Chennai Court August 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.
N. Ekambaraswara Iyer Vs. M. Veerabadra thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.861
ORDER1. This is an application for transfer of a petition to grant sanction to prosecute a person accused of offences falling within Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section enacts that no Court shall take cognizance of any of the offences enumerated in Clauses (a) and (c) of the section except with the previous sanction on the complaint of the Court in which, or in relation to a proceeding in which the alleged offence is committed, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.2. Assuming then that Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives us power to transfer the application as being a Criminal case, the language of Section 195 indicates that any transfer so made would he ineffective and futile unless the transfer was made to a Court to which the Court before which the application is pending is subordinate for no Court could take cognizance of the case on a sanction granted by any Court not mentioned in the section. No auth...
Mohideen Khan Sahib Vs. Balai Khan Sahib Alias Beran Khan Sahib and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.868
1. The suit is not one falling under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as it asks for the removal of a trustee--vide Rangasami Naickan v. Varadappa Naichan 17 M. 462. The fact that no sanction was got under that section is, therefore, immaterial. As to the objection under Section 14 of Act XX of 1863, we think it necessary before deciding it to have a finding as to whether the trust in question was under the superintendence of the Board of Revenue prior to Act XX of 1863. Fresh evidence may be taken. The finding should be submitted within six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.2. [In compliance with the above order, the District Judge of South Arcot submitted the followingFINDING. 3. I have been directed to return a finding on the following issue:Whether the trust in question was under the superintendence of the Board of Revenue prior to Act XX of 1863. 4. Finding:-- The case coming on for hearing on 11th instant one witness was examined on be...
Rajah V. Kishen Bahadur Vs. Rajah Sir S. Ramasawmy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1910
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.491
Wallis, J.1. The plaintiff in this case seeks to recover the loss lie alleges he has sustained by acting on certain misrepresentations made by the defendant. The allegations in the plaint clearly amount to this that he has suffered injury in his personal estate, and, this being so, the case of Twycross v. Grant 4 C.P.D. 40 : 48 L.J. C.P. 1 : 39 L.T. 616 : 27 W.R. 87 shows that in England, under the liberal construction put upon the Statute of 4 Edw. 3, the cause of action survives to the executor or administrator and that such representative is entitled to come in and continue a suit of this nature pending at the time of his death. There is no reason for refusing to extend the benefit of the Statute of 4 Edw. 3 and the liberal construction put upon it to the City of Madras, and, in my opinion, it must be held that such a cause of action survives equally here. It is objected, however, that under that Statute it survives only to the executor. It is well settled in England, as pointed out...
Arunachala Reddi Vs. Perumal Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ635
1. In the former suit the then plaintiff set out the prior mortgage of the 6th defendant but did not make any allegation as to the amount, if any, then due under it nor ask that the sale should be made subject to it or free of it. The District Munsif found the amount due to be Rs. 178 on an issue raised by the 8th defendant in the suit, but on other grounds dismissed the suit The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge but did not, in his grounds of appeal, take any objection to, or make any mention of the finding on the question of the prior mortgages, and the decree of the District Judge is silent upon the point.2. The finding of the District Munsif who dismissed the suit cannot be incorporated by implication into the decree of the District Judge. When the suit was dismissed, the finding ceased to have any effect and we must take it that the decree of the District Judge did not dispose of or decide any question in regard to the prior mortgages. Srinivasa Rao Saheb v. Yamuna Bai Amma...
Arunachala Reddi Vs. Perumal Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.285
1. In the former suit the then plaintiff set out the prior mortgage of the 6th defendant but did not make any allegation as to the amount, if any, then due under it nor ask that the sale should be made subject to it or free of it. The District Munsif found the amount due to be Rs. 178 on an issue raised by the 8th defendant in the suit, but on other grounds dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge but did not in his grounds of appeal take any objection to, or make any mention of the finding on the question of the prior mortgages, and the decree of the District Judge is silent upon the point.2. The finding of the District Munsif who dismissed the suit cannot be incorporated by implication into the decree of the District Judge. When the suit was dismissed, the finding ceased to have any effect and we must take it that the decree of the District Judge did not dispose of or decide any question in regard to the prior mortgages. Srinivasa Bad Sahib v. Yamunabhai Ammal...
Rayapati Vencata Vasudeva Row and Moora Sreeramulu Vs. Sreemanti Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.897
1. Some clauses in the pattah are objected to. We think the Courts below are right as to the trees and new agricultural buildings. We must strike out the clause No. 6 as to double assessment on porambokes encroached upon. Poramboke is no part of the holding. And a pattah, which has to contain the terms of the tenancy as regards a particular holding, has no business to make provision for a case of trespass upon other land not included in the holding. The landlord has to seek protection in the general law. We modify the decrees of the lower appellate Court by striking out clause No. 6 of the pattah and otherwise, we dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Sree Rajah Kundukury Seshamma Garu Vs. Kaja Purushothama Somayajalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.860a
1. The cowle has not been exhibited in the case. The plaintiff having paid water-cess claims it from the defendant on the ground that the defendant treated the land as mamool wet in the cowle he granted. The defendant admits that the land was described ns mamool wet. But he does not admit that there was any provision for indemnity. The plaintiff does not seek to set aside the cowle on the ground of mutual mistake. The defendant did not authorize the plaintiff to take Government water on his responsibility. If the plaintiff has to pay Government, a cess for water which he takes from Government he has no cause of action to recover it from the defendant. We must set aside the Subordinate Judge's decree and dismiss the suit with costs throughout....
Chomu Hengsu and ors. Vs. Sankara Belchampada Alias Sankara Poojari an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.867
1. We think there is no evidence on which it can be held that the money was borrowed for family purpose. There is some evidence that some money was borrowed for the expenses of the defence of a member of the family who was prosecuted in a Criminal case but the nature of the Criminal case does not enable us to say that the defence was for a family purpose.2. The District Judge has not found whether the l0th defendant was in possession or the plaintiffs were in possession. We must ask for findings on the 2nd and 3rd issues on the evidence on record.3. The finding should be submitted within six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objection.4. In compliance with the above judgment the District Judge submitted the following FINDING1. Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a usufructuary mortgage deed by defendants Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 10th defendants does not bind the family of plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1-9.2. They succeeded. Tenth defendant appealed and this Court allowed the a...
Bangat Singh and anr. Vs. Bolama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.750
1. So long as the patta, which the landlord tenders to the ryot, has not been accepted by him, it seems to us impossible to hold that it is a lease for the purpose of the Registration Act. A lease necessarily involves the consensus ad idem of the minds of the lessor and the lessee, as is clearly recognised in the definition of a lease in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. It does not appear from the judgment in Vencatachellam Chetty v. Andian 3 M. 358, that the learned Judges had present to their minds the fact that the patta in that case had not been accepted by the tenant or that any argument was preferred to them suggesting that a patta not accepted could amount in law to a lease. The history of the legislation with regard to the registration of leases is referred to by the learned Judges as indicating that the word lease includes pittas and muchlikas, and this history may perhaps show that a patta, if accepted, is a lease, but does not lead to the conclusion that a pitta ...
iburamsa Rowthan and ors. Vs. Thiruvenkatasami Naick (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ743
1. The facts are sufficiently set out in the order of reference. It is unnecessary to recapitulate them here. We may begin with the proposition that a member of an undivided Hindu family cannot enforce a partial partition against the other members of the family. That is not disputed. The next proposition which is also beyond question is that a stranger purchasing the interest of one or more members of the family in certain items of family property cannot enforce a partition of those items only against the will of the other members without suing for a general partition of the entire family property. The principle of this rule is that there may be equities which those other members have against the vendor of the plaintiff which can only be worked out in a general suit for partition and in working out those equities the plaintiff's vendor and hence the plaintiff may be assigned a different item from the items he purported to buy or even a smaller share than those items represented. We com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »