Chennai Court November 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.
Aiyaru Muppan Vs. Vellaya Nandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.15
1. It is found by the Sub-Crdinate Judge that the 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 are divided in interest, and have been in possession of separate portions of the disputed land. The plaintiffs allege title under a sale in 1878. This was negatived by the District Munsif. But the Subordinate Judge without finally deciding that question has found a title by adverse possession for more than 12 years in their favour. It is argued for the appellant that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. The 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 claim different lands and their title as found is by adverse possession of their respective portions. The injury to their rights is by the defendants' trespass. Although the trespass might have been at the same time, the right being separate, the cause of action must be held to be separate. The authorities cited by Mr. Rangachariar are decisive of the question. The decision of the House of Lords in Smurthwaite v. Hannay (1894) A.C. 494 : ...
R. Rungasawmi Aiyangar Vs. C.R. Srinivasa Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ453
Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.1. I think the Subordinate Judge is wrong in his view regarding the claim with reference to the sum of Rs. 50 asked to be paid to Abu Bakar Sait. The facts are : The plaintiff gave a certain sum of money to the defendant and asked him to make a payment of Rs. 50 to one Abu Bakar to whom the plaintiff owed money. The position of the defendant was that of an agent who defaulted to make the payment. Abu Bakar sued the plaintiff and obtained a decree. It is perfectly clear that on the date of the decree, at all events, the plaintiff knew that his agent, the defendant, was guilty of misconduct in not making the payment which he had required him to make. The Subordinate Judge calculates the period of limitation from the date of the payment by the plaintiff to Abu Bakar. I cannot see how that furnishes the starting point for limitation. The case appears to me to fall within Article 90 of the Limitation Act and. this view is supported by the decision in Civil Revision Pet...
Arumugakadar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad547
ORDERKrishnaswami Ayyar, J.1. I think the conviction in this case must stand. The complainant and his wife and daughter are found to have occupied a house. During their temporary absence the accused put a lock on the outer door and thereby obstructed them from getting into the house. I cannot go behind these findings. Indeed the accused in their defence do not dispute the right of the complainant to enter the house for it is said that he was a sub-lessee under the fifth accused who was himself a lessee under the first accused. In the face of this admission there could be no bond fide belief that the accused had a lawful right to obstruct so as to bring the case within the exception to Section 339 of the Penal Code.2. But Mr. Seshagiri Ayyar contended that there could be no wrongful restraint unless the accused were physically present to enforce the obstruction and in this case the look had been placed, upon the door before the complainant came to the spot. It is true the offence is onl...
Periyanna Pillai Vs. Arasu thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.568
1. I see no ground for this revision petition. Upon a bond executed by the wife, the 1st defendant, the plaintiff wants a decree against the husband, the 2nd defendant, because the 2nd defendant had executed an earlier bond in 1901; and he says he took the bond from the wife in substitution for the husband's bond. The plaintiff alleged that the wife was the agent of the husband and had authority to execute the bond on his behalf. This is found against. The plaintiff now asks for a decree against the 2nd defendant on the ground that the 2nd defendant was liable on the original bond of 1901. The action is not brought on the bond of 1901. If it can be treated as a suit on the bond of 1901, then the question will have to be considered as to limitation in respect of the action upon that bond. Prima facie the action will be barred. The plaintiff says that the 2nd defendant was absent out of British India, and he would be entitled to deduction of time. All this would have to be pleaded and th...
R. Rangaswami Aiyangar Vs. G.R. Srinivasa Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.54
Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.1. I think the Subordinate Judge is wrong in his view regarding the claim with reference to the sum of Rs. 50 asked to be paid to Abu Bakar Sahib. The facts are--The plaintiff gave a certain sum of money tc the defendant and asked him to make a payment of Rs. 50 to one Abu Bakar to whom the plaintiff owed money. The position of the defendant was that of an agent who defaulted to make the payment. Abu Bakar sued the plaintiff and obtained a decree. It is perfectly clear that on the date of the decree, at all events, the plaintiff knew that his agent, the defendant, was guilty of misconduct in not making the payment which he had required him to make. The Sub-ordinate Judge calculates the period of limitation from the date of the payment by the plaintiff to Abu Bakar. I cannot see how that furnishes the starting point for limitation. The case appears to me to fall within Article 90 of the Limitation. Act and this view is supported by the decision in Civil Revision Pe...
Narayanasawmi Chetty Complainant Vs. Vadivelu Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.726
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. I think the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint must be set aside. The complaint, as I read it, alleges that the 1st accused who was employed by the firm to sell the bags and make over the sale-proceeds to a creditor of the firm sold the bags and he and the 2nd accused together misappropriated the money with a view to cause 'wrongful loss to the firm and gain to themselves. If the allegation is made out the two accused are guilty of offences of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation. The Magistrate must be directed to inquire further into the complaint....
Swami Aiyangar Alias Srinivasa Varthachariar Vs. Lakshmi Alias Echamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ455
Abdur Rahim, J.1. It is admitted by the pleader for the plaintiff-respondent that there is no evidence to shew that the 1st defendant made any payment by which limitation would be saved so far as the claim against him is concerned. But it is argued that no issue was framed on this point audit is alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint that two sums of twelve rupees and nine rupees were paid in 1906. But paragraph 5 of the 1st defendant's written statement traverses that statement as false. The two bonds were executed on the 24th October 1904 and the 12th February 1905, respectively, and it is for the plaintiff to make out that her claim under these bonds was subsisting against the 1st defendant on the date of her suit which was instituted in 1909, and as she failed to do so, the Subordinate Judge ought to have dismissed the suit.2. It is conceded by the plaintiff's pleader that the position of the 1st defendant was that of a surety. That being so, payment of interest by the 2nd defendant,...
Sami Aiyangar Alias Srinivasa Varatha Chariar Vs. Laxmi Alias Echammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.8
Abdur Rahim, J.1. It is admitted by the pleader for the plaintiff respondent that there is no evidence to show that the 1st defendant made any payment of which limitation would be saved so far as the claim against him is concerned. But it is argued that no issue was framed on this point and it is alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint that two sums of twelve rupees and nine rupees were paid in 1906. But paragraph 5 of the 1st defendant's written statement traverses that statement as false. The two bonds were executed on the 24th October 1904 and the 12th February 1905 respectively and it is for the plaintiff to make out that her claim under these bonds was subsisting against the 1st defendant on the date of her suit which was instituted in 1909, and, as she failed to do so, the Subordinate Judge ought to have dismissed the suit.2. It is conceded by the plaintiff's pleader that the position of the 1st defendant was that of a surety. That being so, payment of interest by the 2nd defendant,...
Murugappa Chetty and ors. Vs. Ranganayakulu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ525
Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.1. I think the order of the Registrar of the Small Cause Court, Madras, in this case is wrong in directing that the petitioners should pay the debt which they owed to the judgment-debtor. The garnishee proceedings were instituted against the petitioners only as a firm. There seems to be no warrant for a firm of partners being proceeded against in their firm name, and if there is no warrant for proceeding against them as defendants in that form, it stands to reason that there is no warrant for instituting garnishee proceedings against certain individuals in their firm name. It must be taken, therefore, that no notices were issued to the individuals who were sought to be made liable and the absence of such a notice, is to my mind, a material irregularity which vitiated the proceedings of the Registrar.2. It is further contended for the respondents that another remedy was open to the petitioners and that I should not interfere in revision. The remedy suggested is re-...
Malayandi Goundan Vs. Subbaraya Vanavaraya Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ521
1. This is a suit on a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the undivided son of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs allege that the mortgage is enforceable against the son's interest in the family property. The 1st defendant did not defend the suit.APPEAL NO. 115 of 1906.2. The mortgage sued on, Exhibit A, recites the receipt of Rs. 3,000. It contains no reference to any earlier transaction, but the judge finds, and this apparently was not contested at the hearing of the appeal, that this mortgage was given in renewal of an earlier mortgage, Exhibit IX, for Rs. 1,500. It is not contended that the Rs. 3,000 referred to in Exhibit A was advanced when that document was executed. The plaintiff's case is that Rs. 2,200 was due from the father under Exhibit IX and a further advance of Rs. 800 was made at the time of the execution of Exhibit A. The 1st defendant admitted in his evidence the advance of Rs. 500 on that date. The written statement does net afford us much a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »