Chennai Court August 1913 Judgments
Lakshmammal Vs. Narasimharaghava Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1913
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.281; (1913)25MLJ572
Arnold White, C.J.1.This is an appeal from a decree given by Mr. Justice Wallis dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the two documents on which he relied had been materially altered and that for that reason the defendants were not liable thereon. The suit was brought on two instruments executed in Mysore by the father of the defendants the father being a resident in Mysore, in favour of the plaintiff who with her husband was also an inhabitant of Mysore. When the documents were put in evidence it was found that they had been torn and mutilated. The learned Judge declined to believe the story put forward by the plaintiff to account for the mutilation of the documents. I agree with the learned judge that this story could not be accepted. The effect of the mutilation was to cause the words ' or order ' to disappear from the two documents. There is very little direct evidence on this point, but the learned judge holds in effect that the missing words were ' or order ' or word...
Tag this Judgment!Avanchi Lakshmi Narasimha Wife of Narasimha Rao and anr. Vs. Avanchi L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ531
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs and defendant respectively represent two brothers, Narasinga Rao and Ramamurthi who has jointly advanced a sum of Rs.1000 on mortgage. The plaintiffs sued for the recovery of a half share in the mortgage amount, which they seek to recover not from the original mortgagor but from the defendants who represent the other co-mortgagee, Ramamurthi became the plaintiffs allege-and these allegations have been founded by both the courts to be true and there is no reason why we should not accept their findings-that Ramamurthi has released the whole of the mortgage debt (of a little over Rs. 1500 on receipt of Rs. 1000) and not merely the half to which he was entitled. It has also been found that Ramamurthi fraudulently misrepresented to the plaintiffs that the mortgage debt in question was outstanding at a time when Us. 1000 of the sum had really been collected (see the second issue of the Subordinate Judge's judgment paragraph 1 and the Munsif's judgment para...
Tag this Judgment!A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachellam Chettiar and ors. Vs. M. Muthayanai Thaven
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.675; (1914)26MLJ575
1. We think that Section 4 of the Estates Land Act must be read subject to the provisions of Section 27, which states that the amount of rent must be presumed to be affected by the condition which appertained to the holding in the preceding revenue year.2. But the lower Courts found that by immemorial custom the condition appertaining to the holdings in the plaint mittah is that no rent should be charged for lands left fallow, in other words, the rent for the whole holding in any particular fasli should be calculated only on the cultivated area. We think that condition is not against the statutory provision in Section 4 of the Estates Land Act, as Section 4 by its opening clause saves such and similar conditions. Our view, we think, is supported by the judgment of this Court in Second Appeal No. 2034 of 1900. We, therefore, dismiss this second appeal (the plaintiffs mittadars being the second appellants before us) with costs....
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Koneti Naicker, and 2 ors. Vs. Jatu Gopala Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ425
Arnold White, C.J.1. The main question we have to determine is whether the party who signed the promissory note in question as maker is personally liable thereon. The following is a translation of the note:12th August 1907 corresponding to 28th Audi Plevanga--'Promissory note executed to you both (1) Gopalaiyar and '(2) Nagasamier, sons of Soothi Seshaiyar, residing in No. 1 Police 'Station lane, Madura town, by E. P. Koneti Nayudu Garu, son of 'Nanjundappa Nayudu Garu, agent holding power of Attorney from 'the Zemindar Dorai Rajah Avergal and residing in Vellikurichi 'Village, Mana Madura Taluk, Madura District. Amount due to you including principal and interest up to date 'upon settlement of account of dealings which was standing against ' the name of Ranichekkani ammal on cloths &c;, having been purchased ere this for the Vellikurichi palace, is Rs. 694-5-0. On ' demand, I promise to pay this sum of Rupees six hundred and ' ninety four and annas six with interest at Re. per cent, pe...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Koneti Naicker and Two ors. Vs. J. Gopala Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad482
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The main question we have to determine is whether the party who signed the promissory note in question as maker is personally liable thereon. The following is a translation of the note:12th August 1907 corresponding to 28th Audi Plavanga. Promissory note executed to you both, (1) Gopalaiyar and (2) Nagasamier, sons of Soothi Seshaiyar, residing in No. 1, Police Station lane, Madura town, by R.P. Koneti Nayudu Garu, son of Nanjundappa Nayudu Garu, agent, holding power-of-attorney from the Zamindar Dorai Rajah Avargal and residing in Vellikurichi village, Mana Madura taluk, Madura district.Amount due to you including principal and interest up to date upon settlement of account of dealings which was standing against the name of Rani Chakkani Ammal on cloths, etc.,. having been purchased ere this for the Vellikurichi palace, is Rs. 694-6-0. On demand, I promise to pay this sum of Rupees six hundred and, ninety-four and annas six with interest at Rs. 5-8-0 ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Venkappa and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad305
ORDERAyling, J1. The petitioners have been convicted of an offence under Section 283, Indian Penal Code, by leaving a 'prabha' lying in a public road for 24 hours so as to cause obstruction.2. The first point argued is that the abandonment of the 'prabha' was due to the action of the Sub-Magistrate (prosecution witness No. 2), who stopped the procession of the accused and others accompanying it: and that therefore the accused committed no offence. It is certain that the Sub-Magistrate apprehending a breach of the peace stopped the progress of the procession. According to his own account (which there seems no reason to distrust) he simply told the accused to go and bring their elders. According to the defence version, he threatened to fire on the processionists if they persisted in going on. In neither case can it be said that the Magistrate's action justified or excused those carrying the 'prabha' in leaving it in the 'middle of the street in such a way as to cause obstruction even for...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venkappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1913
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.832
Ayling, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted of an offence under Section 283, indian Penal Code, by leaving a 'prabha' lying in a public road for 24 hours so as to cause obstruction.2. The first point argued is that the abandonment of the 'prabha' was due to the action of the Sub-Magistrate (prosecution witness No. 2), who stopped the procession of the accused and others accompanying it and that, therefore, the accused committed no offence. It is certain that the Sub-Magistrate apprehending a breach of the peace stopped the progress of the procession. According to his own account (which there seems no reason to distrust), he simply told the accused to go and bring their elders. According to the defence version, he threatened to fire on the processionists if they persisted in going on. In neither case can it, bo said that the Magistrate's action justified or excused those carrying the 'prabha' in leaving it in the middle of the street in such a way as to cause obstruction even for a...
Tag this Judgment!V. Lakshmamma Vs. V. Ratnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ556
1. The relationship between the persons concerned is given in the genealogical tree attached to the plaint and is not disputed. There is no reason for doubting the correctness of the learned judge's conclusions that the suit house was the separate acquisition of the deceased Ramamma and the 1st defendant and that the suit land was the separate acquisition of the former. It is argued with reference to Sudarsana Maistri v. Narasimhula Maistri I.L.R. (1901) M. 149. that those two members of the family, one of dancing girls, comprised all the members of a sub-branch and could hold property jointly, as a distinct corporate unit within the larger corporate unit. There is no foundation for that argument, since there is no reason for regarding these two members as a sub-branch to the exclusion of the 1st plaintiff, their sister. The learned judge was, therefore, right in holding that the house was the common property of Ramamma and the 1st defendant and that the former's half share in it and t...
Tag this Judgment!Maharajah Sri Raja Velugoti Sreeraja Gopala Krishna Yachendra Bahadur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ578
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1.The plaintiff, the Rajah of Venkatagiri, is the appellant in this second appeal. The defendants are the tenants of certain lands in the Venkatagiri Estate. The said lands according to the 3rd paragraph of the plaint are waste lands which have been always used for the pasturing of cattle. Pasture rent is alleged to have been collected from the defendants for the use of these lands till Fusli 1317 at the rate of five annas one pie per acre for about 40 years. In the Muchilikas for 1317 and 1318, however, the defendants agreed to pay rent for the lands at a higher rate if any person applied for the grant of lands on Dharkast for purposes of cultivation. They further agreed by these Muchilikas to quit possession of the lands on demand if they refused to take up the lands at the higher rate. The suit was brought, claiming 3 reliefs:(a) Ejectment of the defendants, because on the 3rd August 1907 the defendants, when notice was issued to them to take up the lands themselve...
Tag this Judgment!W.A. Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ299
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Bakewell transferring an insolvency petition pending before him to the District Court of Tanjore. The learned Judge, as appears from the terms of the order purported to make it under the powers conferred by Section 90 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The question as to whether the learned judge had jurisdiction to make the order does not appear to have been raised before him. But Mr. Chamier who appears for the appellant (the insolvent), has taken the point here that (the judge) had no jurisdiction to make the order.3. Section 90 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act states ' In proceedings under this Act the court shall have the like powers and follow the like procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of its ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction'. In Section 2 of the Act ' the court' is defined as meaning ' the court exercising jurisdiction under this Act,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »