Chennai Court August 1908 Judgments
Gummana Chetty Vs. Abdu Beari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1112
1. The view taken by the District Judge is in accordance with Babshetti v. Venkataramana 3 B. 154 and Ranga v. Suba Hegde 4 B. 473 which was approved in The Secretary of State v. Fernandes 30 M, 375; 17 M.L.J. 337; 2 M.L.T. 320. Even if the assessment was increased in consequence of improvement made by the mulganidar, we do not think this makes any difference, and we are not referred to any case in this country in which it has been held that it does.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamachariar Vs. Kuppammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1131
1. In this case there was a decree for partition of certain properties including a house in Madras which, on appeal to the High Court, was, in 1889, modified by declaring the right of a widow to reside in this house. In 1901, on an application for execution, Shephard, J., returned the application to the District Judge of Chingleput, but no further action was taken in that Court until 1906 when the present application was made.2. The first question we have to consider is the nature of the decree. That the decree-holder treated it as final and executable, is beyond doubt. He obtained possession of part of the property under it, and it is equally clear to us that the District Court of Chingleput intended the decree to be a final decree.3. In 1901, no doubt, Shephard, J., expressed an opinion that a Commissioner ought to be appointed, but that view apparently did not commend itself to the appellant's guardian and no action was taken upon the suggestion.4. It is not until 1906 that the sugg...
Tag this Judgment!R. Fisher Vs. A.M. Arunachallam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.522
1. The order on the claim proceedings which the plaintiff now seeks to set aside declared according to the plaint in the suit, that the plaintiff's mortgage has been discharged.2. The plaintiff does not in his suit seek to have the property released of the attachment, but to have it declared that this order is wrong and that his mortgage is subsisting. The mortgagor is a party both to the suit and the claim proceedings though she probably contests neither and the effect of granting the declaration asked for by the plaintiff will be to establish the mortgage as against her as well as against the attaching creditor.3. The case is distinguishable from Krishna sami Naidu v. Somasundaram Chettiar 30 M.k 335 in which the claimant sought to get rid of the order of attachment on property which he claimed to be his own.4. We think that in the circumstances of this case the plaintiff has rightly valued the subject-matter of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction and we set aside the order of the S...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Naicken Vs. Sappa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.484
Miller, J.1. The District Munsif has, as I understand him, found (and the promissory notes are good evidence in support of his finding) that the rent accrued due at or before the time at which the promissory notes were executed.2. The subsequent eviction by the landlord is not a good defence to his suit for this rent.3. The decree must be reversed and the claims of plaintiff decreed in each case with costs throughout.4. If the defendants were evicted before the end of their terra they may have a claim for damages....
Tag this Judgment!Ranganayakalu Aiya Vs. Subbayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.522a
Miller, J.1. The endorsement signed by the debtor on the 10th September 1899 is to the effect that some money was paid on the 20th July 1S93 towards the principal and interest due on the bond. This it seems to me is an acknowledgment that on the 20th July 1898 there was still money payable on the bond. The question is whether it amounts also to an acknowledgment that something remained unpaid on the 10th September 1899. In Maniram v. Seth Rupchand 105 4 C.L.J. 94 : 8 Bom. L.R. 501 : 10 C.W.N. 874 : 2 N.L.R. 130 the, Judicial Committee 'were dealing with a document dated September. 1899 in which the debtor stated for the last 5 years he had open and current accounts with the deceased (one Motiram).' Their Lordships held that this was an acknowledgment sufficient to save limitation, and in considering the view taken by one of the Courts below they remark the first instance 'that which I have set out--shows that' there were open accounts at the death of Motiram. If nothing further is alle...
Tag this Judgment!Damaraju Narasimha Rau Vs. Thadinada Gangaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ590
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. For the purpose of this question the material facts and dates are as follows:Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 brought a suit against the 5th defend, ant, and on December roth 1899 attached certain paddy before judgment. The plaintiff put in a claim petition with respect to the paddy. On March 8th, 1900, this petition was dismissed. On March 26th, 1900, the plaintiff brought a suit under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure to establish his right to the property. On November i8th, 1901, he obtained a declaration as to his right. On February 7th, 1903, this declaration was affirmed on appeal. In the meantime, the property had been sold by the Court, and on May 15th, 1900, the proceeds had been distributed to the defendants, the 4th defendant having received his share as a party entitled to rateable distribution. On June 1st 1903, the present suit for a refund of th...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Ellusah Vs. Ruppu Rangayyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ562
1. As regards the appeal against the order of July 16th, the appellant, the party who asked for an order for rateable distribution under Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code, was an attaching creditor not of the judgment-debtor in the suit in which the application for rateable distribution was made (O.S. No. 52 of 1904) but of the judgment-creditor in that suit. This being so it is not a case where 'the Court holds assets for execution of decrees for money against the same judgment-debtor' within the meaning of the section. The application under Section 295 was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the order of the 16th July. The appeal is dismissed with costs.2. As regards the appeal against the order of August 13th - an order for the payment out of the whole of the money in court in O. S. No. 52 of 1904 to another attaching creditor (Ruppu Kangayyan) - the application on which the-order appealed against was made was resisted on the ground that the appellant was entitled to rateable dis...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Ellusah Vs. Ruppa Rangayyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1102
1. As regards the appeal against the order of July 16th the appellant, the party who asked for an order for rateable distribution under Section 295, Civil Procedure Code, was an attaching creditor not of the judgment-debtor in his suit in which the application for rateable distribution was made (Original Suit 52 of 1904) but of the judgment-creditor in that suit. This being so it is not a case where 'the Court holds assets for execution of decrees for money against the same judgment-debtor' within the meaning of the section. The application under Section 295 was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the order of the 16th July. The appeal is dismissed with costs.2. As regards the appeal against the order of August 13th an order for the payment out of the whole of the money in Court in Original Suit No. 52 of 1904 to another attaching creditor (Ruppa Rangayyan) the application on which the order appealed against was made was resisted on the ground that the appellant was entitled to rateable d...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: L. Jogiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ466
ORDER1. In a civil suit a document filed by the petitioners was found a forgery, and proceedings have been taken against them under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners have filed an appeal against the decree passed against them in the civil suit in which the main question for determination is whether the document is genuine, and they apply to this Court under Section 15 of the Charter Act to stay further proceedings in the Criminal Court; against them pending the disposal of the appeal.2. On a consideration of the circumstances of the case it appears to us that it would be oppressive to the petitioners to allow the criminal proceedings to be prosecuted as they might thereby be prevented from carrying on the appeal, and as the prosecution was one instituted by a Court, it is probable, in the event of the document being found genuine by the appellate Court, the proceedings against the petitioners might be dropped. There was no suggestion that the petitioners will ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chinna Ramana Gowd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ573
1. The appellant complained to the Village Reddi that as he was returning to his house, he was robbed by certain persons, whose names were mentioned by him. The Village Reddi embodied this information in his reports to the Sub-Magistrate (Exh. A) and to the Inspector (Exh. B) who went to the appellant's village and took a statement from him (Exh. C) in the hand-writing of the Kurnum, which was read over to the appellant and signed by him. His complaint was, on inquiry by the Inspector, found to be false, and he was originally charged under the second part of Section 211, Indian Penal Code, with having instituted criminal proceedings by falsely charging the persons named by him with dacoity before the Police Inspector (Exh. C).2. The Sessions Judge who first tried the case held that Exh. C was a statement taken under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, and that the appellant could not be prosecuted for an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, for answering questions put to him...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »