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.
Subramania Othuvar Vs. Munusamiya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad897(1); 31Ind.Cas.869
Phillips, J.1. This suit has been dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, but Order XVII, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, only says that when at an adjourned hearing the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may' dispose of the case under Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code The word being 'may' and not 'shall' entails on the Court the exercise of some discretion, and this discretion must be judicial discretion. When a plaintiff has closed his case, and there is evidence which if unrebutted would prove his case, it can hardly be deemed a judicial exercise of discretion to dismiss the suit for default, because the defendant and his witness could not be examined. There was no reason why the defence evidence should not have been recorded in plaintiff's absence, and the case disposed of on its merits--and this is the course that the Subordinate Judge should have followed. The plaintiff's Vakil's conduct in throwing up the case can hardly be justified an...
Bugtha Simhadri Naidu Vs. Behava Sitharama Patrudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1048; 32Ind.Cas.129
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. It has been held in Tanguturi Sriramulu v. Nalam, Krishna Row 25 Ind. Cas. 1001; 16 M.L.T. 303; (1914) M.W.N. 646; 27 M.L.J. 589 that the recommencement of a trial under Section 350, Criminal Procedure Code, does not imply the cancellation of a charge already-framed and that an order passed subsequently is one of acquittal and not discharge. The case should, therefore, be treated as a revision against an acquittal.2. Though the High Court has power to interfere on revision, the power will only be exercised when the order of acquittal has resulted in grave injustice. I have dealt with the matter fully in Vellayanambalam v. Solai Servai 30 Ind. Cas. 152; (1915) M.W.N. 540; 28 M.L.J. 692.3. I see no grounds for interference in this case. The Magistrate did not believe the prosecution evidence and was of opinion that there was considerable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.4. The petition is dismissed....
In Re: Madasamy Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.131
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case the petitioner is a Shanar by caste and he was convicted by the Village Magistrate of insult and assault and put in stocks by way of punishment.2. The question we have to consider is whether the sentence was a proper one or not. We are of opinion that Shanars do not belong to 'any of the lower castes of the people on whom it may not be improper to inflict so degrading a punishment', to use the words of Section 10, Regulation XI of 1816. In the case of Rettigadu v. Konda Reddi 24 M.K 271; 1 Weir 928, it was held that a Mala, a Hindu pariah, was a person on whom it may not ordinarily be improper to inflict so degrading a sentence, but it would be otherwise if it could be shown that on adopting Christianity he adopted also the Christian moral and social standards instead of those of his caste. In the case of Shanars we would not be far wrong in saying that they would at least at the present day regard themselves degraded by the infliction of such punishment....
Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1155(2); 32Ind.Cas.816
Phillips, J.1. It has been held by this Court in Narayanaswami Naidu v. Gantayya (1915) M.W.N. 865 and Ramanadan Chetti v. Periatambi Shervai 6 M.K 250 that an execution petition returned for amendment but not re-presented, is an application which will give a fresh starting point for limitation. The present execution petition is, therefore, not barred by limitation and must be restored to file and disposed of in accordance with law....
Prabhala Narasimhasomayajulu Garu Vs. Muttury Somappa and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.944
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The District Munsif was clearly wrong in thinking that the petitioner lost his rights as mortgagee simply because he attached the surplus sale-proceeds. He is the puisne mortgagee and has a charge over the surplus sale-proceeds in Court after the property was sold at the instance of the prior mortgagee. The proper course was pursued by him when he applied for payment.2. The attachment before judgment made at the instance of the counter-petitioner will not affect the petitioner's rights; Order XXXVIII, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure is clear.3. It is also difficult to see how the attaching creditor is entitled to rateable distribution, as not only was there no application for execution made by him of the decree, but the money was realised before he attached the property: Arunachellum Chettiar v. Haji Sheik Meera Routher 7 Ind. Cas. 856: (1910) M.W.N. 688 and Srinivasa Ayyangar v. Seetharanayyar 5 M.L.J. 151.4. It is argued by the counter-petitioner's Va...
In Re: Rangasami Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.642
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The way in which Rao Saheb Raja Chariar, the first Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has disposed of this case is hardly satisfactory. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 148, 426, 506 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The 3rd accused is 18 years old, and 5th accused is 16 years, 6th and 7th accused 14 years and 8th accused 20. They are ignorant coolies. The Magistrate framed charges under the above sections on the 27th April 1915 in camp at Tranquebar and immediately asked the accused to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. They expressed inability to do so as their Vakil was not there and wanted time. The Magistrate insisted on their going on and there was no cross-examination. Only prosecution 3rd witness was asked a few questions by 2nd accused. On the 29th April 1915, their Pleader put in a petition to be allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The Magistrate deferred passing orders for one month and on the 29th May, h...
Sree Raja Dantalooru Pedda Venkata Jagannadha Raju Bahadur Garu and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ302
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the Judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dismissing their suit and refusing them the reliefs they asked. The facts out of which the suit arose are these: - The plaintiffs are the proprietors of an estate known as Gundepalli estate which was apparently of considerable extent, and in the year 1911 they were extremely hard pressed for money. Their lands were mortgaged to the extent of something like two lakhs and they were indebted to sundry personal creditors in sums which amounted more or less to another lakh; and they were naturally anxious to borrow money in order to discharge those liabilities and disencumber their lands. Sometime in the early part of 1911 they seem to have got in touch with the defendants who are so wears in Madras. Various proposals were made first by sale and then by mortgage for a comparatively modest loan of Rs. 15,000, and then as the negotiations developed, it became obvious that so modest a...
Pothi Naicken, Minor, by His Next Friend K.N.P.N. Narayanaswami Naicke ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.486
John Wallis, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the minor plaintiff to question an alleged partition under Exhibit III between himself and his paternal uncle Subba Naick in the year 1907. The District Judge dismissed the suit and on appeal his decree was affirmed under Section 98 12) of the Code of Civil Procedure in accordance with the judgment of Sankaran Nair, J., Oldfield, J., differing and being of opinion that at any rate as regards immoveable property, Exhibit III was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. The plaintiff appealed under the Letters Patent and after carefully considering the case we agree with Oldfield, J., that Exhibit III in the language of Section 17(1) of the Act operates to create a right, title, or interest, of the value of one hundred rupees or upwards to or in immoveable property. The material portion of the document is as follows: 'As we have, in the presence of the undermentioned panchayatdars, divi...
Sree Raja Dantalooru Peda Venkata Jagannadha Raju Bahadur Garu and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.941
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dismissing their suit and refusing them the reliefs they asked. The facts out of which the suit arose are these: The plaintiffs are the proprietors of an estate known as the Gundepalli Estate, which was apparently of considerable extent, and in the year 1911 they were extremely hard pressed for money. Their lands were mortgaged to the extent of something like two lakhs and they were indebted to sundry personal creditors in sums which amounted more or less to another lakh; and they were naturally anxious to borrow money in order to discharge those liabilities and disencumber their lands. Sometime in the early part of 1911 they seem to have got in touch with the defendants who are sowcars in Madras. Various proposals were made, first by sale, and then by mortgage, for a comparatively modest loan of Rs. 15,000, and then as the negotiations developed, it became obvious that so mod...
Vasudevapatta Joshi Maha Patro and ors. Vs. Narayanapani Grahi and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad919(1); 31Ind.Cas.853
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The only point for determination is whether, an application by some of the decree-holder's legal representatives not purporting to be on behalf of the other legal representatives also is sufficient to save limitation.2. No authority has been cited to show that such an application is not covered by the Explanation I of Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The mere fact that the Court would have required the persons applying to give security for the shares of the other legal representatives, will not make an application one not falling under Clauses 5 and 6. So far as defendants are concerned Ramanuj Sewak Singh v. Hingu Lal 3 A.P 517 decides that an application for execution against one of several legal representatives saves limitation and there is no reason why the same rule should not apply when one of the plaintiff's representatives applies for execution. Ponnampilath Parapravan Kuthath Haji v. Ponnampilath Parapravan Bavotti Haji 30 Ind. Cas. 755 : 18 M.L.T. 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »