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.
Varanasi Seethamma Vs. Sreshtalur Vijiaraghava Charyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.940
1. The question is whether, in the absence of evidence that any appropriation was made by the creditor at the times when the various sums were paid by the debtor, the creditor can be allowed to make out his account on the basis that when each sum was paid, portion of it was appropriated towards the interest then due. No authority has been quoted to show that the creditor cannot do this, and on the other hand Luchmeswar Singh Bahadur v. Syad Lutf Ali Khan 8 B.L.R. 110, is clear authority that he can. There as here there was nothing to show appropriation for interest when the payment was made. The plaintiff's account was, therefore, drawn up on a proper basis. The decree of the lower Court is modifier by substituting Rs. 3,552-1-9 for Rs. 1,544-10-0. The time is extended by three months from this date. The appellant will have his costs on the amount allowed in this and the lower Court....
The Sessions Judge Vs. Sundara Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.308
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, and not Section 395, Indian Penal Code. Section 180 Criminal Procedure Code, no doubt, makes an offence such as that tinder 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 Secti...
Velammal and anr. Vs. Vavammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ349
1. We do not think the suit is barred by limitation so far as the prayer is for a declaration that the decree on the hypothecation does not bind the share of the plaintiffs. That decree was passed within six years before the institution of the suit.2. Nor can we accede to the contention that the suit for a declaration is barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiffs ask in substance that it may be declared as against the hypothecation that the decree is not binding on their share in the property and the fact that they have impleaded the other sharers does not make it obligatory on them to sue for A general partition. We do not think the decision in Suryanarayana Murthi v. Sammama I.L.R. (1901) M. 504 compels us to hold otherwise.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Pidda Enumundugaru Alias Arulu Ramudu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.797a
1. The Sessions Judge has nowhere in his charge to the Jury directed their attention to the evidence as to the number of the robbers so as to show that there were five or more offenders and that the offence amounted to dacoity. The evidence shows that there were six robbers. But three of the accused were acquitted. It is, therefore, impossible to say that there must have been five or more robbers and that the accused have not been prejudiced by the neglect of the Sessions Judge to deal correctly with this matter in his charge to the jury. We must take it that the evidence does not show that the offence was more than robbery under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, and we alter the conviction to one under that section. We observe too that the Sessions Judge has sentenced the 5th accused to five years' rigorous imprisonment and the 1st accused to only two years, though the 5th appears to have taken, if anything, a less active part in the offence and the Sessions Judge gives no reason for th...
Srinivasiengar Vs. Kanthimathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.917
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question is whether the judgment-debtors of the petitioner and the respondent are the same within the meaning of Section 295, Civil Procedure Code. The persons against whom the petitioner obtained his decree are the sons of one Maruthamuthu Pillai and the decree is to be satisfied out of the assets of the family in their hands, and the person against whom the respondent obtained her decree is Maruthamuthu Pillai himself. The Munsif has rightly held that the decision in Govind Abaji Jakhadi v. Mohoniraj Vinayak Jakhadi (sic)B. 494, covers the question and is opposed to the petitioner's contention. And it seems to me that, that ruling is in accordance with the language of Section 295, Civil Procedure Code. The fact that the two decrees are to be realised of the family property is not decisive e question against whom the decrees are And, as has been pointed in Kaliappan Servaikaran v. Varadarajulu 19 M.L.J. 651 : 33 M. 75 : 6 M.L.T. 199 : 3 Ind. Cas. 737, when a decr...
Alapati Ammanna and anr. Vs. Narayanasamy Naidu Garu, Receiver Nidadav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.720a
Abdur Rahim, J.1. As regards the application of Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act the case of Ramasami v. Bhasharasami 2 M. 67, relied on by the Munsif, is a conclusive answer. On the other point also the decree of the Munsif is right. The defendants having bought the right to cultivate the land at auction upon certain terms embodied in the sale list and the documents, they are bound to abide by these terms apart from the question whether Section 13 of the Act applies or not. There is nothing in any of the sale lists referred to by the landlord for the petitioner showing that there was a contract between the paries that the rent could not be recovered unless there had been a previous exchange of puttas muchilihas between them.2. The petitions Nos. 440 and 454 are, therefore, dismissed with costs....
Ramasamy Pillai Vs. Muthoo Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.834
1. There is evidence to support the Subordinate Judge's finding that Rs. 160 had been paid to the 5th defendant by the 3rd defendant and we accept that finding.2. The question is raised whether Exhibit A constitutes an assignment of the right to recover the subscriptions received by the 5th defendant.3. The instrument hypothecates a debt, and on this instrument the hypothecator has an interest sufficient to give him a right to sue. In Muthu Vija Ragunatha Ramachandra Vacha Mahali Thurai v. Venkatachallam Chetti 20 M. 35, the sub-mortgagee was held entitled to sue the original mortgagor. Isri Prasad v. Rai Ganga Prasad Singh Bahadur 14 C.W.N. 165 : 3 Ind. Cas. 311 and Ardesir Bijonji Surti v. Syed Sirdar Ali Khan Bahadur 33 B. 610 : 10 Bom. L.R. 1146 : 4 Ind. Cas. 84 are authorities for the position that the holder of a charge on a debt due to his debtor by way of security for his own loan, is a transferee of an actionable claim, and entitled to recover the debt from the transferor s de...
Ramasami Pillai Vs. Muthu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad53
1. There is evidence to support the Subordinate Judge's finding that Rs. 160 had been paid to the fifth defendant by the third defendant and we accept that finding.2. The question is raised whether exhibit A constitutes and assignment of the right to recover the subscriptions received by the fifth defendant.3. The instrument hypothecates a debt, and on this instrument the hypothecatee has an interest sufficient to give him a right to sue. In Muthu Vijia Ragunatha Ramachandra Vacha Mahali Thurai v. Venkatachalam Chetti I.L.R. (1897) Mad. 35, the sub-mortgagee was held entitled to sue the original mortgagor. Isri Prosad v. Rai Gunga Prosad Singh Bahadur (1910) 14 C.W.N. 165, and Ardesir Bejonji Surti v. Syed Sirdar Ali Khan I.L.R. (1909) Bom. 610, are authorities for the position that the-holder of a charge on a debt due to his debtor by way of security for his own loan, is a transferee of an actionable claim, and entitled to recover the debt from the transferor's debtor. In Durham Broth...
Kolakott Kunhamabu and ors. Vs. Kottayath Kizhakke Kovilakath Kerala V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ56
1. The sentence which we are asked to construe as importing a permanent tenure is the following:There will be no objection to the land being held by you and your Anandravans as long as you and your Anandravans shall live.2. It might be difficult to refuse to accede to the contention that the phrase 'you and your Anandravans' when used in deeds of transfer in Malabar ordinarily implies an absolute transfer, but here we have this phrase qualified by the limitation 'as long as you and your Anandravans shall live' and we have not been shown any authority for holding that this qualifying phrase ought to be understood as equivalent to 'as long as your tarwad exists.' We are, therefore, unable to say that the lower Courts are wrong in refusing to admit a saswatam right in the defendants and we dismiss the appeal with costs. The time for redemption is extended to two months from this date....
Duvvadu Hari Kistna Chowdury Vs. Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Pantulu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ323
1. The father of the plaintiff obtained a decree against the 5th defendant and in execution thereof brought to sale and purchased the 5th defendant's one-fifth share in the two suit villages. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which these appeals arise sued for partition and for possession of the 5th defendant's one-fifth share in the said villages.2. Balakrishnamma, adoptive father of the 2nd defendant, and defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were members of an undivided family. In 187s they effected a partition. The bulk of the family property was divided by metes and bounds, but the suit villages and some other immoveable property were kept undivided for convenience of enjoyment and were held by the divided members as tenants in common though the actual management was vested in Balakrishnamma who was to pay to each of the tenants in common his share of the income. In January 1893, Balakrishnamma died, and the management was thereafter with the first defendant.2. Two of the issues framed in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »