Chennai Court December 1909 Judgments
Miss Irene Fanny Colquhoun Vs. Mrs. Fanny Smithers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ734
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Wallis dismissing the suit upon a preliminary issue: 'Does the plaint disclose any cause of action?' The suit is no doubt a peculiar one. So far as I know, it is a case of first impression and the learned Judge points out in his judgment that it is not suggested that such a suit has ever been brought or maintained in any Court in which the common law is administered The suit is one for damages brought against the mother of a man who had promised to marry the plaintiff. The plaint set out that the plaintiff Fanny Colquhoun, had agreed to enter into a contract of marriage with the son of the defendant. Then it alleges that the son of the defendant had broken the promise to marry the plaintiff. The allegations in paragraph 6 of the plaint are that the defendant set up the son to make some utterly false and frivolous statements against the plaintiff to justify the refusal and the son finally refused to perform the cont...
Tag this Judgment!T. Nagarathnammal Vs. P. Namasivaya Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.832
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit against the executors of the late A. Sabapathi Mudaliar who obtained a grant of administration to the estate of the late Tiruvengada Mudaliar who was a relation of his during the minority of the three daughters of Tiruvengada Mudaliar. The plaintiff charges that Sabapathi Mudaliar both when and after obtaining this administration set up that the estate of the late Tiruvengada Mudaliar was indebted to him in the sum of Rs. 8,000 and that subsequently Sabapathy Mudaliar made over to his own creditors three mortgages roughly for Rs. 9,000 which were outstanding in favour of Tiruvengada Mudaliar at the time of his death and the plaint alleges these transfers were illegal and inoperative.2. A good deal of evidence was given as to the administration of this estate by Sabapathi Mudaliar and, in my opinion, some of that evidence went to show that there was no such debt at all ever due to Sabapathy Mudaliar and that it was found by Mr. Justice Subramania Iyer in a su...
Tag this Judgment!Namana Bhima Narasamma Vs. Surisetti Peda Venkatrayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1909
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.940
ORDERAyling, J.1. The only ground on which Mr. Prakasam attacks the Magistrate's order is that the Magistrate acted illegally in discharging the accused without examining all the prosecution witnesses. The second Clause of Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code, authorises him to do so, on recording his reasons, which he has done in this case. The only ruling quoted by Mr. Prakasam [Queen v. Parasurama Naikar 4 M.K 329 was passed before the enactment of a Criminal Procedure Code containing such a provision. There is no ground for interference. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Murugesa Mudaly Vs. Subraya Gramany and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.600
Arnold White, C.J.1. I think this decree must be affirmed. The finding is that Subbaraya Naicker the defendant's vendor was the tenant of the plaintiff's vendor. With regard to the 5th issue in the case which raises the question of notice to quit, which was really the only point argued before us in appeal, the finding was that Subbaraya Naicker set up title in himself and denied the landlord's title before suit and that he was not entitled to notice to quit, and inasmuch as the defendant and his vendor claimed through him and they also denied the tenancy of Subbaraya Naicker, they were not entitled to notice to quit. It seems to me that this is right and that no notice to quit was necessary.2. Then there is another view and that is the case that the plaintiff did not set up in his plaint, but set up in his evidence, viz., that he got back possession from Subbaraya Naicker.3. Accepting that view for a moment there is no relation of landlord and tenant as between the parties to this suit...
Tag this Judgment!Ekkanath Eachara Unni Valia Kaimal (Died) Achutan Unni Valia Kaimal, L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ344
Arnold White, C.J.1. The main defence in this suit was that Ex. B which is an arrangement which was entered into by the 1st defendant's predecessor-in-office as Karnavan of the Tarwad and the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest had been revoked. The District Judge finds that it has not been revoked. This is a question of fact which is binding on us in second appeal.2. Then, on behalf of the appellant, it was argued that Ex. B is not binding on him as the successor-in-office of the man by whom the agreement was entered into. I feel some doubt as to whether we should allow this point to be raised before us at all, because the judgment of the learned District Judge, as I read it, strongly suggests that the point was never taken before him. The learned Judge refers to the fact in the 4th paragraph. The 1st defendant's Vakil supports the decree on the ground that the suit should be dismissed on the first issue, i.e. non-joinder. But it does not say that any discussion took place before him ...
Tag this Judgment!A.D. Narayanah Sah Vs. Kadigar Parasurama Sah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.826
1. Two points have been raised on behalf of the appellant. The first question is whether the sale-deed executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants in the plaintiff's favour is binding1 upon the other defendants. We are constrained to differ from the learned City Judge as regards this question. The house which was the subject of the sale was, according to the evidence of the plaintiff's 5th witness, the only property owned by the family in the year 1892. This witness has not been cross-examined by the Vakil for the defendants. The sale-deed itself is executed by all the adult members of the family then in existence, that is, the 1st and 2nd defendants. The other members of the family are the sons of the 1st defendant. There is no suggestion of any motive for the 1st defendant to defeat the interests of the other members of the family by an improper sale. There is the evidence of the plaintiff's 1st and 4th witnesses to prove that the sale was effected for the maintenance of the family with t...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Raddiar Vs. Nallammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.164
1. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 to 5, who did not join in the suit, are the nearest male reversioners of the deceased owner of the land in dispute. The 1st defendant is a widow, and the 2nd defendant is a daughter, by another wife, of the deceased. The District Judge has held that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit to set aside alienations by the widow because the 2nd defendant is entitled to succeed after the widow's death, in preference to the plaintiff and there was no collusion between the 1st and 2nd defendants. He relies on the decision in Rani Anand Kunwar v. The Court of Wards on behalf of Chandra Shekar a minor 6 C.k 764 but in that case the plaintiff was not the nearest male reversioner. The principle of that case has no application where the nearer heir is a female and as such is entitled only to a limited estate.2. This is distinctly laid down in the decision of this Court in Raghupati v. Tirumalai 15 M.j 422 and also in Abinash Chandra Mazumdar v. Harinath Shaha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Arthur Gerald Norton Knight
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.311
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order by Mr. Justice Wallis refusing to direct the discharge of certain sureties and that the surety bond executed by them should, be cancelled and held void.2. The sureties were appointed under Section 256 of the Succession Act. Their bond provides that on the fulfilment of the conditions specified in the bond, the bond shall be void and of no effect.3. I have practically no doubt that in this particular case the administration is complete and that the conditions of the bond have been fulfilled, and that, consequently, under the condition of the bond, it has become void and of no effect. That being so, I should have been glad, if I could see my way to do so, to make the order we are asked to make. But so far as I am aware, there is no provision of law which enables us to make the order. The only rule which can be said to have any bearing on the question is Rule 470 of the Original Side Rules and that Rule is to this effect: 'An applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Chelva Perumal Chettiar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.604
1. We think that the decree of the Subordinate Judge is right. Section 19, Sub-section (1), Clause IV, of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1884, gives the Governor-in-Council power to remove a Councillor if his continuance in office is, in the opinion of the Governor-in-Council, likely to bring the Municipal administration into contempt, provided that, when the Governor-in-Council proposes to take action under this clause, he shall not pass any orders without giving an opportunity of explanation to the Councillor concerned. The main point pressed upon us is that in the order of Government directing the appellant's removal the Government referred to his having been one of those responsible for the mismanagement of Municipal affairs in 1899 and that as regards this he was not called on for any explanation.2. It is, however, clear from a perusal of the order of Government that this was a very minor matter compared with the appellant's disgraceful manipulation of the lists of voters...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Irene Fanny Colquhoun Vs. Mrs. Fanny Smither
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.475
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Wallis dismissing the suit upon a preliminary issue: 'Does the plaint disclose any cause of action'? The suit is, no doubt, a peculiar one. So far as I know it is a case of first impression and the learned Judge points out in his judgment that it is not suggested that such a suit has ever been brought or maintained in any Court in which the Common Law is administered. The suit is one for damages brought against the mother of a man who had promised to marry the plaintiff. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff, Fanny Colquhoun, had agreed to enter into a contract of marriage with the son of the defendant. Then it alleges that the son of the defendant had broken the promise to marry the plaintiff. The allegations in paragraph 8 of the plaint are that the defendant set up her son to make some utterly false and frivolous statements against the plaintiff to justify the refusal and the son finally refused to perform the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »