Chennai Court December 1905 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.
Emperor Vs. Ramasawmy Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad192
1. We think the order of acquittal in this case must be set aside.2. The accused, a police constable, was charged under Section 44 of Act XXIV of 1859 with 'ceasing to perform the duties of his office without leave.' It appears that he applied for leave which was refused. He then obtained three days casual leave, and whilst on such, leave again applied for long leave which was again refused. He did not however return to duty at the expiry of his casual leave but stayed away without leave. Having stayed away from duty for over one month sanction was granted for his prosecution under the above section, and the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Madura Town tried, convicted, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 12 or in default one week's simple imprisonment. On appeal the Sub-Divisional First-class Magistrate set aside the conviction and acquitted him, holding that the facts proved did not constitute the offence of 'ceasing to perform the duties of his office without leave' inasmuch as he was on...
Mamidi Subbayya and anr. Vs. Mamidi Kondayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ135
1. It is contended that Narayanasami though a minor, was capable of making a valid will. No authority is quoted in support of this contention, and we think that it is one that cannot be admitted. A minor cannot make a contract, grant or dispose of property that can be enforced during his life, and it is difficult to see on what principle his disposition of property by a will to take effect on his death could be held to be valid.2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Avanasi Gounden and ors. Vs. Nachammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ41
1. The question in the present case is whether the decision upon a matter which was directly and substantially in issue between the same parties in a suit which though tried by the District Munsif as an original suit was yet one of a small cause nature and, therefore, in which no second appeal lay is binding in respect of the same matter in a subsequent suit in which a second appeal lay.2. This point first arose for decision in Bholabhai v. Adesang I.L.R (1884) B. 75 and after full consideration West and Nanabhai Haridas JJ. answered it in the negative. This case was followed by Sargent C.J. and Telang J. in Govindbin Lakshmanshet Anjorlekar v. Dhondbaravbin Ganbarav Tambye I.L.R(1890) B. 104. In the meantime the same question arose in this Court in S.A. No. 1200 of 1887 but the learned Judges disagreed, Wilkinson, J., holding that the prior decision operated as res judicata and Kernan J. holding otherwise. In Vythilinga Padayachi v. Vythilinga Mudaly I.L.R(1891) M. 14 which was the de...
Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. Narasimhachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ103
1. The second defendant, a Hindu widow, who is now dead, sold to the first defendant on the 31st March 1900 some property inherited by her from her husband for the sum of Rs. 15,000. Of this amount, Rs. 5,000 were left in the hands of the first defendant who gave for it the promissory note sued on which was made payable on demand to the payee or order with interest at 9 annas par cent per annum. At the same time the second defendant handed to the first defendant the letter, Exhibit IX, which runs as follows:You will ever from the 1st of May be paying interest to me on account of the (promissory) note for Rs. 5,000 executed this day by you in my favour, the interest for every month being sent on the first of the next month. I shall take the above rupees five thousand from you after giving jivanamsam (maintenance money) to my mother-in-law, and obtaining a release bond; or, I will take the said rupees five thousand after the life-time of my mother-in-law.2. The interest due on the promis...
Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. Narasimha Chariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad212
1. The second defendant, a Hindu widow, who is now dead, sold to the first defendant on the 31st March 1900 some property inherited by her from her husband for the sum of Rs. 15,000. Of this amount, Rs. 5,000 were left in the hands of the first defendant, who gave for it the promissory note sued on which was made payable on demand to the payee, or order, with interest at 9 annas per cent, per annum. At the same time the second defendant handed to the first defendant the letter (Exhibit IX) which runs as follows : 'You will ever from the 1st of May be paying interest to me on account of the (promissory) note for Rs. 5,000 executed this day by you in my favour, the interest for every month being sent on the first of the next month. I shall take the above rupees five thousand from you after giving jivanamsam (maintenance money) to my mother-in-law, and obtaining a release bond; or I will take the said rupees five thousand after the lifetime of my mother-in-law.'2. The interest due on the ...
Pullela Venkataramanayya Pantulu and anr. Vs. Batchu Venkatarama Dass ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ69
1. The question for determination in this case is-Is a sale or a mortgage by a father of joint family property binding upon a son's share if there is no antecedent debt due by the father, i.e., no debt prior to the mortgage or sale.2. In Sami Ayyangar v. Ponnammal I.L.R. (1897) 21 M. 28, it was held that in order to justify a sale or a mortgage by a father so as to bind his son's share of the property, there must be in fact an antecedent debt. In the judgment in that case it was pointed out that as regards the liability of the son's share for the debt of the father as a mere money claim there could be no question in a case where the mortgage was for consideration and was not illegal or immoral; but it was held, following the rule which had been previously acted upon by this Court, that the son's share was not bound by the sale or mortgage unless there was an antecedent debt.3. In Chidambara Mudaliar v. Koothaperumal I.L.R. (1908) 27 M. 326, it was held that as regards the effect on the...
Venkataramanaya Pantulu and anr. Vs. Venkataramana Doss Pantulu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad200
1. The question for determination in this case is - Is a sale or a mortgage by a father of joint family property binding upon a son's share if there is no antecedent debt due by the father, i.e., no debt prior to the mortgage or sale.2. In Sami Ayyangar v. Ponnammal I.L.R. Mad. 28, it was held that in order to justify a sale or a mortgage by a father so as to bind his son's share of the property, there must be in fact an antecedent debt. In the judgment in that case it was pointed out that, as regards the liability of the son's share for the debt of the father as a mere money claim, there could be no question in a case where the mortgage was for consideration and was not illegal or immoral; but it was held, following the rule which had been previously acted upon by this Court, that the son's share was not bound by the sale or mortgage unless there was an antecedent debt.3. In Chidambara Mudaliar v. Koothaperumal I.L.R. Mad. 326, it was held that as regards the effect on the son's share...
Nambiamuttil Pokker Vs. Kithakki Kunhipatumma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad296
1. It is clear that this suit as now brought is not maintainable. The plaintiff's case is that he is the nephew (sister's son) of the first defendant and that there is certain property in her possession which, as a matter of fact, belongs to the Tavazhi of which the first defendant and he are members. Granting for the sake of argument that the plaintiff's contentions are true he should have sued as Karnavan of the Tavazhi for the recovery of the property that he alleges belongs to the Tavazhi. A suit brought by the Karnavan for maintenance against a member of the Tavazhi is not maintainable. On this ground we are of opinion that this suit was properly dismissed and we accordingly dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Kayyana Chittemma and anr. Vs. Doosy Gavaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ136
1. For the purposes of the questions we have lo consider in this appeal the material facts are as follows : - In July 1890 the father of the plaintiffs mortgaged certain lands to certain parties whose interest is now vested in the defendants. In July 1895,the father executed and registered a sale deed by which he purported to sell the lands in question to the plaintiffs, the lands being in possession of the defendants under the mortgage of July 1890. In O.S. No. 407 of 1895, a suit against the father, the lands were attached. The plaintiffs preferred a claim to the attached property. This claim was rejected by an order, dated 22nd February 1896, made under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In July 1898, the father purported to sell the lands to the defendants. In October 1898, when the property was put up for sale in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 407 of 1895, the late first defendant paid off the amount due under the decree and the attachment was raised.2. The present s...
Koyyana Chittemma and anr. Vs. Doosy Gavaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad225
1. For the purposes of the questions we have to consider in this appeal, the material facts are as follows:In July 1890 the father of the plaintiffs mortgaged certain lands to certain parties whose interest is now vested in the defendants. In July 1895 the father executed and registered a sale deed by which he purported to sell the lands in question to the plaintiffs, the lands being in possession of the defendants under the mortgage of July 1890. In Original Suit No. 407 of 1895, a suit against the father, the lands were attached. The plaintiffs preferred a claim to the attached property. This claim was rejected by an order dated the 22nd February 1896 made under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In July 1898 the father purported to sell the lands to the defendants. In October 1893 when the property was put up for sale in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 407 of 1895, the late first defendant paid off the amount due under the decree and the attachment was raised.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »