Chennai Court April 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.
Karnam Narayanappa and ors. Vs. Tangatur Subbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.585
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. Both the lower Courts have found that the lands sought to be recovered were in reality mortgaged to Ramayya and that Vencatasubbaya purchased them in Court auction, and subsequently sold them to 2nd defendant, who, in his turn, sold them to the plaintiff. The lands intended to be mortgaged and sold were the plaint lands, though the description in the mortgage and sale-certificate and in the subsequent conveyances was defective or incorrect. As between the parties, therefore, to the mortgage and sale items, it was held that the title passed to the plaintiff, the vendee.2. It is argued in second appeal that, howsoever that might be, the 3rd and 4th defendants, who are the subsequent purchasers, are entitled to bind the plaintiff to the description contained in his title-deeds and that the plaintiff cannot claim against there anything that is not really comprised in those documents. I am of opinion that this argument should not prevail. The mortgagor himself could not ...
Pandyaram Sastrulu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.166
1. The appellant has been convicted of kidnapping a girl of about 15 years of age from the lawful guardianship of her father. The girl was married and, after living for a time with her husband in his village, returned to her father's house about a year before the alleged offence. The accused is charged with taking her from that place about the 20th of August last. The girl herself, as defence first witness, alleges that she was driven out from her father's house sometime before the complaint because her conduct in going about in the village, as she says, had displeased her father and others and that she returned, to her village as she heard that she was charged with the theft of some of her father's jewels and was afraid of arrest. Her story that she was driven out by her father is supported by four defence witnesses, inhabitants of her village, against whom there is nothing much to be said.2. The Sessions Judge rejects all this defence evidence apparently because he disbelieves the de...
Solanalai Mudaliar Vs. Vadamalai Muthiran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.96
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The question raised in this revision-petition is whether the lower Court was right in rejecting as inadmissible the promissory-note on which the suit was instituted. The note was executed outside British India but was endorsed over to the plaintiff in British India. It is quite clear under Section 3, Clause (b) of the Stamp Act, that the document required to be duly stamped. The District Munsif held it to be not duly stamped because the stamp was not cancelled in a manner that it could not be used again. The manner in which the stamp was cancelled in this case is stated by the Munsif thus: 'some blue pencil lines are drawn over the stamp'. The Munsif considered this not to be an, effective method of cancellation. I have looked at the stamp myself and I am unable to say that the District Munsif was wrong in holding that the stamp was not properly cancelled. It is not possible to lay down any general rule as to what mode of cancellation would be effective. The Legisla...
Vemula Jambalayya Vs. Iskala Rajamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ512
1. The District Munsif appears to have looked at a receipt and construed it as a settlement out of court and upon it determined.the issue whether the settlement after suit is true, but he did not exhibit it as evidence in the suit or take other evidence. It is not now alleged that this course was taken by consent of the parties or that the parties agreed that the matter should be disposed of on the construction of the receipt alone.2. The District Judge appears to have seen the receipt and considered that it is not a record of the terms of a settlement between the parties, and holding that the plaintiff should be allowed to prove that the document presented only a partial settlement; he has remanded the suit for re-hearing and disposal.3. Before us it is contended that the District Munsif having determined the issue as to the settlement has not disposed of the suit on a preliminary point, and that therefore the District Judge had no power to order a remand.But the decision in Kuppalan ...
W.A. Beardsell and Co. (by their Agent, W.H.H. Johnstore) Vs. Nilgiri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad107
Miller, J.1. I think the Magistrate was right in holding that the sanction of the Insolvency Commissioner is necessary. Taking it that all the offences charged were complete when the claim was made before the Official Assignee still at the time both first and second accused were parties to the Insolvency Proceedings in the High Court initiated by a petition of the complainant's. The order of adjudication does not transfer the proceeding from the Court to the Official Assignee.2. So that even if it is necessary under Section 195(1), (c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the proceeding should have commenced before the offence is complete, that requirement is fulfilled in this case. The offence of forgery is complete, it may be said, as soon as the false document is made, and in that view it cannot be right to restrict the scope of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cases in which the commencement of the 'proceeding' precedes the completion of the offence for the secti...
W.A. Beardsell and Co. by their Agent, W.H.H. Johnstone Vs. Nilagiri A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.593
ORDERMiller, J.1. I think the Magistrate was right in holding that the sanction of the Insolvency Commissioner is necessary. Taking it that all the offences charged were complete when the claim was made before the Official Assignee, still at that time bath 1st and 2nd accused were parties to the Insolvency proceedings in the High Court initiated by a petition of the complainants. The order of adjudication does not transfer the proceedings from the Court to the Official Assignee.2. So that even if it is necessary under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the proceeding should have commenced before the offence is complete, that requirement is fulfilled in this case. The offence of forgery is complete, it may be said, as soon as the false document is made and, in that view, it cannot be right to restrict the scope of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cases in which the commencement of the proceeding precedes the completion of the offence, for the sectio...
A.T.S. Deivanayagam Pillai Vs. Muthukumarasawmy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.560
1. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner (2nd defendant), that the debt due under the pro-note had been discharged by virtue of a Certificate (Exhibit I) given to him by the District Judge of Colombo in Insolvency proceedings in Ceylon and that, consequently, this suit on the pro-note is not maintainable as against him. The plaintiff's case, so far as we are now concerned with it, is (1) that the pro-note is the result of dealings between plaintiff and defendants, by which defendants made purchases in Tuticorin from the plaintiff, for use in their trade in Ceylon, and consequently the contract is an Indian contract, and, whatever may be the effect of the Insolvency proceedings in Ceylon, the suit is maintainable in the Indian Courts, and (2) that the effect of the Insolvency Certificate in Ceylon is not to discharge the 2nd defendant from liability for the debt. According to the plaint, the suit is a suit on the pro-note made in Colombo, by defendants residing and trading in Ceyl...
Aiyagari Narayanamurty Vs. Dhalipala Venkataramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.229
1. In this case, the judgment of the Subordinate Judge is based on the finding on the 2nd issue, viz., whether defendants are estopped from asserting that their vendor got the suit property from her father under the decree in O.S. No. 566 of 1880 on this Court's file and whether it is a collusive decree. He finds that, as a matter of fact, the decree in that suit is res judicata. In coming to this conclusion, he proceeds on what is apparently a misreading of the judgment of the Appellate Court in that suit. He says that the Appellate Court in the above-mentioned suit decided: 'that the sales made by Ranaappa in favour of her sons-in-law were true and bona fide and binding on the ground that they were effected in order to discharge the debts contracted by her husband and herself as well.' There is no such finding in the judgment of that Court. All that is found there is that the sales made in favour of the sons-in-law were genuine, and, having regard to the scope of the suit, that findi...
Rathnam Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.487
ORDERWallis, J.1. Under Rule 9, a motorcar must not be driven in a public place recklessly or negligently or in a manner which is likely to endanger life, etc., or which would be otherwise than reasonable and proper, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the natural condition and use of the road, and to the amount of the traffic which is actually on the road at the time or which may reasonably be expected on it. Under Rule 12, every motor driver must have a suitable horn and sound it whenever expedient to prevent danger to the public. In this case, the Magistrate has found that on the Adayar road, while it was still light, but cannot have been long before lighting-up time, the petitioner, for the purpose of turning, had to go on to the wrong side of the road, that, before turning, the occupants of oar looked up and down the road without seeing any thing coming, but none-the-less had to desist at the sound of a motor horn to allow a cyclist coming up from behind ...
Peri Lakshminarasimham Pantulu Garu Vs. Sree Sree Ramachandra Maharaja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ290
1. In this case the suit was instituted to set aside a distraint upon the plaintiff's land made by the defendant who is a Zamindar. The plaintiff is an intermediate tenure-holder under the defendant. The distraint was levied in order to recover a portion of certain arrears of cess which had been collected from the defendant under Section 73 of the Madras Local Boards Act and which portion he was entitled to recover from the plaintiff.2. The first question argued before us is that Section 77 of the Estates Land Act does not authorise the Zamindar to levy distraint against an intermediate tenure-holder and we think the language of Section 77 is clear to support that contention. This, in fact, is not disputed by the learned vakil for the respondent. Section 77 says 'At any time after an arrear of rent has become due the land-holder may, in addition to any other remedy to which he is entitled by this Act, in respect of any arrear of rent which has accrued due within the next preceding twel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »