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.
Kalianji Singji Bhai (Sole Partner of the Firm of Raysee Amarchand) Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad144; (1916)ILR39Mad693
Spencer, J.1. The appellant is the sole partner of the firm of Raysee Amarchand carrying on a money lending business at Calicut with a head office at Bombay. On December 3rd, 1912 the-Agent of the Bank of Madras, the respondent in the case, presented a petition to the District Judge to adjudicate the appellant insolvent and to appoint an ad interim receiver. On December 6 a notice signed by the Sarishtadar of the District Court (by order) went to the local agent to inform him that a. petition to declare the appellant insolvent was posted for January 21 and that he might appear and show cause against it. The agent, Visram Sait, refused to receive the notice on the ground that his master should be made a party, and it was served on him by affixture. On December 7, a notice of the hearing together with a copy of the petition was sent by the respondent's pleader through registered post to the appellant at Mandavi in Cutch where he was thought to be residing, but it was returned to the send...
The Raja of Pithapuram Through M. Subbarayadu Garu, Dewan and Authoris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1092; 31Ind.Cas.93
1. The defendant was let into possession before the Madras Estates Land Act under Exhibit III which fixed the rent at Rs. 221 per fasli. Settlement operations began in the zemindari, and the Settlement Officer recommended that a rent of Rs. 394 should be levied on the holding.2. Consequently in July 1907 the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 394 and odd a year, as he understood that to be the recommendation of the Settlement Officer. Meantime the Madars Estates Land Act came into force, and the defendant became a permanent tenant. After the first year was over, disputes arose regarding the rate of rent. Nothing was paid for Fasli 1318. Then the officials of the zemindari suggested that the rent should be brought down to Rs. 285. The defendant agreed to this, but stipulated that this rate should not apply to Fasli 1318. The defendant paid at the rate of Rs. 285 for Faslis 1318, 1319 and 1320. The present suit is to recover the balance due on the footing of the rent agreed in July 1907.3. The ...
In Re: Muthumada Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1214(2); 31Ind.Cas.347
1. The use of a knife by the accused when there was no appreciable risk of even serious hurt to his person makes it difficult to hold that Exception 4 to Section 300, Indian Penal Code, could apply to his case. See Kadalkarayandi v. Emperor 4 Cr. L. Rev. 373.2. On the evidence the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellant of murder. The sentence of transportation for life, passed on the appellant, being the lessor of the only two possible sentences for the offence, is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed....
Upadhayayulu Yegnanarayana Vs. Kottalanka Makayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad520; 31Ind.Cas.478
1. The decree-holder has misunderstood both his rights and remedies. The claim was for the assessment paid by the plaintiff, which ought to have been paid by the defendants. In the plaint, the prayer is that the properties in respect of which the revenue was paid, should be held liable.2. We understand this prayer as claiming a mortgage-decree in effect. The decretal portion of the judgment gives a mortgage-decree and fixes a date within which the money should be paid. But in drafting the decree, a mistake was made by giving the decree-holder only a charge on the property. The decree-holder, instead of applying to have the decree amended, moved the Court to attach the property treating the decree in his favour as a money-decree. The District Munsif granted the prayer. In appeal, the District Judge, relying on Aubhoyessury Debee v. Gouri Sunkar Panday 22 C.K 859, held that the plaintiff's only remedy was to sue again to enforce the charge. Apparently, it was not argued before him that t...
Sulfalla Sahib Vs. VajihuddIn Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1056; 31Ind.Cas.281
1. We are unable to accept the finding of the learned City Civil Judge that possession was given by the plaintiff to his donee (1st defendant) of the properties mentioned in Exhibit A.2. The admission in the deed A and the admission or conduct in connection with the Collector's certificate proceedings are, no doubt, strong items of evidence against the plaintiff's contention that no possession passed, but on the other hand there are the following facts (proved by clear and tin-contradicted evidence)(a) that the rents of house No. 3 were received by the plaintiff even after the date of the gift-deed for his own benefit;(b) that neither the gift-deed (Exhibit A) nor any of the title-deeds (Exhibits B and C series), was given to the 1st defendant; and(c) that the plaintiff continued to live in the house No.2/2 with all the obedient members of his family (including, ho doubt, the 1st defendant so long as he was obedient).3. These facts seem to us to indicate that the plaintiff continued to...
Kuppusami Reddi Vs. Venkatalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1221; 31Ind.Cas.855
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. In the connected Appeal No. 111 of 1914 we came to the conclusion that the Wills set up by the plaintiff and the defendants were not proved. The further question arises for decision in this appeal whether the adoption of the 2nd defendant is valid and whether the gift evidenced by Exhibit VI in his favour is binding on the reversioners beyond the life-time.2. The parties are Sudras and the adopted boy was an orphan at the time of the adoption. There is no dispute as to the factum of the adoption. The District Judge was of opinion that the father of the adopted boy, Ramakrishna Reddi, himself gave the boy to the deceased Sami Reddi during his life-time and that the actual adoption made by the widow of Sami Reddi 10 years later was valid. He relied on Venkata v. Subhadra 7 M. 548 and Subbarayar v. Subbammal 21 M.p 497. In the first place, the evidence regarding the physical handing over by Ramakrishna Reddi and the acceptance by Sami Reddi is not satisfactory. Mr. S...
Subbiah Udayar Vs. Srinivasa Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1915
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.268
Tyabji, J.1. It this case, the plaintiff and defendants agreed that the defendants would discharge a certain liability of the plaintiff to a third party. Out of this agreement three suits have arisen. The defendants refused to pay to the third party and the first suit was brought and a decree obtained against the plaintiff by that party. Then the plaintiff sued the defendants and the third party to compel the defendants to pay the third party the amount decreed against him. The defendants then objected that the suit was premature and that the plaintiff did not have any right to claim any compensation until he actually paid to the third party the sum agreed to be paid by the defendants. The Court accepted this contention and dismissed the suit.2. The decree against the plaintiff by the third party was then executed and the plaintiff had to pay the amount and immediately thereafter the present, the third, suit was instituted. The first defendant now contends that the present suit is barr...
J. Subbier Vs. M. Abboy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad268; 31Ind.Cas.502
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This petition is instituted as a petition filed under both Sections 115 and 141 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 141 corresponds to the first, paragraph of the old Section 647 and is as follows:The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction.2. Mr. T.R. Ramachandra Aiyar, who appeared for the petitioner, admitted during the course of the argument that this revision petition was not filed under both the Sections 115 and 141 of the Civil Procedure Code, but only under Section 115, corresponding to old Section 622, and that Section 141 ought to have appeared in the third ground of the memorandum of the Civil revision petition and not in the title of the petition. The memorandum contains another mistake. As corrected, or rather fully expanded, the third ground, according to the contention of Mr. T.R. Ramachandra Aiyar, would be as follows:The District...
Ramasamy Chetty Vs. Karuppan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad133; 31Ind.Cas.216
1. Plaintiff's father and the 3rd defendant were doing business as moneylenders in partnership at Kuala Lumpur under the name and style of S.L.V. The 1st defendant was engaged as an agent to conduct the business of the firm for three years and he executed the usual salary chit to the 3rd defendant on the 3rd of November 1903. He transacted the business of the firm as such agent till about the end' of the year 1907 and came back to India in the beginning of 1908.2. The 3rd defendant released his interest in the partnership to the plaintiff's father, Plaintiff's father is dead and the plaintiff is now the sole owner of the firm.3. The suit is instituted to take the accounts of the agency. A preliminary decree was passed for an account and in pursuance of that decree statements of accounts were filed, and the plaintiff after the examination of the accounts charged the 1st defendant with misconduct in respect of particular loans which have since become irrecoverable and sought to recover t...
A.V. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Sellammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad843
John Wallis, C.J. 1. In this case the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit in the Court of First Instance was less than Rs. 10,000 bat the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute in appeal to His Majesty/in Council exceeds that sum owing to the claim for mesne profits for the period between the institution of the suit and the petition for a certificate. It is clear that the case does not satisfy the provisions of the first paragraph of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code, but we are asked to grant the certificate on the ground that in the circumstances the decree of the High Court involves 'directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value' within the meaning of the second paragraph. If this contention be accepted, a certificate must be granted in any case in which the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council is not leas than Rs. 10,000, whether or not the amount or value of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »