Chennai Court February 1917 Judgments
Kailasa Pandaram Vs. Ramanuja Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad1204(1); 39Ind.Cas.950
1. The respondents have sought to support the lower Appellate Court's order only as based on the application of Somasundaram Pillai of 6th December 1905. We cannot treat the order dismissing it as one recognizing the validity of Somasundaram's assignment, or in view of that order, which became final, assume that his assignment was valid. We, moreover, do not regard it as immaterial whether the maker of the application relied on as extending time failed to obtain recognition of his right and we respectfully dissent from Vasha Kuthiyakath v. Ashi Kalakath 5 Ind. Cas. 120, relied on by respondents. Holding that the application of 6th December 1905 is pot shown to have been made by a person entitled^ to make it, we decide that the present petition is put of time.2. We, therefore, allow the appeal against appellate order and dismiss Execution Petition No. 514 of 1909 with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Pillai and Three ors. Vs. Rangasami Naicker and Thirty-seve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad561
Ayling, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother, Seshagiri Ayyar, J., is about to pronounce; and I agree in the conclusion arrived at by him. It is impossible to contend that the power of appointing a testamentary guardian is supported by anything in the ancient texts; and the attractive doctrine that anything which is not expressly forbidden should be held lawful, if expedient, seems to me one, which has its dangers, and requires careful consideration before application. In the present case, the power claimed seems to run counter to the conception of a Hindu joint family in which every member obtains an interest at birth. I can only agree with Sadasiva Ayyar, J.'s remark in Chidambaram Pillai v. Veerappa Chettiar (1917) 6 L.W. 640 in which that learned Judge says:On principle I find it difficult to hold that a man who cannot deal with a particular species of property by will can make arrangements for the management of that property by will after...
Tag this Judgment!Devarapalli Ramalinga Reddi and ors. Vs. Srigiriraju Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad541; 41Ind.Cas.286; (1917)33MLJ60
1. This is an appeal from a decree in a suit brought by a reversioner to recover possession of the properties belonging to one Pedda Venkatarayudu, the last male owner. His daughter Venkamma was in possession until she died. The first question argued before us related to the date of the death of this woman. The plaintiffs' allegation was that she died on the 9th January 1902; The 12th defendant stated that Venkamma died in 1899 and that the suit was barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' suit was in time. The main argument against this conclusion was that Exhibit A, the public extract of the register of the death of Venkamma was not receivable in evidence, and that the judgment of the Subordinate Judge which is mainly based on that document should be reversed.2. The learned Vakil for the appellants broadly contended that this document is not receivable in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. He argued that there is no le...
Tag this Judgment!Nathamuni Mudali and ors. Vs. Parthasaradhi Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad693(2); (1917)33MLJ203
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Chingleput on appeal from the decision of the District Munsif of Poonamallee in a suit brought by an illegitimate son against the legitimate sons of his father, making the father also a defendant, claiming a share of the family property on partition. The lower Appellate Court has given him a decree on the footing that the father tacitly consented to his having a share and that therefore he is entitled to a half share with his legitimate brothers. The legitimate sons appealed to this Court relying on the fact, which has not been disputed before us, that a prior suit had been instituted by one of the legitimate sons to which the present claimant was not made a party and in which the plaintiff sought for partition against his father, that in that suit the father pleaded that he had other legitimate sons of whom the present plaintiff was one, and that therefore they were necessary parties to the suit. It appears that t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Somadural Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.405
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. In some of the cases quoted by the appellants' learned Counsel, the lower Courts did not find the intention to annoy. In the present case, the Appellate Magistrate finds 'clearly their' (the accused's) 'intention to annoy the complainant.'2. As regards other cases quoted by petitioner's Counsel (mostly Calcutta cases) in which the Judges have held that an intention to annoy; should be positively proved and that if some other intention is also evident, an intention to annoy should not1 be presumed, I respectfully differ from those cases and agree with the judgment of Benson, J., in Sellamuthu Servaigaran v. Pallamuthu Karuppen 9 Ind. Cas. 1523. The inevitable consequence of the act of the accused in this case in breaking open a house which had been delivered (with the aid of the Police) through Court to the complainant must be serious mental annoyance to the complainant, and the intention to cause such annoyance follows the knowledge of the accused as human bei...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Rrosecutor Vs. Tsandra Ramaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad540; 39Ind.Cas.1000
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The reasons given by the Sub-Magistrate for acquitting the accused are clearly erroneous [see Suri Venkatappaya Sastri v. Madula Venkanna 27 M. 531 ; 1 Cri. L.J. 42, overruling Queen-Empress v. Kotayya 10 M. 2552. But where the charge is for theft of clods of earth worth 6 pies from a public channel bed belonging to Government, dishonest intention need not be assumed unless it is shown that the accused knew that the publics officers in charge of the bed had notified that the removal of earth would injure the pecuniary or other interests of Government or unless from the clandestine nature of the act, such knowledge could be inferred. The act in this case was committed in daylight (at 4 P.M.) and the evidence does not disclose any dishonest intention. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal filed by the Government and confirm the order of acquittal, though not on the grounds set forth in the Sub-Magistrate's judgment....
Tag this Judgment!Ratna Mudali and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1028
Ayling, J.1. The only point argued is that the arrest was illegal. It is in evidence that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Velan and Kuppan on a charge of a cognizable offence, that the constable knew of this, and had been directed by their Sub-Inspector to be on the look-out for them and arrest them if found. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation whatever in deciding that they were justified under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in making the arrest. Of the cases quoted by Mr. Rangachariyar, In the matter of Charu Ch. Majumdar 20 C.W.N. 1233 is clearly distinguishable on the ground that no warrant had been issued. The other cases Abdul Gafur v. Queen-Empress I.L.R. (1896) Cal.896, Queen-Empress v. Dalip I.L.R. (1896) All. 246 and Queen-Empress v. Kalian I.L.R. (1896) Mad. 310, appear to me to have no bearing on the applicability of Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. There is no reason for interfering with the convictions but I regard the impo...
Tag this Judgment!Avasarala Kondal Row and anr. Vs. Iswara Sanyasi Swamulavaru Alias Ava ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad402; (1917)33MLJ63
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Coca-nada dismissing their suit to recover possession of the immoveable properties belonging to the 1st defendant, from him and his alienees. There are 2 plaintiffs, but as the 2nd is only an assignee from the 1st and as it is the right of the first plaintiff that is in question in the suit, I shall hereafter refer to the 1st plaintiff as the plaintiff. The claim is as the universal legatee, heir and successor of a living person the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff the first defendant his uncle, made his will on the 20th December 1905 at Benares by which he bequeathed all his immoveable properties--they are the suit properties--to the plaintiff, constituted him his heir and successor, and a few days after, became a Sanyasi or entered the fourth asrama prescribed by the sastras, became dead to the world and its concerns, and the plaintiff therefore became the owner of his...
Tag this Judgment!Appala Raja and ors. Vs. Rangappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad632; (1917)33MLJ481
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiffs (who were respondents before us in S.A. No. 1198 of 1914) for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the judgment of this Court which reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The application for leave is based on the ground that the decree of this Court relates to a subject-matter whose value was Rs. 10,000 or upwards in the Court of first instance and the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council is also of the same value and that therefore the application fulfils the requirements of the first paragraph of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code. It is further alleged that the decree involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value and hence it further or in the alternative, satisfies the requirements of the second paragraph of Section 110. Civil Procedure Code. It is finally contended that even...
Tag this Judgment!Avasarala Kondol Row and anr. Vs. Iswara Sanyasi Swamulavaru Alias Ava ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.535
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada dismissing their suit to recover possession of the immoveable properties belonging to the 1st defendant, from him and his alienees. There are two plaintiffs, but as the 2nd is only an assignee from the 1st and as it is the right of the 1st plaintiff that is in question in the suit, I shall hereafter refer to the 1st plaintiff as the plaintiff. The claim is as the universal legatee, heir and successor of a living person the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff the 1st defendant his uncle, made his Will on the 20th December 1905 at Benares by which he bequeathed all his immoveable properties--they are the suit properties--to the plaintiff, constituted him his heir and successor, and a few days after, became a Sanyasi or entered the fourth Asrama prescribed by the Sastras, became dead to the world and its concerns, and the plaintiff, therefore, became the owner of his ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »