Chennai Court October 1908 Judgments
Subramania Chetty Vs. Mahalingaswami Sivan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.612a
Munro, J.1. I think the decree is right. The plaintiff paid the arrears, as mortgagee, and not because the pattah still stood in his name. The facts that part of the land in the pattah was in the possession of the appellant and that the appellant paid a proportionate amount of the assessment are immaterial. The land in the possession of the appellant was none-the-less liable to be sold for the arrears due under the pattah. Srinivasa Thathachar v. llama Ayyan 17 M. 247 is authority for holding that the defendants including the appellant were defaulters within the meaning of Section 35 of Act II of 1864, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover under that section. Boja Sellappa Reddy v. Vridachala Reddy 30 M. 35 : 16 M.L.J. 596 : 1 M.L.T. 323 is not opposed to this view. The question whether the plaintiff in that case could recover under Section 35 was considered and the reasons given for holding he could not, were that it was not shown that the payment was made by the plaintiff to obtai...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Samu Iyer and ors. Vs. Ayilam Gramom Vythi Pathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.617
1. The preliminary objection is taken that the appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge lies to the District Court and not to the High Court. There is ample authority in support of this objection Sitharama v. Vythilinga 12 M. 472; Vaikunta Prabhu v. Moidin Saheb 15 M. 89; Debi Prasad v. Jamna Das 23 A. 56 and Manikshah Sorabji v. Dadabhai Jamshetji 27 B. 604 and we agree with these decisions. The only case relied upon by the other side is Venkatrayer v. Jamhoo Ayyan 17 M. 377. In this decision, no reference is made to Sitharama v. Vythilinga 12 M. 472 or to Vaikunta Prabhu v. Moideen Saheb 15 M. 89; and we are unable to follow it in reading into Section 589 of the Code of Civil Procedure words which are not there. We therefore, allow the preliminary objection. The memorandum of appeal is returned for presentation to the proper Court. In the circumstances, each party to bear own costs....
Tag this Judgment!The East India Distilleries and Sugar Factories Ltd. Vs. the Tinnevell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.872
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 139 of the Indian Companies Act VI of 1882 for extension of time for giving notice of appeal to the respondents. The grounds on which the application is based are that the order appealed against was passed on the 8th July 1908, that application for copy of the order was made on the same date, and that as the copy was not furnished to the appellants' Vakil at Tinnevelly till the 27th July it was impossible to serve the respondents with notice of the appeal within the three weeks allowed by Section 169.2. Under Section 169 the Court of Appeal has power to extend the time for giving notice. The Court will, however, exercise the power only upon good cause shown, as otherwise the rule of limitation made would be of no effect. 3. Two preliminary questions arise for decision. The first is as to the time within which an appeal under Section 169 must be filed. Notice of appeal has, under the section, to be given by the Court, within three weeks from ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Maheswara Kondaya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1113
Munro, J.1. I agree with the views expressed by the learned Chief Justice in Emperor v. Chinna Kaliyappa Gounden 29 M. 126; 16 M.L.J. 79; 3 Cr. L.J. 274; 1 M.L.T 31 and would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative.Pinhey, J.2. The facts are clearly set forth in the letter of reference. The question whether an order of discharge is a judgment or not was fully considered in it. Cases cited by the Sessions Judge and the weight of authority supports the view that such an order is not a 'judgment'. Seeing that Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code, does not require a Magistrate to record any reason when discharging an accused unless he does so without taking all the evidence available for the prosecution it is difficult to see how any other decision could be arrived at. The ward 'judgment' is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, but it is sufficiently clear from Sections 366 and 367 that it is intended to indicate the final order in a trial terminating in either, the co...
Tag this Judgment!S. Appasami Aiyer and anr. Vs. Shunmugatha Odayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1122
1. We accept the finding of the District Judge on the first issue.2. On the 2nd issue the learned Judge was asked to record a finding as to the rate of rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of Madras Act, VIII of 1865.3. In his finding, as we read it, he holds in effect that the rate of rent cannot be determined according to the rates established or paid for neighbouring lands of similar description and quality. Having so held, he decreed such rate as appeared to him to be just.' The question is, was it open to him under the provisions of Section 11 to do this? In our opinion the power conferred by the second paragraph of the proviso to Clause III, is not controlled by the first paragraph of the proviso and the power of the Court to assess a 'just' rent is not limited to cases where a rate has been determined under Clause III, and one of the parties was dissatisfied there with, and a claim that the rent should be discharged according to the waram has been made. As accord...
Tag this Judgment!Kajikar Lakshmi Vs. Maru Devi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.999
1. There is ample authority that a guardian of the property of an infant cannot properly be appointed in respect of the infant's interest in the property of an undivided Mitakshara family, the reason being that the infant's interest is not individual property--vide Gharibullah v. Khalak Singh 25 A. 407, Harihar Pershad Singh v. Mathura Lal 35 C.b 561 and Shamkuar v. Mohanunda Sahoy 19 C.b 301.2. The same principle would apply a fortiori in the case of an Aliyasunthanum, family like the present, where the only right of the infant is aright to be maintained in the family house. It is argued that there is no objection to the appointment of a guardian in the present case because the mother and adult brother of the minors are willing that a guardian of the minors' property should be appointed. This, however, cannot effect the question; seeing that the minors have no property in respect of which a guardian can properly be appointed. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Narayana Aiyangar Vs. Ramaswami Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.486
1. The first question we have to consider is whether the suit is barred by article 106 of schedule II of the Limitation Act. In support of the memorandum of objections filed on behalf of the respondent it is contended that the suit, though a suit for an account of partnership dealings, is not also a suit for a share of the profits of the dissolved partnership and is, therefore, not within article 106.2. We think, however, that the plaintiff seeks to recover a share of the profits. He says in effect in his plaint that he has prepared an account himself which he sots out in schedules (see paragraphs 18-20 of the plaint) and that this shows that the defendant has to pay to him two sums under circumstances set out in paragraphs 8 and 12 of the plaint (vide, paragraph 15). But he is willing, if this should not prove correct, to pay whatever may be found due by him (paragraph 17). Finally he prays this Court to settle the accounts and direct the defendant to pay him the two sums due to him, ...
Tag this Judgment!Nallammai Vs. Ramasami Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1133
ORDERPinhey, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The latter was convicted by the first class Magistrate of Shermadevi under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment for mutilating his wife by cutting off completely her right ear with a coffee pruning knife and cutting off a part of the left ear also as well as inflicting the injuries on her nose.2. The Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly, on appeal, acquitted the respondent.3. The Additional District Magistrate was addressed by a petition to move Government to file an appeal. He declined to do so though he expressed the following opinion, 'there can be no reasonable doubt that the petitioner's husband inflicted the outrage on her.'4. As a last resource the petitioner filed the Criminal Revision Petition now under consideration which was admitted and the record called for.5. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent's counsel that the Court has no power to revise the decision of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muhammad Ali Shet
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.163
Sankaran Nair, J.1. In this case the accused was tried on the following charge:That you dishonestly received or retained certain copper and brass vessels belonging to Sheikh Mahomed and Sukkur Shet which vessels were stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.2. According to the prosecution the theft from the house of Sheikh Mahomed was on the night of the 17th June, 1907, and the theft in the house of Sukkur Shet was on the night of the 6th July 1907. The Police Sub-Inspector went to the house of the accused on the 9th July, 1907, to conduct a search when he found in a room a pair of scales in which were being weighed some pieces of broken copper vessels and some other copper pieces in a tin. One Khader who has been convicted of the theft of these articles and a servant of the accused (prosecution witness No. 3) were there. The father of the accused who was aged and bedridden was also there. Sukkur Shet identified the copper pieces as his stolen...
Tag this Judgment!Granthi Subbiah Chetty Vs. Sreeman Maha Mandaleswara Katari Salwa Maha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.164
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of North Arcot declaring that the village of Kathiripalli belongs to the Devasthanam temple of Karvetnagar of which the plaintiff the Raja of Karvetnagar is the hereditary trustee and setting aside the sale of that village in execution of a decree passed against the Raja not as trustee but in his personal capacity and for a debt not incurred for the benefit of the temple.2. In the lower Court it was pleaded by the defendant, who is the appellant before us, that the temple itself was only the private property of the plaintiff. The finding of the Judge disallowing this contention has not been attacked in appeal before us.3. The first question that was argued before us is that there is no proof of any real and effective dedication of this village to the plaint temple.4. Ex.--A is the instrument of gift of this village by the Raja on the 3rd March 1859 in favour of the Devasthanam. Ex.--B, is the order issued by him shortly afterwa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »