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.
Puzhakkal Edom Alias Puthan Edom Karnavan and Kaikaryakarthamu Valia A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1917
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ96
1. The first question argued before us is on the merits of the case. As a matter of fact, money was advanced by the respondent as alleged by him, and we think there was necessity on the part of the Karnavan who held the office previous to the appellant to borrow money for Tarwad purposes. As regards the fact of the advances, the only evidence is, on the side of the respondent which supports his case, and that case is corroborated by the production of receipts obtained from different persons to whom payments were made either on account of maintenance or salaries or for payment of kist. No doubt, the respondent himself was in debt to a large extent but he gives evidence that he borrowed money from different persons in order to make a loan to Andi Achan. He brought the loan to the notice of the Court and it must have been known to the appellant in the suit.2. On the question of necessity the Edom consists of 160 members and the income, all told, taking it at the highest, does not amount t...
E.D. Smith Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad111; 43Ind.Cas.605
William Ayling, J.1. This is an appeal by Mr. E.D. Smith, a tailor doing business in the Mount Road, Madras, against a conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate for dishonest possession of stolen property under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The property consists of various articles (Material Objects Nos. 1 to 6 and 9) alleged by the prosecution to have been stolen from the Army Clothing Factory situated close to accused's premises. The facts are fully set forth in the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and it is unnecessary to recapitulate them here.2. In support of the conviction the Chief Presidency Magistrate has largely relied on certain statements made by accused at the time of the search of his shop to Captain Phillips, an officer of the Army Clothing Department examined as second prosecution witness. On behalf of accused it was argued by Mr. Grant in both Courts that these statements are confessions and that their admission in evidence is barred by Sections ...
Khaji Sayyid Yusuf Sahib and ors. Vs. Ediga Narasimhappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.367
1. The matter has been fully argued before us and we have come to the conclusion that the District Judge's judgment cannot be supported. In the previous litigation the present 1st plaintiff's father claimed a right of way over the path in question. The case was taken up to the High Court and it was held in Khaji Syyad Hussain Saheb v. Ediga Narasimhappa 16 Ind. Cas. 962 : (1913) M.W.N. 991 accepting the finding of the lower Appellate Court in that behalf, that the path was a public one and that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit without alleging special damage. Accepting this decision the present 1st plaintiff, who is the son of the plaintiff in the previous litigation sued along with three others the same defendants for a declaration that the path is a public one. The necessary sanction under Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code was obtained to institute the suit. The defendants now plead that it is a private right of way. The District Munsif overruled this plea and...
Govinda Menon and ors. Vs. Pathaikkara Manakkal Pramathan Kuppan Numbu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1917
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ617
1. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned District Judge. The plaintiff executed to the 2nd defendant as the Karnavan of his tarwad Ex. A, the deed of mortgage now sued on. The suit is for redemption. The plea is that as the defendants were not let into possession by the plaintiff it is open to them to plead that the plaintiff has no title to sue. Dr. Pandalai contended before us that the view taken by the Full Bench in Venkata Chetty v. Ayyanna Gounden I.LR. (1917) M. 561 is not applicable to mortgages,We must now take it as settled that a kanom is an anomalous mortgage, although, as pointed out in the earlier decisions, there is in a kanom a combination of a mortgage and of a lease. Assuming for the sake of argument that Section 116 of the Evidence Act is not in terms applicable to kanoms, we think the principles enunciated in Venkata Chetty v. Ayyanna Gounden I.LR. (1917) M. 561 govern this case. The basis of the law of estoppel is not that possession has been...
Thathamangalam Parakat Samu Menon and anr. Vs. Vengannat Swaroopam Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.242
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The case has occupied more time than the importance of the points to be decided in the appeal demands. The reason is that we have to construe an Act which does not err on the side of being very clear or explicit. After listening to the arguments of Mr. Kutti Krishna Menon and after giving my best consideration to Sections 9 to 12 of Madras Act I of 1900, I am not sure that my decision is quite correct. It may be attributable to obtuseness, but one cannot help feeling that the Act is calculated to confuse even clearer minds than mine.2. I shall proceed to deal with the points which have been argued. First of all, I shall take Mr. Anantha Krishna Aiyar's memorandum of objections. After the decision in Kunhallor Puthia Veettil Rayarappa v. Parkum Punnisseri Kelappa 39 Ind. Cas. 741 : 32 M.L.J. 110 : 5 L.W. 617 in all matters which are provided for by the contract, the parties are governed by it: consequently, in respect of Vettukanom for the reclaimed lands, the tena...
Maharaja Perumal Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Sendanatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad311; 44Ind.Cas.479
1. We are unable to uphold the judgment of the learned District Judge. He is apparently of opinion that the promissory note given by the plaintiff can be supported on the theory that the promise by the father is binding on the son as a pious obligation. If the father himself could have repudiated the promise, the son cannot be placed in a worse position. Therefore, the real question is whether the original promise by the father is enforceable.2. Notwithstanding the adverse criticism of Sir Frederick Pollock on Kedar Nath Battacharji v. Gorie Mahomed 7 Ind. Dec. 43 we are not prepared to differ from the statement of the law therein contained. The fact that a similar promise in England may not be enforced by the Courts of law is not conclusive of the question, as definition of consideration in the Indian Contract Act is wider and more comprehensive than is accepted in the English Courts. Kedar Nath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed. 7 Ind. Dec. 43 has been accepted as good law in Abdul Aziz ...
Komandur Srinivasa Seshacharlu and ors. Vs. Komandus Seshamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.758; (1918)34MLJ479
1. The point involved in this appeal relates to the construction of a will executed by a Hindu. The document is marked as Exhibit A in the case. The construction of the document is by no means free from difficulty. But once the rules of construction applicable to such cases are borne in mind, we think that we have enough in this will from which we can gather the-intention of the testator in the events that have happened. He had two daughters, one called Seshamma and the other Andalammal the younger daughter. Seshamma had no child, but Andalammal had two sons. The question we have to consider is whether there was any gift to Andalammal's children or whether the gift was to Andalammal of an absolute estate or of a daughter's estate according to the Hindu Law.2. The will starts with saying that the property should be divided into three shares, one share should be given to Seshamma and the other two to Andalammal, it having been already recited that the testator's two daughters were alive ...
S.V. Sitaramaswamy Vs. Dulla Lakshmi Narasamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1917
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.840
1. Plaintiff, the mother, sued. her son, the defendant, for a declaration that the property in suit was her Stridhanam. The suit was first filed in the District Munsif's Court and, on objection being taken to valuation, it was returned for presentation to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and was tried in that Court, When the suit was in the Munsif's Court the defendant executed a mortgage in favour of the present appellant. The suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that, while the son was taking steps to file an appeal, he colluded with his mother and gave up the idea of preferring an appeal. Thereupon the present appellant filed an application to the District Court under Order XXII, Rule 10, for an order that he be allowed to prefer an appeal, as the right to the property in suit devolved on him pending the suit. At the same time, he filed a memorandum of appeal against, the decree of the Subordinate Judge. On the application, the Distri...
The Clan Line Steamers Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Council of Cocanada
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.500; (1918)34MLJ145
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is a case of considerable general importance and, accordingly, although the sum of money involved is not large it has been brought as a test case to this Court. The plaintiffs, the Clan Line Steamers Ltd., are a Company incorporated under the English Companies' Act having their registered office and their head place of business in Glasgow. They own a line of steamers which ply between English ports and the east calling, among other places, at ports in Southern India, among them Madras, and Cocanada on the Coromandel coast in Godavari District. The defendants are a District Municipality constituted under the Madras District Municipalities Act of 1884, and they have demanded a profession tax from the plaintiff Company.2. The tax has been paid by the plaintiff Company under protest and they now sue to recover it. The claim is for three instalments, but I need only concern myself with the third which was demanded on the 18th January last and paid on the 30th, the ...
Subbaraya Chettiar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Papathi Ammal Alias Lakshmi Amm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad294; 45Ind.Cas.239
1. In this case an objection has been taken that appellant has no right-to appeal. Two grounds are put forward, (I) that plaintiff, being an insolvent, had no right to bring the suit and consequently has no right of appeal, and 22 Ind. Cas. 687 that even if he had a right to sue, the right of appeal was taken away by the intervention of the Official Receiver after plaintiff obtained a decree in the Original Court.2. At the date of suit the plaintiff was an undischarged insolvent, and under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act all his property vested in the Official Receiver, who would then have the right to sue in respect of that property. It is, however, contended for the appellant that he had the permission of the Official Receiver to bring this suit, and, therefore, could do so inasmuch as there remained vested in him an interest in the property, as would appear from the fact that any residue of his estate after administration in insolvency would be returned to him. This cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »