Chennai Court October 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.
The Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, Through Its Agent T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad748(1); (1914)27MLJ654
1. The Subordinate Judge's order cannot be supported. Rule 50 of the Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure relied on by the Subordinate Judge has no application as no property of the minor defendants not involved in the family trade was sought to be attached or sold.2. As regards the contention (accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge) that the family property in Pullateen must be proved to be the assets of the Rangoon Firm which is not different from the family firm known as K. P. Firm, it being only a branch of the K. P. Firm), we follow the rulings in Chidambaram Chetty v. Ramasami Chetty : AIR1915Mad506(2) . and that 'in the case of Nattukottai Chetties, their family property should be treated as trade assets' and that no distinction should be made between the family property and the trade assets.3. The Subordinate Judge's order is set aside and the Petition No. 892 of 1913 in Execution Application No. 95 of 1913 will stand dismissed with costs in this and in the Lower Court, ...
Kallepalle Venkatarama Raju Vs. Kallepalle Papamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad77
Spencer, J.1. This is a suit to set aside an adoption. Two questions arise for decision: (1) whether the alleged adoption of the second defendant is true; and (2) whether the refusal of the plaintiff to give his consent to the adoption invalidated any adoption made by the first defendant as the widow of the deceased Lakshmipatiraju.2. Although the adoptive mother, the first defendant, has, in this suit, taken the part of the plaintiff and denied the factum of the adoption, I have no doubt that the Subordinate Judge was correct in finding that the second defendant was adopted. All the documents produced in the case from 1906 onwards describe him as an adopted son. Exhibit III is a promissory note executed by the first defendant as guardian of her adopted son, the second defendant, which purports to have been attested by the plaintiff. Defendant's witness No. 5 proved the fact that the plaintiff attested this promissory note executed in his (witness's) favour. The plaintiff, in the witne...
Sri Rajah Vatsavaya Venkata Simhadri Jaghapathiraju Bahadur Garu, Havi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ51
Spencer, J.1. The simple question in these appeals is whether the respondents are liable to pay watercess to Government for irrigating lands in excess of the area classed as wet at the Inam settlement with the water of the Etikoppaka channel, similar questions arose in Appasami Aiyar v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1910) 1 M.W.N. 107 and in Kesri Venkatasubbiah v. Secretary of State for India (1913) 24 M.L.T. 131 the latter decision having been published after the filing of these appeals, if those cases were rightly decided, as I think they were, these appeals must be dismissed.2. Prior to the present suit, there has been litigation between the parties. In O.S. No. 545 of 1885 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Ellamanchelli, it was decided that two sluices should be constructed at the entrance of the Koppaka Channel, two feet in height, one being 1-1/2 yards wide for the use of the Koppaka Mokhasadars, and the other, three yards in width, for the use of the ...
Trasi Deva Rao Alias Ananthaya Vs. Pandit Parameshwaraya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1053; (1916)ILR39Mad74
1. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent that the hearing cannot proceed, because no notice of the appeal has been given to the creditors, other than himself. Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act Specifies the class of persons entitled to appeal. But no provision specifies those entitled to be made, or whom the appellant is obliged to make respondents; and we can obtain no indirect guidance on the point by inference from other parts of the Act. For it is not possible to hold that all other creditors of the insolvent, whether named or not named in the petition and whether they have appeared at the adjudication proceedings or not, are necessarily parties, to whom general or special notice of the Appeal should issue. We decide to follow the English procedure, stated in the English Order LVIII, Rule 2(1)--vide also In re A Debtor (1901) 2 K.B. 354 and to bold that only parties directly affected by the appeal are entitled to notice. It has not been shown that any s...
Baijnath Lala Vs. Ramdoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ640
1. The questions for determination in this second appeal are (1) whether the Lower Courts are right in holding that Article 62 and not Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to the facts of this case, (2) whether even if Article 62 applies the suit is still in time by virtue of a deduction to which the plaintiff claims to be entitled with reference to Section 14 of the Limitation Act and (3) whether the Lower Court should have allowed the plaint to be amended so as to enable plaintiff to raise the second point.2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, brought the suit from which this second appeal arises under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, his application for rateable distribution as against the defendant in respect of certain assets in Court deposited- by a third party against whom both plaintiff and defendant had obtained decrees having been refused by the District Court of North Arcot on 18th October 1905. The defendant drew the money in quest...
In Re: Rambilas and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad600; (1915)ILR38Mad639
1. Petitioners, who are stated to be brokers carrying on business in the Bombay Presidency, are accused in two cases on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Erode. The complaint against them is that they committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the proceeds of certain hundis, entrusted to them for encashment by the complainants, merchants of Dharapuram in the Erode Sub-division.2. The question is whether the Erode Sub-Divisional Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the cases.3. From the recitals in the complaints, it is clear that the hundis were received and cashed by the accused (petitioners) in Bombay and that the cash proceeds were retained and misappropriated there.4. It is conceded in the course of the hearing before us that the accused have been, and still are, residing outside this Presidency: so that Section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply.5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has held the cases to fall within his jurisdiction in virtue of Section 17...
Baiznath Lala Vs. Ramdoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad405; (1916)ILR39Mad62
1. The questions for decision in the second appeal are (1) whether the lower Courts are right in holding that Article 62 and not Article 120 of the schedule to the Limitation Act applies to the facts of this case, (2) whether even if Article 82 applies the suit is still in time by virtue of a deduction to which the plaintiff claims to be entitled with reference to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and (3) whether the lower Courts should have allowed the plaint to be amended so as to enable plaintiff to raise the second point.2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, brought the suit from which this second appeal arises under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, his application for rateable distribution as against the defendant in respect of certain assets in Court deposited by a third party against whom both plaintiff and defendant had obtained decrees having been refused by the District Court of North Arcot on 18th October 1905. The defendant drew the money in question f...
Mahomed Ghouse Siddikh Vs. Sheik Moideen Siddikh Alias Papa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1044; 29Ind.Cas.849
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed to be mutawalli of the lands which admittedly formed part of waqf lands prior to Exhibit I, dated 27th May 1867, and which were then admittedly attached to a mosque. The lands referred to in the plaint formed a portion of those lands and are now in the possession of defendants Nos. 4 and 5. The issues raised in the suit, so far as at present material, are as follows:2. (1)'Whether the plaintiff is the present mutawalli of the plaint-mentioned Masjid and as such entitled to the possession of the suit lands;3. (2) whether the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are entitled to hold and enjoy the lands as managers of the plaint mentioned Masjid;4. (3) is the suit barred by limitation?'5. The District Musif found:6. (1) that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was solely entitled to the mutawalli ship of the Masjid;7. (2) that defendants Nos. 4 and 5 had acquired a title as against the plaintiff to hold the lands as tru...
Unde Rajah Raja Sri Raja Velugoti Sri Rajagopala Krishna Yachendrala V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ98
John Edward Power Willis Kt., O.C.J.1. The plaintiff is the Secretary of State, the 1st defendant the Rajah of Venkatagiri, and the other defendants are ryots of the village of Vasapallipadu in the Guntur District. The suit is brought for the removal of a bund or dam placed by the defendant across what is alleged by the plaintiff to be a natural stream of salt water known as the Nallavagu which has the effect of throwing back the saline waters of the stream on to the lands of the Government village of Allur and sending it into the irrigation tanks of the village to the injury of the wet crops raised with the tank water. The District Judge has given the plaintiff a decree and the 1st defendant appeals. The bund in question was put up first in 1896, and was removed by the orders of the Divisional Officer at the end of 1897. It was again put up in 1904, and after some correspondence this suit was instituted for its removal in 1908. The main defence put forward was that the Nallavagu was n...
K. Balasubrahmania Iyer and Vs. S. Kandasami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1914
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.91
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals from an order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly in Original Petition No. 307 of 1911 in the matter of the windingup of the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company, Limited. By an order of the 27th April 1912 made in the windingup, the District Judge had held that the charges created by a resolution of the Directors in favour of claimants Nos. 23 and 16, the Secretary and Manager of the office of the Company, were not rendered invalid by the provisions of the explanation to Section 68 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882, and that they did not amount to a fraudulent preference. The claimants then put in the petitions now under appeal for payment out of the assets of the amounts of their charges, when the debenture-holders of the Company, whose rights as secured creditors had not been considered in the previous application, appeared and opposed the applications on the ground that their floating security had become fixed or crystallised and had attached on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »