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.
Thiruvengada Mudaliar and anr. Vs. S. Sadagopa Mudalair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.811
1. The main question argued in this appeal was whether a partner, whose remedy against his co-partner for a general account is barred, can recover his share of a particular item of the partnership assets which the co-partner received after the dissolution of the partnership. Mr. K. Sirnivasa, Iyengar, who discussed the general principles relating to suits between partners at considerable length, was unable to cite any authority in support of his contention that such a suit cannot be maintained. He failed to convince us that there is anything in reason or in the principles which ordinarily guide the Court in actions between co-partners which should deter a Court from entertaining a suit like the present, if it be open to the defendant copartner to ask the Court to take accounts with a view to show that the plaintiff had received more than his share in the partnership assets. This is the view of the law taken in Sokkanadha Vanni Mundar v. Sokkanadha Vannimular 28 M. 344 following Merwanj...
In Re: Mahomed Yakoob
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.12a
ORDERMiller, J.1. The Sessions Judge has misapprehended the effect of the case, Queen-Empress v. Dalip 18 A. 246, to which he seems to refer. In that case the constable sent exceeded his authority and so could not be said to be in the execution of his duty, but the learned Judges nowhere suggest that the duty must be a particular duty imposed expressly by the law on the particular occasion. Here, in the view of the evidence taken by the Magistrate from which the Sessions Judge is not prepared to differ, the constable was employed to watch the accused. That was undoubtedly his duty at the time of the offence, and it is found that the accused knew it. The constable was not doing any thing in excess of his authority, when he was assaulted. The conviction under Section 332 should have been confirmed and I make the alteration accordingly. I am not asked to interfere with the sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge....
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.731
1. The plaintiff alleged that a certain Calengula which regulated the supply of water for irrigation to his land had fallen into disrepair and the Government officers being bound to repair it failed to do so. In, consequence of this failure, his land received no water and his crop was lost. He sued for compensation to the extent of the value of the crop which but for the failure of the water-supply he might have got.2. Both Courts below have considered the question whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the Government and though the written statement does not, distinctly raise this question, we have dealt with it. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the District Munsif was right and that the Government is not under an obligation with regard to each individual ryot to repair irrigation works whenever they require repair. There is no case, so far as we know in which a claim like the present has ever been made in India, whether against the Government or against a zam...
Sri Raja Visweswara Nissenka Bahadur Garu Zamindar of Sangamvalsa Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.401a
1. The suit is for resumption of certain lands held by the defendants on Gadaba service. The defendants at first denied the service but afterwards pleaded that the grant was burdened with service.2. The grant was subsequent to the permanent settlement. The burden is on the defendants to show in such a case that the grant was not in lieu of service: See Sanyasi v. Salur Zamindar 7 M. 268; Mahadevi v. Vikrama Razu 14 M. 365; Sri Rajah Sobbanadri Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sri Rajah Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao Bahadur 20 M. 403.3. The defendants have adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption. The mere length of enjoyment (40 years) and the uniform Kathubadi are insufficient to rebut the presumption.4. The Subordinate Judge holds, and we think rightly, that if the burden be upon the defendant he has not discharged it. We must reverse the decrees of both the lower Courts and decree possession of land sued for with costs throughout.5. The amount of profits claimed is not disputed; the plaintiff wi...
Palaniappa Asary and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad139
ORDERMiller, J.1. The Subdivisional Magistrate proceeding under Section 117 as nearly as practicable in the same way as under Section 242, Criminal Procedure Code, had to state to the accused, so to style them, the particulars of the matter against them and ask them if they could show cause why they should not be required to execute bonds.2. He says that he made an order under Section 112, an order which appears in the form of a summons, and I understand that that order was explained to the accused.3. But the Subdivisional Magistrate instead of asking them if they were prepared to show cause why they should not be required to execute bonds put this question to them:Are you willing to execute the bonds required, or do you wish for further enquiry?4. And they replied that they would execute bonds. It seems to me that this was a misleading question not calculated to ascertain the truth of the information against the accused. They were not asked whether the information was true or false an...
Koila thevan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.797
ORDERMiller, J.1. The accused was a Kallan and was found by the Village Magistrate guilty of abusive language and sentenced to three hours confinement in the stocks. The offence was undoubtedly an offence of abusive language and the Village Magistrate was competent to punish it. But I am bound by the decision in Queen v. Nabi Sahib 6 M.A 247; Rattigadu v. Konda Reddi 24 M. 271 and it seems to me that the interpretation put in those cases on the phrase in the Regulation, the lower castes of the people would exclude the Kalian caste from that category. I do not think the Kalians were ever regarded as a servile caste. The sentence is set aside. No further proceedings need be taken in the matter....
In Re: Palaniappa Asary and ors. Vs. Â
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.682
ORDERMiller, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeding under Section 117 as nearly as practicable in the same way as under Section 242, Criminal Procedure Code, had to state to the accused so to style them, the particulars of the matter against them and ask them if they could show cause why they should not be required to execute bonds. He says that he made an order under Section 112--an order which appears in the form of a summons--and 1 understand that that order was explained to the accused.2. But the Sub-Divisional Magistrate instead of asking them if they were prepared to show cause why they should not be required to execute bonds; put this question to them. Are you willing to execute the bond required, or do you wish for further enquiry? and they replied that they would execute bonds. It seems to me that this was a misleading question not calculated to ascertain the truth of the information against the accused; they were not asked whether the information was true or false and ...
N.S. Narayanasami Aiyer and anr. Vs. Vathiar Rama Aiyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.252
1. The finding is that the 1st defendant was let into possession on condition of doing prohit service, and that since 1880, the 1st defendant has ceased to perform prohit service. The mere fact that the 1st defendant has ceased to perform service is not sufficient to make the 1st defendant's possession adverse--Komargowda v. Bhimaji Keshiv 23 B. 602.2. Even as to the non-performance of service, we have to point out that the 1st defendant in his written statement alleged that he was performing prohit service, an allegation which the Subordinate Judge appears to have overlooked. We must, therefore, ask the Subordinate Judge to find whether the possession of the 1st defendant is adverse to the plaintiffs and, if so, when it became adverse.3. The finding should be submitted within 6 weeks, and 7 days, will be allowed for filing objections.4. In compliance with the above judgment, the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Madura (West) submitted the following FINDING.1. It has been found in the ca...
Mathew Henry Abraham Vs. the Lodge good Will No. 465, Represented by D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ383
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The learned District Judge has dismissed the suit brought by M. Henry Abraham as executor of Mathew Abraham for recovery of money due on a Promissory Note executed on the 12th November 1891 in the latter's favour by certain office-bearers of the Lodge ' Good Will,' No. 465 of Bellary, on the ground that though the document marked as Exhibit IV in the case and executed by Mathew Abraham on the 21st February 1902 is not operative as a release, yet since the Lodge regarded it as such, being led so to regard it by the conduct of Mathew Abraham at the time of its execution, and completed the building of the Lodge premises on the faith of such belief, the plaintiff is estopped from enforcing his claim. No estoppel, however, was ever pleaded, and the issues did not raise the question, nor is there any evidence on the point except a statement of the last witness of the defendants elicited in the course of re-examination. The District Judge, therefore, was not right in dismiss...
M. Chengiah Vs. Umadai Rajah Raja Damara Kumara Thimma Nayanim Bahadur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ555
Munro, J.1. The first question with which I propose to deal is whether, as contended by the appellant (2nd defendant) and by the 1st defendant in his Memorandum of Objections, the leases of 1894 evidenced by Exhibits A and B were determined in 1897. Exhibit XXIX of the 26th Sept. 1897 shows that the 1st defendant in whose favor Exhibits A and B were executed had fallen into arrears, and that the Tahsildar proposed to the Dewan that the leases should be cancelled for breach of the condition to pay the rent according to the kists. This was followed by Exhibit X, which is dated the 24th October 1897. This is from the Tahsildar to the 1st defendant, and informs the latter that, as he had fallen into arrears and was raising unnecessary disputes, a hukum had been issued on the 22nd October 1897-this was a hukum issued by the Dewan as appears from Exhibit XI-cancelling his Izara in accordance with the last term in Exhibits A and B, and directing the villages comprised in the leases to be take...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »