Chennai Court September 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.
indoor Subbarami Reddi and anr. Vs. Nelatur Sundararaja Aiyangar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad575; 31Ind.Cas.312
Napier, J.1. These are two second appeals from decrees of the District Judge of Nellore ordering the plaintiffs to pay the costs of defendants Nos. 13 to 16 in a mortgage suit. The Subordinate Judge had originally ordered those defendants to bear their own costs. Four points are taken in these appeals.2. The first is that no appeal lay against the order of the Subordinate Judge as it was not a decree. That objection has now been amplified by the learned Vakil in reply by an argument that under Order XXIII of the Civil Procedure Code costs can be ordered to be paid in the circumstances of this case and that, therefore, it is not a decree. I express no opinion as to the question whether, if the suit had been entirely withdrawn against all the defendants, and no order other than that contemplated under Order XXIII had been made, it would have been a decree. But as undoubtedly a decree was passed in this case, I have no hesitation in holding that these defendants could appeal against that ...
In Re: Karuppan Samban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1211; 31Ind.Cas.359
1. Apart from the evidence of prosecution witnesses Nos. 7 and 8 that they recognise the accused, which the Sessions Judge considers doubtful, there is the evidence of prosecution witnesses Nos. 5 and 6 that they saw the accused running away after stabbing, and there are three dying declarations (Exhibits D, E and H) in which the deceased named the accused as his assailant.2. But it is contended that Exhibit D, the principal of these, has not been properly proved, because the Magistrate who recorded it was not examined as a witness in the case. Reliance for this contention is placed on. In the matter of the Petition of Samirud-din 10 C.L.R. 11, Gouridas Nomasudra v. Emperor 2 Ind. Cas. 841 and King-Emperor v. Mathura Thakur 6 C.W.N. 72. A similar observation to that in In the matter of the Petition of Samiruddin 10 C.L.R. 11, to the effect that when the Magistrate who records the dying declaration is not the Committing Magistrate and it is taken in the absence of the accused, it is not...
Narasammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad675(1); (1916)ILR39Mad885; 31Ind.Cas.404
1. This appellant was enjoying an annuity in Mysore Province, instalments of which were remitted by her agent to her while she was resident in British India.2. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that these remittances were 'income' under Part IV of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act.3. It is argued that after collection by the agent, the money ceased to be income, that the act of the agent in receiving the money in Mysore was tantamount to an act of the principal; and that having once been received in Mysore, it could not again be received in British India when the agent sent it on to his principal, 'income' means 'what comes in', a definition which will clearly embrace sums derived from a source like this; and it is incontestable that in this case these sums were 'received in British India' within the definition in Section 3, Clause (5), of the Income Tax Act and were, therefore, taxable.4. This second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Silu Peda Yelligadu Vs. Sree Raja Bavu Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad914(2); 31Ind.Cas.542
1. This is an appeal against the order of the lower Appellate 'Court setting aside a portion of the order of the Court of the first instance. The lower Appellate Court disallowed execution of the decree so far as injunction against the judgment-debtor was concerned, on the ground that the property to which the right of easement was attached had been subsequently transferred by the decree-holder to a third person. The transferee has not appeared and is not on the record of the case nor has he applied for permission to execute the decree. So far as the record goes, the judgment-creditor is the decree-holder and is, therefore, prima facie entitled to execute the decree. It may be that the land having been sold, the decree-holder is not entitled to enjoyment of the easement, but that is a question which it is not competent for a Court executing the decree to deal with in the circumstances of this case. It was bound to allow execution at the instance of the decree-holder as there was no oth...
Peetikayilakath Mammad Haji Vs. Alam Ibran Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad789(1); 31Ind.Cas.393
1. In this case, the question argued was whether an appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge from the order of the District Munsif. The point is covered by the principle of the rulings in a Full Bench decision, Ramanathan Chettiar v. Levvai Marakayar 10 M.L.J. 64, and a very recent decision of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, Kartick Chandra Ghosh v. Ashutosh Dhara 12 Ind. Cas. 163 In these cases the person who was brought on record as the representative of the judgment-debtor in the first case or was a party to the suit itself as in the Calcutta case claimed the property, in one case as a trustee and in the other case as shebait of a temple, and it was held that such matters were not covered by Section 244 of the old Code corresponding to Section 47 of the present Code. In his counter-petition, the respondent before us claims the property as karnavan of a tarwad. The judgment-debtor, Seeyali, and his brother formed a tavazhi. The judgment, creditor obtained a money decree in which ...
A.A.V. Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. Manikka Vachaga Desika Gnana Samband ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad886; 31Ind.Cas.293
Napier, J.1. It is argued that even though the petition was dismissed under Order XXI, Rule 57, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision that the decree shall be executed under Order XXI, Rule 23, is' res judicata. I cannot accept this argument. In my opinion, the order is vacated by the subsequent dismissal. The language of the Privy Council in Mungul Pershad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri 11 C.L.R. 113, points to the order being still in force and that is the ratio decidendi in Lakshmanan Chetti v. Kuttayan Chetti 24 M.k 669. If Sheoraj Singh v. Kameshar Nath (1902) A.W.N. 63, decides anything different, I cannot follow it. I, therefore, do not decide on Mr. Narasimha Aiyangar's other contention that he must be allowed to show now that he had no notice of the prior application, he not having been able to do so at the time owing to the application having been dismissed.2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
R.M.M.S.T. Vyravan Chetty Alias Somasundaram Chetty Vs. Srimath Daivas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ59
John Wallis, C.J.1. The appellant in these cases when sued for rent in respect of faslis 1318 and 1319 set up by way of equitable set off a claim against his lessor, the plaintiff in respect of disturbance of possession in faslis 1313 and 1314. It is well settled in. this Court that claims for unliquidated damages may be raised by way of equitable set off if they arise out of the same transaction as the plaintiff's cause of action, but I cannot agree that in a case like this such claim can be so set up even if it was barred at the date of the suit. It would certainly not be the equitable principle administered by the Court of Chancery to allow the provisions of the statute of limitations to be evaded in this way. The authorities are referred to in the judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of reading. If Chidambara Mudaliar v. Krishnaswami Pillai (1914) 28 M.L.J. 286 is inconsistent with the view I am unable with great respect to follow it. As regards the present...
Mohamad Ibrahim Sahib Vs. Municipality of Anakapalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.750
ORDERAyling, J.1. The petitioner was toll-gate contractor under the Anakapalli Municipality. He has been prosecuted under Section 103 and convicted under Section 111 of the District Municipalities Act in consequences of his failure to pay that is called in the complaint 'the toll-gate kist' for the second half of 914-1915. This 'toll-gate kist' is in fact the amount due to the Municipality from the petitioner, to whom the right of collection has been farmed out by the Municipal Council under Section 92 of the Act.2. The only question is whether it is an 'amount due on account of any tax' within the meaning of Section 10. On the face of it is certainly not so, but the learned Public Prosecutor relies on Section 269 which authorizes the Municipal Council to collect certain sums due to them as if they were taxes. The suit amount does not however, seem to fall under any of the headings dealt with in Section 269. It cannot, in my opinion, be properly described as rent. It is a payment due u...
R.M.M.S.T. Vyravan Chetty Alias Somasundaram Chetty Vs. Srimath Deivas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.80
John Wallis, C.J.1. The appellant in these cases, when sued for rent in respect of faslis 1318. and 1319, set up by way of equitable set-off a claim against his lessor the plaintiff in respect of disturbance of possession in faslis. 1313 and 1314. It is well settled in this Court that claims for unliquidated damages may be raised by way of equitable set-off if they arise out of the same transaction as the plaintiff's cause of action, but I cannot agree that in a case like this, such claim can be so set up even if it was barred at the date of the suit. It would certainly not be equitable or in accordance with the equitable principles administered by the Court of Chancery to allow the provisions of the Statute of Limitations to be evaded in this way. The authorities are referred to in the judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of reading. If Chidambara Mudaliar v. Krishnaswami Pillai 28 Ind. Cas. 221 is inconsistent with the view, I am unable with great respect to ...
T. Narayanaswami Naidu Garu Vs. Krovidi Gantayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad968(1); 32Ind.Cas.691
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The decisions of this Court in Ramanadan Chetti v. Periatambi Shervai 6 M.k 250 and Gurrala Seshayya v. Yedida Venkatasubbiah 29 Ind. Cas. 16; 28 M.L.J. 494; 2 L.W. 540 are clear authorities for the position that an execution application which is presented but returned for amendment and not re-presented within the time limited, is sufficient to save limitation so far as a subsequent execution application is concerned. The District Munsif is, therefore, wrong in dismissing this execution application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. I reverse his order and remand the petition to be disposed of according to law. The costs will abide the result....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »