Chennai Court December 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 Crown Prosecutor Vs. P.R. Ganapathi Aiyar and Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ732
1. In these cases the Local Government appeals against an order of acquittal in Calendar Case Nos. 15569 and 15570 of 1914 on the file of the Presidency Magistrate. In both cases the charge against the accused was that they had exposed for sale Aerated Waters unwholesome and unfit for human consumption contrary to bye-law Section 169 framed under Section 409(19) of the Madras City Municipal Act (III of 1904) an offence punishable under bye-law 177.2. By Section 409, Clause 19 of the Act, the Corporation is authorised to make bye-laws to provide ' for the prevention of the sale or exposure for sale of unwholesome meat, fish or provisions ; and securing the efficient inspection and sanitary regulation of shops in which articles intended for human food, or drugs, are kept or sold.' The bye-law in question (No. 169) has evidently been framed with reference to the 1st part of clause 19 as the 2nd part of that clause relates to inspection and the sanitary regulation of shops.3. The bye-law i...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. P.R. Ganapathy Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad362
Hannay, J.1. In these cases the local Government appeals against an order of acquittal in Calendar Cases Nos. 15569 and 15570 of 1914 on the file of the Presidency Magistrate. In both eases the charge against the accused was that they had exposed for sale aerated waters unwholesome and unfit for human consumption contrary to by-law 169 framed under Section 409(19) of the Madras City Municipal Act (III of 1904), an offence punishable under by-law 177.2. By Section 409, Clause (19) of the Act, the Corporation is authorized to make by-laws to provide for the prevention of the sale or exposure for sale of unwholesome meat, fish-or provisions and securing the efficient inspection and sanitary regulation of shops in which articles intended for human food or drags are kept or sold. The by law in question (No. 169) has evidently been framed with reference to the first part of Clause (19), as the second part of that Clause relates to inspection and the sanitary regulation of shops.3. The by-law...
Peer Mahomd Rowthen and anr. Vs. Raruthan Ambalam Through His Authoris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.831
1. The view taken by the Subordinate Judge cannot be supported. The Subordinate Judge who heard the suit considered that the claim of the 5th plaintiff was barred by limitation and consequently did not pass any decree in his favour, therefore, the 5th plaintiff was not entitled to execute the decree as it stood at the time of the application. The Subordinate Judge, to whom the application for execution was made considered that the 5th plaintiff must be regarded as the assignee of the decree, but the assignment to the 5th plaintiff was not of the decree but of rights prior to decree: and at pointed in Basroorvittil Bhandari v. Ramachandra 17 M.L.J. 392 such an assignment will not give the 5th plaintiff any right to execute the decree Subsequently obtained: the fact that in Basroorvittil Bhandari v. Ramachandra 17 M.L.J. 392 the assignee did not apply to be made a party prior to decree can make no difference in the application of the principle enunciated in that decision. We must reverse...
Arunachella Ambalan and ors. Vs. R.G. Orr and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.634
John Wallis, C.J.1. We have already given judgment as to the boundary question which arose between the villages of Karakudi and Sekkalakattai and have now to deal with so much of the appeal as relates to the claim of the Kattaiyur ryots to the kudivararn rights in the Sekkalakottai village, in which we have decided the suit lands are situated.2. It is admitted that the suit village is one of the villages of the Sivaganga gemindari and as such the jemindar is entitled to the melvaram rights in the village, and it is not now suggested that he has been dispossessed of these melvaram, rights. It is said, however, that the onus is on him to show that ho was in possession of the kudivaram rights within 12 years of suit. Now, as will abundantly appear from the Exhibits to which it will be necessary to refer, the suit land was waste land or jungle and mostly forest, and with regard the land of this character in a zemindari, the presumption is that the eemindar owns the kudivaram as well as the...
Balasubramania Pillai and ors. Vs. Pitcha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1914
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.552
Sankaran Nair, J.1. A razinama was filed in a suit filed by the plaintiff's adoptive father against the 1st defendant, his brother's son who had married his daughter's daughter, Lokambal. That razinama provided that after the death of the plaintiff's adoptive father the awn santhathi', if any, left by him shall enjoy half the immoveable properties then in suit and also half the other properties which might be subsequently acquired by him and the other half was to go to the aun santhathi'' of his daughter's daughter, Lokambal. A decree was passed in accordance with the terms of the razinama in which for the term 'aun santhathi' the English words 'male descendant' were used. Subsequent to the passing of the above decree the plaintiff was adopted and on his adoptive father's death he brought this suit to recover half the properties left by his father, on the strength of the razinama. The defendants contend that as the plaintiff is only an adopted son, he does not come within the terms of ...
Vengala Venkayya Vs. Thallam Venkataramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad908; (1915)28MLJ58
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I need not repeat the facts which have been set out fully in the judgment just now pronounced by my learned brother. So far as the case law is concerned. I do not wish to go further back than what has been laid down in Coopoosami Chetti v. Doraisami Chetti I.L.R. (1909) M. 67 : 19 M.L.J. 174 and in Coopoosami Chetti v. Duraisami Chetti (1912) M.W.N. 1220. On these caste questions, the law in my humble opinion, ought to be made progressive. Social customs among Hindus have begun to change with quite appreciable rapidity and conservative observations therefore which may be found in cases decided about 30 years ago (as in The Queen v. Sankara. I.L.R. (1888) M. 381 and Venkatachalapathi v. Subbaroyan I.L.R. (1887) M. 293), even though those observations were made by very learned and eminent Judges ought not to be pushed now a days too far.2. Even the highest Judicial minds like those of Lord Eldon, Lord Mansfield or Lord St. Leonards are affected to some extent by the ...
Thavasi and ors. Vs. Arumugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1914
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ326
1. The contesting defendants are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The suit was brought for the recovery of the mesne profits due to the plaintiffs for faslis 1314, 1315 and 1316 during which faslis the defendants were in unlawful possession of the plaintiffs' land. The plaintiffs had brought a former suit (Original Suit No. 131/05) under Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act in January 1905, very soon after they were forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. In that suit, they prayed for possession of the lands with the crops then standing thereon. But if before the decree was passed for possession, the crops were removed by the defendants, the plaintiffs also prayed for recovery of the value of the crops from the defendants.2. The District Munsif in that suit decreed only possession of the lands, evidently because the question of the plaintiffs' right to the value of the crops depended upon the plaintiffs' title to the land and in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act, ...
Lakshmi Narayana Aiyar Vs. Ulagammal and ors. and Pichai Pillai and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ256
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These two second appeals have arisen out of two connected cross suits. Lakshmi Narayana Aiyar is the plaintiff in the principal suit. His suit was for redemption of a mortgage (the deed being dated 15th November 1865) for 514 Rupees. The suit was for the redemption, not of the entirety of the mortgaged properties, but only of a definite half share on payment of half of the mortgage amount that is, Rs. 257 and of the Rs. 514. The facts are a little complicated but for the purposes of this judgment it is only necessary to state the following.2. Sivaparamanayagam Pillai was the owner of the half share in dispute. One Samikalathur Aiyar purchased Sivaparamanayagam Pillai's half share in the equity of redemption in Court auction in 1873 held in execution of a money decree, after attaching the property subject to Ramappa Pillai's mortgage of 1865. The mortgagee (Ramappa Pillai) purchased the equity of redemption from Samikalathur Aiyar's son Subbaiyar in 1893. Now the pl...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Through the Collector of M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad351
John Wallis, C.J. 1. These are suits against the Secretary of State for India in Council to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiffs in a carriage accident which is alleged to have been due to the careless stacking of gravel on a road which is alleged in the plaints to be a military road maintained by the Public Works Department. The defendant pleaded a general denial of liability and also among other things that he was not responsible as the gravel was stacked by a contractor under the Public Works Department. No issue was framed as to the general denial of liability even if the facts were as stated in the plaints nor was such a defence pressed at the trial. On appeal, however, it has been contended that the plaints disclose no cause of action and that on this ground the suits should have been dismissed and in support of this contention P. & O.S.N. Co. v. Secy, of State for India (1861) 5 Bom. H.C.K., Appx. 1 is mainly relied on. I have so recently considered this case...
Visalakshi Ammal Vs. Dorasinga Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.974
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The contentions argued in this appeal are(a) that the learned Judge below ought to have held that the statements in the mortgage-deed Exhibit I, about one of the properties having been purchased by Rangammal and the other property by Sundar Grainmani, Bangammal and their sons were unreliable (7th ground of the appeal memorandam):(b) that the learned Judge did not give due might to the legal presumption that properties in the name of one of two dancing-girl sisters are the common property of both and(c) that he did not give sufficient weight to the oral evidence on the plaintiff's side.2. I think that the statements in the mortgage-deed, Exhibit I, which are admissible in evidence under Section 32, Clause 7, read with Section 13 of the Evidence Act (Rangammal being dead) were rightly treated as reliable by the learned Judge, as they are corroborated by the oral evidence of the defendants' side showing that Bangammal and her sons solely received the rents of one of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »