Chennai Court August 1914 Judgments
K.R. Subramania Iyer Vs. Venkataramier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1914
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.4
1. We think that when a Court treats a suit having abated owing to the cause of action not surviving, there is no right in the plaintiff's legal representative to apply under Order XXII, Rule 9, Clause (2), of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside that abatement. Clause (2) of Rule 9 applies only to cases where the abatement takes place in consequence of an application not having been made 'within the time limited by law' to bring in the legal representatives. This seems to us to be quite clear from the second sentence in Clause (2) of Rule 9 which refers to the setting aside of 'the abatement' (that is, the abatement mentioned in the 1st sentence) if it be proved that he (the legal representative) was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit.2. We think that an order of the Court declaring that a suit has abated owing to the cause of action not surviving is a decree, as it determines that the right of the plaintiff ceased to exist on his death and, therefore, it fall...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukaruppan Samban and ors. Vs. Muthu Samban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad573; (1914)27MLJ497
1. Defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants. The plaintiff as the purchaser from one Alagar Samban sued to redeem an usufructuary mortgage dated 8th December 1837 executed by Alagar Samban in favour of the 1st defendant. Defendants 1 to 5 plead a sale by Alagar Samban to the 1st defendant by an unregistered sale deed dated 6th April 1898 and state that they have been in possession as owners ever since that date and that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The District Munsiff held that the plaintiff was aware of the sale deed in favour of the defendants and the defendant's possession thereunder and that he was not entitled to redeem on the strength of the sale deed. He held in effect that though the plaintiff's deed was registered, and that of the defendant's unregistered, the plaintiff was entitled to no priority as he purchased with notice of the defendant's title. The District Judge on appeal reversed the decision of the District Munsif on the ground that, as the defendants we...
Tag this Judgment!Ravulapati Papi Reddi Vs. Nanduru Peda Venkatacharyulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad735; (1914)27MLJ567
1. The first point for decision is one of jurisdiction which turns on whether the Agraharam in which the suit lands lie is an 'estate' within the definition of Section 3(2) d of the Madras Estates Land Act. If it is so, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted; but this has to be established by the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction, in this case, the appellant (Defendant). He has to show in this case :- 1. That the original grant by the Zamindar was of the land revenue alone.2. That the original grantee or grantees were not at the time of the grant possessed of the Kudivaram of the village. 3. That the grant was confirmed or recognised by the British Government. 2. There is no question about (3) and as regards (I) the circurnstances in evidence justify the inference that the Zamindar only granted what he was himself possessed of: i.e., the land revenue only. The difficulty is about (2). Appellant's Vakil admits that he has adduced no evidence on the point but he contends th...
Tag this Judgment!Vadlamannati Srinivasadikshitulu and ors. Vs. Damera Rangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.702
1. In this case the mortgage-deed provided in the first instance for interest at 10 annas 6 pies per cent, per mensem, and for annual instalmetits of Rs. 800 to cover principal and interest, that, on default in one instalment interest, on it should run at 14 annas per cent, per mensem from the date of default, and that in default of payment of two instalments (the event which happened) interest should be at 1 per cent, per mensem compound interest. The District Judge treated these stipulations as penal and awarded compound interest at 10 1/2 annas from the date of the second default. For the appellants it is not disputed that he was justified in treating these stipulations as penal, but it is contended that he was bound to allow as reasonable compensation something more than the original rate, citing Annamalai Chetty v. Veerabadrarn Chetty 26 M. 111. It was also contended that he has misunderstood the decision of the Privy Council in Sunder Koer v. Rai Sham Krishen 34 C. 150 : 34 I.A. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidyanatha Iyer and ors. Vs. Suppalu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.997
ORDERSpencer, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that this Court will not interfere with an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless it is apparent that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction, and Kamal Kutty v. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja of Chirakal 17 Ind. Cas. 65 : 36 M. 275 : (1912) M.W.N. 1154 : 12 M.L.T. 439 : 23 M.L.J. 499 : 13 Cri.L.J. 753 is quoted in support of that proposition.2. The Magistrate in this case has on perusal of the written statements of their respective claims put in by parties in accordance with the requirements of the section decided that the 1st party's possession was the possession of an agent and that the 2nd party, his principal, is the person entitled to, possession.3. It is argued that in refusing to recognises the possession, of the 1st party which he alleges to be actual possession the Magistrate declined a jurisdiction which he ought to have assumed. But the Magistrate concluded by passing an order in the us...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.993; (1914)27MLJ593
ORDER1. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court, to quash the commitment under Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code. Under that section the commitment can be quashed only on a point of law. 2. The accused was charged with having committed the offence of murder, riot, grievous hurt, and house-trespass. The Judge says that there is no evidence that Sinna Goundan who is alleged to have been murdered is dead, and there is also no evidence that any grievous hurt was caused. The other offences are triable by the magistrate. If he commitment is allowed to stand, the accused will have to be acquitted on the charge of murder but the Sessions Judge is of opinion that the case is one for further inquiry and the acquittal might preclude the police from making any such inquiry. He therefore asks us to quash the commitment on the ground that there is no evidence to justify the commitment. We are of opinion that on this ground it is not open to the High Court to quash a commitment. The...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raghava Naidu Vs. P. Muthiyalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1070(2); (1915)28MLJ301
1. On the 26th September 1913, The Lower Courts have decided that there is no evidence to show that the tenants have constructed wells. On behalf of the appellant it is pointed out that the only witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff stated.--' All the defendants own wells on their dry lands. It costs 200 or 300 to sink a well' and it is said that after this statement they considered it unnecessary to examine their own witnesses in attendance to prove the fact. This evidence is not disbelieved by the Lower Courts, and there is no explanation of it. We think it desirable in the circumstances that the question whether the wells were sunk by the landlord or tenants should be further investigated.2. We direct the judge to return a finding on the 2nd issue after deciding the question aforesaid on further evidence.3. The finding should be submitted within six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.4. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the D...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukaruppan Samban and Four ors. Vs. Muthu Samban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1158
1. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are the appellants, The plaintiff as the purchaser from one Alagur Samban sued to redeem an usufructuary mortgage, dated 8th December 1897, executed by Alagur Samban in favour of the first defendant. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 plead a sale by Alagur Samban to the first defendant by an unregistered sale-deed, dated 6th April 1898, and state that they have been in possession us owners ever since that date and that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was aware of the sale-deed in favour of the defendants and the defendant's possession thereunder and that he was not entitled to redeem on the strength of the sale-deed. He held in effect that, though the plaintiff's deed was registered, and that of the defendant's unregistered, the plaintiff was entitled to no priority as he purchased with notice of the defendant's title. The District Judge on appeal reversed the decision of the District Munsif on the ground that as ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagalinga Chettiar Vs. Kayarohana Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad80(2); 25Ind.Cas.939
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a very hard case. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar's contention is that his client has taken as much care of the goods entrusted to him as is required by Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act. The facts are these: The plaintiff entrusted the 1st defendant with a sum of Rs. 43. The money was tied up in a bundle: it was placed by the 1st defendant in a box of his own with money belonging to himself; it is admitted. that he did not lock the box. After this the plaintiff and the 1st defendant went out for making some other purchase. On return the money was found lost. On these facts the Subordinate Judge holds that the defendant is not liable. It is argued on his behalf that, as the 1st defendant placed his own moneys in the box without locking it, he must be deemed to have taken as much care of the plaintiff's money as he did of his own. But that leaves the question open whether he exercised ordinary prudence. The fact that the place was a shop to which everybody had acce...
Tag this Judgment!Minakshi and ors. Vs. Muniandi Panikkar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.957; (1914)27MLJ353
Oldfield, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and concur in it. I shall therefore merely state shortly the negative reasons, for which I think that the appellant's legal argument must be rejected. 2. The case, it seems to me, must be decided on the broad ground that it is for the appellants to show that the illegitimate daughter of a woman, who lived in adultery, inherits her stridhanam, over which she had full power, in preference to her legitimate son : and that they have neither produced any direct precedent for such succession nor established any principle justifying it. As it is not alleged that direct precedent is available, I turn at once to the principles put forward.3. Firstly, the appellants contend for the application of the law of succession applicable to dancing girls to the offspring of a prostitute, such as they allege the 1st appellant's mother to have been. It is not necessary to decide whether she was one...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »