Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Rangasami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.988
ORDER1. As regards the conviction under Section 428, Indian Penal Code, we do not think that it is wrong. The accused cut the ears of two asses clean off at their base and it is contended that this act does not amount to 'maiming' within the meaning of Section 428. We have a decision of this Court in Marogowdha v. Srinivasa Rangachar 12 Ind. Cas. 90 ; (1911) 2 M.W.N. 141 where it was held that the cutting of the ears of a horse amounted to an offence of maiming within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code. That also seems to be the view taken in Anna Laxman Bhintade v. Emperor 34 Ind. Cas. 973 ; 18 Bom. L.B. 289, although in the latter case, because the animal's ears had not been wholly out off but, only a portion of the ears had been out, it was held that the offence was not one of maiming. But here the ears have been completely removed and the case falls within the ruling of Marogowdha v. Srinivasa Rangachar 12 Ind. Cas. 90; 10 M.L.T. 192 ; (1911) 2 M.W.N. 141 ; 12 Cri. L.J. 482. Such...
Venkatasubba Sastrial and ors. Vs. V. Subramania Aitar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad500; 42Ind.Cas.827
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These are appeals from two connected suits brought in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tinnevelly. Appeal No. 3 is against the decision in Original Suit No. 10 of 1913 brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and of the 9th defendant for a declaration that a sale-deed of 4th July 1901 executed by the members of the plaintiffs' family was not bona fide sale-deed, nominal and inoperative, and for recovery of possession of the agricultural lands sold under it, the plaintiffs having themselves continued in possession of the house and house sites soil under the deed. The connected suit (Original Suit No. 23of 1913) was brought by the 1st defendant to recover possession of the house and house sites against the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 10 of 1913. I shall call the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 10 of 1913 plaintiffs hereafter. Though the plaint in paragraphs 4 and 5 uses the words benami', 'colourable', 'nominal' and so on and the claim is based upon the ...
Majjiga Venkatasubba Reddi Vs. Chundi Linga Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad554(1); 41Ind.Cas.640
1. We agree with the District Judge in thinking that if an application made under Order XXI, Rule 100, of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed without investigation, the person dispossessed is not bound to bring a suit to establish his right to possession within one year under Article 11A of the Limitation Act.2. The decisions in Narasimla Chetti v. Viriapala Nainar 27 Ind. Cas. 944 : 2 L. W. 206. and Ponnusami Pillai v. Samu Ammal 38 Ind. Cas. 937 : 31 M. L. J. 247. related to orders made upon claims under Order XXI, Rule 63, There is no such change of language in the rules that relate to claims made after sales in execution as there is in those portions of the Code which relate to claims against attachment.3. Under these circumstances the decisions under the old Code upon this point apply, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.4. The District Court should have given a refund of the value of the stamp on the appeal memo, to the appellant instead of including it among the cos...
A. Kuttan Vs. P. Kalliani Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad697(1); 40Ind.Cas.449
1. The first defendant obtained a decree against the second defendant who is a karnavan of the tarwad directing him either, to execute a kanom or to pay damages. The kanom was not exesuted and the 1st defendant in execution of the decree for damages sold the property and bought it. The Subordinate Judge has held that the decree is not binding on the plaintiff's tarwad. He says that there is reason to believe that the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant acted in collusion but no such case was made. However that may may be, he points out that the decree was a personal decree against the 2nd defendant and not a decree against the tarwad. That being so, it was for the 1st defendant to show that the decree was obtained, as a matter of fact, against the tarwad for money borrowed for tarwad necessity. This view of his law is borne out by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vasudevan v. Sankaran 20 M. 129 : 7 M.L.J. 7 Ind. Dec. 90 There is no evidence to show that either the 2nd defendant...
Kondapalli Parasuramareddi and ors. Vs. Malereddi Venkayya and anr., M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad695; 42Ind.Cas.496
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Mr. Ramadoss bas again raised the question whether the consent of the next presumptive reversioner is conclusive evidence of an alienation having been made by a widow for justifiable necessity. He is justified in the state of the authorities in raising it.2. Speaking for myself, I see no reason to re-consider my decision in Nachiappa Gounden v. Rangasami Gounden 26 Ind. Cas. 757: (1915) M. W. N. 53, It is not because I am unwilling to go back upon my views that I say this, but because the later pronouncements of the Judicial Committee on the question are not in conflict with what I then said. Two decisions of that Tribunal have been quoted before us. In Hari Kishen Bhagat v. Kashi Parshad Singh 27 Ind. Cas. 67417 Bom. L. R. 426: (1915) M. W. N. 511, the expression 'stringent equity' was used by the Board. A good deal of discussion has been directed to explain its meaning. It is said, that by these words the Judicial Committee intended to lay down that the consent ...
Chinta Rangayya and ors. Vs. Chinta Butchamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad699; 41Ind.Cas.281
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The respondents in this petition, which has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for revising the order of the District Munsif of Gudivada, brought a suit in proper form for' recovery of Rs. 700 and odd. The suit was filed in January 1914. In July 1915 the plaint was amended (that is, about 18 months after suit). Then in March 1916 (more than two years after the institution of the suit) the Munsif allowed the suit to be withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit and the only ground for granting this extraordinary relief is that 'the plaintiff is of opinion that the present evidence' (let in on plaintiff's side) 'is not sufficient.'2. That the order' is wholly improper goes without saying. It is argued by Mr. B. Narasimha Rae for the petitioners (defendants) that it was also passed without jurisdiction. He is, no doubt, supported by some Calcutta decisions. But this Court in Aiya Gounden v. J ay an Mandalathipathi Gopanna Mauradiyar 26 Ind. ...
Appavu Rowther Alias Kadirsa Rowther Vs. Seeni Rowther Alias Muhammad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad719; 42Ind.Cas.514; (1917)33MLJ177
1. The facts which have led up to this appeal my be thus shortly stated. The appellant and the respondent agreed to refer their disputes to the decision of certain arbitrators on the 20th of August 1912, (Ex. I and I-a). For sometime nothing was done under the reference. The appellant sent a notice revoking the arbitration and subsequently filed a suit to enforce his rights ignoring the reference altogether. This was on the 25th of August 1913 (O.S. No. 77 of 1913). While the suit was pending, the arbitrators gave the award on the 1st of October 1913. Thereupon on the 18th December 1913, the respondent filed O.S. No. 122 of 1913 for a decree in terms of the award. The Lower Court passed a decree as prayed for. Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Aiyar, the learned vakil for the appellant has raised various objections to the decree. The only one which requires consideration is the contention that on the filing of O.S. No. 77 of 1913, the arbitrators became functus officio, that consequently their awa...
P.R. Srinivasa Aiyar Vs. A. Sesha Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad444; (1918)34MLJ282
Oldfield, J.1. Plaintiff, here appellant, sued defendants for Rs. 400 alleged to have been advanced to them out of Rs. 1,100, payable under an agreement as consideration for the marriage of his minor sister with Raman, the first defendant's son and the second defendant's brother. There were three defences: that (1) there was no cause of action, because the first defendant entered into the agreement only on behalf of Raman and the second defendant was not a party to it at all, (2) the agreement was not broken by defendants, (3) it was invalid, as being against public policy, and the money advanced under it was therefore irrecoverable.2. Of these defences, the first was not dealt with either at the trial or by the learned Judge in this Court, though one would have supposed that a decision regarding the existence of a cause of action would have been reached, before enquiry began into the validity of the agreement set up as constituting it or the responsibility for breaking that agreement....
P.R. Srinivasa Aiyar Vs. A. Sesha Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.783
Oldfield, J.1. Plaintiff, here appellant, sued defendants for Rs. 400, alleged to have been advanced to them out of Rs. 1,100, payable under an agreement as consideration for the marriage of his minor sister with Raman, 1st defendant's son and 2nd defendant's brother. There were three defences, that 29 Ind. Cas. 625. there was no cause of action, because 1st defendant entered into the agreement only on behalf of Raman and 2nd defendant was not a party to it at all; 9 Ind. Cas. 161. the agreement was not broken by defendants; 10 Ind. Cas. 1004. it was invalid, as being against public policy, and the money, advanced under it, was, therefore, irrecoverable.2. Of these defences, the first was not dealt with either at the trial or by the learned Judge in this Court, though one would have supposed that a decision regarding the existence of a cause of action would have been reached, before enquiry began into the validity of the agreement set up as constituting it or the responsibility for bre...
Puliyadi Navanna Ellarayan Vs. Kuttuva China Kuna Muni Nagendra Iyen a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad716; 42Ind.Cas.509
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff sold for Rs. 2,000 a house in which he had only a partial interest, the remainder belonging to his brother who did not join in the contract to sell or in the sale-deed. Rs. 300 were paid in advance by the purchasers. Plaintiff brought this suit to recover interest from the date fixed for performance of the contract up to the date when he took the balance: of Rs. 1,700 out of Court. He succeeded,; in the first Court, but on appeal the District Judge dismissed his suit for two reasons:(1) That the stipulation for payment of interest occurs only in the contract to sell and not m the sale-deed and that the latter must be treated as superseding the former, both documents having been executed on the same day.(2) That plaintiff was himself the cause of the default in payment.2. The stipulation for interest in Exhibit B is worded thus:3. 'In the event of your failing to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,700 after my executing the sale-deed by the said term you shall pay me ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »