Chennai Court November 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.
Rajagopala Pandarithar, Minor Represented by His Next Friend Anni Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.762
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The District Munsif dismissed the suit for default under Order IX, Rule 12, because the minor plaintiff's next friend did not appear in person when ordered to do so.2. I do not agree with the petitioner's Vakil that the Court has no power to order a party to appear in person except when empowered by specific sections found in the Civil Procedure Code. I think the Court must have such power, whenever it considers that the interests of justice require any party to appear in person at any stage of the case.3. But the Court has no power under Order IX, Rule 12, to dismiss a minor's suit for default because of the disobedience of his next friend. The next friend is not a party to the suit see Collector of Trichinopoly v. Sivaramakrishna Sastrigal 23 M.k 73 though for purposes of answering interrogatories or for saddling him with costs, he might be treated as a party. He should not be treated as a party in order to visit his disobedience to the Court's orders upon the mi...
B. Ayyaparaju Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1912
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.894
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued the Secretary of State asking, for a decree declaring his title to a houses-site in a certain village, for recovering a certain sum of money which had been levied from him as penal assessment and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from levying any such assessment on the lands in question. The defendant's case was that the land ashalmenaha being what is called Potter's inam, does not belong to the plaintiff and that on that ground the defendant was entitled to collect penal assessment from the plaintiff.2. Both the lower Courts, on a consideration of the evidence, have found that the plaintiff did not succeed in proving the ownership of the land. It is found, however, at the same time that the plaintiff is in possession of the land and has been so for about three years. He is in possession under two documents of title derived from two persons, Venkatasami and Subarayudu, one of whom at least was in possession of the land....
Ponga Maistry Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ186
1. The accused was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment under Section '24 of the Planter's Labour Act (Madras) because he (being a maistry) failed to remain upon an estate for the term during which he agreed to supply coolies to the estate. Having undergone the six weeks' imprisonment imposed upon him, he was brought up again under Section 35 of the Act before the Magistrate who directed him to complete the performance of his contract He refused and thus made himself liable 'to further prosecution and punishment'- (see the wording of Section 35). He was again therefore further prosecuted and punished with the maximum term of three month's rigorous imprisonment provided by Section 24. He underwent that punishment also. On his release, a second time, the planter again brought him before the Magistrate for renewed directions and for renewed punishment, but the Sheristadar Magistrate refused to give further directions and to impose further punishment. One of his grounds was that it did not ...
Chelasani Ramiah Vs. Chelasani Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ233
ORDER1. In this suit which is one for partition, the plaintiff valued the relief sought by him at Rs. 150. The valuation to be adopted by the plaintiff was the same both for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction according to S. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. It is contended by Mr. Prakasam for the petitioner-defendant that the plaintiff's valuation was an arbitrary one far out of proportion to the real value of the relief sought by him. He contends that the court has power to reject the plaintiff's valuation if it found that it was not a bona fide estimate made by the plaintiff. His argument is supported by the latest decisions of the Calcutta, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. See Krishna Das Lala v. Hari Churn Banerjee 15 C.W.N. 823, Dayaram v. Gorhandas I.L.R. (1909) B. 73 Zair Husain Khan v. Khurshed Jan I.L.R. (1906) All 545. It is not, however, in accordance with the decisions of this Court in Guruva jamma v. Venkata Krishnama Ghetti I.L.R.(1900) M. 39 and Chinnammal v. Madarsa ...
R.M.A.R. Arunachella Chettiar Vs. V.V.M. Muthiah Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ679
1. For the purpose of deciding this appeal it is sufficient to refer to the 3rd prayer in the plaint in which the plaintiff asks for a declaration that the mortgage executed in favour of the defendants Nos. 5 to 8 are invalid as against the plaintiff. As the properties affected by the mortgages are admittedly situated beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, it could have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the prayer, because it clearly asks the Court to determine whether defendants No. 5 to 8 have an interest in immoveable property. The proviso to Section 16 C.P.C. has no application to such a case, as the relief is not one that can be rendered to the plaintiff by the personal obedience of the defendants. Benodi Behari Bose v. Nistani Dassi I.L.R. (1905) C. 180 is not in point. That suit was for administration in the High Court and was governed by the Letters Patent. The Privy Council held that the suit was not one for land beyond the original jurisdiction of the High Court. This ...
In Re: Panga Maistry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad497
ORDERSadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The accused was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment; under Section 24 of the Planters Labour Act (Madras) because be (being a maistry) failed to remain upon an estate for the term during which he agreed to supply coolies to the estate. Having undergone the six weeks imprisonment imposed upon him, he was brought up again under Section 35 of the Act before the Magistrate who directed him to complete the performance of his contract. He refused and thus made himself liable 'to further prosecution and punishment' (see the wording of Section 35). He was again therefore further prosecuted and punished with the maximum term of three months' rigorous imprisonment provided by Section 24. He underwent that punishment also. On his release, a second time, the planter again brought him before the Magistrate for renewed directions and for renewed punishment, but the Sheristadar-Magistrate refused to give further directions and to impose further punishment. One of his grounds...
Ponga Maistry--accused in C.C. No. 411 of 1910 on the File of the Talu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.415
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The accused was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment under Section 21 of the Planter's Labour Act (Madras), because he (being a maistry) failed to remain upon an estate for the term during which he agreed to supply Coolies to the estate. Having undergone the six weeks' imprisonment imposed upon him, ha was brought up again under Section 35 of the Act before the Magistrate who directed him to complete the performance of his contract. He refused and thus made himself liable to farther prosecution and punishment'--(see the wording of Section 35). He was again, therefore, further prosecuted and punished with the maximum term of three months' rigorous imprisonment provided by Section 24. He underwent that punishment also. On his release, a second time, the planter again brought him before the Magistrate for renewed directions and for renewed punishment, but the Sheristadar Magistrate refused to give further directions and to impose further punishment. One of his grounds...
K. Hajee Abdul Latheef Sahib and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee of Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1173
1. The appellants made an application in the insolvency of A.S. Mahomed Oosman Sahib & Co. and asked for a declaration that certain goods which had been seized by the Official Assignee after adjudication, were their property and not the property of the insolvents. This application was dismissed on the merits. The appellants then brought a suit against the Official Assignee for the declaration which he had asked for in his application in the insolvency. No authority has been cited in support of the contention that such a suit will lie. In our opinion it will not.2. We see no reason for interfering with Wallis, J.'s order refusing leave to amend the plaint.3. The appeal is dismissed with taxed costs....
R.M.A.R. Aruna Chella Chettiar Vs. V.V.M. Muthiah Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.758
1. For the purpose of deciding this appeal, it is sufficient to refer to the 3rd prayer in the plaint in which the plaintiff asks for a declaration that the mortgages executed in favour of the defendants Nos. 5 to 8 are invalid as against the plaintiff. As the properties affected by the mortgages are admittedly situated beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, it could have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the prayer, because it clearly asks the Court to determine whether defendants Nos. 5 to 8 have an interest in immoveable property. The proviso to Section 16, Civil Procedure Code, has no application to such a case, as the relief is not one that can be rendered to the plaintiff by the personal obedience of the defendants. Benode Behari Bose v. Nistarini Dassi 15 M.L.J. 331 is not in point. That suit was for administration in the High Court and was governed by the Letters Patent. The Privy Council held that the suit, was not one for land beyond the original jurisdiction of the Hi...
K. Hajee Abdul Lateef Sahib and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.847
1. The appellants made an application in the insolvency of A.S. Mahomad Oosman Sahib and Co. and asked for a declaration that certain goods, which had been seized by the Official Assignee after adjudication, were their property- and not the property of the insolvents. This application was dismissed on the merits. The appellant then brought a suit against the Official Assignee for the declaration which he had asked for in his application in the insolvency. No authority has been cited in support of the contention that such a suit will lie. In our opinion it will not.2. We see no reason for interfering with Wallis, J.'s order refusing leave to amend the plaint.3. The appeal is dismissed with taxed costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »