Chennai Court November 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.
Cuddapara Anantarazu Garu and ors. Vs. Cuddapparazu Narayanarazu Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.96
1. We think that the decree of the lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained. The learned Advocate-General for the appellant, though admit tin? that the attachment of 29th November 1393 was an invasion of the plaintiff's light and gave a cause of action for a declaratory suit, has, we think rightly, contended that the sale on the 30r.h June 190 5 was a fresh invasion of the plaintiff's right, and gave afresh cause of action. The District Judge has referred to a second attachment, but apparently the first attachment was not discharged, and the Advocate-General does not base his argument on any allegation that the sale was not in pursuance of the original attachment of the 29th November 1898, nor is it contended that the attachment is a continuing wrong, but we think that the sale ought properly to be regarded as a fresh and greater invasion of the plaintiff's right so as to give a fresh cause of action. The sale, though held is pursuance of the attachment, was not a necessary consequenc...
In Re: theophilus Ramappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.108; 13Ind.Cas.108; (1912)22MLJ112
ORDER1. The accused, who was the superintendent of Messrs. Killick Nixon's Coffee Casing Works has been convicted of criminal breach of trust by misappropriating a large sum of money made up of amounts which he received from the Manager at various times on the false pretence that they were required for paying coolies who garbled coffee. The point argued in revision is that the receipt of each sum of money making up the aggregate amount by false representation amounted to the offence of cheating; that the charge against the accused really was that he committed various offences of cheating more than three in number, and that a single charge for all these acts of cheating was illegal. It is urged that the subsequent appropriation of the amounts by the accused to his own use would not amount to criminal breach of trust as the criminal intent was present at the time of the receipt of the money from the Manager. This argument is not sound. When the accused received the money he did so as a s...
Komma Somakka Vs. Kodidala Pedda Ramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.251
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case we are asked to revise, by way of appeal or under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, an order made by the District Judge of Cuddapah upon a petition presented to him under Sections 24 and 43, Guardians and Wards Act, by the guardian of a certain Hindu female minor praying for permission to give the minor in marriage to a certain person mentioned in the petition, and for an order directing the appellant in this appeal, who is the surviving widow of the father of the minor girl and in possession of his estate, to pay Rs. 800 for the expenses of the contemplated marriage. The appellant appeared in answer to the notice and pleaded, that under the circumstances mentioned in her counter-petition, she was not liable to make any payment, and that the proposed marriage was not suitable. She took no objection to the jurisdiction of the District Court to make any order against her on the petition, and after hearing the Pleaders on both sides the Court passed this or...
Walajapet Rajammal Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1911
Reported in: 12Ind.Cas.653; (1912)22MLJ44
1. No appeal lies in this case. The word trial' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent includes appeal, vide Clause 30 of the Letters Patent of this court. The appeal is rejected....
Mullaseri Achutha Menon Vs. V.C. Sankaran Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ118
1. The plaintiff is Melcharth holder from the jenmi of certain land in the possession of the fourth defendant who purchased the rights of one Krishna Sastri. The land was demised to Krishna Sastri the father of defendants Nos. I to 3, under Exhibit VII, in 1893, by a Stanom holder a predecessor in title of the fifth defendant, on ' karamkuri' tenure. The document provides the land should be held by the demisee and his anandravans 'so long as they exist without selling or mortgaging'' duly paying the rent fixed and also paying the renewal fee at times of renewal and 'receiving that' from the Stani.' Before the time of renewal arrived, however, the land was demised on melcharth to the plaintiff. The original demisee's heirs (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) in the meanwhile had alienated the holding to the fourth defendant. The principal question we have to decide is whether the right given to the demisee under Exhibit VII was terminated by the alienation. The Subordinate Judge has held' on the a...
M. Achutha Menon Vs. V.C. San Kara Nair and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad380
1. The plaintiff is a melcharth holder under the jenmi of certain land in the possession of the fourth defendant who purchased the rights of one Krishna Sastri. The land was demised to Krishna Sastri, the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3, under Exhibit VII in 1893 by a stanom-holder, a predecessor in title of the fifth defendant on 'Karamkari tenure.' The document provides that the land should be held by the demisee and his anandravans 'so long as they exist' 'without selling or mortgaging,' duly paying the rent fixed and also paying the renewal fee at times of renewal and 'receiving that' from the stani. Before the time of renewal arrived, however, the land was demised on melcharth to the plaintiff. The original demisee's heirs (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) in the meanwhile had alienated the holding to the fourth defendant. The principal question we have to decide is whether the right given to the demisee under Exhibit VII was terminated by the alienation. The Subordinate Judge has held on...
M. Varadayya Chetty and anr. Vs. C. Munusami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.232
ORDERBakewell, J.1. The learned Vakil for the plaintiffs has argued that this application does not lie, and is premature, on the ground that the suit has been instituted with the sanction of the Advocate General and that the proper time for the applicant to intervene is when a scheme for the management of the charities is before the Court. I think that the suit is a representative suit brought by two of the worshippers on behalf of the whole body of worshippers of the temple, that the fact that sanction has been obtained for its institution does not change the character of the suit in any way and that such an application as the present will lie if it be shown that the plaintiffs are not prosecuting the suit to the advantage of the persons they profess to represent.2. The applicants have failed to show that the plaintiffs are not prosecuting the suit bona fide and in the interests of the applicants and other worshippers. All that appears from the affidavits is that the 1st defendant has...
Muthuvarapu Seshiah Vs. Gatram Ramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.211
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I think in this case the order of the District Judge granting sanction must be set aside. The petitioner filed a suit on a promissory-note bearing a certain date. He afterwards withdrew the suit with the permission of the Court, before any summons or notice was taken out for the defendant. The defendant made an application for sanction for the prosecution of the plaintiff under Sections 453, 471, 475 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code. The District Munsif refused sanction, but the District Judge has set aside that order and granted sanction. There has been no inquiry into the question whether the promissory-note is forged. The suit was not heard, and no evidence has been taken as to the genuineness or otherwise of the note. The defendant has filed an affidavit stating that the promissory-note was a false document and that he owed no money. The plaintiff, on the other hand, insists that it is genuine and was executed for proper consideration.2. The District Judge says th...
Natesa Pillay Vs. Munusawmy Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.313a
1. We are of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to show that the right purchased by Veera Pillay under Exhibit C was the mortgage now sued on, and that the Exhibit C was a misdescription. See Palaniappa Mudaliar v. Sadagopa Tevan (1911) 2 M.W.N. 133 : 9 M.L.T. 319 : 9 Ind. Cas. 729. The decrees of the lower Court must be reversed and the suit remanded to the Court of first instance for fresh disposal according to law. The costs of the second appeal and the costs in the lower Appellate Court will abide the result....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›