Chennai Court February 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 Sessions Judge of Cuddapah Vs. Kondeti Obalesu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad622; (1914)26MLJ220
ORDER1. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have followed the law clearly laid down by this Court in John Martin Sequeira v. Luja Bal I.L.R. (1901) M. 671 that where a person ' was not a party to the proceedings in the Court in the case in which the alleged forged document was produced, no sanction for his prosecution was required.' Assuming that Bombay High Court took a different view in 6 Indian Cases 529 (a report which is not available to me) the Sessions Judge was bound by the decision of this Court in John Martin Sequeira v. Luja Bal I.L.R. (1901) M. 671. As regards the difference in language between Section 469 of the old Criminal Procedure Code of 1872 and Section 195 of the present Code, I see no essential difference in meaning and intent. The old section is worded thus ' A complaint of an offence relating to documents described in Sections 463, 471, 475 or 476 of the Indian Penal Code, when the document has been given in evidence in any proceedings in any Civil or Criminal Co...
Bila Sanyasi Naidu Vs. Agnihotram Venkatacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad368; (1914)26MLJ258
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. to revise the decree of the District Judge of Vizagapatam in A.S. No. 174 of 1911. The suit out of which that appeal arose was brought by some inamdars against their tenant to recover rent due for the first two instalments of the year soumya. The plaintiffs' suit was decreed on certain findings of fact and of law. There are nine grounds in the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition presented to this Court. The phrase ' The Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity ' occurs in several of these grounds but I am satisfied that it only means that the Court committed some error of law or other in arriving at certain findings of fact or of law. Section 115 therefore has no application and the contentions raised in these grounds must be rejected. The only contention which really relates to the question of jurisdiction is that raised in the 6th ground of the memorandum, namely, ' that a suit for rent of this la...
In Re: M. Vijiaraghavalu Pillai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.134; (1914)26MLJ310
Bakewell, J.1. The name of the appellant has under Section 46 of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1904, been entered in the list of persons qualified for election as a Commissioner for one of the divisions of the City of Madras; and under Section 52, the list is conclusive as to his qualifications to be elected, subject to certain procedure for its amendment.2. This applicant has been nominated as a candidate for election, and his name has been published in the list of candidates. Objection was made to the inclusion of the applicant's name in this list, and was rejected by the President of the Corporation, under Clause 5 of the rules framed by the Local Government by virtue of Section 413 of the Act. Under the same clause, a petition for revision of the President's decision may be presented to the Presidency Magistrate, whose decision is to be final, and one Appaswami Pillai, an elector, presented a petition. It is alleged that upon hearing this petition, the Magistrate considered an obj...
Amirtham Pillai Vs. Nanjah Gownden and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad369(1); (1914)26MLJ257
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. If, as is implied in the plaint, the two defendants were intended to be jointly liable for the plaint debt and were together to execute the promissory note Ex. A, for that debt so as to make themselves jointly liable, and if the 1st defendant did not join in the execution (as found by the Subordinate Judge) and only the 2nd defendant signed in it, even the 2nd defendant could not be made liable as he agreed to be liable only if the 1st defendant was also jointly made liable (see Sivasami Chetti v. Sevugan Chetti I.L.R. (1902) M. 389).2. Further a material portion of the promissory note being a forgery, it seems to come within the principle of the decisions which hold that a material alteration invalidates the whole note. I find that that principle has been so applied to a case where there seems to have been no alteration after the note came into existence but the note was created in the first instance itself with a forged signature of a material character. (See C.R...
M.A. Sreenivasa Aiyangar Vs. Cundasami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ375
1. The City Civil Judge has dismissed the application of the plaintiff for a personal decree against the 1st and 2nd defendants under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaintiff failed to bring the mortgaged property to sale in execution of the decree under Order 34, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure obtained by him. The 1st defendant privately sold the property to the decree-holder for Rs. 500/ which in his application for a decree for the balance under Order 34, Rule 6 he has credited towards the decree amount.2. Order 34, Rule 5 directs the sale of the mortgaged properties and the application of the sale proceeds in the manner indicated therein and it is only where the net proceeds are found to be insufficient to discharge the decree debt that the plaintiff is entitled to ask for a decree under Rule 6. These provisions no doubt contemplate a judicial sale for the decree amount and a decree for the balance. But it is clear that it is open to a...
A. Gaeble Vs. Ramayi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad116(1); 24Ind.Cas.781
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.The District Munsif's order may be illegal and the reasons he gives for excusing delay unsound. But the order can be attacked by the petitioner by appeal against the decree in the restored suit, if it goes against him and hence I refuse to interfere under Section 315 of the Code of Civil Procedure, following several recent rulings in this Court [Devata Sri Ramamurthi v. Venkata Sitaramachandra Row 22 Ind. Cas. 279 : (1914) M.W.N. 95.]. There will be no order as to costs....
V.R. Jagannatha Mudaliar Vs. Vathyar Appasawmy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad685(1); 24Ind.Cas.782
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I do not wish to express any opinion upon the legality or propriety of the District Munsif's order setting aside the ex parte decree [see, however, Venkatarama Aiyar v. Nataraja Aiyar 18 Ind. Cas. 360 : 24 M.L.J. 235 : 13 M.L.T. 140 : (1913) M.W.N. 165.].2. I think that as the petitioner could object to the order of the Munsif in appeal in the regular course to the District Court, if the suit was decided against him at the re-hearing, this is not a fit case to interfere under Section 315 of the Civil Procedure Code : Devata Sri Ramamurthi v. Venkata Sitarama chandra Row 22 Ind. Cas. 279 : (1914) M.W.N. 95.3. I dismiss the petition but without costs....
Karuppanna Goundan Vs. Kandaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ233
ORDER1. The contention of the appellant (see the 3rd ground in the appeal memorandum) is that because on the 20th November 1912 an order had been passed by a 2nd class Magistrate under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. prohibiting the other party going through the old pathway in the appellant's land there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace on 25th November 1912 and hence the proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate taken under Section 147 (the proceedings having been begun on 25th November 1912) were without jurisdiction.2. But if the Sub-Divisional Magistrate really thought that notwithstanding the order under Section 144 of the Crl.P.C. (passed within a week before his taking steps under Section 147 of the Crl.P.C.) the likelihood of a breach of the peace still existed, we do not think that it could be argued that the Magistrate was legally incompetent to entertain such, a thought and hence was legally incompetent to take action under Section 147. No doubt, we, as a court of rev...
Epoor Ramasami Reddi and ors. Vs. Kandadai Rangamannar Iyyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ255
1. We think the District Judge is right in holding that the 1st appellant has failed to prove the agreement set up by him. His case is that in December 1911 the decree-holder came to his village to see the properties and in January 1912 he offered the lands at Rs, 250/- per acre of wet-land and Rs. 80 per acre of dry-land. He swore that the decree-holder told him that he proposed to sell some of these lands after his purchase to Subba Reddi and Ranga Reddi and Exhibit A according to him is a letter with reference to this conversation. In our opinion Exhibit A not only does not support but is against his contention. It shows further that the decree-holder did not want to purchase the lands. If he wanted to get the lands himself he would undoubtedly have taken steps to enforce the decree soon after the amount became payable to him. We are not satisfied that the letter Exhibit B was written in accordance with instructions given by the respondent. The affidavit Exhibit K also is not in sup...
Kuppammal Minor by His Next Friend, Thayasundarachari Vs. Kuppanachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.380; (1914)26MLJ363
Bakewell, J.1. This is a suit by a wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff was 12 years of age at the date of the presentation of the plaint on 4-8-13 and sues by her father as next friend. It is alleged by the defendant that the parents of the girl in April last resisted his attempt to obtain possession of his wife on the ground that her health did not permit of their cohabitation, and he now maintains that she has not proved that her health has been re-established or that she is able to cohabit with him. It appears that the spouses have never lived together. I think it is clear that ill-health of a wife is no ground for the refusal of the husband to give her his protection and afford her the shelter of his house, and that the defendant is bound to do so notwithstanding that the wife may not be able to afford him all the rights of a husband.2. The fact that the parents of the girl at one time refused to give him the custody of the child is no reason why he should now re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »