Chennai Court July 1913 Judgments
Chakrapani Misro Vs. Sadasiva Sodangi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ352
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) as purchaser in Court auction of 13 Charanams in a suit, to which some of the tenants in common of 150 Charanams of lands including these 13 Charanams were parties sued to obtain exclusive possession of the said 13 Charanams out of the 150 Charanams on the allegation that the said 13 Charanams were in exclusive possession of his Judgment-debtors, and that the principal defendants Nos. 1 to 10 had no rights therein. The findings of fact are that, though the 150 Charanams belonged in common to defendants Nos. 1 to 10 and to the plaintiff's Judgment-debtors, the plaint 13 Charanams had been peaceably enjoyed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 alone all along for more than 15 years. On this finding, the suit for exclusive possession was dismissed.2. It is urged in Second appeal that the plaintiff is entitled at least to joint possession with defendants Nos. 1 to 10 of the said 13 Charanams of lands with defendants Nos. 1 to 10. I think that the ru...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatasubbaiyer Vs. S. Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad442
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree against the defendant on the 28th August 1912. On the 3rd September the defendant died. On the 30th September his executor made an application to set aside the decree. The executor had not taken out probate and he had not been made a party to the suit when he put in this application. The learned Judge held that the matter was governed by Article 164 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act and dismissed the application as barred by limitation. The question is 'was the learned Judge right?' The learned Judge puts it thus: 'The right to make the application accrued to the first defendant on the date of the decree and this right may accordingly be exercised by his executor. The latter has no fresh right apart from his testator. Ha only comes to the Court asking that the right formerly possessed by the deceased may be exercised by him.' On behalf of the appellant it was argued that Article 164 did not ap...
Tag this Judgment!Lodd Govindoss Krishnadoss Vs. Rukmani Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad438
Miller, JJ.1. There is a preliminary objection that Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (XV of 1882) does not provide for the reference made to us, but in my opinion when two or more Judges of the Small Cause Court are sitting together for the purpose of exercising the Jurisdiction conferred by Section 38, they are sitting in a suit within the meaning of those words in Section 69. The preliminary objection, therefore, fails.2. Then, on the merits, I think that the decisions in Sesha v. Seshaya I.L.R.(1884) Mad. 55 and Ellappa v. Annamalai I.L.R.(1884) Mad. 76, may properly be confined to the case with which they dealt,-the case, that is to say in which the person making the payment is, by reason of his inability to write, unable to make an entry in his own hand of the fact of payment. No doubt in the judgment of Hutchins, J. in Ellappa v. Annamalai I.L.R.(1884) 7 Mad. 76 there is language which suggests that, in the opinion of that learned Judge, a person, whether he ca...
Tag this Judgment!P. Parasuramayya Vs. V. Ramachandrudu (Died) and Ten ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad432
Sadasiva Ayyar, JJ.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He sued for recovery of possession of lands which had been let to the defendants in fasli 1312 for that particular fasli and which the defendants had been holding over without the plaintiff's consent in the subsequent faslis before suit. There were proceedings instituted by the Magistrate at the instance of the defendants under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code on account of the plaintiff's attempt to eject the defendants in the beginning of fasli 1313. The Magistrate took a statement from the plaintiff and then passed orders under Section 145 declaring the defendants to be entitled to retain possession till they were ousted by the decree of a Civil Court. That order was passed in August 1903.2. The present suit for possession was brought in March 1909, more than three years from the date of the Magistrate's order declaring the defendants to be entitled to retain possession and prohibiting the plaintiff from eject...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V. Bati Reddi and Fifteen ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad302
ORDERAyling, J.1. The chief point taken by the petitioners' vakil is the fact that the Magistrate has taken into consideration against the remaining accused, under Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statements of accused Nos. 14 and 17, who, when questioned under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, at the close of the prosecution case, made statements implicating themselves and their co-accused, and pleaded guilty on a charge being framed under Section 255. The vakil contends relying on the dictum of Boddam, J., in Queen-Empress v. Lakshmayya Pandaram I.L.R., (1899) Mad., 491 that these were not the statements of persons 'jointly tried' with the petitioners, and hence were inadmissible under Section 30, Indian Evidence Act.2. The learned Judge has based his conclusion on two other cases Queen-Empress v. Pirbhu I.L.R., (1895) All., 524 and Queen-Empress v. Pahuji I.L.R., (1895) Bom., 195. With all respect, I do not consider that these decisions have any application to a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Parathy Valappil Moideen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ355
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is an application by the father of two children who has been ordered under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code to pay to the mother of the children Rs. 6 a month for their maintenance. The petitioner is a mopla, who has divorced his wife who lives in her own tarwad house with her children, the parties being governed by Marumakathayam law though Mussalmans in religion. The grounds of the petition are : (1) the lower Court erred in law in ordering the petitioner to pay for the maintenance of the children who belong to a well-to-do tarwad; (2) the lower Court erred in law in directing the petitioner to pay for the maintenance of the boy who is ten years of age and to whose custody the petitioner is entitled, and (3) the petitioner having expressed his willingness to take the boy and maintain him, the order of the lower Court with regard to the boy is illegal.2. As regards the second ground, the petitioner might be entitled to the custody of the boy if...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›