Chennai Court August 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.
Katankandi Kona Alias Koyamotti Vs. Thamburan Kandi Sivasankaran and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.90
1. We cannot accept the evidence as establishing the position for which the plaintiff contends; the Chirutha, the purchaser named in Exhibit-III, had no interest in the paramba purchased. Exhibit--K is most untrustworthy as a statement of title, because it was made in a suit in which it was the object of the present 2nd defendant to defeat the claims of a mortgagee from her mother, and to do this she alleged, if indeed she did allege, that her mother had no interest. The document is not entirely clear; we are not sure that the 2nd defendant did not intend to admit her mother's interest, and merely to allege that she had no right to alienate without her (the 2nd defendants) consent.2. The witness K. Kannan, no doubt, says that the purchase of the paramba was made at his mother's suggestion for the 1st and 2nd defendants, but there is no explanation why if Kamaran intended his wife to have no interest he made the purchase in her name; it is quite possible that he did not, when it came to...
Velu Tayi Ammal and ors. Vs. B. Chidambara Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ137
ORDER1. The only cases, so far as I know, in which a Magistrate is authorised by the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge a person whose conduct is under inquiry before him are those provided for in Sections 209, 253, 259, 119 and 484 of the Code.2. I am not concerned with Section 484, but it might be difficult, I think, to hold that Section 437 is applicable to the case of a person discharged under that section.3. The discharge under Sections 202, 253 and 259 is made before the accused is called on to establish his defence before a Court which is competent to try and determine the case and in cases in which a charge must be drawn up before any order can be made against the accused or penalty imposed upon him. Section 437 undoubtedly applies to disposals under Sections 253 and 259, and may be applicable to a disposal under Section 209 also. The discharge under Section 119 is a different matter. It may be made after the defence has been fully heard; no charge need be drawn up before the...
Velu Tayi Ammal and ors. Vs. B. Chidambaravelu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1057a
ORDERMiller, J.1. The only cases so far as I know. in which a Magistrate is authorized by the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge a person whose conduct is under enquiry before him are those provided for in Sections 209, 253, 259, 119 and 484 of the Code.2. I am not concerned with Section 484, but if might be difficult, I think, to hold that Section 437 is applicable to the case of a person discharged under that section.3. The discharge under Sections 209, 253 and 259 is made before the accused is called on to establish his defence before a Court which is competent to try and determine the case, and in cases in which a charge must be drawn up before any order can be made against the accused or penalty imposed upon him. Section 437 undoubtedly applies to disposals under Sections 253 and 259, arid may be applicable to a disposal under section: 209 also The discharge under Section 119 is a different matter. It may be made after the defence has been fully heard, no charge need be drawn up...
Robert Fisher Vs. S. Kanakasabapathy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ722
1. We are bound by the as yet unreported opinion of the Full Bench in the I.P. Appeal No. 6 of 1908 to set aside the decree of the District judge as having been made without jurisdiction. We then have the decree of the District Munsif before us, and the respondent asks us, in the circumstances of the case, to satisfy ourselves whether it is right in law, and if not, to make an order under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act IX of 1887. It is not denied that we have jurisdiction to take this course, but it is contended that we ought not to do so without an application. Section 25, Act IX of 1887, however, does not require an application before action is taken. We think we may, therefore, take the decree of the District Munsif into consideration and we are clearly of opinion that it was wrong and ought to be set aside. The case of Damothara Mudaliar v. Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1894) M. 88 differs materially from the present case; that was a case of an artifici...
Ponnusami Pillai Vs. Pasupathi Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.813
1. Notice was pleaded in the plaint and the sufficiency of the notice was denied in the written statement, but no issue was raised and the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and went to trial on that footing. Nor was any question as to notice raised in the lower appellate Court, Under these circumstances we must treat the contention as abandoned by the defendant. As to the construction of the lease, we agree with the lower Courts. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Muthayya Reddi and ors. Vs. Sudalaimuthu Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.902; (1910)20MLJ119
1. There is a finding by the District Judge that the streets are public streets and ample evidence to support it.2. As to the cause of action we think the order of the Magistrates--which they intended to renew from time to time until made permanent--furnished a cause of action just as much as the Government Order which was held in Kundasami Moodali v. Subbaraya Moodali 19 M.L.J. 617 : 1 Ind. Cas. 716. to have this effect.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.4. The memorandum of objection is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Dasu Manavala Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1064
Ralph Benson, Offg., C.J.1. In this case one Manavala Chetty prayed for Letters of Administration in respect of property standing in the name of his deceased father, Emberumanar Chetty, but forming the joint ancestral property of the undivided Hindu family of which, the petitioner and his late father were the only members. He stated that though his father's share in the property passed to him by survivorship, he was obliged to take out Letters of Administration because part of the property consisted of shares in certain companies which in accordance with their articles of Association, refused to recognise his title to the shares unless he obtained such letters. He claimed to be exempt from payment of stamp duty on the Letters on the ground that his father was in possession of the property and held it as manager of, and trustee for the family. The learned Judge who heard the application decided that Letters of Administration could be granted only on payment of the ordinary duty. Against...
Bhimaraja Varadayya Vs. Manchu Konda Nammalwaru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1057
1. The question is whether an unenfranchised inam can be attached and sold in execution of a decree of a Civil Court. We think it can. The question must be settled by reference to Act XXIII of 1871 which consolidates the law relating to Pensions and Grants by Government of money or land-revenue. Now while Section 4 of the Act prevents a Civil Court from entertaining a suit relating to a pension or grant of money or land-revenue it has been thought necessary in Section 11 to state that certain pensions are not liable to attachment by the Civil Courts. The omission or grants of money of land-revenue is significant and shows clearly that under Act XXIII of 1871 such grants are not exempt from attachment.2. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
Subbaraya Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Krishanamachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.811
1. In Second Appeals Nos. 757 &c.; the respondents are dead. And no representatives are have been brought on the record these appeals are dismissed. In the remaining cases the respondents in some of the appeal have not signed the agreement B. and it is not now contended that those who have not signed it are bound by it In these cases only two questions arise (1) in the case of those who pay money rents, ought the lower Courts to have expunged the last sentence of the pattas ordered to be tendered? (2) in the case of those who pay in kind the land-holder entitled to enforce the Cowle rates of varam. On the 1st question, we are of opinion that the last sentence was properly expunged from the rokka pattas. It is urged that it is merely a condition intended to prevent the pattas of one Fasli from being treated as evidence of a contract for subsequent year but if so it is very badly expressed and is not couched in a form which the tenant can properly be bound to accept. On the 2nd question,...
Venkata Reddi Vs. Obli Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ140
ORDER1. We have no doubt that the Court can only stay execution under Order 45, Rule 13(2)(c) after the grant of a certificate : for the admission of the appeal. Rule 13(2)(c) refers to stay of execution of the decree appealed from. Until the admission of the appeal no decree can be said to have been appealed from. This was the view taken in S.M. Bibijarao Kumari v. Gopichand Bothra 5 C.W.N. 562, differing from Dame Janbai v. Sale Mahomed I.L.R. (1894) B. 10.2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »