Chennai Court May 1917 Judgments
M. Kandaswami Chetti Vs. P. Subramania Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-26-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.384
1. Upon the question whether Courts in this country have the power by virtue of Order XXXIX, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil procedure to issue temporary injunctions in a mandatory form, we are not prepared to adopt the opinion expressed by Beaman, J., in Rasul Karim v. Pirubhai Amirbhai 24 Ind. Cas. 625 : 38 B. 381 : 16 Bom. I 2. The description of temporary injunctions in Section 53, Specific Relief Act, does not exclude injunctions of a mandatory nature, and in Israil v. Shamset Rahman 21 Ind. Cas. 861 : 41nd Cas. 436 : 18 C. W. N. 176 : 19 Cri. L. J. 47. upon an application for an interim injunction, pending the disposal of a suit, it was ordered that defendant should not only be restrained from further erection of a building but that he should pull down so much of it as he had erected after he became aware of the institution of the plaintiff's suit. We also may observe that Shah, J, did not agree with the opinion of his learned brother in Rasul Karim v. Pirbhai Amirbhai 24 Ind. Cas 6...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dudekula Lal Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad231; 45Ind.Cas.261; (1917)33MLJ121
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. Two learned Judges having differed in a Criminal Revision Case, Section 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 429 requires the case to be decided by a third Judge and precludes any further appeal under the Letters Patent or any reference to a Full Bench under the Rules of the Court.2. With reference to this case I have arrived at the same conclusion as Mr. Justice Abdur Rahim.3. If Sections 403 and 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been originally enacted at one and the same time, I should find it very difficult to come to that conclusion. Bui seeing that the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is founded on the English Law of Criminal Procedure, has been repeatedly modified in the successive Codes of 1861, 1872, 1882 and 1898, when an apparent conflictarises between what would appear to be the intention of the Legislature in one section and what would appear to be its intention in another section, the best method of ascertaining what the ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subramania Iyer Vs. Rathnavelu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.556; (1917)33MLJ224
Wallis, C.J.1. The question has been dealt with so very fully by Sadasiva Aiyar, J., in the Order of Reference and in the judgment to be delivered by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., that. I shall state my reasons for concurring in the answer proposed by them very shortly. Manu only mentions the right of a Sudra father to give his illegitimate son a share if he chooses, but at the date of Yagnavalkya the illegitimate son was recognised as one of his father's nearest heirs. In the few Slokas(114 to 149) upon which this part of the Mitakshara is a commentary, Yagnavalkya deals first with partition during the father's life-time, and then with partition by the brothers after the father's death. Next he enumerates the twelve classes of sons who are to inherit to the father, each class excluding the subsequent classes and all other heirs. ' A legitimate (aurasa) son is one born of a lawfully wedded (dharma) wife. Equal with him is the son of an appointed daughter.' (Sloka 128). This is the son of a d...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Rm. Ramanathan Chetty and ors. Vs. Ranganathan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.138; (1917)33MLJ252
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question raised by this Letters Patent Appeal is one of considerable importance and difficulty. It is, to put it shortly, how far it is open to the Court to refuse to recognise the title of the plaintiffs-appellants suing to recover immoveable property of the value of more than Rs. 100 which they purported to convey to the defendants-respondents by an unregistered document, on the ground that the transfer has been acted upon by the latter who spent considerable money in erecting valuable buildings on the land, with the knowledge of and encouraged by the appellants. The facts are sufficiently set forth in the judgments For facts see the report of the learned Chief Justice and Seshagiri Aiyar, J., who took different views and it is unnecessary to repeat them in detail. The result of the findings is that at the time of the transaction in question, which was an exchange of two plots of land between the appellants and the respondents, both the parties believed that the...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusami Naiken Vs. Nadimuthu Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.231; (1917)33MLJ302
1. The defendant borrowed Es. 30 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note promising to pay on demand the principal with interest at one rupee per week, i.e. at about Rs. 172 per cent per annum. In a suit on the note the Subordinate Judge reduced the rate of interest to 24% on the ground that the contract rate was extortionate. He took no evidence and does not find that the contract was procured by undue influence as denned and explained in Section 16 of the Contract Act. The question is whether the Judge had power to reopen the contract and reduce the rate of interest.2. The argument in support of such a power is rested on two grounds. It was argued that there is a head of equity apart and distinct from ' undue influence ' which would enable a Court of Equity in England to reopen a contract which the court thought ' hard or unconscionable' and that the British Indian Courts which are also courts of Equity can exercise the same jurisdiction apart from and outside the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Rathnavelu Chetty and Twelve ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad44
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. The question has been dealt with so very fully by Sadasiva Ayyar, J., in the Order of Reference and in the judgment to be delivered by Kumaraswami Sastriyar, J., that I shall state my reasons for concurring in the answer proposed by them very shortly. Manu only mentions the right of a Sudra father to give his illegitimate son a share if he chooses, but at the date of Yagnavalkya, the illegitimate son was recognized as one of his father's nearest heirs. In the few slokas (144 to 149) upon which this part of the Mitakshara is a commentary, Yagnavalkya deals first with partition during the father's lifetime, and then with partition by the brothers after the father's death. Next he enumerates the twelve classes of sons who are to inherit to the father, each class excluding the subsequent classes and all other heirs.2. 'A legitimate (aurasa) son is one born of a lawfully wedded (dharma) wife. Equal with him is the son of an appointed daughter.' (Sloka 128.)3. This i...
Tag this Judgment!Peirce Leslie and Co. Ltd., Through their Authorised Agent, James Dell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad580; 42Ind.Cas.294; (1917)33MLJ130
Wallis, C.J.1. This reference raises questions of novelty and importance as to the execution by the Courts of Native States of decrees passed by Courts in British India. The further investigation which the subject has now received has confirmed me in the opinion expressed in the recent case in Chidambaram Chetty v. Ramanatham Chetty (1917) 32 M.L.J. 187 in accordance with the decisions of the Bombay and Calcutta Courts in Kasturchand Gujar v. Parsha Mahar I.L.R. (1887) B. 23 and Batan Mahanti v. Khatoo Sahoo I.L.R. (1902) C. 400, that Section 42 and the following sections of the Code of Civil Procedure do not authorise us to send or transfer our decrees for execution to the Courts of Native States, but has also satisfied me that this consideration by no means disposes of the question. Those sections have a two fold effect. In the first place they empower the Courts to which a decree is sent for execution to execute it when the Court to which it is sent is subject to the authority of th...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.T.K.M. Narayanan Nambudripad Vs. Tawker J. Megaji Seit and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad668; 41Ind.Cas.612; (1917)33MLJ217
1. The observations of the learned Judge that the purchaser in this case (3rd respondent) had no notice of the attachment by the Court of the Subordinate Judge appears to have been made inadvertently and is not based on any finding that we can discover in the judgments of either of the lower Courts.2. We must call for a finding on this issue,Was 3rd respondent at the time of his purchase at Court auction aware of the existence of an attachment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge on the property sold. 3. The District Judge will take evidence on this point and return a finding in two months. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections.[In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Judge of South Malabar submitted a finding in the affirmative on the issue.]4. The property in dispute was attached by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Calicut. While the attachment was subsisting, the District Munsif of Manjeri in exeeution of a decree of the Court of t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mongalu Aorodhono Hathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad496; 41Ind.Cas.828
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The accused were tried on a charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code for being 'members of an unlawful assembly and having in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., to enforce a right or supposed right to the barber's land in Sorobogodo Pubodo in Pattupur committed the offence of rioting at Pattupur' and were convicted of that offence by the Sub Magistrate. On appeal the Appellate Magistrate held that the charge under Section 147 could not be sustained as he was unable to find that more than four persons were concerned in the occurrence but found the accused guilty of offences under Sections 447 and 323 instead of the offence of rioting as found by the Trial Magistrate, and reduced, the sentence from three months' to one month's rigorous imprisonment in the case of each accused. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to us for revision being of opinion that the Appellate Magistrate had no power to convict the accused under Sections...
Tag this Judgment!Chundooru Lakshmana Setti Vs. Duggisetty Chenchuramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1917
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ79
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The only question that we have to deal with in this second appeal is whether Ex. V, which is in these words : 'Now if you will pay Rs. 3,000 towards the debt due by you on the two documents we shall receive the money and return the documents,' is admissible in evidence having regard to the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act.2. On the date of Ex. V. more than Rs. 3000 was due, and the balance which the plaintiff agreed to relinquish under Ex. V. amounted much more than Rs. 100. We do not think, though the question under consideration has been argued very elaborately before us, that the matter admits of any real doubt. Section 17, Clause (b) says that other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immoveable property' must be registered. The except...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »