Chennai Court January 1911 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.
Kalinga Hebbra Vs. Narasimha Hebbra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ631
1. The preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies in this matter by reason of the provisions of the New Civil Procedure Code. There can be no doubt, reading Order XL(iii), Rule 1, Clause (j) and Section 104 and Order XXI, Rules 92 and 89 together, that if the new code applies to the present case the decree-holder has no right of appeal. The facts upon which it must be decided whether the present code governs the case are that the decree-holder filed his appeal against the order of the Munsif when the code of 1882 was still in force, but before the Subordinate Judge passed his order the present code had come into force. The general principle which regulates the question whether a new statute deprives a litigant who had a right of appeal which he enjoyed under the repealed statute is thus stated by Lord Macnaghten : 'And therefore the only question is, was the appeal to His Majesty in Council a right vested in the appellants at the date of the passing of the Act or w...
Sri Rajah Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Vs. Gun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.504
1. It has been found that the plaintiff's mortgagor had no title as the sale to him was collusive, but the District Judge has given the plaintiff a decree on the ground that he was a bona fide mortgagee without notice. No issue on this question was raised in the Courts below and we think the parties should have an opportunity of adducing evidence before the issue is disposed of. We must, therefore, ask the District Judge to find whether the plaintiff is a bona fide mortgagee without notice. Fresh evidence may be taken. The finding should be submitted within six weeks and seven days are allowed for filing objections.2. In compliance with the above order, the District Judge of Kistna submitted the following.Finding3. The High Court has ordered a finding 'Whether the plaintiff is a bona fide mortgagee without notice' and has ordered that fresh evidence may be taken.4. Both rides have examined evidence. The plaintiff's side re-calling some of the original plaintiff's witnesses, including p...
Kalinga Hebbara Vs. Narasima Hebbara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.937
1. The preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies in this matter by reason of the provisions of the new Civil Procedure Code. There can be no doubt, reading Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (j) and Section 104 and Order XXI, Rules 92 and 89 together, that if the new Code applies to the present case, the decree-holder has no right of appeal. The facts upon which it must be decided whether the present Code governs the case are that the decree-holder filed his appeal against the order of the Munsif when the Code of 1832 was still in force, but before the Subordinate Judge passed his order the present Code had come into force. The general principle which regulates the question whether a new statute deprives a litigant who had a right of appeal which he enjoyed under the repealed statute is thus stated by Lord Macnaghten and, therefore, the only question is was the appeal to his Majesty in Council a right vested in the appellants at the date of the passing of the Act or was ...
Maddipoti Chinna Veeranna and ors. Vs. G. Narayanasawmy Naidu, Receive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1009
ORDER1. It seems to us that no sanction ought to be granted for making the Receiver party to these proceedings, because the real dispute is as to possession between the petitioners, the old tenants, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the new tenants to whom the Receiver granted leases about the 25th August 1910. That the Receiver is entitled to the rents of the lands is not disputed. It is true that in one paragraph of his affidavit the Receiver says that since June 1910 he has been in possession but the rest of his affidavit showed that he had leased the lands to the new tenants who are in possession. Further, we may state that Mr. Nagabhushanam appearing for the Receiver says that his client does not claim to be himself in actual possession. We, therefore, hold that the Receiver is not a proper party to these proceedings. The ruling in Dunne v. Kumar Chandra Kisore 30 CP. 593 referred to by the Magistrate, has no application to the present case inasmuch as the Receiver's posses...
Palakunnath Kolayi Chathu Nair Vs. Narayana Mangalath Soolapani Variar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1010
1. The plaintiff holds an otti mortgage over certain lands belonging to the temple of which the first defendant is the uralan. The 1st defendant called upon plaintiff to advance without interest a further sum of Rs. 2,000 which he stated was required for discharging debts which the temple had contracted (Exhibit B). The plaintiff required the 1st defendant to satisfy him that the sum was for dewasvam necessity and expressed his readiness to advance a reasonable sum for interest (Exhibit I).2. The 1st defendant then required the plaintiff to deposit the amount demanded with, some third person and he would then satisfy the plaintiff about the necessity for the loan. No further correspondence took place between the parties. The first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,500 and odd or 2,000 from the 15th defendant and created an otti in his favour. Of this amount a sum of Rs. 1,050 was to be used for discharging a kanom, mortgage held by the 15th defendant over certain other properties after...
In Re: Lal Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.288a
1. The Jury found that the jewel belonged to the complainant and that it was stolen by the burglars on the night of 1st June last, and about 12 days afterwards it was found on the neck of the accused's sister who lived in the same house as the accused when the house was searched on suspicion. The Jury were satisfied that under the circum stances the jewel was traced to the possession of the accused. The learned Judge expresses himself as doubtful whether the verdict of the Jury is right as he thinks that the fact that the jewel was found in the house of the accused on the neck of his sister does not show that it was necessarily in the possession of the accused and relying upon Empress v. Mathan 6 B. 731, he has referred the case to us under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code. That section authorises a reference against the verdict of a Jury only when such, verdict, in the opinion of the Judge, is clearly wrong. It seems to us that upon the facts of this case it is difficult to say th...
Mohamed Ali Sultan Vs. Hajee Abdul Khaelvi Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.565
1. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. We are unable to agree with him in his conclusion. The plaint is not very artistically framed but the main allegations are that plaintiff's father Mustan Rowther appointed one Mahomed Lebbai Rowther who was the father of the 2nd and 4th defendants, husband of the 3rd defendant and brother of the first defendant, as trustee of his properties with directions inter alia to marry them during the plaintiff's minority and to hand them over to the plaintiff on his attaining the age of majority, that though Mahomed Lebbai alone was appointed trustee the first defendant, his brother, was also managing the properties and that the first defendant is also, therefore, accountable as trustee for the management during Mahomed Lebbai's trusteeship; that before his death in April 1893 Mahomed appointed the first defendant as the plaintiff's guardian for his property; that the first defendant was als...
Chinnu Pillai, Minor by Guardian Ramachandram Pillai Vs. Kalimuthu Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ246
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. I would answer the question which has been referred to us in the affimative.2. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh I.L.R. (1879) C. 184 an alienation by a co-parcener of his joint interest in family property is inconsistent with the strict theory of a joint and undivided Hindu family. But the doctrine recognizing this right is well established in this Presidency, and it seems to me to be only the logical development of this doctrine that, for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of interest alienated, the test to apply should be the state of the family, as regards the number of co-parceners, at the time the alienation is made, and not the state of the family when the owner of the interest seeks to reduce his interest into possession. Seeing that the right of alienation is really inconsistent with the theory of the undivided family; it is perhaps not unnatural that the courts have shrunk from recognising the d...
Mallikarjuna Dugget Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad21; 14Ind.Cas.401
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case, the Advocate-General, on behalf of the defendant, has tendered in evidence a document dated the 10th August 1900. The document is a report from the Tahsildar to the Collector of Chingleput district. It is in these terms:---Adverting to (a certain reference): I beg to state that the village Munsif of Inavaram reports that the charities referred to have not yet been commenced.' The Advocate-General tenders this, under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, as a 'statement of fact in issue or relevant fact,' the fact in issue or relevant fact' being that the charities in question have not been commenced;' in other words, he tenders it in evidence of the fact that the charities had not been commenced on the day when the report was made. Mr. Ramaswami Ayyar, on behalf of the plaintiff, has objected to this document and has contended it is not evidence under Section 35. The Advocate-General has also tendered in evidence certain other documents which he says are ad...
Chinnu Pillai, Minor, by Guardian Ramachandaram Pillai Vs. Kalimuthu C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.596
Arnold White, C.J.1. I would answer the question which has been referred to us in the affirmative.2. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh 5 CP. 148 : 4 C.L.R. 226 : 6 I.A. 88 an alienation by a co-parcener of his joint interest in family property is inconsistent with the strict theory of a joint and undivided Hindu family. But the doctrine recognizing this right is well-established in this Presidency and it seems to me to be only the logical development of this doctrine that for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of interest alienated the test to apply should be the state of the family, as regards the number of co-parceners, at the time the alienation is made and not the state of the family when the owner of the interest seeks to reduce his interest into possession. Seeing that the right of alienation is really inconsistent with the theory of the undivided family, it is, perhaps, not unnatural that the Courts have shrunk from recognising the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »