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.
theevana Pillai and anr. Vs. Kulla Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.776
1. The plain tiff got a decree for possession and took possession in execution. The defendants appealed and the decree was reversed. The defendants then took possession--but without applying for execution. On second appeal the original decree was confirmed. The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled in execution of the final decree to get possession the land. If the defendants had taken possession by process of execution there can be no doubt that the plaintiff could have got possession in execution under the provisions of Section 583, Civil Procedure Code, We do not think the plaintiffs should be put in a worse position, because the defendants took possession without the intervention of the Court and in defiance of an order of the Court staying execution. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
Suryanarayana Row, Bala Ramayya and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1909
Reported in: (1905)ILR29Mad100
ORDER1. In Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 34 and 35 of 1905. - The material facts bearing upon those revision cases are shortly as follow: Bala Ramayya, the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 35 of 1905, had been convicted on a charge of theft and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 which he paid (see Criminal Revision Case No. 36 of 1905). He preferred an appeal against that decision which was heard by the Deputy Magistrate Mr. Nagesa Rao in July 1904. The Deputy Magistrate directed the Sub-Magistrate who tried the case in the first instance to record further evidence. While the matter was thus pending a complaint of bribery in conception with the theft case made by Bala Ramayya against the Sub-Magistrate to the District Magistrate was being enquired into department ally. Part' of the departmental enquiry was being made (by Mr. Nagesa Rao. On the 6th October Mr. Nagesa Rao summoned Bala Ramayya to appear before him on the 19th idem in connection with the departmental enquiry. Bala R...
Sriman Madabhusi Achamma and ors. Vs. Gopisetti Narayanasawamy Naidu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.747
1. The plaintiffs stated in their plaint that their cause of action arose on the 3rd October, 1898, when the 1st defendant illegally levied Rs. 165-14-0 and they brought their suit in December, 1901, for a declaration that the zamindar of Nivadavolu had no right to levy from them any sum in excess of the sum of Rs. 549 per annum by way of quit rent. We are clearly of opinion that article 131 of the Schedule II to the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to a suit like the present. The suit cannot be said to be a suit to establish a periodically recurring right. The article applicable is article 120. Under that article limitation runs from the time when the right to sue accrues. As was held in Gopiladas Garu v. Perraju 12 M.L.J. 126 the plaintiff's right to sue for a declaration arises on each occasion when the zamindar collects or demands the enhanced rent. Each exaction is, if illegal, a separate injury and gives rise to a new cause of action. This suit was brought within 6 years of t...
S.R.M.S. Narayana Chetty Vs. V. Ponnusawmy Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.933
1. The 1st defendant, Ponnnsamy Nadar, owed the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 87,080 under a decree. The 2nd defendant, his divided nephew, owed him a sum of Rs. 6,000 under another decree. The first four defendants owed Rs. 6,920 under two decrees to the plaintiff. The four defendants accepted the two debts due by Ponnusamy Nadar and Ratnasamy Nadar alone under the two decrees as binding on them, paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 and agreed to pay another sum of Rs. 12,500 before the 25th of July 1904. The plaintiff agreed to accept this amount of Rs. 22,500 in discharge of the entire debt. If default be made 'in paying in full' the amount of Rs. 12,500 with interest before the due dates, the defendants agreed to pay not only the balance but also the amount of Rs. 27,500 which together with the Rs. 22,500 made up the debt of Rs. 50,000. It is admitted that out of the sum of Rs, 12,500 and interest about Rs. 11,700 was paid, the balance of about Rs. 1,500 was tendered only two or three days after the ...
In Re: Arakkal Ahmad Ali Rajah Avergal of Cannanore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.97a
1. The order of the District Court of 1st February, 1909, so far as it directed that the properties should be entrusted to the petitioner before it, was not an order authorised by any provision of the Civil Procedure Code. All that is said in Order 21, Rule 55, is that when a certain event has happened, the attachment should be deemed to have been withdrawn. If follows, therefore, that there was no resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant and no voluntary obstruction to a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, and, therefore, no offence under Section 183 or 186, Indian Penal Code. The sanction is set aside....
A.R.M.A.L.A. Palaniappa Chettyar Vs. Vencatachala Konan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.953
1. No appeal lies. See Vencatarama Ayyar v. Madalai Ammal 23 M.k 169 The appeal is dismissed with costs....
E.N. Venkoba Row Vs. Thuniya Nataraja Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.829
1. The allegations in the plaint do not show that the plaintiff has no right to sue. But on evidence taken in the enquiry held under Section 409, the Subordinate Judge has held that the suit is barred by limitation. He was wrong in doing so Vide Full Bench decision in Rathnam Pillai v. Pappa Pillai 13 M.L.J. 295 where it is heldthat the evidence taken under that section must be confined to the question of pauperism. The case in Vijendra Tirtlia Swami v. Sudhindra Tirtha Swami 19 M.k 197 relied on by the learned Judge has been overruled by this Fall Bench decision in Rathnan Pillai v. Pappa Pillai 13 M.L.J. 295 which he has not referred to in his judgment, and the case in Karnrcikh v. Sunder Nath 20 A.n 299 if opposed to the Full Bench decision, cannot be followed. We see no waiver, even assuming that such waiver would give jurisdiction to the Court to decide the question. The Subordinate Judge has not decided the question whether the plaintiff is a pauper.2. We must, therefore, reverse...
Tadapalli Bapa1ya and ors. Vs. Putti Kottaya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.940
1. We agree with the District Judge. The application of 1904 was within 12 years and that application was never dismissed, the order on it being merely 'proceedings closed'. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Veera Reddi Vs. Ramalinga Mudeley and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.42
1. Following Appa Rao v. Krishna Ayyangar 25 M. 537 we hold that the application for sale should be taken to be an application for an order absolute for sale. It is not, therefore, correct to say that all the prior proceedings in the case were null and void. We also think that the application of 1903 was granted. Notice was given to defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and sale was ordered and took place. But on application under Section 311, Civil Procedure Code, the sale was set aside at the instance of another defendant to whom notice had not been given. This, however, did not annul the order for sale and things were merely put back to the position in which they were when order for sale had been granted. We, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court....
Rama Bhandary Vs. C.H. Morgan Trading in the Name and Style of J.H. Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1068
1. By the Panchayat to which the defendants were parties it was held that the persons in occupation were entitled to possession until they received Rs. 300(Rupees three hundred). As against the 1st defendant, it must be taken that their remaining in possession and resisting the plaintiff cannot be said to have been an unlawful act. Therefore, the resistance came within the covenant for quiet enjoyment and the 1st defendant is, therefore, liable on the covenant. With regard to the question of damages, no similar clay was procurable in the market and, therefore, the test of market value cannot be applied. It is, however, clear this is not a reason for awarding only nominal damages. Vide Borries v. Autchinson 18 C.B. 445; Elbinger Actien Gesells Chafft v. Armstrong L.R. 9 Q.B. 473. Here the defendant knew the clay was to be used for the manufacture of tiles and we think the value of this sort of clay to the plaintiff for the purposes of tile manufacture must be taken into account in asses...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »