Chennai Court October 1910 Judgments
Venkatachellaya and ors. Vs. Subrahmania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.55
1. This appeal is barred under Section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no ground to interfere in revision. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Maharajah of Vizianagram Through G. Appiah, Muktear Vs. Meduri Sur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ451
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I think the Subordinate Judge's judgment in appeal ought to be set aside. He has not disposed of the case on the evidence and does not say that he disagrees with the findings of the Munsif on the issues raised in the case. He would have been quite within his rights if he had considered whatever discrepancies there were between the descriptions of the pro-notes in the plaint and the terms of the pro-notes themselves as circumstances in dealing with the question whether the pro-notes were given and executed for consideration. But he has dismissed the plaintiff's suit simply on the ground of such discrepancies. It is urged by Mr. Ratnesam that even if the judge is wrong in the way he has disposed of the appeal, the error is not one relating to jurisdiction. But I cannot accept his contention. To my mind the method adopted by the Subordinate Judge in dealing with the case amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction and at least is a very material irregularity in the exe...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja of Bobbili Vs. Raja Kaminayini Bangaru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ593
1. The late Zemindar of Chundi, which was an impartible estate descendible according to the rule of primogeniture, died in 1892. On his death disputes arose between his brother the 1st defendant and his widow the 2nd defendant as to the succession. There was litigation between the parties. A compromise was entered into and embodied in Exhibit A, dated the 13th April 1901. Under it both were to enjoy the zemindari in common and, in case a son was born to the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant was to adopt him. A son was born to the 1st defendant in February 1903 and adopted by the 2nd defendant on the 27th of June 1903. The adopted son is the 3rd defendant, represented by the Court of Wards. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 7,000, with interest thereon under the promissory note, Exhibit C 2, dated the 16th September, 1901, executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the lability of the Chundi estate in the hands of the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant admitted a part of the claim. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Sree Rao Sir Venkata Swetachelapathi Ranga Rao, Bahadur Garu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad108
1. The late Zemindar of Caundi, which was an impartible estate descendible according to the rule of primogeniture, died in 1899. On his death disputes arose between his brother, the first defendant, and his widow, the second defendant, as to the succession. There was litigation between the parties A compromise was entered into and embodied in exhibit A, dated the 13th April 1901. Under it both were to enjoy the zamindari in common, and, in case a son was born to the first defendant, the second defendant was to adopt him. A son was born to the first defendant in February 1903 and adopted by the second defendant on the 27th of June 1903. The adopted son is the third defendant represented by the Court of. Wards The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 7,000 with interest thereon under the promissory note, exhibit C-2, dated the 16th September 1901, executed by defendants N03. 1 and 2, on the liability of the Chundi estate in the hands of the third defendant. The third defendant admitted...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Guggilapu Peddaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.253
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. The question is whether the conviction of the accused under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Narsapur was bad on the ground that the complainant had, professedly on the same facts, preferred a charge for the same offence. The order disposing of that case under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, had not been set aside. In the first case neither the complainant nor the accused appeared and the Stationary Sub-Magistrate passed an order 'Complainant absent; disposed of under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code.' The effect of Section 247, undoubtedly, is that the order amounts to an acquittal. But it is urged in the letter of reference that Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, will not bar a fresh trial, unless the accused had in the first case been tried and he could not be said to have been tried unless he had appeared in answer to a summons. I do not think I should be justified in confining the effect of an acquittal under S...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Solai Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ281
1. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. Section 91 of the Evidence Act lays down : 'When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant, or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.'2. In our opinion the words 'any matter required by law to be, reduced to the form of a document' could not have been intended by the Legislature to apply to mere observations of physical facts which under the ordinary law have to be proved by testimony in court. All the instances in which this section has been applied are cases in which the matter required to be reduced to the...
Tag this Judgment!Kovvuri Basivireddi and anr. Vs. Tallapragada Nagamma Alias Bhdshamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad39
1. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the plaintiff's claim as against the first defendant is barred. The Privy Council case of Hanuman Kamat v. Hanuman Mandur (1892) I.L.R. 10 Cal. 123 (P.C.) mikes it clear that the article of the Limitation Act, applicable is Article 62 of the second schedule and the period of limitation is three years from the date when the first defendant received the purchase money, The present suit was not brought within three years from that date. The appellant's pleader relies on the case of Krishnan Nambiar v. Kannan I.L.R. (1898) Mad. 8 but in that case no reference was made to(1). It appears to have been assumed that either Article 115 or 116 applied, and the only question discussed was as to which of these two articles was applicable. Article 62 was not referred to at all.2. The Second Appeal therefore must be dismissed with costs so far as the first defendant is concerned,3. But we think that there is no ground for holding, as the Courts below have h...
Tag this Judgment!B. Rangiah Chetty Vs. B. Subramania Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ21
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The point which has been referred to us is by no means free from difficulty.2. I think Section 7iv(b) of the Court-Fees Act 1870 applies when the right which is sought to be enforced is a right to share as a separate sharer in joint family property; in other words, it applies to the ordinary suit for partition.3. It was argued that Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court-Fees Act only applies when the right which is sought to be enforced is a right to share as a joint sharer in joint family property, but it seems to*me it is not likely that the legislature would have intended to make specific provision for a comparatively rare form of action and to make 110 specific provision for a very common form of action.4. If 'to share' in Section 7(iv)(b) means to share as a separate sharer, the court fee, in a suit for partition of joint family property when the plaintiff is in joint possession with the other co-parceners, is otherwise provided for, is governed by Section...
Tag this Judgment!Vinukonda Veerabadram and ors. Vs. Kontalapalli Jagannadha Row and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ443
1. The Subordinate Judge is in error in thinking that a sale or mortgage by the father cannot bind the son's share in the absence of an antecedent debt. The ruling in Venkatramanayya v. Venkatramana Das I.L.R. (1905) M. 200 must be read with reference to the facts of that case.2. If there is justifying necessity for the sale or mortgage, the son's share would, undoubtedly, be bound, and this is not disputed before us. The erroneous view of the law taken by the Subordinate Judge has vitiated his judgment.3. We, therefore, set aside his decree and remand the appeals for disposal according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Zackaraya Sett Vs. Chunnu Pandaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.55a
1. The deed of sale in favour of the 2nd defendant not having been registered there was no interest created in the 2nd defendant, Kani Veera Reddi v. Kani Bapireddi 29 M. 338 : 16 M.L.J. 395 : 1 M.L.T. 153 , and, therefore, the plaintiff who bought the property subsequently under a properly registered deed of sale, though with notice of the 2nd defendant's abortive purchase, is entitled to recover the property. The judgment of the learned District Judge is set aside and the decree of the Munsif restored with costs in this Court and the lower appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »