Chennai Court September 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.
P.K. Kalliani Amma and ors. Vs. M.T. Narayanan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad962; (1915)28MLJ266
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit to redeem a kanom (Exhibit B) of the Malabar year 1025 corresponding to 1850 A.D.2. According to the allegations in the plaint, Exhibit B was a renewal of a prior kanom (Exhibit A) of 1012 (1837), which was transferred to defendants' ancestors in 1022 (1847) through Exhibit G.3. Both the lower courts have found against the genuineness of the plaint Marupat (Exhibit B). They are also agreed that the jenm title is in plaintiff's tarwad, and that the defendants have not proved the existence of any jenm title in their tarwad or tavazhi. These are findings on questions of fact which we must accept.4. The District Munsif gave the plaintiffs a decree for redemption on the strength of the prior kanom-deed of 1837, Exhibit A, about which he remarked that it was 'a very suspicious-looking document ' but ' might be genuine, ' as plaintiffs had, in his opinion, succeeded in showing a subsisting right in the year 1861.5. The District Judge has not dist...
Atchutaramiah Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad552; 25Ind.Cas.712
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These petitions are filed against the order of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry sitting at Cocanada, refusing the petitioner, who is a first grade Pleader practising in Cocanada, leave to appear on behalf of the Rajah of Vizianagaram in a suit filed by the Rajah against the Government. The facts are shortly these: The petitioner, Mr. Atchutaramiah, who according to the Subordinate Judge is a first grade Pleader of long standing with a lucrative practice', was attending to Government work in the Subordinate, Judge's Court at Cocanada and was engaged by the Government to defend Original Suit No. 63 of 1912, which was filed by the Rajah of Vizianagaram in respect of certain lankas in Godavari. He drafted a written statement and before anything further was done the suit was transferred from the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada to that of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry. When the suit was so transferred, the Collector did not enagage Mr. ...
Annamalai Pattar and anr. Vs. P. Natesa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad307(1); 25Ind.Cas.927
Hannay, J.1. In my opinion the lower Court had sufficient evidence of conduct in the series of endorsements to be found on the promissory note to justify it in the conclusion at which it arrived, that the defendants had each authorised the other to make acknowledgments so as to bind both. It is contended that with reference to Section 21, Clause 2, of the Limitation Act the mere acknowledgments are not themselves sufficient, but that there should be other extraneous evidence of authority, and a number of cases are cited in support of that view: Narayana Ayyar v. Venkataramana Ayyar 25 Ma. 220, Balasubramania Pillai v. S.V.B.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar 2 Ind. Cas. 309 : 32 M. 421 : 5 M.L.T. 102, K. R. V. Firm v. Sathyavada Sitharama Swami 21 Ind. Cas. 634 : 25 M.L. 501 : 37 Ma. 146. The respondent also relies upon the first of these cases (at page 234) as showing that in particular cases conduct coupled with other circumstances would be sufficient to warrant the conclusion that there was a...
Kancharla Venkataratnam and ors. Vs. Koganti Venkataramiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.692
John Edward Power Wallis, Offg. C.J.1. We see no reason to differ from the clear and well-reasoned judgment of the Subordinate Judge. The question is whether the suit properties belonged to Bapayya who died about 1859, or to his wife Kannamma who died in 1875. From at least 1827 to 1875 when Ramachandrudu, Bapayya's son died, the suit lands are shown to have been cultivated by them. After Bapayya's death part of the lands was alienated by Ramachandrudu's guardian. After Ramachandrudu's death there were disputes between his young widow, who many years later adopted the plaintiff, and his mother Kannamma, and eventually it was agreed to divide the properties between them. The lands which fell to Kannamma are now in possession of the descendants of her daughters. The plaintiff suggests that the grant to Kannamma was for her maintenance and that after her death Kotamma failed to recover the properties and that on his adoption in 1904 he acquired a good cause of action.2. We think the long ...
Anantharama Vadhiar Vs. Muthia Tevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad234; 25Ind.Cas.841
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. In this case the Police of Shermadevi on the information of the petitioner, Anantharama Vadhiar, submitted a charge-sheet to the Joint First Class Magistrate of Shermadevi charging four persons, three of them with robbery under Section 394, Indian Penal Code, and the fourth with the abetment of that offence. After four witnesses had been examined for the prosecution by the Police Circle Inspector and after certain other proceedings and after an infructuous petition for the transfer of the case made to the District Magistrate, the said Police Inspector of Ambasamudram Circle put in a petition on the 10th April 1913 to the Joint First Class Magistrate for permission to withdraw the charge against the accused. The Joint Magistrate on the 12th April 1913 accepted the petition as one filed under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 495, Clause 2, and granted the permission sought for and discharged the accused under Section 494, Clause (a). ...
imandy Appalaswami Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad315; 25Ind.Cas.1000
ORDEROldfield, J.1. It is first argued with reference to K. Ganapathi Bhotta's case 19 Ind. Cas. 310 : 24 M.L.J. 463 : 13 M.L.T. 360 : 14 Cri. L.J. 214 : 36 M. 308 that the accused, who has been placed on his trial on a charge of an offence punishable under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, cannot be tried again for one punishable under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. It was for the accused to establish the facts necessary for the application of this authority; and we cannot find on the record anything to show that he was acquitted in the previous proceedings and not merely discharged. In these circumstances the plea has not been established.2. Next, it is urged that Section 182 applies only to a complaint to a public servant when it is made with the intention of inducing such public servant to take action of a sort which only a public servant of the description in question could take and which would not be open to a private individual. In illustration (a) to Section 182 the action expec...
The South Indian Industrials Limited formerly known as the Arbuthnot's ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad509; (1914)27MLJ501
Sir Edward Power Wallis, Kt. Officiating C.J.1. It will be convenient in the first place to state briefly the facts which have given rise to this litigation. Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co., herein after referred to as the firm, carried on business for a great many years in Madras as Bankers and General Merchants until they were adjudicated insolvents on their own petition in October 1906. The firm for many years had an agency at Bimilipatam,and according to the usual method of business made their purchases from local traders there through dubashes who guaranteed the transactions for a commission and gave security for the guarantee. The defendant's family had been the firm's dubashes at Masuli patam for many years and so continued until the failure. Purchases were made through them of other produce besides jute such as indigo and gingelly seeds but of late years nearly all the purchases were of Jute to be used in the Jute Mill at Chittivalasa.2. The conditions of business between the firm and ...
Maikal Servai Vs. Thambuswami Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad74; 25Ind.Cas.934
1. Plaintiff has based his suit on title by inheritance and as it is found that he and 1st defendant are only illegitimate sons of Arulappa Servai, the original owner, he is no heir at all.2. The Subordinate Judge has, however, given him a decree on the strength of the principle laid down in Asher v. Whittock 1 Q.B. 1 : 35 L.J.Q.B. 17 : 11 Jur. 925 : 13 L.T. 254 : 14 W.R. 26 and followed in Sundar v. Parbati 12 A. 51 : 16 I.A. 186 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 448 and Narayana, How v. Dharmaehar 26 Ma. 514 : 13 M.L.J. 146 that mere possession of property gives an interest which can be enforced in a suit against a trespasser. No doubt a suit is maintainable on such-a basis; but if plaintiff seeks to rely on it, it should be clearly set up so that the contesting defendants may know what they have to meet. There is no indication of such a claim in the plaint, which, as already stated, bases the suit on title by inheritance and nothing else; and the contention appears to have been first set up in the co...
Mulpuri Veerayya and anr. Vs. Sanaya Varpu Sivayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ482
1. We cannot assume that the lower appellate Court ignored the equitable presumption that time is not of the essence of the contract in cases of contracts for sale and purchase of landed property. Its finding of fact, after a consideration of the evidence and the circumstances, that both parties intended time to be of the essence of the contract, cannot therefore be interfered with in second appeal.2. We must also accept the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiffs failed to perform that portion of the contract which they had to perform first (namely), the tender of the expenses of the execution and registration of the sale deed to defendants before the plaintiffs could call upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. A mere offer by postal letter to tender such expenses is not a legal tender.3. The question again of the right of the defendants (respondents) to a forfeit of the earnest money on plaintiff's failure must be decided in the defendants' favor on the streng...
Reddi Rami Reddi Vs. Public Prosecutor of Kurnool
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad508; 25Ind.Cas.524; (1914)27MLJ586
ORDER1. As regards the sanction for prosecution under Section 182 I.P.C. neither the Police officer nor the Sub-Magistrate to whom the reports Ex. H and H, were sent is a, subordinate of the Sessions Judge within the meaning Section 195 Clause 7 Criminal Procedure Code so that the Sessions Judge's order of sanction is ultra vires.2. The same must be said of the order sanctioning prosecution for an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. in giving contradictory statements. It is necessary that a Court granting sanction in such circumstances should be empowered to sanction prosecution in respect of each of the statements said to be contradictory of each other. In the present case one of the two contradictory statements was made before the Sub-Magistrate in the course of a local inquiry under Section 164 Criminal Procedure and for the reasons above indicated the Sessions Judge had no power to give sanction in respect of this.3. The sanction is set aside; it is open to the Public Prosecutor to ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »