Chennai Court November 1908 Judgments
In Re: Manjunatha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1103
1. The evidence against the appellant Manjunatha was to the effect that he was seen a week before the offence along with Gunda at the temple, that he went with the thieves of whom Gunda was one to commit the offence--this is spoken to by Gunda alone--and that he was seen running from Rukmani's house on which occasion he dropped a bundle which was found to Contain a coat in the pocket of which was a Spoon which was identified as forming part of the property stolen from the temple.2. The principal evidence is thus the discovery of the stolen property in the possession of the accused--and as to this there was a question whether the accused was the man who ran from the house and dropped the bundle. The Sessions Judge directed the jury on this point in the following words:The evidence to show that the man who was running was Manjunatha is that of the 2nd, 6th, 4th and 8th prosecution witnesses. You will observe that M. Os. 7, and 8 to 13, the spoon and the puja saman connected some of the i...
Tag this Judgment!Koti Venkataramaniah Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.611
Arnold White, C.J.1. The learned Commissioner dealt with this case on the footing that Barru Narasimha Row to whom the half-notes were sent was the agent of Mr. Ramaniah Pantulu who had the money in question in deposit with Messrs. Arbuth not and Company and who claims to be paid the amount in fall. The actual terms of the letter of August 8th, 1906, are not before us bat, it was not seriously contended on behalf of the appellant that the money was to be received by Mr. Narasimha Row in any other capacity than that of Mr. Ramaniah Pantalu's agent, and on his behalf, the case may, therefore, be considered as if the half notes had been sent by Messrs. Arbuthnot and Company direct to the customer.2. The learned Commissioner in dealing with the case held (1) that on the authority of Smith v. Munde 29 L.J.Q. B. 172 that the property in the half notes had not passed and (2) that no question of appropriation or trust arose.3. As regards the question whether the sending of the half notes opera...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Swami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Athmarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.612
1. We think the decrees of the District Judge are right. The contention that the mortgage to Amba Boi never came into force is clearly unsustainable. The mortgage is evidenced by a registered mortgage deed and possession passed thereunder to Amba Boi. There is no provision in the deed that the mortgage should come into operation only on the payment of the whole sum of Rs. 65,000 which Amba Boi agreed to advance. The further contention that the mortgage even if it did come into operation no longer subsists, must also fail. The registered mortgage deed has not been cancelled by any registered instrument and evidence of any oral agreement to rescind it is shut out by Section 92 (4) of the Evidence Act. The conduct of the parties as shown by Exhibits B and II is relied upon as showing that they considered the mortgage was at an end. In other words an agreement to consider the mortgage at an end is sought to be inferred from Exhibits B and II. Proof of such an agreement is equally shut out ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbia Pillai Vs. Alltar Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.523
1. We think the decree is right. Satisfaction of the decree in Original Suit No. 36 of 1903 had been certified under Section 258, Civil Procedure Code long before the appellant's attachment. If the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 36 of 1903 was himself seeking to execute the decree the certificate of satisfaction would be a complete answer to him unless he proves that he had been induced by fraud or misrepresentation to certify satisfaction. No allegation of fraud or misrepresentation is made by the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 36 of 1903 and the appellant cannot set up the case that the decree-holder was defrauded. It is contended that satisfaction was certified by the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 36 of 1903 though nothing was actually paid to him in order that his creditors might not be able to proceed against that decree, and that the appellant should be given an opportunity of proving this. The case is said to be analogous to a case of fraudulent transfer under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!K. Desu Chetty Vs. Ghansham Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.616
1. In this case a decree for redemption was passed by consent on the 18th August 1908, by which the plaintiff was given time until the 20th October for redemption. The money was not paid and an application for extension of time was made to me under Section 93, Transfer of Property Act, which I rejected as the decree was a consent one and the defendant had waived a considerable part of his claim. The defendants now put in an application for execution and it is contended that as it is a consent decree no order absolute is necessary. I am not satisfied that this is so having regard to the form of the decree which is that of an ordinary decree for redemption but as an application for an order absolute is treated in this Court as an application for execution, I think this application may be treated as an application for an order absolute and make the order and grant execution as prayed.2. The plaintiff, however, comes forward and contends that he has still a right to redeem although the tim...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Rachapoody Chinna Subbadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1114a
1. The lands in suit are 'tank maniyams' and both the lower Courts have found that they have been held rent free by the defendants' family for 40 or 50 years prior to 1897 on condition that they spent the nominal rent (i.e., Rs. 40 per annum) in repairs to the village tank. The District Judge has further found that the defendants' story is true, viz.,that in 1897 the plaintiff's tahsildar having received an offer of Rs. 60 per annum for the lands, without any right to do so auctioned the lands with the result that the defendants in order to retain their possession had to bid for an annual rent of Rs. 80-2-0, and execute a qabuliyat for 10 years in those terms. The plaintiff who is the Rajah of Venkatagiri sues to recover the rent with arrears and interest due under the qabuliyat. The defendants plead that the contract was induced by 'undue influence'2. The District Judge finds the defendants' pleas proved and has dismissed the suit.3. On the facts found we are unable to say that the Di...
Tag this Judgment!Robert Fischer and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.325
1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Madura (West), dismissing' the plaintiff's suit. The first plaintiff is a landowner of Madura who owns, among other villages, the inam village of Ananjiyur and the 4 villages, Koridagai, Thoothai, Pappangnlam and Karisalkulam, formerly attached to the Sivaganga Zamindari. Of Kondagai, the principal village, he is the Sub-Division Zamindar. Thoothai and Pap-pangulam are riparian villages. Karisalkulam, Ananjiyur and Kondagai are non-riparian but are directly or indirectly watered by small channels from the Vaigai. All the five villages are situated below Madura. On behalf of. himself and other riparian proprietors, the first plaintiff filed this suit early in 1901 together with a petition under Section 30, Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), alleging the following causes of action:(i) That the defendant had illegally and wrongfully constructed in June 1900 a work of a permanent and substantial character over the crest of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mutikulandia Pillay Vs. Nalla Kakkan Arubalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1109a
1. The view taken by the District Judge is in accordance with Dorasawmy Pillai v. Muthusawmy Moopan 27 M. 94 and we are bound by that decision which lays down that it is for the landlord who seeks to avail himself of the special procedure by way of distress provided for by Section 18 of the Rent Recovery Act to show that the requirements of the Act have been complied with.2. The appeals are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Raghavaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.525
1. So far as the first accused is concerned there is no evidence that he committed an offence charged. All that the prosecution evidence shows is that the first accused gave certain information which led to the discovery of instruments of coining in the house of the 2nd accused. This is no proof that the 1st accused was in possession of the said instruments. This being so the Sessions Judge should under Section 289 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code have found the first accused not guilty. He was wrong in taking into consideration against the first accused the evidence given by the witnesses called by 2nd accused whose case was that the first accused has placed the instruments in his house without his knowledge. With regard to the 2nd accused the Sessions Judge has found on the defence evidence that the first accused had access to the almirah in which the instruments were found and we think the evidence justifies the finding. The fact that the post card Exhibit A was found in the drawe...
Tag this Judgment!Ummar Sahib Vs. Vythilinga Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1135
ORDER1. Before deciding the appeal we must ask the District Judge to return findings--as to whether there was in fact a sale to the 2nd. defendant,--and if so, whether the plaintiff, when he took his sale-deed, had notice of the prior sale to the 2nd defendant. 2. The findings should be returned by the 81st July 1908 when seven days will be allowed for filing objections. In compliance with the above order the District Judge of South Arcot submitted the following Finding3. I have been directed by the High Court to return findings on the following two questions:(a) Whether there was in fact a sale to the 2nd defendant? (b) If there was such a sale, whether plaintiff, when he took his sale-deed, had notice of that sale?4. Appellant's pleader objects that in the lower Court there was no issue as to whether plaintiff had notice of the sale to 2nd defendant, and that, therefore, the High Court should have allowed additional evidence to be taken. In my opinion the objection is not well-founde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »