Chennai Court July 1909 Judgments
In Re: Krishna Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.881
ORDER1. in the case of Rama Aiyar v. Venkatachala Padayachi 30 M.k 311 : 2 M.L.T. 84 : 17 M.L.J. 123 : 5 Cri. L.J. 288, it was held that a District Judge had no jurisdiction to order further enquiry 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 Criminal Procedure Code.2. 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 XXXI of the Code. Section 195 is not part of that Chapter, nor does the section itself give any power to call for further evidence.3. We must, therefore, hold th...
Tag this Judgment!Yogambal Boyee Ammani Ammal Vs. Naina Pilai Markayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.110
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The plaintiff deposited a certain amount under Section 310A Civil Procedure Code, (Act XIV of 1882) to set aside the sale of the lands in execution of a money decree against the defend ant. The amount was paid to the decree holder, the sale was set aside and the defendant is alleged to have got back his lands : the decree debt due by her having been extinguished by the plaintiff's payment. At the time the payment was made by the plaintiff, ho was in possession of the property claiming it as reversioner and as assignee of one Lakshmana Iyer, to whom, the defendant who, according to the plaintiff, had only a life-interest in the property, had assigned it on lease or mortgage, but his right to possession was disputed by the defendant on the grounds that ho was not a reversioner and his right as lessee or mortgagee had been extinguished about the 12th March, long before the date of payment. In a suit which was pending at the time of payment, but decided afterwards, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Karumbar Pandrapantdaram and anr. Vs. Audimula Ponnapandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.725
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case the Munsif having found on the trial of an issue to the effect that the subject-matter of the suit was undervalued and that if properly valued it would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of his Court returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court after the valuation had been corrected in accordance with this finding. The plaintiff amended the plaint by correcting the valuation and also struck off some of the properties from the plaint so as to bring the rest of the claim within the jurisdiction of the Munsif. He then re-presented the plaint so amended in the same Courts and put in a petition stating that he relinquished his claim, to the properties which he had struck out. The Munsif thereupon admitted the plaint, and the question is, had he the power to do so? The Vakil for neither party has been able to refer me to any authority, which, covers the exact point, nor does the Civil Procedure Code afford a clear answer. But, I think, in dealing wit...
Tag this Judgment!A. Venkappaya Vs. Rukku Hengsu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.464
1. It is impossible, in our opinion, to construe the contract so as to throw on either party the burden of paying the enhanced assessment. There is no indication in the contract that the possibility of an enhancement of the revenue was in the contemplation of the parties at its date.2. Nor is it possible to lay down as a general rule that the landlord is in all cases prima facie bound to pay the enhanced assessment. The theory of enhancement being that the Government takes a share of the increased value of the produce due to increase in prices, it would follow that prima facie the tenant should pay the enhanced assessment if he pays a fixed money rent to the landlord or again if the enhancement is traceable to improvements effected by a tenant who pays a fixed money rent, then, as he reaps the benefit of the improvements he ought prima facie to pay the excess that is imposed as a consequence of their existence.3. But where, as here, the rent is paid in kind or partly in kind, so that b...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Chinnasawmy Iyer Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.876
ORDER1. The petitioner asks for orders directing the District Magistrate to withdraw a certain Circular issued by him to the Sub-Magistrates in his District.2. The matter is not one for judicial adjudication. It is an administrative matter. The petitioner alleges that in consequence of the Circular the Sub-Magistrate of Erode refused to allow him to appear in a particular case, but he has not asked for the revision of the order of the Sub-Magistrate. If he has been injuriously affected by an illegal or improper order of the Sub-Magistrate, it is open to him to seek a remedy by an appropriate application. We, therefore, dismiss the. petition....
Tag this Judgment!Janakisetty Sooryudu Alias Sooraya Vs. Miriyala Hanumayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.281
ORDER1. It was decided in the Court of first instance that Kotamma took a heritable estate and not one limited for her life under the grant from her brother-in-law; this question though raised in the memorandum of appeal was not argued before the District Judge. Argument was addressed to us on the question but we think the District Munsif's decision is right.2. The remaining questions are : (1) whether Lingauma inherited the property as her stridhanam, so that it passes on her death to her heirs and (2) if she did not, whether the property became her stridhanam under the will of her mother Kotamma.3. The second of these questions has not yet been decided by either of the Courts below. The District Judge having held that Lingauma inherited the property as stridhanam, if it came to her by inheritance did not find it necessary to consider the alleged will, and the District Munsif seems to have decided the suit solely on his finding as to the nature of Kotamma's estate.4. On the first ques...
Tag this Judgment!Kulur Annappa Naick Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.470
ORDERRalph Benson, Offg. C.J.1. There is nothing to show that the accused has paid the amount of his own bail bond. Even if he had, I do not see how this would discharge the petitioner who is not a security in regard to the accused's bond, but has himself undertaken to produce the accused, or in default to forfeit a sum of money. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!A. Subramania Iyer Vs. P. Nagarathna Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ151
1. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs under Section 30, Civil Procedure Code of 1882, for a declaration that the land in suit is the property of the temple of Bala Vinayagar and that the alienation of that land by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the trustees, to the 4th defendant, is invalid, and for possession to be delivered to the trustees on behalf of the temple. It was contended by the defendants that the temple and the land alleged to belong to it was the private property of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The Judge has found, and his finding is not impeached in appeal, that the temple in question is a public temple and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the trustees thereof. The Judge has also held that the alienation in favour of the 4th defendant is invalid. But being of opinion that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have been guilty of mismanagement he has directed possession to be delivered to the plaintiffs.2. It is contended before us that the plaintiffs, who are only worshippers, are ...
Tag this Judgment!Chudammal and anr. Vs. Nadamuni Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.77a
1. It is first contended that on the facts found the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for declaration passed by the lower Court and reliance is placed on Singam Setti Sanjivi Kondaya v. Draupadi Bayawma 18 M.L.J. 11. This question was not raised in the lower Court, nor in the memo, of appeal to this Court. The lower Court has decided that the 1st defendant was not justified in borrowing Rs. 100 for the marriage expense of her daughter. The 1st defendant was in possession of her father's property. Her husband was unable on account of his poverty to perform his daughter's marriage and it has been held by the Allahabad High Court that in such circumstances the mother would be justified in having recourse to the properly that came to her from her father to effect the marriage vide Mangli Prosad v. Ishri Prasad 18 A.b 476. It has not been argued before us that this decision is wrong and we see no reason to take a different view. We, accordingly, modify the decree by directing in addi...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Kuppusawmi Naidu Vs. P.K. Andalammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.440
1. We agree with the Judge that the property in suit was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of the 2nd defendant benami for himself.2. It was argued that the City Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the value of the house is over Rs. 2,500. But as the case falls within Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act and we are not satisfied that the disposal of the suit has been prejudicially affected, and as the materials for the determination of the other grounds of appeal are before us, we think that we may decide the appeal. As we are of opinion that the decree is right we dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »