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.
Narasaya Hegade Vs. Vitlaprabhu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1020
1. A preliminary objection is taken that no question of jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, arises, but it is contended that as the Munsif held that his jurisdiction was ousted by limitation he failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law, and I think this contention is sound. The execution petition was filed more than 12 years from the date of the original decree but within 12 years of the date of the appellate decree confirming the same-The District Munsif has held that as Section 48, C.P.C., prescribes only 12 years from the date of decree and omits the words 'or of the decree (if any) on appeal affirming the same' which were in Section 230 of the old code, the period of limitation must run from the date of the original decree. There has, however, been a series of decisions that the appellate decree, whether confirming or modifying the original decreee, is the only decree susceptible of execution vide Wannu Narain Singh v. Lala Raghunath S...
Marigowda and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Rangachar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad594
ORDERPhillips, J.1. The question is whether cutting off the ears of a horse amounts to 'maiming' within the meaning of Section 429, Indian Penal Coda. In criminal Revision Case No. 583 of 1910 Munro, J., was of opinion that cutting off the ear and tail of a buffalo did not amount to maiming, but he gives no reasons. With all due deference 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 '(1) The 'privation of the use of a limb or member of the body, by which one is rendered less able to defend himself or to annoy 'his adversary. (2) The privation of any necessary cart; a crippling; mutilation; injury; deprivation of something essential.' In Gour's Penal Law of India,' page 1769, we 'find' 'maming ' 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 ...
Raja V.K.M. Surya Row Bahadur Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad57
1. This appeal relates to a claim preferred by the Raja of Pittapur (appellant) to two blocks of land situated on the coast of the Godavari district near the mouth of the Coringa river, and included in the Coringa Extension Forest Reserve. They are marked B and C in the Reserve map--Exhibit II. The nature of the appellant's claim to the latter block is expressed somewhat ambiguously in the plaint, but the case now put forward is that both blocks are accretions to the lands of appellant's zamindari and therefore his property.2. The District Judge has found that both blocks are not accretions to appellant's lands, but islands formed in the sea, and therefore the property of Government. He has further found that as both blocks came into existence after 1842, that is, within 60 years of the date of Reservation notice (1901), it is impossible for appellant to have obtained a title as against Government by adverse possession.3. It may be mentioned here that claims to the same blocks on simil...
Sri Sri Venkatramadas, Maharaja of Jeypore Vs. Raghunatha Patro and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ887
ORDER1. We do not think there is force in the preliminary objection that no petition lies to the High Court under Rule 20 of the Ganjam and Vizagapatam Agency Rules on the ground that the Agent has acted under Rule 18. In this contention the learned pleader for the respondent is no doubt supported by Jagannadha v. Godanna I.L.R. (1892) M. 229, but, with all respect to the learned Judges who decided that case, we are unable to accept that decision as correct. They give no reasons. Rule 18 only says that the Agent may summarily dismiss an appeal without issuing notice to the respondent. But such an order of dismissal as it disposes of the suits of the parties, would be a decree and Rule 20 says that the High Court, in a proper case, may direct the Agent to review his judgment. We hold we have jurisdiction to entertain this petition.2. The Agent does not give any reasons in support of the order of dismissal. But the Special Assistant Agent who originally heard the suit dismissed it on the...
D. Devalraju and Two ors. Vs. Mahamed Jaffer Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad53
Ayling, J.1. The Subordinate Judge has reversed the District Munsif's decree on two grounds: (1) that as a competent court has decided in Original Suit No. 139 of 1901 that the second plaintiff and not the first plaintiff (appellant) is the dharmakarta, the appellant cannot maintain a suit on the basis of a rent deed executed to him as dharmakarta; (2) that the defendant has discharged the claim in full.2. The second contention is undoubtedly inadmissible. Not only was no plea of discharge set up by the first defendant, but it is clear that the Subordinate Judge's view that the payments, noted on the foot of the deed Exhibit A, operated as a full discharge of the rent to the end of the lease is based on a mistaken view of that document. It is distinctly stated in Exhibit A that the last payment is only for faslis 1309 and 1310.3. The other point is more difficult of decision. On the whole I am inclined to think that it must be governed by Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which prevents...
Sri Sri Sri Vikrama Deo (Maharajah of Jeypore) Vs. Raghunatha Patro an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad128
ORDER1. We do not think there is force in the preliminary objection that no petition lies to the High Court under Rule XX of the Ganjam and Vizagapatam Agency rules on the ground that the Agent has acted under Rule XVIII. In this contention the learned pleader for the respondent is no doubt supported by Jagannatha v. Gopanna I.L.R., (1898) Mad., 229 but with all respect to the learned Judges who decided that case we are unable to accept that decision as correct. They give no reasons. Rule XVIII only says that the Agent may summarily dismiss an appeal without issuing notice to the respondent. But such an order of dismissal as it disposes of the rights of the parties would be a decree and Rule XX says that the High Court in a proper case may direct the Agent to review his judgment. We hold that we have jurisdiction to entertain this petition.2. The Agent does not give any reasons in support of the order of dismissal. But the Special Assistant Agent who originally heard the suit dismissed...
Kolla Naikan Alias Rama Naickan Vs. Muthayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ997
1. The question of law urged before us arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the widows of the man who originally owned the property in dispute. The first defendant alleged that he was an undivided co-parcener of the plaintiff's husband and therefore entitled to the property. Both the courts below have found against the first defendant's plea. The second defendant supported the first, defendant's allegation and u appears that she had entered into an arrangement with him by which she recognised the 1st defendant who agreed to give her a certain amount in lieu of maintenance. The plaintiff claimed to recover the entire property, alleging that the second defendant had, by reason of unchastity, lost her rights as a co widow and the first defendant made similar allegations of unchastity against plaintiff. It has been found that the 2nd defendant's charges against the plaintiff are not made out, and the plaintiff apparently never thought of push...
Ravila Partichelamanna and anr. Vs. Ravila Parti Rama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ870
1. In this case the plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of certain lands in the possession of the defendants. Both the lower courts have found the plaintiff's title and possession within 12 years prior to the suit proved.2. The only question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's claim is unsustainable in consequence of a compromise entered into between the parties in a prior suit - O.S. No. 363 of 1904. That suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the present defendants and others for the recovery of another plot of land. The parties entered into a compromise in that suit. By the terms of that compromise it was settled inter alia that both the land sued for then and the lands which form the subject-matter of this suit should be divided into two moieties and that the plaintiff should take one moiety and the defendants the other moiety. The agreement of compromise was not registered under Act III of 1877. The plaintiff being then a minor, the compromise was submitted to ...
Vidyapurna Thirthaswami and anr. and Sitamma Vs. Subraya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ889
1. We think that the District Munsif was wrong in refusing to issue a commission for the examination of certain witnesses named in the 2nd defendant's petition dated 25th May 19082. The defendants were entitled as of light to the issue of commission apart from the question whether they would have ultimately benefited by it. It would be at their own risk that the commission would be issued. See Huree Dass Bysack v. Meer Moazzum Hossein (1871) 15W.R. 447. But it appears that there was in fact sufficient time for the return of the commission before the next date of hearing. We set aside the judgment of the appellate court and direct that commission be issue by the appellate court as prayed for by the defendants. The appellate court will dispose of the appeal after consideration of that evidence and the other evidence already on record.3. We may mention that it is admitted by the learned pleaders on both sides that the only question for disposal is that relating to the plea of limitation. ...
R.P. Chelamanna and anr. Vs. R.P. Rama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad46
1. In this case the plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of certain lands in the possession of the defendants. Both the Lower Courts have found the plaintiff's title and possession within twelve years prior to the suit proved.2. The only question in second appeal is, whether the plaintiff's claim is unsustainable in consequence of a compromise entered into between the parties in a prior suit--Original Suit No. 363 of 1904. That suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the present defendants and others for the recovery of another plot of land. The parties entered into a compromise in that suit. By the terms of that compromise it was settled inter alia that both the land sued for then and the lands which form the subject-matter of this suit should be divided into two moieties and that the plaintiff should take one moiety and the defendants the other moiety. The agreement of compromise was not registered under Act III of 1877. The plaintiff being then a minor, the compromise was submi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »