Chennai Court August 1908 Judgments
G. Subrahmania Aiyar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.871
ORDER1. We are of opinion that the order appealed against is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it is an order in a criminal trial within the meaning of that clause.2. Therefore no appeal lies. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Hassan Kassim Sett Vs. the Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. by their Agents ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1124
1. I am not prepared to hold that the judgment of the District Court is defective merely by reason of Section 203, C.P.C. It is true that no specific issues were framed but the District Judge found that there was no breach of contract by the defendants and even if there was, that no damages were proved.2. I am, however, clearly of opinion that the decision was not according to law. The Judge appears to have held that there was no breach of contract because there was no stipulation as to time in the contract because the defendants could hardly be held to have undertaken to supply the goods 9 days after making their offer and because the plaintiff would not wait for the arrival of the next shipment of oil.3. It is true that the defendants first agreed to supply kerosine oil for cash on the 4th February 1907, and that the plaintiff only paid the cash on the 13th February 1907, but it seems to me the defendants must be taken to have overlooked this delay when they wrote Exhibits C and D. I...
Tag this Judgment!Venulapati Mamraza and Pamidipati Subbiah Vs. Uggumudi Subbarama Reddi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.479
Miller, J.1. I have had an opportunity of reading the judgment which will be delivered by my learned brother, and I concur with him in dismissing the appeals.2. The words 'the legal representative * * may apply' introduced into Sections 365 and 368 by the Act of 1888 are not very happily chosen, and better expressions have been substituted for them in Order XXII of the new Code, but they cannot, in my opinion, mean that any person who chooses to apply, alleging that he is a legal representative, is to be accepted as such by the Court, whether his claim is disputed or not.3. The provisions of Section 368 then can Only be applied when the applicant is the legal representative, and not when he is merely a person alleging himself to be such representative.4. The Court to which the application is made has necessarily to decide whether the applicant is or is not to be brought on the record, but the Code does not say what the Court is to do to that end when there is a dispute. Section 367 app...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinivasayya Vs. Sitamma Alias Padmavadi Amma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1114
1. We do not think that there is any trust in favour of the plaintiff. The creation of such a trust was not within the scope of the reference to arbitration. Further, we do not think that in any case the award creates a trust. The provision that the defendant should pay Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred) to the present plaintiff on the responsibility of his share of the property, seems to us to have been intended entirely for the benefit of the defendant's brother. It is clear that it was contemplated that notwithstanding the provision the present plaintiff might proceed against the defendant's brother and recover from him. The plaintiff was no party to the award. He is not bound by the award and, therefore acquired no interest thereunder Chaudhri Hira Singh v. Chaudhri Ganga Sahai 11 I.A. 20; 6 A.322.2. We, therefore, allow the appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Valia Konikkal Edathil Cheria Panji Vs. Marutha Veera Kavundan and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ543
Munro, J.1. The petitioner brought a suit to recover from three persons personally and as managers of a Devas-thanam Rs. 27-6-0, being revenue paid by him for the defendants. The defendants did not appear, and the petitioner obtained an ex parte decree ordering that the defendants personally and from the Devaswom property do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 27-6-0' with interest and costs. On application by the 3rd defendant under Section 108, Civil Procedure Code, the District Munsif set aside the whole decree as against all the defendants. The petitioner contends that the District Munsif acted illegally.2. Section 108, Civil Procedure Code, does not lay down that if an application by one of several defendants is granted, the whole decree must be set aside in favour of all the defendants - Gopala v. Subbier. I.L.R. (1903) M. 604 The extent to which the decree must be set aside will depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. On. what principle then is the Court to act in...
Tag this Judgment!Salakshi Vs. Lakshmayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ571
1. The question for decision is whether the respondent has any-interest in the property - a dwelling house liable to be attached and sold in execution of a decree against her.2. In a suit for maintenance brought by the respondent, a Hindu widow, against her step-son, his two sisters, wife and daughter, she obtained a decree against the 1st defendant, the step-son, for past and for future maintenance, which was made a charge on certain properties. There was-also a decree for surrender to her of. the 1st defendant's share of item No. 1 in the plaint for her residence during life. Her interest in that property is now attached by one of the other defendants in execution of the decree for costs decreed against her.3. The Judge has held that she has no alienable interest, and that the attachment must, therefore, be set aside. In appeal, reliance is placed upon the dictum of Muthuswamy Aiyar J. in Ramanadham v. Rangammal I.L.R. (1888) M. 260. That was a suit in which the question for decision...
Tag this Judgment!Olati Pulliah Chetty Vs. E. Varadarajulu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ469
1. The suit was brought by one Olati Pulliah to recover possession of certain properties which belonged to his father's elder brother Olati Lakshmiah. Lakshmiah died in 1892 leaving a will. It is the plaintiff's case, that under that will the testator's adopted grandson Kuppiah and his widowed daughter-in-law Ranganaikammal took a joint life interest in the properties left by him, and that on the death of Kuppiah without any issue in April 1893 Ranganaikammal took the whole property only, as a tenant for life; that in any event the will did not give her anything more than a widow's estate under Hindu Law; and on her death, therefore, in April 1904, the plaintiff and his deceased father Veeriah became entitled to the property left by Lakshmiah.2. The defendants who claim under a will executed by Ranganaikammal answer that it is not open to the plaintiff to rely upon the will as the nature of the interest taken by her under it was in dispute in a suit brought by her against the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mangiah Chetty Vs. K. Ramiah Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ565
1. A preliminary objection has been taken, that a vakil has no right of audience in appeal from an order made by the Insolvency Court.2. This point was raised in 1889 in O.S. appeal 10 of 1888, and it was there held that a vakil had the right of audience before this Court in an appeal from the Insolvency Court.3. We agree with this decision. There is nothing in the Insolvency Rules, 1905, which has the effect of taking away this right.4. The preliminary objection is overruled.5. It seems to us that documentary evidence of considerable importance was not considered by the learned Judge, and that the inquiry cannot be said to have been complete. We accordingly set aside the order of the learned Judge and send the case back to the Insolvency Court in order that the application may be dealt with by the Commissioner in Insolvency. Costs incurred up to date will be dealt with by the Commissioner in Insolvency....
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Pillai Vs. the Taluk Board of Kumbakonam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.32
Arnold White, C.J.1. The two questions which have been referred to us are:1. Is notice of action necessary under Section 156(1) of the Local Boards Act, 1884, when the suit is for an injunction?2. Does the six months' limitation prescribed by Section 156(3) apply to such a suit?2. I take it that, for the purposes of our answer to the questions which have been referred to us, it is to be assumed that the suit for an injunction is on account of an act done or purporting to be done, in pursuance, or execution or intended execution of the act, or in respect of an alleged neglect or default in the execution of the act within the meaning of Section 156 of the Madras Local Boards Act (V of 1884).3. As regards the first question, it was held by this Court in President of the Taluk Board, Sivaganga v. Narayanan 16 M. 317 that under the provisions of Section 156 of the Local Boards Act, V of 1884, as originally enacted, the section did not apply to a suit for an injunction. I think this decision...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralinga Chetti Vs. Annamalai Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.165
1. As pointed out in Ferozi Begam v. Abdul Latiff 30 A. 143; 3 M.L.T. 221; 5 A.L.J. 109; A.W.N. (1908) 53 there is no provision in Section 549 of the Civil Procedure Code, similar to that contained in Section 381 and permitting an appellant whose appeal has been rejected under Section 549 to apply for an order setting the dismissal aside. Nor have we been referred to any provision elsewhere in the Code under which such an application will lie.2. The decision of the Privy Council in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh 8 A. 315; 13 I.A. 57 the head-note of which in the Indian Law Reports is far from accurate, was arrived at on a peculiar state of facts, and is not, in our opinion, an authority for the position that an appeal duly rejected under Section 549, Civil Procedure Code, can be restored by the Court which rejected it.3. The application is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »