Chennai Court February 1915 Judgments
The South Indian Export Co. Ltd. Vs. T. Subbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad449; (1915)28MLJ696
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I have had the great advantage' of a perusal of the judgment just now delivered by rny learned brother and though I agree practically throughout both in his conclusions and reasons I think it riot inappropriate to say a few words on one or two questions of law. which were elaborately argued on both sides. On the question whether a Hindu widow is entitled to carry on the trade business which she inherited from her husband their Lordships of the Privy Council have made the following observations in the case in Amarnath Sah v. Achan Kuar I.L.R. 14 All. 420: ' On this point ' (that is, the point whether the deceased Kairate's widow and heir was under a necessity to borrow money in order to ward off total insolvency). 'Their Lordships agree with the High Court in thinking the effect of Hira Lal's evidence to be that that at Khairati's death the business was solvent on paper, but that there were bad debts the losses on which were never recovered, though the business stru...
Tag this Judgment!Ammasi Kutti Gounden Vs. Appalu Alias Krishnaswami Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1164; 29Ind.Cas.234
Spencer, J.1. An objection has been taken that this is not a case in which we can interfere in the exercise of our revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. An objection was taken only at the hearing of the appeal in the lower Court that no decree should have been passed when the plaintiff had not produced a succession certificate.3. The Subordinate Judge thereon decided that there was no necessity to send the case back to the lower Court and proceeded to set aside the District Munsif s decree and to dismiss the plaintiff's suit.4. In doing so the Subordinate Judge committed, in my opinion, an obvious error of procedure.5. The objection having been taken at that late stage he should in fairness to the plaintiff have given him an opportunity of making good the defect brought to notice in the appeal. The matter does not stop there. Both the lower Courts having found that there was no debt, Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act does not apply to the facts...
Tag this Judgment!Gottimukkala China Somaraju Vs. Srimat Surangam Nallani Chakravarthula ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad828(1); 29Ind.Cas.574
1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 12 of the Rent Recovery Act. The learned District Judge has found that the tenancy of the appellant was from year to year. We are not prepared to say that, in deciding this question of fact the learnedj Judge has committed any such error as can be corrected in second appeal, and accept that finding. He has also found that there was in effect oral notice to quit at the time when the tenant was wrongfully ejected. On these findings the tenant was entitled to be in possession for a year after the period when he was ejected, and the learned Judge's decree giving one year's mesne profits as damages in lieu of possession is, therefore, quite correct.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!The South Indian Export Co., Ltd. Vs. T. Subbeer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.957
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I have had the great advantage of a perusal of the judgment just now delivered by my learned brother and though I agree practically throughout both in his conclusions and reasons, I think it not inappropriate to say a few words on one or two questions of law which were elaborately argued on both sides.2. On the question whether a Hindu widow is entitled to carry on the trade business which she inherited from her husband, their Lordships of the Privy Council have made the following observations in the case of Amarnath Sah v. Achan Kuar 14 A.P 420 : 19 I.A. 196 : 6 Sar. P.C.J. 197 'On this point' (that is, the point whether the deceased Khairati's widow and heir was under a necessity to borrow money in order to ward off total insolvency) 'their Lordships agree with the High Court in thinking the effect of Hira Lal's evidence to be that that at Khairati's death the business was solvent on paper, but that there were bad debts the losses on which were never recovered, t...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramanna Vs. K.J. Venkatapathi Nayani Varu (Minor) by His Agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ510
John Edward Power Wallis, C.J.1. This case is one of some difficulty and rather on the line, but after having the very lull arguments of the counsel on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that we cannot support the decision of the Subordinate Judge.2. The question is as to whether the terms of Ex.,A amounted to a permanent grant. The words used are ' Kayampatta' which are translated as ' perpetual lease'. Prima facie of course these words would be taken to mean what they say. But there is a long course of decisions mostly in cases arising in Northern India, but treated by this Court as applicable also to this part of India, that having regard to the general usage of the country, such words as these and the words ' istimrari mokurari' dp' not3. Prina facie convey more than life estates. That doctrine was applied to this part of India and to a term similar to that in the present case in Rajaram v. Narasinga I.L.R. (1891) M. 199. The term there was ' Kayam Saswata Patta' which is e...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Khader Unnissa Begam Vs. Muhammad Mustan Ali Badsha Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad610(2); 29Ind.Cas.12
1. The finding of the learned Judge is that the defendant's complaint against the plaintiff was false and the facts found further show that the complaint was false to the knowledge of the complainant. When a complaint is false to the knowledge of the complainant, not only is want of reasonable and probable cause proved but malice also is proved. See Bhim Sen v. Sita Ram 24 A.P 363 : A.W.N. (1902) 92 and Abrath v. North Eastern Railway Co. (1866) 11 A.C. 247 : 55 L.J.Q.B. 457 : 55 L.T. 63 : 50 J.P. 659. We are unable to agree with the learned Judge that because the defendant had grounds for suspecting the plaintiff or her husband of having committed some wrongful act in connection with the defendant's daughter's jewels, the defendant could not be deemed to have been actuated by malice in himself bringing a case on allegations false to the defendant's knowledge.2. On the evidence we hold that Rs. 1,000 (thousand rupees) is a fair sum to be awarded to the plaintiff as damages.3. We set as...
Tag this Judgment!Kattampudi Subbiah Chetty Vs. Khan Bahadur Walji Lalji Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad761; 29Ind.Cas.26
1. We think that the mere fact that some person, who had no authority to represent a party to a certain suit, makes inquiries as to what had been done with that suit, is not a legal ground for declaring that that party was duly served with notice of the suit.2. We also think that the return on the first summons in the case being that the defendant had gone to Gudur, the Subordinate Judge should have directed the plaintiff to take out fresh summons to Gudur, and in the absence of any attempt to effect service at Gudur, the service by affixture at Santhapeta should not have been treated as sufficient service.3. We set aside the ex parte decree and direct the District Judge to take the case on his file and dispose of it according to law.4. Costs will be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Vuppalapati Venkatappa Vs. Thovagunta Viraraghavayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.6
1. We think that the learned Judge was right in holding that the sale was not binding on the reversioners. Narasamma, who was brought on the record as the legal representative of Lakshami Devamma, could not in any view of the case have been her true legal representative. Her only possible interest in the property would have been as one entitled to claim maintenance from it and this interest could not have been affected by the sale. As a matter of fact she had not even that interest in it, as she had other property for securing to her her maintenance. The property at the time of the sale was in the hands of a usufructuary mortgagee, and the auction-purchaser acquired merely the equity of redemption, which amounted in effect to a right to possession 16 years after the sale. As soon as the time for redemption expired and the estate fell into possession, the reversioners instituted the present suit. In these circumstances the remarks of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Khiarajmal v....
Tag this Judgment!M. Subramaniam Pillai Vs. Sri Gopalarama Subramania Aiyar, Minor, by H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1156; 29Ind.Cas.138
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that it was agreed between the plaintiff and Chidambara Iyer, father of the defendant, that the latter should purchase the properties now in suit on behalf of the plaintiff at a sale in execution of a decree with the money which the plaintiff agreed to pay to him, and that the properties should be taken possession of through Court; that Ohidam-bara Iyer should enjoy for four years the income, from the said properties in satisfaction of all debts incurred on those properties; that after four years the properties should be put into plaintiff's possession free of all incumbrances and that. Chidambara Iyer should execute a sale-deed to plaintiff in respect of them. In accordance with these arrangements, the plaintiff states that the properties were purchased by Chidambara Iyer as plaintiff's agent with plaintiff's money and that he remaiped in possession. The pla...
Tag this Judgment!Virupana Gowd and anr., Talari Mariga and ors., Rudra Gowd and ors., B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad550(2); (1915)28MLJ397
ORDERSpencer, J.1. An objection has been taken in appeal that the trial was illegal on account of rnisjoioder of charges and however much this result after a prolonged trial in Sessions Court may be regretted, I have little hesitation in finding that the objection is sound and that the conviction of the accused must in consequence be quashed.2. It is clear from the Privy Council decision in Subramania Aiyar v. King Emperor I.L.R. (1901) M. 61, that if there has been a misjoinder it will have the effect of vitiating the trial and cannot be cured by the application of Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure.3. In the present case there was an occurrence on the morning of June 29, when certain persons are alleged to have come in an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and beseiged the house of Prosecution Witness No. 3 and thrown stones at Prosecution Witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 3 and the deceased who were inside. There was another occurrence on the same afternoon when certain persons are...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »