Chennai Court July 1906 Judgments
Rajah Kavali Arunachella Rao Bahadur, Zemindar Garu Vs. Sri Raja Rangi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ563
1. The questions for decision in these two appeals are whether, as contended by the appellant, in Appeal No. 23 of 1903, the suit is premature, and, whether, if that is not the case, the suit in respect of the amount claimed as having been paid by the plaintiff respondent-on account of peishcush for Faslis 1303 and 1304-is, as held by the District Judge, time barred.2. The facts are shortly these. The village of Behpudi, which formed part of the Zemindari of Beddigudem, was conveyed on the 24th March 1893 by the plaintiff and his deceased brother to the late Papamma Rao, Zemindar, of Nidadavole, for the sum of Rs. 40,000, A duly registered conveyance was executed and delivered by the vendors to the vendee, and possession of the property was given to her. The village has ever since remained in the hands of the vendee or her representatives, the income thereof being received by them. The price was not paid to the vendors but was retained by the vendee in order that the debts payable by t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Kavali Arunachella Row Bahadur Vs. Rajah Rangiah Appa Row Bahadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad519
1. The questions for decision in these two appeals are whether, as contended by the appellant in Appeal No. 23 of 1903, the suit is premature, and, whether, if that is not the case, the suit in respect of the amount claimed as having been paid by the plaintiff respondent - on account of peshkush for faslis 1303 and 1304, is, as held by the District Judge, time barred.2. The facts are shortly these. The village of Repudi, which formed part of the Zamindarni of Reddigudem, was conveyed on the 24th March 1893 by the plaintiff and his deceased brother to the late Papamma Rao, Zamindarni of Nidadavolu, for the sum of Rs. 40,000. A duly registered conveyance was executed and delivered by the vendors to the vendee, and possession of the property was given to her. The village has ever since remained in the hands of the vendee or her representatives, the income thereof being received by them. The price was not paid to the vendors but was retained by the vendee in order that the debts payable by...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Vs. Lord Govind Doss Krishna Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ419
Moore, J.1. In order that a Magistrate may have jurisdiction to act under Section 145, Cr.P.C. he must be satisfied from a police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land, & c. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain what information Mr. Pinhey, District Magistrate, North Arcot, had before him, when he passed his order of the 9th March 1906, and Mr. Rice who succeeded him as District Magistrate when he passed his final order in this matter on the 2nd April. From Mr. Pinhey's order it is clear that he had no Police report before him. He was District Magistrate. He believed 'that' there was serious danger of riots breaking all over a whole taluk in one of the Zamindaris in his district, and yet, as far as can be ascertained from the record, he never referred the matter to the District Superintendent of Police for enquiry and report or obtained any information from that officer or any of his subordinates in the Police bef...
Tag this Judgment!Sreeman Kumara Tirumalraja Bahadur, Rajah of Karvetnagar Vs. Sowcar Lo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad561
ORDERMoore, J.1. In order that a Magistrate may have jurisdiction to act under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, he must be satisfied from a Police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land, etc. It is therefore necessary to ascertain what formation Mr. Pinhey, District Magistrate, North Arcot, had before him when he passed his order of the 9th March 1906, and Mr. Rice who succeeded him as District Magistrate, when he passed his final order in this matter on the 2nd April. From Mr. Pinhey's order it is clear that he had no Police report before him. He was District Magistrate. He believed that there was serious danger of riots breaking out all over a whole taluk in one of the zamindaris in his district, and yet as far as can be ascertained from the record, lie never referred the matter to the District Superintendent of Police for enquiry and report, or obtained any information from that officer or any of his Subordina...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswami Naidu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad567
1. We do not think it was the intention of the Legislature by the use of the words 'Court before whom he is convicted' in Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code, to limit the power of making orders under that Section to the Court of First Instance, The proviso to the Section appears to us inconsistent with the view that this was the intention of the Legislature.2. We agree with the decision in Emperor v. Birch I.L.R. 24 All. 306....
Tag this Judgment!Ulagappan Amalam and ors. Vs. Chidambram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad497
1. So far as the first defendant's appeal is concerned he having died and his legal representative not having applied to prosecute the appeal, it must be held to abate so far he is concerned.2. As regards the second defendant's case we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge. There is positive evidence that the second defendant was permitted by the first plaintiff and his father to construct the building now sought to be removed, and this evidence is strongly confirmed by the to permission given by the first plaintiff to this defendant to cut down trees for use in the construction of the building, exhibit II, the receipt granted for the payment made by the second defendant to the first plaintiff, corroborates the defendant's evidence on this point. Exhibit B was an application by the first defendant to the plaintiff's father for leave to construct a house on the land in question, and was made in September 1898, and the plaintiff's peishkar was at once directed ...
Tag this Judgment!Soosaya Pillai Vs. Aiyakannu Pillai (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ475
1. The first question for determination is whether the application made on behalf of the appellant on the 28th September 1903 to substitute for the 1st respondent who died on, the 2nd October 1902 the 4th, 5th, and 6th respondents as his representatives is time barred.2. It is contended that the application is governed by article 175 c. of Schedule 2 of the Limitation Act and therefore time barred, not having been made within 6 months of the death of 1st respondent.3. Being an application presented in a second appeal, it is not strictly made under Section 582, C.P.C. and, therefore, it is not within the language of Article 175(c). 'The application is one which is made by virtue of Section 587, C.P.C, which renders the chapter in which Section 582 occurs applicable to second appeals.4. It is argued that the reference to Section 582 in Article 175 c. should be held to include by implication second appeals referred to in Section 587, but this contention is opposed to the ratio decidendi o...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Chetty Vs. Chidambaram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad526
1. In this case the suit was dismissed without trial on the ground that the plaintiff, upon the allegations in his plaint, was not entitled to rely on his alleged right to a share of the ship referred to in the plaint in consequence of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 (57 and 58 Vict, Chapter 60). The ship in question was owned in shares by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the brother of the first defendant. The ship is registered under the Act in the name of the fourth defendant who, however, has no proprietary interest in the vessel, being merely the agent of defendants. Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff claims to have purchased from the first defendant his one-fourth share of the ship. There was no bill of sale, nor any registry in the name of the plaintiff. He sues for a declaration of his right to be registered, and for recovery of his share of certain profits said to have been derived from the ship. Following the decision in Ramanadan Chetti v. Nagooda Maracayar I....
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Sami Aiyar Alias Arunachalam Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ427
1. These appeals raise the question of the validity of the assignment of a decree obtained by one Swami Iyer in O.S. No. 12 of 1899 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam to one Annamalai Chetti through whom the appellant claims as against other 'creditors of Swami Iyer who are the respondents. The facts are that a sum of over Rs. 14,000 was held in deposit by the Court to the credit of Swami Iyer as decree-holder in O.S. No. 12 of 1899. Swami Iyer was himself indebted to various persons, and some of them obtained decrees against him for the sums due. Annamalai Chetti was one of the decree-holders (O.S. No. 93 of 1899) and he obtained Exhibit A, dated the 28th March 1900, from Swami Iyer, whereby the latter purported to assign to him his rights under the decree in O.S. No. 12 of 1899. The consideration for the assignment recited in the deed, viz., Rs. 15,000, was stated to consist of (1) Rs. 4,390 principal, interests and costs due to Annamalai's firm under the decree alrea...
Tag this Judgment!Manavala Chetty (Accused) Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad569
Arnold White, C.J.1. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner in this case was, assuming the prosecution evidence to be true, that an offence under Section 480 of the Indian Penal Code had not M been made out. I am of opinion that if the petitioner sold to a customer soap which was not manufactured by Pears in a box E upon which the name of Pears appeared as a maker of soap, he used a box with a mark thereon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed that the soap contained in the box so marked was manufactured by Pears, and by so doing, he used a false trademark and was guilty of an offence under the section. The argument that it had not been shown that Pears had acquired a trademark, in the sense in which the word is used in the English Patents, Designs and Trademarks Acts, in the design which is printed on the box in which the soap was sold, is beside the point. Under Section 478 of the Indian Penal Code, 'Trademark' includes any trademark which is regist...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »