Chennai Court September 1908 Judgments
P. Rungiah Naidu Vs. C. Rungiah and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ480
1. The petitioner P. Rungiah Naidu sued one C. Rungiah in the Presidency Court of Small Causes for the recovery of damages for non-acceptance of certain glassware indented for by the latter. The defendant refused to accept the goods on the ground that they were not packed in square and wide cases as required by the indents, contending that the provision as to the mode of packing was an essential term of the contract between him and the plaintiff. The learned Chief Judge who originally tried the suit gave effect to this plea and dismissed the action. The plaintiff thereupon made an application to the Full Bench, which was heard by the Chief Judge and the 2nd and 3rd Judges sitting together. The questions arising in the suit were then fully discussed before them, but they eventually differed among themselves and delivered separate judgments, one Judge holding that the plaintiff's claim should be decreed and the other two being of opinion that the suit should be dismissed. In the result t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswamier Vs. Swaminadhier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ568
1. A preliminary objection is raised on Sivagami Achi v. Subramania Iyer I.L.R. (1903) M. 259 on the ground that the order under consideration is an order made under Section 287 of the Civil Procedure Code. The order purports to be under that section, and it is difficult to say that the fact that the Subordinate Judge, by his ' order, does something which he is not empowered by the section to do, will make it an order under some other section, and so appealable. But though the order is not appealable, or rather because it is not appealable, we can treat the appeal as an application for revision under Section 622 of the C.P.C. in a proper case - and we think this a proper case.2. The Subordinate Judge has expressly departed from his predecessor's order made under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. By that order all the property was to be sold, and the question of lots into which it was to be divided and the order in which they, were to be sold was reserved for consideration whe...
Tag this Judgment!A. Narasimhayya of Bidamannur Vs. A. Venkatasawmi and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ584
ORDER1. A case of theft was reported to a Village Munsif who sent the usual reports to the Police and the Sub-Magistrate. The police submitted a referred charge sheet and asked the, Sub-Magistrate for sanction to prosecute the complainant. The Sub-Magistrate sanctioned the prosecution of the complainant for an offence under Section 182, I.P.C.2. Under Section 195(a), Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 182, I.P.C., except with the previous sanction or on the complaint of the public servant concerned or of some public servant to whom he is subordinate. In the present case the public servant concerned was the Village Munsif, and he took no action. The sanction granted by the Sub-Magistrate will, therefore, be a good sanction only if the Village Munsif is subordinate to the Magistrate. Our attention has been drawn to Regina v. Periannan and Narain I.L.R. (1881) M. 241.3. There, one of the grounds on which the sanction was submitted to be illegal was that th...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Ganesha Rao Vs. T.V. Tuljaram Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.380
Wallis, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff who is the son of the 2nd defendant and the nephew of the first defendant complains that after a decree had been passed in the partition suit No. 266 of 1886 against the 1st defendant and in favour of the 2nd defendant as representing himself and his branch ordering the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 86,000 and odd with some further interest to the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant entered into a compromise with the 1st defendant, and in pursuance of such compromise entered up satisfaction of the decree in respect of the aforesaid sum. The present plaintiff was a party to that suit, and it follows therefore, in my opinion, that the objection taken by the 1st defendant that the question in this suit is a question as to the satisfaction of the decree in the former suit between the parties to that suit is correct, and that consequently it should have been dealt with in execution as provided in Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, and not by separate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›