Chennai Court October 1915 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.
Sarakhi Abdul Rahiman Tara Gan and anr. Vs. MuhaidIn Pathummal Bivi an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.83
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These four connected second appeals have arisen out of two connected suits brought by three Mussalman ladies--one of the suits was brought by two sisters against their two step-brothers and their mother for partition of the properties of their father (including the accretions to the said properties) and the other suit was by the mother of the plaintiffs in the first suit against her said step-sons (the same defendants Nos. 1 and 2) for her share. The father died in February 1898 and these suits were brought in July 1911.2. The lower Appellate Court modified the order of the Court of first instance in the plaintiffs' favour on the plaintiffs' two appeals and dismissed the two appeals of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 preferred to the lower Appellate Court against those portions of the decrees of the District Munsif which were in the plaintiffs' favour. Hence the defendants have now filed these four second appeals. The step-sisters and the step-mother of the appellants ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.279
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal was heard in the first instance by Sir Arnold White, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Oldfield and after certain questions had been decided, the further hearing was adjourned to wait the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 39 of 1915 [Secretary of State v. Kannepalli Janakiramayya 30 Ind. Cas. 609; 29 M.L.J. 389; 18 M.L.T. 277 from the decree in A.S. No. 124 of 1906 [Secretary of State v. Kannepalli Janakiramayya 18 Ind. Cas. 770; 24 M.L.J. 365; 13 M.L.T. 235 in which owing to a difference of opinion between Miller and Sankaran Nair, JJ., the learned Judges who heard the appeal, the decree of the lower Court was confirmed in accordance with the opinion of Sanknran Nair, J. His decision has since been reversed by Oldfield and Bakewell, JJ. dissentient Sadasiva Aiyar, J., and the present appeal has now come before this Bench for further argument and disposal.2. The important and difficult questions in these appeals, as to which there has been much diff...
Adusumalli Krishnayya and anr. Vs. Adusumalli Lakshmipathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.253
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs sue as revesioners of one Narasamma to recover possession of the plaint properties. The last male owner was Venkatasubbiah, a boy of 14 years. He was murdered in 1888. Two brothers of the 2nd and 4th plaintiffs were suspected of this murder. They were convicted by the Sessions Court but acquitted in appeal. On Venkatasubbiah's death his mother Narasamma inherited the properties. She died in 1908.2. The 1st defendant is the adopted son of Narasamma. Although the factum of adoption was denied in the Court of first instance, the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the adoption did in fact take place has not been questioned in appeal. The 2nd defendant is an alienee from the adopted son. She is the daughter of the 3rd defendant and grand-daughter of Narasamma. The case for the defendants is that the adoption of the 1st defendant by Narasamma is valid. 3. There are questions both of fact and of law to be considered in deciding whether the adoption was ...
Ganapathi Asari and ors. Vs. Sundaram Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.397
1. This application is made to us with a view to have the question decided whether the Subordinate Judge's Court at Salem has jurisdiction to try the suit which is instituted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, that is to say, with respect to the public charity. What happened was the suit was originally instituted in the District Court of Salem. At that time the District Court alone had jurisdiction to try such suits as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. The Local Government, however, on the 17th October 1910, invested all Courts of Subordinate Judges in this Presidency with jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code in respect of suits relating to trusts created for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature and the Temporary Subordinate Judge's Court, by a notification throughout the District of Salem; but by a subsequent notification dated 13th July 1915, the order was modified to this extent, that the Court should have and exerc...
In Re: Subbaraya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad786(1); 31Ind.Cas.372
ORDER1. The only ground for revision argued before us is that the unpounding of the cattle by prosecution witness No. 1, who is a watchman employed by the owner of the seed bed, was not authorised by Section 10 of the Act. The section says that the cultivator or occupier may 'seize or cause to be seized any cattle trespassing:' and we do not think that it can be contended that he is not entitled to give general instructions to his watchman or other servants to seize all trespassing cattle or that if the watchman or servant so instructed seizes cattle, the cultivator or occupier does not cause them to be seized within the meaning of the section. In the present case the legality of the 1st prosecution witness's action in this respect was not attacked in the lower Courts. He deposed that he was employed to watch the crops and that he had impounded many cattle. We do not feel called upon to direct evidence to be taken on this point in view of the late stage at which it is raised and we can...
W.C. Whitton Vs. Mammad Maistry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad527; (1916)ILR39Mad889
Ayling, J.1. We are asked to revise an order of the Second-class Magistrate of Vayitri, dated 17th March 1915, refusing to direct counter-petitioner under Section 35 of the Madras Planters Labour Act (I of 1903) to complete the performance of the contract entered into by him, with petitioners. The Magistrate's ground of refusal is that he had already issued one such direction on 18th November 1913, in default of compliance with which counter-petitioner had been convicted and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 24(c) of the same Act. He had in addition been previously tried and convicted under the same section and clause on 28th March 1913, for failure in connection with the same contract, The Magistrate held, following Re Panga Maistry (1913) Mad. 497, that he had no power to make more than one direction; and on this view dismissed petitioner's application.2. Mr. Barton, who appears for petitioner, contends that the ruling above quoted is erroneous; and that ap...
Sevugan Chetti, Minor, by Next Friend Chockalingam Chetty Vs. Rungamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.34
1.This appeal arises out of a claim preferred under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It appears that the 1st defendant was the judgment-debtor and the property which was attached stood in the name of himself and his nephew, one Rajam Aiyangar. Rajam Aiyangar is dead and his widow, the claimant, is in possession of the property. The District Munsif dismissed the petition holding that the title to the property vested both in the 1st defendant and his nephew in equal moieties, and there was no deed of sale or of release in favour of the claimant of the uncle's share of the property. He also observed that even if the petitioner's husband had alone been in enjoyment of the property, he had not acquired any right by prescription, that is to say, he proceeded upon the evidence of title that was before him. No evidence was adduced on the question of possession as required by rule 59 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, which says that the claimant or objector must adduce evi...
Sami Rao Appa and anr. Vs. Vyravan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.712
1. We think the preliminary objection taken that there is no second appeal is a good one. Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is wide enough in its terms to cover the case of suits of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes whether they are tried by the Courts of Small Causes or by Courts in their ordinary original jurisdiction.2. This is a view which has been held practically by all the High Courts. We need only refer to the decisions in Aithala v. Subbanna 12 M. K 116 and Narayan Parmanand v. Nagindas Bhaidas 7 Bom. L.R. 641.3. Mr. Rama Chandra Aiyar next asks us to set aside the order of the Appellate Court in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 115. This is not, however, a case in which we should be justified in interfering. The application was to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud; and both the lower Courts, the District Munsif as well as the District Judge in appeal, have held that the application was barred. The District Judge, unfortunately, has...
In Re: G.G. Jeremiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.373
1. Appellant (a European British subject) has been convicted by the District Magistrate of Bangalore, who is a Justice of the Peace, of an offence under Section 8 of the Municipal By-law 3 after a summary trial under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar argues in his behalf that the Magistrate's proceedings are void under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as the District Magistrate is not empowered to try a European British subject summarily. This appears to be so.3. The Criminal Procedure Code does not apply primarily to Bangalore which is no part of British India, and is only in force there by virtue of the declarations of the Governor-General in Council in the exercise of powers conferred by the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council, 1902. The latest declaration is No. 732-D, dated 19th March 1913, but this provides with reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure: 'Nothing in the Code as applied shall be deemed to ...
N.C. Whitton Vs. Mammad Maistry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.377
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. We are asked to revise an order of the 2nd, Class Magistrate of Vayitri, dated 17th March 1915, refusing to direct counter-petitioner under Section 35 of the Madras Planters, Labour Act (1 of 1903) to complete the performance of the contract entered into by him with petitioner. The Magistrate's ground of refusal is that he had already issued one such direction on 18th November 1913, in default of compliance with which counter-petitioner had been convicted and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 24(c) of the same Act. He had in addition been previously tried and convicted under the same section and clause on 28th March 1913 for failure in connection with the same contract. The Magistrate held, following Ponga Maistry v. Emperor 18 Ind. Cas. 415, that he had no power to make more than one direction: and on this view dismissed petitioner's application.2. Mr. Barton, who appears for petitioner, contends that the ruling above quoted is erro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »