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.
Pankajammal Vs. Seshadri Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.933
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The first objection taken is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to amend the decree because the judgment was confirmed by the High Court. The High Court dismissed the second appei.1 en the ground that no appeal lay. It could not, therefore, be said to have confirmed th9 appellate decree and it could not be said that the final decree in the case is that of the High Court. No authority has been cited for the position that the dismissal of an appeal on the ground that an appeal does not lie in the case can be regarded as confirming the decree of the lower Court, or as a decree which supersedes the decree of the lower Court. The objection must be disallowed. The next objection is that the District Judge misconstrued his judgment in coming to the conclusion that the decree was not in accordance with the judgment and, as he acted under Section 206 in a case in which he had no power to do so, in consequence of his misconstruction, he acted in excess of his jurisdi...
Syed Ibrahim Sahib Vs. Armugathayee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.877
1. The plaintiff's suit in this case is to enforce payment of the amount due to her on two mortgages executed by the 1st defendant's father in July 1891. Of these, the first, Exhibit C, is a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 500. The second, Exhibit D, is a simple mortgage for Rs. 200. On _the 4th September 1896. a sale-deed was executed by the 1st defendant's father in plaintiff's favour. The consideration, Rs. 900, for the sale-deed was made up of Rs. 700, the principal amounts due on the two mortgages, Rs. 900, the interest on the simple mortgage bond, Rs. 55, the amount due to plaintiff for the Municipal tax which the vendor had covenanted to pay by the terms of the usufructuary mortgage-deed and certain sundry amounts which he had borrowed from the plaintiff and Rs. 15 paid in cash. The 2nd defendant had obtained from the vendor a mortgage of the same property in 1893. He instituted a suit on it in 1905, brought the properties to sale and purchased them. The present plaintiff was the ...
Chidambaram Chetty Vs. Nagappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ73
1. A preliminary objection is taken to this appeal. The appeal is preferred under Section 46, Clause 2, of Act III of 1907. The order appealed against was passed by an official Receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act. Section 22 of the Act provides for an appeal to the District Court against the order of the Receiver. Under Section 52 of the Act, the High Court has the power to direct that the Official Receiver shall have power to hear insolvency petitions, to examine the debtor and to make order of adjudication. It is not denied, and we presume it is the fact, that the High Court has directed that the Official Receiver in this case should have that power. It is contended that the power given under this section would not entitle the Official Receiver to dismiss an insolvency petition. Clause (a) of Section 52(1) invests the Official Receiver with the same powers (to hear insolvency petitions, to examine the debtor, and to make order of adjudication, etc.), 'in any matter...
In Re: A. Mutyalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad236
1. The Judge has referred the case under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the evidence establishes an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code.2. On a consideration of the evidence and giving due weight to his opinions and that of the jury we think this is so.3. According to the view taken by this Court in Queen-Empress v. Anga Valayan I.L.R. (1899) Mad. 15 and King-Emperor v. Krishna Ayyar (1901) 24 Mad. 641, it would have been open to the jury in this case to have convicted the accused of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and the same view was taken by Bhashyan Ayykngar, J. in Pattikadan Ummaru v. Emperor (1903) 26 Mad. 243 though BENSON, J. was of a different opinion. We follow these decisions and deem ourselves empowered under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, to convict the accused of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, which we accordingly do--and sentence him to 5 (five) years rigorous imprisonment. The stab on the abdo...
In Re: Adabala Muthiyalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.51
1. The Judge has referred the case under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the evidence establishes an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code.2. On a consideration of the evidence and giving due weight to his opinions and that of the Jury, we think that is so.3. According to the view taken by this Court in Queen-Empress v. Anga Valayan 22 M.k 15 and King-Emperor v. Krishna Ayyar 24 M.k 641 it would have been open to the Jury in this case to have convicted the accused of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and the same view was taken by Bashyam Iyengar, J., in Pattikadan Ummaru v. Emperor 26 M.k 243 though Benson, J., was of a different opinion. We follow these decisions and deem ourselves empowered under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, to convict the accused of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, which we accordingly do and sentence him to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The stab in the abdomen was a very serious wound whi...
K.L.C.T. Chidambaram Chetty Vs. V.V.R. Nagappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.820
1. A preliminary objection is taken to this appeal. The appeal is preferred under Section 46, Clause 2, of Act III of 1907. The order appealed against was passed by an Official Receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act. Section 22 of the Act provides for an appeal to the District Court against the orders of the Receiver. Under Section 52 of the Act, the High Court has the power to direct that the Official Receiver shall have power to hear Insolvency petitions; to examine the debtor and to make order of adjudication. It is not denied, and we presume it is the fact, that the High Court has directed that the Official Receiver in this case should have that power. It is contended that the power given under this section would not entitle the Official Receiver to dismiss an Insolvency Petition. Clause (a) of Section 52(1) invests the Official Receiver with the same powers (to hear insolvency petitions, to examine the debtor and to make orders of adjudication, etc.) 'in any matter...
Subramanian Pattar Vs. Kiradadasan Alias Thirumalapad Avergal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.686
1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us in this second appeal. He represents the Karaswan in as ordinary Kuri chit which collapsed in 1905. The defendant is the owner of the legal right and he is subject to a legal liability. He is the transferee of the interest of the holders of two non-benefited half tickets in the Kuri and he is subject to the liabilities of a benefited ticket in the said Kuri. The plaintiff brought this suit for recovering Rs. 2,700 due by defendant as holder of the benefited ticket with interest thereon. The defendant pleads that he was entitled to set-off against this Rs. 2,700 what was due to him by the Karaswan as owner of the non-benefited two half-tickets, amounting to Rs. 2,400 and interest thereon.2. The lower Courts allowed such set-off and gave a decree to the plaintiff for the balance. The plaintiff contends in second appeal that the defendant must recover the Rs. 2,400 due to him from the Karaswan by a suit against the Karaswan as he cannot set it o...
Umman Khan Vs. Nagalla Dasanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ360
1. This is a suit for redemption. The 3rd defendant's father obtained a mortgage from the 1st defendant's husband in the year 1876. According to the terms of that mortgage the amount of the debt was to be paid at the expiration of 8 years. Then it goes on to say 'in case if the interest on the said principal accruing every year or the principal not being paid, you shall immediately on the expiry of the stipulated period of 8 years take possession of the said land etc. and shall happily enjoy the same in succession from son to grandson and as long as the sun and moon last.' The mortgagee was not entitled to possession immediately according to the terms of the document, but he was to take possession of the property as owner after the time fixed for payment elapsed. On the '2nd July 1885 the 1st defendant's husband sent a petition Exhibit II to the Tahsildar in order that patta for the land might be transferred to the 3rd defendant's father. The petition stated 'I have put Nagalla Vobalak...
Usman Khan Vs. N. Dasana and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad545
1. This is a suit for redemption. The third defendant's father obtained a mortgage from the first defendant's husband in the year 1876. According to the terms of that mortgage the amount of the debt was to be paid at the expiration of eight years. Then it goes on to say 'in case of the interest on the said principal accruing every year or the principal not being paid, you shall immediately on the expiry of the stipulated period ol1 eight years take possession of the said land, etc., and shall happily enjoy the same in succession from son to grandson and as long as the sun and moon last.' The mortgagee was not entitled to possession immediately according to the terms of the document, but he was to take possession of the property as owner after the time fixed for payment elapsed. On the 2nd July 1885 the first defendant's husband sent a petition (Exhibit II), to the Tahsildar in order that patta for the land might be transferred to the third defendant's father. The petition stated: 'I ha...
illa Somanna and anr. Vs. Maddala Settamma, Minor by Guardian Veeraswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.636
Miller, J.1. The Subordinate Judge has dealt with this case on the footing that the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the 4th defendant and her husband obtained at the so-called partition, made shortly before Venkayya's death, shares of property in which, by virtue of some prior agreement of partnership, they had already acquired rights as co-owners. It is probably sufficient to say that this case was not set up in the pleadings by any of the defendants. The fact that the 1st issue is framed in wide terms gave the Subordinate Judge an opportunity for dealing with the evidence as he has done but it certainly was never the case of defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 or, I think, of 2nd defendant that their rights depended upon a partnership in the lands. Mr. Narayanamurthi did not suggest that the issue was widely framed in consequence of anything that was stated at the time of settlement of issues, and that being so, I do not think the Subordinate Judge should have gone outside the pleadings to mak...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »