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.
In Re: Latchumana Talavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.807
ORDER1. The order of the Deputy Magistrate in appeal directing the execution of a bond tinder Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, is illegal as the convicting Court was a 2nd Class Magistrate and, therefore, not a Magistrate who could make an order under that section; Muthiah Chetti v. Emperor 29 M. 190 : 3 Cri. L.J. 461 and Paramasiva Pillai v. Emperor 30 M. 48 : 1 M.L.T. 403 : 5 Cri. L.J. 88. We, therefore, set aside this order of the Deputy Magistrate....
Reyelle Jogayya Vs. Nimma Shekai Venkataratnamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ412
1. In Ramasawmi Mudaliar v. Sellathammal I.L.R. (1882) M. 5, the case by which the District Judge holds himself bound, Innes J. no doubt held that the reversioners will not be bound to pay a debt contracted by the widow unless the debt is charged on the estate. Kindersley J., however, took a different view, holding that the plaint did not allege clearly that the promissory-note was made by the widow as representative of the estate and did not allege such a state of facts as would, by operation of Hindu law, render the debt due on the promissory-note binding on the reversioners.2. Neither Kindersley J. nor Turner C.J. who rejected the plaint in the Original Court takes the view that, as a matter of law, the reversioners cannot be bound unless the debt is formally made a charge on the estate, and there is no other authority in this Court for that view except the opinion of Junes J.3. In our opinion, no distinction can be properly drawn between the case where a charge is formally created ...
Ramasamy, Minor, by His Next Friend, Mookkayi Alias Karuppayi and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ709
1. The suit is for a declaration that the sale of a pangu of melvaram right by the second to the first defendant and the redemption of another pangu mortgaged to the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 7 by a payment to the 2nd defendant are not binding on the plaintiffs. The pangus in question are found by the District Judge to have been under attachment by the Head Assistant Magistrate and in the possession of a receiver appointed by him in proceedings under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The suit is dismissed by the District Judge on the grounds that it was barred by limitation, having been instituted more than three years since the dates of sale and redemption, and that consequential relief in the nature of possession not having been prayed for, Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act operated as a bar. The plea of limitation is obviously untenable. And the respondent's vakil did not attempt to support it. The article applicable is 120 ...
Seshappaya Vs. Venkatramana Upadya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ752
1. In O.S. No. 77 of 1900 on the file of the District Munsif of Kundapur, Ganapayya Urala having been defeated on a claim petition arising out of an attachment made by the present plaintiff, sued the present plaintiff to establish title to the property attached. The suit was dismissed on a finding that the conveyance on which he founded his title, a sale by the owner Shesha Navada, was fraudulent and not intended to convey any interest. The decision was affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff now sues, alleging that after the dismissal of Ganapayya Urala's suit, he brought the attached property to sale and purchased it himself and obtained possession ; but was dispossessed by the 1st defendant, who set up a mulgeni tenure under Ganapayya Urala. This suit is, therefore, for recovery of the land, and it has been dismissed on the ground that the 1st defendant is entitled to possession as mulgenidar. It is found inter alia that the first defendant has remained in possession ever since the mulgen...
Regulla Jogayya and Vs. N. Vencatarathnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.271
1. In Ramasami Mudaliar v. Sellathammall 4 M. 375, the case by which the District Judge holds himself bound, Innes, J., no doubt, held that the reversioners will not be bound to pay a debt contracted by widow unless the debt is charged on the estate. Kindersley, J., however, took a different view holding that the plaint did not allege clearly that the promissory note was made by the widow as representative of the estate, and did not allege such a state of facts as would by operation of Hindu Law render the debt due on the promissory note binding on the reversioners.2. Neither Kindersley, J. nor Turner, C.J., who rejected the plaint in the original Court, took the view that, as a matter of law, the reversioners cannot be bound unless the debt is formally made a charge on the estate, and there is no other authority in this Court for that view except the opinion of Innes, J.3. In our opinion no distinction can be properly drawn between the case where a charge is formally created and the c...
Ramaswamy Minor by His Next Friend Mookayi Alias Karuppayi and ors. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.343
1. The suit is for a declaration that the sale of a pangu of melvaram right by the second to the first defendant and the redemption of another pangu mortgaged to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 7 by a payment to the 2nd defendant are not binding on the plaintiffs. The pangus in question are found by the District Judge to have been under attachment by the Head Assistant Magistrate and in the possession of a receiver appointed by him in proceedings under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The suit is dismissed by the District Judge on the grounds that it was barred by limitation having been instituted more than three years since the dates of sale and redemption, and that consequential relief in the nature of possession not having been prayed for, Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act operated as a bar. The plea of limitation is obviously untenable. And the respondent's Vakil did not attempt to support it. The article applicable is 120 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›