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.
Davuluru Vijaya Ramayya Vs. Davuluru Venkatasubba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.881
1. It is now stated to us that the minors elect to avoid the decree in Original Suit No. 416 of 1905, and we declare that the decree is of no effect. The trial of that suit will no doubt proceed if a proper application is made to the proper Court, though we cannot make any order as to that in the present appeal.2. We set aside the decree of the lower Court so far as the 1st defendant is ordered to put the plaintiffs into possession.3. We have heard the Vakils on the question of costs. In our opinion the suit has resulted from errors in procedure for which we cannot hold one side to be more at fault than the other. The most proper course seems to us to order each side to bear his or her own costs throughout....
P. Murugesa Chetti Vs. P. Arumuga Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.923
1. The defendant in this case applied for fresh issues which were granted on terms of paying the costs incurred up-to-date. The defendant did not pay them, and the learned Judge, when the case was set down for final disposal, first struck out the additional issues on 23rd October 1914, and afterwards on 5th November 1914 set aside the written statement of the defendant under Rule 17 of the High Court Fee Rules 1902 for non-payment of the costs above referred to and decided the case ex parte on the plaintiffs' evidence. Under Rule 17 of the High Court Fee Rules 1902, when the costs of an interlocutory order are not paid, the other side may apply by summons in Chambers or on the hearing of any application by the party in default that all or any proceedings in the suit or matter may be stayed or set aside, or that any subsequent steps taken by the party ordered to pay such costs, may be set aside for irregularity, and the Court may thereupon make such order as it thinks fit.2. On appeal, ...
In Re: Ramasamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad834; 31Ind.Cas.825
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This petition was admitted by Mr. Justice Napier on the ground that he was unable to find any evidence set out against any of the accused.2. The judgment though long is very un-satisfactory. Though 12 persons were charged with offences under Sections 147 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, there has not been the slightest attempt made by the Magistrate to view the case of each separately or to discuss the evidence as against each of the accused. This was all the more necessary as the evidence against each of the accused is by no means equally strong. The whole judgment is a detailed criticism of the defence case and seems to proceed on the view that it was for the accused to establish their innocence.3. Though the accused were charged with rioting, the common object is not set out in the charge and it is by no means clear from the evidence what the common object was. According to the complainant, the accused threatened him with injury in the evening. Accused...
Ramamani Vs. Kanakasabai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad840(2); 31Ind.Cas.829
ORDER1. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether the Deputy Magistrate could have reviewed his order directing that the jewels should be given over on the joint receipt of the mother and the daughter, who are the disputants in this case. After that order was passed, a competent Civil Court has decided in a suit instituted by the mother that the jewels belonged to the daughter, who is the petitioner before us. That being so, there is no merit in support of the application made to the learned Sessions Judge asking him to set aside the Deputy Magistrate's order, who in conformity to the decision of the Civil Court had passed the second order directing that the jewels be returned to the petitioner. We have got ample powers under Section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code to pass any order which may be just on the facts of the case. There can be no doubt that justice requires that the jewels should be returned to the petitioner. That being so, the order of the learned Sessions Judge will ...
In Re: Govindaraja Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad839; 31Ind.Cas.827
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. In this case, the accused is found to be a habitual thief and has been bound down for good behaviour. Certain properties, a sum of Rs. 32-2-0, some jewels and a silk towel were found in his possession. The Magistrate who originally tried the case, ordered that the property should be returned to the accused, as it did not appear to him that any offence had been committed with respect to the property and as the accused claimed the property as his own. The District Magistrate, however, ordered that the property should be confiscated to the Government, acting under Section 517(1) 0f the Criminal Procedure Code. But that section empowers him to pass an order as regards the disposal of the property if it appears that any offence has been committed with respect to it or that it has been used for the commission of an offence. There is no finding here that an offence has been committed or that it appeared from the record that an offence has been committed with respect to ...
T. Errikulappa Chetty Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad903; 32Ind.Cas.190
John Wallis, C.J. 1. In this case the appellant took out a summons (Exhibit A) for attachment of certain properties before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and by the terms of the warrant to the sheriff (Exhibit B) the defendant was called upon either to furnish security for Rs. 4,150-5-0 or such other sum as may be found sufficient to satisfy the decree which may be passed against him or to show cause why he should not furnish security, and it was further ordered that the goods at his house should be attached until further notice. On this the bailiff returned that the defendant had paid Rs. 4,150-5-0 and that amount had been paid to the Registrar. The defendant subsequently became insolvent and Bakewell, J., has held that the appellant is not entitled to the rights of a secured creditor in respect of this sum as against the Official Assignee in whom the defendant's estate has vested on insolvency. The order was applied for and made under Order XXXV...
S.A. Ayyathurai Ayyar Vs. C.S. Sivarama Pattar Karikar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.233
Phillips, J.1. The appellant's Vakil contends that as appellant endorsed a promissory note for Rs. 300 in favour of respondent, the contract that is implied by the endorsement includes an acknowledgment of the full consideration, and consequently no oral evidence can be adduced to prove that the consideration that passed was less than Rs. 300. Although the maker of the note may not be allowed to prove that he had not received full consideration as recited in the note, yet the contract between the endorser and endorsee (i.e., the endorsement) contains no recital of consideration and although such endorsement is held to imply a contract between the parties to it similar to the contract in the note, it cannot, in my opinion, amount to a contract in writing' that the promise is to be performed in consideration of the receipt of the full consideration for the note. To hold this would be to prevent any endorsement being made as a gift or even for a smaller consideration by way of discount, a...
In Re: Appu Atla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1007; 31Ind.Cas.643
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. In this case, the question is whether the Court of the Sub-Magistrate of Bantwal which granted sanction for prosecution was within the meaning of Section 195, Indian Penal Code, the same Court before which one of the statements with reference to which the petitioner has been prosecuted, was made. It appears that, by a notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 10th September 1910, the office of the Deputy Tahsildar at Bantwal was abolished. That means that there was no Sub-Magistrate at Bantwal as a result of the notification. Then, there was certain shuffling of the jurisdiction of the villages covered by the original Bantwal Court. We need not go into that.2. The next fact which is of relevance is that on the 15th June 1912, the Bantwal Court was restored with some slight modification, that is to say, its territorial jurisdiction was somewhat curtailed. The Deputy Tahsildar was vested with 3rd class powers on 2nd June 1912. It appears, therefore, that t...
Gopala Aiyar and anr. Vs. Sannasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.401
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge has extended the time for the payment of the price of certain lands, in respect of which specific performance had been asked for by way of a conveyance from the defendant to the plaintiff. The only two sections to which he refers as giving him the power are Sections 151 and Order XLI, Rule 33, of the Civil Procedure Code. I do not think that either of the two sections can apply to a case of this sort. In Ramaswami Kone v. Sundara Kone 3 M.L.T. 26 where the decree was practically in the same terms as the present one, this Court held that the Court which passed the decree had no power to extend the time, much less any Appellate Court. A similar decision was arrived at in Moideen Kuppai v. Ponnuswamy Pillai 1 L.W. 882. It is contended for the respondent that, because the original decree was confirmed in appeal, the plaintiff had one month's time from the date of the appellate decree. I am unable to agree with this proposition, be...
Velammal Alias Thayammal Vs. Lakshmu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad828(2); 31Ind.Cas.814
1. Under Order I, Rule 10, and Section 107, Clause (2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, the lower Appellate Court ought to have made the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 parties to the appeal preferred to it, before deciding that appeal. The question may then arise (if it is found that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are co-owners of the equity of redemption with 3rd defendant) whether the appeal was barred. The decree for sale passed in a suit in which a necessary party under Order XXXIV, Rule 1 (4th defendant, at any rate, being such a party) was knowingly omitted from the array of parties in appeal, cannot be allowed to stand.2. We must set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and direct the appeal to that Court to be restored to file. The lower Appellate Court will dispose of it afresh after making defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 parties to that appeal. Costs will abide....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »