Chennai Court January 1918 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.
Nagalingam Pillai Vs. Vaduganatha Asari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.672
1. It has been held in Kamakshi v. Nagarathnam 5 M.H.C.R. 161 that in the dancing girl caste daughters succeed in preference to sons, and Strange in his Manual of Hindu Law says that the property of a dancing girl will pass to her female issue first and then to her male issue as in the case of other females. Although the property is not Stridhanam, its devolution is by custom similar to the devolution of Stridhanam. Consequently a daughter's daughter must be preferred to a son, just as in ordinary Hindu Law a son's son is preferred to a daughter, as in the latter sons have the preference over daughters. The District Judge is, therefore, right and this second appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Srinivasa Thathachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Mad18(2); 47Ind.Cas.657
ORDERBakewell, J.1. The first point taken is that the act for which the petitioner was convicted does not fall within the order passed under Criminal Procedure Code Section 144.2. It is true that the order mentions a specific act, but it also includes all acts of the same kind by the general words, 'in any way interfering with the conduct of the Adyapakam service.' I think that these words sufficiently define the acts from which the petitioner was required to abstain and thus renders them 'certain' within the meaning of Section 144. I may also point out that the petitioner as trustee had powers of management over the temple and its property and the act done was within those powers, and the order as regards, him may be read as directing him 'to take certain order' in the management of the temple.3. I think that the case falls within Ramanadhan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti 2 Weir 92 and I have some doubt as to the decision in Abayeswari Debi v. Sidheswari Debi 8 Ind. Dec. 1794. The learned...
A.F. Cuffly Vs. Muhamadali Muhammad Ibrahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.329
ORDER1. The Magistrate in this case found that the accused, who was a Railway Guard, made two Mahomedan gosha ladies who were travelling in a first class compartment in which there were two European ladies get out of that compartment and get into a coupe compartment at Arkonam. He also found that the ladies did not consent to changing their compartment. It would appear that the two European passengers or at least one of them objected to the gosha ladies travelling in the same compartment and that was the reason why the guard interfered and made the gosha ladies go into an. other compartment against their will. This he had no right to do, as the gosha ladies had agreed to pay the excess fare which was chargeable for the difference between the second class ticket which they possessed and the first class fare. The Station Master and the guard himself had given them this accommodation in consideration of the excess fare which they had promised to pay and which was actually paid at Arkonam....
K. Gopalakrishna Kudva Vs. Bangle Narayana Kamthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.803; (1918)34MLJ517
1. The plaintiff's suit which was brought to recover Rs. 3,500 as damages for malicious prosecution was dismissed in the court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara and the plaintiff appeals. The plaintiff was the managing trustee of Shri Venkataramana temple of Mulki and the defendant complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mangalore that the plaintiff had, as trustee, committed offences of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust in respect of the temple properties. At the trial, the plaintiff was discharged under Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Magistrate on July 15th, 1912.2. For the purpose of this case we may leave out of consideration those allegations of the defendant which merely imputed breach of the rules framed under the award of arbitrators for the management of the temple, and we may at once proceed to those charges in which an element of criminal dishonesty was disclosed by the prosecutor's allegations. In the defendant's complai...
Sistu Seetaramayya Vs. Tadapalli Sodemma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.16
1. The plaintiff sues to re-cover damages from the defendant in somewhat curious circumstances. The defend-ant had a decree for money against the plaintiff and there was an agreement arrived at between the parties by which theft decree-holder consented to receive an amount less than the decree amount in several instalments, covering a period of two years, the first instalment being payable on the date of the agreement. It would seem that two instalments were paid to the decree-holder. In the payment of the 2nd instalment there was a delay of a few days, but the defendant waived the delay and accepted payment, but wduld not receive the 3rd instalment sent to him and then took steps to enforce the decree and realise the amount due upon the decree apart from the agreement. The agreement was never brought to the notice of the Court or sanctioned by it. The plaintiff says that he is entitled to recover damages from the defendant for violation of the agreement even though he could not set up...
Mahanakali Lakshmiah and anr. Vs. Karnam Narayanappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.80; (1918)34MLJ425
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants sued to recover possession of two plots of land 12A and 12B and asked for a declaration of their rights and sought to restrain the defendants from causing obstruction to the flow of water from a channel called Diguva Kalava to the lands in dispute. They got a decree for possession of the lands excepting an acre. There are two questions in the appeal, one is whether they are entitled to an injunction as prayed for or at least to a declaration that they are entitled to the use of the water in the Diguva channel for irrigating the lands 12A and 12B and the other, whether the judgment of the lower appellate court with respect to one acre disallowed to them is right.2. The channel takes its rise in the bed of a river called Pennar. The land of the defendants is lower than the land of the plaintiffs. The channel is admittedly a Government channel and the lands of both parties are ryotwari It seems to be an admitted fact that the channel which is sh...
Manjappa and anr. Vs. Rajagopalachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.779
1. The plaintiffs' claim is first to be paid for six articles ordered by defendants, which the latter were, there had no right to return. Part of the cause of action as regards these articles arose at Kumbakonam, where plaintiffs complied with defendants' order by despatching the articles to them, thus impliedly acceptingtheir proposal. The lower Court, therefore, had jurisdiction as regards this part of the case. There is no answer to it on the merits.2. Next, however, plaintiffs claim the value of 17 other articles, which, it is not disputed, they sent in excess of defendants' order, on the ground that they failed to-use the proper amount of care in the method by which they returned them to them at their request and that they consequently did not reach them.3. It is argued, first, that the cause of action for this amount arose in part at Kumbakonam, where plaintiffs were, because it is based on a contract entered into between defendants and plaintiffs to return the articles and plain...
L. Abdul Sukur Saheb Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ210
Bakewell, J.1. The question in this case is what is the true construction of Sub-section 3 of Section 31 of the Income-tax Act of 1886 which was added to that section by Act V of 1916. The plaintiff entered into an agreement for a composition of the tax payable by him prior to the amendment of the section and maintains that the agreement is still subsisting, at least to some extent, and that he is not liable to a re-assessment of his income.2. It has been argued that the amount of tax entered in the agreement was determined with regard to the vicissitudes of plaintiff's trade, which might yield less profits in one year than in another and that hardship is caused by exacting the tax for only a portion of the term fixed by the agreement, which itself provides for a change of rate of tax, and that it must have been intended by the legislature only to alter the rate of tax and not to disturb the basis of the agreement, or in other words, not to require a re-assessment of income. As pointed...
Ammani Ammal Vs. Ramasawmi Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.57; (1919)37MLJ113
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant before us. The plaintiff brought a suit for possession of certain properties which had been bequeathed to him by his elder brother Abboy Naidu (when the plaintiff was a minor) under a will dated 4th August 1901. The plaintiff's mother asserting a title in herself to the property sold it to the 1st defendant in February 1904 under Exhibit VI for a sum of Rs. 3,400. The title she asserted against her deceased son Abboy Naidu (in whose name the title deeds stood) and against Abboy Naidu's brother and legatee, the minor plaintiff, was based upon her contention that though the property was purchased in Abboy Naidu's name Abboy Naidu was a benamidar for herself (his mother). The plaintiff of course denied that Abboy Naidu was a benamidar for his mother and he sued upon his title derived from Abboy Naidu. He also prayed in his plaint for the cancellation, if necessary, of the deed of February 1904 executed by his mother. I might at once ...
Muthu Karau Vena Alagappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kanakasabai Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.689
1. This appeal can be disposed of with reference to only one of the grounds taken, that the lower Appellate Court erred in its decision in favour of plaintiff's right to proceed by suit. The 1st defendant was under obligation, under Exhibit Al, a compromise decree, to endorse certain promissory notes in plaintiff's favour and to execute a power-of-attorney and do other things within a fixed time. He did not comply with his obligation; and plaintiff, instead of compelling him to do so by process under Order XXI, Rule 34 or 32, has now sued him and the present appellants, certain trustees alleged to be in possession of his property, for damages on the ground that the notes are now time-barred and worthless.2. The lower Appellate Court has held that such a suit will lie on the strength of certain authorities, of which (to mention only those in which Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 was pleaded) Saratmani Debee v. Bata Krishna 35 12 C.W.N. 614. was decided in special circumst...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »