Chennai Court April 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: Mr. M.D. a Vakil of the High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ494
1. For the purposes of the question with which we have to deal to day we assume that the Vakil had authority from the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit to receive the purchase money of the house on their behalf.2. The Vakil, who was called by the plaintiffs as a witness at the hearing of the suit, admitted that he had used the money for his own purposes. It is clear that the only justification for his doing this would be an express authority from the parties on whose behalf he had received the money. He stated in his evidence that he had used the money for his own purposes with the consent of the 2nd defendant and the mother of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. As regards the 1st defendant, the Vakil stated that the 1st defendant said the money was to remain with him and that it had been settled that the sale proceeds were to be invested with him.3. The 1st defendant denied that he authorized the Vakil to retain any portion of the purchase money.4. The Vakil having, as we assume, received ...
In Re: Gopalakrishna Heggade
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ534
1. The document, Exhibit D, is merely a copy of the alleged false document and does not come within the definition of a false document. The conviction under Section 471, I.P. C, cannot therefore stand.2. We set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant of an offence under Section 471, I.P.C. The bail bonds are discharged....
Vuppuluri Tatayya Alias Veeranna Vs. Garimalla Ramakrishmamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ798
1. The second appeal is argued as regards the validity of the gift of Item No. II. Lakshmamma who succeeded to estate of her father on his death in the sixties made a gift of 49 cents of her father's property to the 3rd defendant. The extent of laud which came to her from her father was about 19 acres, apart from houses and house sites and moveable property. The gift was made on the occasion of the Pushkaram at Rajahmundry, a peculiarly holy event amongst Hindus which happens once in twelve years. She was the person to perform her father's shradh on his death, there being no brothers and her mother having died before him. She performed the shradh on the occasion of the Pushkaram and made the gift of the land as part of the shradh ceremony. The plaintiff, a reversioner, impeaches the gift.2. Under the Hindu Law in force in this Presidency the daughter is limited owner like the widow, and her powers of alienation as regards property which she has inherited from her father are no greater ...
Rajah Damara Kumar Thimma Nayanim Bahadur Varu Vs. Bukkapatnam Venkata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ805
1. We are of opinion that the appellant in the present case did appeal against the decree, within the meaning of Section 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882) though the only reason for the appeal was the erroneous decision in regard to the interlocutory order. But the terms of the section, in our opinion, allow such an appeal.2. The decision of the Subordinate Judge as to the construction of Section 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure is, no doubt, in accordance with the decisions in Sher Singh v. Diwar Singh I.L.R. (1900) A. 366 and Causannel v. Gomes I.L.R. (1899) M. 260. But the former is based on an obiter dictum in Sher Singh v. Diwar Singh I.L.R. (1900) A. 366 and the decision in Causannel v. Gomes I.L.R. (1899) M. 260 is doubted in Godavari Samulu v. GajaPathi Narayana Deo I.L.R. (1889) M. 494 wherein it is pointed out that it is doubtful if it can be reconciled with the earlier decision reported in Sankaralinga Mudali v. Ruthnasabapathy Mudali.I.L.R. (1897) M. 32...
Raja Dhamara Kumar Thimma Nayanim Bahadur Garu Vs. Bukkapatnam Venkata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad228
1. We are of opinion that the appellant in the present case did appeal against the decree, within the meaning of Section 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882), though the only reason for the appeal was the erroneous decision in regard to the interlocutory order. But the terms of the section in our opinion allow such an appeal. The decision of the Subordinate Judga as to the construction of Section 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure is, no doubt, in accordance with the decisions in Sher Singh v. Diwan Singh I.L.R. (1900) All. 366 and Caussanal v. Soures I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 260. But the former is based on an obiter dictum in Sheo Nath Singh v. Ram Din Singh I.L.R. (1896) All. 22 and the decision in Caussanal v. Soures I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 260 is doubted in Godavari Samulo v. Gajapathi Narayana Deo I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 494 where it is pointed out that it is doubtful if it can be reconciled with the earlier decision reported in Sankaralinga Mudali v. Ratnasabhapati Mudali I.L.R. ...
Rajah Dhamara Kumara Thimmanaynim Bahadur Varu Vs. Bukkapatnam Venkata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.239
1. We are of opinion that the appellant in the present case did appeal against the decree, within the meaning of Section 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882),though the only reason for the appeal was the erroneous decision in regard to the interlocutory order. Bat the terms of the section, in our opinion, allow such an appeal.2. The decision of the Subordinate Judge as to the construction of Section 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure is, no doubt, in accordance with the decision in Sher Singh v. Diwan Singh 22 A. 366 and Caussanel v. Soures 23 Ma. 260. But the former is based on an obiter dictum in. Sheo Nath Singh v. Ram Din Singh 18 A. 19 and the decision in Caussanel v. Soures 23 M. 260 is doubted in Godavari Samulo v. Gajapathi Narayana Deo 23 M. 494, where it is pointed out that it is doubtful if it can be reconciled with the earlier decision reported in, Sankaralinga. Mudali v. Ratnasabapathy Mudali 21 M. 324.3. The decisions in Googlee Sahoo v. Premlall Sahoo 7 C...
Pitchinathoo Vs. Ramasawmy Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.502
1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit lands claiming an exclusive title to them. It has been found that the lands do not belong to the plaintiff exclusively but jointly to the 3rd defendant and himself. The lands were sold by the 3rd defendant to the 1st defendant for a debt created by the plaintiff, the managing member. This sale being by a junior member was not binding on the plaintiff's interest. The question then is whether in the circumstances the plaintiff ran be given a decree and if so what decree. Nanabai v. Ronchod 26 B. 141 is authority for giving the plaintiff a decree for joint possession along with the 1st defendant to the extent of his--the plaintiff's--interest. We have rot been referred to any authority opposed to the view taken in the Bombay case cited. The existence of the decree, Exhibit M, is no obstacle to such a decree, as the decree-holder is competent to proceed against the whole of the mortgaged property whoever is in possession,...
In Re: High Court Vakil Vs. Â
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.310
1. For the purposes of the question with which we have to deal today, we assume that the Vakil had authority from the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit to receive the purchase-money of the house on their behalf.2. The Vakil, who was called by the plaintiff as a witness at the hearing of the suit, admitted that he had used the money for his own purposes. It is clear that the only justification for his doing this would be an express authority from the parties on whose behalf he had received the money. He stated in his evidence that he had used the money for his own purposes with the consent of the 2 defendant and the mother of defendants Nos. 1 and 2.3. As regards the 1st defendant, the Vakil stated that the 1st defendant said the money was to remain with him. It had been settled that the sale proceeds were to to be invested with him. The 1st defendant denied that he authorised the Vakil to retain any portion of the purchase-money.4. The Vakil having, as we assume, received the money on...
Rangasawmi Iyengar Vs. Annathurai Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ852
1. The suit is on a mortgage executed by the father of the 1st defendant in favour of the 1st defendant's daughter. The 1st defendant sued in O.S. No. 407 of 1903 for a declaration that the mortgage had been discharged by his father before his death. The suit was dismissed on appeal. The question is whether the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants, who are the sons of the 1st defendant, can plead discharge of the mortgage as a defence to the present suit. It is the case of both sides that the answer depends on the further question whether the 1st defendant conducted the suit of 1903 on behalf of his family as managing member thereof. The Subordinate Judge says there is nothing to show that he maintained that suit in his representative capacity as manager of the family and not in his individual capacity; and against this it is contended for the appellant that the circumstances found raise a presumption that the suit was on behalf of the family. These circumstances are that the interests of the 1...
M.A. Pakir Mahomed Rowthar and ors. Vs. the South Indian Export Co. Ld ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.108
1. This appeal is by defendants Nos. 3 to 8 in the suit from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, who held the appellants liable on a deed of mortgage, marked as Exhibit A in the case, executed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, the South Indian Export Co., Ltd, by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants Nos. 9 to 15 are his representatives. No appeal has been preferred by them or by the 2nd defendant. The 6th defendant, the mother of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and 8 died during the pendency of the appeal. The defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are the sons of one M. Allapichai Rowther (deceased), the 6th defendant is his widow and the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 are his daughters. The plaintiffs claim to recover the sum of Rs. 39,199-0-8 with interest, the amount advanced by them from time to time to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on security of the properties mentioned in the schedules to the plaint and alleged to belong to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »