Chennai Court November 1915 Judgments
Rama Aiyar Alias Ramasami Aiyar Vs. Govinda Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ180
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from the Judgment of the District Judge of Tanjore, on Appeal from the Judgment of the District Munsif of Tiruvalur in a suit in which the plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant in respect of his action in applying for attachment before judgment and coming to attach his movables. The District Munsif gave judgment for the plaintiff, while the District Judge holding that there was in fact no attachment dismissed the suit on the ground that the taking out of notice gave no cause of action. It has been argued before us that this view is incorrect and that as the District Judge has found that there was no reasonable and proper cause for obtaining an order for attachment and that it was obtained maliciously, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in respect of that order. Great reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Nanjappa Chettiar v. Ganapathi Gowndan I.L.R. (1911) M. 598. That was, however, a case where the attachment had been...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Times, Printing and Publishing Company Limited Vs. C.H. Rog ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ294
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of Sankaran Nair, J. giving the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 3,000 as damages for an alleged libel published by the defendants, the Madras Times, concerning the plaintiff. The learned Judge held that the published matter was defamatory of the plaintiff, that the justification pleaded was not proved, and that the defendant was not protected by the plea of fair comment.2. It is with regard to this last point that this case has been mainly argued on appeal, and it will therefore be as well to set out the passage in which the learned Judge may be said to have directed himself as to the way in which this plea was to be dealt with : 'This rule of fair comment itself indicates its limitations. The defendant was only entitled to express his opinion on facts which are true. His assertion of facts on which his comments are founded must be correct; for instance, in this case he must prove this statement that the plaintiff fomented the strik...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Times Printing and Publishing Co., Ltd. Vs. C.H. Rogers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.408
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Sankaran Nair, J., giving the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 3,000 as damages for an alleged libel published by the defendant, the Madras Times, concerning the plaintiff. The learned Judge held that the published matter was defamatory of the plaintiff, that the justification pleaded was not proved, and that the defendant was not protected by the plea of fair comment. It is with regard to this last point that this case has been mainly argued on appeal and it will, therefore, be as well to set out the passage in which the learned Judge may be said to have directed himself as to the way in which this plea, was to be dealt with: 'This rule of fair comment itself indicates its limitations. The defendant was only entitled to express his opinion on facts which are true. His assertion of facts on which his comments are founded must be correct, for instance, in this case he must prove this statement that the plaintiff fomented the strike and tried to sto...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Karri Venkanna Patrudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.330
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The order of the District Munsif, dated 18th March 1915, directing under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution of the petitioner, who was the 2nd plaintiff in Original Suit No. 96 of 1914, should, in my opinion, be set aside, on the ground that in exercising his jurisdiction he has acted with material irregularity. By the suit in question the plaintiffs sought to establish their exclusive right to derive water from a tank called Isukakattu through a particular channel for the purpose of irrigating their lands; while the defendants denied such exclusive right the plaintiffs, Claiming that their lands as well were irrigated with the water of that tank. It appears that on the 15th or 16th March, when the case of the plaintiffs was opened, there was a talk among the Pleaders on both sides as to the desirability of a compromise and in the course of such conversations or negotiations, which apparently took place in Court in the presence of the District Munsi...
Tag this Judgment!Ry. Sivaji Rajah Saib and anr. Vs. the Receiver Appointed by the Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.493
1. In the written statement the defendant stated that Rs. 1-6-0 was a fair price per kalam of paddy. The Collector found that Rs. 1-6-0 was a fair rate, The defendant at the trial in that Court did not claim more. The District Judge has not given reasons for admitting additional evidence at the hearing of the appeal, and he was not justified in accepting the list of prices prepared in the Collector's office without further proof that these were prices actually prevailing in that locality during the years in question. The Court of first instance had evidence before it from which it might have decided what was the actual average out turn in grain on the suit lands in Aduthorai, during the preceding ten years, excluding famine years, as prescribed by Section 40, Clause (3)(a), of the Madras Estates Land Act, and thus had no need to base its finding on the out turn of grain in the adjoining village of Vichitrarajapuram, although under Clause (3)(6) the Court might have taken into considera...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Aiyer Alias Ramasami Aiyer and Vs. Govinda Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.448
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Tanjore on appeal from the judgment of the District Munsif of Tiruvalur in a suit in which the plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant in respect of his action in applying for attachment before judgment and 'coming to attach his moveables.' The District Munsif gave judgment for the plaintiff while the District Judge, holding that there was in fact no attachment, dismissed the suit on the ground that the taking out of notice gave no cause of action. 2. It has been argued before us that this view is incorrect and that, as the District Judge has found that there was no reasonable and proper cause for obtaining an order for attachment arid that it was obtained maliciously, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in respect of that order. Great reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Nanjappa Chettiar v. Ganapathi Goundan 12 Ind. Cas. 507 That was, however, a case where the attachment had b...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarama Ayyar Vs. P.P.A.R.R.M. Arunachellam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.731
1. A decision on the question whether an arrest made of the judgment-debtor by the officer of the Court is legal or otherwise has been held in Nayana Naickan v. Syed Gulam Ghowse 5 Ind. Cas. 909; 20 M.L.J. 136; 8 M.L.T. 122 to fall under Sections 47 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and we agree with that decision. The preliminary objection that no appeal lies is, therefore, over-ruled.2. On the merits, the appellant has no case, as the order giving time to the appellant till 4th September 1914 to pay the decree amount into Court, which order was passed on his application to set aside the ex parte decree was not intended to, and did not legally, operate as a stay of execution of the ex, parte decree itself.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kadya Beari Vs. Shabyode Kunhi Ahmed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.820
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that summons had not been served on the defendant owing to the refusal of the Collector to serve it.2. The defendant is residing in the Aminidivi Island which forms part of the Northern group of the Laccadive Islands.3. The question as to service of summons and notices to residents of the Island was considered by their Lordships the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Seshagiri Aiyar in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3058 of 1914 (the question having arisen as to service of the notice of this petition), and it was directed that the notice should be effected 'by affixing the summons to the last known place of residence in British India and by registered post.'4. I am of opinion that this course might also be followed in serving the summons in the suit itself. The mere fact that the Collector refuses to serve the summons is not a sufficient ground for dismissing the suit.5. I set aside the decree of the District Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Devaraja Aiyangar Vs. Tirumalasami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.489
In Second Appeal No. 1699 of 19141. The plaintiff has instituted this suit to recover certain property from the defendant, on the strength of his purchase from the Official Assignee of Madras, who was in possession of the properties of the judgment-debtor. The purchase was in execution of a money-decree and was made in 1907. The defendant purports to be another purchaser of the same property and his purchase was sometime in 1904. He purchased in execution of a mortgage decree. The date of the decree is 12th August 1898. The owner of the property Anandalwar was adjudicated an insolvent on his own application on the 6th January 1902. The sale, therefore, under which the defendant purchased was brought about after Anandalwar had become an insolvent and his property had vested in the Official Assignee. But the Official Assignee was not made a party to the proceedings in execution. Both the lower Courts have found upon the evidence that the purchase of the defendant was not a bona fide one,...
Tag this Judgment!Appathurai Aiyer's daughter Thyalambal Vs. Nanit Pattar's Son Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.955
Coutts Trotter, J.1. It will be convenient to dispose of these two appeals together, as they arise out of the same series of transactions between the same parties. The plaintiff is a widow who was the wife, during his life-time, of a younger son, the second son, of Krishna Pattar, the 1st defendant in the action; the other two defendants being Ananthanarayana Pattar and Vydianatha Pattar, his other two sons, one older and the other younger than the plaintiff's deceased husband. She sues the family of her husband for maintenance, alleging that there are family properties, moveable and immoveable, out of which she is entitled to be maintained, her husband having been during his life-time a co-parcener in that family property. The answer made by the defendants is that these are not, and never were, family properties and that they were in their origin the self-acquisitions of the 1st defendant, that they have always remained so and that nothing has taken place which, either in fact or by c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »