Chennai Court November 1908 Judgments
Saminatha Pillai Vs. Saminatha Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1096
1. We are not prepared to say that the confirmation of the sale would necessarily be a bar to an application of this kind if the applicant were able to show that the fact that the sale was voidable under Section 99, Transfer of Property Act, was kept from his knowledge until after the confirmation of the sale. But the person who brought the property to sale here was not the mortgagee but a third party. The appellant no doubt alleges that the suit in which the money decree was obtained was conducted in the interest of the mortgagee but even so the decree was not in favour of the mortgagee and the person who brought the property to sale was not the mortgagee though he may have had an understanding with the mortgagee in respect of the fruits of the decree.2. We do not think the case is not within the provision of Section 99, Transfer of Property Act. the appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Chettiar Vs. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.796
ORDER1. The facts were as follows:On the 18th January 1908, the 1st accused, a Nattu Kotai Chetty, was arrested at Arunthangi by the Sub-Magistrate of that place on receipt of a wire from the complainant, another Nattu Kottai Chetti, charging him with committing breach of trust in respect of a lakh of Rupees. The fact of the arrest was duly communicated to the complainant by the Sub-Magistrate by telegram and the following day the complainant turned up and gave a deposition promising to file a complaint on the following Monday after examining his accounts in Madura.2. On the 22nd June 1908, the promised complaint was duly filed charging the 1st accused and his father with offences under Sections 477A and 409, I.P.C., committed at Rangoon. It is unnecessary for us to detail further irregularities perpetrated by the Magistracy at subsequent stages as they are irrelevant to the question before us and will no doubt be taken due notice of by the District Magistrate of Tanjoro.3. Suffice it ...
Tag this Judgment!Cherukoori Pedda Saddayya and anr. Vs. Cherukoori Polayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.610
1. It is conceded that according to the ruling in Pingala Lakshmipathi v. Bommireddipalli Chalamayya 30 M. 434 the Judge's decision, that the widow is absolutely entitled to the properties, cannot be upheld so far as the inam lands which have been enfranchised are concerned. As to those items of property the decree, therefore, must be reversed.2. As to the other items the Judge does not give any separate finding. We, therefore, set aside his decrees and direct him to restore the appeals to his file and dispose of them in accordance with law. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Abdul Satar Saheb Vs. Mekkena Kondappa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1108
Miller, J.1. The District Munsif issued a notice to the proposed guardian to which he received no reply. He then appointed him as guardian ad litem finding that he had been appointed guardian of the minor's property under Act VIII of 1890. The guardian applied under Section 458, Civil Procedure Code, to be removed alleging that the suit was one in which his interest was adverse to that of the minor inasmuch as the contract which the plaintiff in the suit was seeking to enforce was one made by him (the guardian) under circumstances in which it was to the interest of the minor to allege that it would not bind him. The District Munsif has refused to remove this guardian.2. I have no doubt that the appointment was not proper for the two reasons:(1) that the guardian was appointed without his consent and (2) that his interests are apparently opposed to those of the minor and, therefore, when the guardian applied to be removed, the District Munsif ought to have removed him and appointed anot...
Tag this Judgment!A. Raghunatha Chariar and ors. Vs. Tiruvengada Ramanujah Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.123
1. The question of limitation is one of the questions on which the lower appellate Court disagreeing with the Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit No. 61 of 1903. The object of the suit was to obtain a declaration of the plaintiff's right to the office of the 1st Thirthakar with its honors and emoluments and to restrain the defendants from receiving and enjoying those honors and emoluments. There can be no doubt, that both the lower Courts have rightly held that the proper article applicable to the suit is Article 124 which prescribes 12 years as the period of limitation for a suit for possession of an hereditary office and lays down that the time will begin to run from the date when the defendant takes possession of the office adversely to the plaintiff. It seems to be the plain meaning of the article that the plaintiff's right to recover an hereditary office would not be barred unless the defendant is found to have been in possession of it adversely to the plaintiff for 12 years, an...
Tag this Judgment!Sambasiva Aiyar Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.162
1. In my opinion the decision of the District Munsif is clearly wrong. The defendant, the widow, was ex parte. Assuming that the plaintiff is, as he alleges, the next reversioner, he has such an interest as entitles him to bring a suit when his contingent interests are endangered.2. Here the allegation is that the money was paid by the plaintiff to prevent the land being sold for arrears of revenue and that the defendant defaulted to pay the revenue with the evil motive of defeating the plaintiff's reversionary rights.3. I hold that the plaintiff was interested in the payment of the revenue which the defendant was bound by law as puttadar to pay, and that under Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act, he is entitled to recover. The plaintiff will have a decree as prayed for with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V.O. Chidambaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.36
1. The appellant V.O. Chidambaram Pillai is the second accused in Calendar Case No. 1 of 1908 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly. The appeal of the 1st accused (Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 1908) has been dealt with by us and in disposing of it we have decided, after hearing Counsel for both, the appellants, certain questions common to the cases of both. We apply those decisions to the present appeal where they are applicable, but do not think it necessary to recapitulate them.2. The offences of which the present appellant has been, convicted are three offences of abetment of the uttering by the 1st prisoner of seditious words. The occasions are the speeches made on the 23rd and 25th of February 1908 and the 5th of March following. The appellant was not present on the last occasion, but was present on the other two, and has accordingly been convicted on one charge of an offence under Sections 109 and 124A of the Indian Penal Code and on two charges of offences und...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Subramania Siva
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.22
1. This is an appeal by one Subramania Siva against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly for offences under Section 124A, Indian Penal Code and against the sentence of 10 years 'transportation. Subramania Siva was tried together with one V.O. Chidambaram Pillai who was charged with the abetment of the offences charged against Subramania Siva the first accused.2. Several points of law were taken on behalf of the first accused by his Counsel, Mr. Cowdell in connection with the institution of the criminal proceedings.3. The first point raised was that the order of Government on which the proceedings were instituted did not satisfy the requirements of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section enacts:No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code (except Section 127), or punishable under Section 108A, or Section 153A., or Section 294A, or Section 505 of the same Code, unless upon complaint made by...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasamy Panikundar Vs. S.R.M.A.R. Ramasawmy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.73a
1. This is a petition to dismiss Appeal No. 163 of 1905 as barred by limitation.2. The appeal time expired on Sunday the 9th July 1905 and the appeal should therefore have been presented on the 10th. It was not, however presented till the 12th and was returned as no explanation of the delay was given. It was re-presented on the 26th July with affidavits by the appellant and his law agent Veerasawmi, a private pleader. The explanation given for the delay in those affidavits is as follows:The appellant relied entirely upon Veerasawmi for the due presentation of the appeal. 'Veerasawmi calculated that appeal time expired on the 8th July and believed on the strength of the Post Card Exhibit I that the High Court did not re-open after the vacation till the 10th. On the 8th July the appellant entrusted all the papers to Veerasawmi and sent him to Madras to file an appeal. Veerasawmi started on the evening of the 8th and arrived at Madras on the morning of 9th July. He then learnt that the of...
Tag this Judgment!Punni Basava and ors. Vs. Amara Gounden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.613
ORDERMiller, J.1. Assuming that the 1st Class Magistrate had power to alter the conviction from one under Section 341, I. P. C., to one under Section 143, I. P. C. I do not think that there is evidence to support the conviction under the latter section.2. The 1st Class Magistrate finds that the accused bona fide believing that the land which the complainant was about to plough was the property of some among them prevented the ploughing without the use of violence, but threatening to use force if the complainant's attempts were persisted in.3. It is clear that the 1st and 3rd accused would have a right to prevent the wrongful entry of the complainant on their land but no doubt if it were shown they had collected a number of persons together to support their right by show of force they might bring themselves within Section 141. I cannot find that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses accepting it all as true proves this, possibly because the 3rd Class Magistrate did not look upon the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »