Chennai Court September 1908 Judgments
Palani Kumarasawmi Pillai and anr. Vs. S. Udayarnadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ490
1. In S.A. 1431 of 1905 - It is not necessary for us to decide whether, in a case where the Court finds under Section 491 of the Code of Civil Procedure that an attachment under Section 483 was applied for on insufficient grounds, the party against whom the order for attachment was made in a suit for compensation must prove that the defendant acted maliciously. In the present case the lower appellate Court finds on the facts that the 1st defendant acted maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. The lower appellate Court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 256 by way of special damages and a further sum of Rs. 250 for general damages for loss of credit and reputation. Sir V. Bhashyam Aiyangar has contended that general damages are not recoverable. He conceded that he had not been able to find any authority in support of this contention. It seems to us that an order under Section 483, Civil Procedure Code, where the application has been made on insufficient grounds, must necessarily c...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Aiyar Alias Seshappa Aiyar Vs. Rathai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1104
1. The Subordinate Judge in paragraph 10 of his judgment finds that the alienation was made in pursuance of a previous promise made by the 2nd defendant's father, not in pursuance of the contract made by the 2nd defendant with the 1st defendant. There does not appear to be any evidence to support that finding. The only evidence to which the Subordinate Judge refers is a statement of a witness Sambasiva Aiyar to the effect that the 2nd defendant's father at the time of his death said that some land should be given to the 1st defendant and a recital in Exhibit I which supports this statement. That is not evidence that the 2nd defendant's father requested the 1st defendant to remain in his son's service.2. It was contended for the respondent, that the alienation can be supported as made by the 2nd defendant in consideration of services rendered at his request. The Subordinate Judge does not seem anywhere to have recorded any distinct finding that, that is the case though he says that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Kumarasamia Pillai and anr. Vs. Udayarnadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.345
1. In Second Appeal No. 1431 of 1905.-It is not necessary for us to decide whether, in a case where the Court finds under Section 491 of the Code of Civil Procedure that an attachment under Section 483 was applied for on insufficient grounds, the party against whom the order for attachment was made in a suit for compensation must prove that the defendant acted maliciously. In the present case the lower appellate Court finds on the facts that the first defendant acted maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause.2. The lower appellate Court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 256 by way of special damages and a further sum of Rs. 250 for general damages for loss of credit and reputation. Sir V. Bhashyam Ayyangar has contended that general damages are not recoverable. He conceded that ho had not been able to find any authority in support of this contention. It seems to us that an order under Section 483, Civil Procedure Code, where the application has been made on insufficient grounds, mu...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachella Chettiar and ors. Vs. Sampathu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.705
1. We are of opinion that the learned Judge is right in dismissing the suit. It is not shown that the vendees under Exhibit A were trustees or purchased the property as representatives of any class of persons. There is no evidence to prove the letting to Rangiah, the grandfather of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and his brother Ramaswami Chetti, in the year 1860. There is no lease nor any accounts produced by the plaintiffs to prove any payment of rent by them till 1875 when it is alleged they were appointed trustees. The evidence of their appointment as trustees in that year is quite unreliable. The temple records have not been produced to prove any trust. In the course of the Insolvency proceedings the property was claimed by the defendants as their own and yet nothing was done to enforce the trust. It is proved on behalf of the plaintiffs that this property was excluded from partition and the defendants carried out certain festivals in this temple and certain other temples; contributions ...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Aiyar and ors. Vs. Appavu Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1908
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ230
Wailis, J.1. This was a suit by the purchaser against the vendor for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property and in the alternative for the return of the deposit of Rs. 4,000 paid by the purchaser. The purchaser failed to complete within the stipulated time, and the lower Court, finding that time was of the essence of the contract and that the defendant exercised his option of avoiding the contract under Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act on the plaintiffs failure to complete, refused to give the plaintiff specific performance but ordered the defendant to return the deposit of Rs. 4,000 paid by the plaintiff at the time of executing the contract of sale, Exhibit A, although in such contract it is expressly stipulated that the amount was to be forfeited by the plaintiff in the event of his delaying to complete the contract by the 24th May 1903, and he admittedly so delayed. This express provision is overridden, in the opinion of the lower Court, by the p...
Tag this Judgment!Aiyakannu Pillai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.597
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question raised in this Order of Reference was considered by a Bench of three Judges in Rahimadulla Sahib v. Emperor 17 M.L.J. 584. The learned Judges by whom the present Order of Reference was made were desirous, for the reason stated in the Order of Reference, that the question should be further considered.2. I have carefully considered the points taken in the Order of Reference and the judgments of the Bombay High Court in the case In re Lakshmidas Lalji 10 Bom. L.R. 28 and I am of the same opinion as I was when the case was first argued before a Full Bench.3. Sub-section (2) of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, indicates the procedure which is to be followed when an order under Sub-section (1) has been made. The subsection says 'such Magistrate shall thereupon, etc.,' that is after the making of an order under Sub-section (1). With all respect to the learned Judges who take a different view I cannot see how Sub-section (2) throws light on the question o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bozagellaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1166
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. Vaccination not having been made compulsory in the Harivanam village the vaccinator was not discharging any duty trader the law when attempting to vaccinate the child against the will of its parents. If the accused prevented him from doing so, he cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction must, therefore, be set aside and the fine, if paid, must be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Ammal Vs. Narayanaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ589
1. We think there is no appeal under Section 588, Clause (24), of C.P.C. - vide Rani Keshobati Kumari v. Mac Gregor 12 C.W.N. 648. We dismiss the appeal with costs.2. But we have no doubt that the Subordinate Judge's decision to make the order is a judicial order he considers the question whether he has jurisdiction to make it and decides in favour of the jurisdiction) and one which can be revised under Section 622, C.P.C. We think the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to call upon the first defendant to furnish accounts, She was appointed receiver by the High Court pending an appeal, and, in our opinion, no other Court had power to make any order or give any direction as supplementary to those given by the High Court, or without authority given by that Court. There was no proceeding pending before the Subordinate Judge - Ramanadhan Chetty v. Narayanan Chetty I.L.R. (1903) M. 602 - and the order of the High Court informing him of the appointment does not give him jurisdiction to gi...
Tag this Judgment!G. Padmaraju Pantulu Vs. S.S. Vencatramana Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.799
ORDER1. The complainant was being cross-examined by the accused's Vakil in a Small Cause suit. The Vakil at the instance of the accused asked the complainant whether he had not been prosecuted for a criminal offence. The complainant, therefore, brought a charge of defamation against the accused under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. A preliminary objection was taken before the Magistrate that the action of the accused was privileged, but the objection was overruled. Hence this revision petition by the accused.2. The principle of English Law is 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 proceedings before any Court or tribunal recognized by law'--Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby L.R. 8 Q.B. 255. If the present question were arising for the first time we might hesitate to apply the above principle in the face of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The principle, however, has been act...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Chetty Vs. Samudra Vijia Nainar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ586
Munro, J.1. The plaintiff's case was that he purchased the plaint house at a court sale for Rs. 360, benami in the name of the defendants. He sued to recover possession from the defendant or, in the alternative, for the purchase-money paid by him for the house. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for possession. On appeal, the District Judge held that the plaintiff's suit for possession was barred by Section 317, C.P.C. He found, however, that the purchase-money had been paid by the plaintiff and gave him a decree for Rs. 360. In second appeal by the defendant it is contended that he should not have granted the alternative felief inasmuch as the plaintiff did not put in any memorandum of objections under Section 561, C.P.C. In support of this contention Kuluikada, Pillai v. Viswanatha Pillai I.L.R. (1904) M. 229 is cited.2. I am of opinion that the decree of the District Judge is right. The primary or major relief asked for. by the plaintiff was delivery of the property. Ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »