Chennai Court April 1904 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.
T. Nooroodeen Sahib Vs. Charles Sowden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ45
Davies, J.1. The first three plaintiffs are importers of ' Grey shirtings' from Manchester of which the, last three plaintiffs are the shippers. On these goods they have since 1889 stamped a ' facing' which, to take a typical example, consists of letters, designs and numerals in the following order:T.A. Taylor & Co. (in. Roman capitals).A coat of arms.T.A.T. (in manuscript form).Scimitars placed horizontally varying in number for quality.Figures showing weight in lbs.A number.A circle within a circle with, inscriptions denoting Firm.Figures showing length in yards.A letter (Roman capital)A number.2. The plaintiffs claim the whole of this combination in the sequence in which its details stand as their ' trademark' and charge the defendant another importer of similar goods with the infringement of it by stamping his merchandize with a facing so closely resembling theirs in the character and order of his marks as to mislead the public into believing that in purchasing his shirtings they a...
Chekka Venkataswamy Vs. Gajjila Nagabhushanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1904
Reported in: (1904)1MLJ326
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. Hera I am asked to give a decree only for Rs. 63 being the amount claimed as due to the plaintiff out of what he had paid as the defendant's agent to third parties on account of difference under waggering contracts entered into with them by the defendant through the plaintiff.2. Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act relied on on behalf of the defendatn does not bar such a claim. Whether the view of Brett M.R. or that of Bowen and Fry, L.J.J., in Read v. Anderson L.R. 13 Q.B. 779 is the correct view with reference to the precise question on which the learned Judges differed it is not necessary here to go into since the question of revocation was raised here. Parakh Govardhan Bhai Hari Bhai v. Ransoordoss Dulabhdoss 12 B.H.C.R. 51 and Shibhao Mal v. Lakshman Das I.L.R. 23 A. 165 are clearly in favour of the view that Section of the Indian Contract Act Cannot be construed as covering a claim like the present and Bhola Nath v. Mul Chand I.L.r. 25 A. 639 in so far as...
Venkata Dikshatulu and ors. Vs. Gavaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ308
1. As regards the alienations under Exhibit J. we agree with the Subordinate Judge that it is not an alienation binding upon the reversioner. We cannot accept the suggestion that the grant of the Inam title deed to the 1st defendant, the widow, constituted the property her absolute property. The Inam was taken by inheritance by the 1st defendant as the widow of the previous holder. Though there has been some difference of opinion as to the effect of the enfranchisement of service Inams, there never has been any doubt that enfranchisement or grant of title deed in respect of personal Inams in any way affects the right of parties entitled thereto. This was laid down so far back as 1865 in Cherukuri Venieanna v. Manthravathi Lahshmi Narayana Bastrulu 2 M.H.C.R. 327. The law as laid down there was adopted by the legislature itself in Madras Act VIII of 1869. The case in Subba Naidu v. Nagayya 12 M.L.J.R. 89; S.C.I.L.R. 25 M. 424.--Ed. to which our attention has been drawn it inconsistent w...
Kuttisseri Illath Raman Namboodri Vs. Achutha Pishurodi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1904
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad42; 14Ind.Cas.415
1. No doubt, the plaintiff's claim, in so far as it was based on the assignment to him by the melkanomdar, who had obtained the previous decree for redemption was concerned, would have been unsustainable. But as the assignee of the jenm, right he is clearly entitled to redeem. Though, so long as the right to redeem under the previous decree obtained by the 'melkanomdar was in force and executable, the right to redemption as between the melkanomdar and the jenmi would have been preferentially in the former, yet that decree having become incapable of execution, there is nothing to prevent the plaintiff as the assignee of the jenm right exercising his right of redemption under the earlier mortgage to the defendants.2. The decrees of the lower Courts are, therefore, set aside and there will be a decree for the plaintiff for possession and for Rs. 10-4, arrears of rent till date of suit and future profits at 5 paras of paddy and 4 annas 7 pies from Malabar year 1076 till possession, or 3 ye...
Vedanayaga Mudaliar Vs. Vedammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ297
1. The plaintiff, as the paternal aunt's son or bandhu of the deceased Sankaramoorti Mudaliyar, sues for a declaration of his right to the property left by the deceased, on the ground that the defendant, the deceased's mother, is not entitled to the property, she having been a party to his murder, but that the plaintiff, as the next in succession, is the person that has the right thereto. The defendant and a Muhammadan by name Shaik Abdul Kadir Ravutban, with whom she is alleged to have been criminally intimate prior to the death of her son, were tried for the murder in the Sessions Court of Tinnevelly. She was, however, acquitted while her alleged paramour was convicted of the offence.2. The Subordinate Judge, without trying the question whether the defendant was concerned in the murder, dismissed the suit.3. The first question for consideration is whether the plaintiff can ask for mere declaration; and if so, whether, as urged for the defendant, the Court should, in the circumstances...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›