Chennai Court October 1909 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gopisetti Narayanasawmynaidu Garu Vs. Kolachina Venkatappaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.438
1. The amount sued for is not a cess payable to the plaintiffs. If it is a cess at all it is one payable to Government. The landholder is given the right by statute to recover a share from the tenant along with the rent.2. Following the decision in Zamindar of Tarla v. Latchia 13 M.L.J. 211 we think there is no second appeal. The appeals are dismissed with costs....
Krishna Doss Vital Doss and Purushottam Mulji Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ423
1. The charge against the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is that they passed certain resolutions defamatory of the complainant and published those resolutions. The charge against the 4th accused is that he transmitted the resolutions to a newspaper in Bombay. The charges against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 3 and the 4th accused were tried together, and objection is taken that the trial was illegal because the offences committed by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the offence committed by the 4th accused were not committed in the same transaction within the meaning of Section 239, Criminal Procedure Code. We think the objection is well founded. The Crown Prosecutor has not been able to refer us to any evidence sufficient to show that the offences were committed in the same transaction. All that is shown is that the 4th accused was a clerk in the service of one of the parties to the resolution who had died before the complaint in this case Was put in. There is nothing to show that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 ...
C. Seshachallam Chety Vs. C.B. Swami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.761a
Bakewell, J.1. By a decree dated the 11th March 1889, made in Civil Suit No. 256 of 1889; it was directed that a certain fund should be invested by the Secretary and Treasurer of the Bank of Madras with the privity of the Accountant General of this Court in Government Securities and from the income arising there from certain religious ceremonies or charities should be performed by the defendant in that suit one of whom was T. Narayana Chetty.2. It does not appear how the trust fund came to be invested in the names of these defendants, in contravention of the terms of this decree, but it is clear that this T. Narayana Chetty at his death in 1901, held Government Securities of the nominal value of Rs. 6,000 as sole surviving trustee for the performance of these ceremonies. Upon the death of Narayana Chetty, it, therefore, became necessary that new trustee should be appointed and the trust property go in; and, since the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, does not apply to religious or charitable en...
Desai Kuppuswami Chetty and anr. Vs. K. Seshadri Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.829
1. The plaintiffs claim to be entitled to perform certain katlais in the suit temple. The trustees of the temple cannot prevent the plaintiff's performance of the services referred to if they have immemorially done so. The District Judge who has reversed the Munsff's decision has not written a judgment in conformity with the requirements of Section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (Order XLI, Rule 31 of the New Code). He must decide whether the plaintiffs have the right they set up of performing the katlais whether the defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are members of the plaintiff's community entitled to the rights of that community in the temple and whether the honours and emoluments set out as appertaining to the katlais are claimable by the plaintiffs. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the case for disposal according to law. The costs here will abide and follow the result....
In Re: Muthu thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.761
ORDERMiller, J.1. I am unable to find any authority to support the Magistrates's view that a man may be required without fresh proceedings taken against him to find sureties a second time when in consequence of a breach, his original security is forfeited. The forfeiture of the security is prescribed as penalty for breach of the conditions of the bond and the Code does not provide for a renewal of the bond without fresh proceedings. The order is, therefore, set aside and the bail may be discharged....
Kadari Bhagavanulu Vs. Kokanada Narayanasawmy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1072
1. It is argued that a memorandum of objections by a respondent cannot be of avail against a co-respondent. This question is concluded by a series of decisions in Kulaikoda Pillai v. Viswanatha Pillai 28 M.k 229 and C.R.P. No. 322 of 1903 and Krishna Aiyengar v. Appanayangar 17 M.L.J. 62 The new Code has made the matter abundantly clear, Rule 22 of Order 41--and we are not inclined to re-open a course of decisions in this Presidency on a rule of procedure which has since been expressly accepted by the legislature even if there should be any ground to doubt its correctness.2. On the finding, the decision of the District Judge is right; we dismiss the Second Appeal with costs--two sets....
D.T. Venkata Srinivasacharlu Vs. Kadambi Kundalam Andalamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.240
1. The suit is brought under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act for the cancellation of Exhibit C, a receipt alleged to have been granted by the plaintiff to the defendant.2. It is argued before us tint the gait is not maintainable. Illustration (6) to that section shows that a suit may be brought for the cancellation of a forced instrument.3. We are also of opinion that Exhibit C is an 'instrument.'4. It purports to discharge the debt due by the defendant to the plaintiff and purports also to be signed by her. IE it is not cancelled and left outstanding, it may cause her serious injury.5. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
P.S. Ponnayya Vs. P.P. Palanippa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.435
1. The plaintiff is entitled to sue See Subramanian Chetty v. Alagappa Chetty 30 M.k 441. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Kurumathoor Illoth Parameswaram Nambudripad Vs. Keethatath Aleema and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.932
1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge. The plaintiff sues to redeem the hanom of 1857 to the then Karnavan of the defendant's tarwad. Defendants Nos. 15, 16 and 17 who are members of the Tarwad and presumably, therefore, some of the mortgagees set up a sub-mortgage of 1891 in their favour by the Tarwad and claim to have acquired a title as mortgagees against the plaintiff under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. It cannot be said that they are purchasers for value of the property mortgaged as distinguished from the mortgage interest. We do not think that Manavikraman Ettan Thamburau v. Ammu 24 M.k 471, has any application to the question raised before us. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to redeem the properties mortgaged under the kanom of 1857. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif. The amount payable by the plaintiff will be given to defendants Nos. 15, 16 and 17. The time for redemption is extended to 2 months from this date. Th...
Dalavoy Tirumalaiyappa Mudeliar Vs. Veerabudra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1090
1. The agent was liable to pay the balance after deducting certain items of expenditure to the principal. There was a debt due by him. The son's liability arose at the same time. The fact that the father misappropriated the sum, even if the respondents' allegations be true, or that he made himself criminally answerable, does not absolve the son from the liability already incurred. The decisions in Kanemar Venkappayya v. Krishnacharya 2 M.L.T. 529 and Gurunathan Chetty v. Raghavalu Chetty 31 M.K 472 apply. As regards the respondent's plea of limitation, it was not contended in either of the Courts below that there was a demand and refusal and time ran from the date of refusal. We disallow the plea. We reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs throughout as regards defendants Nos. 2 to 8....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »