Chennai Court September 1906 Judgments
Subba Narayana Vathiyar and ors. Vs. K. Ramasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ508
1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from an order of this Court refusing to revise the appellate judgment of the District Court in a suit on a promissory note. The suit being of a small cause nature, no written statement was filed by the defendant, but it appears from the judgment of the District Judge that the question before him was whether the defendant was entitled to give evidence to show that the promissory note was not really executed in the plaintiff's favour, although he was the payee named in the note, in support of a plea that the note had been discharged by payment to the person really interested. The District Judge held the evidence admissible and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In this Court there was* a difference of opinion, Subrahmania Aiyar, J., holding that the District Judge was right, while Davies, J., considered that the defendant was precluded by the terms of the Negotiable Instruments Act from denying the payee's right to sue. The questio...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muthiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ529
ORDERBenson, J.1. The Public Prosecutor argues that Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the High Court ought not to interfere with a Sessions Judge's order directing a commitment to be made, except on a point of law. That section refers only to a commitment actually made and there is the direct authority of the case of Pirthi Chand Lal v. Sampatia (1903) 7 C.W.N.327 against the contention of the Public Prosecutor; and the observations in. Queen Empress v. Balasinnatampi I.L.R(1891) M. 338 and in Hari Dass Sanyal v. Saritulla I.L.R(1888) C. 621 support the review in Pirthi Chand Lal v. Sampatia (1903) C.W.N. 327.2. I have no doubt that it is open to the High Court to consider whether the Sessions Judge has or has not exercised a proper judicial discretion under Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code in setting aside a Magistrate's order of discharge, and that for this purpose the High Court may consider the facts as well as the questions of law involved. Tho...
Tag this Judgment!The King Emperor Vs. D. Samuel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ530
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Melur acquitting the accused and reversing the judgment of the 2nd Class Magistrate of Madura Town who had convicted the accused under Section 342, Indian Penal Code, of wrongfully confining the complainant, a judgment-debtor arrested in execution, in the decree holder's house. The first accused, an Amin of the District Court, had been entrusted by the Nazir according to the usual practice with the execution of the warrant for the complainant's arrest. 'The second accused is the decree-holders's brother and the 3rd accused is the decree-holder's son, and they were included in the charge as having helped the first accused to confine the complainant in the decree-holder's house. Assuming that he did, what we have to consider is whether it was wrongful within the meaning of Section 342, Indian Penal Code. The main question is was it authorized by the terms of the warrant? The warrant which was issued on 15th Apr...
Tag this Judgment!Sub-collector Vs. Siragam Subbarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ551
1. The appeal arises out of a reference made to the District Court of Godavari under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894. The greater part of the land acquired was grown with cocoanut trees and the District Judge has assessed the compensation' separately on the trees, and on the land excluding the trees and on the aggregate so calculated has added 15.per cent of the whole as the allowance prescribed by Section 23(2) of the Act.2. The Government has appealed on the single ground that the allowance of 15 per cent ought to have been calculated on the value of the land alone and not on the value of the trees.3. We are unable to take this view. We think that though the District Judge has separately assessed the compensation for the land and for the trees respectively it was not necessary for him to have done so, and that the value of the trees is properly a part of the market value of the land.4. The word 'land' as defined in Section 3(a) includes 'things attached to the earth'...
Tag this Judgment!Kachayi Puthiapurayil Kunhi Kuttiali Haji and Vs. Udumpumthala Nalurap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ14
1. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are Maho-medans following the Marumakkatayam system of law in South Canara. Many years ago when their tarwad was about to become extinct; the then surviving male member Kunhammad adopted two females Kanhamma and Beiyathumma. The former of these died leaving only a son Kutti Ammad. Tne said Beiyathumma having n,o issue adopted into the family, the first defendant - the daughterof a natural sister of hers and the first plaintiff, younger than the first defendant, the daughter of the first defendant's sister. The second and third plaintiffs are the minor children of the first defendant whose ages are stated to be 18 and 10 years respectively represented by their next friend, the natural brother of the first defendant. Cutti Ammad, who became the senior member of the Tarwad after Beiyathumma, died in September 1891. Before his death he had executed three bonds, one for Bs. 8,000 on the 28th January 1891 to one Vythan Kutti, another for Rs. 4,000 on th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandraiyar Vs. Mir Muhammed Norrulla Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ477
1. Having regard to the terms of the plaint in this case, we think the plaintiff could have obtained all the relief which he sought in his suit without asking for a declaration. This being so, the player for a declaration does not prevent the suit being of the nature cognizable in Court of Small Causes within the meaning of Section 586 of the Code.2. We are of opinion that no second appeal lies in the present case....
Tag this Judgment!K.V.S. Sheik Mahamad Ravuthar Vs. the British India Steam Navigation C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ573
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery or Rs. 2,400 odd, the value of 246 bags of rice, being part of the, rice shipped in Rangoon, in the S.S. 'Thorndale,' belonging to the first defendant Company for delivery at the port of Tuticorin to the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, agents of the 1st plaintiff. The goods arrived at Tuticorin and were landed by the Company and placed on the foreshore. About 1098 bags of rice out of the total cargo, belonging to various parties, brought by the ship and placed on the foreshore, were destroyed under the orders of the Municipal authorities on the ground that they had become damaged by rain and unfit for consumption. Among them were the bags with reference to which the present claim is made. That the bags became damaged by rain and liable to destruction is not disputed. Admittedly the monsoon set in from the night of the 27th October, and it continued to rain heavily off and on up to the 30th idem. The landing of the rice cargo had, no doubt...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavarapu Ramakrishna Reddi Vs. Kotta Kota Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ458
1. We are or opinion that the question whether the appeal in the present case has been properly valued is governed by Article 1 of Schedule I to the Court Pees Act. Assuming that Section 7 of the Act applies to the computation of the fee for the purposes of an appeal as well as for the purposes of the plaint, Sub-section (i), has no application to the present case, since for the purpose of the appeal in the present case no amount is claimed. The question raised in the appeal is not a question of amount, but the question whether the lands claimed by defendants 6 to 9 are liable to be proceeded against for the mortgage debt. It is not suggested that any other of the provisions of Section 7 are applicable to the case. The question, therefore, is what is the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the appeal independently of Section 7 of the Act. The amount of the decree is not in dispute, the liability of the lands other than the lands claimed by defendants 6 to 9 is not in dispute. The...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Chettiar Vs. Ramiah Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ533
1. In this case the lower Courts have dismissed a suit in ejectment by the lessor, the trustee of a temple - against the lessee on the ground that the notice to quit was bad. The agreement between the parties, Exhibit A. does not contain any provision as to notice to quit, but under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, in the case of monthly tenancies such as this the tenant is entitled ft fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. Bradley v. Atkinson I.L.R 1885) 7 A. 899. In the present case due notice was given if the monthly tenancy be regarded as ending on the 30th of each month, the date on which the monthly rent was payable under Exhibit A, but not if the tenancy is to be regarded as beginning on 13th of the month; the date of the Exhibit A. It was perfectly open to the parties to agree that the monthly period of tenancy should be reckoned not from the 13th July the date of the lease, but from another date and all the Court has to do is to ascertain w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›