application ...
Tag this Judgment!Yenathi Naidu Vs. Kujjaligan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1903
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ223
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. There were two points for determination viz., (1) whether the bond was executed and if so (2) whether there was consideration for it. The only decision recorded is 'Finding Negative.' It is impossible to say what the decision is whether it is that the bond is genuine but there was no consideration or that the bond itself is not proved. The District Munsif's judgment cannot, therefore, be regarded as a judgment in law within the meaning of even paragraph 1 of Section 203, C.P.C.2. The decree is accordingly reversed and the suit remanded for being disposed of according to law upon the evidence already on record after hearing both parties on a day to be appointed for the purpose. Costs will be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »