Chennai Court January 1906 Judgments
Sayid Mahomed Ghouse Saheb and anr. Vs. Sayid Khadir Badshaw Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ148
ORDERSubrahmania Aiyar, J.1. Mr. Sivaswami Iyer has drawn my attention to several decisions of the other High Courts in which it was pointed out that an order passed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be without jurisdiction if no preliminary order required by the section had been passed. On the other side the Public Prosecutor referred me to proceedings of this Court at page 98 of Weir's Criminal Rulings, 4th Edition, which treats an omission to record such an order as an irregularity which would not affect the validity of the order if thereby the parties to the Proceedings were not prejudiced in properly placing their case before the court. It is not necessary for me to consider the point inasmuch as I find that the Magistrate did in fact record an order in which he stated upon information received by him and upon the petition presented by one of the parties to the proceedings that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace and called upon the person specifie...
Tag this Judgment!Koroth Amman Kutti Vs. Perungottil Appu Nambiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad322
1. In this case one Unichira and her three sons obtained certain lands on gift. After the death of one of the sons Koram Nambiar, a decree was obtained against one of the surviving sons to pay the debt out of the assets of the deceased. The decree-holder now seeks to execute his decree by attachment of the share of Koram Nambiar in the properties above referred to.2. The District Judge has held that Unichira and her sons formed a separate Tarward by reason of their having obtained these properties on gift and therefore Koram Nambiar had no interest available for attachment and sale.3. We are unable to agree with the District Judge in his view that when a female and some of or all her children obtain any property from their father or Karnavan as in this case, they are thereby constituted into a Tarward by themselves, the senior member among them having the ordinary rights of the Karnavan of a Malabar Tarward so far as the other members in his branch are concerned.4. The case Kunhacha Um...
Tag this Judgment!Vythianada Tambiran Vs. Mayandi Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad373
ORDERSubrahmania Ayyar, J.1. The facts of the case are these: The Magistrate passed the order under Section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to possession in favour of the counter-petitioner on the 30th June. On the 3rd July the counter-petitioner applied for costs. The petitioner accepted notice and objected to any order being passed in the matter. On the 7th idem the Magistrate passed the order now sought to be revised directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 250 as costs to the counter-petitioner. Mr. Ramachandra Ayyar contends that the order was passed without jurisdiction as it was not passed at the time the matter of possession was decided. I cannot accept the construction suggested by Mr. Ramachandra Ayyar that Section 148(3) which empowers a Magistrate to award costs in proceedings under chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits him in a case like this to award costs only simultaneously with the decision as to possession. The word 'passing' which follows the term 'M...
Tag this Judgment!Thakdi Hajji Vs. BudrudIn Saib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad208
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Boddam, J., by which the learned Judge awarded the plaintiff Rs. 1,000 damages in a suit, for damages for malicious arrest.2. The material facts and dates are shortly as follows:On January 6th 1904, the defendant obtained a decree against the plaintiff for Rs. 40,000 with interest and costs. On January 25th, on an ex parte application by the plaintiff for a stay of execution pending appeal, an order was made that notice should go to the defendant to show cause why the order should not be made, and an interim stay was granted on the terms of the plaintiff paying into Court, within three days, the amount of the decree with interest and costs. The amount of the decree with interest and costs was paid into Court by the plaintiff.3. On February 11th the application for a stay of execution was dismissed with costs. No formal order was made discharging the order for an interim stay.4. The defendant applied for the payment out to him, of the money which ...
Tag this Judgment!Yelumalai Chetti and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad294
1. The facts of the case are as follows : In execution of a decree for money obtained against the second defendant who is the father of defendants Nos. 3 to 5 and the undivided brother of the first defendant, the plaintiffs purchased-the undivided half share of the second defendant in the house in dispute. Subsequently the first plaintiff purchased the first defendant's share also. The present suit is to recover possession of the entire house. In so far as the second defendant's share was concerned the suit was dismissed on the ground that the proper remedy was by execution of the decree under Section 244, Civil Procedure, Code. This view is not sustainable. The only right acquired by the Court sale against the second defendant was a right to effectuate the sale by a suit for partition of the joint property of the co-parceners and the delivery to the plaintiffs of what might be allotted to the share of the second defendant at the partition.2. It was not competent to the Court in the ci...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramiah Pantulu Vs. Ramakrishna Pantulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad205
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is sustainable. A promissory note was executed by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 28th November 1895. On the 2nd July 1898, exhibit A was executed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The present suit is based on a fresh contract said to be evidenced by exhibit A, which it is urged, operated as a discharge of the obligation of the defendant under the promissory note. It is not alleged in the plaint that the promissory note was cancelled or returned to the defendant. That the note remained with the plaintiff, uncancelled, was expressly asserted, before the learned Judge, on behalf of the defendant and no attempt was made to refute the allegation. Even in the grounds of appeal there is no reference to this matter. Though, therefore, in the course of the argument the appellant's vakil stated that he was instructed to say that the document had been returned to the defendant, we must proceed on the footing that this was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Adakkalam Chettiar Vs. Ramalinga Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad320
1. The judgment of the District Judge cannot in our opinion be upheld. In the decision in Adakkalam v. Theethan I.L.R. Mad. 505, it was decided that if the first defendant in that suit, who is also the first defendant in the present suit, could prove the agreement to convey and the tender of the purchase money he should not be compelled to bring another suit to obtain specific performance of his contract of sale. It was added that if the plaintiff there, who, as the District Judge observes, may be identified with the plaintiffs in the present suit, brought with the knowledge of the agreement and the tender he ought not to be allowed to obtain possession. Issues were accordingly sent down and the two questions above set out were answered in the affirmative by the District Judge and in findings were accepted by the High Court and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff has now brought the present suit in which it is admitted that the cause of action is identical with that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sabapathy Mudaliar Vs. Seetharamiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad292
1. Mr. John Adam has argued the question arising in this case fully, and has drawn our attention to all the authorities bearing on it. Except the case Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb I.L.R. Cale. 951, all the other cases are English authorities. The result of them is that in the case of a book which has been published there is no right to sue on account of piracy, except where the copyright has been registered and subsists under statutory provisions (Copinger on 'Copyright,' pages 29 to 23 and Macklin v. Richardson and Goubaud v. Wallace 7 Ruling Cased 66 at pp. 67, 70 and 128 respectively.2. In the present case the plaintiffs' almanac was not registered under Act XX of 1847, nor under Act XXV of 1867, which would be equivalent to registration under the Act of 847.3. No doubt the plaintiff applied for registration under the Act of 1867, but the Registrar refused to register on the ground that the almanac was exempted from registration by notification of the Government of India, dated D...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasamoorthy Otherwise Called Shamanna Vs. N.T. Venkata Varada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ238
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The facts of this case are fully stated in the judgment of Moore, J., and in the judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of reading. It is not necessary for me to repeat them.2. The most important question argued in this appeal was the question of jurisdiction. It was argued by Sir V. Bhashyam Aiyangar on behalf of the appellant that the court had no jurisdiction in personam over the defendant by reason of the fact that he was a foreigner. In considering this question, I leave out of consideration for the moment the fact that the defendant was, on the day the suit was instituted, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this court, and I propose first, to consider the question on the assumption that the facts were the same as they were in C.S. A. No. 5 of 1900. I held in that case' that, if the cause of action had arisen wholly in Madras, this Court would have jurisdiction, over the defendant notwithstanding the fact that he...
Tag this Judgment!Abraham Pillai Vs. Donald Smith and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad324
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The petitioner applied to set aside an ex parte decree obtained against him on the ground that he was not duly served with the summons. It appears from the reports of the Village Munsif and the process-server that they went to the house of the defendant at Anumanthampatti and were told by his wife that he had gone to Peermade coffee garden and that she did not know when he would return. There was no male member to receive the summons. The process-server thereupon affixed a copy of the summons on the outer wall of the house of the defendant.2. There was no further attempt made to serve the summons on the defendant personally. The suit was heard ex parte and a decree passed against him, which is now sought to be set aside.3. I am of opinion that the decree must be set aside.4. Whenever it may be practicable, the service of summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy to the defendant in person (Sections 73 and 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure), and it is o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »