Chennai Court April 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.
Sowcar Bapu Sahib Yousuff Sahib and Co. Vs. Isac Ismail and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.462
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The first question argued in this appeal is whether the entire cause of action arose within the local limits of the original side jurisdiction of this Court. It was contended that as the defendant lives in Kodambakam outside such limits and as the plaint, in paragraph 4 states 'that statements of accounts were sent by the plaintiff' (to the defendant) it is clear from the plaint itself that such statements were sent on to Kodambakam outside the limits of Madras and that hence part of the cause of action arose outside such limits. I am, however, not prepared to differ from the concurrent conclusion of the three learned Judges of this Court who have already dealt with this case, that conclusion being that the statements of accounts were intended by the parties to be submitted by the plaintiffs to the defendant in the plaintiffs shop premises in Madras and that they were so submitted. The objection as to jurisdiction, therefore, fails.2...
idine Beary Vs. Ummathumma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.606
1. We think that we ought to follow the decisions of this Court in Rangammal v. Venkatachari 18 M.K 378 and Kondeti Kama Raw v. Nukamma 4 M.L.T. 331 which lay down that a decree of Court, though obtained by collusion in order to carry out a scheme of fraud cannot be treated as nullity as between the parties to the decree-not only this, the Court ought not to permit any of the parties to such fraud and collusion to show that the transaction upheld by the decree was not really what it purported to be and does not, therefore, bind hinu We are not prepared to follow some of the observations in the judgment in Barkat-un-nissa v. Fazl Haq (1904) A.W.N. 25 which go to the length' of stating that a person, who had merely a hope of succession and no present legal right in the property affected by a collusive decree, is entitled to impeach that decree though he is the heir and representative of one of the parties to the decree. (See also Bigelow on Fraud, page 91.)2. The decree in Original Suit ...
S. Ratna Naidu Vs. P.R. Aiyanachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad479; 29Ind.Cas.991
1. We think that, on the pleadings, the question was not raised whether the document Exhibit B was invalid as a mortgage, on the ground that it was not attested by two persons who saw the executant sign the document. Taking it that it was raised by the defendants during the trial, the District Munsif ought to have framed a supplemental issue on this new question, given an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence thereon and then decided it.2. In the case of Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir Rowlhan 16 Ind. Cas. 250 : 35 M.P 607 : 16 C.W.N. 1009 : 23 M.L.J. 321 : 12 M.L.T. 338 : (1912) M.W.N. 935 : 10 A.L.J. 259 : 14 Bom. L.R. 1034 : 16 C.L.J. 596 : 39 I.A. 220, a supplemental issue wis raised by the Court (though at a late stage) and there was no contention that the plaintiff had not been given sufficient opportunity to let in evidence on the supplemental issue.3. We request the lower Appellate Court to frame the necessary issue and to give a finding thereon allowing both sides to adduc...
Ry. Sivaji Raja Sahib and anr. Vs. Ry. V. Aiswariyanandaji Sahib and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad926; 29Ind.Cas.485
1. The late Maharaja Sivaji of Tanjore died in 1855. The dispute in the present case relates to the properties which were endowed to certain temples by the late Rajah and to certain private properties belonging to the estate of the late Rani. The senior Rani, Kamakshi Boyi, succeeded to what is known as the Palace Estate as well as the temple properties. The defendants in this case claimed to be the sons of the adopted son of Rajah Sivaji. The plaintiffs allege that they are sons of the deceased Maharajah 'by ladies known as his sword wives.' The last of the Ranis, Muthu Sri Teejamba Boyi Saheba, died on the 3rd May 1912. The case for the plaintiffs is that they entitled to succeed to the management of the devasthanams and to enjoy the private properties in preference to the defendants, the validity of whose father's adoption they deny. The plaintiffs applied to the Subordinate Judge for the appointment of a Receiver pending the disposal of the suit. He granted their prayer. The defend...
Ramiah Bagavathar and ors. Vs. Somasi Ambalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.449a
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. My learned brother has stated the facts. It is only necessary to refer to the exact finding arrived at by the District Judge. He finds that the settlement come to at the time of withdrawing the first suit was to substitute a different piece of land for the one which was originally agreed to be conveyed. The consideration was to be the same, and there was to be no change in the parties to the contract.2. Mr. Devadoss contends that Section 62 of the Contract Act does not apply to such a case. On the finding as stated by me, there has been no breach of the contract, but only a variation with the consent of the parties in one of the essential terms. The suit, which complained of default in the performance, ended in this adjustment. There is no finding that the contract was really broken. If Mr. Devadoss' premises are correct, namely, that there was a breach of the first contract, I would have agreed with him that Section 62 will not help the defendant. The case of Man...
Ummachakutti and ors. Vs. C. Ummerkutti Haji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad649(2); 29Ind.Cas.583
1. This appeal is argued on the ground that in setting the assignment aside the lower Courts should have given the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 a charge for Rs. 500, the amount of Exhibit III. We think that appeal ground No. 10 in the lower Appellate Court was intended to raise this point, and we are not prepared to assume that it was abandoned there. Whether defendants made any payment for Exhibit III, and whether they are entitled to a charge in virtue of it, are questions on which the lower Appellate Court must now submit findings, as regards the latter with reference to Palamalai Mudaliyar v. South Indian Export Co. La. 5 Ind. Cas. 33 : (1910) M.W.N. 239. The findings are due in six weeks; seven days will be allowed for SUng objections.2. In compliance with the above order of this Court, the District Judge of South Malabar submitted the following.3. Findings.--It is directed that findings. be returned on the questions4. (1) Whether defendants made any payment for Exhibit III and5. (2) wh...
Manjeri Karnamulpad Kovilagath Valia Manavikraman Vs. Kozhikote Kizhak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad664; 29Ind.Cas.729
1. These are cross-appeals from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Calicut in a suit brought by the plaintiffs who belong to the Kizhakke Kovilagam, claiming to recover certain lands from the defendants as part of their Nedunchufi Malavaram. The defendants on the otner hand say that the suit lands belong io their Vennakote Malvaram. The Subordinate Judge in a very careful judgment nas found that the real boundary is not as claimed by either side, but runs along the stream Koyakkadanthodu which in the plan Exhibt A divides the plots B series from the C series. This is a wild hilly country and as observed by the Subordinate Judge, until the decision of the case of Secretary of State for India in Council v. Vira Rayan 9 M.P 175 the Government claimed to be the owner of all these waste forest lands; and that, as well as the wild condition of the land, may account for the indefiniteness of the boundaries. A long series of documents have been put in on both sides which have been analys...
R.M.A. Subramanya Pillai Vs. Ammayee Ammal Alias Piramu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.740
1. The learned District Judge has dealt with the petition only with regard to the welfare of the minor, although under Section 19, Guardians and Wards Act, when the minor's father is living no other guardian can be appointed unless he is in the Courts opinion unfit for appointment. Vide Audiappa Pillai v. Nallendran Pillai 29 Ind. Cas. 4 : 28 M.L.J. 442 : (1915) M.W.N. 30 : 17 M.L.T. 380. We must set aside the decision and ask the District Judge to re-admit the petition and dispose of it again in the light of the foregoing after considering and recording a finding as to the fitness of the petitioner, the minor's father for the guardianship. Costs to date will be costs in the case....
A Vakil of the High Court Vs. the President of the Vakils' Association ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.879
ORDER1. The petitioner relies upon the fact that leave to appeal was granted by this Court in a similar case, Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 595 and 596 of 1912, but on a further consideration of the question we agree with the recent decision Hume, Public Prosecutor of Calcutta v. Poresh Chandra Ghosh 22 Ind. Cas. 324 : 41 C.P 784 : 15 Cri. L.J. 52 : 19 C.W.N. 593. that disciplinary proceedings under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are not appealable under Clause 39, and that we have no power to give leave to appeal to the Privy Council from an order passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction. This is also the view taken in Ganesh S. Dandvate v. Government Pleader 32 B.P 106 : 10 Bom. L.R. 21 : 3 M.L.T. 131. In Tetley v. Jai Shankar 1 A.P 726. also it was held that no such leave could be granted and though in the subsequent case from Allahabad, In the matter of Sashi Bhushan Sarbadhicary 5 C.L.J. 130 : 2 M.L.T 1. it appears that leave was granted by the Allahabad High Court, the r...
In Re: R. Sobhanadri and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1200; (1916)ILR39Mad503
Kumaraswami Sastriyar, J.1. The chief ground urged in appeal is that the accused were prejudiced by the refusal of the Magistrate to allow them to recall and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.2. The accused were tried for offences under Sections 504 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code and during the course of the proceedings the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 504 and proceeded with the charge under Section 352.3. When a summons-case and a warrant-case are tried together the procedure to be followed is that prescribed for the warrant-case Rajnarayan Koonwar v. Lala Tamoli Raut I.L.R. (1885) Calc. 91. The accused would therefore have been entitled under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses bad the trial on both charges been proceeded with. They could not have anticipated that during the trial the charge under Section 504 would have been dismissed and it cannot be said that they were in default.4. The refu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »