Chennai Court October 1916 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.
In Re: Maturi Venkatasubbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad589; 41Ind.Cas.655
ORDER1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 189, Act IV of 1884, that is, boiling paddy in an unlicensed place.2. There is no dispute as to the facts. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 29th September 1915. The petitioner's last license expired on 30th April 1915. He applied for a fresh license on 4th May 1915, but received no order granting or refusing one until 6th September 1915, when his application was refused. He subsequently appealed against the refusal unsuccessfully. But that is not material, because he argues that under Section 188 (5) if a license is not refused within thirty days of its being applied for, the place in question shall be held to be duly licensed for the financial year for which the license was sought.3. This argument is justified by the wording of Section 188 (5); for we cannot accept the learned Public Prosecutor's suggestion that it should be read subject to the reference to the refusal of the license in Se...
Shiyali Rungia Chetty Vs. Calve Subraya Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.404
Abdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. One Calve Sadasiva Chettiar who was a domiciled French subject residing at Pondieherry died there on the 26th May 1891 leaving his last Will and testament, dated 25th July 1889 and a codicil thereto, dated 20th May 1891. He left considerable property, moveable and immoveable, in Madras and in Pondicherry. The immoveable properties in Madras are said to be of the value of Rs. 1,50,0,00 and the moveables consisting of Government promissory notes, jewels and cash in Madras are stated to be of the value of Rs. 1,70,000. By his Will Calve Sadasiva chettiar purported to dispose of the bulk of his properties in favour of various charities, mostly in Pondicherry and partly in the Presidency of Madras. The charities were to be conducted by a committee of management consisting of five members including defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who were also appointed executors of the Will and the codicil. All the executors obtained Probate from the Court of first instance at Pondiche...
Kandula Pbda Linga Reddi and ors. Vs. Kakumanu Hanumayta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.764
Krishnan, J.1. This appeal arises in the execution of a compromise decree of 1903, passed in a suit brought by plaintiff-respondent for money due on two promissory notes. The decree directed the defendants to pay the plaintiff Rs. 705, made up of the amount sued for, costs and interest in nine yearly instalments on specified dates and default of payment of any one instalment on due date, to pay the whole amount due with interest at one per cent, per mensemt calculated from the date of the decree; it further directed that till the debt was discharged the schedule mentioned immoveable property be mortgaged and that plaintiff do recover the above debt from defendants Nos, 1 and 2, from the family properties of defendants, and by auction of the mortgaged property aforesaid.' Defendants did not pay any of the instalments except the first on due date; the second and third instalments were paid and received long after due dates; the other instalments were not paid at all. In 1911, plaintiff a...
Swaminatha Vellala thevan and anr. Vs. Darmalinga Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.825
1. In this case the plaint lands were attached in 1900 in execution of a decree against one Sambasiva Aiyar. In 1905 and 1906 the judgment-debtor sold the lands to defendants Nos 1 and 2 by private treaty. In 1908 the lands were sold in execution of the decree and purchased by the plaintiff. Objection was taken to the sale on the ground that the attachment, in pursuance of which the sale was held, was invalid, but this Court decided in Appeal Against Order No. 87 of 1908 that the judgment-debtor could not be allowed to question the proceedings to which his own conduct had led. Defendants now resist plaintiff's claim to the suit lands on the same ground as was taken by their vendor in the execution proceedings, and contend that they are entitled to do so, because Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to a case when the attachment is invalid, and that they are not estopped from raising the plea of invalidity, as the plaintiff is not the representative of the decree-holder...
Nataraja Padaychi and ors. Vs. Nagamuthu Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.761
1. The defendant purchased at Court auction certain property sold in execution of a decree obtained against plaintiff by a third party. The plaintiff thereafter agreed with the defendant that, on payment of Rs. 100 within a specified date, the defendant would apply to the Court to have the sale set aside, taking credit for the deposit made under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The defendant, though he received the amount of Rs. 100, did not perform his part of the contract and get the sale set aside. The plaintiff has now been given a decree for specific performance on the footing that the contract to have the sale set aside was tantamount to a contract to reconvey the land to him.3. It is argued (1) that there was no enforceable contract as, owing to the money not having been deposited in time, it became impossible to perform the contract, (2) that damages would have been. an adequate remedy for non-performance.4. We think that the defendant having agreed to take ...
Subbata Nadan Vs. Aiyavoo Reddi Alias Sanga Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.977
William Ayling, J.1.The sole cause of action alleged in the plaint is the obstruction by defendants of plaintiff's marriage procession on 6th December 1909. Both the lower Courts have fourd against the fact of obstruction. On this ground alone this second appeal must be dismissed with costs, although I am in general agreement with the conclusions of my learned brother in the judgment which he is about to pronounce.Napier, J.2.This second appeal arises out of a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly reversing the decree of the District Munsif of Kovilpatti in a suit brought under Order I, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and other Nadars, his fellow-castemen, for a declaration that he and they are entitled to take their marriage processions along certain roads in the village of Mela Chaitalai and for an injunction to restrain the defendants, certain Reddis, Naickers and Asaris, from interfering with them. The District Munsif gave them...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Sengammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.833
1. The question in this appeal is whether a debt is moveable property for the purpose of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The words are not denned in the present Code but under Section 4, Clause 2, the definition contained in the Penal Code is to be taken as the definition of these words. The Penal Code contains a definition or an explanation which is not decisive on this point, for moveable property according to that definition includes corporeal property, etc. The definition under the General Clauses Act of 1817 would certainly include a debt but in the context in which the words are used in Section 386 they do not appear to have been used in such a large sense even assuming that the definition in the General Clauses Act would apply. Section 380 provides for the levy Of a fine by distress and sale of any moveable property belonging to the offender and the word distress is ordinarily used with reference to tangible property. It may include negotiable instruments bonds or...
Sivakolundu Pillai Vs. Ganapathy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.964
Krishnan, J.1. This appeal arises from an application for execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 23 of 1901 in plaintiffs favour, by sale of defendants' immoveable properties. Among other objections which are not now material, defendants contended that the properties could be not sold without a fresh attachment as the attachment made in the previous execution application was no longer subsisting. Plaintiffs contended that it was, and the Subordinate Judge agreeing with that contention directed the sale of the properties without a fresh attachment. The defendants appealed to this Court against that order; the learned Judge who heard the appeal dismissed it, on the ground that the existence of a subsisting attachment was res judicata between the parties by reason of a previous order by the Subordinate Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal before us is against that judgment.2. The appellants contend that there was no subsisting attachment in fact and that the question is not res judicata...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›