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.
Muthukrishnan Chetty Vs. Annapurnathachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.803
1. The appeal relates to the validity of the sale of items Nos. 1 and 2. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the alienation must be upheld. Mr. Aiya Iyer contends that the Judge's observation that Srirangathammal took steps to enforce payment of her debts is not justified by the evidence. No doubt the first defendant's evidence on the point is contradicted by the testimony of the plaintiff as his own witness, but no reason is shown why we should differ from the Subordinate Judge from accepting the defendant's evidence. We may add that we cannot accept the contention, that actual demand by a creditor must be proved to justify a widow in selling her husband's property to discharge his debt. In this case the interest on the principal amount of Rs. 400 had amounted to Rs. 300 and the widow acted prudently in taking steps to discharge the debt. We confirm the lower Court's decision and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Vasudeva Mallaya and ors. Vs. Thathadi Naranappaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.787
1. We think that the Judge was clearly wrong in holding that the suit is barred by the rule of res judicata. The previous suit O.S. No. 223 of 1896 was one by Radhabai, the 2nd defendant in this suit, against the 1st defendant for the recovery of Rs. 500 out of the purchase-money he owed to Manjunatra Bandri on account of the sale by Manjunatra to the Ist defendant. A question was raised as to whether the sale to the 1st defendant was a valid transaction, and this question formed the subject of the 4th issue in O.S. No. 223 of 1896. This might have been a material issue in that suit but the further question whether the mortgage by the 1st defendant to Subraya was a genuine and valid transaction or a sham or fraudulent one was not material for the decision of Badhabai's claim against the 1st defendant. This being the case, the finding on that question cannot bar the plaintiff's suit. We reverse the decision of the lower Court and remand the suit for fresh disposal according to law. The ...
Muttevi Pattabhi Ramanujacharyalu and anr. Vs. Peddinti Alahaswgaracha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ490
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff (Respondent) to recover the office of Archakar of a certain temple for 4 days in each month. The post was held by the plaintiff's mother up to her death in 1901, partly in virtue of a demise (Exhibit III) executed by her husband in 1877 shortly before his death, and partly in virtue of the decree of this Court, Exhibit VIII(b) in Second Appeal No. 1185 of 1896, declaring her right to succeed to that portion of the office (2 days monthly) which the plaintiff had succeeded to on his father's death and which he resigned in 1894.2. The correctness of the present decree in so far as it relates to the first portion is not questioned in the coarse of the hearing in this court, but the plaintiff's right to succeed to the 2 days' office which he formerly held and resigned is impugned on two grounds : - (1) that he became permanently incapable of holding the office in 1894 by reason of misconduct with a Sudra woman; ...
Sree Raja Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur, Zemindar Garu o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ570
1. The appellant is the Zemindar of Vallur and the respondents are his tenants. The respondents refused the patta tendered by the appellant for Fisli 1315 and the appellant distrained the respondents' property for arrears of rent for that Fasli. The respondents sued to set aside the distraint. Both the lower courts have found that the tendered patta was improper in that it provided for rent at the rate of Rs. 5 per acre instead of Rs. 4-8-0 the proper rate; and have accordingly given the respondents the decree sued for.2. It is now argued on behalf of the appellant that in spite of the tendered patta being improper, the distraint should nevertheless be held valid to the extent of the rent actually due and that the decrees of the lower courts setting it aside altogether are wrong. This contention, which was considered and rejected by the District Judge, is the only one now put forward in support of the appeal.3. The question has to be disposed of with reference to the provisions of Act ...
Mittevi Pattabhi Ramanujacharyulu and ors. Vs. Peduti Alagasingrachary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.496
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff (respondent) to recover the office of Archakar of a certain temple for 4 days in each month. The post was held by the plaintiff's mother up to her death in 1901, partly in virtue of a demise Exhibit III executed by her husband in 1877 shortly before his death and partly in virtue of the decree of this Court Exhibit VIII (6) in Second Appeal No. 1185 of 1896, declaring her right to succeed to that portion of the office (Two days monthly) which the plaintiff had succeeded to on his father's death and which he resigned in 1894.2. The correctness of the present decree, in so far as it relates to the first portion, is not questioned in the course of the hearing in the Court but the plaintiff's right to succeed to the two days office which he formerly held and resigned is impugned on two grounds: (1) that he became permanently incapable of holding the office in 1894 by reason of misconduct with a sudra woman (2),...
Saminathier Vs. Adinarayana Samier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.643
1. The appellant is the assignee under Exhibit II (b) of the mortgage granted by Khadir and his wife as Ramchandra Naik under Exhibit II (a). He put forward his claim under Exhibits II (a) and II (b) in his written statement and that is made the subject of a third issue. We think, therefore, that the Judge is wrong in refusing to adjudicate on his claim. It is unnecessary to make him a party expressly as an assignee when he is already a party to the suit. We, therefore, direct the Judge to return a finding on this issue. Further evidence may be taken.2. The finding should be submitted within one month after the re opening of the District Court, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.3. In compliance with the above order, the District Judge submitted the followingFINDING4. The question is whether 10th defendant is entitled to priority. Neither side has put (SIC) any fresh evidence.5. Tenth defendant claims priority in two ways, both by a hypothecation bond in his favour by...
Sree Raja Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur Vs. Sajja Sattay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.738
1. The appellant is the zemindar of Vallur, and the respondents are his tenants. The respondents refused the patta tendered by the appellant for Fasli 1316, and the appellant distrained the respondent's property for arrears of rent for that fasli. The respondents sued to set aside the distraint. Both the lower. Courts have found that the tendered patta was improper in that it provided for rent at the rate of Rs. 5 per acre instead of Rs. 4 1/2, the proper rate; and have accordingly given the respondents the decree sued for.2. It is now argued on behalf of the appellant that in spite of the tendered patta being improper? the distraint should nevertheless be held valid to the extent of the rent actually due and that the decrees of the lower Courts setting it aside altogether are wrong. This contention which was considered and rejected by the District Judge is the only one now put forward in support of the appeal.3. The question has to be disposed of with reference to the provisions of Ac...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Private J. Marchant
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad346
ORDER1. Mr. Richards, the District Magistrate and Justice of the Peace, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, has held that he has no jurisdiction to take congnizance of this case by reason of the words of proviso 4 to the notification of the 7th October 1898, No. 2688 I.A. The proviso runs 'provided, fourthly, that nothing in the said Code as now applied shall be deemed to apply to proceedings against European British subjects or persons charged jointly with European British subjects.' The proviso is no doubt ambiguous, but, reading it by the light of the language used in the notification of the 1st March 1883, No. 529 I., which notification is in terms reproduced as regards the Civil and Military Station by the notification of the 7th October 1898, we think we are warranted in placing a construction upon the proviso, which would not have the effect of defeating what seems to us to be the intention of the Governor-General in Council.2. The notification of the 1st March 1883 applies t...
In Re: W.B. Lawrence, Public Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.255
ORDER1. Mr. Richards, the District. Magistrate and Justice of the Peace, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, has held that he has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case by reason of the words of proviso 4 to the Notification of 7th October 1898 No. 102683 I.A. The proviso runs: 'Provided fourthly, that nothing in the said Code as now applied shall be deemed to apply to proceedings against European British subjects.' The proviso is, no doubt, ambiguous, but, reading it by the light of the language used in the Notification of 1st March 1883 No. 5291, which Notification is in terms re-produced as regards the Civil and Military Station by the Notification of 7th October 1898, we think we are warranted in placing a construction upon the proviso, which would not have the effect of defeating what seems to us to be the intention of the Governor-General in Council.2. The Notification of 1st March 1883 applied to the Civil and Military Station of Bangalore, the whole of the Code of Cr...
Manji and ors. Vs. Paramayya Hebbara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ618
Munro, J.1. I doubt if any question of jurisdiction arises in this case, but, assuming such a question arises, I think the Sub-Judge is right on the question regarding the oath. Though the plaintiff agreed generally to abide by the oath of the defendants and the defendants agreed to take an oath in any form or in any place, still the form and place were never actually agreed upon. It is clear from Section 10 of the Oaths Act that the agreement as to the oath must be such that the court is in a position to administer it forthwith. If, however, the form and place have not been settled, the court cannot administer it Ayakannu Nadar v. Muthia Nadar (1906) 17 M.L.J. 99 is distinguished on the ground that there the form of the oath had been agreed upon.2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »