Chennai Court November 1903 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.
Dorasamy Pillai Alias Karupa Pillai (Minor) by His Mother and Next Fri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ159
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. This has been treated as a revision petition not only against the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated the 13th October 1902 but also against his order, dated the 28th July 1902. In passing both these orders it is clear that the Subordinate Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction which by reason of the petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) being an infant the Court had over the conduct and disposal of the suit and to realize his responsibility in the matter. As observed by Scott, J. in Rahimbhoy v. Habibbhoy I.L.R. 13 B. 137 'a suit relating to the estate or person of an infant and for his benefit has the effect of making, him a Ward of Court.' That being so, no act can be done affecting the property of the minor unless under the express or the implied direction of the court itself (Story's Equity jurisprudence Section 1353.)2. Section 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure enacts that if the interest of the next friend is adverse to that of the minor, or if the nex...
Tholasiram and anr. Vs. Duraji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1903
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ375
1. Upon the face of the plaint itself it is clear that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against any of the defendants. Assuming, as found by the Court below, that the articles were sold to the first defendant under false pretences amounting to the offence of cheating, the contract of sale was but voidable at the instance of the plaintiffs. They, however, as stated in the plaint, brought a suit against the first defendant for the price of the jewels sold and delivered to him and obtained a decree for the same and the decree was subsisting at the date of the suit. After the plaintiffs had thus obtained the decree which is subsisting, they could 11o longer elect to avoid the contract. That being so at the date of the suit, the plaintiffs had not only no, title to the property, but they were not in a position to avoid the contract so as to divest the property from the first defendant with the result of re-vesting it in the plaintiffs. The second and third defendants had therefore acqu...
Subba Pillai Vs. Ramasamy Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ274
1. The two items allowed by the Lower Appellate Court in favour of the respondent to which objections were taken by the appellant's Pleader are (i) an item of Rs. 94-1-0 being the share of Govinda Pillai, the appellant's deceased brother, in the sum drawn (by the respondent) from the court in S.C.S. No. 1938 of 1895 and (ii) an item of Rs. 200 being the amount of a promissory note made by Govinda Pillai in favour of the respondent.2. As regards the first item, the respondent's plea was that he appropriated the amount towards the fees due to him in O.S. No. 14 of 1895--a suit for partition against the present appellant which abated on the death of Govinda Pillai, the plaintiff therein--and that he was also authorized by Govinda Pillai to do so. The lower appellate Court refers to this question of authorization as the 3rd question for decision in the appeal before it and records (on it) a finding in the affirmative--in favor of the present respondents. There is evidence in the case in su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›