Chennai Court July 1915 Judgments
In Re: Chinnu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.442
1. The conviction in this case is by a Jury, and the only question is whether the accused has been prejudiced by any misdirection in the charge to the Jury.2. Some portions of the latter have not been very happily worded; in particular the passage in which the learned Sessions Judge says. The law is that when a person is found in possession of stolen property very soon after the theft, he may be presumed to be the thief if there ii no evidence to the contrary.' Of course, this should be unless he can account for his possession' and if the Judge meant (or the Jury were likely to understand him to mean) that they were to pay no attention to any explanation which accused might put forward in the absence of evidence to support it, then we should have to interfere. But a perusal of other passages in the charge convinces us that this was not his meaning, and that the Jury could not have so understood the Judge reminded them that accused had claimed the property as his own, and then, after me...
Tag this Judgment!Marji Jeta Vs. Honnavar Puthu Hari Pai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.334
1. The question raised by this second appeal is whether the purchaser, i.e., the 1st defendant is liable for the price of Rangoon rice shipped to him in pursuance of the instructions given by the 2nd defendant. The facts are that the 2nd defendant, as the agent of the 1st defendant who carried on business at Honnavar, instructed plaintiff at Mangalore to send to the 1st defendant 101 gunny bags of Rangoon rice by loading them in the 'Machva.' This instruction is referred to in Exhibit A, dated 1st May. On the 4th May the plaintiff shipped 101 bags of rice on board the 'Machva' to Honnavar. No letter of requisition was given to the, Captain of the ship instructing him to deliver the goods to the 1st defendant, the purchaser, but the plaintiff sent his servant in advance with the letter, Exhibit F, to the 1st defendant, dated 4th May, in which occurs the following passage: 'As soon, as they reach you, you should obtain them and write to that effect. The rate, description and ankda thereo...
Tag this Judgment!Chilukuri Sitaramayya and ors. and Vs. Sri Rajah Venkata Rangayya Appa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1008(2); 31Ind.Cas.871
1. In these second appeals, the plaintiff claims enhanced kattubadi on the ground that the defendant has committed default in the payment of the money rate. This is not a suit to enhance the rent under Clause 7 of the second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. In such suits there will be a claim for a declaration that in all years to come the rate payable should be enhanced. Following Mullapudi Balakrishnayya v. Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao 19 M.P 329, Gajapati Rajah v. Suryanarayana 22 M.P 11 and Harischandra Deo v. Narayana 24 M.P 508 : at p. 511 we hold that no second appeal lies in these cases, as the amount of the claim in each case is below 500 rupees. These secoud appeals are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Munguluri Sivaramayya Vs. Singumahanti Bhujanga Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad593
Oldfield, J.1. The appellant is tenth creditor of a person who has been adjudicated insolvent by the District Judge of Godavari and besides being an unsecured creditor has according to his counter-affidavit filed in the lower Court a mortgage on part of the property now in question. The petitioner in the lower Court, here respondent, is another creditor who alleged in his petition, Insolvency Application No. 551 of 1913 that he held an agreement executed by the insolvent, his eon, to transfer the property to him in discharge of his debt, that he had once prayed for execution of a document by the Court or Official Receiver in whom the assets had vested, that receiving no orders he had later asked for leave to sue and that again receiving no orders he finally asked for a direction to the Official Receiver to execute the document. Respondent made the defendant alone a party to his petition and appellant says in his counter-affidavit that he-appeared to oppose it after hearing of it merely...
Tag this Judgment!Gade Lakshme Narasimham Pantulu and ors. Vs. Pillalamarri Jaganadha Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad645; 30Ind.Cas.256
1. The respondents, holders of a decree for realization of Rs. 17,094-10-1 from the estate of the late Balarama Doss 'in the hands of 1st and 7th defendants and other persons not before this Court, claimed an order for attachment and sale. The lower Court's order under appeal granted execution. It is contended that it did so wrongly against the 1st and 7th defendants' share of the estate, because subsequently to the decree they became insolvents and their share with their other properties vested in the Official Receiver. 1st and 7th defendants held as heirs of Balaram Doss, and that fact cannot be altered by the embodiment of the rights of the latter's creditors in a decree. The property of a deceased Hindu is not so hypothecated for his debt as to prevent his heir disposing of it or to allow a creditor lo follow it in the hands of a third party.' Veerasokka Raju v. Papiah 13 M.L.J. 258. There is, therefore, no question of respondent's right to a lien or charge on Balaram Doss property...
Tag this Judgment!Munjuluri Sivaramayya Vs. Singumahanti Bujanga Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.703
Oldfield, J.1. The appellant is 10th creditor of a person, who has been adjudicated insolvent by the District Judge of Godaveri, and, besides being an unsecured creditor, has, according to his counter-affidavit filed in the lower Court, a mortgage on part of the property now in question. The petitioner in the lower Court, here respondent, is another creditor, who alleged in his petition, Insolvency Appeal No. 551 of 1913 that he held an agreement, executed by the insolvent, his son, to transfer the property to him in discharge of his debt, that he had once prayed for execution of a document by the Court or Official Receiver, in whom the assets had vested, that, receiving no orders he had later asked for leave to sue, and that, again receiving no orders, he finally asked for a. direction to the Official Receiver to execute the document. Respondent made the defendant alone a party to his petition and appellant says in his counter-affidavit that he appeared to oppose it after hearing of i...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Lana Vena Ravanna Mana Lakshumanan Chetty Vs. Ravanna Mana Pana M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad429; 30Ind.Cas.785
1. The District Judge in appeal has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the plaintiff, instead of suing for specific performance of the contract, should have made his application in execution.2. We think that the District Judge should not have dismissed the suit when Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, permits suits to be treated as proceedings under this section.3. The only reason given by the District Judge for this course is that the Court which decided the suit would have had no jurisdiction to determine the matter in execution. This is not in our view a sound reason. This suit itself, though tried by the Temporary Subordinate Court of Ramnad, was instituted in the Permanent Subordinate Court of Ramnad, before which proceedings in execution of Original Suit No. 166 of 1907 of the Chief Court of Rangoon were actually pending at the time of this suit, the decree having been transferred to that Court for execution. The Temporary Subordinate Court is a relieving Court, tryi...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sadagopachariar Vs. Rama Tirumala Chariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1101(2); 31Ind.Cas.25
1. The foundation of the lower Courts' decision was plaintiff's pleading the judgment in Original Suit No. 170 of 1911,in which plaintiff and 1st defendant were 2nd and 1st defendants. Original Suit No. 170 was instituted after the present suit, though it was decided before it. It is argued first that in these circumstances the Court was debarred by Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, from trying Original Suit No. 170 until this, the earlier suit, had been disposed of, that the trial was consequently held without jurisdiction and that, therefore, defendants' cannot rely on plaintiff's pleading during it or on the decision which ended it.2. We cannot accept this. Section 10 requires that the earlier suit shall be between the same parties as the later or, the portion of it at present relevant, between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title. But in Original Suit No. 170 the plaintiff relied, not directly on a title derived from 1st defendant, but on the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muthurakka thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.435a
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The Joint Magistrate, Sermadevi, sentenced the third accused to IS months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence of robbery (Section 392, Indian Penal Code) and to six months' additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 75 as he was an old offender. This was not a legal sentence. A person convicted under Sections 392 and 75 of the Penal Code is not convicted of distinct offences within the meaning of Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The two sentences passed by the Magistrate are hereby quashed, and in lieu of them, I direct that the third accused be rigorously imprisoned for a period of two years on a single sentence under Section 392 and 75, Indian Penal Code.3. The Magistrate further directed all the three accused to execute a bond to keep the peace for two years and on their failing to find security he referred the matter under Section 123(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the orders of the Sessions Court.4. The provisions of Section 106, ...
Tag this Judgment!Karri Peddi Reddy and anr., Vs. Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur Estat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad674(2); 30Ind.Cas.529
1. The decision of the District Judge is right on the materials placed before him. We feel very little doubt that the karnam is being paid a salary in lieu of the rusums which he received from the ryots in former years. However, as the evidence that the karnam is being paid a salary by Government has not been let in and as no notification has been proved to have been issued under Act II of 1894 in respect of the village, we are constrained to hold that the karnam is entitled to claim the rusum for the fasli in question. If the defendant is able to produce the notification extending Act II of 1894 to the village in question, this judgment will not affect him in subsequent years.2. On the question whether the rusum is not payable because it is not a payment for agricultural purposes, it is enough to say that under Section 51, fees paid with rent can be included in the palta and that Section 3(II) makes it clear that such fees are included in the term rent' for the purpose of Section 148 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »