Chennai Court January 1912 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.
Seeni Ammal and anr. Vs. Angamuttu Nadar Minor by Next Friend Sami Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.802
1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that an outright gift of a portion of the family property by way of a provision for maintenance is necessarily beyond the powers of a family manager. In this case the gift has been found by the District Munsif to represent a very small portion of the family property, and that finding has not been attacked in the appeal to the District Judge.2. We cannot, therefore, hold that the gift was invalid and we allow the appeal and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court. The memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs....
Akilandam Pillai Vs. Chinnasawmi Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.649
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The judgment of the lower Court cannot be upheld. The plaintiff alleges in his plaint that he advanced certain articles and money to the defendant, his tenant, the total value of the same being Rs. 34-7-0, and that the defendant had agreed to pay this amount out of his share of the waram for the land. He also alleges that, as a matter of fact, he received the amount of this loan less a sum of Rs. 9-11-0 out of the defendant's share of the waram. The plaintiff states that the defendant sued the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 184 of 1910 for the full amount of the waram due to him and that the plaintiff set up a plea of discharge, but the plea was disallowed, as his witnesses did not attend on the day of hearing of Small Cause Suit No. 184 of 1910. The present action is for the return of the loan advanced to the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff contested his claim in Small Cause Suit No. 184 of 1910 and that a decree was passed in the defendant's...
Mottai Reddy Alias Ramasami Reddy and Two ors. Vs. Thanappa Reddy (Die ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad385
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the endorsee of a promissory-note executed by the defendants in favour of two persons Muthammal and Chenga Reddi. The defendants denied that the plaintiff paid any consideration of the promissory-note. It does not appear that the plan tiff claimed in the lower Court to be a holder in due course. No issue was framed to try that question. The promissory-note, Exhibit A, states that it was executed in pursuance of the razinamah presented by the parties in Calendar Case No. 121 of 1909. That razinamah, Exhibit B, states that the amount for which the promissory-note was executed was due as consideration for compounding Calendar Case No. 121. In that case the executants of the promissory-note were charged with grievous hurt caused to one Gopal Reddi who had died previous to the complaint. It is not denied that the offence could not have been legally compromised except with the Consent, of the person to whom grievous hurt was caused, and the agreement to c...
In Re: Kolli Appiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.832
ORDERRalph Benson, J.1. The Public Prosecutor conceded that the Magistrate's order under Section 473, Criminal Procedure Code, was made before the witnesses for the prosecution had been cross-examined on their evidence that the search list was a 'false one' and before the defence had any opportunity to show that the search list was not a false one. This action was obviously premature and wrong. Cross-examination might have shown that the prosecution evidence was untrustworthy, or its truth might have been disproved by other evidence.2. Again, the Magistrate's order is open to objection in that it does not specify or even indicate in any way, how or in what respect the search list was 'a false' one. The Magistrate's order under Section 476 is, for these reasons, improper and is set aside....
In Re: Narayanasami Naiker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ357
ORDER1. This is an application for bail The petitioners were arrested by the Police under Section 151, Cr. P.C., on the ground that the police apprehended that they were about to commit house-breaking and theft. The petitioners were produced before the Sub-Magistrate of Udumulpet He was of opinion that proceedings should be instituted against the petitioners under Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to take security from them for keeping the peace and sent them up to the Joint-Magistrate of Pollachi. The Joint-Magistrate before whom proceedings under Section 107 were pending, considered it necessary to detain them in custody pending the proceedings, and he rejected their application to release them on bail. The Sessions Court of Coimbatore also dismissed an application made to it for bail. It is contended, before us, that the Joint-Magistrate was bound to release the petitioners on bail and that he had no discretion to refuse to do so. It is also urged that he if he had such dis...
Manika Mudeliar Vs. Dewasi Kamani Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.595
1. We entirely agree with the District Judge that the Vakil for the 2nd defendant had no authority to enter into an, agreement which settled none of the matters in dispute between his client and the plaintiff, but left his client, to fight the whole matter out in a fresh litigation, surrendering possession of the property meanwhile to the plaintiff. We think he had power to enter into a compromise, but not to enter into the agreement in question. The Vakil appears to have acted improperly in doing so. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Ponna Krishnavasudemudu and anr. Vs. Kouviriri Basuri Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.188
1. We are unable to sustain the order appealed against. The Subordinate Judge does not say that the time between the 22nd March and the 4th April would ordinarily not be sufficient for serving summonses on the witnesses. He says: 'No vigilant steps were taken by the petitioner to secure the attendance of his witnesses.' This is vague, and we are not clear as to what he means. He does not say there was any defect in the summonses. The return of the summonses unserved for want of jurisdiction may have been due to a mistake on the part of the Court in not sending them to the proper authority for service. We may observe that in a case of this sort, the lower Court ought to send up the summonses for the inspection of this Court. We set aside the order and direct the petition to be restored to the file and disposed of afresh according to law. The costs of this appeal will abide the result....
Narainasawmy Naicken and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.79
ORDER1. This is an application for bail. The petitioners were arrested by the Police under Section 151, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the Police apprehended that they were about to commit house-breaking and theft. The petitioners were produced before the Sub-Magistrate of Udumalpet. He was of opinion that proceedings should be instituted against the petitioners under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code to take security from them for keeping the peace and sent them up to the Joint Magistrate of Pollachi. The Joint Magistrate, before whom proceedings under Section 107 are pending, considered it necessary to detain them in custody pending the proceedings, and he rejected their application to release them on bail. 'I he Sessions Court of Coimbatore also dismissed an application made to it for bail. It is contended before us that the Joint Magistrate was bound to release the petitioners on bail and that he had no discretion to refuse to do so, It is also urged that if h...
Kommeneni Chinna Veerayya (Died) Vs. Kommeneni Lakshminarasimma and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ375
1. The prayer in the plaint according to its terms is for a declaration that the 3rd defendant is not the illatom son of the 1st defendant's father-in-law as well as for a declaration that the 1st defendant's deed of relinquishtnent in favour of the 3rd defendant cannot affect the plaintiff's rights as reversiouer. The 3rd defendant raised various legal objections to the maintainability of the suit for a declaration that the 3rd defendant was not the illatom son of the 1st defendant's father-in-law To overcome these objections the plaintiff contended that his suit was really only one to declare the deed of reliuquishment invalid as against his reversionary rights. This contention was upheld and the suit was allowed to go on as one relating merely to the validity of the relinquishment. We cannot therefore now regard it as one relating to the 3rd defendant's rights as an illatom son. This court decided that in a suit by a reversioner for a declaration that a deed of alienation or other i...
K. China Veerayya (Died) Vs. R. Lakshminarasamma and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad406
1. The prayer in the plaint according to its terms is for a declaration that the third defendant is not the illatom son of the first defendant's father-in-law as well as for a declaration that the first defendant's deed of relinquishment in favour of the third defendant and fourth defendant cannot affect the plaintiff's rights as reversioner. The third defendant raised various legal objections to the maintainability of the suit for a declaration that the third defendant was not the illatom son of the first defendant's father-in-law. To overcome these objections the plaintiff contended that his suit was really only one to declare the deed of relinquishment invalid as against his reversionary rights. This contention was upheld and the suit was allowed to go on as one relating' merely to the validity of the relinquishment. We cannot therefore now regard it as one relating to the third defendant's rights as an illatom son. This Court decided in Sakyahani Ingle Rao Sahib v. Bhavani Boyi Sah...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »