Chennai Court November 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.
Amboo Vs. Baboo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1045a
ORDERMiller, J.1. The application for an order of maintenance is not a complaint of an offence or an accusation of an offence; In re Ponnammal 16 M.K 234.2. The Presidency Magistrate's orders for payment of compensation and imprisonment in default, are set aside. The bail is discharged....
Robert Fischer and ors. Vs. Nagappa Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.288a
1. The leave to withdraw with liberty to bring a fresh suit given by the District Munsif was conditional on the plaintiff paying the costs of the former suits on or before a specified date. The time fixed for the performance of the condition had expired when the present suit was instituted. This distinguishes the present case from the case of Abdul Aziz v. Ebrahim Molla 31 C.K 965, where no time was specified within which the condition was to be performed, and in fact the condition had been performed when the second suit came in for trial Peria Muthirian v. Karappanna Muthirian 29 M.K 370, is not in point, for there the time for payment had been extended by the Court which made the order for payment. As regards the 2nd point, the plaint as correctly translated alleges that the plaintiff sues on behalf of himself and the villagers. So far as the plaintiff is concerned, there is no new title and no new cause of action. So far as the villagers (by which word tenants are intended) the plai...
Rajah Venkatanarasimha Appa Row Bahadur, Zemindar of Nuzwid Vs. Bukkap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1909
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ154
1. The first question for decision is whether the razinama in question has, by the decisions of this Court, been finally held, as between the parties, to be a binding agreement. There can be no doubt, that the compromise referred to in Ex. I and V is the compromise, the terms of which are set out in Ex. IV and Ex. V clearly holds that compromise was valid respecting the only contention urged against it in the appeal. It is, however, contended that in the present case an appeal lies to the Privy Council, because the plaintiff claims a sum of more than Rs. 10,000, whereas in the suit of 1901, the sum claimed was less than Rs. 10,000 and that that fact brings the matter within the rule adopted by a full bench of this Court in Avanasi Goundan v. Nakammal I.L.R. (1908) M. 195 and Ex. V does not bar the trial in the present case of the validity of the compromise. But it is clear 011 the face of the plaint that the claim for Fasli 1311, amounting to Rs. 3,800, is barred by limitation and no a...
Navakoti Narayana Chetty and anr. Vs. Loyalinga Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.383
Benson, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the sale evidenced by Exhibit-A is void.2. The District Judge has held that as the sale was made to a minor (the 1st defendant) it is void under the ruling of the Privy Council in the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose 7 C.W.N. 541. 3. I think that the decision of the District Judge is right. A sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised (section 54 Transfer of Property Act) and it is, in my opinion, impossible to conceive of a price being settled except as the result of an agreement between the parties. In other words a sale necessarily involves the idea of a contract as its foundation, and the Privy Council has held that a contract by a minor is not merely voidable at the option of a minor but is void.4. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.Krishnaswamy Iyer, J.5. The question raised in this case is one of considerable imp...
Dandayudapani Sholingan Vs. Thirumalai Sholagan Alias Velu Sholagan an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.399
ORDER1. We are not prepared to say that the District Magistrate was wrong in holding that he had no power to deal with the Divisional Magistrate's order to pay compensation under Section 250, Cr.P.C. But we think that he ought to have gone into the main question raised by the petitioner before him, viz., whether the Divisional Magistrate's order of discharge was right or not. If he found that it was right, he should have declined to interfere, in which case the matter would probably have rested there and not have been brought before this Court. If he found that the order of discharge was not right he might properly have referred the matter for the orders of this Court, which could then have conveniently dealt both with the order of discharge and with the order for payment of compensation.2. We will, therefore, direct the District Magistrate to restore the petition to his file and to deal with it in the manner we have indicated....
Eressan Nair Vs. Rao Bahadur Vasava Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.288
1. The oral agreement alleged by the plaintiff has been found to be untrue. We are of opinion that the fact that the plaintiff is liable to the jenmi under the decree obtained by the latter against him gives the plaintiff no cause of action as against the defendant. The plaintiff may or may not be entitled to recover jenmabogham from the defendant under a contract evidenced by Exhibit C, but as the contract imposes no liability on the defendant to pay the jenmi, the fact that the jenmi has ubtained a decree against the plaintiff for jenmabogham gives the plaintiff no right of action against the defendant, and the plaintiff has not sued on any contract with him to pay the jemabogham to him. We have been asked to allow plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to enable him to claim on his title under the contract evidenced by Exhibit C. We are not prepared to allow this at this stage--especially as the effect would be to deprive the defendant of defences which would he open to him if a separa...
V.S. Rangasawmy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.405
ORDERKrishnasawmy Iyer, J.1. The accused have been charged under Rules 2, 7 and 10 of the Rules made by Government under Sections 35 and 36 of the Forest Act. The offences charged against them are that they cut down certain sandal wood trees and had them removed from the place of cutting to a certain shed and some fields. The first question that arises is whether the cutting of the trees is itself an offence under the Rules.2. The Government is empowered to make Rules to regulate the transit of all timber or of certain classes of timbers within local limits. Section 35 also provides that such Rules may prohibit the import and export or moving within defined local limits of timbers without a pass. Now Rule 2 provides that it shall not be lawful to import sandal wood into or export sandal wood from or move sandal wood within the areas specified without a permit as specified in Rule 4. Rule 4 refers to certain forms of permits and Form No. 2 contains the heading Permits for the Imports, E...
Kadir Ibrahim Rowther and ors. Vs. Arunachellam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1082
1. We do not think that the suit is barred by Section 43, Civil Procedures. Code, (Act XIV 1882). The Small Cause suit was not framed as a suit for the rent of F. 1306. It was based on an alleged entrustment of the paddy by the zemindar to the tenant for safe custody. The cause of action, therefore, for the non-payment of rent in the present suit is different from that in the Small Cause suit.2. The appellant further contends that the lease under which the plaintiffs' claim is wholly invalid and void because it is for a term of 25 years, whereas Section 3d of the Indian Trusts Act enacts that no trustee shall lease trust property for a period exceeding 21 years' except with the permission of the Court. He relies on the case of the Bishop of Bang or v. Parry (1891) 2 Q.B. 227. That was a case on the construction of the language of Section 29 of the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855. It related to a charitable trust, and the learned Judge who decided it relied on a decision under Sec...
Ramanjulu Naidu Vs. Aramudu Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.735
Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the Receiver of the Tanjore palace estate. Ramu Iyengar and Srinivasaragava Iyengar executed muchilikas each for a separate moiety of certain lands in favour of the previous receiver promising to pay rent. The 1st and 2nd defendants purchased the interests of the said two persons in respect of each moiety under a separate sale-deed executed by each. The present suit is instituted for the recovery of rent for 6 Faslis from 1310 to 1315. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge on appeal has passed a decree for a moiety of rent due for Fasli 1311, holding the claim as regards Faslis 1310 and 1311 in relation to the share which had belonged originally to Srinivasaragava Iyengar and likewise the claim for rent up to the 15th of December 1901, as regards the moiety that was originally owned by Ramu Iyengar barred under Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882. The plaintiff had instituted two Small Cause Suits Nos...
Silamban Chetty Vs. Ramanadham Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1909
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ152
1. The decree was passed on the 12th October 1905. The respondent applied for a copy of the decree on the 18th October and obtained it on the 19th December. He then applied for a copy of the judgment on the 23'd December and obtained it on the 16th February, 1906. The appeal was filed on the 3rd March and the question is whether the appeal to the lower appellate court was barred under Article 152 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act of 3877. The Subordinate Judge has held that under Section 12 the respondent is entitled to a deduction of the time between the 18th October and 19th December and the further time between the 22nd December and the 16th February, and he relies upon the decision in Raman Chetti v. Kadiruvelu : (1898)8MLJ148 . This decision, no doubt, supports the judge's conclusion, though in that case the later application was made before the copy of the record first applied-for was ready, and a portion of the time in obtaining one record formed a part of the time in obtaini...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »