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.
K. Sheik Meeran Sahib Vs. C. Ratnavelu Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad181
Bakewell, J.1. The plaintiff in this case alleges that the defendant preferred a complaint in the Presidency Magistrate's Court charging the plaintiff with the offence of defamation, which on the 30th July last was dismissed, under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, after a preliminary inquiry, and prays for damages for the malicious prosecution of the plaintiff.2. Upon the case coming on for settlement of issues counsel for the defendant argued that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, becausee the facts averred show that that there was no prosecution by the defendant. It is admitted that no process was issued to compel the attendance of the plaintiff before the Magistrate, but the latter issued a notice (Exhibit A) to the plaintiff and held an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, and after hearing counsel for both parties dismissed the complaint.3. The notice recites that the defendant had filed an information and complaint before the Magistrate, charging the pl...
Ramiah Chettiar Vs. Rukmani Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ313
Miller, J.1. The 1st and the 3rd plaintiffs are transferees from one Chakrapani Chetti. The Subordinate Judge has held that the transfer deed conveyed nothing to them and on that ground the suit cannot be maintained. No other question has been decided. According to the transfer deed, a partition was made by the transferor of his property between himself and his sons on the 25th January 1908. As a part of that partition the accounts of some silk and cloth business which were managed on his behalf by two of his sons were rendered by those sons and these were taken into account in making the partition. Subsequently, he has discovered, so he recites in the deed, that certain sums due to the firm, some outstanding debts, amounting to more than Rs 10,000, were fraudulently concealed and omitted by the two sons from the accounts of the business and he proceeds to transfer to the two plaintiffs the said sums, which were fraudulently omitted, of Rs. 10,000 and-such other amount as may be found ...
Narayana Aiyar and anr. Vs. Anai Aiyar Alias Mahadeva Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.754; (1912)23MLJ649
1. The question in this case relates to the construction of a will made by a Hindu lady. It was apparently not drafted by any professional lawyer and its terms are not happily expressed. The suit was instituted by her two minor great grandsons (sons of her grandson) whom she undoubtedly intended to benefit by the dispositions contained in the will, for rent due on a rental instrument executed by the defendant for a piece of land which he had usufruc-tuarily mortgaged to the testatrix. No letters of administration with the will annexed were taken out by any one and the suit is instituted by the plaintiffs as beneficiaries under the will. It has been dismissed by the Lower Court on the ground that the plaintiffs obtained no rights under the will until the attainment of the age of majority by both of them. The substantial question for decision is whether this construction of the will is right. Its terms are as follows:-* * * * After my death (1) Minor Narayana Ayyan. aged 3 years and (2) ...
Ramiah Chettyar Vs. Rukmani Ammal, Minor by His Brother and Guardian, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.138
Miller, J.1. The first and the third plaintiffs are transferees from one Chakrapani Chetty. The Subordinate Judge has held that the transfer deed conveyed nothing to them and on that ground the suit cannot be maintained. No other question has been decided. According to the transfer deed, a partition was made by the transferor of his property between himself and his sons on the 25th January 1908. As a part of that partition, the accounts of some silk and cloth business which were managed on his behalf by two of his sons were rendered by those sons and these were taken into account in making the partition. Subsequently, he has discovered, so he recites in the deed, that certain sums due to the firm, some out-standing debts, amounting to more than Rs. 10,000, were fraudulently concealed and omitted by the two sons from the accounts of the business and he proceeds to transfer to the two plaintiffs the said sums, which were fraudulently omitted of Rs. 10,000, and such other amount as may be...
A.M. Chokalinga Mudaliar Vs. G. Mahomed Sheriff Saib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ680
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in revision. He brought this Small Cause Suit in the Nilgri Subordinate Judge's Court for tb.2 salary due to him from 1st April 1908 to 20th March 1909 at Rs. 18/-a month or Rs. 216/-a year. His engagement was for one year from 1st April 1908 to 31st March 1909. The Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiff left the defendant's service without justification on 20th March 1909. He also found that though the salary-'was fixed at Rs. 18/-a month, the engagement was for one full year and his salary was agreed to be payable in a lump sum of Rs. 2l6/-at the end of the year. On these findings he held that according to the rule of law established by English decisions and followed in Dhumee Behara v. Sevenoaks I.L.R. (1886) C. 80, the plaintiff lost all right to wages for the 11 months and 20 days during which he actually worked. The principle of the rule as stated in the English cases is that the contract must be deemed an entire indivi...
A.M. Chokalingam Mudaliar Vs. G. Mahomed Sheriff Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.894
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in revision. He brought this Small Cause Suit in the Nilgiri Subordinate Judge's Court for the salary due to him from 1st April 1908 to 20th March 1909 at Rs. 18 a month or Rs. 216 a year. His engagement was for one year from 1st April to 31st March 1909. The Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiff left the defendant's service without justification on 20th March 1909. He also found that though the salary was fixed at Rs. 18 a month, the engagement was for one full year and his salary was agreed to be payable in a lump sum of Rs. 216 at the end of the year. On these findings, he held that according to the rule of law established by English decisions and followed in Dhumee Behara v. Sevenoaks 13 C.k 80 the plaintiff lost all right to wages for the 11 months and 20 days during which he actually worked. The principle of the rule, as stated in the English cases, is that the contract must be deemed an entire indivisible contract and...
Velayudam Pillai Vs. Vaithialingam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.619; (1913)24MLJ66
1. The petitioner in this Court instituted a Small Cause Suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Kumbakonam for the recovery of the amount due to him on a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant on the 22nd June 1902. The 2nd defendant was also sought to be made liable for the debt under section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act as a universal donee, she having received in gift from the 1st defendant, under an instrument, dated the 29th November 1903, a house which was the only property possessed by the latter. The 2nd defendant pleaded that as against her the suit was barred by limitation and that the payments made by the 1st defendant subsequent to the deed of gift and relied on as saving the suit from limitation could not keep the debt alive as against her. This plea was upheld by the lower court. It is contended before us that this view is wrong. We are of opinion that the contention must succeed. According to section 20 of the Limitation Act, ' where interest on a debt or...
Punga Seethai Ammal Vs. Punga Nachiyar Ammal and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1912
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ10
Miller, J.1. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are both widows of the father of the last male owner of the property in dispute and they are both step mothers of the last male owner and the question is whether the plaintiff has any right to share in the property in dispute which has been conveyed to the 1st defendant by certain persons who alleged themselves to be the sons of the grandfather of the last male owner. The question so far as it turns on Hindu Law is whether a step mother is entitled to succeed in. any circumstance to the property of her step son ; and it has divided itself practically into two parts in this Court; first, whether she should not be given a right to succeed as being in the class of Gotraja Sapindas and secondly whether, even if she has no right as a member of that class, she still is a Sapinda within the meaning of that term in the Mitakshara and should be allowed to succeed, before the crown at any rate, as a relation, though notas a Gotraja Sapinda. In his...
P. Seethai Ammal Vs. P. Nachiar Ammal and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad286
Miller, J.1. The plaintiff and the first defendant are both widows of the father of the last male owner of the property in dispute and they are both step-mothers of the last male owner; and the question is whether the plaintiff has any right to share in the property in dispute which has teen conveyed to the first defendant by certain persons who alleged themselves to be the sons of the grand-father of the last male owner. The question so far as it turns on Hindu Law is whether a stepmother is entitled to succeed in any circumstance to the property of her step-son; and it has divided itself practically into two parts in this Court, first, whether she should not be given aright to succeed, as being in the class of gotraja sapindas and secondly whether, even if she has no right as a member of that class, still she is a sapinda within the, meaning of that term in the Mitakshara and should be allowed to succeed, before the Crown at any rate, as a relation, though not as a gotraja sapinda. I...
M.K. Subramania Iyer and ors. Vs. Muthulakshmiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.583
ORDERSadasiya Aiyar, J.1. The prayers in the petition put in by the 1st defendant (2nd respondent) and by his sons (the 3rd and 4th respondents) are as follows: (a) that the petitioners may be placed in possession by the Receiver appointed in the suit of the lands comprised in a list which might be called list A as well as of the ploughing cattle and other agricultural implements relating thereto, and (b) that such joint family debts as had been found to be binding on all the members of the family and not in appeal in the High Court might be ordered to be paid oat of the family funds in the Court deposit.2. This petition is put in under Section 15 of the Charter Act and Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not think Section 15 of the Charter Act has any application. Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Code is very general in its terms. So far as this petition is concerned, it is as follows: 'In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may, if it is s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »