Chennai Court February 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.
Sri Sri Sri Vikramadeo Maharajlungaru and Vs. Kishetravara Todramal Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.365
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal relates to the claim of the Maharajah of Jeypore to eject the the defendant, Thatraz of Bissemkatak, from that estate and to recover from him arrears of kattubadi and profits on the grounds that he has denied his liability to pay Rs. 15,000 annually and to render service and has defaulted in both respects in each year from October 1903, such payment and service being the tenure on which the estate is held. Defendant's contentions are that (1) he holds at a fixed jama of Rs. 2,200 only, (2) that the income of his estate was excluded from the assets of Jeypore for the purpose of the Permanent Settlement and that, therefore, his jama is not liable to enhancement, or his estate to resumption, and (3) he is bound to no service.2. We refer to the Thatraz as defendant, though he died pending the suit, and his widow was impleaded in his place.3. The Jeypore Maharajah owns a large zemindary of over 12,900 square miles extent, situated in the hill tracts of the Vinagap...
In Re: Tanguturu Sriramulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad763(1); 29Ind.Cas.29
1. There is, we think, nothing in the allegation in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit. The plaintiff in the course of the case appears to have been vaunting the merits of his paper and the District Judge in answer observed that he did not make much of it or him. Mr. Cotton in the observations he has forwarded us very frankly admits that the observation, which was to some extent elicited by the observations of the plaintiff himself, who as a litigant in person no doubt assumed considerable latitude, was injudicious and it was no doubt thoughtlessly made, but we do not think it and the other allegations afford any serious ground for supposing that the plaintiff will not have a fair trial or for inducing him to think so.2. The application is dismissed....
Kalayi Narayana Jogithaya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad568; 29Ind.Cas.154
1. The District Judge has found, as a fact, that the plaint plots are encroachments on poramboke. The appellant's Vakil seeks to attack this finding on the ground that it is based on evidence which is legally insufficient, i.e., on the entries and measurements in the survey records. It is not denied that this is relevant evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and it has in many cases been relied on as valuable Vide Sankaran Numbudripad v. Manavikraman 10 Ind. Cas. 653 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 213 : 9 M.L.T. 415. The appellant relies on the dicta in Krishna Aiyar v. Secretary of State for India in Council 5 Ind. Cas. 121: 20 M.L.T. 71 and Venkatarama Aiyar v. Secretary of State-far India in Council 5 Ind. Cas. 118 : 33 M.P 362 : 7 M.L.T. 139 : 20 M.L.J. 74. This (classification of the items as nattam poramboke) at the utmost was an assertion of title, and is not by itself sufficient to prove the title of the defendant:' Krishna Aiyar v. Secretary of State for India in Council 5 I...
Pothi Naiken Minor Though His Next Friend K.N.P.R. Narayanasami Naicke ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ423
Sankaran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Madura dismissing his suit for a, declaration that a partition, deed alleged to have been executed between the deceased Subba Naik, his paternal uncle and Nagammal, the mother of the minor plaintiff acting on his behalf, on the 8th December 1907, and a will alleged to have been executed by Subba Naick on the 9th December 1907, are not genuine; and, in the alternative, that they are invalid and ineffective to affect the plaintiff's right of survivorship to the joint family properties. Ramasami Naick the plaintift's father, and Subba Naick his brother were undivided brothers Ramasami Naik died on the 27th December 1906 leaving his widow Nagammal and a minor son, the plaintiff. She continued to live in the family house with Subba Naick. On the 7th December 1907 she executed a power of attorney in favour of her Sambandhi Ramaswami Naiken who is defendant's 2nd witness. The power of attor...
A. Varadarajulu Chetty Vs. A. Rajamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad873; 30Ind.Cas.63
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The appellant, 1st defendant, is one of the two executors who took out the Probate, Exhibit A, and accepted the office of executor. The testator's name is Purushothama Chetty. The plaintiff is the other executor who took out Probate A third executor, Nalam Venkataratnam, is an insolvent and it does not appear that he joined in the Probate. The learned trial Judge held the 1st defendant liable to account to the estate in respect of a sum of Rs. 8,500 (eight thousand five hundred rupees) which belonged to the estate and which he lent out to the third executor. The Judge directed the 1st defendant to file the necessary accounts and also gave the usual further directions. The first contention in appeal (if I understood it right) is that one executor cannot file an action at common law, according to English practice, against another executor, that the present action is an action of devastavit, which is a common law action, and hence that this suit must be dismissed.2. T...
Ramanatham Chetty and ors. Vs. Subramaniyan Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ372
1. Defendants 2, 5 and 6, the representatives of one S.A. Subramanyam Chetty, appeal against the decree directing them to pay the plaintiff who claims to be the adopted son of one Meyyappa Chetty, a sum of Rs. 10,329-3-5 with interest. The plaintiff's case is that Meyappa Chetty entrusted his nephew S.A. Subramanyam Chetty, who is described as 'a well propertied man' and a money lender with a sum of Rs. 3,812-1-6 for investment. Subramanyam Chetty first deposited the amount in Keemandan M.P. Firm at Rangoon, and afterwards when he himself commenced business at Rangoon withdrew the amount from the Keemandan M.P. Firm and deposited it in his own Rangoon branch. These deposits, both in the Keemandan Firm and afterwards in the S.A. Firm, were made in the names of V.M. Rm. and M. Rm. M. which were the Vilasams of Meyyappa Chetty. Meyyappa Chetty died and his widow adopted the plaintiff at the instance of Subramanyam Chetty who told the plaintiff that he had got this amount deposited with hi...
In Re : Annavi Muthiriyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ329
Spencer, J.1. Apart from the question of the improper admission at the trial of the evidence of Akilanda Soma Naik given before the committing Magistrate without proof that it was impossible to procure by attendance before the Sessions Court with which my learned brother has fully dealt, I think that the accused is likely to have been further prejudiced in this trial by the misreception of hearsay evidence and that, on this account also, the appeal must succeed. The only evidence to connect the accused with this decoity is the statement of two witnesses, viz., Akilanda Soma Naik examined in the committing Magistrate's Court and P.W. 2 examined in the Sessions Court. Both of these persons, on their own admission, are men employed by the Police to do private detection work in Kaller villages on behalf of the Police and in my opinion, the jury should have been cautioned against acting too readily upon such evidence.2. Both of these witnesses have given a detailed statement as to the inqui...
In Re: Annavi Muthiriyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad449
Spencer, J.1. Apart from the question of the improper admission at the trial of the evidence of Akilanda Soma Naik given before the committing Magistrate without proof that it was impossible to procure his attendance before the Sessions Court with which my learned brother has fully dealt, I think that the accused is likely to have been further prejudiced in his trial by the misreception of hearsay evidence and that on this account also, the appeal must succeed. The only evidence to connect the accused with this dacoity is the statements of two witnesses, viz., Akilanda Soma Naik examined in the committing Magistrate's Court and prosecution witness No. 5 examined in the Sessions Court. Both of these persons, on their own admission, are men employed by the police to do private detection work in Kallar villages on behalf of the police and in my opinion, the jury should have been cautioned against acting too readily upon such evidence. Both of these witnesses have given a detailed statemen...
In Re : Adur Desikachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ307
ORDER1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies in this case. In our opinion proceedings taken for binding over persons to keep the peace under Chapter VIII are criminal trials within the meaning of Section 15 of the Letters Patent, and if this is so, the section provides no appeal from the judgment of a single judge dealing with a Revision Petition presented against the order of a Magistrate under Section 118 of the Code of Crl. Procedure. In In the matter of Ramasamy Chetty I.L.R. (1908) M. 510 this was the view taken by the Officiating Chief Justice who gave several reasons for his opinion.2. The learned Chief Justice was apparently mistaken in saying that an appeal was allowed against an order to give security for keeping the peace. Section 406 of the Code of Crl. Procedure provides only for appeals from orders to give security for good behaviour. 3. But the procedure prescribed by Section 117 of the Code of Crl. Procedure for conducting enquiries under Chapter V...
M. Jallaldeen Marakayar and ors. Vs. Vijayaswami Alias Muthu Vijaya Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad447
John Wallis, C.J. 1. A preliminary objection is taken that the appeal lay to the District Court and not to this Court. The suit was to redeem a mortgage and an amount of the principal debt was Rs. 3,899-4-0. Prior to the enactment of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, it was held in Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana I.L.R. (1882) Mad. 284, by a Full Bench of this Court following earlier decisions that under the provisions of the Madras Civil Courts Act the method of valuation prescribed by the Court Pees Act for suits of this description ought to be followed in ascertaining the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The Suits Valuation Act has not fixed any method of valuing such suits, nor has it apparently enabled such a method to be prescribed by rule. Consequently the authority of the decision in Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana (1882) 5 Mad. 284 is unaffected, and the amount of the principal debt must be taken as determining the jurisdiction under the Civil Courts Act. The sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »