Chennai Court November 1917 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.
Govindasami Pillai Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.519; (1918)34MLJ399
1. We are of opinion that the District Munsif was not justified in determining a question of limitation as to which there has been considerable difference of judicial opinion upon an application to sue in forma pauperis. Order 33, Rule 5(d) applies only to cases where the allegations of the petitioner do not show a cause of action, and we think that this should appear clearly upon the face of the petition.2. We have been referred to cases where it was held that the court can go into the question of limitation to see if the petitioner has a subsisting cause of action. The cases do not decide that an elaborate enquiry into doubtful and complicated questions of law should be raised at the stage contemplated by Order 33, Rule 5. The pauper has no right of appeal if the decision on the question of law is wrong. We do not think it necessary to decide the question of limitation at this stage. This should form the subject-matter of an issue.3. In the present case, moreover, the question of lim...
A.L. Meango Vs. J.C. Baviah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad334; 45Ind.Cas.507
Phillips, J.1. This is an application to set aside a sanction to prosecute petitioner appellant for an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code; but the only point argued is the admissibility in evidence of petitioner's (appellant's) deposition. This deposition was properly recorded by the District Munsif, but was read over to the witness by a clerk in a room next to the Court room at a distance of 30 feet from the Munsif's seat. There were two clerks sitting between the place where the deposition was read and that where the Munsif sits. Under Order XVIII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, a deposition shall be read over in the presence of the Judge and the witness, and the first question that arises is whether the deposition before us can be deemed to have been read over in the presence of the Judge.' From the evidence on record it does not appear whether the Munsif could actually see the witness and the clerk while the deposition was being read over; but I am satisfied that the provi...
Kumarappa Reddi Vs. Manavala Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad1; (1918)34MLJ104
1. As regards the question of law referred to us I am of opinion that the decision in Kakarla Abbayya v. Raja Venkata Papayya Rao (1905) 29 M. 24 must be overruled. In the cases to which Sir Charles Turner was a party the Court no doubt examined the evidence in detail to see if it was sufficient to support the custom, but in no case did they interfere with the findings except in Mirabivi v. Vellayana I.L.R. (1885) M. 464 and thereafter referring to the findings they observed that the question before them was 'whether there is evidence on which such custom could reasonably have been found to exist'. They came to the conclusion that the evidence was not reasonably sufficient to support the custom. No question of the limits of the Court's right of interference in second appeal was raised or decided in these cases. As regards Kaharla Abbayya v. Raja Venkata Papayya Rao I.L.R. (1905) M. 24. I am unable with great respect to agree with the observations of Subramania Aiyar, J. as to the effec...
Lakshmanan Chetty, Through His Authorized Agent Krishna Iyengar Vs. Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad167; (1918)34MLJ408
1. This is a suit instituted to recover a sum of Rs. 8,000 and odd from the defendants. The plaintiff and the father of the defendants were partners in a firm, at first called R. M. S.L.P.P. and afterwards changed into R.M.S.L.S. This firm carried on business on Soomangai and Kyato. The plaintiff had also a firm of his own at Rangoon.2. The case of the plaintiff is that his Rangoon firm called R.M.S.L. advanced sums of money on different occasions to the defendant's firm of which he himself is a partner, that the latter firm was dissolved long before the institution of the suit, and on taking accounts as between the plaintiff's firm and the defendants' firm it was found that a balance of Rs. 25,000 and odd was due to the plaintiff's firm. The contract between the plaintiff and the father of the defendants with relation to the partnership was that the plaintiff was to have 3/4 share and the father of the defendants 1/4 share, and we may also take it, so far as we can gather from the ple...
Lakshmanan Chetty Vs. Nagappa Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.86
1. This is a suit instituted to recover a sum of Rs. 8,000 and odd from the defendants. The plaintiff and the father of the defendants were partners in a firm, at first called R.M.S.L.P.P. and after-wards changed into R.M.S.L.S. This firm carried on business in Soomangai and Kyato. The plaintiff had also a firm of his own at Rangoon.2. The case of the plaintiff is that his Rangoon firm called R.M.S.L. advanced sums of money on different occasions to the defendants' firm of which he himself is a partner, that the latter firm was dissolved long before the institution of the suit, and on taking accounts as between the plaintiff's firm and the defendants' firm it was found that a balance of Rs. 25,000 and odd was due to the plaintiff's firm. The contract between the plaintiff and the father of the defendants with relation to the partnership was that the plaintiff was to have 3/4th share and the father of the defendants 1/4th share and we may also take it, so far as we can gather from the p...
N. Venkatachari Vs. Ramalinga Tevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad36; 45Ind.Cas.417
1. Plaintiff's suit is for arrears of rent and for a declaration that the amount deposited by defendants under the rental agreement has been forfeited. It is in effect a suit for rent coupled with a claim for the damages provided in the contract, if a forfeiture of a deposit can be styled damages. Both the lower Courts appear to have treated the suit as one for damages alone and have allowed the defendants to set off the amount deposited by them under the rental agreement against the rent due, although no set-off was pleaded in the written statement and not only has the lower Appellate Court awarded nothing by way of damages for breach of contract, but has mulcted the plaintiff in the costs of the suit.2. We think they were wrong in the view that they took and in applying the ruling in Vellore Taluq Board v. Gopalasami Naidu 26 Ind. Cas. 226 in support of it. It was clearly held by a Full Bench in Natesa Aiyar v. Appavu Padayachi 19 Ind. Cas. 462 : 13 M.L.T. 391 : (1913) M.W.N. 341 tha...
Raja Viswanadha Vijia Kumara Bangaroo Thirumalai Souri Naicker Vs. R.G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.786
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal is from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, by which he directed the defendants to pay a sum of money as compensation for the benefit enjoyed by them as a result of certain repairs executed by the plaintiffs to a tank called Marnad Tank situate in the Sivaganga Zemindari. The defendants are Inamdars of a village called Vellikurichi and, admmittedly, this tank is the source of irrigation for that village and also a number of Ayan and Devastanam villages. Vellikurichi is what is called a jividam Inam. It was granted prior to the Permanent Settlement to a descendant of Tirumal Naick and is held rent-free. The first ground of the claim is based on Section 70 of the Contract Act. Sivaganga Zamindari is now in the possession of the plaintiffs who are lessees, and their case is to the effect that the tank which is a common source of supply to the Ayan villages as well as to Vellikurichi: was badly in need of repairs, the bund, in more than one place, had...
Gouwri Vs. Naraina Muchinthaya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad256; 45Ind.Cas.664
1. The first question that we have to decide in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits from the date of the death of the testator, under whose Will she is entitled to the property in question. The Will, Exhibit A, beqeaths the item of the property with which we are concerned in the case to the plaintiff, his daughter, who, at the time of the Will, was only two years old. The testator bequeathed the other properties, moveable and immoveable, to the defendants, who were distant cousins of his. The bequest to the plaintiff is absolute and the Will provides that the defendants are to bring about the marriage of the plaintiff with a boy named in the Will and that they are to deliver possession of the property given to her on such marriage. The property became the plaintiff's on the death of the testator; prima facie she is entitled to all the income from that date. There is nothing in the terms of the Will by which her right to the income of the property bequeathe...
Krishnaswami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Subramania Ganapatigal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1917
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ304
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff and another jointly soid certaia lands to defendants 1 and 4 for Rs. 10,000 under Ex. A. The document recites the receipt of Rs. 10,000 in cash and at the end of the document the particulars for the receipt of Es. 10,000 are given as follows :-' Rs. 8,650 received in cash,Rs.,1,350 received as per two bonds executed separately in our favour by the aforesaid T.Krishnaswami Iyengar (the 1st defendant)'. One bond was executed in favour of the present plaintiff and the other in favour of his co-vendor Srinivasa Varadachariar. The plaintiff now sues to recover the amount due to him on account of this sale, namely Rs. 675 with interest. He also makes other claims with which we are not concerned now. The lower courts have given him a decree for the amount due and have also given him a charge on the plaint property, treating the amount as unpaid purchase money.2. It is now contended in appeal that this charge ought not to be given because the whole of ...
Krishnapur Mutt by Vidyapurna Thirthaswami Vs. the Vicar of Suratkal C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad340; 44Ind.Cas.56
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. I think that, on the facts found by the District Judge, this is not a case where I should commit Father Coelho, 2nd defendant, to jail for contempt. There was an order of a Criminal Court ordering lac trees to be returned to his servant. The Judge, no doubt, rightly finds that it was his duty to see that his servant did not remove the tree in disobedience to the Civil Court's injunction, but it is possible that the 2nd defendant was bona fide under the belief that he need not interfere as his servant had the permission of the Criminal Court. Though 2nd defendant is technically guilty of contempt, the Court is not bound to commit him to jail. I am of opinion that Clause 3 to Rule 2 of Order XXXIX of the. Code Civil Procedure applies to cases of disobedience, even though the disobedience is of a prohibition to do or abstain from doing a single act. There is no reason to suppose that the Legislature intended to leave such disobedience unpunished. The fact that Cla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »