Chennai Court September 1913 Judgments
Gangu Reddi Vs. C. Samarapathy Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ510
ORDEROldfield, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that the petition will not lie under the Criminal Procedure with reference to Debi Bux Shroff v. Jutmal Dungarwell I.L.R. (1899) C. 126 and previous cases including Charoobala Dabee v. Barendranth Mozumdar (1906) T.L.R. 33 C. 1282,2. The course of authority in Calcutta has not been consistent. In this Presidency the point was raised in the case reported at VI Weir 255, but was not decided. I have however allowed the petitioner to amend his petition by inserting a reference to Section 15 of the Charter Act. And, as I find that it can be supported on the merits with reference to that provision it is not necessary to decide whether I have jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code also.3. The petitioner charged the accused with offences punishable under Sections 498 and 497 I. P. C, The Magistrate declined to grant summons, in effect dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His recorded reason...
Tag this Judgment!Adityam Iyer Vs. Ramakrishna Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ602
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by the 1st Respondent (Plaintiff) on a hypothecation bond for Rs. 1000 (Exhibit III) executed in his favor by the appellant (1st defendant) on the 27th September 1905 The defence set up was discharge. It was contended that the discharge of the suit bond was part consideration for the sale of certain other lands by the appellant to the 1st respondent on the 4th September 1907, which is evidenced by two registered sale deeds (Exhibits I and II) for Rs. 29,000 and Rs. 6,000 respectively. The discharge of Exhibit III is not mentioned in Exhibits I and II, but it is stated that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement that the sale price was to be, Rs. 36,000 and not Rs. 35,000 as stated therein, the difference being found in the discharge of Exhibit III. This is how the 1st defendant himself expresses it in his statement.2. ' The bond (Exhibit III) has been discharged. I have executed to this very plaintiff, a sale deed for R...
Tag this Judgment!Muthurakku Maniagaran Vs. Rakkappa Maniagaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad26; (1914)26MLJ66
Miller, J.1. This appeal, I think, must succeed, and I put my decision on Section 69 of the Contract Act.2. The 2nd defendant bought subject to the whole mortgage and was bound by law to satisfy the mortgagee himself either by payment or by suffering a sale of that part of the mortgaged property which was sold to him. The fact that a portion of the property had the previous day been transferred to the plaintiff did not affect that obligation : the property purchased by the plaintiff was rightly or wrongly ordered to be sold under the decree, and the plaintiff, to save the sale, paid the whole of the mortgage money. He was, I think, interested in making the payment : and. the 2nd defendant was bound by law to pay : there seems to be nothing more required to attract the provisions of Section 69.3. The District Judge recognises that Section 69 would apply to the case, but fails to see that the 2nd defendant was bound by law to pay the whole mortgage money and not only his proportionate pa...
Tag this Judgment!Chitibobu Adenna and ors. Vs. Garimalla Jaggarrayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1913
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ617
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. Two questions, it seems to me, arise for consideration in this appeal. First, was there a contract between the 1st defendant and the Maharajah acting through his agents, on the strength of which the 1st defendant had a good defence to the plaintiff's claim in the ejectment and which would entitle the 1st defendant to remain in possession of the lands in question? Secondly, assuming there was a contract, was the Maharajah entitled by reason of the events which happened to withdraw his consent and to repudiate the contract and to deal with the lands as if no contract had been entered into?2. The first question turns mainly on the documentary evidence. The 1st document is Exhibit I. This is a record of the sale, as I understand it, of the right of occupancy in the lands in question. The 1st defendant was the highest bidder and we find this statement in the document that as the 1st defendant ' bid the last bid for one hundred and fifty rupees, and as no other b...
Tag this Judgment!Adityam Iyer Vs. Rama Krishna Iyer and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad514
1. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises was brought by the first respondent (plaintiff) on the hypothecation bond for Rs. 1,000 (Exhibit III) executed in his favour by the appellant (first defendant) on the 27th September 1905. The defence set up was discharge. It was contended that the discharge of the suit bond was part consideration for the sale of certain other lands by the appellant to the first respondent on the 4th September 1907, which is evidenced by two registered sale-deeds (Exhibits I and II) for Rs. 29,000 and Rs. 6,000, respectively. The discharge of Exhibit III is not mentioned in Exhibits I and II, but it is stated that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement that the sale price was to be Rs. 36,000 and not Rs. 35,000 as stated therein, the difference being found in the discharge of Exhibit III. This is how the first defendant himself expresses it in his statement:The bond (Exhibit III) has been discharged. I have executed to this very plaintiff, a sale-de...
Tag this Judgment!Kandalam Rajagopalacharyulu and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad174; (1915)ILR38Mad997
Ayling, J.1. The suits out of which these Second Appeals arise are all of a similar character. They are brought by various proprietors of land under the Godavari anicut system for a declaration of their right to irrigate their lands with anicut water free of water rate, for an injunction restraining Government from levying water rate under Act VII of 1865, and, except in Second Appeal No. 1774 of 1911, for a refund of the amounts collected.2. The substantial question involved in each is the extent to which Government is bound to allow the irrigation free of water rate. It is not denied that the water used is Government water; the only question is whether Government is bound by an 'engagement' within the meaning of Section 1 of Act VII of 1865 to allow the irrigation free of charge,3. Some of the suits deal with mokhasa villages, others with minor inams, and such may conveniently be treated separately.4. Second Appeals Nos. 1398 to 1401 and 1770 and 1774 of 1911 all arise out of suits r...
Tag this Judgment!Nayari Venkata Ranga Row Garu Vs. Raja Keesara Venkatarama Narasimha R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ96
ORDER1. We find ourselves unable to give the certificate applied for, for the reason that the orders of this Court are not final orders within the meaning of Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. In these cases, no question between the parties in regard to their rights, as against one another has been decided. One case has been remanded for trial on the ground that the District Judge was wrong in deciding that the pleadings were insufficient, and the other on the ground that he was wrong in applying Section 43 of the former Code of Civil Procedure in bar of the suit. These are clearly preliminary points having no connection with the merits of the suits. We are invited for the petitioners to hold that the orders of remand are final orders within the meaning of Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code ; but we are unable to accept the invitation. In this Court the only authority cited Tirunarayana v. Gopalasami I.L.R. (1889) M. 349 is against the petitioners. We have been referre...
Tag this Judgment!N. Venkataranga Row Garu Vs. Raja K.V. Narasimha Rao Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad509
ORDER1. We find ourselves unable to give the certificate applied for, for the reason that the orders of this Court are not final orders within the meaning of Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. In these cases, no question between the parties in regard to their rights as against one another has been decided, one case has been remanded for trial on the ground that the District Judge was wrong in deciding that the pleadings were insufficient and the other on the ground that he was wrong in applying Section 43 of the former Code of Civil Procedure in bar of the suit. These are clearly preliminary points having no connection with the merits of the suits. We are invited for the petitioners to hold that the orders of remand are final orders within the meaning of Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code; but we are unable to accept the invitation. In this Court the only authority cited, i.e., Tirunarayana v. Gopalasami I.L.R., (1890) Mad., 349 is against the petitioners. We have been ref...
Tag this Judgment!Navajee and anr. Vs. the Administrator General of Madras and Eight ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad281; (1915)ILR38Mad500
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case one J.S. Peters died intestate and letters of administration were granted to the Administrator-General, Thereupon it became his duty under Section 28 of the Administrator-General's Act (II of 1874) to distribute the assets. Section 28 directs the Administrator-General to distribute the assets and contains a provision that nothing contained in the section shall prejudice the right of any creditor or other claimant to follow the assets or any part thereof in the hands of the persons who may have received the same, respectively. Sections 34 and 35 contemplate suits by and against the Administrator-General. Section 35 deals with suits by creditors against the Administrator-General. The Administrator-General proceeded to administer the estate and in so doing held that defendants Nos. 2 to 6 were entitled to priority of payment by virtue of documents which they held which they contended amounted to charges given to them by J.S. Peters and entitled th...
Tag this Judgment!Sellappa Koundan Vs. Gurumoorti Alias Kali Goundan Peria Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1913
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ396
1. The compromise is in our opinion admissible in evidence under the decision of the Privy Council in Bindesri Naik v. Ganga Saran Sahu I.L.R. (1897) A. 171. In that case their Lordships decided that petitions by the creditor accepted as correct by the debtor and presented to the Courts would have been admissible without registration in proof of a variation of a registered contract. These documents were described by their Lordships as pleadings filed by the parties and the 'compromise petition in the present case occupies a corresponding position. In Natesa Chetty v. Vengu Nachiar I.L.R. (1809) M. 102. to which one of us was a party and with which we both agree, this view was taken of the decision in Bindesri Naik v. Ganga Saran Sahu I.L.R. (1897) A. 171, and we do not find that it has been expressly dissented from in Chellamma v. Rama Rao I.L.R. (1911) M. 46, though in that case the learned Judges seem to put a different interpretation on the language of the Privy Council. Taking this...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »