Chennai Court September 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.
Chandana Venkatadri Vs. M. Lakshminarasimha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ80
1. A negotiable promissory note executed in. favour of the 3rd defendant as manager of his family fell in a partition of the joint family property to the share of the 1st plaintiff and his son. There is no endorsement on the note, and it is, therefore, contended that the plaintiffs cannot sue on the note. Though there is no endorsement on the note it is clear that the note could be transferred otherwise than by endorsement - Muhammad Ummar Ali v. Ranga Rao I.L.R. (1901) M. 652. It is contended, relying on Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the transfer must be evidenced by an assignment in writing. Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, however, does not, in our opinion, apply in view of Section 137 of the Act which declares that Section 130 among other sections does not apply to instruments which are for the time being, by law or custom, negotiable. At the time of the alleged transfer in this case the promissory note was certainly negotiable. It was no doubt held ...
Appanna Vs. Pithani Mahalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad545
ORDER1. The charge against the accused was under Sections 148 and 325, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 148, but convicted them under Section 325 The accused then appealed to the Sessions Judge who was of opinion that the accused should have been convicted under Section 147. Indian Penal Code, but thought he could not interfere with be acquittal. Here the Sessions Judge was clearly wrong Under Section 423 (6) (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellate Court may alter the finding maintaining the sentence and there is nothing to restrict the finding which may be altered to a finding of conviction. We agree with the decision in Queen Empress v. Jabanulla I.L.R. 6 (1896) Cal. 975 which cannot, we think, with respect be distinguished in the manner in which it was sought to be distinguished in Sami Ayya v. Emperor I.L.R. 6 (1903) Mad 478. In the Calcutta case there was no appeal by Government against the acquittal, but the High Court was dealing ...
Appanna Vs. Pethani Mahalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.861a
ORDER1. The charge against the accused was under Sections 148 and 325, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 148 hut convicted them under Section 325. The accused then appealed to the Sessions Judge who was of opinion that the accused should have been convicted under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, but though he could not interfere with the acquittal. Here the Sessions Judge was clearly wrong under Section 423(b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellate Court may alter the finding maintaining the sentence and there is nothing to restrict the finding which may be altered to a finding of conviction. We agree with the decision in Queen-Empress v. Jubanulla 23 C. 970, which cannot, we think, with respect, be distinguished in the manner in which it was sought to be distinguished in Sami Ayya v. Emperor 20 M. 478 : 13 M.L.J. 263. In the Calcutta case there was no appeal by Government against the acquittal, but the High Court was dealing with an appe...
Midutha Perumal Naick Vs. M. Perumal Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.862
1. The question is whether the property is the separate property of the 1st defendant : and the Exhibits A, B. and C contain admissions by first defendant that a part of his property was ancestral: if that is true, the burden of proof is put upon him to show that particular properties were acquired without the aid of the ancestral property. The Subordinate Judge, dealing with these admissions, holds, that they must have been false statements made by the 1st defendant and that the burden of proof is not put upon him, but we are unable to accept the explanations suggested by the Subordinate Judge. They are improbable and have nothing to support them. The explanation of the first defendant himself that he made the admissions under a misapprehension of the legal meaning of 'Self-acquired property' is different and the Subordinate Judge has not found whether it is true or false.2. The admissions, contained in Exhibits A, B and C, are prima facie evidence of the existence of ancestral proper...
Kandukuri Mahalakshmamma Garu, Proprietrix of Urlam and ors. Vs. the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ823
Miller, J.1. The questions for decision in all these appeals except Appeal No. 41 of 1905, which is for costs only, relate to the right claimed by the Government to charge a water cess under Act VII of 1865 (Madras) on lands in the Urlam Zemindari and lukulam Agraharam in the Chicacole Taluk of the Ganjam District, irrigated from four channels, the Jalmuru, Polaki, Lukulam and Mobagam channels, all of which take off from the left bank of the river Vamsadhara.2. The cess objected to by the Zemindar and Agraharamdars has been levied in some cases on irrigated second crop grown on land classed as ' dry ' or unirrigated land. The Zemindar and the Agraharamdars claim the right to irrigate free of cess all the land ' dry' or ' wet' which the channels will command, and as many crops as can be raised thereon. 3. The Government will be entitled under the Act of 1865 to charge water cess if the water with which the lands are irrigated is supplied from a river or channel belonging to, or a work c...
Kuthulingam Pillai Vs. Packiyam Fernandez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ422
Miller, J.1. I think it is clear, and indeed it is not denied, that in order to effect a transfer of ownership of a negotiable instrument, an endorsement is not in general required by law, but it is contended that the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 80 and 81, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, show that an endorsement is required when the negotiable instrument is sold by court auction, I cannot accede to this contention : Rule 80, as I understand it, merely enables the court to take such steps as may be required by law to make an effective transfer, and in as much as a negotiable instrument can legally be transferred as an actionable claim without endorsement, Rule 80 does not affect the present case, The property not being property which requires an endorsement for its transfer appears to be property not otherwise provided for within the meaning of Rule 81 and vests in the purchaser on his obtaining a vesting order. The plaintiff obtained a vesting order before his decree though ap...
Kandukuri Mahalakshmamma Garu, Proprietrix of Urlam and ors. Vs. the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad295
Miller, J.1. The questions for decision in all these appeals except Appeal No. 41 of 1905, which is for costs only, relate to the right claimed by the Government to charge a water-cess under Act VII of 1865 (Madras) on lands in the Urlam zamindari and Lukulam Agraharam in the Chicacole taluk of the Ganjam district, irrigated from four channels, the Jalmuru, Polaki, Lukulam and Mobagam channels, all of which take off from the left bank of the river Vamsadhara,2. The cess objected to by the zamindar and agraharamdars has been levied in some cases on irrigated second crop grown on land elapsed as irritable or ' wet' land, and in others on irrigated crops grown on land classed as 'dry' or unirrigated land. The zamindar and the agraharamdars claim the right to irrigate free of cess all the land ' dry ' or ' wet ' which the channels will command, and as many crops as can be raised thereon.3. The Government will be entitled under the Act of 1865 to charge water-cess if the water with which th...
Ramasami Reddi and ors. Vs. Authi Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad502
1. The plaintiffs, having obtained a decree in ejectment against the defendants, sued them for the profits of the land for fasli 1312. The present suits were instituted on the 11th February 1906, The objection was taken that the suits were barred. The District Judge held that Article 109 of schedule II of the Indian Limitation Act applied and that the suits were within time and remanded the cases to the Munaif, The defendants have preferred these appeals. The respondents raise a preliminary objection that no appeal lies in this case under order 43, Rule 1, Clause (u) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. There is a change of language in this clause of the new Code. It says that an appeal would lie from the remand order only if an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court. We have then to determine whether there would be a second appeal if the Appellate Court had passed a decree. The suit is framed as one for mesne profits. The form of the plaint determines the nature of the ...
Chidambara Velar Vs. Velu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.874a
Miller, J.1. The defendant sets up the title of Kandasami Pillai to half of the shop let to him. He is not prevented from doing so by the fact that Ramalingam's name alone appears in the lease. See Kuppu Konan v. Thirugnana Sammandam Pillai 31 M. 461. The District Munsif should have framed an issue dealing with this question. I must now do so and ask him to find whether the plaintiff's vendor Ramalingam Pillai was entitled to the whole shop of which the rent is claimed and as such entitled to collect all the rent.2. Fresh evidence may be adduced. The findings should be submitted within six weeks from this date and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.3. In compliance with the above Order, the District Munsif submitted the following FINDINGS.FINDING1. The point for decision is 'whether the plaintiff's vendor Ramalingam Pillai was entitled to the whole shop of which the rent is claimed and, as such, entitled to collect all the rent?'2. The defendant contends that plaintiff's ...
Poduru Basava Raju and anr. Vs. Poduru Bhoga Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.896
1. We think the lower appellate Court is right in its view that in the circumstances of this case, the father must be held to have represented his sons in the previous suit in which the question of the father's adoption was in issue and decided against the father. The learned pleader for the appellants has cited Ram Narain v. Bishesher Prasad 10 A. 411 and Sundar Lal v. Chhitar Mal 29 A. 1 : 3 A.L.J. 644 : 242A.W.N. (1906) in support of his contention, but we are not prepared to hold, on the authority of those two decisions, that in all cases a decree against the father will not bind the sons because the latter are jointly interested in the family property. The judgment in Second Appeal No. 1796 of 1908 does not lay down any proposition to the contrary. On the other hand, the decision in Subbanna Bhatta v. Subbanna 17 M.L.J. 180 : 30 M. 324 : 2 M.L.T. 83 and Kunjan Chetty v. Siddapillai 22 M. 461 shows that if on the facts of a particular case the father was held to have represented hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »