Chennai Court August 1906 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.
Ramaswamy Aiyar and anr. Vs. Muthuswamy Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ541
1. The facts of this case are as follows : 35 kalams of paddy were in the first plaintiff's house; on a complaint by the defendant that paddy was taken by the Police, and, after the termination of the trial instituted on the defendant's complaint, was handed over by the order of the Magistrate to the defendant, the Magistrate being of opinion that it belonged to him and not to the first plaintiff. The present suit brought within 3 years from the, date of such delivery to the defendant is clearly within time. The possession by the defendant of the property, after delivery by the Magistrate to him, was in point of law wrongful, it being, found now that the paddy belonged to the plaintiff. In this case time runs under Article 49 of the, Limitation Act for three years from the date when the property 'is wrongfully taken. This suit was brought within the three years prescribed. Mudvirapa Kulkarni v. Fakirapa Kenardi I.L.R(1883) B. 427 cited on behalf of the defendant will not apply to a cas...
Perianan Chetty Vs. Nagappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ543
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge reversing the order of the Mumsif allowing an application for an extension of time to pay extra fee before execution as directed in a decree, and allowing execution.2. The original suit was for possession and rent of premises and stamp for the value of rent up to plaint amount only was paid. In the course of the proceedings, possession of the premises was given to the plaintiff and a decree was passed ultimately for the rent up to the time the premises were delivered, a fixed sum and ascertained costs, and at the end of the decree the words following were added - 'And this Court doth further order and decree that plaintiff do pay Court fee for Rs. 4-14-0 on the subsequent rent awarded to him after plaint within 9th September 1904.'3. This fee the plaintiff did not pay within the time named. When, therefore, he sought execution of the decree, it was objected that he had not paid the Court fee as ordered. Thereupon he applied for a...
Boja Sellappa Reddy Vs. Vridhachala Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ569
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The question in the case is whether plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant Rs. 45 and odd, the amount paid by him on account of the revenue due in respect of certain land which stood registered in his name, but which belonged to the defendant and was in the latter's possession when the money was paid. At that time a suit which the plaintiff had brought against the defendant for the possession of the property was pending, though it was since dismissed.2. The District Munsif has held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree, and I think, correctly.3. Before me Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act was relied on on behalf of the plaintiff, and both sides directed their arguments wholly to the question whether the plaintiff was, within the meaning of the section, 'interested' in the payment of the money, and the point, whether the money was what the defendant was bound to pay, was not discussed. I think it unnecessary to deal with those arguments...
Sadhu Krishna Iyer Vs. Kuppan Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ479
1. Under Section 588(9) of the Code there is an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Section 108, whilst Section 540 provides that an appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex-parte. The word may is used in the part of the section which gives a right of appeal from an ex-parte decree, whilst the word shall occurs in the earlier portion of the section. It is, no doubt, a reasonable view that the appeal given by Section 540 in the case of ex-parte decrees is not an appeal in all cases as of right, but an appeal when a party appeals on the merits of the case and not upon the ground that the summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on in other words, that a party who desires to upset an exparte decree on the ground that the decree ought not to have been made ex-parte, must first apply under Section 108, and if an order is made against him, that he has no right of appeal against the d...
A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Kadir Rowthan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ486
1. In this case the plaintiffs, landlords, sued the defendant, their tenant, for Rs. 25-8-8, the value of the share of produce (melvaram) alleged to be due from the tenant for fasli 1310, i.e., the year ending 30th June 1901. The harvest was reaped in February 1901. The patta was tendered on the 28th June 1901. The suit was filed on the 8th. April 1904. It was found by the District Munsif that the melvaram was by custom due immediately after the harvest was gathered when the share of the landlord is divided from the tenant's share, that is, in the present case, in February 1901. He, therefore, dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, having been brought more than three years after the date when the rent was due.2. We are asked to revise this decision on the ground that the rent cannot be held to be in arrear until the landlord can sue for it and that Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865 prohibits the landlord from recovering the rent until after pattah has been exchanged ...
Kanhiyur Manakkal Murthi Khandan Nambudripad's son Neelakantan Nambudr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ462
1. A preliminary objection has been taken that the appeal lies to the District Court and not to this Court. We are unable to admit this objection. The claim in the present case is, in the alternative, first for redemption of a mortgage, the principal amount secured whereby is Rs. 3,000, and in the event of that failing, secondly, to recover from the defendants various sums aggregating more than Rs. 2,000, on the footing of a' mortgage to be executed by the plaintiff to the defendants in accordance with certain provisions contained in the earlier mortgage. The decisions in Motigavri v. Pranajivan Das I.L.R. 6 B. 302 and Kashnath Narayana v. Govinda Bin Piraji I.L.R. 15 B. 82 hold that Section 17 of the Court Fees Act applies only to cases where cumulative reliefs are claimed. A contrary view appears to have been taken by the Punjab Chief Court, though the actual language employed by the Court is not before us. (See page 104, Jagannatha Aiyar's Court Fees Act). Section 17 of the Court Fe...
Mundiath Valia Ambu Podaval and ors. Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ444
ORDER1. The difficulty in this case arises from the fact that there are two Sessions Divisions in the same district. This state of things cannot be treated as unwarranted by the law, for, the same was the case when the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed and paragraph 3 of Section 7 of it recognizes the legality of the then existing Sessions Divisions and districts unless and until altered.2. The Magistrate against whose decision the appeal is to be preferred, has his head-quarters in Calicut which is within the local limits of the South Malabar Sessions Division, though he is authorized to try offences throughout the whole district, including cases arising within the Sessions division of North Malabar. It must, we think, be held that appeals against his' decisions lie to the Sessions Judge of South Malabar, irrespective of the place where the offence was committed.3. Section 408, Criminal Procedure Code, referring to appeals from First Class Magistrates merely states that, the appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›