Chennai Court August 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.
Vadakke Peediyakkal Unniankutty Vs. Vallapally Govindan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.869
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The complainant is the petitioner in revision. He was directed to pay compensation to the accused, a Tillage Munsif and Magistrate whom he charged with taking a bribe of annas twelve for registering two vakalats and for authenticating an affidavit (Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code) and with refusing afterwards to register and authenticate them unless a fine of Rs. 5 was paid (Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code). The Magistrate found the complaint to be false and vexatious and directed the complainant to pay compensation to the accused. On the facts and merits the complainant, petitioner, has, in my opinion, no case.2. Mr. Sundaram, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that though his client it was that brought the complaint and made the Magistrate take cognisance of it, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction over the case, as the accused Village Munsif and Magistrate was either a Judge or a public servant not removable from his office without the s...
Thirumalai Alwar Aiyangar Swamigal and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Sadagopa Aiyan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.568; (1916)31MLJ758
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for a. declaration of his right to perform the Thiruppallandu Mandapappadi on the first day of the Pagalpathu festival in the Adinathar temple in Alwar Tirunagari and to receive the honours and emoluments connected therewith and for an injunction and damages. Both the plaintiff, who belongs to the eastern Tirumaligai and the defendants 1 to 4, who belong to western Tirumaligai are Acharyapurushas of the temple, though it is not upon the holding of the office of Acharyapurusha that plaintiff bases his title to perform the Mandapappadi ceremony but upon an alleged hereditary right established by usage for a long series of years, Defendants 5 to 7 are the trustees of the temple, who are alleged to have assisted the other defendants in interfering with the plaintiff's exclusive right to conduct the performance.2. In the lower Courts, as also here in second appeal, it was contended that the suit was not maintainable.3. In dealing with questions ...
Srimanth Sethurama Sahib Powar, Through His Authorised Agent G.B. Baks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.820
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was brought for partition of a few of the properties left undivided between the plaintiff and the defendant, though a decree for partition of the plaint properties and several other properties had been passed so long ago as on 7th March 1896 (see decree Exhibit C), and for partition of one property (item No. 4) not included in the former suit. The plaintiff and the defendant were two of the parties to the suit (Original Suit No. 36 of 1895) in which that decree (Exhibit C) was passed, they having been plaintiff 'and second defendant' respectively in that suit. The third defendant in that suit was the Secretary of State for India represented by the Collector of Tanjore, who was in possession of some of the movables belonging to Sakharam Sahib (connected with the Tanjore Royal Family) whose properties were in dispute in that suit.2. The lower Court has dismissed the suit as regards items Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint A Schedule a...
Ponnurangam Pillai and ors. Vs. Lal Khan Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.348
Oldfield, J.1. The petitioners in these civil revision petitions, one of whom has also bled an appeal, hold decrees against the defendants in Original Suit No. 34 of 1911, persons who in one way or other are interested in the estate of one T. Krishnier. During the pendency of Original Suit No. 34 of 1911, the plaintiff, here respondent, obtained the appointment of a Receiver of the properties comprised in that estate, who has paid certain profits into Court. Petitioners have attached those profits and have asked for cheques for the amount of their claims from the fund under attachment. The lower Court in the orders before us refused to issue cheques, on the ground that petitioners could not have recourse to this fund until the sale of the property which has been ordered in the decree in Original Suit No. 34 of 1911, one on a mortgage, has taken place, and it has been ascertained whether the fund will be required to make good any deficiency in the amount of that decree. It is argued bef...
Sri Pedda Vikrama Deo Garu Vs. the Maharaja of Jeypore and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.801
ORDER1. We have before us an application under Rule 20, Agency Rules asking us to call on the Agent to review his judgment and a petition for the same relief forwarded to us by the Government under Rule 31. Mr. Sarma for the first respondent-plaintiff, however contends that the Agent's order, one passed in an appeal remanding the suit for disposal, is not liable to interference by this Court on either the application or petition. His argument is in effect that there are some orders of the Agent, this being one of them which are not subject to the powers of control which this Court can (with or without the invitation of Government) exercise We feel bound to hold in accordant with the view expressed in Maharaja of Jeypore v. Neladevi 13 M.L.J. 151, that Rule 31 must have been intended to provide for cases for which no previous provision had been made, including orders against which no appeal was allowed vide also Ohakrapani v. Varahal-amma 18 M.k 227, Maharaja of Jeypore v. Jammartdhora ...
Veeyanna Sina Thana Navanna Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Ayyasami thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.741; (1916)31MLJ401
Oldfield, J.1. The first question referred to us is whether a promissory note payable to a person or order or bearer is illegal and void and whether the lender can be given a decree for the money in a suit on it.2. There is no doubt that under Section 26, Act II of 1910, the making of such a note as that referred to is illegal. The argument that because it is to order or bearer in the alternative, it cannot be within the mischief of an Act, which forbids the making of notes payable to bearer, does not commend itself. The question then is whether such a note is void or can be basis of a decree. The material fact is the provision in S.I. of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that nothing in the Act affects Section 21 of the Indian Paper Currency Act, which is identical with Section 26, Act II of 1910 above referred to. The consequence is that the various references in the Negotiable Instruments Act to notes payable to bearer must refer to notes, in which a time is fixed for payment and whic...
P.V. Sriramulu Naidu Vs. Kolandaivelu Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ479
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff impounded the defendant's cattle. Thereupon the latter complained under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. But the plaintiff was acquitted. The present suit is for damages for malicious prosecution on the ground that the defendant instituted proceedings falsely and maliciously. Both the Courts below have held that such a suit would not lie. Hence this second appeal.2. It is not with reference to criminal proceedings alone that a suit for malicious prosecution lies. An action will lie for the institution of bankruptcy proceedings, for filing an ungrounded petition to wind up a corporation, for procuring the arrest of a. person even for a civil debt and for instituting proceedings to declare a person a lunatic. (See Whitworth v. Hall 2 B. & Ad 695, The Quartz Hill Gold Mining Company v. Byre (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 674, Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley (1886) L.R. 10 A.C. 210 and Lockenour v. Sides 57 Ind. 360). But neither would an action of this nature lie f...
Raman Pandithan Vs. Satha Cudumban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.387; (1916)31MLJ502
1. The father of the defendants sold certain family properties to the plaintiff in 1894. The vendor died in 1904. The defendants sued the plaintiff in 1905 for possession on the ground that the sale was not binding on them. The litigation went up to the High Court and it was there decided that the sale qua the father's share was good, but that the defendants' 5/6th share in the properties was not bound by it. With the consent of all the parties, the defendants were allotted their 5/6th share as on partition.2. The present suit is to recover 5/6th of the consideration paid for the sale of 1894, on the allegation that the consideration failed to that extent, when the High Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to only 1/6th of the properties sold. The basis of the suit is the pious obligation of the defendants to discharge their father's debt which was neither illegal nor immoral. The courts below have decreed the claim.3. Before dealing with the main point argued, we may dispose of ...
V.C.T.N. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Ayyasawmi thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad585
Oldfield, J.1. The first question referred to us is whether a promissory note payable to a person or order or bearer is illegal and void and whether the lender can be given a decree for the money in a suit on it.2. There is no doubt that under Section 26, Paper Currency Act II of 1910, the making of such a note as that referred to is illegal. The argument that, because it is to order or bearer in the alternative, it cannot be within the mischief of an act, which forbids the making of notes payable to bearer, does not commend itself. The question then is whether such a note is void or can be the basis of a decree. The material fact is the provision in section of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that nothing in the Act affects Section 21 of the Indian Paper Currency Act (III of 1871), which is identical with Section 26, Act II of 1910 above referred to. The consequence is that the various references in the Negotiable Instruments Act to notes payable to bearer must refer to notes in which ...
The Taluk Board Through the President Vs. Janakiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.384
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I am unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge upon his construction of Section 117-E of the Madras Local Boards Act. The section deals with two classes of markets--markets in existence at the time the Madras Local Boards Act came into force, and markets to be opened after the coming into operation of the Act. In Sub-clause (3) of the section, the Local Boards are given a discretion to refuse a person license to open a new market or to grant him the license. That clause also lays down that if the market had already been in existence, the Local Boards have no option in the matter. They must grant a license to the person who proposes to open the market. Sub-clause (5) of the section makes it clear that any license granted under this section would expire at the end of the financial year for which it was granted. Prima facie, therefore, the grant of the license enures for one year only. If we look at Sub-clause (1) of Section 117-E, the position is clear. That sub-cl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »