Chennai Court January 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Adusumalli Venkataratnam Vs. Senkarayanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.283
ORDER1. The petitioner (plaintiff) wants an amendment of the order issued by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 30 of 1912 on the ground that the order as drawn up by this office contains clerical and arithmetical errors. The judgment of this Court in the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal decided that the defendants are entitled to a deduction of Rs. 4 per acre in respect of the claim for mesne profits made by the decree-holder in Execution Proceedings No. 75 of 1908 in the lower Court. The judgment of this Court begins by saying, 'The District Judge is wrong in not making allowance for the cultivation expenses incurred by the defendants.'2. The District Judge's finding, as appears from page 8 of the printed papers, is that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 took away in January 1904 almost all the heaped grain that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had harvested in fasli 1313.' We take this finding to mean that, without incurring expenses, for cultivation in fasli 1313, the defendants Nos....
In Re: Thiruvengada Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad376(2); (1914)26MLJ182
ORDERSadasiva Iyer, J.1. Though if the prosecution case is wholly true or the defence is wholly true, there could have been only one occurrence and either the occurrence now charged must be false or the counter-case in which some of the prosecution witnesses in this case were convicted must have been false, the learned Sessions Judge's opinion that both the occurrences are true cannot be said to be an illegal finding as each of the two contending parties would naturally try to make out that the only occurrence that took place was the only one in which their party received injuries.2. As regards the statements made to the Police, 'the court' (under Section 162(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code) ' may, if it thinks it expedient in the interests of justice, direct that the accused be furnished with a copy thereof.' Here, all that appears is that the Magistrate refused to furnish a copy of such statements to the accused. I must take it that he did not consider it expedient in the interests...
Gopala Aiyangar Vs. Venkatakrishna Aiyangar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ224
1. The promissory note sued upon is executed in favour of the deceased Venkata Varada Aiyangar who has left a widow. The suit is brought by the surviving members of the family to recover the debt on the ground that the debt is due to the family and the bond is taken in the name of the deceased on behalf of the family. There is no finding that the debt was due to the family but it is found that the promissory note was taken for the joint benefit of the 1st plaintiff and the deceased, who constituted ' a family partnership' and therefore the 1st plaintiff as the survivor is entitled to sue. As the bond is taken only in the narne of Venkata Varada Aiyangar and it is not found to be for the benefit of the family, we are of opinion that the 1st plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit, Subba Narayana Vaithiyar v. Ramaswami Iyer I.L.R. (1906) M. 88.2. We must therefore set aside the decree of the learned Judge and dismiss the suit. Each party will bear his own costs throughout....
Sowcar Sahanada Govinda Doss, and ors. Vs. Rajah Venkata Perumal Rajah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad145; (1914)27MLJ195
Miller, J.1. The suit was instituted in 1903 by the Rajah of Karvetnagar through a next friend, an officer of the Court of Wards to recover possession, on behalf of the temple of Sri Venugopalasami in Karvetnagar, of the village of Konasa-mudram which according to the plaint, was given to the temple on the 29th of August 1808 by a sanad of that date. The present Rajah has after the institution of the suit taken over the Zamindari from the Court of Wards and continues the suit himself. In 1881 a lease of the village for a term of 10 years terminating on the last day of June 1891, was given by the then Rajah to two persons whom we may call the lessees, at a rental of Rs. 4000 a year which was to be credited in payment of sums due to them on mortgages executed by the Rajah. The Rajah is admittedly hereditary Dharmakartha of the temple of Sri Venugopalasami, but the money borrowed on the mortgages was not for the purposes of the temple but for his own private use.2. In 1885 Konasamu dram a...
In Re: Sinnu Gowndan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ160
ORDERMiller, J.1. As the Criminal Procedure Code does not permit a Magistrate to review his judgment in the light of evidence subsequently obtained or to re-admit to file a case in which the accused has been acquitted under Section 247 owing to the absence of the complainant, even if good reasons shewn for his non-appearance, I should hesitate without further consideration to hold that the legislature intended to permit this Court in Appeal or revision to set aside an acquittal on the ground that fresh evidence is available which could not be produced at the trial, or on the ground that a complainant has shown sufficient reason for the failure to appear and prosecute his complaint, before the Magistrate in a summons case. But in the present case we must take it that the acquittal of the accused under Section 247 was procured by his own trick : he himself is responsible for the complainant's failure to appear. The order was, we may say, obtained by a fraud on the court and though even i...
Subbiah Naicker Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad162; (1914)ILR37Mad462; 22Ind.Cas.899; (1914)26MLJ189
1. The second defendant, one of the three judgment-debtors, is the appellant before this Court. This appeal has arisen out of an execution petition put in by the decree-holder. The facts are a little complicated, and though it is not necessary to retail all the facts, it is necessary to set out the following for understanding the contentions on both sides:2. The decree in this case was passed so long ago as March 1898 in favour of one Arunachallam Chettiyar. There were several execution petitions by the said decree-holder himself. The decree is then alleged to have fallen, in a partition between two members of the decree holder's family and a partner of the family firm, to the share of the said partner who also held a power of attorney from the decree-holder. This partner filed execution petitions in 1905 and 1907. Finally on the 21st April 1909, Execution Petition No. 389 of 1909 was filed by a next friend on behalf of the minor son of the said partner after the death of the latter.3....
In Re: Sinnu Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1028
Miller, J.1. As the Criminal Procedure Code does not permit a magistrate to review his judgment in the light of evidence subsequently obtained or to readmit to his file a case in which the accused has been acquitted under Section 247 owing to the absence of the complainant, oven if good reasons be shown for his non-appearance, I should hesitate without further consideration to hold that the Legislature intended to permit this Courts in appeal or revision to set aside an acquittal merely on the ground that fresh evidence is available which could not be produced at the trial, or on the ground that a complainant has shown sufficient reason for his failure to appear and prosecute his complaint, before the magistrate in a summons case. But in the present case we must take it that the acquittal of the accused under Section 247 was procured by his own trick: he himself is responsible for the complainant's failure to appear. The order was, we may say, obtained by a fraud on the Court and thoug...
R.G. Orr and ors. Vs. Meyyappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.935
1. The District Judge finds that the bed of the suit channel E A F belong to the Narikottai village and that it was originally a natural channel formed in the Narikottai lands owing to the slope of the country for the drainage of the water falling on the adjoining fields. The plaintiffs have thus failed to prove that the bed of the channel belongs to them. For according to the facts found are they riparian proprietors. They have proved that for a long time all the drainage water from the lands on both sides which came to this channel has flowed into their tank in the Kollangudi village there is no doubt they are entitled to the uninterrupted flow of all such water into their tank. They claim further that the surplus water of the Meippal tank, which flowed into the defendants' Sathapulli tank before and which now flows from the tank directly into the channel E A F, must also be allowed to flow into their tank. They are not le owners of the bed of the channel : nor are they riparian prop...
Kopalli Krishna Row Garu Vs. the Collector of Kistna on Behalf of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ210
Ayling, J.1. The suit out of which these second appeals arise were brought to recover penal water rate alleged to have been illegally collected from the plaintiffs for fasli 1317 in respect of certain Zemindari wet lands belonging to them. The District Munsif gave the plaintiffs a decree in three of the suits and dismissed the fourth. The District Judge on appeal dismissed the suits holding that the plaintiffs were liable to pay the penal water rate collected from them.2. The lands admittedly were irrigated by means of Government water, and their liability to pay water rate under Section 1 of Act VII of 1865 is not disputed. The levy of penal water rate is regulated by rules framed under the said section and published at page 2 of the appendices to the standing orders of the Board of Revenue Rule 5 runs.Double water rate will also be charged if water is taken from a sluice or channel or other source of supply other than that which is provided or approved by the responsible officers of ...
Gottipati China Kondian Vs. Gottipati Narasappa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad295; (1914)26MLJ221
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. His suit, as I understand it (especially from the 10th paragraph of the plaint), is based on the allegations that the partnership between himself and the defendants was dissolved by consent in October 1903 and that between October 1903 and May 1904, the plaintiff's and 3rd defendant's men collected the debts due to the partnership and paid the moneys so collected to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The reliefs prayed for in the plaint are that ' all the accounts relating to the partnership trade may be sent for to the Court and the accounts settled and that a decree may be passed directing recovery from defendants 1 and 2 and from their family property of the amount of Rs. 846-4-0 which the plaintiff believes, should be due to him for his share of the amount collected and paid to defendants 1 and 2 or of any larger amount which will be found upon settlement of accounts.'2. In the 16th paragraph of the plaint the cause of action is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »