Chennai Court February 1908 Judgments
Dorasawmy Pillay Vs. Angammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ265
1. The District Judge has dismissed this suit OH the preliminary ground that there is misjoinder of defendants and causes of action, but he has not stated what the causes of action are, which have been improperly joined. We do not think that there is any misjoinder. Section 28 of the Civil Procedure Code directs that all persons may be joined as defendants against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, in respect of the same matter.2. In the present suit, the cause of action arises from the malversation of the 2nd defendant in regard to the plaintiff's property of which he was the guardian and the plaintiff's right to have an account of his property and to recover it. The allegation in paragraph 11 of the plaint is that the property, items Nos. 1 to 7 in Schedule G, were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant with property which belonged to the plaintiff, and that these items were in the possession of the defendants Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dorasami Pillai Vs. Angammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ484
1. The District Judge has dismissed this suit on the preliminary ground that there is misjoinder of defendants and of causes of action, but he has not stated what the causes of action are which have been improperly joined. We do not think there is any misjoiuder. Section 28 of the Civil Procedure Code directs that all persons may be joined as defendants against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, in respect of the same matter. In the present suit the cause of action arises from the malversation of the second defendant in. regard to the plaintiff's property of which he was the guardian, and the plaintiff's right to have an account of his property and to recover it. The allegation in paragraph JI of the plaint is that the property, items Nos. 1 to 7 in Schedule 67, were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant with property which belonged to the plaintiff, and that these items were in the possession of defendants Nos. 1 an...
Tag this Judgment!Nimmakayala Padmanabhadu and anr. Vs. Nookala Rajappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ188
1. The defendants who are the appellants in Appeal Suit No. 173 rely on Exhibit A as sufficient to show that the plaintiffs are not the reversioners of Chinna Venkanna; but, as this document was signed by the 1st plaintiff when a minor, and ' under the influence of the 1st defendant, we are not prepared to hold it sufficient to nullify the evidence set forth by the Subordinate Judge which proves that the plaintiffs are in fact the reversioners.2. The appellants in A.S. No. 171 are the plaintiffs, and they contend that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in finding that the, lands in Pedagodavalli were not in the possession of Lachmidevi and alienated by her to the Ist defendant.3. It is not open to the plaintiffs now to raise this contention as their Vakil before the Subordinate Judge did not press their claims to these lands - Raja Bommadevara Venkatanarasimha Naidu v. Raja Bommadevara Bhashyakarlu Naidu (1902) 29 I.A. p. 79. We think that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their content...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvendra Thirthaswami Vs. Vishnumurti Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ235
1. Assuming that the documents, Exhibits C, E, F and G, are admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the mortgage sued on and the provisions thereof, as to which we express no opinion, we are not prepared to say they negative the evidence afforded by Exhibit B (the judgment of the appellate Court in a suit in 1839 on the mortgage in question) which is admissible under Sections 74 and 90 of the Evidence Act, and which shows, as the Munsif finds, that the mortgage deed provided that the plaintiff might redeem at the end of any year within 15 years. The only evidence in this case consists of the statements in exhibits A and B of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff and the statement in Exhibit E of the predecessor in title of the defendant, and we cannot accept the statement in Exhibit E, of the defendant's predecessor in title as against the plaintiff's own statement in Exhibit B. In view of the special provisions in the mortgage deed it is not necessary for us to consider ...
Tag this Judgment!Kommineni Appayya Vs. Mangala Rangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ229
1. The plaintiff, mortgagee, sues to recover his money by sale of the properties mortgaged, which consist of two parcels of land of which item No. 1 is in the possession of the 3rd defendant, a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the plaintiff's prior mortgage. The 3rd defendant, appellant, contends that the plaintiff is bound to proceed first against the property, item No. 2, not sold to him and his property No. 1 should be sold only for the balance, if any.2. Under Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act the plaintiff is entitled to an order that the properties mortgaged be sold and Section 88 of the same Act provides that the Court shall pass a decree that in default of the defendant paying the mortgage amount, the mortgaged property or a sufficient part be sold and the proceeds applied in discharge of the plaintiff's claim.3. A second mortgagee of one of the properties mortgaged without notice of the 1st mortgage is entitled under Section 81 of the Transfer of Proper...
Tag this Judgment!Piramanayagam Pillai and ors. Vs. Alwar Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ305
1. The point that the decrees of the lower Courts cannot be supported in view of the express provisions of the first part of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not taken in the Courts below or in the memorandum of appeal to this Court. Assuming it is open to the appellants in these circumstances to take this point in second appeal, on the authority of Theyyavalam v. Kochan I.L.R. (1897) M. p. 7 the first part of the section does not apply since the present suit is not against the certified purchaser. As regards Exhibit 4, it is no doubt a piece of evidence which suggests that the original purchase by Sundaram Pillai was not benami, but the District Judge came to the conclusion that, notwithstanding this piece of evidence, the original purchase by Sundaram Pillai was benami on behalf of the plaintiff's predecessor in title. This is a finding of fact.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Alagu Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ89
ORDER1. In this case a criminal appeal against a conviction by a Second Class Magistrate was presented to the first Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate. After partly hearing the appeal he resolved to examine certain persons as Court witnesses and issued summons to them. Thereupon one of the parties to the appeal petitioned the Additional District Magistrate to transfer the appeal to another Court, alleging that the examination of further witnesses was wholly unnecessary. The Additional District Magistrate, after hearing the appellants and the complainant, transferred the appeals to his own file, and, without examining the further witnesses, disposed of the appeal, confirming the conviction.2. We are asked now, as a Court of Revison, to set aside the proceedings of the Additional District Magistrate on two grounds; first, that he had no jurisdiction to transfer an appeal which had been partly heard by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and, second, that if he had power to make the transfer he wa...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Karuppan Vs. Subramanian Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ153
1. We think the 3rd defendant as tenant off the plaintiff, the usufructuary mortgagee, was entitled to reasonable notice before ejectment. In the present case the plaintiff gave only 15 days' notice in December in the middle of the cultivation season, which is clearly unreasonable. It was then argued for the respondents, that in this case no notice was necessary, because in his written statement the 3rd defendant had denied the plaintiff's title as landlord, and so forfeited his tenancy. In support of this contention a recent decision Abdulla Naha v. Moidin Kutti (1907) 17 M.L.J. 287 was referred to. This decision is not in accordance with Unhamme Devi v. Vaikunta Hegde I.L.R. (1893) M. 218 where it is said to be settled law that the denial of title for the first time in the suit does not disentitle the tenant to notice for the reason that the plaintiff is bound to show that at the date of suit he had a complete cause of action. We agree with this decision which is in accordance with t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sankappa Rai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ66
1. The 6th accused is the appellant before us; he was charged with abetting a dacoity and receiving stolen property and has been found guilty of the former offence and acquitted of the latter, the verdict of the jury being that 'it is doubtful whether he received the stolen property knowing it to be stolen.'2. The principal contentions in the appeal are that the Sessions Judge has misdirected the jury (1) in regard to a confession said to have been made by the 1st accused, and (2) in regard to the statement made by the 2nd accused's wife Akku, prosecution witness No. 11.3. The confession of the 1st accused was made to the Police Inspector and was therefore inadmissible in evidence, but under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, if the 1st accused was in the custody of the Police, so much of the information given by him might be proved as related distinctly to the discovery of the stolen property. The confession was to the following effect: The 1st accused had obtained a share of the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnayee Vs. Periya Mooppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ150
ORDER1. We are not prepared to say that the view taken by the Deputy Magistrate as to the construction of Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, is wrong. We think that the use of the word 'may' in that section as distinguished from 'shall' shows that the magistrate has a discretion to decide in what cases the award of maintenance may properly be made. No doubt, the discretion must be exercised judicially and reasonably, not capriciously. This was the view taken by Benson J. in the case of Gantapalli Appalamma v. Gantapalli Yellayya. I.L.R. (1897) M. 470.2. In the present case the Deputy Magistrate did not refuse to award maintenance, because the petitioner was 'living in adultery,' but because she had been guilty of adultery with a low caste man, which led to her expulsion from caste, and thus as we take it, rendered it, in effect, impossible for her to live with him without himself losing the society of his fellow caste-men. We are not prepared to say that in these circumstances the D...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »