Chennai Court July 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.
Bir Mohamad Rowther Vs. Nagoor Rowther, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad425(1); 25Ind.Cas.576; (1914)27MLJ483
1. We must follow the Privy Council Ruling in Bakhtawar Begam v. Husaini Khanaum I.L.R. (1913) A. 195. 26 M.L.J. 474 and if there are some observations in Rose Ammal v. Rajaratna Ammal I.L.R. (1898) M. 33 which cannot be reconciled with that ruling, those observations must be held to be overruled. The effect of the Privy Council ruling is that the mortgagor cannot be allowed to redeem the mortgagee before the expiry of the term mentioned in the mortgage deed unless there is a contract to the contrary in favour of the mortgagor. There is no evidence of any such contract in this case. The usufructuary mortgagees (plaintiffs) are therefore entitled to remain in possession for the seven years term agreed upon between themselves and the mortgagors and hence they cannot be redeemed by the appellant (3rd defendant) who is a purchaser of the mortgagors' right) in this suit which was brought before the term of 7 years expired.2. This is the only arguable point in this second appeal and as 'that...
In Re: Krushno Kariko
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.435
1. Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of murder in the Sessions Court; and we cannot accept his story put forward for the first time in his appeal petition to the effect that death was caused accidentally. The offence undoubtedly amounts to murder.2. The only question is that of sentence. The Additional Agency Sessions Judge has not discussed it or given any reasons, but has imposed a sentence of death. Appellant undoubtedly suffered some provocation before the offence and it has to be considered whether this provocation, though insufficient to come under exception to Section 300, Indian Penal Code, would justify the remission of the death sentence.3. The prosecution evidence, as recorded by the Committing Magistrate, affords such an altogether inadequate motive for the crime, that we cannot believe it represents all that took place. Accused's version as contained in Exhibit A is much more probable, and seems to have been given to the Inspector at an early stage of the inquiry. In ...
Malamal Vittil Krishnan Nair Vs. Kavalappara Mooppil Nair Avergal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.47
1. The District Judge passed an order under Order XLI, Rule 5, refusing to stay the execution of a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge against which an appeal is pending before himself. This is an appeal against his order.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. We think the objection is well-founded. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar contends that the order falls within the purview of Section 47 and is, therefore, appealable. But that section only applies to orders passed by the Court executing the decree. In this case the District Court is not the Court executing the decree. See Ramchandra v. Balmukund 29 B. 71 : 6 Bom. L.R. 780.3. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Kollichina Venkataramayya Vs. Gudavalli Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad919(2); 25Ind.Cas.122
1. Order I, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, clearly provides that 'all objections on the ground of non-joinder shall be taken in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived.'2. The ground of objection in this case is that the plaintiff had two partners when and from long before he brought this suit. That ground of objection clearly, therefore, did not arise after settlement of issues. But it is argued that the defendant had no knowledge of this ground of objection till after the issues were settled and hence he is entitled to take the objection even after settlement of issues.3. We cannot override the plain terms of the rule which allows the objection of non-joinder to be taken after settlement of issues only when the ground of objection itself arises subsequent' to such settlement, and makes no exception where such ground was not known to ...
Bir Mahamed Rowther Vs. Nagoor Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.576a
1. We must follow the Privy Council ruling in Bakhtawar Begani v. Husain Khartum 23 Ind. Cas. 355 : 18 C.W.N. 586 : 26 M.L.J 474 : 12 A.L.J. 473 : 19 Cri.L.J. 477 : (1914) M.W.N. 411 : 15 M.L.T. 389 : 16 B.L.R. 344 : 1 L.W. 813 : 36 A. 195 and if there are some observations in Rose Ammal v. Rajarathnam Ammal 23 M. 33 which cannot be reconciled with that ruling, those observations must be held to be over ruled. The effect, of the Privy Council ruling is that the mortgagor cannot be allowed to redeem the mortgage before the expiry of the term mentioned in the mortgage-deed unless there is a contract to the contrary in favour of the mortgagor. There is no evidence of any such contract in this case. The usufructuary mortgagees (plaintiffs) are, therefore, entitled to remain in possession for the seven years' term agreed upon between themselves and the mortgagors and hence, they cannot be redeemed by the appellant (3rd defendant who is a purchaser of the mortgager's right in this suit which...
Ramakrishnama Chetty Vs. Vuvvati Chengu Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad633; 33Ind.Cas.321; (1914)27MLJ494
1. We have no doubt on a construction of Exhibit A that it is a deed of mortgage, as it expressly says in several places that it is executed as a mortgage of certain immoveable property and the profits of the properties are to be spent for the expenses of the mortgagee, which is a religious endowment of which the plaintiffs are constituted trustees under that document. See Venkatarama Aiyar v. Suppa Nadan 24 Ind. Cas. 24 : (1914) M.W.N. 501 : 27 M.L.J. 58.2. The arguments of the appellant's (5th defendant's) learned Vakil, which are based on the construction that Exhibit A is not a deed of mortgage and hence that the provisions of Section 68, Clause (ft), of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply, need not be further considered though we might add that we are not prepared to accept the argument of the learned Vakil that in the case of a mere charge, as distinguished from a mortgage, the provisions of Section 68 as to the liability of a mortgagor who commits waste do not apply to the...
Vilakathala Raman Vs. Vayalil Pachu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.213; 25Ind.Cas.213a; (1914)27MLJ172
1. The revision petition before us statedly asks this Court to interfere only with the Lower Court's order, dated the 27th February 1912. It, however, also contains a prayer for the setting aside of an order directing the petitioner's prosecution, which was, it appears actually passed on the 29th February 1912. We cannot, deal with the order of the 29th February 1912 on this petition.2. The order of the 27th February 1912 was one by the District Munsif of Chowghat vacating his previous order recording satisfaction of a decree on the ground that the latter was obtained by the petitioner's gross fraud on his Court. This petition is argued on the ground that the District Munsif had no power to pass such an order.3. We should be prepared to sustain the order, as passed under either Section 47 or Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code. But it is sufficient that it was passed in the exercise of the Courts inherent power under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to vacate an order obtain...
Yanamandra Papiah and ors. Vs. Lanka Subbasastrulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ276
1. This is an appeal from the Appellate order of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Nellore passed on appeal from an order of the District Munsif of Kanigiri on a petition filed by the 3rd defendant in execution proceedings in O.S. No. 96 of 1909 on the file of his Court. The third defendant is the son of the first defendant in the suit. The suit was against the father, the present petitioner and others for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to certain items of immoveable property, for recovery of possession of the same from them and for mesne profits. By the decree passed on the 22nd December 1910 all the defendants were ordered to put the plaintiffs in possession of certain items of the suit property and the first defendant was also directed to pay Rs. 370 for mesne profits andcosts on the mesne profits. In execution of the decree against the first defendant for mesne profits and costs the entire house belonging to the first and third defendants was attached and the third defenda...
Talari Kavoli Nagadu Vs. Viswanatham Pedda Govindappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad502; 25Ind.Cas.133
1. Transfer of Property Act relates only to immoveable property should not make us blind to the consideration that the legal principle underlying it might appropriately be applied to moveable also in cases where the aliened of the moveable is proved to have had notice of the pending litigation at the time of the alienation. It is not unconditionally extended to moveable because (among other reasons) it is considered that, while a pending litigation as regards immoveable might very well be presumed to be inquired into by intending purchasers pendent like, the same cannot be presumed as regards pending litigation about moveable, which usually pass from hand to hand and the litigation about which does not usually end in a decree for the return of specific moveable but in the award of pecuniary damages and compensation, either as the only relief or an adequate alternative relief. Reliance is further placed on the case of Niaz-ullah Khan v. Nazir Begam (2) by the respondents' learned Vakil....
Zenamandra Papiah and ors. Vs. Lanka Subbasastrulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad55; 25Ind.Cas.396
1. This is an appeal from the appellate order of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Nellore passed on appeal from an order of the District Munsif of Kanigiri on a petition filed by the third defendant in execution proceedings in Original Suit No. 96 of 1909 on the file of his Court. The third defendant is the son of the first defendant in the suit. The suit was against the father, the present petitioner and others for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to certain items of immovable property. for recovery of possession of the same from them and for mesne profits. By the decree passed on the 22nd December 1910 all the defendants were ordered to put the plaintiffs in possession of certain items of the suit property and the first defendant was also directed to pay Rs. 370 for mesne profits and costs on the mesne profits. In execution of the decree against the first defendant for mesne profits and costs the entire house belonging to the first and third defendants was attached, and the t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »