Chennai Court April 1908 Judgments
In Re: Gangi Reddi Buchanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ541
1. In this case the appellants have been convicted by a jury, but we must set aside the verdict as there has been a serious misdirection in the Judge's charge to the jury.2. The plea of all the accused was an alibi, and each of the accused, except the first, called witnesses to prove the alibi. Nine witnesses for the defence were examined, but the Sessions Judge in his charge to the jury has not referred to them at all; nor has he even stated what the plea of the accused was. It is impossible to say that this is not a misdirection which prejudiced the accused.3. We set aside the conviction and direct that the accused be retried in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!Robert Gordon Orr and ors. Vs. Chokalingam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ494
1. The suit lands were transferred to the 1st defendant. Subsequently the landlord took summary proceedings against the former owner and brought them to sale under Section 38 of the Rent Recovery Act. All that passed under that sale was the interest of the former owner - Rajagopal v. Subbaraya I.L.R. (1883) M. 31 - but the former owner having previously parted with his interest in the property in favour of the 1st defendant, nothing passed by the said sale, and the title of the 1st defendant was not affected thereby. The 1st defendant has mortgaged the lands, and the mortgagee has now obtained a decree for sale. Under these circumstances, the 1st defendant professes that he has no further interest in the property and denies his liability to pay rent for faslis 1314 and 1315. He was the owner for these faslis, and is the person liable to pay rent for them, and pattas have been duly tendered to him by the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, we think that the plaintiffs are. entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Raja Visvanatha Vijaya Kumar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ548
1. The application is barred under Section 230 unless the order sanctioning the agreement under Section 257-A can be said to be a new decree or an order subsequent to decree directing flie payment of money within the meaning of Section 230 (b). In our opinion, the order sanctioning the compromise cannot be said, to be either anew decree or an order for the payment of money within this section - see Venkatagiri Iyer v. Sadagopachariar (1900) M.L.J. 369 It is then contended that it is res judicata between these parties, that the order amounts to a decree, because, on an objection taken under Section 311 to the confirmation of a sale in execution of the decree, it was held that the order operated as a decree and rendered notice under Section 245 unnecessary. This ruling, in our opinion, proceeded on a mistake of law, and such a mistake cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding which in no way affects the operation of the previous order confirming the sale - Mangalathammal ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasu Mudaliar Vs. Veerasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ495
Wallis, J.1. Section 28 of the Code of Civil-Procedure cannot enable the plaintiff to join with his suit against the 1st defendant a suit for an account against his co-trustee, the 2nd defendant, over which the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction. It is said, however, that the Subordinate Judge should have allowed the plaintiff to proceed with his suit against the 1st defendant. Where one co-trustee joined the other as one of the defendants, and it was not shown that the other trustee had refused to be joined as plaintiff, it was held in Parameswaren v. Shangaran I L.R. (1891) M. 489 that the District Judge was right in dismissing the suit on the ground that the co-trustee was not joined as plaintiff. The case of Savitri Antarjanam v. Raman Namboodiri I.L.R. (1900) M. 269 is to the same effect. On the other hand, the case of Peria Karuppan v. Velayuthan Chetty I.L.R. (1905) M. 303 appears to approve of the case of Pyari Mohan Bose v. Kedar Nath Roy I.L.R. (1900) C. 409 in which it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Aiyyam Chetti and ors. Vs. Poongavanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ464
1. The first objection that is taken is that the suit is barred. The auction-purchaser whose possession was resisted by the present plaintiff put in a petition under Section 335, Civil Procedure Code, and obtained an order for delivery of possession to him. The plaintiff then brought this suit against him within the time limited by Article 11 of the 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act. In his written statement, the 1st defendant objected that he was only a benamidar - a statement he had made previously in his petition under Section 335, Civil Procedure Code; and thereupon the Court ordered defendants No. 2 and 3 as the real owners to be made parties, and they were so made parties. This was more than one year after the date of the order under Section 335, Civil Procedure Code, and it is, therefore, contended that the suit is barred.2. In our opinion, the suit, which the section provides; for, by the party against whom an order has been made under the section is a suit against the party o...
Tag this Judgment!Chama Swami and anr. Vs. Padala Ananda and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ306
1. The plaintiffs in this case, according to the finding of the lower appellate Court, purchased certain lands by a sale-deed dated 21st July 1899, which was afterwards registered, and on the 24th August 1899 redeemed a mortgage on the property. The plaintiffs' purchase was afterwards held invalid as against defendants 3 to 6, and under these circumstances the plaintiffs have brought the present suit to recover from defendants 3 to 6 the money due on the mortgage which they paid off whilst in possession of the property under the sale deed in their favour. Both the lower Courts have given a decree in the plaintiffs' favour on the authority of Syamalarayadu v. Subbarayadu I.L.R. (1897) M. 143 the facts in which closely resemble those in the present case. In the argument, before us it was not seriously argued that the present case was distinguishable; but it was said that the decision in Syamalarayadu v. Subbarayadu I.L.R. (1897) M. 143 was wrong. We are unable to agree with this contenti...
Tag this Judgment!The King Emperor Vs. Kanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ329
1. The order of the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate acquitting the accused cannot be supported. The accused was charged with exposing fish for sale so as to cause obstruction under Section 3(6) of the Town Nuisances Act.2. The Magistrate has acquitted him, because the obstruction wan caused by people collecting in front of him for the purpose of buying his fish and was not caused by the fish that were being exposed. The evidence which was uncontradicted proved conclusively that owing to the accused's selling fish-on the road side near the market, numbers of people collected there and caused an obstruction. This is clearly an offence within the section and the accused should have been convicted.3. The case referred to Venkatarama Chetty v. Emperor I.L.R. (1904) M. 17 has no application. The order of acquittal of the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate is set aside, and we direct the Magistrate to retake the case on his file and dispose of it according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Cangayam Venkataramana Iyer Vs. Henry James Colly Gompertz and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ298
1. The principal question in this appeal may be shaped as follows:Can the second of the two sucesssive mortgagees, both of whom hold simple mortgages, insist, in a suit to which the prior mortgagee is a party, on obtaining from the Court a decree for sale subject to the prior mortgage?2. It is unnecessary, in considering the question, to decide whether or not the prior mortgagee can make him a party simply to enable the Court to determine what is due to him. In this case the plaintiff has not stated that this was the only purpose for which the prior mortgagee was made a party; he has in fact offered, as an alternative to his first prayer, to accept a decree for redemption of the prior mortgage. It is, of course, the case that the plaintiff could not here avoid making the prior mortgagee a party, for as purchaser in the sale on his mortgage he unites in himself the interests of the mortgagor and mortgagee in the property. That, however, does note affect the question. All the interested ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskruni Kesavarayadu Vs. Bhaskaruni Chalapatirayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ343
ORDER1. The finding is that the counter-petitioner is the managing member of the joint Hindu family that owns the property in dispute, and that, as such, he is in possession of the joint family property. We think that the view taken in Sri Mohan Thakur v. Narsing Mohan Thakur I.L.R. (1899) C. 259 is correct. The cases quoted by the petitioner are all either cases; of co-trustees or of ordinary partners in which the rights of each trustee or partner are equal. None of them are cases like the present of a co-parcenary under the Mitakshara law, in which the managing member has a recognized position of superiority with well-defined rights of management and possession independent of the consent of the other members of the family.2. Mr. Mayne, in para 292 of the 7th edition of his Hindu Law, when discussing the mode in which the joint family property is to be enjoyed by the co-parceners says: 'In Malabar and Canara the head of the family is entitled to its entire possession and is absolute i...
Tag this Judgment!The Crown Vs. Ramaswami Konan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ540
1. We are unable to accept the view taken in the case quoted from Weir's Law of Offence, Vol. I, page 202, and relied on by the Sub-Magistrate. We take it that the law is correctly stated in the case of Queen Empress v. Muppan I.L.R. (1895) M. 401 in the following terms:A man legally arrested for an offence must submit to be tried and dealt with according to law. If he gains his liberty before he is delivered by due course of law, he commits the offence of 'escape.' It has been long established that even when the escape is effected by the consent or the neglect of the person that kept the prisoner in custody, the latter is no less guilty, as neither such illegal consent nor neglect absolves the prisoner from the duty of submitting to the judgment of the law (1 Russ. 5th Edition p. 567; Roscoe, 11th Edition, p. 453; and Bishop's Criminal Law 7th Edition, Section 1104).2. The fact that the peon who had the custody of the accused went to sleep, did not, in any way, put an end to the custo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »