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.
T.S. Shuppu Iyer alias Seshu Pattar Vs. Subramania Pattur Tariakar's S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.584
Miller, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat. The plaintiff sued the three defendants for damages for malicious prosecution. The second defendant has been exonerated by the Subordinte Judge and the 1st and 3rd have been cast in damages. The Subordinate Judge in his finding says that the 1st defendant himself launched this prosecution and conducted it himself in conspiracy with and with the abetment of the 3rd defendant.2. The facts of the case put briefly are: The 1st defendant having undergone imprisonment for some offence, a certain section of his community declined to associate with him on the ground of his incarceration. The 3rd defendant is closely related to him he sympathized with him and endeavoured to get the ban withdrawn, and the people to associate with him. On one occasion, i.e., on the occasion of the funeral of the 1st defendant's brother's wife, one Seshu Vathiar was induced to officiate and the 1st defendant took some part in the cer...
Ramanathan Chettyar and anr. Vs. Kalimuthu Pillay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ619
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura, dismissing a suit by the plaintiffs against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on a foreign Judgment. Plaintiffs sought to recover Rs. 7,336-1-7 from defendants being balance of the amount with interest due under a decree obtained by them in Suit No. 106 of the Supreme Court of Singapore. The decree is Exhibit A. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs against Oona Kavenna Suvenah Pillay, two other persons with whom this suit has no concern, Oona Kavenna and Co., and the two defendants to the present suit as carrying on business in Singapore under the firm name of Oona Kavenna and Co. The allegation in the plaint in the Court of Singapore, so far as appears from a writ of summons for service out of the jurisdiction (Ex. B), is that all the defendants made two promissory notes of August 2, 1905, jointly and severally payable to the plaintiffs and two pro-notes of the same date made in like man...
Nachiappa Goundan Vs. Ponnusamy Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.293; (1912)23MLJ287
Wallis, J.1. The Additional District Munsif's Court at Salem passed an order under Section 182 of Act XIV of 1882 (Order XVI Rule 4 of Act V of 1908) for payment of batta which is recoverable as in execution under Rule 13 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petition in execution was transferred to the Principal District Munsiff's Court. Subsequently the party against whom the order had been made died and a suit was filed in the same Court against his legal representative who appeared and objected that the matter was one for execution and that under Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure he could only be brought in by the Court that passed the order. The District Munsif under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure decided to treat the suit as an execution petition and the legal representative as a party to it and proceeded to make an order against him. I agree with the District Judge that this was wrong as the legal representative had not been brought in under Secti...
Rama Iyengar Vs. Mannar Iyen, Kasinivenda Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ327
1. The Subordinate Judge's judgment is entirely unsustainable. He begins it with the observation. 'It is meaningless to talk of 1/4th share in a well situate in another's property or an easement to take water in it to the extent of a share.' We are quite unable to understand the Subordinate Judge's difficulty in realising that there may be ownership in a well in different persons though it might stand on property belonging to one of them only. The plaintiff's case clearly was based on ownership of a portion of the well. We cannot hold that the plaintiff was bound by the pleader's acquiescence in the view of the law taken by the Subordinate Judge, that there can be no part ownership in a well. The Subordinate Judge ought to have dealt with the case on the footing on which it was put forward by the plaintiff.2. The Subordinate Judge was also mistaken in supposing that the plaintiff claimed title under a gift to his grandmother. On the other hand the defendant admitted in the Munsif's Cou...
In Re: Somayajulu Ramamurthi-counter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.251
1. Under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, I think there should be legal evidence that the individual in question is a tout or that he is reported such and that a mere report of the Bar Association will Not do. The order is set aside and remanded to lower Court for disposal according of law....
Abdul Khadir and anr. Vs. Nagasarupu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.399
1. We cannot say that there is any legal objection to the finding that the Exhibit I was not satisfactorily proved. The Subordinate Judge referred to Exhibit C as showing that the plaintiff treated the land as the owner and that Exhibit I could not, therefore, be genuine.2. With regard to the question of limitation, the finding is that there was no time fixed for the execution of the conveyance and that time, therefore, ran from the time when demand was made and defendant refused performance. The Subordinate Judge's view on the question was right.3. It is next argued that the plaintiff was guilty of undue delay in instituting the suit; but it has not been shown that the delay has in any way prejudiced the defendant. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
A.M. Murugappa Chettiar Vs. Narayanasamy Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.389a
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The Subordinate Judge decided that the petitioners are not entitled to rateable distribution under Section 73, Code of Civil Procedure, as they did not apply to execute their decrees before the assets were realized by the Court, though they had attached the properties sold before judgment. The contention of the petitioners is that their subsequent application relates back to the attachment.2. Assuming the Subordinate Judge is wrong in his decision on this question of law, the High Court will not interfere with his decision; further, the petitioners have their remedy by suit....
In Re: Reddy Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.402
1. The Public Prosecutor states that the accused is a Sub-Overseer of the Public Works Department and belongs to the class of lower Subordinates and under Rules 54, 293 (s) and 423 of the rules of the Public Works Department, 9th Edition, he can be appointed or removed by the Superintending Engineer without reference to the Local Government. This being so, the Deputy Magistrate was wrong in refusing to entertain the complaint for want of sanction, under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. We set aside his order and direct him to re-take the complaint on his file and deal with it according to law....
Vanjinathayar Vs. K.G. Vaithianathayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.798
1. The adopted son of the deceased plaintiff applied to be made a plaintiff as the legal representative of the deceased. His adoption and representative character is denied by the defendants. Therefore, under Order XXII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, the Court was bound to decide whether he was the legal representative or not. The fact that he is not the sole legal representative and that the others are already on record as representatives and that the adopted son is willing to be defendant, does not affect the question. The order of the Sub-Judge is set aside. He will restore the application to his file and deal with it with reference to the above observations. Costs will abide the result....
Enturi Guruvayya and anr. Vs. Muppulaneni Butchaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.779
1. The plaintiff obtained a mortgage dated 21st May 1895. The 5th defendant had a subsequent mortgage over the same property. The latter instituted a suit Original Suit No. 821 of 1905, on his mortgage and, in execution of the decree obtained by him, a portion of the property in question was purchased by the 6th defendant. The plaintiff obtained a sale-deed in April 1907 from the 3rd defendant in discharge of the debt due to him under his mortgage. The plaint alleges that plaintiff was not then aware of the mortgage in 5th defendant's favour and the plaintiff, therefore, instituted this suit for sale under his mortgage, stating that he did not desire to have the benefit of the sale in his favour.2. The question for decision is whether the plaintiff's suit for sale is maintainable. The sale to him was made long after Original Suit No. 821 of 1905 was instituted. Whether the sale-deed was before or after the purchase by the 6th defendant, the plaintiff's rights were swept away by the 6th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »