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.
Ankala Venkata Reddy Vs. Manchala Venkata Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1222; 29Ind.Cas.393
1. An application was made in the Court below to execute two orders, one relating to the grant of costs by the High Court in a petition presented against an order granting permission to sue in forma pauperis, and the other relating to the grant of day costs to the plaintiff, when the defendant asked for an adjournment of the case. The District Judge dismissed the application. Hence this appeal. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Jayarama Iyer that no appeal lies. We think he is right. The orders referred to are not decrees. Weareprepared to accept the extended definition suggested in Narayan Balkrishna Kulkarni v. Gopal Jiv Ghadi 23 Ind. Cas. 889 : 38 B.P 392 : 16 Bom. L.R. 206 regarding the meaning of the term 'matters in controversy' in the definition section. That expression is not to be understood as referring solely to the merits of a case. Any question relating to the character and status of the party suing, to the jurisdiction of the Court, to the maintainability of the su...
T. Narasinga Rao Vs. Vittoba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1220(1); 30Ind.Cas.136
ORDERTyabji, J.1. The Magistrate had no power to alter or review the order of 18th February J. 904, Tarbati Gharan Roy v. Sajjad Ahmad Chowdhoy 35 C.K 350 : 12 C.W.N. 605 : 7 Cr. L.J. 401, In re Hari Lal Buck 22 B. K949. His order of 23rd August 1914 is, therefore, set aside....
Jaldu Venkatasubba Rao Vs. the Asiatic Steam Navigation Company of Cal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1914Mad57; (1916)ILR39Mad1; 30Ind.Cas.840
1. Two questions have been referred to us and it will be more convenient to deal with the second one first, 'whether upon the pleadings this suit should be treated as a suit for specific moveable property lost, or as a suit against a carrier for compensation for non-delivery of goods.' If we look at the prayer of the plaint, which asks for the return of the plank and also for Rs. 21-12 being the loss of interest, it may be treated as a suit both for the return of the specific plank and for damages for its detention. But in order to entitle the plaintiff to obtain delivery of specific moveable property by suit and to enforce the decree so obtained by the stringent methods provided in Order XXI, Rule 31, of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is necessary that he should allege and prove facts which entitle him to compel the deliver of the specific moveable under the provisions of Section 11 of the Specific Relief Act, because unless he does so, he cannot have a decree for the return of the s...
Sarveshri Shettathi Vs. Puttamma Shettathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.474
1. It has been held in Arayalprath Kunhi Packer v. Kanthilath Ahmed 29 M.P 62 in a case under the Marumakatayam Law that where there are minors a partition of the tarwad property must be shown to be beneficial to the minors, and we see no reason for applying a different rule to cases such as the present arising under the Alayasanthana Law. The lower Appellate Court has found that in this case the partition was not beneficial to the minors and the second appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Rajammal Vs. Narayanasamy Naicker and Ponnusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1164(2); (1915)28MLJ600
1. We think that this suit is not excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under Section 19 (s) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act as a suit for a declaratory decree. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee have recently pointed out in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra I.L.R. (1907) Cal. 205 that the statutory suit to establish his right given to the unsuccessful party in claim proceedings under the Code involves in every case a prayer for the setting aside of a summary order of a Civil Court. This being so, such a suit cannot in our opinion be regarded as a suit for a mere declaration. The Small Cause Court Rules reproduce the provisions of the Code as to claim petitions, and cases under them must be governed by the same considerations. We may further observe that our decision is in accordance with the well established practice under which suits of this nature arising out of orders made by the Presidency Small Cause Court have always been brought in that Court and ...
Ananta Ramappa and anr. Vs. Subraya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad171; 29Ind.Cas.245
1. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the District Judge. We are not prepared to follow the decision in Narsingh Narain Singh v. Harkhu Singh 8 C.L.J. 521 if it intends to lay down that the casting of lots for the purpose of allotting shares to the parties is opposed to Order XXVI, Rule 14. We think the most equitable way by which properties could be assigned to co-parceners will be to draw lots after dividing the properties with reference to the number of sharers. That has been done in this case and we find no justification for holding that that procedure is unwarranted or illegal.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Nagar Damodar Shanbhogue Vs. Gudlimar Rama Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ444
1. The defendants 1 to 4 the father of defendants 4 to 6 and the 6th defendant executed to the Bank, the 12th defendant in this case a deed of mortgage (Exhibit E) on the 5th August 1898. The property was to be regarded as security for a sum of Rs. 54,000 already advanced to the defendants, and 'for other credits and advances' which may be made to them from time to time. Payments were made towards the debt. On the 2nd June 1905 the Bank transferred the balance due to it from the defendants to the plaintiff under Ex. A. The plaintiff sued under the assignment. The defendants admitted the execution of Ex. E., but pleaded payment in full before the date of the transfer. There were subsidiary pleas of limitation with reference to portions of the claim. The defendants also contended that the document Ex. E, cannot be sued upon, as it was made to secure future advances. The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the claim was based upon an invalid document, and dismissed the plaintiff...
Boddu Ramayya Vs. Chitturi Surayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1105; (1915)28MLJ486
1. Mr. Narayamurthi takes exception to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore to hear the appeal. The District Munsif of Tanuku refused to grant sanction in this case against the plaintiff. Thereupon the defendant appealed to the Subordinate Judge to grant the sanction. It is not disputed that the Government have by a notification issued under the Civil Court's Act empowered Subordinate Judges to receive appeals direct in all cases where the Sub-Court is situated in a place different from that of the District Court. The Ellore Sub-Court is one of the Sub-Courts thus empowered and appeals from the Tanuku Court will lie to that court. It is argued by the learned Vakil for the appellant that as the Civil Courts Act directs all appeals to be presented to the District Court except in cases where there is a notification, the court to which appeals ordinarily lie is the District Court, within the meaning of Clause (6) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We fail to s...
Nagar Damodar Shanbogue Vs. Gudlimar Rama Row and Twelve ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad101
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4, the father of defendants Nos. 4 to 6 and the sixth defendant executed to the bank, the twelfth defendant in this case, a deed of mortgage (Exhibit E) on the 5th August 1898. The property was to be regarded as security for a sum of Rs. 54,000 already advanced to the defendants and ' for other credits and advances' which may be made to them from time to time. Payments were made towards the debt. On the 2nd June 1905, the bank transferred the balance due to it from the defendants So the plaintiff under Exhibit A. The plaintiff sued under the assignment. The defendants admitted the execution of Exhibit E, but pleaded payment in full before the date of the transfer. There were subsidiary pleas of limitation with reference to portions of the claim. The defendants also contended that the document (Exhibit E) cannot be sued upon, as it was made to secure future advances, The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the claim was based upon...
T.K.P. Mammali Vs. T. Kutti Ammu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad543
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.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 Chandrakanta De I.L.R. (1881) Calc. 445 to orders issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure, not to judgments and orders of Civil Courts. We must set aside the order of the lower Appellate Court and direct him to dispose of the appeal on the merits.2. Costs to abide the result....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »