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.
Sambasiva Ayyar and anr. Vs. Subramania Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.576
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a simple case and should not be complicated by importing irrelevant considerations. It is a suit by the plaintiffs for money which was decreed against them and the defendants father jointly, but which the plaintiffs alone have been compelled to pay to the judgment-creditor. Any defence which would go to show that the decree should not have been a joint one against the defendants father and the plaintiffs will not be open in this suit. If any authority was needed for that position, reference may be made to Siva Panda v. Jujusti Panda 12 M.L.J. 13. If a liability has been created by the decree, the only question that can be raised in defence is the extent of the liability. That question was not tried by the Subordinate Judge, apparently in the belief that contribution is not claimed in the suit because the plaintiffs have exaggerated their claim and claimed the whole of the decree amount instead of claiming a portion of it, and also on the ground that if acc...
Seshagiri and ors. Vs. Tenkamakki Sankayya Setti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.1001
Spencer, J.1. It is argued that the lower Courts acted without jurisdiction in deciding this suit upon evidence after the plaintiff had agreed to abide by the 1st defendant's oath, and Anaikutti Ayyakznnu Nadar v. Muthiati Nadar 17 M.L.J. 9 is cited in support of his argument.2. The circumstances of the present case are different. There was evidence on the record upon which the Courts in this case could and did adjudicate on the genuineness of the suit promissory note an! this, having been recorded before the abortive attempt to decide the suit by oath commenced, remained available after the District Munsif had for proper reasons permitted the plaintiff to withdraw his offer.3. Next, it is contended on the strength of Kutti Mannadiyar v. Payanu Muthan 3 M 288 : 1 Ind. Dec. 756 and Govindan Nair v. Nanu Menon 26 Ind. Cas. 750 : 27 M.L.J. 595 : (1914) M.W.N. 782 that the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove that the promissory note was binding on the defendants Nos. 2 to 5. The District ...
King Emperor Vs. Karri Venkanna Patrudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.483; (1916)31MLJ440
Oldfield, J.1. It is not disputed that interference, with the order of the District Munsif, granting sanction, can be justified only under Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Both the learned Judges have dealt with the case on that assumption and it is therefore unnecessary to refer to authorities in support of it. Abdur Rahim, J., further referred to Section 15 of the Charter Act and something was said regarding it by accused's counsel. We have however been shown only one reported case, in which this Court proceeded under it in circumstances similar to those now in question: Palaniappa Chetti v. Annamalai Chetti I.L.R. (1903) M. 223 and the facts in it were of a very special character. I moreover agree with Ayling, J., that our power of superintendence should be invoked only in exceptional cases; and. this is not one. The question then is whether the District Munsif in the words of Section 115(c) acted in passing his order illegally or with material irregularity in the exercis...
In Re: Bakir Alli Khan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.966
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The charge in this case against the accused was that after the immoveable property bad been distrained, he removed the crops and thereby committed an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and Section 212 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The Trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate considered that there were prima facie grounds for a further inquiry into the charge and set aside the dismissal. As I bad occasion to point out once before, unless the District Magistrate can come to some definite conclusion upon the materials, he ought not to set aside the order of dismissal on the bare ground that it is possible on a further enquiry the accused may be convicted. The District Magistrate says rightly enough that the finding come to in a civil proceeding before the Revenue 'Divisional Officer under Section 90 of the Madras Estates Land Act is not evidence in the case, but he says later ...
In Re: S. Raja Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.159
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. As regards the argument that three charges in the three cases of theft, which took place at three different places and in the houses of three different persons, should not have been joined together, under Section 234, Criminal Procedure Code, it seems to me that a plain reading of Section 234 is in favour of trying together three offences of the same kind committed within a year, whether it be against one and the same individual or against different individuals. The explanation of the expression offences being of the same kind' is that they should be punishable under the same section of the Indian Penal Code. The view taken in Empress of India v. Murari (1881) A.W.N. 156 is that not only should the offences come under the same section of the Indian Penal Code, but the person against whom the offences were committed should be the same individual. With all deference I am unable to follow this ruling. I am strengthened in my view by the latest pronouncement of the Ca...
Kovvuri Basivireddi (Died) and ors. Vs. Nidumoori Ramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ394
Abdur Rahman, Offg. C.J.1. The question in these Letters Patent Appeals is whether the suits instituted to establish the plaintiff's right to certain moveable property attached by the judgment creditors of a third person and for recovery of its value the property having been sold in execution, within a year of the date of the order dismissing the plaintiff's claim preferred under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code but more than a year from the date of attachment and of sale is governed by Article 11 of the Limitation Act. The answer depends on whether recovery of the value of the property comes within the scope of a suit ' to establish the right which the plaintiff claims to the property in dispute' within the meaning of Rule 63 of Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code and of Article 11 of the Limitation Act.2. It is contended that the only relief which can be given in such a suit is what the Court which heard the claim could have granted under Rule 60, i.e., to release the property ...
Aiyasamier (Dead) and ors. Vs. Venkatachela Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ513
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. The answer to the question referred to the Full Bench should be that the period of limitation under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs from the date when, after the remedy against the mortgaged property has been exhausted, it is ascertained that there is a balance due to be recovered from the defendant and his other properties. The decree in this ease was passed before the present Code of Civil Procedure came into operation and under the provisions of the Transfer of Properly Act. Properly speaking, there should have been first a decree for sale of the mortgaged properties and if the mortgaged properties were found insufficient, a separate decree or order should then have been made for realisation of the balance from the person and other properties of the judgment-debtor. But there was a very prevalent practice in the mofussil courts to draw up one decree providing for the sale of the mortgaged property and if the sale-proceeds were insuffici...
V. Ramaswami Aiyar Vs. Gnanamani Nachiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ851
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. This Appeal is from the judgment of Bakewell, J. dismissing a suit instituted by one Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar against the Zemindarni of Sivagiri to recover a sum of Rs. 48,116-12-4. The late Zemindar, whose mother is the defendant, appointed the plaintiff by powers-of-attorney dated the 31st July 1911. and 31st October 1912, his agent to manage his affairs at Madras and elsewhere excepting the Zemindari itself. The plaintiff founds his claim to the extent of Rs. 31,000-12-4 on the basis of accounts settled between him and the late Zemindar on the 14th October 1913 showing this amount to be due to him for remuneration of services rendered by him and for moneys advanced by him to the Zemindar from time to time. Of the balance Rs. 12,741-10-0 consists, he says, of various sums of money which he paid to certain creditors of the Zemindar after his power-of-attorney was cancelled (that was on 15th October 1913) and which have not been recouped to him. He paid th...
In Re: Kakumara Anjaneyalu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.813
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The charge against the 1st accused is this (I use the language employed in the charge sheet):-- That you (referring to the accused) on or about the 18th June 1915 at Tenali defamed Bollee Ramanajayya (complainant) by giving information to prosecution 3rd witness, Railway Head Constable, and the Railway Station Master, prosecution 2nd witness, that the complainant Ramanajayya was bringing illicit ganja by the train, which led to the search of the person of the complainant and another. The charge against the 2nd accused is that you (referring to the accused) on the said date gave a written information to the prosecution 3rd witness that', etc.2. As regards the 1st accused, the charge is simply that he gave information to the Station Master and the Head Constable that the complainant was bringing illicit .ganja by train.3. The cases of the two accused have been separately argued before me. As regards the 1st accused, I am constrained to differ from the Courts be...
Sankaralinga Tevan and ors. Vs. Avudai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.826
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 9 in this case filed civil suits against the complainant befrre the 8th accused, the Village Munsif of Ettaiyapuram. Tending the suits, the 3rd and 9th accused applied to the 8th accused to attach the jutka and pony of the complainant before judgment. This was ordered, and the jutka and the pony were removed from the house of the complainant. The talayari who carried out the orders of the 8th accused and the persons who assisted in the removal of the properties are the other accused. The complaint is one of theft and of abetment thereof. A charge was framed against all the accused on the 1st April 191(5 After that, this Court was moved to stay proceedings and to cancel the charge against the accused. As regards accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 this Court has no right to interfere at this stage. It was sought to be argued that the evidence lot in does not disclose any offence against them. 1 refused to listen to this argument, because that is not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »