Chennai Court August 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.
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Abdul Hameed and Twenty Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad585
1. This appeal and reference arise out of What is known as the Coimbatore Mohurrum riot which occurred on the evening of January 12th, 1911. Put briefly, the facts are as follows.2. January 12th was the last day of the Mohurrum festival, in connection with which it is usual for men and boys to paint and disguise them selves in imitation of tigers and to dance in the public streets. On the after noon of the day in question the Coimbatore Town Inspector began (so far as appears) to enforce an old order of the District; Magistrate embodied in a book of Standing Orders (Exhibit A) prohibiting persons from thus dancing as tigers without license from the police. Between about 5 and 6 P.M. he stopped the dancing of five unlicensed men, the last two of whom are the present second and twenty-third accused. These men were dancing near the station, and to secure compliance with his command the Inspector first took away the 'tails' they were wearing and then partially washed the paint of their fac...
G. Karibasavana Gowd Vs. N. Veerabhadrappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad580
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for the recovery of damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of an obstruction caused by the defendant of the plaintiff's right of way to certain lands of the plaintiff. A decree had been previously obtained by the plaintiff establishing his right of way but that decree was apparently under appeal at the time of the institution of contributory negligence and was therefore not entitled to recover any damage. He found that there was another way to the plaintiff's fields though it was less convenient than that which the defendant obstructed and that the plaintiff did not act rightly in not sowing his fields.2. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the other way which the plaintiff could have used was not one along which carts could pass during the rains, that it was sandy, that there were boulders here and there and that it was on the whole a hazardous route. To use his own words the plaintiff was not bound 't...
Gedehal Karibasavana Gowd Vs. Nandavaram Veerabadrappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.14
1. The suit, out of which' this second appeal arises, was instituted for the recovery of damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of an obstruction caused by the defendant of the plaintiff's right of way to certain lands of the plaintiff. A decree had been previously obtained by the plaintiff establishing his right of way, but that decree was apparently under appeal at the time of the institution of this suit, The plaintiff claimed damages sustained by Shim owing to his inability to cultivate his lands in 1905 in consequence of the obstruction. The 'defendant contended that the plaintiff could have gone to his fields by another route, that it was his own fault that he did not cultivate the lands and that, therefore, he could not claim any damages at all. The District Munsif upheld his contention. He held that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and was, therefore, not entitled to recover any damages. He found that there was another way to the plaintiff's fields...
theygaraya Mudeliar Vs. Sabapathy Mudeliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.529
1. We are of opinion that there is no legal evidence on which the deeree of the lower Courts in plaintiff's favour for items 56 F, 41 J, 118 Q, 1181 and 139 F can be sustained. The District Munsifs judgment proceeded on the ground that the right of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in these items is barred by the rule of res judicata in consequence of the order on the claim petitions, Exhibits H and J, preferred by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, where these items and other properties were attached in execution of decree in O.S. No. 279 of 1906, bat his view is clearly wrong. The plaintiffs were no parties to those proceedings and they cannot claim the benefits of the orders on those petitions. The claim of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to those items was disallowed and they did not institute any suit to establish their right to them. The judgment of the Appellate Court with respect to these items is solely based on their omission to assert their rights by a fresh suit, but the attachment was raised with...
Subramania Chettyar Represented by His Agent with Power of Attorney Do ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.380
1. In this case, a preliminary decree for sale on a mortgage bond was-passed by the District Munsif on the 27th September 1909, Nand a final decree on the 29th of November 1909. The preliminary decree was that the plaintiff should be entitled to recover the amount claimed with costs as prayed. There was no question of substance left to be decided before the final decree was issued. The defendant preferred an appeal on the 15th of December 1909 against the preliminary decree of the 27th of September. As a final decree had been already passed, the appropriate course was, no doubt, to appeal against that decree and it was not necessary for him to appeal against, the preliminary decree. One appeal was quite sufficient. He paid full stamp duty on the amount decreed against him. The appeal has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that it was unsustainable as no appeal was presented against the final decree. As only one appeal was required against the decree for sale and as t...
Krishnasami Panikondar (Died) and anr. Suppammal Alias Sonammal Vs. S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ219
ORDER1. This application is for a certificate entitling the applicant to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of this Court, dated the 4th November 1908, dismissing an appeal on the ground that it was not preferred within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act. In that order the Court gave its reasons for declining to exercise the power to excuse delay conferred by Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal with costs.2. Taking it in the applicant's favour that this order is a final order passed on appeal by the High Court (Section 109 (a) Civil Procedure Code), we are of opinion, none the less, that the applicant is not entitled to the certificate applied for.3. In the first place we think the order of this Court is an order affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge within the meaning of Section 110 of the Code. We think that the right view of this question was taken in Beni Rai v. Ram Lakhan Rai I.L.R. (1898) A. 367 and that an order the result of w...
Ganapathy Aiyar Vs. Sivamalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ306
1. The plaintiff as legatee under a will sues to recover certain properties which were sold by the 1st defendant his natural father and executor under the will, to the 2nd defendant in 1897. The suit was instituted in 1908. The plainh alleged that the sale was not binding on the plaintiff. The second defendant contended that the 1st defendant had authority to sell and that the sale was made for discharging certain debts due by the deceased testatrix. The District Munsif held that the sale was not binding on the plaintiff and gave a decree in his favour. On appeal the District judge disposed of the case on the question of limitation. He held the suit barred as it was instituted by the plaintiff more than 3 years after the date of his attaining majority; he regarded the suit as one to set aside an alienation made by a guardian and applied Article 44 of the Limitation Act. The 2nd defendant has not contended that the sale was made by the 1st defendant in his capacity as guardian. We are o...
Ganapathi Aiyar Vs. Slvamalai Goundan and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad575
1. The plaintiff as legatee under a will sues to recover certain properties which were sold by the first defendant, his natural father and the executor under the will, to the second defendant in 1897. The suit was instituted in 1908. The plaint alleged that the sale was not binding on the plaintiff. The second defendant contended that the first defendant had authority to sell and that the sale was made for discharging certain debts due by the deceased testatrix. The District Munsif held that the sale was not binding on the plaintiff and gave a decree in his favour. On appeal the District Judge disposed of the case on the question, of limitation. He held the suit barred as it was instituted by the plaintiff more than three years after the date of his attaining majority; he regarded the suit as one to set aside an alienation made by a guardian and applied Article 44 of the Limitation Act. The second defendant has not contended that the sale was made by the first defendant in his capacity...
Ganapathi Aiyar Vs. Sivamalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.4
1. The plaintiff, as legatee under a Will, sues to recover certain properties which were sold by the 1st defendant, his natural father and executor under the Will, to the 2nd defendant in 1897. The suit was instituted in 1908. The plaint alleged that the sale was not binding on the plaintiff. The second defendant contended that the 1st defendant had authority to sell and that the sale was made for discharging certain debts due by the deceased testatrix. The District Munsif held that the sale was not binding on the plaintiff and gave a decree in his favour. On appeal, the District Judge disposed of the case on the question of limitation, He held the suit barred as it was instituted by the plaintiff more than three years after the date of his attaining majority; he regarded the suit as, one to set aside an alienation made by a guardian and applied Article 44 of the Limitation Act. The 2nd defendant has not contended that the sale was made by the 1st defendant in his capacity as guardian....
Muthu Pillay Vs. Chakrapani Chettyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.205
1. Plaintiff is a purchaser from the junior of two widows, who jointly inherited certain property from their husband, and he has been given a declaration that he is entitled to the rights possessed by her at the time of the alienation in his favour. The sale has been declared by the lower Courts to be not binding on the estate, so as to bind either the senior widow or the reversioners. The appeal is against the decree declaring that the plaintiff has obtained the rights of the junior widow. We are unable to see any valid objection to it. The case relied on by the appellant, Vadali Mamidigadu v. Kotapalli Ramayya 26 M.k 334 is not an authority in support of his contention that the sale is altogether void so as to convey no right to the purchaser. We, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with costs.2. This judgment will not affect any claim that the plaintiff may have to the enjoyment of the whole property on the death of the senior widow, nor do we decide any question regarding the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »