Chennai Court September 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.
Ramanathan Chatty, Minor Through His Next Friend Valliammaiachi Vs. Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.804; (1916)31MLJ685
1. The agency in the case did not terminate at the expiry of the 3 years specified in the salary chit. All that the salary chit means is--it must be remembered it is a business document--that the agency shall not terminate before 3 years or rather the agency shall last for 3 years certain after which date it may or may not be continued. It does not mean that after the expiry of 3 years there is a fresh agency but only that the same agency continues. It is common knowledge that Chetty's agents in foreign parts do usually stop for sometime after the period of 3 years and they get their salary as agents till they return to the principal's place of residence. The extra period in this case was unusually long but from Exhibit C it is quite clear that both the agent and the principal recognised that the agency did not stop with the 3 years period, but continued till long after. The agent who was in Salone for much longer than the 3 years period request-od permission of the principal to go to ...
Nagappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.812; (1916)31MLJ687
1. The question when an agency is terminated is a question of fact. Whether in a particular case it terminated when the agent left Rangoon or any other foreign place to which he was sent is a question of fact. The case in Venkatachellum Chetty v. Narayanan Chetty : (1916)31MLJ685 has, we are afraid, been misunderstood. That decision did not lay down as a matter of law that on the expiry of the three years mentioned in the salary chit the agency comes to an end ipso facto. As we have said in the judgment which we delivered this morning in Appeal No. 205 of 1915 Ramanathan Chetty v. Kasi alias Kathiresan Chetty : (1916)31MLJ685 , all that the salary chit means is that the agency must last for three years certain and it may be that the parties expect the agency to close at the end of three years. In this case there is an allegation that at the end of the agency business, the agent came back, but it is to be noted that that termination is stated to be the sending of a new man, which often ...
Kavanoor Velayuda Reddi and ors. Vs. Reddyvari Narasimha Reddy and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ263
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 23 to 31 and the question for decision is whether their mortgage lien has priority over that of the plaintiff.2. On the 8th July 1882 the then Rajah of Karvetnagar and his son Rajah Bomma Raja Bahadur mortgaged to one Subbamma four villages belonging to them to secure the repayment of Rs. 25,000 borrowed by them from her, and interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum. They agreed to pay interest every year and interest on overdue interest at the same rate and to pay the principal on demand.3. On the 15th December 1888 Rajah Bomma Raja Bahadur who had become the Rajah on his fathers's death mortgaged to Subbamma the same four villages and two others in addition, to secure the sum of Rs. 37,791 then due on the previous mortgage and agreed to pay interest at the reduced rate of 6 per cent per annum for the future and to pay the principal on the 30th December 1893. The plaintiff is the assignee of the mortgage.4. In the meantime on th...
S. Subba Rao and ors. Vs. N. Peritmal Reddy and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.906
Oldfield, J.1. These suits were brought to recover rent from defendants, and the question is whether they were rightly field in the Court of the District Munsif, or should have been filed in the Revenue Court.2. The first question is whether the matter is res judicata in plaintiffs' favour in consequence of the judgments in the litigation which ended in Civil Revision Petition No. 124 of 1913. There is first the judge-ment of the District Munsif. But it cannot comply with the requirements of Section Civil Procedure Code, unless. it is that of a competent Court; and the competency of the District Munsit's Court is the very point in dispute and can only be determined as regards the former litigation with reference to the considerations applicable to that now before us. No clear authority directly in point has been referred to. But in the circumstances it is not possible to hold that the plea of res judicata based on the previous judgment of the District Munsif affords any separate ground...
In Re: Abdul Rahiman Khan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.142
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Wallajabad Union. A bazaar-man complained against him that he used insulting and abusive language in the bazar street. Instead of treating this as an intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace (Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code), a compoundable offence, the Stationary Second Class Magistrate proceeded to try and convict the accused for the offence of 'indecent be-haviour' under the Towns Nuisances Act, Section 3, Clause 12.2. His Vakil claims the protection of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for his client and cites the recent decision of Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Sankaralinga Tevan v. Avudai Ammal 35 Ind. Cas. 826 as an example of a case where sanction was considered necessary for the prosecution of a public servant accused of an offence committed by him as such public servant. In that case a Village Munsif attached property before judgment in the course of the hearing of certain civil suits file...
Alluri Subbaraju and Alluri Venkatasomaraju Vs. Alluri Rambhadra Raju ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.821
ORDER1. The respondent against whom this order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed, died after presenting this petition for revision under Section 15 of the Charter Act, and his son has now applied to be brought on the record in order to prosecute it.2. His application has been supported solely by reference to Section 145(7). But that clause statedly regulates only proceedings under the section and we have been shown no authority for extension of its purview to others, such as the proceedings before us under the Charter Act. No authority has been adduced which is in point; and in these circumstances we cannot place the applicant on the record or hear his Vakil.3. It is also impossible for us, consistently with the decision of Kamal Kutty v. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja of Chirakal 17 Ind. Cas. 65 : (1912) M.W.N. 1154 to deal with the Magistrate's order by way of revision of our own motion, since we have satisfied ourselves chat he complied with the formalities ...
imam Bee and ors. Vs. Molla Khasim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.889
1. The District Munsif held that women were entitled to share in the profits of the mam lands attached to the office of mujawar of the suit mosque, as the evidence adduced in the case did not prove that women were prohibited from getting the duties of the office performed by deputies. The District Judge considered that the duties to be performed by the muawar were of such a religious and spiritual character that the office could not be held by a woman, and, therefore, that women and persons deriving their title from them could not have any rights to the lands. Both Courts rightly placed the onus on those who sought to exclude women, of proving that they were disqualified [vide Tanqirala Chiranjivi v. Rata Manikya Rao 25 Ind. Cas. 283 and both found that a custom whereby women were excluded in this institution had not been proved.2. On the facts, therefore, the finding is in the appellants' favour. On the question of law whether women should be excluded from the succession, a number of ...
Gokula Venkamma Vs. Gokula Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.642
1. This is quite a plain case. The plaintiff, a Hindu reversioner, sues the widow of his divided brother for a declaration that an alienation of her husband's property by her to her brother, the 2nd defendant, was void beyond her lifetime and for the appointment of a Receiver of husband's estate to prevent waste and preserve the property. That is the substance of the claim. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam without a trial of the merits as barred by limitation and the plaintiff appeals. If the suit was of the nature described above, it is obviously not barred as it was instituted within six years of the husband's death and the Articles of limitation applicable to suit to obtain the above reliefs are Articles 125 and 120 which give a period of six years from the date of the cause of action. But it appears that the widow, previous to the present suit, brought an action against the, plaintiff for a partition by metes and bounds of certain common properties and...
Kumarappa Chettiar by His Agent Velliappa Chetti Vs. Murugappa Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.771
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act against an order of the District Judge of Trichinopoly under Section 36 of the Act, which set aside a sale by the insolvent of some of his properties to the 1st respondent for a sum of Rs. 4,000 within two years of the date of the insolvency, as not made in good faith; the order stated that he may be given a charge for the amount on the property.' The application under Section 36 was made by the Official Receiver against the 1st respondent who was also the 7th creditor; but to this application, contesting 4th and 5th creditors were also parties and they appeared by the same Vakil as the Official Receiver. The appeal to us is by the 5th contesting creditor against the 7th creditor, the alienee, the Official Receiver and the 4th creditor being joined as 2nd and 3rd respondents; and it is against that portion of the lower Court's order which purports to give a charge on the property, the 1st respondent has ...
Chinna Meera Rowther Vs. C. Kumarachakravarthi Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.906
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act against the order of the District Judge of Trichinopoly setting aside a hypothecation of Rs. 9,000 executed by the insolvent in favour of the appellant, on the finding that it was not proved to have been made in good faith and for valuable consideration. The appellant contests this finding before us, on the ground that the learned Judge has acted on statements made by a number of persons before the Official Receiver which are not legal evidence and has not tried the case properly. Before applying under Section 36 of the Act, the Official Receiver seems to have held an enquiry himself and taken statements on oath from the insolvent and some of his witnesses. These statements were treated as evidence before him by the Judge; and his enquiry in Court was practically a continuation of the enquiry before the Receiver. I am unable to treat this as a proper disposal of the case. The District Judge should have h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »