Chennai Court October 1905 Judgments
Venkatappa Naick Vs. Subba Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ59
1. This case has apparently been disposed of upon the preliminary issues as to whether the plaintiff has any cause of action and whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit without giving the plaintiff any opportunity to put in his evidence.2. The suit is to Set aside a judgment on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and the fraud alleged is perjury by the defendant and the suppression of evidence. The law as to the right to bring such an action is the same in this country as in England, and in England the law is authoritatively and finally laid down in Abouloff v. Oppenheimer & Co. 10 Q.B.D. 297 and Vadala v. Lawes L.R. 25 Q.B. p. 314 where the observations on the law by James, L.J., in Flower v. Lloyd 10 Ch.d. 327 are dealt with and disposed or. Lindley L.J. in his judgment in Vadala v. Lawes L.R. 25 Q.B. p. 314 says that the rule, is perfectly well known and established that a party to an action can impeach the judgment in it for fraud whether the judgment is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatappa Naik Vs. Subba Naik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad179
1. This case has apparently been disposed of upon the preliminary issues as to whether the plaintiff has any cause of action and whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the such without giving the plaintiff any opportunity to put in his evidence.2. The suit is to set aside a judgment on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and the fraud alleged is perjury by the defendant and the suppression of evidence. The law as to the right to bring such an action is the same in this country as in England and in England the law is authoritatively and finally laid down in Abouloff v. Oppenheimer L.R. 10 Q.B.D. 295 and Vadala v. Lawes L.R. Q.B.D. 310 where the observations on the law by James, L.J., in Flower v. Lloyd L.R. 10 Ch. D. 327 are dealt with and disposed of. Lindley, L.J., in his judgment in Vadala v. Lawes L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 295 says that the rule is perfectly well known and established, that a party to an action can impeach the judgment is it for fraud whether the judgment is that...
Tag this Judgment!Thangammai Nachiar Vs. Subbammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ20
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The plaintiff sold her lands to the defendant Subbammal on the 30th April 1891 for Rs. 4,324. Out of that amount the defendant was to pay a mortgage debt of Rs. 2,800, due by the plaintiff to one Shanmuga Kumaraswami Mudaliar. One of the widows of Shanmuga Kumaraswamy Mudaliar, received a moiety of the' principal amount, but the other widow Kalliani Ammai had to sue for her moiety, the present plaintiff and certain others who had purchased the mortgaged property from her. To avoid the sale of the properties in execution the purchasers had to pay the decree debt of Rs. 3,697-10-0. It is the plaintiff's case that that amount was paid by them at the plaintiff's request and on an undertaking by her to repay them that amount. The plaintiff now sues to recover that sum from the defendant, as it was her default in payment that led to Kalliani Ammai's suit and to the loss sustained by the plaintiff in having to pay to the. purchasers the amount deposited by them. I agree wi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Karuppana Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad188
ORDER1. We think that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order in appeal directing the accused to pay the costs of the complainant is not illegal as it does not amount to an enhancement of sentence. The order is made under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act, and is entirely irrespective of the penalty or sentence passed under the Indian Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been held in Madan Mandul v. Satan Ghose I.L.R. Cal 687 that it forms no part of the sentence, and the Court Pees Act itself says that 'the Court shall in addition to the penalty imposed order it to be paid. It is not therefore any part of the sentence, and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in appeal correcting the omission of the Court below to order it to be paid does not amount to an enhancement of the sentence.2. We disagree with the decision in Queen-Empress v. Tangavelu Chetti I.L.R. Mad. 153....
Tag this Judgment!Kader Batcha and ors. Vs. Kader Batcha Rowthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad237
ORDERS. Shabrahmania Ayyar, Officiating C.J.1. No doubt there was no enquiry in this case as to who was in possession of the mosque. The order therefore in so far as it declares possession to be with the second party cannot be maintained and the vakil who represents that party encodes this. As to the real point in question it is clear that a dispute as to a right to use a mosque by persons claiming to be entitled to officiate as Kazis therein is a dispute coming within Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Muhammad Musaliar v. Kunji Check Musaliar I.L.R. 11 Mad. 323, so far as it goes confirms the above view. The order will therefore be modified by directing that Ibrahim and Kather Ibrahim shall not be introduced into the mosque to officiate therein, by the five individuals mentioned in the Magistrate's order as forming party No. I until the decision of a competent Civil Court recognizing the alleged right is obtained by them....
Tag this Judgment!Muthiah Chetti and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad190
1. The appellants have been convicted of being members of an unlawful assembly and have been fined under Section 143, Indian Penal Code. They have also been bound over to keep the peace under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code.2. We are clearly of opinion that the conviction was right. It is found that the appellants with others to the number of 100 armed with aruvals, sticks, etc., went to a piece of land claimed by the prosecutor with the object of taking possession of it and demolishing a building upon it and though no force or violence was used - that was because the prosecution party were overawed and did not come into conflict with them.3. It is however contended, and we think rightly, that the accused in the circumstances of this case were improperly bound over to keep the peace under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as (1) they were convicted by a Second-class Magistrate only and not before a Court such as is named in the section and (2) they have not been convi...
Tag this Judgment!Abu Baker Vs. the Municipality of Negapatam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad185
ORDERSubrahmania Ayyar, Officiating C.J.1. The convictions in these oases are clearly sustainable. The place where the fish or mutton was sold was originally a recognized market. It was closed under orders in 1888. No license having since been granted for the use of the place as a market, the sales conducted by the accused, in respect of which the charges are made, are punishable under Section 197 of the District Municipalities Act, if the use of the place which is private property was as a market, i.e., as a public place for buying and selling, such being the meaning of the term 'market' in law (see Bouvier's ' Law Dictionary,' volume II, p. 316). Even if it were otherwise, the accused were guilty of an offence under Section 194, Clause (2), of the Act as they without license sold 'flesh' or fish 'intended for food.' The petitions are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Bommali Musiligadu and ors. Vs. Madugula Nannigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ492
1. We are clearly of opinion that under Exhibit A the plaintiff's mother obtained an absolute right to the land and not merely the right to receive the produce thereof as the District Judge has found. The gift is of the land and the document merely proceeds to say that for the present the donor remains in possession as tenant and will pay the rent to the donee, but, if he does not do so, the donee may take possession of the land and let it to whomsoever she pleases. This admittedly happened. This first defendant did not pay the plaintiff's mother the landlord's share of the produce after his father's death and she took possession of the land and let it to others herself paying the cist.2. In 1890, the plaintiffs' mother and the defendants jointly mortgaged this and other lands by way of conditional sale to D. Ranganaikulu, and in 1895 the same lands were re-conveyed to the defendants and the plaintiffs, the sons of the original donee of the land now claimed.3. The plaintiffs say that t...
Tag this Judgment!Murugappa Chetti Vs. Nagappa Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad161; (1906)16MLJ22
S. Subrahmania Ayyar, Offg. C.J.1. The important point for determination in this case is whether the first plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, is, as found by the Subordinate Judge, the adopted son of the defendant. The oral evidence in the case proves beyond all doubt that the plaintiff was, on or about the 28th October 1887, while a boy of 12 or 13 years of age, formally given in adoption to the defendant and accepted by the latter as his son, and that such gift and acceptance were accompanied by ceremonies usual among the members of the community to which the parties belong, viz., Sudras of the class known as Nattukottai Chetties. That the plaintiff has ever since lived away from his natural home and as a member of the defendant's family is equally well established. It is further shown that the defendant got the plaintiff married and that the issue of that marriage (the second plaintiff) has also grown up as a member of the defendant's family. Mr. Sivaswami Ayyar, o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Palaniappavelan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad187
ORDERS. Subrahmania Ayyar, Officiating C.J.1. In this case the order awarding compensation to the accused was reversed on the appeal preferred by the complaintant, but without notice either to the accused or to the Public Prosecutor. There is no express provision directing that notice should be given to the former in a such a case. But on the principle audi alteram partem the accused should have notice of the appeal in order that they may have an opportunity of supporting the order passed in their favour.2. As regards the view suggested by the Sessions Judge it would seem that, according to the letter of the law, notice to the officer, if any, appointed by the local Government referred to in Section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code is necessary even in such oases where the appeal is not summarily rejected through there seems little reason for notice to that officer in a matter in which the accused only are really interested. Though the point is somewhat doubtful it seems to me that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »