Chennai Court March 1908 Judgments
A.P. Pachaiperumal Chettiar Vs. Dasi Thangam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ353
1. This is a suit for damages. The circumstances out of which it arose are as follows: The defendant, a Dasi, was accused of rioting, by a person who is admittedly a servant of the plaintiff. When he was being examined as a witness the defendant instructed her pleader to put certain questions to him which implied that the charge was brought at the instigation of the plaintiff on account of the ill-feeling which he entertained towards her. The defendant repeated these statements in a reply to a notice sent by the plaintiff to her. The defendant claims privilege. She also pleads the truth of her statements.2. The rule of English law that 'no action of libel or slander lies whether against judges, counsel, witnesses, or parties for words written or spoken in the ordinary course of any proceeding before any Court or tribunal recognised by law' has been applied in this Presidency to Judges in Raman Nayar v. Subrahmanya Ayyan I.L.R. (1893) M. 87; to witnesses in many cases see In the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Srinivasa Chariar Vs. the Muncipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ377
1. In dismissing the revision petition the learned judge, who heard the petition states that in course of repairs to the cart the number was obliterated.2. If this had been so, we should have agreed with the learned judge that the plaintiff had failed to keep affixed to his cart within the meaning of Section 88 of Act IV of 1884 the registration number required by Section 85 of the Act.3. But there is no evidence that the number had become obliterated. According to the facts as stated by the Advocate-General on behalf of the Municipality the plaintiff removed the portion of the axle on which the registration number had been painted from the damaged wheel and affixed it to the repaired axle. We are of opinion that when the registration number has been affixed in this manner the cart bears the registration number for the purposes of Section 85 and the registration number is kept affixed for the purposes of Section 88 unless such affixing is contrary to any bye-law of the Municipality, or...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Harriett Annie Wilson Vs. George Oakes and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ331
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues as administratrix of the estate of one William Graham Mclvor. The defendants are the executors of the will of Anne Mclvor, his wife. William Mclvor made a will on May 24, 1876, and died on June 8, 1876. Anne Mclvor took out probate of this will on August 3, 1876, and took possession of the testator's estate and remained in possession until her death. Anne Mclvor made her will on March 27th, 1900, and died on November 23, 1903. The plaintiff, as representing the estate of Wiliam Graham Mclvor, claims relief against the defendants, as representing the estate of Anne Mclvor. The hearing of the suit before the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris was very protracted, and a great number of questions of law and fact were raised before him and disposed of by him.2. The learned Judge held, amongst other things, that, under the will, Mrs. Mclvor took an ordinary life estate, and that the will did not operate so as to create a trust ...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.S. Sheik Mahamad Ravuther Vs. the B.i.S.N. Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ497
Arnold White, Kt., 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...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Veeraraghava Tathachariar and ors. Vs. R. Krishnasamy Thathachari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1908
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ638
ORDER1. 16th January 1908 This suit is brought under Section 539 and Section 30, Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that a scheme of management of a temple is binding, and, in the alternative, for the settlement by the Court of a scheme and for the appointment, in the meanwhile, of a Receiver-2. Though there are various allegations made against the Dharmakarthas, there is no application for their removal. At first, on the filing of the suit, an application was made for a Receiver pending the suit, and a Receiver was appointed temporarily until notice had gone to the defendants to show cause against the application. On the application coming on it was objected for the defendants that the Court had no jurisdiction under Section 503, Civil Procedure Code, to appoint a Receiver, as the temple property was not the subject of the suit or under attachment. The District Judge thereupon dismissed the application and this appeal is now brought against his order.3. The subject of the suit is...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Veeraraghva Tathachariar and ors. Vs. R. Krishnaswamy Thathachari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1908
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.900
ORDER1. This suit is brought under Section 539 and Section 30, Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that a scheme of management of a temple is binding, and, in the alternative, for the settlement by the Court of a scheme and for the appointment, in the meanwhile, of a Receiver.2. Though there are various allegations made against the Dharmakarthas, there is no application for their removal. At first, on the filing of the suit, an application was made for a Receiver pending the suit, and a Receiver was appointed temporarily until notice had gone to the defendants to show cause against the application. On the application coming on, it was objected for the defendants that the Court had no jurisdiction under Section 503, Civil Procedure Code, to appoint a Receiver, as the temple property was not the subject of the suit or under attachment. The District Judge thereupon dismissed the application and this appeal is now brought against his order.3. The subject of the suit is, a scheme for th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Aluvala Guruviah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ216
ORDERMiller, J.1. Dr. Swaminadhan raises two questions on behalf of the petitioner: (1) Whether the conditional order under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code is illegal and (2) whether in the absence of the notice required by Section 140 the conviction can be sustained. The petitioner did not come forward to object to the order under, Section 133 which directed him to protect his well 'according to the instructions of the Local Fund Overseer.' Assuming that the order is not such as is contemplated by Section 133, I do not in these circumstances think it necessary to interfere with the conviction in revision. The question whether the notice prescribed by Section 140 must be given before any punishment can be inflicted for disobedience of the order passed under Section 133 is not free from difficulty.2. If the order is made absolute under Section 137 or Section 139 then clearly no punishment can follow unless the procedure laid down in Section 140 is adopted, but neither Section 137 no...
Tag this Judgment!K. Achutayya Vs. N.S. Thimmayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ228
1. These cases depend upon the same question. The suit was referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator made his award. The defendant applied under Section 521, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the award. The award was set aside by the Munsif. Afterwards the suit came on for decision on the merits and was determined by the Munsif in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed and the District Judge on appeal decided that the Munsif was wrong in setting aside the award and without going into the merits reversed the decree of the Munsif, and entered judgment in accordance with the award in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant now objects that the District Judge had no authority to go behind the decision of the Munsif in setting aside the award - relying upon Ganga Prasad v. Kura I.L.R. (1906) A. 408 and Kalyan Das v. Pyare Lal (1907) 4 A.L.J. 256.2. If these cases are intended to decide and do decide that on final appeal a District Judge cannot enquire into and decide as to the prop...
Tag this Judgment!The East Indian and Anglo-Indian Deposit and Loan Society (Ld.) Vs. Dr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ465
ORDER1. The question whether a cheque has been presented within a reasonable time has to be determined with regard to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade and of bankers, and the facts of the particular case Section 84(2), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. This is the same rule as is laid down in Section 74(2) of the English Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. The question is, in our opinion, clearly a question of fact, not of law. In England it is held that it is a question of fact for the Jury to determine Serle v. Norton (1841) 2 MR 401; Wheeler v. Young (1897) 13 T.L.R. 468.3. As the question is one of fact, it is not a question which the Small Cause Court can refer for the opinion of the High Court under Section 69 of the Act.4. We must, therefore, decline to decide the question. Costs will be provided for by the lower Court's order....
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Pillai Vs. Arunachela Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ304
1. Exhibit E is in terms an absolute sale in favor of the temple, that is to say, an absolute gift by Minakshi to the temple, of property bought by her from Visvanatha Chetty. The fact that she is permitted to retain the instrument cannot, we think, be taken as sufficient to show that she also retained the ownership of the land. The deed is quite clear, and the evidence of the subsequent conduct of the parties, many years after its execution, cannot assist us in construing its language or terms.2. Minakshi made over the lands absolutely to the temple, and had no power to give the plaintiff by Exhibit E any right of management of it.3. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the suit with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »