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.
S. Perumal Nadan and Four ors. Vs. Sivanamji Nadachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad840(1); (1916)ILR39Mad583
Oldfield, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appellant's petition to set aside the decree of the Small Cause Suit, because appellants having been called on to deposit money and the time granted for doing so having bean extended until 3rd December 1912, no deposit was made before the petition was taken up for orders on that date. Dawkins v. Wagner (1832) 3 Dowl. 535, Knox v. Simmonds (1791) 3 Bro. C.C. 358 and Isaacs v. Royal Insurance Co. (1870) L.R. 5 Ex. 296 are authorities for holding that when time is given for the performance of any act till a certain date, it includes that date. The learned Subordinate Judge therefore had no jurisdiction to pass his order of dismissal before 4th December 1912. We must allow the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the Subordinate Judge's order dismissing the petition before him; costs to abide the result of the Small Cause Suit....
Mahomad Ibrahim Ravuthar Vs. Kattayan Alias Arokia Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.461
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The Sub-Registrar refused registration and criminal proceedings were at once instituted by the present counter-petitioner. The 1st petitioner has filed a suit under the provisions of the Registration Act. I am if opinion that this is a case where criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of civil proceedings. There will be no hardship to the counter-petitioner, while on the other hand the petitioners will be seriously hampered if criminal proceedings in which the 1st petitioner and the attesting witnesses are accused are not stayed. I do not think it makes any difference in principle whether the criminal proceedings have been instituted in pursuance of sanction given by a Court, or in the exercise of the right given to a party to institute proceedings when no sanction is necessary. In either case the test is, whether the party is likely to be prejudiced by criminal proceedings going1 on when a civil suit is pending in which the genuineness...
Sudalayadum Perumal Nadan and ors. Vs. Sivananji Nadachi Wife of Masan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.544
1. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appellants' petition to set aside the decree of the Small Cause suit, because appellants having been called on to deposit money and the time granted for doing so having been extended until 3rd December 1912, no deposit was made before the petition was taken up for orders on that date. Dakins v. Wagner 3 Dow. and R. (1791) 4 Bro. C.C. 358; Isaacs v. Royal Insurance Co. (1870) 39 L.J. Ex. 189. are authorities for holding that, when time is given for the performance of any act till a certain date, it includes that date. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, had no jurisdiction to pass his order of dismissal before 4th December 1912. We must allow the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the Subordinate Judge's order dismissing the petition before him; costs to abide the result of the Small Cause suit....
The Corporation of Madras Vs. Mohan Lal Sowcar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.683
1. The finding of the lower Court that the plaint land (Exhibit DD) belongs to the plaintiff subject to certain rights in the Municipality, cannot and is not seriously attacked by the appellant's learned Vakil. Under the definition of 'public street' in Section 3, Clause 27, of the Presidency Municipalities Act, the space covered by the drains is included in the public street vested in the Municipality. The sunshade of the plaintiff's house overhangs this drain space forming part of the public street. Section 248(1) of the Act empowers the President to give notice to the owner of any building 'to remove any projection made against or in front of such building in any public street.' Assuming without deciding the phrase 'in any public street' in the section qualifies the word 'building' and not the word 'projection' see Mothe Achayya Garu v. Municipal Council of Ellore 4 Ind. Cas. 828 we think that the word projection' itself and the context imply that the thing which is indicated by tha...
N. Govinda Chetty Vs. N. Doraiswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.905
1. We are unable to agree with the learned Judge that it must be assumed that if the 1st defendant 'had collected any rents, they were taken into account in the proceeding upon which' the decree was passed.2. If any such sums had been so taken into account, it lay upon the 1st defendant to prove that fact as a defence to the plaintiff's claim.3. The plaintiff's claim for rents of the house purchased by him from April 1910 was not a matter (so far as we could see) which could have been or was intended to be gone into in the suit for partition.4. We think that the most appropriate course is (in discharge of the learned Judge's order)5. (a) to direct under Section 47 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure this application by Judge's summons to be treated as a suit, the appellant to pay the additional Court-fees within two weeks;6. (b) to direct the appellant to file in Court an additional statement in which the necessary additional allegations should be made (in addition to the allegations co...
In Re: Cherukath Mammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1125; 29Ind.Cas.336
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The Joint Magistrate has not considered the question of possession, or found that the accused had any common object. There were 20 accused; but the Joint Magistrate has not considered the case of each accused or evidence. The whole case is disposed of in two short paragraphs. In Jamait Mullick v. Emperor 35 C.P 138 : 12 C.W.N. 134 : 6 Cri. L.J. 427 it was held that when there are several accused, it must appear on the face of the judgment that the case against each of the accused has been taken into consideration and reasons should be given, as far as may be necessary, to show that the Appellate Court has devoted judicial attention to the case of each of the accused'. Farkan v. Somsher Mahomed 22 C.P 241 is also in point.2. I set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court and direct that the appeal be re-tried and judgment written according to law....
In Re: Rallabandi Sobhanadri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.668
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The chief ground urged in appeal is that the accused were prejudiced by the refusal of the Magistrate to allow them to re-call 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 the summons case and a warrant case are tried together, the procedure to be followed is that provided for the warrant case: Rajnarain Koimwai v. Lala Tamoli limit 11 C.P 91. The accused would, therefore, have teen entitled under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to re-call and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses had the trial1 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 refus...
Arumugasundara Maharaja Pillai and ors. Vs. K. Narasimha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.916
Wallis, C.J.1. In 1882 the 1st defendant executed a mortgage, Exhibit A, of the suit properties in favour of one Mahalinga Aiyar, who transferred it on 15th August 1892 by Exhibit B to the father of the 1st plaintiff, whose son, the 1st plaintiff, was married to the 1st defendant's daughter. On 13th February 1893, the plaintiff's father obtained a lease, Exhibit E, of the suit properties from the 1st defendant at a rent of Rs. 300, which would appear to have been an undervalue. On 9th February 1897 the 1st defendant executed a fresh mortgage, Exhibit F, in favour of the 1st plaintiff's father for the amount found due on the mortgage Exhibit A. Subsequently in December 1899, the 1st defendant's equity of redemption was sold in execution by a decree-holder (see Exhibit K) and except as regards 9-5/8 f-awnies was purchased at the Court sale for Rs. 182 by one Sundara Raja Aiyangar, who a few days later by Exhibit 3 transferred the interest he had acquired to the 1st plaintiff for the same...
Ayyakutti Markondan Vs. Periyasami Kavundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad579
Coutts Trotter, J.1. In this case the plaintiff had created two incumbrances on his land--one a usufructuary mortgage and the other a hypothecation. The plaintiff being desirous of paying off his mortgage and recovering his property availed himself of the procedure under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, and paid the amount due under the mortgage namely Rs. 800 into Court on the 8th October 1908. The first defendant declined to receive that amount and claimed that the plaintiff was bound to deposit also the amount due under the hypothecation bond. Accordingly the plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs. 676-7-6' in respect of the hypothecation bond and tendered the two sums to the first defendant. A notice was sent to the first defendant who put in no appearance in Court and did not receive the money. The question which arises is this: the hypothecation bond was in respect of principal sum of Rs. 300 with interest at Rs. 1-6-0 per cent, a month and also provided that if it was not ...
Ayyakutti Mankondan Vs. Periyasami Kavandan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad558; 30Ind.Cas.497
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. In this case the plaintiff had created two incumbrances on his land, one a usufructuary mortgage and the other a hypothecation. The plaintiff, being desirous to pay off his mortgage and recover his property, availed himself of the procedure under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act and paid the amount due under the mortgage, namely, Rs. 800, into Court on the 8th of October 1908. The 1st defendant declined to receive that amount and claimed that the plaintiff was bound to deposit also the amount due under the hypothecation bond. Accordingly the plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs. 070-7-6 in respect of the hypothecation bond and tendered the two sums to the 1st defendant. A notice was sent to the 1st defendant, who put in no appearance in Court and did not receive the money. The question which arises is this. The hypothecation bond was in respect of the principal sum of Rs. 300 with interest at Rs. 1-6-0 per cent, a month, and also provided that if it was not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »