Chennai Court November 1913 Judgments
In Re: K. Sellandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad149(2); (1915)ILR38Mad552
ORDERMillar, J.1. In this case the Magistrate has found the accused Miler, J. guilty, and then committed him to the Court of Sessions under Section 348, Criminal Procedure Code. The effect of the conviction would seem to be that Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, would bar the trial by the Court of Sessions.2. It is not entirely easy to deal satisfactorily with cases under Section 348. The Magistrate is bound to commit if there has been a previous conviction of one of the offences described unless he can adequately punish the accused; consequently he must either as a preliminary matter or at any rate before framing a charge determine whether there has been a previous conviction; having decided that point, he will have to consider whether in the circumstances of the case his powers enable him to pass sufficiently severe sentence. If he thinks they do so permit, he may either commit the accused for trial or try him himself: if they do not so permit, but the evidence does not warrant t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasa Ayyangar and Four ors. Vs. Radhakrishnam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad667
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1.This is an appeal against an order of remand. The appellants are the defendants.2. The plaintiff sued for redemption of a mortgage created in 1884. This mortgage document (Exhibit A) begins by calling itself a usufructuary mortgage, and, in two or three places in the course of the deed, it is expressly Bailed a usufructuary mortgage deed. It, however, contains a clause that, if the mortgage amount was not paid on a date which is stipulated in the document at an interval of exactly nine years from the date of the document, the mortgage was to work itself out as a sale for the principal amount due on the mortgage bond. Possession was given to the mortgagee in accordance with the nature of the document and its spirit. At the end, there is a covenant to this effect: 'I, the mortgagor, shall pay to you the costs of the construction of earthwork, etc., on the date fixed for redemption as per your accounts along with the mortgage money.'3. The question is, what is the natu...
Tag this Judgment!Sornalinga Mudali Vs. Pachai Naickan Alias Pachaiyappa Naicken and Fou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad41; (1915)ILR38Mad680
1. The District Munsif is in error in holding that, where several persons make a joint promise in consideration of money paid to some of them, the others are entitled to contend that, because no portion of the consideration was received by them, there was no legal consideration for their own joint promise. The consideration paid to any of the joint promisors, is legally sufficient to support the promise of all the joint promisors.2. As regards Sesha Aiyar v. Mangal Doss Jee : (1910)20MLJ144 the learned Judges seem to have held that the single executant of a promissory note could show that there was no consideration for the only promise relied on, namely, the promise by that single executant. If the learned Judges intended to decide that a person who has made himself liable, according to the tenor of the promissory note, could prove that he and the promisee agreed contemporaneously that he should not he held liable, I respectfully differ from that view, as it is opposed to Section 92 of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rosario Quadros
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad551; 30Ind.Cas.453
ORDERMiller, J.1. A musician in a band is clearly not an artificer or labourer, and is not, I think, a workman within the meaning of the Act (Act XIII of 1859). I agree with the District Magistrate and set aside the order of the Magistrate....
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Pillai and anr. Vs. Palaniappa Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ94
Ayling, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal is whether the District Judge is correct in refusing to allow the plaintiffs the tight of subrogation in respect of sums admittedly expended by them in discharge of two mortgage decrees (O.S. Nos. 841 of 1900 and 178 of 1902 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Namakkal) enforceable against the suit properties. 2. The facts areas follows: The plaintiff's father was the vendee of the suit lands under a sale deed, Exhibit B, dated the 14th December 1904 for Rs. 1500, of this sum Rs. 870 was represented by the discharge of a mortgage decree held by the plaintiff's father himself against the property. In respect of this, the Judge has allowed the plaintiffs claim. The balance was to be applied; and, admittedly, was in fact applied, in discharge of the two decrees above mentioned, based on mortgages of the said property. Exhibit B was executed during the pendency of a suit O.S. No. 1092 of (1904) brought by the 5th defendant...
Tag this Judgment!M. Subramania Aiyar Vs. Vaithinatha Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad682; 31Ind.Cas.198
1. It is admitted that the decree under execution was passed after the death of the defendant and before his legal representatives were impleaded. It is argued firstly that this did not effect its validity, and secondly that the decree passed is not void but must be set aside in separate proceedings for that purpose, before it can be treated as a nullity.2. Goda Coopooramier v. Soondrammal I.L.R., (1910) Mad., 167 is relied on. But it deals with exceptional circumstances and the case of a plaintiff; and it is not clear that the decision would have been the same, if a decree against a defendant had been in question. On the other hand in Janardhan v. Ramchandra I.L.R., (1902) Bom., 317, Radha Prasad Singh v. Lal Sahab Rai I.L.R., (1891) All., 53, and Imdad Ali v. Jagan Lal I.L.R., (1895) All., 478, the two last mentioned cases relating to decrees against defendant, it was held that the decrees were nullities. Authority is therefore against the petitioner's contention on this point, and, ...
Tag this Judgment!Periyasami Kone Vs. V.P.R.M. Muthia Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad677
1. The view of the Lower Courts that a decree holder is entitled to abandon hie claim against some of the mortgaged properties even after decree so as to enable him to ignore the terms of the decree if those terms direct him to bring those properties to sale before he could proceed against other properties of the judgment-debtor, that view, though in accordance with certain Allahabad decisions, cannot be accepted as sound as it is against the decision of this Court in Manti Kamoji v. Ghodimalla Ramamurthy (1908) 3 M.L.T., 335, which has been recently followed by this Bench in Vardiah v. Raja Perumal Raja Bahadur Appeal against Order No. '257 of 1909.2. If, of course, the mortgaged properties directed to be sold under the mortgage decree do not belong to the mortgagor, the mortgagee need not be compelled to resort to the farce of bringing them to sale and to undergo the useless delay involved in bringing them to sale, because it is an elementary principle of law that the Court will not ...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesa Mudali and ors. Vs. Ramasami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad668(1); (1914)26MLJ23
1. Adopting the reasoning of the Judgments in Hirasing v. Mussammet Amarti I.L.R. (1912) A.375 we hold that the suit was not barred by limitation. We are not prepared to follow the decision in Shevdas Doulatram v. Narayen I.L.R. (1911) B. 268 and we think that the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act can be invoked in the case of a suit governed by the. Limitation period, prescribed by Section 31 (prescribed whether as a matter of grace or otherwise) and not merely the periods prescribed in the A Schedule.2. It is unnecessary to consider the other two questions raised by the appellant's learned Vakil--one of them was whether on general principles of Jurisprudence a suit whose limitation period expired on a Sunday could be filed oh the next day and whether Gelinin v. Monggre (1913) 2 K.B. 549 was correctly decided.3. The other question is whether Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applied in favor of the plaintiff, a question answered in the affirmative by Chamier J. in Hira Si...
Tag this Judgment!Tumuluri Venkataramayya and ors. Vs. Madhaburi Lakshmi Narasimhacharlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ72
1. The defendant, a pleader, was retained by Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 7 who describe themselves 'as ryots of Ventur Agraharam' to appear for them in certain suits which they expected would be brought against them by the agraharamdars and not to accept vakaiat from the latter. He received Rs. 500 from them and was entitled to get Rs. 2,000 under the agreement. The agreement between the parties, which was in writing, also provided that the same fee was to be paid to him in other suits which maybe brought by the agraharamdar against other ryots ' in a batch along or simultaneously' with suits against themselves. It was clearly intended that he was to appear for all the ryots against the landlords in all the suits in which the questions for decision are admitted to be the same. It was urged for the pleader that the agreement provides that he should appear only in these suits against other ryots which may be brought along with the suits against the seven plaintiffs. This may strictly be so, and...
Tag this Judgment!Gouse Moideen Saib Vs. Muthialu Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad657(1); (1914)26MLJ36
1. The plaintiff's right to pursue the remedy granted by Section 131 of the Estates Land Act through an application to the Collector cannot take away his right of suit in the ordinary civil Court to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud, especially as the remedy by application to the Collector is accompanied by the imposition of an onerous condition to pay 5 per cent, of the purchase money as a solatium to the purchaser besides the purchase money and to make the application within a more limited period than is allowed for a suit in the ordinary courts. See Section 9 C.P.C. Section 213 Clause (4) of the Estates Land Act and the Zemindar of Ettiapuram v. Sanharappa Reddiar I.L.R. (1903) M. 483. The argument of the appellant's (first defendant's) learned Vakil that Section 189 of, the, Estates Land Act takes away the right to bring a suit in the Civil Court to set aside a sale on the ground of fraud cannot be accepted. It only takes away the right to apply to the Civil Court under 3-1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »