Chennai Court October 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.
Srimat Ujjani Sadharma Simhasanandiswara Charappattadhyasksha Marulasi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.16
1. The plaintiff in his plaint sued to recover the properties in Schedule A appended to it. When he put in his application for the appointment of a Receiver, he appended another schedule to it, which he called B. The affidavit also stated that the suit was for the recovery of the properties in schedule A. It seems to be fairly clear that the properties in schedule B were not part of those included in schedule A to the plaint. There is nothing in the plaint which can be taken to make the properties in schedule B. appended to the Receiver petition the subject-matter of the suit. We cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that Rule 1, Order XL, of the Code of Civil Procedure, empowers the Court to appoint a Receiver, of properties which cannot, in any way, be dealt with by the Court in the suit. A Receiver, therefore, cannot be appointed in this case to take charge of the properties in schedule B appended to the plaintiff's petition. It is suggested that, probably, the Ju...
Guntupalli Ramanna and ors. Vs. Guntupalli Annamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ183
1. In our opinion the District Judge has rightly held the suit to be barred by limitation. It is a suit by a remote reversioner to declare that an alienation by a Hindu widow dated 28th July 1898 is not binding on the reversioners after her life time and it is filed in 1908. Such a suit cannot in our opinion be brought within the scope of Article 125 even by allegations of collusion on the part of the nearest reversioners. Our attention has been drawn to the Full Bench Judgment in Chiruvolu Ponnamma v. Chiruvolu Perraju I.L.R.(1905) M. 390 but their Lordships in that case refrain from expressing a definite opinion as to whether Article 120 or 125 applies. The Judgment in S.A. 281 of 99 Kalavathal v. Thiruppathi Pallavarayan : (1900)10MLJ229 is distinct authority that Article 125 does not apply and we concur in that view. The only alternative article is Article 120 which allows a period of 6 years after the right to sue accrues. Ordinarily the right to sue in a case of this nature must,...
Munireddi and Marwadi Motiram Vs. K. Venkata Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.544; (1912)23MLJ447
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. In this case two charges were preferred against the 1st grade pleader, first that he trafficked jointly with one Marwadi Vannajee in an actionable clai|m put into Court obtained by Yadalla Pichayya and Papayya against the minor heirs of one Virabhadrappa in a suit in which he was plaintiff's vakil; secondly, that he had been and was engaged in trade under the name of K.V.S. Ramchander and Co. The District Judge Mr. B.C. Smith in his report to this Court has found both the charges proved. After full consideration of the evidence on record I concur in the findings arrived at by the District Judge. It is not necessary to do more than to refer very briefly to the evidence in support of the charges.2. 1st charge. On the 7th September 1909 an agreement was entered into between Pichayya and Papayya the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 3 of 10 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Bellary on the one hand and Vannajee on the other hand for the transfer of the claim of the fo...
T. Kamal Kutty and ors. Vs. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja of Chirakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.65; (1912)23MLJ499
ORDER1. This is a petition put in under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code asking for revision of an order of the Joint magistrate of Tellicherry in Miscellaneous Case No. 30 of 1909 on the 16th October 1911 passed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The preliminary objection is taken that the Court in the exercise of its revisional powers under the Code cannot deal with orders made under that section and reliance is placed on Section 435, Clause 3, which provides that proceedings under Chapter XII are not proceedings within the meaning of that section. It is contended however on behalf of the petitioners that the Court can exercise its powers under Section 439 without calling in aid Section 435. The point has been argued at great length and most ably by Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar. He relies on the words 'which otherwise comes to its knowledge 'in Section 439, Clause (1) and contends that that phrase has reference to action taken by the High Court on petition in contradi...
Govindappa Vs. Hanumanthappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.420; (1912)23MLJ513
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This second appeal raises the question whether a judgment-debtor from whom the assignee of a money decree has realized the decretal amount in execution is entitled to recover it back from him when the decree is afterwards reversed in appeal, if the assignee of the original decree was not brought on record in the appeal. I may mention that it is not necessary to consider th.: question whether the plaintiff could and should have sought his remedy for restitution by an application made to the court which executed the decree, for he did make such application and it was on the objection of the defendant that he was driven to institute the present suit and the defendant cannot now be heard to say that the procedure to which he himself successfully objected was the proper procedure.2. Upon the merits what is urged in support of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge who has decided against the plaintiff's claim is that he not having impleaded the present defendant who had obt...
Munni Reddi and anr. Vs. K. Venkata Raw
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad238
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. This is a case of misconduct against a first grade pleader practising in Bellary. One Muni Reddi lodged a complaint against the pleader charging him with the misconduct for which he has been tried by the District Judge of Bellary. He subsequently withdrew his complaint, but as the District Judge had before the withdrawal already framed a charge against a pleader, he proceeded with the inquiry, found him guilty of the misconduct charged, and made a report to this Court under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners' Act.2. The facts that led up to the charge are briefly as follows: An inquiry into a charge of dacoity was going on about June 1908 in the Sub-Magistrate's Court of Tadpatri against Muni Reddi. The pleader was engaged according to Muni Reddi's case to defend Him both in the Magistrate's Court and in the Sessions Court of Bellary in the event of the case being committed to the Sessions Court for trial; and a fee of Rs. 350 was settled and paid for the pleader...
S. Appalanarasimhulu and anr. Vs. M. Sanyasi and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad33
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. The question for decision in this case is whether the Sub-Collector was right in holding that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was one for rent against a ryot by the proprietor of certain inam lands in a village in the Sangam Valasa Zamindari. The inam was admittedly one granted by the Zamindar subsequent to the permanent settlement. The view taken by the Sub-Collector and by the District Judge on appeal is that the plaintiffs are not landholders within the definition of that word in Section 3, Clause (5) of the Estates Land Act, and a suit for rent by them is therefore not one coming within the purview of Section 189, and No. 8 of schedule A of the Act. The reason given by the lower Courts is that the land in question is a minor inam and therefore not an 'estate' as defined by Clause (2) of Section 3. It has evidently been assumed by them that the plaintiffs cannot be landholders, if the land is not an 'Estate.' The definition of an...
Sivini Appalanarasimhulu and anr. Vs. Murada Sanyasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.120
1. The question for decision in this case is, whether the Sub-Collector was right in holding that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was one for rent against a ryot by the proprietor of certain Inam lands in a village in the Sangam Vilasa zemindary. The Inam was admittedly one granted by the zemindar subsequent to the Permanent Settlement. The view taken by the Sub-Collector and the District Judge on appeal is that the plaintiffs are not landholders within the definition of that word in Section 3, Clause (5) of the Estates Land Act, and a suit for rent by them is, therefore, not one coming within the purview of Section 189 and No. 8 of Schedule A of the Act. The reason given by the lower Courts is that the land in question is a minor Inam and, therefore, not an 'estate' as defined by Clause (2) of Section 3. It has evidently been assumed by them that the plaintiffs cannot be land-holders if the land is not an estate. The definition of an 'estate' includes...
Rathna Mudali Vs. Perumal Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.837; (1912)23MLJ576
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The facts of this case so far as they are necessary for the decision of this second appeal are briefly as follow. One Vedachala executed an usufructuary mortgage deed to one Thangavelu on the 7th April 1900, Ex. II. This mortgage was subsequently transferred to the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the suit. The 1st defendant is the heir of Thangavelu. Vedachala had three sons. He and each of the sons were therefore entitled to a fourth share in the property. On the 2nd May 1900 two of the sons Singaravelu and Tiruvengada sold their half share of the property to the 4th defendant. The mortgagees, the 2nd and 3rd defendants received half of their debt from the 4th defendant and gave up possession of a portion of the properties to him.2. The plaintiff obtained a transfer of the equity of redemption from Vedachela and his remaining son and he has instituted his suit for redemption of the mortgage. He claims to be entitled to be put in possession of the whole property mortgaged...
Krishna Doss Paramananda Doss Vs. Frederick William Emery and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.93
ORDER1. This is a Reference by the learned Chief Judge of the Presidency Court of Small Causes under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, asking the opinion of this Court on certain points of law. According to Section 69, as it now stands, a reference can be made only when the Court entertains a reasonable doubt. Under the section as it stood before, he was bound to make a reference, if either of the parties to the suit requested him to do so. We are inclined to think that this reference was made in forgetfulness of the change made in the section. We must therefore, refuse to answer the question and we return the Reference. We make no order as to costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »