Chennai Court August 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. Andiappa Chetty Vs. P. Devarajulu Naidu's son by his Next Friend Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad68
1. Two letters marked Exhibits A and B in the Small Cause Suit No. 19117 of 1909 have been referred by the Court of Small Causes, Madras, under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for our opinion whether they constitute acknowledgments of liability within Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The letters run as follows:Exhibit A.Madras, 10th June, '08.ToR.V. Seshagiri Rao, B.A., B.L.,High Court Vakil, Madras.SIR,With reference to your letter, dated 2nd instant, I request you to be so good as to furnish me with a copy of a statement of accounts.Exhibit B.Madras, I8th June 1908.ToM.R.Ry. R.V. Seshagiri Rao, B.A., B.L.,High Court Vakil, Madras.DEAR SIR,With reference to your letter of the 2nd instant on behalf of V. Andiappa Chetty, landing contractor, Madras, I have to inform you that I wish to examine the accounts as my account does not show such an amount mentioned in your letter. I therefore request you will please forward the copy of the account or instruct your client 't...
Kanaka Ramaya Alagaraya Goundar Vs. Minakshi Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1911
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ652
1. Two points were raised on appeal (1) that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the claim in the present suit was not res judicata; (2) that he was wrong in holding that the entire estate in the Zamindary and not only the life interest of the Zamindar was sold in execution and purchased by the 1st defendant.2. We think the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the whole estate was sold. This being so it is not necessary for us to discuss the question of res judicata.3. As regards the 2nd point the question is what did the Court intend to sell and what did the purchaser understand that he bought. This is a question of mixed law and fact and must be determined by the evidence in the particular case.4. It is true that when the sale in execution took place it was the accepted law in Madras that the holder of an impartible Zamindary could not encumber the corpus of the estate, so as to bind his coparceners (see Abdul Azizkhan v. Appayasami Naickeri I.L.R. (1902) M. 131. M...
Viruthuroyar Mechi Veerapattam Ugnipariyadaya Vellavattu Tirumala Ragu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1911
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad22
1. Two points were raised on appeal: (1) That the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the claim in the present suit was not res judicata; (2) that he was wrong in holding that the entire estate in the zamindari and not only the life interest of the zamindar was sold in execution and purchased by the first defendant.2. We think the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the whole estate was sold. This being so it is not necessary for us to discuss the question of res judicata.3. As regards the second point the question is what did the Court intend to sell and what did the purchaser understand that he bought. This is a question of mixed law and fact and must be determined by the evidence in the particular case.4. It is true that when the sale in execution took place it was the accepted law in Madras that the holder of an impartible zamindari could not encumber the corpus of the estate so as to bind his co-parceners.--see Abdul Aziz Khan v. Appayasami Naicker I.L.R. (1904) Ma...
Natuwath Pappu Alias Valia Achan Vs. Kolli Vallappil Kalathile Vittil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ151
1. I think the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the defendant was liable to pay the enhanced revenue. Under the general law the mortgagee is to pay the Government revenue unless there is a contract to the contrary. Exhibit A does not evidence any contract to the effect that the burden of enhanced revenue is to fall on the plaintiff. The authority of Krishmer v. Arapulli Iyer (1902) 14 M.L.J. 488 is invoked by the learned vakil for the respondents, but that decision's based on the terms of the particular document which the learned Judges had to construe in that case and cannot help us in the construction of the mortgage deed Exhibit A.2. The Subordinate Judge, while laying down the law correctly, has decided against the plaintiff on the ground that he failed to prove that enhanced revenue was payable on account of the lands under kanom. But the plaint distinctly alleges this and the written statement, far from traversing the allegation, seems to assume that enhanced revenue wa...
E. Karunakaran Nair Vs. M. Krishna Menon and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad66
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This suit was to enforce payment of Rs. 54-7-10 due on a simple money bond and the question is whether it is barred. The bond provided for the payment of certain instalments and the earliest instalment included in the suit is the one which became due in December 1906, i.e., within three years of the institution of the suit. The question is admittedly governed by Article 75 of the Limitation Act and it is contended that the suit is barred because there was a default to pay one instalment more than three years before the date of the suit. And the bond provides that on failure of payment of one instalment the entire amount would become due. The stipulation in question is in these words: 'and that in default of our making such payment also, the amount that may be found due for all future drawings from the date of default at Rs. 5 per drawing shall be paid in a lump on your demand in accordance with the stipulations in the Kurivari,' I think the Subordinate Judge is right ...
B. Perraju Garu Vs. B. Subbarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad126
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit by the ijaradar of a share of the village of Karapa situated within the limits of the Pittapur estate for the recovery of cist, local cess and village cess due by the defendant who is one of the ryots cultivating land in the village. The suit was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that there was no agreement; to dispense with pattas and muchilikas, it being admitted that there was no exchange of pattas and muchilikas so far as the cist was concerned. With respect to the cesses alleged to be due from the defendant the lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, its jurisdiction being excluded by Article 13 of the schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The finding against the agreement to dispense with pattas and muchilikas being one of fact, could not be, and has not been contested before me, But the District Munsif appears to be wrong in supposing that a suit in a Small ...
M. Seshachellam Chetty Vs. Traffic Manager His Highness the Nizam's Gu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad65
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit against the Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway Company claiming damages for non-delivery of goods entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant for delivery at Kondapalli. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that the defendant Company had not proper notice of the claim, and the only question I have to decide in the case is whether this finding is correct.2. Notice was given by the plaintiff within the period required by Section 77 of Act IX of 1890 to the Traffic Manager. Section 140 of the Act requires that any notice required to be served on the Railway Administration may be served on the Agent of the Railway Company; no other person is designated for the purpose by the Act, The plaintiff adduced no evidence to show that any other person was authorised to receive notice on behalf of the Company. It has been laid down in a series of cases that the proper person on whom notice should be served is the Agent. See Woods v. Meher Ali ...
Malaiyya Pillai Vs. Thirumalai Perumal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1022
1. The first contention urged before us is that the Magistrate's order under Section 146, Civil Procedure Code, putting the chattram in the possession of the Tahsildar being set aside by the High Court which directed possession to be given to the defendants, the plaintiff's suit could not be maintained for mere declaration of his right. But we do not think that this contention should prevail. The defendant was not at the date of the suit in possession of the chattram though he was entitled to obtain possession under the order of the High Court. It is true that the possession of the Magistrate would not be deemed to be adverse within the meaning of the law of limitation, but in order that a suit can be held to be unmaintainable by the application of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act it must be shewn that the defendant was in possession and as against him the plaintiff could have obtained an order for delivery of possession. It is true that the Magistrate, after the order of the High...
Sevatha Muthu Asari Alias Savari Muthu Asari Vs. Reverend J.N.K. Musqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1911
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ642
Abdur Rahim, J1. The Respondent who is the Vicar and Manager of the Church of our Lady of Dolours at a place near Trichinopoly and as such has been for a long time in possession of the land in dispute which belongs to the church, has obtained a decree directing the appellant to deliver to him possession of the land and remove certain superstructures erected by the appellant on the land.2. It is first of all argued before us that the plaintiff has not made out that the title to the property is vested in him; but I think that, having regard to the fact that he and his predecessors in office have for over 80 years been in possession of the land letting out this and other lands to tenants, and it is not suggested by the defendant that there are other persons in whom the property of the church is vested as trustees, I think the Courts are justified in inferring that the plaintiff holds the land as trustee on behalf of the Church.3. The next contention urged by Mr. Rozario who appeared for t...
Marigounda and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Ragavachar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ843
ORDERPhilips, J.1. The question is whether cutting off the ears of a horse amounts to 'maiming' within the meaning of Section 429. I.P.C. In Criminal Revision Case 583 of 1910, Munro J. was of opinion that the cutting off the ear and tail of a buffalo did not amount to maiming but he gives no reasons. With all due defence, I am unable to accede to this view, if it can be said that the facts here are the same as in that case. Maiming is not defined in the Indian Penal Code, but the definition given in Webster's Dictionary is 'The privation of the use of a limb or member of the body by which one is rendered less able to defend himself or annoy his adversary. The privation of any necessary part - crippling, mutilation, injury, deprivation of something essential.' In Gour's Penal Law of India, p. 1769, we find : 'maiming' is a term of well known import in English Law and is the same as 'mayhem' which meant the deprivation of a member proper for defence in fight. It has, however, since acqu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »