Chennai Court September 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.
B. Ranga Row Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.518
ORDER1. This is a petition to restore to the file Criminal Revision Petition No. 499 of 1912 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 326 of 1912. Criminal Revision Petition No. 499 of 1912 was petition to this Court to revise an order of the Sessions Judge of, Bellary in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1912 in which he ordered a re-trial of the case before him. The petition came before this Court and the order passed on it was dismissed for default' The present petition is to restore it. It is clearly laid down in Referred Trial No. 40 of 1905 of this Court that the High Court has no power to review its judgment in a referred trial. Their Lordships, the Chief Justice and Moore, J., considered the question as beyond argument. The same view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in In the matter of F.W. Gibbons 14 C.k 42 and by the Bombay High Court in Queen Empress v. Bhimappa bin Ramanna 19 B.k 732. The language of Section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been considered and the wor...
Ambuja Ammal Vs. Appadurai Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1912
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.402
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. In this case, there is no ground for interference in second appeal unless we are prepared to adopt the appellants' contention that the Subordinate Judge acted illegally in admitting certain additional documents in evidence in appeal. The appeal was first heard on the 14th September 1910. The Subordinate Judge then observed: I think it is necessary to have the documents described as 1 and 2 in the list attached to the petition, and also the Will of the original mortgagee before the Court to enable it satisfactorily to pronounce its judgment,' On that ground, he allowed the additional evidence to be received. It is contended that in doing so he acted in excess of his powers. The Appellate Court's right to receive additional evidence in appeal is restricted by Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The rule is in substantially the same terms as Section 568 of the repealed Civil Procedure Code. It runs as follows: 'The parties to an appeal shall not b...
Avathani Muthukrishnier Vs. Sankaralingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ135
ORDERAyling, J.1. The facts of the case are fully and clearly set forth in the judgment of my learned brother, which I have had the advantage of perusing. The only point with which we are concerned is whether the Subordinate Judge was entitled to reduce the rate of interest specified in the suit bond.2. As regards the preliminary objection that the matter is covered by the oath taken by the plaintiff and that the defendant is thereby precluded from asking for relief against the high rate of interest, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Judge who disposed of the revision petition. Apart from this, the question whether the decree of the Subordinate Judge, in so far as it modified the terms of the contract as regards interest, should be upheld, is one of some difficulty; and, with all diffidence, I may say that it seems to me of the utmost importance to observe the distinction between what a court may do and what a court should do. The matter is considered from both points o...
immudipattam Vijaya Gandipa Nachimuthu Ovala Kondama Naicker Vs. S. An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.106
1. Plaintiff sues to recover a sum of Rs. 37,500 with interest which he claims as commission due to him under a contract with the defendant by which the latter authorised him to sell a mitta. He claims to have performed his part of the contract. Wallis, J., who tried the case, found that the plaintiff brought about a contract of sale between the Court of Wards and the defendant which the latter could have enforced against the Court of Wards, but the defendant wilfully made default in complying with certain requisitions made by the Court of Wards and made them a pretext for withdrawing from the contract, and afterwards sold the property to one Veerappa Chetty for the amount for which the Court of Wards had agreed to purchase the property. He was of opinion that when the plaintiff brought about the contract of sale, he had performed his promise and become entitled to recover his commission, and accordingly passed a decree in his favour for the amount claimed.2. In appeal, it is contended...
Ramanathan Chettyar and ors. Vs. Ragavendra Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.807
1. The appellant's brother, who was the managing member of a Hindu family, obtained a decree which the appellant now seeks to execute. There was apparently a partition in the family to which both the appellant and his brother belonged; and it is stated that, at the partition, this decree was allotted to the appellant. He then put in an application for execution claiming to be entitled to do so as assignee under an oral transfer. His application was rejected on the ground that an assignee could execute a decree only when the assignment was in writing. The appellant subsequently obtained an assignment from his brother, the decree-holder, in writing, and again applied for execution. The application would admittedly be barred by limitation, unless the previous application could be said to be an application to take a step-in aid of execution in accordance with law. It is difficult to see what step the Court was asked to take in aid of execution in the previous application. But, apart from t...
Sankararama Aiyar Vs. R. Padmanabha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ373
1. The question for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether an appeal lay to the District Court of Tinnevelly from the judgment of the Additional District Munsif of Tinnevelly in O. Section 132 of 07. The Subordinate Judge to whom the appeal was transferred for disposal states that the suit was originally in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tuticorin as Small Cause No. 1484 of 06; from that Court it was transferred to the District Munsif's Court of Srivaikuntam. The order of transfer contained a direction that the suit should be tried as an original suit along with another suit. It was again transferred from the latter Court to the additional District Munsif's Court of Tinnevelly. The additional District Munsif dismissed the suit and the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Court. A preliminary objection was taken before the subordinate Judge that the appeal did not lie as the decision of the Additional District Munsif must be taken to have been that of a Small Cau...
Bommidi Bayyan Naidu Vs. Bommidi Suryanarayana, Minor by Guardian Bomm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ543
Wallis, J.1. I agree with Munro J. that the extent of the defendant's holding under the plaintiff is res judicata by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 430 of 1906. In that case the present plaintiff, who held a five years' lease of the village from the registered landholder, sued the present defendant to recover rent for faslies 1314 and 1315 in the shape of Rajabagam, or landholder's share of the produce, of certain jeroyati lands in the village in the occupation of the defendant. To enable the plaintiff to succeed it was necessary for him to show under Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act 1865 that he had tendered a proper patta to the defendant for each fasli, or that it had been agreed to dispense with the tender. under Section 4 the patta had to contain the local description and extent of the land. The plaintiff pleaded that he had tendered a proper pattah for each fasli. The defendant denied the tenders and pleaded further that the pattas alleged to have been tendered were not pro...
Sankararama Iyer Vs. R. Padmanabha Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad25
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. The question for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether an appeal lay to the District Court of Tinnevelly from the judgment of the Additional District Munsif of Tinnevelly in Original Suit No. 132 of 1907. The Subordinate Judge to whom the appeal was transferred for disposal states that the suit was originally instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tuticorin as Small Causa Suit No. 1484 of 1906; from that Court it was transferred to the District Munsif's Court of Srivaikuntam. The order of transfer contained a direction that the suit should be tried as an original suit along with another suit. It was again transferred from the latter Court to the Additional District Munsif's Court of Tinnevelly. The Additional District Munsif dismissed the suit and the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Court. A preliminary objection was taken before the Subordinate Judge that the appeal did not lie as the decision of the Additional District Munsif mu...
Sankarama Aiyar Vs. R. Padmanabha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.425
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The question for decision in this civil revision petition is whether an appeal lay to the District Court of Tinnevelly from the judgment of the Additional District Munsif of Tinnevelly in Original Suit No. 132 of 1907. The Subordinate Judge, to whom the appeal was transferred for disposal, states that the suit was originally in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tuticorin as Small Cause No. 1484 of 1906; from that Court it, was transferred to the District Munsif's Court of Srivaikuntam. The order of transfer contained a direction that the suit should be tried as an original suit along with another suit. It was again transferred from the latter Court to the Additional District Munsif's Court of Tinnevelly. The Additional District Munsif dismissed the suit and the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Court. A preliminary objection was taken before the Subordinate Judge that the appeal did not lie, as the decision of the Additional District Munsif must be taken ...
Bommidi Bayyan Naidu Vs. Bommidi Suryanarayana, Minor, by Guardian Bom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.445
Wallis, J.1. I agree with Munro, J., that the extent of the defendant's holding under the plaintiff is res judicata by reason of the decision in Original Suit No. 430 of 1906. In that case, the present plaintiff who held a five years' lease of the village from the registered landholders, sued the present defendant to recover rent for Faslis 1314 and 1315, in the shape of rajabagam or land-holder's share of the produce, of certain jeroyati lauds in the village in the occupation of the defendant. To enable the plaintiff to succeed, it was necessary for him to show, under Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act, 1865, that he had tendered a proper patta to the defendant for each fasli, or that it had been agreed to dispense with the tender. Under Section 4, the patta had to contain the local description and extent of the land. The plaintiff pleaded that he has tendered a proper patta for each fasli. The defendant denied the tenders and pleaded further that the pattas alleged to have been tende...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »