Chennai Court March 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.
Vaniamkandy Thazha Kunhi Parambilparkum Pommani Chintakath Mammali Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad640(1); 30Ind.Cas.144a
1. The District Judge is wrong in holding that disobedience to an injunction issued by a Civil Court is punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The word promulgated in that section refers, as pointed out in In the matter of the petition of Chandrahanta De 7 C.L.R. 350, to orders issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and not to judgments and orders of Civil Courts.2. We must set aside the order of the lower Appellate Court and direct him to dispose of the appeal on the merits.3. Costs to abide the result....
Lodd Govindoss Krishnadoss and ors. Vs. Rukmani Bhai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad5; 29Ind.Cas.135
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiffs pray for the reduction of the maintenance decreed to the defendant in Civil Suit No. 187 of 1906 from Rs. 400 to Rs. 100 a month, on the ground that the maintenance decreed in that suit was in respect of the defendant and her daughter and that, owing to her daughter having been married, her maintenance was no longer obligatory on the defendant. The plaintiffs also pay that the decree in Civil Suit No. 187 of 1906 may be rectified by declaring that the amount decreed in that suit was really, for the maintenance of the defendant and her daughter and that the amount be reduced to Rs. 100 or such other sum as the Court may think proper.2. The case for the plaintiffs is stated defendant, who is the step-mother of the 1st plaintiff, filed Civil Suit No. 56 of 1906 in the High Court claiming inter alia maintenance for herself and her daughter, that the said suit was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, as it was found that the su...
Avula Charamudi Vs. Marriboyina Raghavulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad298; (1915)28MLJ471
1. It has been argued before us that the agreement Exhibit G on which the plaintiff sues for a reconveyance for the land to him is void as being opposed to the rule against perpetuities inasmuch as no period is fixed during which the plaintiff may claim to hava the land reconveyed : the argument is that under Exhibit G the land would be tied up for an indefinite period as the plaintiff would be entitled to assert his right at any time however remote. The short answer to this argument is that the land is not tied up by Exhibit G; and that there is a mere personal contract between the contracting parties, which does not create any interest in the land, though it may have some reference to the land. This answer is met by the contention that if the agreement to reconvey contained in Exhibit G is a valid contract, then specific performance of it could be had under the Specific Relief Act, Section 27 (b) from any subsequent purchaser of the land who had notice of it; that therefore the agree...
Gurrala Seshayya and anr. Vs. Yedida Venkatasubbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1204(1); (1915)28MLJ494
1. The Subordinate Judge holds that as the applications of the year 1907 and 1908 were returned for amendment to the decree-holder and not represented by him, they would not save limitation. He relies upon Gopal Sah v. Janki Koer I.L.R. (1895) C. 217 in support of this view. Article 182 of the Limitation Act only requires that there should be an application. The fact that it was not represented would not affect limitation. Gopal Sah v. Janki Rai (1914) 26 I.C. 410 was dissented from in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 322 of 1913. (Vadivelu Pillai v. Maruda Pillai (1914) M.W.N. 372. See also K.R. Srinivasa Iyengar v. Tirumalai Chetty (1914) M.W.N. 372. We are not prepared to follow the Calcutta decision.2. The Lower Appellate Court is in error in saying that when the applications of 1907 and 1908 were made, the decree was in the Rajahmundry Court. The B Diary shows that there must have been a re-transfer. Moreover the District Munsif who may be presumed to know how his record stands does...
In Re: Irula Sadayan Alias Peria Sadayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad783; 29Ind.Cas.72
Spencer, J.1. The reasons which the Jury voluntarily expressed as the ground of their verdict of not guilty' indicate, in my opinion, that they had no good reasons for their decision and that the verdict is one which should not be accepted.2. The Judge had an equal opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and he was satisfied with the evidence of prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 and 2 that the skins were those of their missing she-goat and kid. The delay in putting in a formal complaint of theft has been accounted for by the prevailing floods. It could not be expected that any other witnesses would be forthcoming to speak to the identity of particular animals in a flock besides the shepherd and his son who assisted him in pasturing them; the knowledge that such shepherds possess as to the animals composing their flock is likely to be intimate; and in this instance the existence of two skins renders the chance of a mistaken identity doubly improbable.3. Moreover, this is a ca...
Muthuswamy Pillay and anr. Vs. Muthuveeram Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.392
1. Mr. Krishnaswamy Aiyar restricts his clients' claim to relief to the fact that they are purchasers. He concedes that the ground that there was a wilful suppression of the first mortgage when the mortgage to his clients was executed will not give him a cause of action to sue for the present relief. The plaintiff purchased the property from one who bought it at a Court sale rin execution of a money, decree against the mortgagor. It was not the duty of the mortgagor to mention in the proclamation of salo that a previous mortgage was subsisting. The purchaser took the property subject to all the encumbrances then subsisting. Consequently he was not entitled to claim from the mortgagor the money paid by him to the first mortgagee. In Izzat-un-nisa Begam v. Kunwar Pertab Singh 3 Ind. Cas. 793 : 31 A. 583 : 10 C.L.J. 313 : 13 C.W.N. 1143 : 6 A.L.J. 817 : 11 Bom. L.R. 1220 : 6 M.L.T. 277 : 36 I.A. 203 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that where a property was sold as being s...
Subramania Pillai Vs. Kumaravelu Ambalam Alias V.E.K.R. Karuppiah Kang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad541; 33Ind.Cas.66
1. The attention of the Subordinate Judge was apparently not drawn to the decision in Rukmani Animal v. Krishnamachari 8 Ind. Cas. 1071 : 9 M.L.T. 464 : (1910) M.W.N. 798, where Subramania Aiyar and Boddam, JJ., follow the Bombay ruling in Laldas v. Kishordas 22 B.P 463. Mr. Anantha Krishna Aiyar argues that these two decisions had reference to the language employed in Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, which in express terms included stay of execution among questions relating to execution. We are not satisfied that the omission of these words in Section 47 of the present Code is any indication that matters relating to stay of execution are not within the section. The words omitted may have been regarded as superfluous. Moreover the plea that the decree should not be enforced certainly relates to execution, whether it relates to stay of execution or not. It is not analogous to the plea of fraud in obtaining a decree, because where fraud is set up, the decree is sought ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›