Chennai Court September 1913 Judgments
K.J.V.V. Venkatapathi Nayanivaru Vs. Mahomed Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.430
1. In this case the legal point we have to decide arises on the following facts. The District Munsif handed over charge to a successor without completing the trial of the suit, having been promoted as a Subordinate Judge. His successor finished the remaining portion of the trial, heard arguments and delivered judgment. Against the said decision there was an appeal and the former Munsif, who was promoted as Subordinate Judge, heard the appeal without any objection on the part of the appellant or respondent and decided the appeal confirming the judgment of his successor.2. On second appeal the only ground which was seriously argued was that the Subordinate Judge was disqualified to hear and dispose of the appeal because he had, as Munsif, taken cognizance of the suit and had presided over its trial, though he had not heard the arguments or decided the case finally. Two other grounds Nos. 4 and 6 were feebly argued, but there is nothing in them as the slight mistake, probably a clerical m...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mohideen Batcha Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ484
ORDERAyling, J.1. The Sub-divisional Magistrate has set aside the conviction of the accused for an offence under Sections 352, 379 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code on the sole ground that the facts disclosed in the Prosecution evidence amounted to an offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, which the original Magistrate being only of the 2nd class, was not empowered to try. He has further proceeded to remand the case to the same Magistrate for re-trial according to law presumably meaning that action should be taken under Section 346, Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is wrong in considering that the Original Court's proceedings are void. It has been held both by this Court and by the. Bombay High Court that, provided the Court had the power to try the offence of which it has convicted the accused, it is not necessary to quash the conviction merely because the facts disclose a more serious offence, which the Court was not competent to try, unless the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Manager to the Lessees of the Shivagunga Zemindary Vs. Chidambaram Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ641
1. The plaintiffs are the lessees of the Shivagunga Zemindari and they are the appellants before us. They are the landlords under the Estates Land Act. In 1899 a registered rent deed was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The terms of that agreement were that the defendants should pay assessment on the area of a certain holding at the rate of Rs. 11 per sei in respect of Ayan lands in 3 villages leased to the defendant. The term of the lease has not yet expired. Under that same registered deed, the defendants agreed to pay assessment at Rs. 8 per sei on the Ayan lands in a fourth village also leased under the same deed. The area of the leased lands in the three former villages was given in the deed as 19-3-5 seis. The area of the land in the fourth village was given as 2-11-4 seis. In paragraphs of the said lease deed, however a provision was inserted viz., that in case the areas of the lands should on measurement, be found to be more than the areas mentioned above...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: MohidIn Bacha Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1913
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ594
ORDERAyling, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has set aside the conviction of the accused for an offence under Sections 352, 379 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code on the sole ground that the facts disclosed in the prosecution evidence amounted to an offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, which the original Magistrate, being only invested with 2nd class powers was not empowered to try. He has further proceeded to remand the case to the same Magistrate for retrial according to law: presumably meaning that action should be taken, under Section 346, Criminal. Procedure Code.2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is wrong in considering that the original court's proceedings are void. It has been held both by this Court and by the Bombay High Court that, provided the Court had the power to try the offences of which it has convicted the accused, it is not necessary to quash the conviction merely because the facts disclose a more serious offence, which the Court was not competent to tr...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager to the Lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari Vs. Chidambaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad524
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari and they are the appellants before us. They are the landlords under the Estates Land Act. In 1899, a registered rent deed was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The terms of that agreement were that the defendants should pay assessment on the area of a certain holding at the rate of Rs. 11 per sei in respect of ayan lands in three villages leased to the defendants. The term of the lease has not yet expired. Under that same registered deed, the defendants agreed to pay assessment at Rs. 8 per sei on the ayan lands in a fourth village also leased under the same deed. The area of the leased lands in the three former villages was given in the deed as 19-3-15 seis. The area of the land in the fourth village was given as 2-11-4. In paragraph 6 of the said lease deed, however a provision was inserted, viz., that in case the areas of the lands should, on measurement, be found to be more than the...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhu Kutti Ammah Vs. Mallapratu Alias N.M. Kesavan Nambudri Karnavan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad527
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. As we understand the judgments of the two Lower Courts their concurrent finding on the facts is that no portion of the debt of Rs. 4,000 which Kesavan Nambudri, the father of the fifth defendant, incurred, was used for the benefit of Kesavan Nambudri's Illom, and that money was used and intended by Kesavan Nambudri to be used, for the personal expenses of himself and his deceased son. This personal debt of Kesavan Nambudri, though it is not proved to be an illegal or immoral debt, cannot be binding on his Illom, which now consists of defendants Nos. 5 to 13, unless the ordinary Hindu Law which makes sons liable for their father's personal debts be applied, the defendants Nos. 5 to 7, 11 and 12 being the sons of Kesavan Nambudri while the thirteenth defendant is Kesavan Nambudri's grandson by his deceased son (defendants Nos. 8 to 10 are widows of the Illom).2. The Lower Appellate Court held that the obligation of the sons in an ordinary Mitakahara Hindu family to p...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Chettiar by His Authorised Agent Ramasami Iyer Vs. Vaidilin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad519
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1.The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He sued for a declaration that the judgment-debtor, the sixth defendant, was the owner of the plaint property and that the plaint property was therefore liable to be attached and sold in execution: of the decree which the plaintiff has obtained against the sixth defendant. The defendants 1 to 5 plead that the sixth defendant had lost his title to the plaint property by reason of the, sixth defendant having orally transferred the plaint land worth much more than Rs. 100 to one Arumuga Padayachi in 1900 the sixth defendant having obtained from the said Arumuga Padayachi Arumuga Padayaehi's own land by way of exchange. The land which the sixth defendant so obtained in exchange has been conveyed by him to strangers in 1901 (see Exhibits I and III). The present suit was brought about ten years after the exchange transaction of 1900. The plaintiff contended that the oral exchange by which the sixth defendant is alleged to have los...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Chettiar by His Authorized Agent, Ramasami Iyer Vs. Vaidili ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.408
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He sued for a declaration that the judgment-debtor, the sixth defendant, was the owner of the plaint property and that the plaint property was therefore, liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree which the plaintiff has obtained against the sixth defendant. The defendants Nos. 1 to 5 plead that the sixth defendant had lost his title to the plaint property by reason of the sixth defendant having orally transferred the plaint land, worth.much more than Rs. 100, to one Arumuga Padayachi in 1900, the sixth defendant having obtained from the said Arumuga Padayachi's Arumuga Padaynchi's own land by way of exchange. The land which the sixth defendant so obtained in exchange had been conveyed by him to strangers in 1901 (see Exhibits I and III). The present suit was brought about ten years after the exchange transaction of 1900. The plaintiff contended that the oral exchange, by which the sixth defendant is alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Aiyar Vs. the Devasthanam Committee of Negapatam and T.A. Bal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ536
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case, a preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Advocate-General that a Revision Petition does not lie.2. The order against which the Revision Petition has been presented is an order made by the District Judge of Tanjore under the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Religious Endowments Act of 1863. Section 10 provides 'Whenever any vacancy shall occur among the members of a committee, a new member shall be elected to fill the vacancy by the persons interested.' It goes on to provide ' The remaining members of the committee shall...fix a day....for an election of a new member by the persons interested.' It then declares, ' Whoever shall be then elected, under the. said rules, shall be a member of the committee to fill such vacancy.' Then the section goes on, ' If any vacancy shall not be filled up by such election as aforesaid (within the prescribed period) the Civil Court, on the application of any person whatever, may appoint a person to fil...
Tag this Judgment!P.V.S. Krishnamurthi Pillai and anr. by Guardian Kokilambal Ammal Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1913
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ37
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which these appeals arise are briefly these: One P. Venkatachalam was a well-known condiment and ice manufacturer of Madras. He acquired considerable property and died. One of his sons Subbaraya Pillai predeceased him leaving a son Sundaramurthi. Another son of P. Venkatachalam, namely, Subramania Pillai, was appointed executor of his last will and testament. Another son Murugesam Pillai and some others including Sundaramurthi Pillai instituted C.S. No. 238 of 1905 in the High Court (Original Side), Madras, for partition and administration of the properties of Venkatachalam. Sundaramurthi claimed in that suit a fifth share in the properties of the deceased Venkatachalam. By the decree in that suit Sundaramurthi was declared entitled to a fifth share in all the properties and under that decree he got various properties besides a sum of about two lakhs. During the pendency of that suit a son was born, namely, Krishnamurthi. Sundaramurthi seems to have lived...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »