Chennai Court April 1911 Judgments
In Re: Armugam Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.584
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. There are no grounds for interference in second appeal in this case. The first point argued is that the District Munsif ought to have granted a further adjournment of the suit on the 8th July 1910. It does not appear what steps the 1st defendant had taken prior to that date after the previous adjournment and what steps he wanted to take by obtaining the adjournment. In fact no sworn statement appears in the papers before me which would justify my holding that the Munsif acted wrongly in refusing the adjournment. The 1st defendant did not appear after the adjournment was refused. With reference to the question of notice; no plea was raised in the written statement, probably because the defendant considered it untenable inasmuch as he had, according to the allegation in the plaint, not traversed in the written statement, denied the plaintiff's title prior to the institution of the suit. Even now the appellant does not say what notice he got and how he says it was insu...
Tag this Judgment!K. Damodara Menon Vs. Patinhara Malasseeri Ikkaliamma's son Kelappa Me ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ613
1 This is a reference made by the District Munsif of Palghat under Order 46, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question referred is whether when mortgage money is deposited under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act for the benefit of the mortgagee, and the mortgagee is a Malabar tarward or tavazhi governed by the Marumakkathayamu Law, consisting of a mother and her minor daughters who are all made counter-petitioners to the petition put in under Section 83, the minors being represented by their mother as guardian ad litem, the money may be paid out to the mother alone as manager without taking security from her under Order 32, rule 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure to protect the interests of her minor daughters? The Mansif is of opinion that although the proceeding before him is not a suit or appeal, he is entitled to make this reference by virtue of the provisions of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that 'the procedure provided in this code ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsay and Co., the Present Secretaries and Treasurers of the Madras E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ920
Munro, J.1. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Bakewell J. and need not be repeated. The first question which arises for determination is whether, as found by the learned Judge, Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co., were the Society's bankers. I am clearly of opinion on the evidence that they were not, but held monies as the Secretaries & Treasurers of the Society. They also carried on a banking business, and the evidence proves no more than that they dealt with the funds of the Society in the same manner as they dealt with monies received from their banking constituents, probably in the first instance for no other reason than that of convenience. It was not alleged in the written statement that Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. held the Society's money as bankers, nor was there any issue which raised the question. On the other hand, the written statement and the issues treat the Society's money as held by Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. as Secretaries and Treasurers, and in the annual balance sheet, the...
Tag this Judgment!Golla Hanumappa and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad243
1. The eight accused in this case were all charged with the offence of rioting under Section 148, Indiad Penal Code. The second accused was farther charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder under section. 302; the sixth and fourth accused with causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon under Section 326. The accused against whom there was no charge of murder or causing grievous hurt as the immediate perpetrators of those offences were, however, charged with the commission of the offences constructively under Section 149 of the Code.2. The facts of the case are clearly set forth in the judgment of the Sessions Judge and we consider it unnecessary to repeat them, The cause of the rioting was an encounter between prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 3 and 4 and probably also 5 on the one side and one Narasakka, the mother of accused Noe. 6 to 8 on the other side, A case of abduction of one Narasamma against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 initiated by the prosecution fifth witness, her husban...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsay and Co. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad712
Munro, J.1. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Bakewell, J., and need not be repeated. The first question which arises for determination is whether, as found by the learned Judge, Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co, were the Society's bankers, I am clearly of opinion on the evidence that they were not. Messrs, Arbuthnot & Co, wore the Secretaries and Treasurers of the Society. They also carried on a banking business, and the evidence proves no more than that they dealt with the funds of the society in the same manner as they dealt with monies received from their banking constituents, probably in the first instance for no other reason than that of convenience. It was not alleged in the written statement that Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. held the society's money as bankers, nor was there any issue which raised the question. On the other band the written statement and the issues treat the society's money as held by Messrs, Arbuthnot & Co. as secretaries find treasurers, and in the annual balan...
Tag this Judgment!K. Damodara Menon Vs. Kittappa Menon and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad16
1. This is a reference made by the District Munsif of Palghat under Order XLVI, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question referred is whether when mortgage money is deposited under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act for the benefit of the mortgagee, and the mortgagee is a Malabar tarwad or tavazhi governed by the Marumakkatayam law, consisting of a mother and her minor daughters who are all made counter-petitioners to the petition put in under Section 83, the minors being represented by their mother as guardian ad litem, the money may be paid out to the mother alone as manager without taking security from her under Order 32, Rule 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure, to protect the interest of her minor daughters. The munsif is of opinion that, although the proceeding before him is not a suit or appeal, he is entitled to make this reference by virtue of the provisions of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that 'the procedure provided in this Code...
Tag this Judgment!Srimat Paramahamsa Parivrajakacharya Peria Koil Kelu Appan Satagopa Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ730
1. This litigation is in connection with a group of temples situated in the neighbourhood of Tirupati in the North Arcot District, and generally known as the Tirumalai-Tirupati Devasthanams. They are 34 in number, as shewn in plaint Schedule A; but the most important ones are the four mentioned below, which are also the only ones which have any income:No. 1. Sri Venkateswaraswami on Tiranialai Hill.2. Sri Govindarajaswami at Tirupati.5. Kothandaramaswamy at Tirupati.7. Padmavatiswamy at Tiruchanur.2. The other temples are all dependent on one of these four and are maintained out of funds allotted from the revenues thereof.3. The defendant is the Mahant of the Hathiramji Mutt at Tirupati, and, as such, holds the office of Vicharanakartha (Trustee) of all these temples under a Sannad granted by Government to the then Mahaut in 1843 (vide Exhibit XXXIII).4. The plaintiff is the head of another Mutt, known as the Pedda Jiyangar's Mutt, he himself being known as the Pedda Jiyangar. This off...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Muthukrishna Aiyar Vs. Somalingamuni Nagendrien and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ742
1. The plaintiff and defendants are occupants of neighbouring houses. The suit is for a mandatory injunction that the defendants do pull down the tiled building recently erected by them on a vacant portion of their premises which, according to the plaintiff, blocked up the passage of light and air passing through four windows on his wall.2. The defendants deny the plaintiff's right to the passage of light and air through all the windows and his right to the mandatory injunction claimed.3. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff's right to the passage of light through the four windows was established, but, curiously enough, he held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the passage of air through them. He said : 'I do not think that this tiled portion has inconvenienced the plaintiff by making his house ill-ventilated, although it has darkened it.' He refused, to grant the mandatory injunction asked for and ordered that] 'the defendants do open in the roof in the tiled building * *...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiar Vs. Maniem Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ800
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. In this suit the plaintiff asked that a certain deed of sale might be set aside. The deed of sale (Exhibit I) was executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant's husband. The second defendant is the purchaser from the first defendant and is now in possession of the laud in question. Now, the deed was registered, delivery of the deed was given to the first defendant's husband, and, as I have said, the second defendant is now in possession under his purchase from the first defendant. The consideration recited in the deed is Rs. 300.2. The case for the plaintiff is that the real consideration for the deed was a promise by the first defendant's husband that he would maintain the plaintiff, who we are told, was an old man when the deed was executed, for the rest of his life.3. The learned District Judge considered the question whether under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act oral evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing what was the re...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kali Mudaly and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad701
1. [The court having decided upon the facts that the convictions must be set aside, the judgment proceeded]--In the view we have taken of the ease, it is perhaps unnecessary to pronounce an opinion on the point raised by Dr. Swaminatihan that the whole trial should be set aside as illegal on the ground that the Judge acted contrary to the provisions of Section 526, Clause 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in refusing to grant an adjournment of the trial to enable the accused to apply for a transfer of the case to some other court. The application for adjournment was made after the charge had been read and explained to the accused, Section 526, Clause 8 does not require the court to adjourn a case when the application is not made before the commencement of the hearing. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the 'hearing' can be said to commence only after the accused plead to the charge. We cannot agree with this contention. The hearing or trial must be taken to include al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »