Chennai Court September 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.
Kannan Nambiyar Vs. Anantan Nambiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ491
1. When the suits were instituted in the Badagara Court they were rightly instituted there as original suits and under the ruling in Hari Kamayya v. Hari Venkayya I.L.R., M. 212 referred to by District Judge they remained for trial as original suits. The District Munsif of Tellicherry will, therefore, place them on his file and dispose of them as such....
Srinivasa Rao Saheb and ors. Vs. Yamunabhai Ammall and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1905
Reported in: (1905)ILR29Mad94
1. The first and second respondents hereinafter referred to as the respondents, were prior mortgagees of the property ordered to be sold by the lower Court. In the plaint in the case, the plaintiffs stated that they were subsequent mortgagees, that the respondents were impleaded as they held a prior mortgage and expressly prayed inter alia that in default of payment of the money due to thorn under their mortgage, the mortgaged property should be soil subject to the prior mortgage The appellants who were the other defendants in the case being mortgagors or persons claiming through them also admitted in their written statement the prior mortgage in favour of the respondents. There was thus no matter in dispute either between the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents or between the latter and their co-defendants. In this state of things the Court is giving the decree for sale in favour of the plaintiffs made no reservation therein in respect of the respondents' prior mortgage2. It wa...
Kannan Nambiar Vs. Anantan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad124
1. When the suits were instituted in the Badagara Court, they were rightly instituted there as original suits and under the ruling at Hari Kamayya v. Hari Venkayya I.L.R. 26 Mad. 212 referred to by the District Judge they remained for trial as original suits the District Munsif of Tellicherry will therefore place them on his file and dispose of them as such....
Srinivasa Raghava Ayyangar Vs. Pichaikaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad184
1. We are of opinion that 'the suit is substantially one for rent and does not fall within Article 31 of the second schedule, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction.2. The Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam will therefore receive the plaint on his file and dispose of it according to law....
Rangacharul and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad236
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The memorandum of appeal to the lower Court is signed by a pleader; it was presented to the Magistrate who was in camp, by the appellant in person, on the 13th December 1904 and was summarily rejected at once without giving a reasonable opportunity to the pleader to appear.2. The Magistrate was wrong in thus rejecting the memorandum. Nor does the case appear to be one in which the appeal ought to have been summarily rejected without sending for the records. The conviction is based on the evidence of witnesses who are no longer members of the company and are alleged by the accused to have been dismissed by them. Their evidence ought to have been read by the Magistrate or he should have heard the pleader before dismissing the appeal.3. I accordingly set aside the order of the Magistrate, under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, direct the First-class Magistrate of Masulipatam Sub-division to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law....
Kona Thimma Reddi Vs. Bathini Chenna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ18
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, Offg. C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge of Bellary dismissing the plaintiff's suit for damages against the first and second defendants and the late third defendant for maliciously prosecuting him on a charge of abetting the murder of the son of the first defendant. Mr. Krishnan on behalf of the plaintiff called our attention to a number of decisions with reference to the law applicable to such a case, but it is unnecessary to consider them as the points to be established by the plaintiff in such a cage are now thoroughly well settled and will be found stated with the utmost clearness in A brarth v. North Eastern Railway Co. (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 440 : L.R. 11 A.C. 247 affirmed by the House of Lords in L.R. 11 A.C. 247. Moreover the plaintiff was only acquitted in the appeal in the criminal case and the onus cast on him by the law is specially heavy for, as laid down in Bhoja Reddi v. Perumal Reddi I.L.R. (1902) 26 M. 506, the plaintiff...
Sami Row Jagadab Vs. Eliavatha Row Gayabavadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ357
1. The second respondent Thaji Saheb is the guardian of the person and property of the minor appointed by the will, which was made a year before the testator's death and was duly registered by him. There is no ground whatever for holding the will to be invalid and its provision must be given effect to as regards the property of the minor.2. But as the second respondent Thaji Saheb is to succeed to the property on the death of the minor he has an interest adverse to him. He is not a blood relation and has never taken up the custody of the person of the minor who is only 8 years of age. The custody has, 'in fact, always remained with the appellant, the minor's maternal grandfather, who is a fit and proper person to be such guardian. In these circumstances we modify the order of the District Judge by appointing the maternal grandfather Sami Row Jagadab to be the guardian of the minor's person. The second respondent will pay the appellants' costs in this court....
Chettiattil Muhamod Vs. Kunhi Koru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad175
1. The ex-parte decree was set aside on the 3rd February 1900. Notwithstanding this, an order for attachment of property in execution of that decree was made on the 19th February 1900, and the attachment was actually made on the 10th March 1900. On the 8th February 1901 a revised decree was passed.2. When the attachment was made, and when the order for attachment was made, there was no decree in existence and we are entirely unable to see how any order or attachment so made could have any force or validity. We cannot agree with the District Judge that the fact that the decree had been transferred for execution to another Court could give the attachment any additional validity. The attachment not being based on any decree in existence at the time was null and void, and the fact that a decree was subsequently passed in terms of the decree that was set aside had not the effect of restoring the original decree nor could it operate to render the attachment valid. We set aside the decrees of...
Roop Laul and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad1
S. Subrahmania Ayyar, Offg. C.J.1. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 are the sons of one Muni Lall deceased and the fifth and sixth plaintiffs are the widow and minor daughter of a deceased son of the first plaintiff. Muni Lall was the illegitimate son of Kundun Lall, the paternal uncle of the defendant's adoptive fattier Rajah Easwara Doss. Mukund Lall, the grandfather and Teekumchand father of Easwara Dose, and Kundau Lall were Sowears and apparently successful in their profession. Easwara Doss was certainly so and he died possessed of considerable property. The defendant (Lakshmi Doss) when quite a boy was adopted about the year 1873 or 1874 and continued to live with his adoptive father down to the time of the latter's death in 1900 and succeeded to the estate as the solo surviving member of the family.2. The plaintiffs seek to establish their right to a monthly payment of Rs. 35, out of certain alleged trust properties in the hands of the defendant, and for arrears thereof. The sustainab...
Balasundra Mudelly Vs. Rajalingam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad172
1. A preliminary objection is taken that the stamp duty paid is insufficient. There can be no doubt that the stamp duty payable with reference to the order appealed against which 1 directs the appellant to surrender possession to the respondent, is an ad valorem fee. Mahbuban v. Umrao Begum I.L.R. Calc. 720 and Narayan Raghunath v. Bhagvant Anant I.L.R. Bom. I.L.R. Mad. 420 is not inconsistent with this view. Apparently the order then in question was treated as one in execution and the appeal was therefore held to be properly stamped as a miscellaneous appeal.2. Now as to the sufficiency of the stamp duty paid on this appeal, viz., Rs. 10, there is nothing to show that the house in dispute is of a value which will not be covered by that amount. We have consequently heard the appeal on the merits and in our opinion it fails. The findings in the previous suits establish that the debt for which the sale took place was one which bound the appellant as the vendor's son. The respondent is th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›