Chennai Court February 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.
Yamarti Venkatachallam Vs. Yamarti Sithayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.296
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The decree-holder is the appellant. He brought Original Suit No. 4 of 1910 on the file of the District Court of Kistna at Masulipatam. The District Court transferred it to the Temporary Subordinate Judge's Court established in that place for d sposal. The suit was for partition of immoveable properties, for recovery of a half share therein and for mesne profits. The Temporary Subordinate Judge's Court was establi hed in 1910 at Masulipatam, but no local limits were fixed for its jurisdiction, the notification leaving it to the District Judge to fix such local jurisdiction as he thought fit to do under Section 10, of the Madras Civil Courts Act, III of 1873. When the suit was transferred by the District Court, the District Judge had not fixed any such local limits for the Temporary Subordinate Judge's jurisdiction. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit including the relief of mesne profits on the 16th August 1912, and that decree was confirmed on appeal by the High...
In Re: Sheik Abdul Khadir Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.648
ORDER1. This is a case which raises points of some difficulty and considerable interest. The facts are these. The accused Shaik Abdul Kadir was the Chairman of the Pallapatti Union Panchayat in the Trichnopoly District. He was prosecuted for an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 409 is this: (I am reading the material portions): Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker merchant factor'...(certain other persons are enumerated) 'commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property shall be punished with transportation for life.... ' While I am on that Section 1 may-just as well mention other sections in that chapter dealing with criminal breach of trust. Section 405 defines criminal breach of trust, and it contains illustrations of which I need only say this: that illustration (c) refers to the case of an agent who is one of the p...
P.T. Chami Vs. A. Ana Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.861
Coutts Trotter, J.1. In this case the learned Judge found that the landlord tendered by paying into Court the whole value of the improvements effected by the tenant. It is said that the Judge did not determine what was the exact sum due. What he did say was that 'the correct amount was deposited because Rs. 100 was deposited' and, of course, in a matter of this kind the value of the improvements cannot be accurately estimated. All that he can say is whether the sum tendered was substantially reasonable compensation for the improvements; and he has found it was, and, therefore, it was a perfectly good tender. I confess to a good deal of difficulty in seeing how the landlord was entitled to take the procedure of paying into Court. But that is not complained of here and, therefore, no difficulty arises on that score.2. That being so, the landlord then says that the tenant has got to pay him mesne profits for two years or for such period as he remained in possession after the principal mor...
Malla Suriah and ors. Vs. Choudhri Suran Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.993a
Coutts Trotter, J.1. In this case a certain Ammanna had a widow's estate in the properties of her deceased husband Sanyasi Naidu. After her husband's death the next reversioners were her two grandsons both in the same degree, one called Janakanna and the other Yerranna. The widow purported to adopt Yerranna, and the Courts below have found as a fact that the adoption was bad. She also by Exhibit VII during Yerranna's life-time purported to convey to him the whole of her deceased husband's property. Subsequently Yerranna died and thereupon Ammanna, the widow, alienated with the consent of Janakanna certain properties in favour of various persons. This time the alienations were not of the whole property but only of parts of it. The first point taken for the appellants was that as by Exhibit VII, there was an alienation of the whole estate by the widow, that would be binding if there was proved consent of the next reversioners. Yerranna, of course, consented, because, the surrender was in...
Puthenpurayil Bavachutty Vs. Puthenpurayil Kunhi Pathumma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.564
1. Upon the question of limitation we think that the case is governed by the decision in Ahinsa Bibi v. Abdul Kader Saheb 25 M.K 26. The cause of action arises from the partnership contract, and the right of each partner to have an account taken upon the dissolution of the firm. This right has descended to the plaintiffs as representatives of the deceased partner and all must join in a suit to enforce the right. If one representative instituted a suit for an account all the partners could insist upon the other representatives being joined so that the account should be taken once for all. We think that the plaintiffs as representatives of a deceased person are jointly entitled to institute a suit for an account within the meaning of Section 7 of the Limitation Act.2. At the request of the learned Vakil for the appellant and in order to indicate that there has been no finding by the Court of what the partnership assets consists, the decree is amended by inserting the words for that purpo...
The Rajah of Kalahasti Vs. Sree Mahant Prayag Dossjee Varu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.224; (1916)30MLJ391
Moore, J.1. The respondent, the Mahant of Tirupati, obtained a mortgage decree in O.S. No. 40 of 1910 in the District Court, North Arcot, on the 23rd day of February 1911 against the appellant the Rajah of Kalahasti as the legal representative of the late Rajah. Akkappa Nayanim Varu by whom the mortgage has been executed. The appellant, it may be mentioned, succeeded to the estate in May 1905. The mortgaged property having been exhausted, a personal decree for nearly three lakhs of rupees was passed against the appellant on the 7th day of April 1914. It appears that on the 14th day of July 1896 the then Rajah had executed a simple mortgage for one lakh of rupees in respect of certain villages in favour of the appellant for arrears of maintenance and other debts due to the latter. The respondent decree-holder applied in Execution Petition No. 42 of 1914 to attach the mortgage right possessed by the appellant, the judgment-debtor under the mortgage dated the 14th day of July 1896, allegi...
Muruga Pillay and anr. Vs. Krishnamoorthy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.547
Coutts Trotter, J.1. We cannot interfere in this case. It is quite clear that the appellants were not ready with their case. They had not instructed their Vakil about it and he was not in a position to cross-examine and counted upon getting an adjournment. The District Munsif was not, in my opinion, acting in the best interests of the administration of justice when he took up substantial original suits at that late hour, which was fair neither to the parties nor to the witnesses nor to himself nor to anybody else. But after all, nearly two years elapsed before the hearing of the appeal and yet no affidavit was put in before the Judge explaining the circumstances, and no opportunity was sought to put in this affidavit before him and to explain why and in what manner the appellants were prejudiced. In these circumstances we cannot interfere and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.2. I agree. I am impressed by the circumstance that there is nothing to show that the ...
Kamulammal Avargal Vs. Vavu Rowthar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.314
ORDER1. The point is taken that once an enquiry under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code has got beyond the stage when the parties or other persons interested can show that no such dispute exists, the Court has no jurisdiction to decline to proceed with the enquiry. This construction would have this extraordinary result that if two persons who were likely to commit a breach of the peace were arrested and convicted of another offence and imprisoned and so the whole danger disappeared, the enquiry would have to go on. The chief points relied on are Section 145, Clauses (5) and (7). Clause 7 provides that the proceedings shall not abate, but this obviously is' intended to keep alive the jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the danger to the peace still exists inspite of the death. Clause (5) gives a right to the parties, etc., to get the proceedings stayed, but we can see no reason why the Magistrate should be powerless to do this without their intervention. We entirely agree with...
Arasayee Ammal Vs. Sokkalinga Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.84
1. The preliminary objection that no appeal lay from the District Munsifs order must be upheld (and hence also no second appeal lies to this Court), as a person who purchases property which is not directly mentioned in and affected by the decree is not the legal representative of the judgment-debtor and his claim petition cannot be treated as a petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The case of Akhoy Kumar Soor v. Bejoy Chand Mohatap 29 C.k 813 referred to by the Subordinate Judge and the case of Ishan Chunder Sirkar v. Beni Madhub Sirkar 1 C.W.N. 36 followed in the case of Ahhoy Koomar Soor v. Bejoy Chand Mohatap 29 C. S813 were cases whore the decrees directly affected the property sold, as they were mortgage-decrees for sale of those properties.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Ramasami Naidu and ors. Vs. Gomathi Alias Avudai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.521
1. This is a suit brought by the 1st plaintiff as reversioner to recover certain properties on the death of Krishnammal who is the daughter, as is alleged, of the last male owner Perumal. She died in 1907 and Perumal died in 1858. The other side questioned the fact of the 1st plaintiff being the next reversioner, We do not consider it necessary, in the view we take of the case, to go into that question and will only say that we are disposed to think that the Subordinate Judge has not attached sufficient weight to some undisputed facts such as that the office of Nattamai was first held, in Fasli 1211 by a man who is admittedly the ancestor of the 1st plaintiff and was afterwards held for a long time by the deceased man Perumal without objection from the 1st plaintiff's family. As I have stated, it is unnecessary to pursue that question.2. The next defence raised is that Perumal during his life-time made a gift of the suit properties to his two sister's sons, Rangasami and Chinna Perumal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »