Chennai Court September 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.
A.A.A.R. Arunachellam Chettyar and ors. Vs. the Madras Railway Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.931
1. In this case the defendants, the Madras Railway Company, contracted to carry a consignment of cotton for the plaintiffs from Erode Station to Kallai Station. The Company carried the cotton in an iron-covered goods wagon. When the train reached Kallai Station the wagon was not detached but was, carried on a couple of miles to the next station (Calicut) where it was kept in the station-yard during the night to be sent back to Kallai by another train in the morning. Smoke was seen to be issuing from the wagon and water had to be poured on it to quench the fire. When the cotton, was delivered to the plaintiffs part of it was damaged by the fire and water. The plaintiffs' suit was for the compensation for this damage. The defendants alleged that they were protected by the terms of the risk note, Exhibit-1, which is signed by the plaintiffs' consignor, and formed part of the contract. The Courts below have found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants. The argument urge...
Pendela Mahalakshmi Alias Venkamma Vs. Pendela Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.35
1. The plaint is a very confused and badly expressed document, but in substance the plaintiff appears to claim that the arrangement referred to as to her maintenance is not binding on her and her first prayer is for a decree against the 1st defendant, her adopted son, for Rs. 3,000 which she says she is prepared to accept owing to the difficulty of proving the proper amount to which she is entitled as maintenance. On this prayer it is open to the Court to award her whatever she is entitled to for maintenance. We think the claim against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the 2nd prayer is on the footing of the agreement and ought to have been regarded as an alternative claim in respect of the same matter See Aiyathurai Ravuthan v. Santhu Meera Ravuthan 18 M.L.J. 238 in case the first claim was held bad. We must accordingly set aside the decree and remand the suit to the Lower Court for disposal according to law.2. Costs will abide the result....
Ramiengar, Minor by Next Friend, A. Rangasawmy Iyengar and Vs. the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.105
1. The father of the appellants in these two appeals brought a suit in forma pauperis as next friend of one of the appellants to establish his adoption and recover possession of property. The alleged adoption was found to be false, the suit was dismissed and the father of the appellants was directed under Section 440, Civil Procedure Code, to pay the costs due to Government. Now the reason why the appellant's father was made liable for the costs was that he had been guilty of what was certainly an immoral act in bringing a suit which he must have known to be false. The liability to pay costs was clearly imposed as a penalty for his misconduct and the debt thus incurred is tainted with immorality and the sons are not bound to pay. Again under Hindu Law, among debts which sons are not bound to pay are fines (see Mayne's Hindu Law, 7th Edition, page 389), and in this case the liability imposed upon the appellant's father may also be regarded as in the nature of a fine.2. We, therefore, al...
Pakkiri Mahamad Saib Vs. Subramaniya Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.356
1. The second issue framed raises the question whether the decree in Original Suit No. 424 of 1897 was fraudulent and collusive, and a finding that it was would justify its setting aside. In the plaint there is in addition to the prayers, for possession and costs, a prayer for any other suitable relief, and under this general prayer it is open to the Court to set the decree aside. We, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below and remand the suit for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event....
Kachi Raghuramiah and ors. Vs. Vajjala Mahalakshmamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1062
1. The remand in this case was not justified under Order XLI, Rule 23. as the District Munsif did not dispose of the suit on a preliminary point. If the District Judge thought the evidence shut out by the District Munsif should be taken, he should have proceeded under Order XLI, Rule 27. We set aside the order of remand, and direct the District Judge to dispose of the appeal according to law....
Sivaswamy Aiyar and ors. Vs. Sivalingam Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.474
1. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the petition was not defective, and we observe that no objection was taken by the respondents to the petition on the ground on which the District Judge has in paragraph 4 of his judgment held, it to be defective. As to the absence of a list of immovable property we have to observe that the list was put in on the 15th August 1906 which was within 12 years of the appellate order of the 17th October 1904, which, the District Judge has overlooked. It is sought to support the District Judge's order on the ground that no application for execution was granted till after toe expiry of 12 years. The Subordinate Judge overruled, the objection following Senra Desai Venra Jagath Virarama v. Annasami Ayyar 6 M.k 359, which is exactly in point.2. We, therefore, reverse the order of the District Judge and restore that of the Subordinate Judge with, costs in this and the lowerappellate Court....
Pakkiri Mahamad Saib Vs. Subramania Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.936
1. The second issue framed raises the question whether the decree in Original Suit No. 424 of 1897 was fraudulent and collusive and a finding that it was, would justify its setting aside. In the plaint there is in addition to the prayers for possession and costs, a prayer for any other suitable relief and under this general prayer it is open to the Court to set the decree aside. We, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below and remand the suit for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event....
Goda Coopuramier Vs. M. Sundarammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.739
1. A decree was passed by the High. Court on the 8th September 1891, in favour of the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 186 of 1891, one Ramakkammall,' against Appukuttichetty, the defendant in that suit. The present plaintiff, the representative of Ramakkammall now sues the defendant, the widow of Appukuttichetty, on the same cause of action, for the same relief that was therein granted. The plaintiff alleged and proved in the lower Court that Ramak kammall, the plaintiff, died in the morning of the 8th September, 1891, and the suit was taken up, heard and disposed of the same day after her death. He alleges-that the decree is, therefore, a nullity and not a bar to this suit.2. The finding that the plaintiff in the prior suit died before the hearing is not contested before us. The question for decision is, whether the suit is maintainable or not. Under the English Common Law the death of a plaintiff or a defendant causes an action to abate. After the death of either of them, therefore, no j...
Soonkoro Sayamma and anr. Vs. Soonkoro Aree and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1045
1. We think the decision of the Court below was right. In view of the conflicting evidence as to whether an adoption actually took place or not at the time when Exhibit B was executed in 1896, great importance attaches to the conduct of the parties between that time and the date of Siva Subuddhi's death in 1903. The defendant's case is that after Exhibit B, Siva Subuddhi had nothing to do with the boy, yet we find he was entered in the school register against the boy's name under the heading of Parent or Guardian,' thus showing that he was the person to whom the authorities looked for payment of the fees and treated as being in loco parentis. We think it very improbable that, if there had been no adoption at the time of Exhibit B, the father of the boy would have allowed him to remain for all these years under the care of the deceased. There is also the evidence of witnesses whom the District Judge believed, notably plaintiff's witness No. 3, that the deceased himself spoke to having a...
Kandaswami Gurukkal and anr. Vs. C.G. Krishna Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1067
1. On the application of the 4th September 1906, notice was given to the judgment-debtors and after notice, the transfer was held to be valid, the decree was made absolute, batta was ordered for sale-proclamation and the transferee was given permission to bid. There has been no appeal by the judgment-debtors.2. The respondent is a person who put in a claim under Section 278, Civil Procedure Code, and whose claim was rejected. He was neither a party to the suit nor the representative of a party, and had no locus standi to put in the petition on which the order now under appeal was passed. We set aside the orders of the Courts below with costs and direct the District Munsif to proceed with the Execution Application....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »