Chennai Court April 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.
V.S. Muthukrishna Ayyar Vs. Somalinga Muninagandrien and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad11
1. The plaintiff and the 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 of the tiled building... fo...
Subbayyar Vs. Moniem Subramania Ayyar and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad8
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this suit the plaintiff asked that a certain dead of sale might be set aside. The deed of sale (Exhibit I) was executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant's husband.2. The deed was registered, delivery of the deed was given to the first defendant's husband and the second defendant is now in possession under his purchase from the first defendant. The consideration recited in the deed is Rs. 300.3. 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.4. 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 real consideration for this deed of sale. The learned judge came to the conclusion that such evidence was not admissible. For the purpose of...
Pingai Pahurappa and anr., Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ520
1. In this case the accused were charged with an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code triable by jury and also with offences under Section 147 and other sections triable by a judge with the help of assessors. Five gentlemen were selected to form a jury and two of them were chosen as assessors to help the judge with reference to the charges' not triable by a jury. The trial of the accused on all the charges was joint. The accused were acquitted by the jury of the offence under Section 395, I.P.C. The Judge, differing from the two assessors convicted them of rioting. It is contended in appeal that according to Section 269 of Cr.P.C. the Judge was bound to constitute all the members of the jury as assessors for trying the non-jury offences and that he not having done so the conviction is illegal. This contention appears to us to be sound and to be in accordance with the principle of the decision in Ramakrishna Reddi v. Emperor I.L.R. (1903) M. 508, though on the facts that c...
Yellapadi Mahalakshmammal Vs. Sriman Madhva Siddantha Oonahini Nidhi L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ811
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The facts are stated in the judgment of Sankaran Nair J. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff (I refer to the plaintiff-company as the plaintiff) could not claim priority as regards the sum of Rs. 1,600 odd, the amount of the further advance made by the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the mortgage of August 1903, (Ex. O) This finding was not contested by the plaintiff (the respondent). The question for us is : Was the learned Judge right in holding that as regards the sum of Rs. 1,080 odd, the amount remaining due from the mortgagor to the plaintiff at the time of the mortgage of August 1903, the plaintiff had priority over the fourth defendant - in other words, did the mortgage of August 1903 operate so as to extinguish the plaintiff's mortgage rights under the decree obtained by him in February 1900, (Ex. H.) nr the suit brought on his equitable mortgage of 1895? In September, 1900, i.e., after the plaintiff had got his decree on his e...
In Re: Golla Hanamappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ805
1. The accused in this case were all charged with the offence of rioting under Section 148, Indian Penal Code. The second accused was farther charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302, and 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 these 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 No. 1, 3 and 4 and probably also 5 on the one side and one Narasakka the mother of accused Nos. 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 husband, ...
Sanka Krishna Murthi, Minor, by Guardian Ad Litem Sriram Lakshmikantha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ620
Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair sitting on the original side by which the plaintiff Bank recovered judgment against the assets of the minor defendant on five Promissory Notes made on the 19th and 24th July 1908 for Rs. 9,100 in all by one Lakshminarasimham acting under a power of attorney from the minor's mother and natural guardian who was carrying on business under the style of Sanka Ramasami & Son. The business was a joint family business carried on by the father on behalf of himself and the minor under his own name, and on his death his interest passed by survivorship to the minor who became the sole owner. The notes were signed by K.A. Lakshminarasimham, P.P. Sanka Ramasami & Son, and were made in favour of the firm of C. Lakshmikantham & Co., of which Lakshminarasimha was the leading partner and were discounted by Cantham & Co., with the plaintiff Bank who credited them with the amount of the bills. At the time Cantham & Co. were of goo...
Sanka Krishnamurthi Vs. the Bank of Burma, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad692
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair sitting on the original aide by which the plaintiff Bank recovered judgment against the assets of the minor defendant on five promissory-notes made on the 19th and 24th July, 1908, for Rs, 9,100 in all by one K, A. Lakshminara-sitnham, acting under a power-of-attorney from the minor's mother and natural guardian who was carrying on business under the style of Sanka Ramasami & Son. The business was a joint family business carried on by the father on behalf of himself and the minor under his own name, and on his death his interest passed by survivorship to the minor who became the sole owner. The notes were signed by K, A. Lakshminarasim-ham per proc Sanka Rammasami & Son and were made in favour of the firm of C L. Cantham & Co. of which Lakshminaraaim ham was the leading partner and ware discounted by Cantham & Co, with the plaintiff Bank who credited them with the amount of the bills. At the time Cantham & Co. were of go...
Sanka Krishnamurthi Vs. the Bank of Burma Ld.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.389
Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair sitting on the original side, by which the plaintiff Bank recovered judgment against the assets of the minor defendant on five promissory-notes made on the 19th and 24th July 1908 for Rs. 9,100 in all by one K.A. Lakshminarasimham, acting under a power-of-attorney from the minor's mother and natural guardian, who was carrying on business under the style of Sankaramasawmy and Son. The business was a joint family business carried on by the father on behalf of himself and the minor who became the sole owner. The notes were signed by K. A. Lakshminarasimham, A.P. Sankaramasawmy and Spn, and were made in favour of the firm of C.L. Cantham and Co., of which Lakshminarasimham was the leading partner, and were discounted by Cantham and Co. with the plaintiff bank who credited them with the amount of the bills. At the time Cantham and Co., were of good credit, but indebted to Sankaramasawmy and Son in about Rs. 25,0C0 o...
S.M.S. Subramanian Chetty Vs. V.K.A. Muthia Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad639; 17Ind.Cas.721
1. The defendant was plaintiff's agent at Jaffna carrying on business on plaintiff's behalf from March 1900 to August 1903. The plaintiff sues to recover three sums of money from the defendant. The first sum is claimed on account of a debt due to the plaintiff from a Jaffna debtor, from whom the defendant had taken a negotiable promissory-note for the amount due, in the name of a third party, one Subramanian Chetty, in August 1903, before he left Ceylon on the termination of his agency. Subsequently, when there was a mediation between the plaintiff and the defendant in connection with the settlement of the latter's accounts, it was agreed that the defendant should obtain possession of the promissory-note, get it duly endorsed in plaintiff's favour by the payee and deliver it over to the plaintiff. The defendant failed to carry out this covenant and the plaintiff, therefore, claimed to recover from him the amount of the note. At the time of the settlement of issues in the suit, the defe...
Gopalsami Iyer Vs. Subramania Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ152
1. The plaintiff handed over the jewel to the defendant to procure a loan for the plaintiff. The defendant obtained the loan. After the plaintiff had paid it off, the defendant, who got back the jewel, retained possession of it The plaintiff made a demand on defendant for the return of it by Exhibit B on 18th August 1904. The defendant's refusal to return was on 29th April 1906 (Exhibit III) and the suit was instituted on 18th February 1908, i. e., within three years after the defendant's refusal. The plaint does not allege that there was an agreement that the jewel should remain in deposit with the defendant after the re-payment of loan. Article 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, would, therefore, apparently be inapplicable. But the defendant must be taken to have held possession of the jewel on behalf of the plaintiff until the date of Exhibit III. We are, therefore, of opinion that under Article 49 of the Indian Limitation, Act, 1908, the suit is not barred by limitation. We ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »