Chennai Court March 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: Muthu Gownden and anr.; in Re: Palaniandi Gownden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.12
ORDER1. The Sessions Judge was in error in referring to documents and evidence which did not form part of the racord of the proceedings before the Magistrate. Moni Mohan Mondal v. Iswar Chunder Mookerjee 6 Cri.L.J. 251 : 6 Cri. L.J. 357.2. But, having considered the case ourselves, we do not think that on account of this irregularity we ought to interfere with the Sessions Judge's orders.3. We dismiss the petitions....
Madho Kora and ors. Vs. Gopa Bandhu Nippako and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.512
. The Courts below have, held that the instrument sued on, which is dated 1868, is a sale on the happening of a condition. We cannot accept this view. The amount for which the sale is to be made is spoken of as a debt. Interest is provided for at a certain rate. There is a promise to pay interest every year. The balance of the landlord's share of the income is to be applied towards principal. If the vendor fails to pay the interest each year, he promises to give up the land for the principal amount though that amount might have been reduced during the previous years. It is true there is a promise to transfer pattah at once and an arrangement for re-transfer, if the debt is paid within the time stipulated. This does not, in our minds, prevent the instrument operating only as a mortgage where all the indicia of the debtor and creditor relation are present. We must reverse the decrees of the Courts below and pass a decree for the redemption in the terms of Section 92 of the Transfer of Pr...
Govindasawmi thevan Vs. T.M. Doraisawmi Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ380
1. The question in this case relates to subrogation. Is the 4th defendant, the purchaser of items 1 to 26, entitled to stand in the shoes of Chengammal, the 1st mortgagee, against the plaintiff, the puisne incumbrancer Chengammal had a mortgage on items 1 to 13. The 4th defendant agreed to pay off Chengammall's mortgage with part of the purchase-money, and it was so discharged. He also agreed to discharge the plaintiff's mortgage with the remainder of the purchase-money, but failed to do so. He contends that he is entitled on the principle of the decision in Gokaldas Gopaldas v. Puranmal Premsukh Das I.L.R. (1883) C1035 to keep alive Chengammal's mortgage as it is for his benefit to do so. The District Judge, relying on Srinivasachari v. Gnana Prakasa Mudaliar I.L.R. (1906) M. 67 has refused to uphold his contention. We may at once say that the decision in Srinivasachari v. Gnana Prakasa Mudalliar I.L.R. (1906) M. 67 has no application. There the first mortgagee had an incumbrance upon...
Govindaswami Tevan Vs. Dorasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad119
1. The question in this case relates to subrogation. Is the fourth defendant, the purchaser of items Nos. 1 to 26, entitled to stand in the shoes of Chengammal, the first mortgagee, against the plaintiff, the puisne encumbrancer? Chengammal had a mortgage on items Nos. 1 to 13. The fourth defendant agreed to pay off Chengammal's mortgage with part of the purchase money and it was so discharged. He also agreed to discharge the plaintiff's mortgage with the remainder of the purchase money, but failed to do so. He contends that he is entitled on the principle of the decision in Gokaldas Gopaldas v. Puranmal Premsukh Das I.L.R. (1884) Calc. 1035 to keep alive Chengammal's mortgage as it is for his benefit to do so. The District Judge relying on Srinivasa Chari v. Gnanaprakasa Mudaliar I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 67 has refused to uphold his contention, We may at once say that the decision in Srinivasa Chari v. Gnanaprakasa Mudaliar I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 67 has no application, There the first mortgagee...
Audirazu Veerayya Vs. Audirazu Sangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad177; (1910)20MLJ281
1. The suit is for the recovery of the karnam's office in an inam village in the Kistna district and of certain emoluments attached to that office. The Munsif decreed the claim to the office. The District Judge on appeal has dismissed the suit, holding that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction. It is to be regretted that he has not pointed out the particular provision of the law under which the jurisdiction is ousted. But we think he has arrived at the right conclusion. We have had the case twice argued before us on the first occasion it appeared to us that the case fell within Clause 1 of Section 3 of Act III of 1895. But on a closer examination, we are satisfied that that clause does not apply. Madras Act IV of 1864 had no application to inam villages which were not for purposes of village administration grouped with ryotwari villages. The Government notification dated the 25th of July 1878 did not therefore extend to the agraharam we have to deal with, Madras Act IV of 1893 which a...
Latchumammal Vs. Gengammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.858a
1. The first is due raised two questions, namely, whether there was an oral Will and whether there was an absolute division by the widows. The Original Munsif held in the plaintiff's favour on both the questions. Mr. Oldfield held against the Will but in favour of the absolute partition. He reversed and remanded the case with instructions to the Munsif to try the question as to the date of the partition. The Munsif having decided in the plaintiff's favour, an appeal was again preferred to the District Court which now came before Mr. Broadfoot. He held the Will proved and dismissed the suit. We are of opinion that he was wrong in going back upon Mr. Old field's decision against the Will. The order of remand was based upon the decision that the Will was not true. Though he held the partition was absolute, he would not dispose of the case finally as he wanted a further question to be decided as to whether it was before or after the Transfer of Property Act.2. We think that Mr. Oldfield's ...
In Re: Venkata Subba Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.851
ORDER1. The appellants have been convicted of wrongful restraint for having caused certain pariahs to stand in the public street in the vicinity of a temple with the object of preventing the complainant from conducting a procession from the temple through the street. It is found that the complainant, deterred by fear of the pollution which he would have suffered had he passed near the pariahs, did not conduct the procession, and that the accused maliciously caused the pariahs to take up their position in the street with the sole object of deterring1 the complainant from going where he had a right to go.2. We do not think the accused have committed the offence of wrongful restraint in our opinion this act did not amount to an obstruction within the meaning of Section 339. The parihas were no obstruction in fact; there was nothing to prevent the complainant from taking his procession past them and they had aright to be where they were: and it is not suggested that their presence was inte...
Ramaswami Chetty Vs. Pavadi Sami.L.R. Ban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.852
1. The suit is upon an unregistered assignment of an unregistered hypothecation bond. The bond was for Rs. 50, interest having accumulated, the assignment was for Rs. 176. The assignment requires registration to operate as a transfer of the, hypothecation. The next question is whether the personal remedy was barred. The 3rd issue raises the question whether the payments alleged in the plaint and the endorsement on the bond sued on are true. The amount of the bond was payable on the 10th of April 1899. But for the alleged payments of interest the suit is barred. Mr. Ranga Chariar raised the question as to whether the payment of interest by the manager of a Hindu family will save limitation against other members. But it is unnecessary to consider this as the 3rd issue has been found against the plaintiff by the Munsif and the District Judge. If the payments are false the suit is clearly barred. We must dismiss the second appeal; but as the respondents were not represented at the hearing ...
In Re: Suratti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.14
1. The Sessions Judge has not explained to the Jury what is meant by the offence of robbery.2. It has been held in this Court in a case very similar to the present that under Section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Judge must explain to the Jury the law by which they are to be guided and that, if he fails to do so, the verdict must be set aside (Mari Velayan v. Emperor 30 MA. 44 : 5 M.L.T. 399 : 5 Cri. L.J. 78).3. Following that ruling we are constrained to set aside the conviction and direct a re-trial....
Govivdaswami thevan Vs. T.M. Doraiswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.781
1. The question in this case relates to subrogation. Is the 4th defendant, the purchaser of items Nos. 1 to 26, entitled to stand in the shoes of Chengammal, the 1st mortgagee, against the plaintiff, the puisne incumbrancer? Chengammal had a mortgage on items Nos. 1 to 13. The 4th defendant agreed to pay off Chengammal's mortgage with part of the purchase-money, and it was so discharged. He also agreed to discharge the plaintiff's mortgage with the remainder of the purchase-money, but failed to do so. He contends that he is entitled, on the principle of the decision in Gokaldas Gopaldas v. Puranmal Premsukh Das 10 C. 1035 : 11 I.A. 126, to keep alive Chengammal's mortgage as it is for his benefit to do so. The District Judge, relying on Srinivasachari v. Gnana, Prakasa Mudaliar 30 M. 67 : 2 M.L.T. 36, has refused to uphold his contention. We may at once say that the decision in Srinivasachari v. Gnana Prakasa Muduliar 30 M. 67 : 2 M.L.T. 36, has no application. There the first mortgage...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »