Chennai Court August 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.
In Re: Mandru Gadaba
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.451
Ayling, J.1. It is clearly proved that the accused in this case backed deceased Dinni to death with a tangi. The lower Court convicted him of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Against this conviction he appeals, and at the same time the case has been taken up by this Court in revision and the accused has been called on to show cause why the conviction should not be altered to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence enhanced.2. I have no hesitation whatever in rejecting the appeal, as the evidence leaves no doubt that the deceased was killed by the accused and by no one else.3. As regards the nature of the offence it seems to me that it certainly amounts to murder. The nature of the wounds and of the weapon used are such that a sober man would undoubtedly be presumed to know that the wounds were likely to prove fatal. Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code makes it clear that ordinary drunkenness (appellant is said to have been drunk) makes no difference to...
Vaithinatha Aiyar Vs. Vaithinathasawmy Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.970
1. These two appeals and Appeal No. 134 of 1910 are against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam in three different suits. Considerable inconvenience has been caused by their joint trial and by separate judgments not having been written in each of the cases. Original Suit No. 44 of 1906 was instituted by one Vaithinathasawmi Aiyar against his uncle, Vaithinatha Aiyar, to recover certain sums of money on two documents. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree in favour of the nephew. Appeal No. 134 of 1910 is against that decision. The uncle has appealed. Original Suit No. 2 of 1907 was by the uncle against the nephew for a declaration that the sale-deed of certain properties in the name of the nephew was benami for him, and for recovery of the properties. The nephew was the first defendant in this case and the vendee from the nephew was the 2nd defendant. The Subordinate Judge dismissed this suit. Appeal No. 135 of 1910 is the appeal against it by the uncle. In Original Suit N...
Krishnasami Pillai Vs. Kothandarama Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.428; (1914)27MLJ582
1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. On the 11th November 1894 one Nilayathakshi executed a deed of trust (Exhibit 1) by which she settled certain properties on a temple. She constituted herself the trustee during her life time and provided in the said deed for the carrying out of the trust by certain individuals after her death. She died on the 12th April 1907. On the day previous to her death she executed a will (Exhibit IV) by which she purported to revoke Exhibit I and to make a new disposition of her properties. The dispositions themselves were in favour of the temple to which she had given the properties comprised in Exhibit I. The present suit is brought for a declaration that the will of 1907 is inoperative and has not the effect of revoking the trust of 1894; and that under the terms of the trust diced the plaintiffs are entitled to possession.2. The question for consideration is whether there was a complete dedication of the properties Exhibit I, to the temple and if...
Kathiresan Chettiar Vs. Ramasami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad541(2); (1914)27MLJ302
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of an execution application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura (East) under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code in O.S. No. 64 of 1909. The decree-holder in another suit O.S. No. 167 of 1908 had attached certain propertied of the defendants and brought them to sale. The sale was held and the purchase money paid and received by the Court. Fourteen days after this payment the petitioner herein presented an application for execution of the decree which he had obtained sometime previously, by the attachment and sale of the properties above referred to with an application to set aside that sale and a further application for rateable distribution in the assets already realized by the sale. The Subordinate Judge dismissed his application for rateable distribution on the ground that he was not entitled I to it not having applied to the Court for execution of his decree before the receipt or the assets by the Court and for the s...
Arunachala Mudali Vs. Govindaraja Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.434
1. In our opinion the matter in dispute cannot be held to be res judicata for the simple reason that the parties to Original Suit No. 61 of 1899 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Chingleput are not the parties to the present suit, or parties under whom the latter claim. The plaintiff, no doubt, is the same in each; but in Original Suit No. 61 of 1899, the defendants were the Union Chairman and the Taluq Board President, contending that the disputed land was public street, while in the present suit the defendants are private persons, claiming the said land as their private property. It may be added that the latter suit was simply brought for the cancellation of the Chairman's order forbidding the erection of the plaintiff's warp. It failed on the ground of limitation. This does not prevent the plaintiff from suing to establish his title to the land as against private parties and procuring the removal of the koradus.2. The second appeal must be allowed and the suit reman...
Muthukaruppa Mudali and ors. Vs. Pi. Mu. Kathappudayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad528; (1914)27MLJ249
Napier, J.1. Three points are argued in this second appeal. The first is that under the remand order of the High Court the District Judge should have returned findings on the other issues of fact in the case. We are clear that the order was only on the question whether the contract of guarantee was supported by consideration on which he has returned a finding. The second, that the District Judge should have passed a decree in the terms of the supposed compromise. We accept his decision that no compromise binding on all the parties was effected, The third is, that the District Judge has erred in law in holding that there was no consideration. It is argued that the advances made to other persons on the recommendation of the 1st defendant were good past consideration for the contract. Section 127 of the Indian Contract Act says that anything done, for the benefit of the principal debtor may be a sufficient consideration to the surety. Consideration is defined in Section 2. ' When at the d...
Muthukrishniengar and ors. Vs. Sankara Narayana Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ600
Tyabji, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether plaintiffs' right as against the defendants Nos. 5 to 7 to redeem certain mortgaged properties is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 were coparceners jointly interested in the property referred to in the plaint. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the property. Their possession, it is admitted, must in law be considered as the possession of all the coparceners, as it is not alleged, that to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the defendants 1 and 2 assarted a title adverse to their coparceners. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sold the property--they could alienate only their own interest in it--to the 5th defendant. The 6th and 7th defendants are the undivided sons of the 5th defendant. The 5th to 7th defendants who are the appellants before us claim to have derived title to the whole property from the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contending that the whole of it and not merely the rights therein...
Desayi Alias Allam Raju Nanjunadhiah Vs. Desayi Alias Allam Raju Venka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ618
1. This second appeal is argued only with reference to items 56 to 58. The Courts below have held that plaintiff was entitled to a share in them. The 1st defendant's (Appellant's) contentions are twofold. He says that as the properties came to him from Thimma Raju who was the last holder of this Desai Inam the other members of his family can have no claim to them. It is found that at the time of the devolution, he was the manager of the undivided family of which plaintiff was a junior member. He must therefore be deemed to have taken the property for and on behalf of the joint family. The principle of the decision in Gunnaiyan v. Kamachi Ayyar I.L.R. (1902) M 339 applies to this case. We hold that the properties are not 1st. defendant's self acquisition. The more important question relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the suit without a certificate under the Pensions Act. The finding of the Courts below, we take to be, that the grant to Thimrna Raju's ancestors ...
Doraisami Reddi and ors. Vs. C. Venkatachalam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad756(2); (1914)27MLJ734
1. These second appeals are from suits for arrears of rent by the Shrotriemdar the plaintiff against his tenants for 8 Faslis (Fasli 1312 to Fasli 1319). The main defence is that the claim up to Fasli 1316 is barred by limitation. As regards Fasli 1317, the plea is that as the arrears were due in February it was not open to the plaintiff to stipulate in the patta that they shall be paid at the end of April and as the suit was brought on the 1st of May 1911 the claim for that. Fasli also is barred by limitation. There is a further defence applicable to all the Faslis that the plaintiff agreed to forego his claim for water cess in case the Government collected it from the defendant; and as the defendant paid it to Government, he is not liable to pay it over again to the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff in answer to the plea of limitation sets up two answers : (1) There were proceedings to ascertain the arrears of rent which terminated only in April 1910, and that those proceedings saved the ba...
iyappa Nainar Vs. Manickka Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1066; (1915)ILR38Mad773
1. This is an appeal under Section 46, Clause (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, from an order of the District Judge of South A root dismissing a petition put in by creditor asking the Court to take action against an insolvent under Section 43, Clause (2)(b) of the Act. A preliminary objection is taken that a creditor has no right of appeal in that he is not 'a person aggrieved' by the order within the meaning of Section 46(1). In a case reported in Kadir Baksh v. Bhawani Prasad I.L.R. (1892) All. 145 a Judge of a Small Cause Court refused to take action under Section 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an insolvent and a revision petition was entertained by the High Court against the order at the instance of a creditor. This however does not assist the appellant as in revision the Court acts suo motu. It has been held in the matter of Rash Behari Roy v. Bhughwan Chunder Roy I.L.R. (1890) Cal. 2 under the Insolvent Acts 11 & 12 Vict., cap. 21, that Section 50 should be admini...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »