Chennai Court September 1908 Judgments
Devaguptapu Peda Satyanarayana, Minor, by His Father and Guardian Appa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ603
1. One Venkappa, deceased, was Kurnam of Koduru. He had two daughters, one the 1st defendant and, other the mother of the plaintiff. Venkappa died in 1901 and the plaintiff, who was then a minor, was registered as Venkappa's heir under Section 13 of Madras Act II of 1894. The lands which, formed the emoluments of the Kurnam's office were in 1903 enfranchised in the name of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff being then still a minor and his mother being dead. The plaintiff now sues for, the cancellation of the pattah issued in the name of the ist defendant and for issue of pattah in his own name. He failed in both the Courts below. We think the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed. At the time of the enfranchisement of the ist defendant the plaintiff was not Venkappa's heir in respect of any other property of his. The plaintiff's claim is based before us, not on the ground that he has actually been appointed Kurnam at the time of the enfranchisement, but on the ground that he had-been r...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kamal Krishna Bose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1106
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The accused K.K. Bose who was Manager of the Calcutta Provident Institution from the 9th February 1903 till March 1903, has been acquitted by the appellate Court of the various charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal misappropriation in respect of Rs. 39 paid by Prosecution Witness No. 1 on account of a diploma-holder Pappamma of which he was found guilty by the Joint Magistrate. The Government has appealed against his acquittal; and Dr. Swaminathan, why appeared in support of the appeal, has contended that though the petitioner might have joined the Institution in good faith, he must, during the years that he was manager, have become aware that Mitter and Sen were misappropriating the moneys which should have been available for meeting the death claims and that since fully knowing that the funds were held in trust for that purpose. he wilfully handed over the moneys to Sen and Mitter contrary to that trust he made himself liable for those offences...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasamy Pillai Vs. Ramasawmi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.719
1. Although in paragraph 3(g) of the plaint the plaintiff alleges that the sale by Sampuranam was without consideration, yet in Clause (b) of the same paragraph he sets out consideration. It is contended on his behalf that he is a stranger, but we must take his allegation in the plaint as the basis of the suit. The District Munsif finds that there was consideration for the sale though not the consideration recited in the deed, and though the Subordinate Judge holds the deed to be void ab initio he does not anywhere find that the parties to it did not at its date intend it to be operative. Nor does he find that it was without consideration but only as we understand him that the first defendant subsequently repudiated his agreement. In these circumstances his finding that the deed is void ab initio is wrong in law.2. It may be that the widow was entitled to set aside the sale, and that was her view of the matter for she instituted a, suit for that purpose, but to meet an objection as to ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subbaroya Chetty and ors. Vs. Aiyaswami Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.749
1. The suit lands were formerly service inam, lands attached to the office of Karnam. One Venkatasubba Aiyar who held that office was dismissed in 1878, and this cousin Viswanatha Aiyar was appointed in his place. Viswanatha Aiyar got a decree for the inam but failed to get possession from Venkatasubba Aiyar. Venkatasubba Aiyar died in 1886, and thereafter his widow Sivakami was in possession till 1894, when the inam was enfranchised in her name. Sivakami continued in possession till 1902, when she sold the lands under Exhibit X to the first defendant. Sivakami died in 1904. The suit is by the plaintiff as reversioner to recover the lands. The plaintiff succeeded in both the Courts below.2. The points pressed in second appeal are that the lands were the absolute property of Sivakami from the date of the enfranchisement, and that, in any case, she had at the date of Exhibit X acquired title by adverse possession. As to the first point it is contended that, as the lands themselves consti...
Tag this Judgment!Puttanna and anr. Vs. Korapolu Alias Bhagi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.617
1. We are of opinion that the plaintiff has no charge upon the property for her maintenance. The sale-deed creates no such charge. It is the seller and not the plaintiff who would have a charge upon the property for any unpaid purchase money. What the plaintiff relies upon is merely a covenant by the vendee with the vendor to pay the plaintiff a certain quantity of rice annually. Such a covenant would not give rise to a charge Vide Webb v. Macpherson 31 C.h 57. We, therefore, allow the appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Sankara Reddi Vs. Errama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.618a
1. It is contended that this is a suit for an account between principal and agent, but we are of opinion that it. is clearly not so, and that it was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.2. There is an admitted error of Rs. 23 in the claim, and this sum must be deducted from the principal amount to be decreed to the plaintiff.3. Subject to the necessary modification to be made on this account the decree will stand good.4. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent....
Tag this Judgment!Kondeti Kana Row, Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend Ramanna Vs. Lol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ576
Miller, J.1. It is necessary to set out in some detail the facts found in this case.2. In execution of a decree against the father of the 2nd defendant the house in dispute was attached; the plaintiff, by his next freind, laid claim to the property as vendee of the 2nd defendant, and, obtained a decree declaring him to be the owner, In the suit in which this decree was obtained he and the attaching creditor and the 2nd defendant were parties, the 2nd defendant being then the 3rd defendant. The Court found tlrat the property was the self-acquisition and separate property of the 2nd defendant, Mondi Venkanna, purchased by him after separation from his father.3. On the strength of the declaration and his title as vendee, the plaintiff, by his next friend, now sues for possession of the house and site, and the 2nd defendant, who is in possession, resists the suit on the ground that the sale-deed was nominal and colorable, and executed because the 2nd defendant ' had to pay certain debts at...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnier and ors. Vs. Muthusami Sholagan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ564
1. Certain property was usufructuarily mortgaged to the plaintiffs in 1890. The plaintiffs subsequently got two other mortgages on the same property. They brought the present suit on the two subsequent mortgages and asked for sale subject to their prior usufructuary mortgage. Both the Courts below held that the suit was not maintainable. That in a casa like the present the plaintiff could have a decree for sale on the subsequent mortgages free of the prior mortgage is clear from Rengasami Nadan v. Subbaroya Iyen I.L.R. (1907) M. 408. The plaintiffs are willing to accept such a decree if the decree they asked for cannot be granted. But we see no good reason why there should not be a decree for sale subject to the prior mortgage, and there is direct authority for granting such a decree in Ram Shankar Lal v. Ganesh Prasad I.L.R. (1907) A. 385.2. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Srikrishna Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.474
1. The appellant refused service of the summons and a copy was duly affixed to his door. We do not think' that the omission of the Judge to record under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Code, an express declaration that the process was duly served, can invalidate his order; under Section 174, Civil Procedure Code. The order on the summons in our opinion, is sufficient declaration in the circumstances. The City Civil Judge has given sufficient reasons for imposing a heavy fine.2. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Marie Jacob Rodriguez and anr. Vs. Peter Fernandez and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.481
1. We are of opinion that this is not an agreement relating to the gale of goods exclusively so as to bring it within schedule I, article 5 Exemption (a), of Act II of 1899.2. We are, further, of opinion that it is not an agreement comprising or relating to several distinct matters within the meaning of Section 5 of Act II of 1899. As regards the last question, we think the Court has jurisdiction to admit the document on payment of the duty and penalty as provided in Section 35 of Act II of 1899....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »