Chennai Court July 1909 Judgments
In Re: the District Magistrate of Nellore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.437a
ORDERMunro, J.1. The order of the Magistrate directing payment of the fine to the innocent purchaser as compensation is illegal and is set aside....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.A. Somasundram Pillay and ors. and Kandasawmy Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.736
1. It is not urged before us that Exhibit-A, was executed by Manickam Pillai who purports to have executed it. The conduct of the 3rd accused when summoned by the Sub-Registrar to produce Exhibit-A, his promise to produce it and the discovery of the document in his house in the locked safe of which he and his brother, the 4th accused, had the key, leave no room for doubt that the document was made for the benefit of the 3rd and 4th accused and that they had possession of it until it was taken by the police on search of their house. In these circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve the oral evidence of the, witnesses, who speak to the execution of the document in the presence of the 3m and 4th accused. The circumstances show that it must have been executed in order to support their claim to the property and was, therefore, fraudulent. Mr. Richmond for the 3rd and 4th accused contended that the property comprised in Exhibit-A, belonged to them by virtue of certain documents which h...
Tag this Judgment!Shaik Atham Sahib Vs. Daoud Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.190
1. The appellant in this second appeal sued in the District Munsif's Court of Valangiman upon a judgment which he had obtained against the present respondent in the District Court of Kandy for a certain sum of money due on a promissory note. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge in appeal, dismissed the suit on the ground that the judgment of the Ceylon Court having been passed in absen-tem was not binding upon the respondent who is a native of British India and was not a resident at the time of the action in Ceylon. They also found against the contention of the appellant that the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Ceylon Court.2. Upon the first question the contention of the learned Vakil for the appellant is, that rules of Private International Law apply only to judgments of Courts of Foreign Independent States and not to that of a Court of a Country which is subject to the same sovereignty as the country in which the judgment in question is sued...
Tag this Judgment!V.R.R.M.N. Ramanathan Chetty Vs. Lakshman Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.104
1. It is contended that Exhibit B is invalid because, in addition to leasing certain villages to the plaintiff it purports to transfer to plaintiff the management of certain temples. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a transfer of: management and that the transfer is illegal, we see no reason why the document should not be hold good so far as the lease of the land is concerned. What is said to be transfer of management is clearly separable from the lease of the villages Alagappa Mudaliar v. Sivaramasundara Mudaliar 19 M.b 211 is authority that in such a case the separation may be made.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Subban Patter and ors. Vs. Mangalasheri Kunhu Moidu Musaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.428
1. On the 18th December 1901, the 1st defendant executed the promissory-note, Ex. A, promising to pay on demand to the 3rd defendant or order Rs. 1,000 with interest. On the 12th September 1904, the following entry signed by the 3rd defendant was made upon the note: 'I have this day received in cash from you Mangalasheri Kunhu Moidu Mnsaliar...Rs. 1,169, made up of Rs. 1,000 being principal due under this note and of Rs. 169 interest accumulated up to date, and assigned to you this note with power to recover the amount due under it by showing the same.' The assignee is the plaintiff who sued on the note. The defence was that the suit is not maintainable by reason of the agreement contained in the separate document Ex. I executed on the same date as Ex. A by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was a holder in due course, and that even apart from his position as holder in clue course he was entitled to recover. The only question...
Tag this Judgment!The Salem Town Bank (Ld.) by Secretary T.V. Appanna Aiyangar Vs. K. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1909
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ236
Miller, J.1. In my opinion the decree should have been against the second defendant for the whole amount of the debt to the extent of his share of the joint family property and any other assets being separate property of his father, which may be in his hands, but not against the shares of the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants against whom the suit is barred. I have not been shown that these shares are held by the 2nd defendant on their behalf in any capacity which would warrant a decree against him and, in the absence of the owners, for the seizure of their shares by the creditor.2. On the other hand I am unable to accept the argument that each one is liable only for a portion of the debt proportioned to his share in the joint family property. I have not been referred to any authority restricting the creditor to a suit against all the sons for the whole, or if he sues one only, to a suit for a portion of his debt. The authority seems to be the other way. 3. I modify the decree by directing t...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimma Ammal Vs. Srinivasa Ragava Iyanagar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.760
1. The rule as to res judicata between co-defendants is laid down thus in Ramachandra Narayan v. Narayan Mahadev 11 B.k 216:Where an adjudication between the defendants is necessary to give the appropriate relief to the plaintiff, there must be such t adjudication, Bottingham v. Earl of Sir bury and in such a case the a cation will be res judicata be the defendants as well as between plaintiff and defendants. But, for tin effect to arise, there must be a conflict of interest amongst the defendants and a judgment defining the real rights and obligations of the defendants inter so. Without necessity, the judgment will not be res judicata amongst the defendants. This rule was declared to be the correct rule in Ahamad Ali v. Najabat Khan 18 A.k 165, and there is nothing in the Madras cases cited, Venkayya v. Narasumma 11 M.k 204, Muhamad Kanni Rowthen v. Viswanatha Iyer 26 Mk 337: Somasundra Mudali v. Kolandaivelu Pillai 28 M.k 457, Kandiyil Cheriya Chandu v. The Zamorin of Calicut 29 M.k ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Reddi and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ102
ORDER1. In the case of Rama Aiyar v. Venkatachella Padayachi I.L.R. (1907) M. 311 it was held that a District Judge had no jurisdiction to order further inquiry by a District Munsif in regard to a matter dealt with by him under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. It was held that such jurisdiction was not inherent, because not incidental to the proper exercise of the powers given to the District Court by the section, nor were they given by any section of the Civil or crimnal Procedure Codes. Though that was in a Civil Court and the present case arose in a Criminal Court, we think the same reasoning must be held applicable. The power to take, or call for, further evidence, given by Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, is expressly limited to appeals under that chapter, i.e., under Chapter 31 of the Code. Section 195 is not part of that chapter, nor does the section itself give any power to call for further evidence.2. We must, therefore, hold that the District Magistrate had no power...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Damaka Kumara Thimma Wayanim Bahadur Varu, Rajah of Kalahasti Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.84
Munro, J.1. Under Section 10 of the Succession Certificate Act a District Court can only extend a certificate on the application of the holder of the certificate. The District Judge had, therefore, no jurisdiction to grant extension to a parson not the holder of a certificate. This order is, therefore, set aside with costs in both Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Shivachidambara Mudeley and anr. Vs. Kamakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.433
1. The question is whether the plaintiff's (1st respondent's) claim for damages in respect of (1) certain items of landed property mortgaged by her to 1st defendant, (1st appellant) by a registered deed of usufructuary mortgage and wrongfully suffered by the latter to be sold in default of payment of arrears of revenue which he was under an obligation to pay, and (2) certain trees wrong fally cut by the 1st appellant during the time he was in possession of the mortgaged property, is barred. We agree with the District Judge that the suit is not barred in so far as it seeks compensation for loss of the land which the mortgagee failed to deliver to the mortgagor when the latter got a decree for redemption against the former on 5th November 1902 and on paying the full amount due under the mortgage; other properties mortgaged under the deed were delivered to the mortgagor. The 1st respondent filed the present suit on 6th November 1905, i.e., within six years of the institution of the redemp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »