Chennai Court November 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.
Mahomed Kanni Rowther Vs. Pattani Inayathalla Sahib and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad854; (1916)ILR39Mad946
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case, it has been found upon the evidence that the parties compounded their disputes out of Court. There were three cases which arose out of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents. In the first of these cases, the petitioner was the accused and in the second case, which was a counter-case to the first, the petitioner was the complainant. In the third case, that is the one in question, the petitioner was the complainant. In the other two cases, the accused were convicted and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment each, Then they appealed to the Joint Magistrate and while the appeals ware pending, the parties entered into an arrangement that all the disputes between them should be settled. The Joint Magistrate has found that the arrangement settling the disputes extended to the case which was then pending in the Sub-Magistrate's Court. As a result of the compromise these two appeals in the Appellate Court were compounded with the permi...
Manika Naiker Vs. Swarnathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.547
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The amount claimed was payable under an order of the District Court by the guardian of the property of a minor to the guardian of his person for the education and maintenance of the minor. The suit is by the guardian of the person to recover the amount payable for two months against the present guardian of the property and the former guardian who alleged that the amount was paid. I do not think the suit is one for maintenance within the meaning of Article 38 of the Schedule to the Small Cause Courts Act.2. The minor was solely entitled to the property and an order of Court applying a portion of the income for his support would not be maintenance paid to him by the guardian. For the purpose of Article 38 the word 'maintenance' means a sum of money payable by a person under an obligation to support another, either by the general law to which he is subject or under a specific contract.3. The question raised by the petitioner as to want of jurisdiction, therefore, ...
Devarasetti Narasimham and anr. Vs. Devarasetti Venkiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1142(2); 31Ind.Cas.796
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The only question for determination is whether standing crops are to be treated as moveable or immoveable property for the purposes of the Indian Limitation Act.2. It is argued for the petitioners that Section 2, Clause 13, of the Civil Procedure Code defines moveable property as including standing crops and that a suit for recovery of the value of standing crops wrongfully cat and carried away is a suit for the recovery of compensation in respect of moveable property governed by Article 29 of the second Schedule to the Limitation Act.3. I do not think that the definition in the Civil Procedure Code can govern the provisions of the Limitation Act. There is no definition of moveable property in the Limitation Act and reference must be had to the General Clauses Act, X of 1897, which enacts that the definitions given in the Act shall govern all enactments passed subsequent thereto. Immoveable property is defined by Clause 25 of Section 3 as including things attac...
Mahomed Kanni Rowther Vs. Pattani Inayathulla Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.819
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. In this case it has been found upon the evidence that the parties compounded their disputes out of Court. There were three cases which arose out of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents. In the first of these cases, the petitioner was the accused and in the second case which was a counter case to the first, the petitioner was the complainant. In the third case, that is, the one in question, the petitioner was the complainant. In the other two cases, the accused were convicted and sentenced to tree months' rigorous imprisonment each. Then they appealed to the Joint Magistrate and while the appeals were pending, the parties entered into an agreement that all the disputes between them should be settled. The Joint Magistrate has found that the arrangement settling the disputes extended to the case which was then pending in the Sub-Magistrate's Court. As a result of the compromise, the two appeals in the Appellate Court were compounded with the permi...
Kottapalli Subbamma and anr. Vs. Jatavallabhula Subramanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ260
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants. The suit was brought on a mortgage bond executed to the plaintiff by a Hindu widow (the 1st defendant). The bond is dated 15th May 1902. On the 16th February 1913 the 1st defendant executed the surrender deed Ex. I in favour of her husband's reversionary heir (the 3rd defendant). This suit was brought on the 20th September 1911 and it was during the pendency of the suit that this relinquishment deed Ex. I was executed. The suit was posted for trial for the 16th February 1912. Then there were five more adjournments and the 6th adjourned hearing date was 7th February 1913. Then the defendants made a request for another adjournment to 7th March 1913 and between these two dates (7-2-13 and 7-3-13) the surrender deed was executed in favour of the next male reversioner the 3rd defendant by the widow the 1st defendant on the 16th February 1913. In the written statement dated 25th October 1911 however, paragraph 5, there is an all...
Subbiah Aiyar Vs. Muthukumaraswamia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.41
1. The only point argued in this appeal turns on the meaning and effect to be given to Section 285 of the old Code of Civil Procedure. It is admitted that when the Court sale (relied on by the plaintiff) in Original Suit No. 268 of 1905 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly was held the property was under the attachment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly: and the question is whether the said sale is invalid.2. We entirely concur in the view expressed by Farran, C.J., in Abdul Karim v. Thakordas 22 B.k 88. The sale by the Court of lower jurisdiction being irregular and not invalid the purchaser will take an indefeasible or a defeasible title according in whether he knows or does not know of the irregularity. If he buys bone fide and without notice, his title will be perfect and he will not be affected by the irregularity of the proceedings resulting in the sale.' If he purchases with notice he runs the risk of his purchase being set aside'.3. The...
Paramasivam Pillai Vs. Periyanayagathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.527
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The only question is whether the District Munsif has jurisdiction to review an order made by him under the Village Courts Act (I of 1889). The Act does not provide for review of order passed by the District Munsif on applications made to him under Section 73, and it is argued that he has no power to set aside an order even though made by him under a mistake.2. I am of opinion that every Court has an inherent power to set aside orders passed either under a mistake of the Judge or obtained by a fraud upon the Court. Whatever doubt might exist where the review is sought on grounds outside the record, I do not see any grounds for holding that Courts are bound to allow a decree or order passed under a mistake to stand, Badaricharya v. Ramchandra Gopal Savant 19 B.k 113 and Ramsingh v. Babu Kisansingh 19 B.k 116 are authorities in point.3. Reference has been made by the appellant's Vakil to Damodara Nadar v. Manicka Vachaka Dasika Pundara Sannadhi 3 Ind. Cas. 463; Ra...
S.M. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Subramania Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.434
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. The plaintiffs have brought thin suit to have it declared that they were entitled to the suit properties and that the defendants had no right in the properties at all. The properties in question originally belonged to one Ponnusami Nadar, and they were attached on the 25th February 1904 in execution of a decree obtained against Ponnusami Nadar in the District Munsif's Court of Kumbakonam, and in March 1905 they were sold, subject to a prior mortgage for Rs. 31,000, for a sum of Rs. 85 to the predecessor-in-title of the 2nd defendant. The 1st plaintiff had purported to buy these properties by a private sale-deed from Ponnusami Nadar in December 1901. That, of course, was subsequent to the attachment. The short point taken against the plaintiff at the trial, and on its failure at the trial reiterated in this appeal, is that his suit was out of Court by reason of Section 317 of the old Civil Procedure Code corresponding to Section 66 of the present Code, on the ground...
B.M. Venkatappa Nayanum Varu Vs. Padi Ramakrishnappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.714
1. This is an application by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 164 of 1912 to revise an appellate order of the District Judge of North Arcot. The suit was originally posted for final hearing to the 4th December 1912 and was adjourned to the 20th February 1913 by the Court for want of time. On the 20th of February the I leaders for the plaintiff and the defendants were present, but neither of the parties were present. The plaintiff had taken out summonses for his witnesses on the 12th February for the bearing on the 20th, but they did not attend. It appears that one of them was served and the other was not. What happened on that day is stated by the Trial Judge in his original order, which is as follows:Plaintiff's Pleader stated that his witnesses have not come. He applied for summons late and the summons issued has not yet been returned for want of time. Plaintiff must take the consequence. Plaintiff does not appear. Defendants, too, do not appear. Their Pleaders say that the parties...
Kottapalli Subbamma and anr. Vs. Jatavallabhula Subrahmanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.813
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants Nos. 1 and 3 are the appellants. The suit was brought on a mortgage-bond executed to the plaintiff by a Hindu widow (the 1st defendant). The bond is dated 15th May 1902. On the 16th February 1913, the 1st defendant executed the surrender deed, Exhibit I, in favour of her husband's reversionary heir (the 3rd defendant). This suit; was brought on the 20th September 1911, and it was during the pendency of the suit that this relinquishment deed Exhibit I was executed. The suit was posted for trial for the 16th February 1913. Then there were 5 more adjournments and the 6th adjourned hearing date was 7th February 1913.' Then the defendants made a request for another adjournment to 7th March 1913 and between these two dates (7th February 1913 and 7th March 1913) the surrender deed was executed in favour of the next male reversioner, the 3rd defendant, by the widow, the 1st defendant, on the 16th February 1913. In the written statement, dated 25th October 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »