Chennai Court September 1910 Judgments
T.V. Tuljaram Row Vs. M.K.R.V. Alagappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad1
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question we have to determine in this ease turns on the meaning of the word 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, I find it impossible to reconcile the decisions on the point.2. I do not think the word 'judgment' is used in contradistinction to the worlds 'sentence' or 'order' which immediately follow it. The words 'not being a sentence or order passed or made in any criminal trial,' as it seems to me, were introduced in order to exclude all criminal proceedings from the operation of the section and that it is not to be inferred from the introduction of these words that the legislature intended that the word ' judgment should include all orders in civil proceedings.3. Further, I am not prepared to infer, from the fact that in Sections 39 and 40 of the Letters Patent a distinction is drawn between final judgments, decrees or orders, and interlocutory judgments, decrees or orders, that the word ' judgment ' in Section 15 is to be deemed to include any or...
Tag this Judgment!Haidar Syed Bacha Sahib Vs. Karuppanna Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ449
1. The only question raised by the present appeal relates to the construction of Exhibit XI (c) that is, a decree in pursuance of a compromise between the parties in a previous suit (O.S. No 256 of 1900) for recovery of the amount due to the present plaintiff, appellant, on account of his share. The question is, did the decree settle the dispute between the parties as to the share to which the plaintiff was entitled? The decree does not in so many words purport to decide what is the proper share of the plaintiff. Does what is decided thereby involve then a decision as to the share to which the plaintiff was entitled? Paragraph 1 recites that the 4th defendant in that suit, the 1st respondent, admitted that the plaintiff was entitled to a 7 3/8th share with his brother.2. The parties consented to a decree in favour of the plaintiff for certain faslis on that basis. But the acceptance by the plaintiff of the amount due to him for a particular period calculated on the basis of his share a...
Tag this Judgment!Arakal Bastian Ansap and ors. Vs. Nakayana Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad405
1. The application for probate of the will was dismissed on the ground that the will had been revoked by marriage. The appellant does not contend that the will had not been revoked. He says the defendants had no locus standi to oppose the application for probate. They are judgment-creditors of the son of the deceased, two of whom had attached the son's interest in his deceased father's estate before the application for probate was made. The District Judge followed the authorities In the matter of the petition of Nilmoney Singh Umanath Mookho-padhya v. Nilmoney Singh I.L.R. 19 (1881) Cal. 429 and Kishen Dai v. Satyendranath Dutt I.L.R. 19 (1901) Cal. 441. In the latter case the Privy Council's decision in Nilmoni Singh Deo v. Umanath Mookerjee I.L.R. 19 (1884) Cal. 19 was considered. We are not prepared to say he was wrong.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs--two sets....
Tag this Judgment!Devulapalli Kameswara Sastry and ors. Vs. Polavarapu Veeracharlu, Mino ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ855
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I entirely agree in the conclusion reached by my brother Krishnaswami Aiyar in the learned and instructive judgment which he is about to read. I have nothing to add. The decree of the Subordinate Judge will be set aside as regards the 3rd defendant and that of the District Munsif will be restored. There will be no costs.Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.2. This second appeal has been preferred against the decree of the Subordinate Judge disallowing the plaintiffs' claim against the 3rd defendant's share in the mortgaged property. The mortgage was executed by the 1st defendant, the father, and the 2nd defendant, the adult son, while the 3rd defendant, a minor, was represented by the father, who also signed the document as his guardian. The money was borrowed for the marriage expenses of the ind defendant. The defendants have been dealt with as Sudras in this case, and no question has been raised as regards the correctness of that view. It is contended that the Subordinate Judge is...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Chetty Vs. Rajajagaveera Rama Venkateswara Ettappa Maharaja A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad134
Ayling, J.1. The sole question for determination in these appeals is the right of the respondent, the Zamindar of Ganta-manaickanur to charge rent at the enhanced rate of eight fanams a guli on lands originally dry, but cultivated with garden crops by means of wells sunk at the tenant's sole cost.2. This right was originally based (1) on an alleged custom and (2) on an implied contract. With the former we have now nothing to do. As pointed out by Subramania Ayyar, J., in his judgment in this case when it first came before this Court Aru-mugam Chetti v. Raja Jagaveera Rama Venkateswara Ettappa I.L.R. (1905) Mad. 444. Such a custom even if established would be unenforceable as conflicting with Section 11 of Madras Act VIII of 1865; and in Arumugam Chetti v. Raja Venkateswara Ettappa L.P.A. Nos. 35 to 61 of 1905,(unreported)the judgment, in upholding the order of remand specially lays down that the question of custom could not be reopened (vide also Paramasami Iyengar v. Pusala Tevan : (1...
Tag this Judgment!Devulapalli Kameswara Sastri and ors. Vs. Polavarapu Veeracharlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad422
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I entirely agree is the conclusion reached by my brother Krishnaswami Aiyar in the learned and instructive judgment which he is about to read. I have nothing to add. The decree of the Subordinate Judge will be set aside as regards the third defendant, and that of the District Munsif will be restored. There will be no coats.Krishnaswami Ayyar, J.2. This second appeal has been preferred against the decree of the Subordinate Judge disallowing the plaintiff's claim against the third defendant's share in the mortgaged property. The mortgage was executed by the first defendant, the father, and the second defendant, the adult son, while the third defendant a minor was represented by the father, who also signed the document as his guardian. The money was borrowed for the marriage expenses of the second defendant. The defendants have been dealt with as Sudras in this case, and no question has been raised as regards the correctness of that view. It is contended that the Subordi...
Tag this Judgment!Bellary Press Company, Limited by their Agent Mathura Dass Vs. K. Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ829
1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the order of transfer made by the District Judge of Bellamy in. O.S. No. 155 and 78 of 1910, and of Interlocutory Applications Nos. 486, 538 and 612 of 1910, on the file of the District Munsif of Bellary. We think there is no ground for interfering with the order of transfer as regards suits Nos. 155 and 78 and Applications. Nos. 486 and 612. It is argued that the order was bad in as much as no notice was given to the plaintiff as required by Section 24. That section empowers the District Court to make a transfer on the application of a party after notice to all, or of its own motion without such notice. The order in these cases was made on the application of the defendant. Notice to all parties should have been given by the District Judge before making the order. Not giving the notice we may, therefore, assume, was an irregularity. We should have been inclined to regard it also as a material irregular...
Tag this Judgment!Subadramma and anr. Vs. Satyam Swami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.895
ORDERAiyling, J.1. I think it is quite clear that the attachment of the property directed in the Magistrate's order dated the 2nd November 1909, is under Clause 4 of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and not under Section 146. This is obvious from the fact that no enquiry under Section 145 regarding possession had been even commenced at the time of attachment.2. Viewed as an order under Section 145 Clause (4), it appears to be perfectly legal, as it contains in itself every thing required to satisfy the requirements of Clause (1) of the same section. I find no ground for interfering with the attachment.3. The appointment of a Receiver, however, appears to be ultra vires. The only section authorising such a step is Clause (2) of Section 146, Section 146 authorises attachment in certain cases after conclusion of the possession enquiry and there is no such attachment here. I cannot accept the suggestion of respondent's Vakil that this Clause (2) is intended to apply to attachments und...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Perumal Muthirian and ors. Vs. Pichan Alias Karupan Muthirian an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ574
1. The second defendant, in the first suit having died and his legal representatives not having been brought on the record within the time allowed by law, the first question is whether the suit, which was one in ejectment, abated only as against him or against the other defendants as well The language of Section 368 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 is no doubt, general, but that section, has been the subject of many decisions, and we think the view taken of it in Joy Gobind Saha v. Manmatha Nath Batterji and Upendra Kumar Chakravarth v. Sham Lal Mandal I. L. R. (1907) C. 1020 is correct. No doubt, in a case like the one in Raj Chunder Sen v. Ganga Das Seal and Ramgate Dhur v. Raj Chunder Sen I. L. R. (1904) C. 487 where the suit was for taking accounts and the winding up of the affairs of a partnership, the right of action could not be said to survive against the remaining defendants partners alone, since the relief, in a suit of that nature, can Only be grafted when all the part...
Tag this Judgment!Vagadhu and anr. Vs. Haddu Maharanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.870a
1. The parties stipulated that in case the Government dispossessed the plaintiffs of the lands purchased by them from the defendant, the latter would have to refund the purchase money. The Munsif seems to think that such a stipulation is unlawful. He is quite wrong in that view. The suit must be decreed with costs throughout and the plaintiffs shall have a decree for the amount claimed against the defendants Nos. 4 to 6 personally and against the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to the extent of the joint family property in their hands....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »