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.
Jagirdar Mir A. Shroof Sahib and ors. Vs. Raghunatha Sivaji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad647(2); 29Ind.Cas.579a
1. This is an application on behalf of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 who are minors as well as on behalf of the other defendants who are majors, to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them. So far as the major defendants are concerned, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion at which the learned Judge in the Court below had arrived. The case of the minors is different. Notice was issued to the 1st defendant, their father, to show cause why he should not be appointed their guardian ad lHem : the notice was not served personally, but was affixed to the house. The service has been held by the District Judge to be sufficient and we see no reason to differ from him. The 1st defendant did not appear : nor did he intimate his willingness to the Court to be the guardian. Under these circumstances, he ought not to have been appointed as guardian. Order XXXII, Rule 4 (3), makes it imperative that the consent of the proposed guardian should be obtained for the appointment. This was not ...
The Maharaja of Venkatagiri Vs. Ambarkana Srinivasa Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad507(1); 29Ind.Cas.321
1. An order of attachment of property under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code remains in force until withdrawn, but it is the duty of the Magistrate to withdraw it and release the attachment, as soon as it is brought to his notice that a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto, or the person entitled to possession The only question is whether that has been done in the present case. The finding of the District Judge on the first issue in Original Suit No. 3 of 1902 concludes the question of title between the parties to that suit. The fact that he was unable to determine the question of possession and that this Court remarked in its appeal judgment that defendant's (the present petitioner's) evidence of enjoyment was equally weak, is immaterial.2. The continuance of the attachment is illegal and it should be released at once....
Krishna Aiyar Vs. Chakrapani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad938; 29Ind.Cas.475
Oldfield, J.1. I think that in the circumstances the lower Court was justified with reference to Order XXXIX, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure in paying out the money deposited by the 1st defendant.2. The only objection to its procedure, which requires full consideration, is that based on its failure to demand security from the next friends of the minor 2nd plaintiff and 6th defendant.3. The 2nd plaintiff's guardian, the 1st plaintiff, resists this objection on the ground that he was entitled to receive the money, because it belonged, not to the 2nd plaintiff, but to the joint family composed of the 2nd plaintiff and himself as managing member. It is no doubt true that the plaintiffs claimed partition in their plaint as between their branch of the family and other members of it; and Harihar Pershad Singh v. Mathura Lal 12 C.W.N. 598 : 8 C.L.J. 256 supports their contention. But on the other hand, a later decision of the Privy Council, Ganesha Row v. Tulja Ram Row 19 Ind. Cas. 51...
G. Kothandaramiah Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad492; 29Ind.Cas.252
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He brought the suit for a declaration that he was entitled to a pension of Rs. 146-10-8 per mensem, or such other sum as the Court may fix, from 1st August 1913 till his death; and for consequential reliefs. Paragraph 16 of the plaint says: 'Plaintiff is thus eligible for pension under Articles 458 and 459 of the Civil Service Regulations from and after 1st August 1913, when plaintiff completed his age of 55 years.' It was conceded in argument that Article 459 does not apply to the case, as the plaintiff was not required 'by the Local Government to retire ' when he attained the age of 55 on 1st August 1913. The other Article 458, which is relied on, is (omitting irrelevant portion)' a superannuation pension is granted to an officer in superior service entitled by rule to retire at a particular age. 'Mr. Rangachariar, who appears for the plaintiff, asked us to rend this Article with Article 464, which says that an officer in...
M. Balkrishna Rao Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad494
John Wallis, C.J. 1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State in Council to establish his title to, and to recover possession of certain lands in the village of Putlampalli, which in the year 190S were declared to be reserved forest by notification under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act and have since bean in the possession of Government, The plaint alleges that the declaration and taking possession were illegal and ultra vires, because the Forest Settlement Officer did not give notice to the plaintiff or his agent as is required by Section 6 of the Act before proceeding to constitute the lands a Reserved Forest. The plaintiff gave evidence that he was never served with notice, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the District Judge found that this was so, and this finding has not been seriously contested. He inferred however from Exhibits Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that the plaintiff was presumably aware that the suit lands were being included in th...
Mysore Balakrishna Rao Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad789(2); 30Ind.Cas.355
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State in Council to establish his title to, and to recover possession of, certain lands in the village of Putlampalli, which in the year 1905 were declared to be reserved forest by a notification under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act and have since been in the possession of Government. The plaint alleges that the declaration and taking of possession were illegal and ultra vires, because the Forest Settlement Officer did not give notice to the plaintiff or his agent as is required by Section 6 of the Act before proceeding to constitute the lands a reserved forest. The plaintiff gave evidence that he was never served with notice, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the District Judge found that this was so, and this finding has not been seriously contested. He inferred, however, from Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 that the plaintiff was presumably aware that the suit lands were being included in ...
In Re: Mir Hyder Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1038(1); 29Ind.Cas.88
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. All that appears from the evidence is that 2nd accused, who was sitting on the pial, said 'beat.' I am of opinion that the 2nd accused on the evidence can only be convicted of abetment of an offence under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The particular intention required to be proved before a conviction under Section 353 or 355 can be sustained has not been made out. I convict the accused of abetment of an offence under Section 352 and alter the sentence into one of imprisonment for the period he has already undergone and a fine of Rs. 100. As the fine has been paid, it is not necessary to fix any imprisonment in default....
Sri Rajah Chitti Babu Viziarama Gajapati Raju Alias Poosapati Viziaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.763
Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam in a suit brought by the plaintiff, D.V. Narasinga Rao, a Vakil, to recover remuneration for work done by him for the defendant, the Maharaja of Vizayanagaram, in connection with the suits questioning the defendant's right to the zemindari and also for other miscellaneous work aboutwhich there is no question in this appeal.2. Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar for the defendant-appellant has questioned the amount awarded by the Subordinate Judge. Two legal objections were raised but not very seriously pressed. It was said that the plaintiff could not claim remuneration at a higher scale than is made payable by a party in respect of his adversary's Advocate, Pleader, Vakil or Attorney under the Legal Practitioners Act. Both on the language of the Act and on the decisions of this Court it seems to me impossible to contend that the Legal Practitioners Act imposes any limitation upon the fees which are recoverable...
Devarasu Venkatachala Dwaraka Nadha Rao Vs. Devarasu Venkatarao Pantul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.183
Wallis, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff appeals from a decision of the District Judge in a partition suit refusing him a share of a certain site on which the family house formerly stood. The family house was washed away by the great cyclone in the sixties and another house was subsequently constructed by the defendants. The plaintiff does not claim any share in the superstructure, but claims that in the partition he is entitled to a share of the site.2. The District Judge has relied on a variety of circumstances showing that the plaintiffs had abandoned their right. The proper principle to start with, in our opinion, is that assuming, as found by the District Judge, that shortly after the cyclone the parties became divided in status, yet that until there was a partition by metes and bounds they would be in possession as tenants-in-common of what had been the point family property, and with regard to he tenants-in-common the presumption is hat the possession of one is the possession o...
In Re: Vayalappra Kelappan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1084; 29Ind.Cas.90
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Counsel for petitioners and the counter-petitioner have argued this case with some warmth before me. I have come to the conclusion that no case has been made out against the 2nd and 3rd accused. They assisted the first accused in gathering the pepper and there is nothing to suggest that they did not believe that the first accused had a right to the pepper. The conviction and sentence as regards these two accused must be set aside and the fine must be refunded to them.2. The case of the first accused stands on a different footing. A good portion of the judgment of the second Class Magistrate is taken up with the discussion of the title relating to the 70 cents in dispute. The Appellate Magistrate fortunately has not followed this procedure. A Magistrate will not find it easy to decide the title of the contending claimants when the question is incidentally raised in a theft case. Moreover the documents produced in this case are not easily reconcilable. The second Cl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »