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.
Kristnaswami Iyengar and anr. Vs. Subramania Ganapathigal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad82; 44Ind.Cas.523
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff and another jointly sold certain lands to defendants Nos. 1 and 4 for Rs. 10,000 under Exhibit 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 Rs. 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. Kristnaswami Iyengar (the 1st defendant). One bond was executed in favour of the present plaintiff and the other in favour of his co-vendor Srinivasavaradachariar. The plaintiff now sues to recover the amount due to him on account of his 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 wh...
Vaddadi Sannamma Vs. Koduganti Radhabhayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad123; 43Ind.Cas.935; (1918)34MLJ17
John Wallis, J.1. I am clearly of opinion that, when a party has been properly impleaded as one of the defendants in a case and the case as against him would have proceeded to judgment but for the fact that the plaintiff elected to abandon part of his case and the suit was in consequence dismissed as against this defendant, he is 'a defendant, against whom a suit has been dismissed,' within the meaning of the explanation to Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. The case which came before the Court in Krishnappa Mudali v. Periasami Mudali : (1917)32MLJ532 , of a misjoinder of causes of action and of the plaintiff being required to proceed with one cause of action, only and the suit being dismissed as against the defendants who had been joined in respect of the other cause of action only, may possibly stand on a different footing, as to hold that the cause of action which the Court was prohibited from trying may be gone into in execution by virtue of Section 47 goes far to defeat the prohibi...
Prativadi Bhayankaram Pichamma Alias Mangamma Vs. Kamisetti Sreeramulu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad148(2); 43Ind.Cas.566; (1918)34MLJ24
John Wallis, C.J. 1. I am of opinion that Chandramathi Ammal v. Narayanasami Aiyar I.L.R. (1909) M. 241 to which I was a party was rightly decided. As the question is very fully dealt in the opinion of my learned brother, I shall merely state the conclusions at which I have arrived on further consideration. Under the Code, where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear either on the day fixed for the first hearing [Order IX, Rule 6(1)] or on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned [Order XVII, Rule 2 read with Order IX. Rule 6(1)], the Court, if it is proved that the summons was duly served, may proceed ex parte. In either case, where the Court has disposed of the case ex parte and passed a decree against the absent defendant, he may, under Order IX, Rule 13, move to set aside the decree on the ground that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on. When a case is called on and the defendant is absent, and the Court ...
Chelikani Venkatarayanim Garu and ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Vatsavaya Venkata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad219; (1918)34MLJ488
ORDER9. In this appeal Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar appearing for the respondent has applied to us for fees for two vakils under the new Rule 41 framed under the Legal Practitioner's Act. This rule empowers the court in cases of special difficulty or importance to allow two sets of fees to a party who has engaged more than one vakil. This case involved about 7 lakhs of rupees but it did not strike us that there was any specially difficult question involved in the appeal and in fact we did not call upon the learned vakil for the respondent to reply. It is however urged that the case was of special importance having regard to the amount involved. We are inclined to agree with that contention; for the respondent in view of the fact that no less than 7 lakhs were concerned in the litigation was justified in engaging two vakils. We therefore allow fees for two vakils which will be taxed according to the rules....
Sundaram Ayyar Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad533
Ayling, J.1. The question for decision in this case is whether we can give an extended meaning to the word 'cheating' in Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to cover an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, etc.).2. We should be glad to do so, as we recognize that equally strong reasons on public and humanitarian grounds may exist for lenient treatment of an offence under either section. On the other hand a careful consideration of the wording of Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code seems to preclude the possibility of such a construction. If the term 'cheating' is to be held to cover offences under Section 418, 419 and 420 of the Indian ! Penal Code which are included with Section 417 in the same group in Schedule II to the Criminal Procedure Code, a similar extension must be allowed to the terms 'theft' and 'dishonest misappropriation.' The former must be held to cover offences under Sections 380...
Paramasiva Udayay Vs. Krishna Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad535
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. In this case, the deed of mortgage sued on was attested by two witnesses and was signed by the scribe as the writer thereof. One of the attesting witnesses is dead and the plaintiff has not taken steps to examine the other witness who is said to be still alive. He has, however, examined the writer of the document who deposed that he saw it executed. The Courts below have held that this proof is not sufficient and have dismissed the suit.2. We are unable to agree with them. The fact that a person calls himself a scribe is not proof that he was not an attesting witness as well. It may be that the writer left the place immediately after he had written the document and before it was signed by the executant. In such a case, he cannot be regarded as an attesting witness. The essence of attestation is that the person must have seen the document executed. The question is one of qualification but not of the use of any set phraseology. There is plenty of authority for the p...
Paramasiva Udayan Vs. Krishna Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad491
1. In this case, the deed of mortgage sued on was attested by two witnesses and was signed by the scribe as the writer thereof. One of the attesting witnesses is dead and the plaintiff has not taken steps to examine the other witness who is said to be still alive. He has, however, examined the writer of the document who deposedthat he saw it executed. The Courts below have held that this proof is notsufficient and dismissed, the suit.2. We are unable to agree with them. The fact that a person calls himself a scribe is not proof that he was not an attesting witness as well. It may be that the writer left the place immediately after he had written the document and before it was signed by the executant. In such a case, he cannot be regarded as an attesting witness. The essence of attestation is that the person must have seen the document executed. The question is one of qualification, but not of the use of any set phraseology. There is plenty of authority for the proposition that a scribe...
Sundaram Ayyar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.658
ORDER1. The question for decision in this' case is, whether we can give an extended meaning to the word ' cheating' in Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to cover an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, etc.).2. We should be glad to do so, as we recognise that equally strong reasons on public and humanitarian grounds may exist for lenient treatment of an offence under either section. On the other hand, a careful consideration of the wording of Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code seems to preclude the possibility of such a construction. If the term cheating' is to be held to cover offences under Sections 418, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which are included with Section 417 in the same group in Schedule II to the Criminal Procedure Code, a similar extension must be allowed to the terms 'theft' and 'dishonest misappropriation.' The former must be held to cover offences under Sections 380, ...
Chalikani Venkatarayanim Garu and ors. Vs. Sri Raja Vatsavya Venkata S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.437
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal is in a suit to enforce a usufructury mortgage, and the question that is argued before us is as to Whether there was a valid tender of the amount due on the mortgage on the 17th January 1899 or whether the respondents dispensed with the necessity for such a tender. On either ground the claim is that interest ceased to run from the date mentioned. Mr. Narayanamurthi who has argued the case for the appellants before us conceded, and we think rightly, that what happened could not be stated to amount to a valid tender within the meaning of Section 84 of the Transfer of Property Act. The so-called tender really depends on what the 2nd appellant wrote to the respondent on the date in question. That letter is Exhibit B, and there he asked the mortgagee to give him an account of What was due to him and expressed his willingness to pay what was due to the mortgagee. In his reply the mortgagee stated that under the terms of Exhibit A, the deed of mortgage, he had ac...
Vadlur Chinna Nagi Reddy Vs. Devineni Venkatramaniah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad310; 45Ind.Cas.653
1. The property in suit belonged to the 2nd defendant. He obtained a loan under the Agricultural Improvements Act from Government in 1897. That loan was payable by installments; while some of the installments still remained unpaid, he sold the land to the plaintiff in 1902; owing to the default in the payment of one of the installments, the land was put up to sale by the Government and was, purchased by the 1st defendant. Plaintiff sues for a declaration that the revenue sale is not binding on him. It is found that no notice of the sale which was held in 1910 was served on the 2nd defendant or the plaintiff; but that, when the 1st defendant took proceedings under Act II of 1864 to obtain possession, plaintiff who had notice of the application objected to the delivery on the ground that the sale was not binding on him; this was in November 1912. The suit was instituted on the 9th June 1913, more than six months after the order for possession.2. The Subordinate Judge held that the sale w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »