Chennai Court January 1910 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.
Velu Manikaran Vs. Pakarvoor Manakal Jatavedan Nambudirapad's L.R. Nar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.289
1. The appellant was restrained by a decree from taking wat6r which the respondents carry through a thodu. He has now put up a dam and carried the water to his fields against the terms of the decree with the result that the 1st respondent has sustained damages estimated at about Rs. 300 by the lower Court. Under Section 260 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant's property has been ordered to be placed under attachment for the satisfaction of this amount. It is conceded that if Section 260 applies, this appeal fails, but it is contended that the section does not apply, as the second Clause shows that it contemplates only cases where the judgment-debtor may carry out the terms of the decree within the period of one year the property is to remain under attachment before it is sold, and does not, therefore, apply to this and similar cases where the judgment-debtor is restrained from doing an act, and he has already violated the terms of the decree.3. We are unable to agree with this c...
NuradIn Kasim Vs. Morris Sebastian Pereira
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.683a
1. It was found in the former suit that the defendant had been in adverse possession of the house for more than 12 years before that suit. It follows that he was in possession also of the site on which that house stands and this site is all that is in question in the present appeal. The plaintiff has not in his plaint accounted for the possession of the defendant and that possession must, therefore, be held to be adverse to him.2. The suit is thus barred by limitation and we must allow the appeal and reversing the decree of the lower appellate Court restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court....
Natla Bapiraju Vs. Puram Achuta Rajaju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ337
1. On the second occasion on which this case came before the appellate Court, the parties agreed that an account should be taken by a Commissioner upon the result of which a decree should be made.2. When the case came again on appeal from the District Munsif's decree after the account was taken, an objection was raised that under the license granted to the defendants, the contract of partnership between them and the plaintiff was illegal. The Subordinate Judge sustained this objection and dismissed the suit. The license is not on record and it is impossible for us to say that the partnership contravenes any condition therein set forth: but it is now contended that' apart from the license, the partnership is illegal as being prohibited by the Abkari Act, and Section 13 is referred to. We do not think that Section 13 prohibits a person who has no license from holding an interest in the manufacture or vend of liquor jointly with a licensed manufacturer or vendor, and the authority relied ...
Palanippa Chettiar by Agent, Veerararaghava Iyengar Vs. Velayuta Pilla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.421
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question raised is whether the Court has power to say, at the time of passing a decree, that its execution shall be postponed for a year. The case arose during the operation of the old Civil Procedure Code which by Section 210 only enables the Court to order payment of the decretal amount by instalments. But the new Code by Order XX, Rule 11, expressly confers on the Court such power as has been exercised by the District Munsif in this case. That indicates that the power in question cannot be said to be unreasonable or in violation of any principles of justice. It has been ruled that the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 did not take away such powers as are inherent in a Court to do justice between the parties. I am inclined to hold that the District Munsif in postponing execution of the decree for a year in the circumstances of this case did not exceed his powers.2. The petition is dismissed but without costs as the respondents did not appear....
Bachu Chenchuramayya Vs. Akkaraju Subbaramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.208
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is a suit upon a mortgage brought by an assignee of the mortgage. The 1st defendant, who is the 1st respondent in the appeal, is not represented here. But Mr. Ranganadhier has been good enough to argue the case amicus curi on his behalf.2. The first question which has been raised on the appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 650 with interest as from 1694 or whether he is only entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 800 and odd with interest as from the year 1898. That is the subject-matter of the first issue in the case. The sum of Rs. 650 is stated to be part of the consideration for the mortgager, the mortgagee being one Pitchi Reddi. The present plaintiff is an assignee from Pitchi Reddi's assignee. By the mortgage instrument it was agreed that this Rs. 650, which represented a debt which, at the time of the mortgage was owed by the mortgagor to one Krishna Reddi, should be discharged by the mortgagee. The mortgagee was able to enter ...
The Sessions Judge Vs. Sundra Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ441
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. What happened in this case was that a dacoity was committed in British territory, and the accused, a native Indian subject of His Majesty, was found in possession of property alleged to have been stolen at that dacoity, in the Pudukottah State. He is charged with an offence under Section 412, Indian Penal Code. Section 180, Criminal Procedure Code, no doubt makes an offence such as that under Section 412, Indian Penal Code, triable at the place where the property is retained or where the theft or dacoity took place.2. But then Section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, enacts that if an offence is committed by a native Indian subject of His Majesty in the territory of a Native State - and that is the case here - he can be tried for such offence in a court in British India, only if the Political Agent of the State certifies that the charge ought to be tried in British India. There can be no doubt that the general provisions of Section 180, Cr.P.C. are governed by Secti...
P. Chengalvaraya Mudaly Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.379
Arnold White, C.J.1. We have had some difficulty in getting at the facts in this case, but as I understand them and so far as they are material to the question we have to decide, they are these.2. In August 1906 the insolvents entered into a contract with the appellant that he was to do certain shipping work for them for two years certain, that he was to receive an advance of Rs. 2,000 for which he was to execute two promissory-notes in favour of the insolvents, and that the notes were to be met out of the amounts due to the appellant under his agreement. The advance was received and the notes were executed.3. Suits were brought against the appellant on the promissory-notes. He set up the agreement of August 1906 by way of defence. Two decrees were obtained against the appellant on the notes in the Small Cause Court, one in Suit No. 11 and the other in Suit No. 12. The appellant asked for a reference under Section 69 of the Small Cause Courts Act in Suit No. 11 and paid into Court unde...
Rathnasabapathi Pillai and ors. Vs. G. Ramasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.630; (1910)20MLJ301
1. The suit is by a dismissed trustee for a declaration of the invalidity of his dismissal and an injunction restraining the co-trustees and the temple committee from interference with his exercise of the rights of a trustee. The District Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the removal of the trustee was valid and that as the plaintiff was out of possession, the suit for a mere declaration and injunction was not maintainable. On appeal the District Judge reversed the Munsifs decree and allowed the plaintiff's claim. He held that the plaintiff's dismissal was irregular and that he was entitled to sue for the declaration and injunction. No ground was taken before him on appeal that the Munsifs finding as to the plaintiff being out of possession was erroneous. He rests his judgment on the authority of the decision in Kunj Bihari v. Keshavlal Hiralal 28 B. 567, and distinguished the decision in Narayana v. Shankunni 15 M. 255, and the remarks of Subrahmania Aiyar, J., in Vengan Poosari ...
Cotha Krishnaswami Chetty Vs. Thatha Seetharam Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.374
1. The plaintiff's father Ethirajooloo Chetty and the defendants were partners, carrying on their business under the name of Moses, and Co. Ethirajooloo died on the 5th July 1904 and on the 12th December 1904, the plaintiff executed a deed of release by which he renounced all his interest in the firm and its properties for the consideration therein recited. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted to set aside that deed of release for fraud and undue influence and for an account of the assets and liabilities of the firm on the 4th July, 1904, and for payment to the plaintiff of his share so ascertained. The learned Judge who tried the case dismissed the plaintiff's suit and this is an appeal from that decree.2. In order to decide whether the release is binding on the plaintiff it is necessary to consider the circumstances under which it was executed. Shortly before his death Ethirajooloo Chetty wished to dissolve the partnership and requested Mr. Krisnnasami Chetty, a Hi...
G. Narainsawmy Naidu Garu Vs. Yerramali Ram Krishnaya,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.479
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The District Munsif, in my opinion, is wrong in laying down as an absolute proposition of law that when the lessee is acquainted with the land leased to him, and there is no obstruction or likelihood of obstruction to his going1 upon the land and taking possession of it but he does not choose to take possession of the land, he is not liable for rent because the lessor who was never asked to put him in possession did not offer to put him in possession. Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act imposes an obligation on the lessor to put the lessee in possession on a request being made to him to that effect, and it seems to me the principle of this enactment, which appears to be quite reasonable, is applicable to leases of agricultural land as well. And the case of the Zemindar of Vizianagaram v. Behara Suryanaraina Patrulu 25 M. 587 does not lay down the law differently. But if the land is already in possession of a third person to the knowledge both of the lessor and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »