Chennai Court December 1908 Judgments
Sheik Mahamad Ravuther Vs. the British India Steam Navigation Co., Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.977
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Article 15 of the Letters Patent, the learned Judges before whom the case came on second appeal having differed in opinion. The plaintiffs claim damages for the loss of 246 bags of rice out of a consignment of 4,000 bags carried by the defendants under a bill of lading from Rangoon to Tuticorin. These 246 bags with others were destroyed by the municipal authorities after they had been landed, on account of their damaged condition. The plaintiffs alleged the damage was occasioned by the negligence of the defendants or their agents.2. The two main questions for consideration are: (1) On the facts were the defendants negligent? (2) If they were, are they protected by the terms of the bill of lading? The Court of First Instance and the lower appellate Court held that there had been no negligence on the part of the defendants. The two learned Judges of this Court who heard the case on second appeal were both of opinion that the defendants had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Nynappa Servai and ors. Vs. Veeran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.722
1. The plaintiffs represent the Kudivaramdar of the village of Muruppanandal of which trustee of Tirukkakalakudi Devastanam is the Melvramdar. The lower Court have held that the defendAnt Nos. 1 to 7 and the tenth defendant are not entitled to irrigate certain land in the Nattandal village with the water of the tank in the plaintiffs' village.2. It is found that the lands of the plaintiffs have been cultivated as wet lands from time immemorial; that the water in the tank is hardly sufficient to irrigate them and the supply of this tank water for the irrigation of other lands must, therefore necessarily cause damage to the plaintiffs. It is also found that the lands held by defendants Nos. 1 to 7 in the Nettandal village, which under an agreement with the tenth defendant, they are attEmpt to irrigate with this tank water, are new lands which were not hitherto supplied with water from this tank.3. It is now argued on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 to 7, the appellants before us, that th...
Tag this Judgment!Pulavarty Venkanna and anr. Vs. Jupudy Sarayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1097a
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The following is the pedigree of the parties: SARAYYA had two sons and one daughter. _____________________|_________________________ | | | son daughter son Chelamann. Saramma adopted P. Tattaya | Venkanna (2nd defendant) | ________|__________________________________ | | | | | Sarayya (1st Subbannu Venkanna | plaintiff) | (2nd defendant). | ________________________|_____ | | | ____________|_________ Sreeramamoorthy Lakshmana (3rd | | defendant adopted Paddasarayya Gangayya by 2nd defendant) | (3rd plaintiff.) Subbayya (2nd plaintiff).2. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are members of an undivided family, and the 2nd defendant though born in their family has been adopted by Ayyanna, the son-in-law of Sarayya the grand-father of the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs, and has become a member of a separate family. The 3rd defendant is the adopted son of the 2nd defendant. It is the plaintiffs' case that all the property belonging to their joint family has been already divided a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Meera Usani Rowthen and anr. Vs. Nizur Ali Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1129
1. We think the plaintiff is entitled, as the District Judge has found, to set; aside the lease on the ground that a trustee cannot grant a permanent lease at a fixed rent unless there are special circumstances of necessity to grant it vide Mayandi Chettiar v. Chokalingam Pillai 27 M. 291 and Nallayappa Pillai v. Ambalavana Pandarae Sannadahi 27 M. 465; 14 M.L.J. 81. No special circumstances of necessity are shown in the case. It is contended that the appellants have acquired a right to a permanent lease by prescription. No such contention was raised in the written statement and there is no issue about it. It cannot, therefore, be raised now. As to compensation, we think it was rightly refused. Under Section 108(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, the lessee has only the right to remove the buildings for which two months from this date will be allowed. 2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Seshappa Vs. Venkataramana Upadya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1091
1. In Original Suit No. 77 of 1900 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kundappur, Ganappayya Urala having been defeated on a claim petition arising out of an attachment made by the present plaintiff sued the present plaintiff to establish title to the property attached. The suit was dismissed on a finding that the conveyance on which he founded the title, a sale by the owner Sesha Navada was fraudulent and not intended to convey any interest. The decision was affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff now sues alleging that after the dismissal of the Ganappaya Urala's suit he brought the attached property to sale and purchased it himself and obtained possession, but was dispossessed by the 1st defendant who set up a mulgani-tenure under Ganappaya Urala. His suit is, therefore, for the recovery of the land, and it has been dismissed on the ground that the 1st defendant is entitled to possession as mulganidar. It is found inter alia that the 1st defendant has remained in possession...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniandy Gounden Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.54
ORDER1. We agree with the view taken of Section 350 of the Code in the recent decisions of the Calcutta High Court in The Deputy Legal Remembrancer v. Upendra Kumar Ghose 12 C.W.N. 140; 6 Cr. L.J. 434, and in Mohesh Chandra Saha v. Emperor 35 Cal. 457;. 7 Cr. L.J. 220, where the learned Judges held that the words of that section are applicable to cases in which the case under enquiry or trial is withdrawn from one Magistrate, who therefore ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is transferred to another. In this view the Deputy Magistrate's procedure in the present case was governed by Section 350, and he was not bound to re-hear all the prosecution witnesses. Nor was the accused, in our opinion, entitled by virtue of proviso (a) to Section 350 to require a re-hearing of the evidence.2. The case before the Magistrate was a 'register case or preliminary enquiry into an accusation of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session. It was not in our opinion a trial before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Doss Vs. Chandook Chand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.509
1. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has found that the petitioner is entitled under Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure to rateable distribution but has refused his application therefor on the ground that there is other property of the debtor which, though not yet realized by execution in the Court, may be made available for the satisfaction of his claims: relying on Madden v. Chappani 11 M. 356 he has referred, the petitioner to a separate suit.2. I have no doubt that this order is one which can be revised under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code: that is established by Tiruchittambala Chetti v. Seshayyangar 4 M. 383 and Viraraghava v. Parasurama 15 M. 372. Here the learned Judge has declined jurisdiction holding wrongly as I think that he has a discretion so to do. Section 295 does not give such a discretion; it does not permit the Judge in his discretion to refuse to a party, who to his knowledge is entitled to relief under the section, the relief to which he is...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Bonigiri Pottigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.307
Miinro, J.1. The thirty-nine accused were tried by a jury for an. offence tinder Section 400, Indian Penal Code and were found not guilty and acquitted. Against the acquittal the present appeal has been filed by the Government.2. Before we can interfere with the verdict of the jury we must under Section 423 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, be satisfied that the verdict is erroneous owing to the misdirection by the Judge or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as laid down by him. The latter alternative may be left out of account in this case as there is no contention that the jury misunderstood the law as laid down by the Judge,3. In a case under Section 400, Indian Penal Code the prosecution is bound to prove that the accused belonged to a gang which was consciously associated for the specific purpose of habitually committing dacoity. The associating and the purpose of association may be proved by the direct evidence that the accused or the accused and others me...
Tag this Judgment!Chellathammal Vs. Ammayappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.388
1. It is beyond question that the order of the District Judge is a proper order in so far as it requires the guardian to obtain his permission before celebrating the marriage of his lunatic son, provided that he had jurisdiction to make it.2. There is no provision in the Act under which the guardian is appointed declaring what are the powers of the Court after appointment, but it was conceded by Mr. Sataya Nadar that we are not on that account to deny to the Court all powers of control over the guardian. He was prepared to admit that if the guardian contemplated an improper marriage of the lunatic, the Court could interfere if the proposal was brought to its notice. If that is conceded there is no ground that we can see for holding that the Court is not empowered to require the guardian to obtain its permission before arranging a marriage; otherwise the power of interference might be in effectual in some cases in which its exercise is most desirable.3. In In the matter of Basharat Ali ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Rakki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.73
1. The question referred to is, whether suits for the recovery of rent, which under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908) are exclusively cognizable by the Revenue Courts, are triable by the Civil Courts after that Act came into force, if the suits were filed-before the date when that Act came into force. We may have no hesitation in answering the question in the affirmative. There is nothing in Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act which takes away from, the Civil Courts the jurisdiction to hear and determine suits which were taken cognizance of by them before the Act came into operation. Section 189 merely says that Civil Courts shall not take cognizance. It says nothing about pending suits. We are fortified in our opinion by the decisions in Sadasiva Pillai v. Kalappa Mudaliar 24 M. 39, Vedavalli Narasiah v. Mangamma 27 M. 538 and Nanabin Aba v. Sheubin Andu 32 B. 37....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »