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.
Gaddi Seethaya and Vs. Sri Rajah Velugoti Govinda Krishna Yachindrulu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.98
1. The question is, whether the zamindar is entitled to enforce acceptance of a pattah on which a condition has been newly inserted that 'in case the dry lands mentioned in this pattah are cultivated as wet lands, 'ambaram' (rent in kind) shall be delivered according to the village maumool'2. The pattahs for the previous faslies show that the tenant was paying a fixed rent in money. The lands are classified in the pattahs as wet or dry. In the case of some lands a lump sum is fixed for rent, in the case of others the rate per acre is given.3. There is nothing in the pattahs and no evidence is adduced to show that the rent varied with the crop or with the nature of the land; that it could be either increased or decreased according to the crop raised or with the conversion of land from dry to wet or vice versa. The zamindar relied upon usage in support of his claim. Both the Lower Courts have found that he has failed to prove the usage. The Judge, however, holds that under Section 11, Cl...
Adivi Suryaprakasa Row Vs. Nidamarty Gangaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.386
1. The plaintiff denied the alleged adoption and it was for the defendant to show that there was a valid adoption. If Lakshminarasayya did not predecease his brother, then unless the adoption by the brother's widow was made in his life-time, it was bad at any rate in the absence of the consent of Lakshminarasayy's widow. It was, therefore, for the defendant to show that the adoption was made at a time when the widow was competent to adopt after the death of Lakshminarasayya's widow, or that it was made with the consent of this widow and validated by such consent. We must, therefore, call for a finding as to whether the adoption was made after the widow's death or in her life-time, and if in her life-time whether her consent was obtained, and was sufficient to validate the adoption.2. Fresh evidence may be taken.3. The finding must be submitted within six weeks. Seven days will be allowed for tiling objections.4. This second appeal again coming on for hearing on Friday the 4th day of De...
In Re: Asadulla HussaIn Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1043
ORDER1. We answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative. Section 155(2), Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 529(b) and Schedule III, II (2) of the Code, can leave no doubt upon the point. As to the second point the Court has, in our opinion, discretion for sufficient reason, to allow the cross-examination of defence witnesses to be reserved until the chief examination of all of them is over, there being no provision of law to the contrary. As to whether the defence can reserve cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, it is to be observed that when a charge is framed, the defence has the right under Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code, to re-call and cross-examine any of the prosecution witnesses. In any other case the matter would be one for the discretion of the Court....
Sivasankaram Pillai Alias Doraiswamy Pillai and ors. Vs. Perumal Nayak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.106
1. The appellants contend on the authority of Kosuri Ramaraju v. Ivalury Ramalingam 26 M. 74 that defendants Nos. 2 to 5 the other co-parceners of the 1st defendant should not have been joined as defendants in a suit for specific performance of a contract made by the 1st defendant to sell the suit lands. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 did not raise this point in their written statement or get any issue on it, but pleaded that the sale was effected by the 1st defendant for immoral purposes and so not binding on them, and had issues framed and went to trial on this question. If they had raised this plea at the right time, the plaintiff might have agreed to the dismissal of the suit against them and avoided the expenses of the trial, but we think that, having failed to raise this point in their written statement or at issues, the defendants ought not to have been allowed to raise it at a later stage. As regards the objection of misjoinder of causes of action, no relief has been granted on the alt...
C. Vencatachariar and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.357
1. We think the decision of the lower Court is right. Assuming that the 1st defendant was entitled under the powers conferred upon him as mortgagee by Exhibit-A to admit tenants to items Nos. 1 to 22 when they became vacant, we think he had no right to admit himself which he did by including these lands in his patta. A mortgagee is in the position of a trustee and cannot grant leases or make other dispositions of the mortgaged property in his own favour and of such a kind as to give rise to a possible conflict between his interest and his duty. We also think the District Judge is right in coming to the conclusion that the 1st defendant did not part with his interest in these items by transferring them to the pattah of his undivided son. We think that where a person in the position of a trustee makes a grant of the trust property to his undivided son the relation of the parties is sufficient to raise the presumption that he is himself interested and to bring the case within the mischief...
In Re: Kamma Aswathan and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1071
1. The Judge did not explain to the jury what is meant by theft as he was bound to do under Section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further the questions which he left to the jury, viz., (1) was the 1st prisoner in the field with honest or dishonest intentions? (2) was the 2nd prisoner there and Was he recognized by the witnesses who say they recognized him?, were not sufficient even if answered unfavourably to the accused to justify a conviction, for theft.2. A further question arose viz., whether the accused has dishonestly removed the chalum. We set aside the verdict of the jury and direct a re-trial according to law. The accused will remain on the bail already granted in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 190 of 1909 till the disposal of the case....
Ganapathi Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. Sundara thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1909
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ354
1. We think that on the facts which are not in dispute the stipulation for interest at 300 per cent. compound interest in default of payment on due date is a stipulation by way of penalty.2. The extraordinarily high rate at which the interest is fixed, as well as the fact that the plaintiff has not ventured to sue for the whole amount due to him according to the terms of the document, are circumstances indicating that it could not have been in the contemplation of the parties to enforce the condition otherwise than as a penalty in the event of a breach.3. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover reasonable compensation and the. Subordinate Judge must return a finding as to what amount is due on that footing. Further evidence may be taken.4. The finding should be Submitted within six weeks, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections. 5. In compliance with the above order the Subordinate Judge submitted the following6. FINDING:-In the light of the rulings reported in Chuh...
Ganapathi Gurukal Vs. Sivarama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1062a
1. We are of opinion that the statements of the 1st defendant on which the Subordinate Judge relies were not sufficient, considering the circumstances in which they were made to shift the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff to show that this is one of the temples to which Section 3 of the Religious Endowments Act is applicable. There is absolutely no evidence that the Government or the Committee ever exercised, or attempted to exercise, any control over this temple prior to the year 1897, since which time the question has been in dispute between the parties. In these circumstances we must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court....
Ghanta Ramanna and ors. Vs. G. Narayanasami Naidu Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.712
1. We accept the findings that the property in dispute is included in the lease and that the tenant was not put into possession and is, therefore, entitled to damages. For Faslis 1308 and 1309 the landlord claims as rent Rs. 631 and Rs. 830 respectively as the balance due to him. He is entitled to this amount less the sum of Rs. 300 being Rs. 150 for each of those years.2. The question raised next is whether the tenant is entitled to a reduction of Rs. 150 for each of the Faslis 1305, 1306 and 1307 in which the rent was fully or almost entirely paid. It is contended on behalf of the landlord that this cannot be recovered because the payments were made voluntarily by the tenant with full knowledge of all the facts. The lease, however, contained a condition according to which if the full rent were paid in any year the tenant could be evicted from the whole land and the lease forfeited, and a payment of the whole rent in view of the threat held out by this condition cannot, in our opinion...
V. Kristna Rao Vs. B. Srinivasa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.604a
ORDER1. We agree with the lower Court on the question of limitation.2. On the other question we think that the plaintiff's statements in his examination as a witness do not bind the defendant as being on oath taken in pursuance of an agreement made between the parties under the provisions of the Oaths Act.3. The procedure prescribed in that Act must, we think, be strictly followed, and here we find that the offer of the defendant was not put to the plaintiff: he was not asked whether he would make the oath by which the defendant offered to be bound nor did he expressly agree to do so. It is only when by these questions and answers an agreement is arrived at that the Court is empowered by Section 10 of the Act to administer the oath proposed; and here the necessary procedure preliminary to the agreement was not adopted. We think, therefore, that the defendant is entitled to say that he is not bound by the oath of the plaintiff.4. We must ask the District Judge for findings on the eviden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›