Chennai Court December 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.
Ramanathan Chetty Vs. Yegappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.427
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This was a suit for dissolution of partnership. The partnership was entered into in 1902 or 1903 between plaintiff, the 1st defendant, the 5th defendant and one Subramaniam Chetty. The sole question we have to determine is whether this suit for dissolution, which was launched on the 12th March 1912, is or is not barred by limitation, the period of limitation in such cases being three years. Various points of the time were suggested when it was said that the plaintiff's cause of action arose, but in my opinion it is sufficient to confine our attention to the year 1908 when Subramaniam Chetty died. It is clear that if, on his death, the cause of action arose, the plaintiff's suit cannot be in time. Prima facie, one would suppose that if a person who was a partner in a firm died, the partnership would stand dissolved. But it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the ordinary rule of law is not applicable to cases where the partner who dies is a member of an und...
Venkata Rangappa Naicken Vs. Subbaraya Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.142
1. It is contended that Exhibits Nos. I and II were not legally admissible as evidence of the 1st defendant's minority and we must uphold this contention. Exhibit No. I, which purports to be a certificate of age of a private patient, is not relevant as a public record under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, but could only be used for the purpose of refreshing the doctor's memory (section 159 of the Evidence Act) when he was examined as a witness. Major Long when he was examined as defendants' witness No. 2 made no statement in his examination-in-chief as to the 1st defendant's age and it only came cut in cross-examination that 2 1/2 years ago he fixed the 1st defendant's age at 17. Even then he was unable to give the grounds of the opinion which he had expressed at the time of writing Exhibit No. I.2. Exhibit No. II was a judgment in a former suit in which the 1st defendant was held to be a minor. It was based on this same inadmissible certificate, and was not relevant as an instance in ...
Venkatasami Naick and ors. Vs. Kali Samatan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.167
1. Plaintiffs sue in ejectment claiming title by ancestral right or by adverse possession for over twelve years. Both the lower Courts have found that the plaintiffs' title is not proved, but the lower Appellate Court has given the plaintiffs a decree on the Strength of their possessory title and dispossession by a trespasser. No such claim was set up in the plaint nor in the first memorandum of appeal and we do not think that such a claim should be allowed in this case, when the defendants have not had an opportunity of meeting it, for in a suit based upon possessory title a defendant may well have grounds for opposing the claim, which would be of no avail in a suit brought by the real owner. In this view we follow the decision in Maikal Servai v. Thambuswami Servai 25 Ind. Cas. 934 : (1914) M.W.N. 784 : 1 L.W. 853 and accordingly allow the appeal and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs throughout....
V. Subraya Davay Vs. V.S. Venkatarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.592
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an order of the District Munsif of Trichinopoly in which he awarded a sum of Rs. 50 as compensation to the respondent, who had been arrested before judgment on the suit of the petitioner. It is sought to set aside this order on two grounds. The first is that the matter was not brought before the Court in the manner provided by Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code. The fact was that, in the proceedings on the petition for arrest, the defendant filed a counter-petition in which besides traversing the statements of the petitioner relating to the necessity for the arrest he asked for damages for the arrest, which by then had been carried out. The Court was, therefore, fully seized of the matter, and this objection is entirely without merits.2. The neat point taken is that the words of Section 95 which speak of 'the expense or injury caused to the defendant' for which compensation is to be awarded, only extend to cases where what in Eng...
Sennimalai Goundan Vs. Palani Goundan and anr. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.975
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This was a petition originally to set aside an ex parte decree. The learned District Munsif held that there was good cause for excusing the petitioner being out of time under the Limitation Act and set aside the ex parte decree. When this case was first argued, it was pointed out that Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, did not provide that Section 5 of the Limitation Act which gives discretion to extend time should apply. It is quite clear that Section 5 of the Limitation Act as it stands does not, and cannot, possibly extend the applications to set aside ex parte decrees. But it has since been pointed out to me that the High Court has now added to Order IX, Rule 13, a Sub-rule (2) to this effect. 'The provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, shall apply to applications under Sub-rule (1).' That prima facie is an end of the case. But the argument for the petitioner is that Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with the ...
V. Ramasamy Aiyar Vs. the Madras Times Printting and Publishing Co. Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ207
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a reference from the Presidency Small Cause Court made under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Court's Act. Section 69(1) says that 'if two or more judges of the Small Cause Court sit together in any suit and differ in their opinion as to any question of law the Small Cause Court shall draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which there is a difference of opinion and refer such statement with its full opinion on the point for the opinion of the High Court'. (2) 'When the Small Cause Court refers any question for the opinion of the High Court as provided in Sub-section (1), it shall either reserve judgment or give judgment contingent upon such opinion'.2. The present reference is made by the Small Cause Court (of its own motion I take it), three judges of the Small Cause Court sitting together to decide an application made by the plaintiff under Section 38 in a contested suit having differed in their opinions on the two questions...
The District Judge of Kistna Vs. C. Hanumanulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad144(2); (1916)ILR39Mad1045; 32Ind.Cas.326
John Wallis, C.J. 1. In this case the District Munsif of Bezwada has taken proceedings under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879) against a second-grade pleader practising in his Court. The charge as framed is for contempt of Court covered by Section 13(f) of the Legal Practitioners Act and a preliminary objection has been taken that a Subordinate Court is not authorized to take proceedings under Section 14 in cases which come under Clause (f) of Section 13 'for any other reasonable cause' and is confined to cases failing under Clauses (a) and (b). There was some ground for this view under the corresponding Sections 15 and 16 of Act XX of 1865, as the former section gave a power of suspension or dismissal for 'fraudulent or other grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty or for any other reasonable cause' while the Subordinate Court was only empowered to investigate charges of 'such conduct as aforesaid' and accordingly it was held in In th...
Veerakutty Koundan and anr. Vs. Ramasami Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.431
1. The first point argued! before us is that, because the plaintiff's mortgage was registered after the 3rd defendant had instituted his suit and obtained an order of attachment against the property on which he held, a prior but unregistered mortgage, the registration, though made within the time allowed by law, was invalid and Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act did not apply. Section 47 of the Registration Act says 'that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration,' and it is absolutely definite. The result of that is that the mortgage of the plaintiff operates as from the date of the execution. It was executed before the institution of the suit by the 3rd defendant on his unregistered mortgage. That being so, the plaintiff's mortgage has priority over the mortgage of the 3rd defendant.2. Then, it is contended that Section 50 of the...
Alagamuthu Pillai Vs. Devasagaya Fernandez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.484
1. The learned Judge has relied on the decision found in the unauthorised report in Veeramathari v. Subrdmania Iyer 12 Ind. Cas. 959 in support of his view that an appeal lay to the District Court against the order of the Small Cause Court in execution and that hence no revision petition lay to this Court. That case is reported as a decision given in Appeal against Order No. 5 of 1911, but that reference is a clear mistake for Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 5 of 1911. That decision follows an earlier decision in Lakshminarasimhacharyulu v. Lakshmamma a 12 Ind Cas 169. This earlier case decided that an appeal lies against an order passed on an application under Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside an auction sale of immoveable property in execution. The case inaccurately reports 1 as Veeramathari v. Subramania Iyer 12 Ind. Cas. 959 was a case where in execution of a Small Cause decree (transferred to the original side for execution), immoveable property was sold ...
Nagamuthu Pillai and anr. Vs. Dasusundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.743
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The first point is really covered by a series of authorities of this Court laying down that the adoption of a daughter by a dancing girl is valid in this Presidency if it is not made for the purpose of making the girl a prostitute. We have been referred to certain adverse observations in some judgments of a very general character but the learned Pleader who appeared for the appellant admits that the authorities are all against him on that point.2. It is found in this case that Vijayambal, the person who adopted the plaintiff, took the girl to help her in her household duties out of compassion for the helpless child and that she did not intend to force her to a life of prostitution. That being the finding, the adoption according to the rulings of this Presidency must be held to be a valid one.3. Then the further question is raised as to whether the evidence warrants the inference that there was adoption within the meaning of the law. The whole argument of the learned V...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »