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.
Papala Chakrapani Chetti Vs. Latchmi Achi L.R. of the Deceased 1st Res ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.769; (1918)35MLJ309
1. This second appeal comes before us for rehearing so far as the 12th respondent is concerned, our judgment in S.A. No. 2592 of 1914 and the decree being to that extent set aside. The points arising have now been re-argued on behalf of that respondent. With regard to the question of proof of the sub-mortgage sued on we do not think it necessary to say more than that we consider the proof sufficient. The point most strongly pressed on us was that the plaintiff's sub-mortgage does not now legally affect the property covered by the original mortgage which it purported to charge, that mortgage having been discharged by the substitution of two mortgages, Exs. C and D covering distinct portions of the property and executed by two different branches of the family, both documents being executed in ignorance of the sub-mortgage in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title. We have asked the learned Vakil for authority for the proposition that a sub-mortgage executed without notice to the ...
Vinayaga Mudaliar Vs. Parthasarathy Ayyangar Minor, by Next Friend Gop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.556
John Wallis, C.J.1. I think there is no ground whatever for the objection taken to the action of the learned Judge in allowing an amendment of the plaint as regards the amount claimed as damages. The application was made at the beginning of the trial, when the learned Judge reserved his decision until he had heard more of the case. When he granted it at a later stage, it was not opposed though the order was not made by consent. The fact that it was not opposed goes to show that the general feeling of those who had heard the evidence was that an award of Rs. 5,000 would be inadequate. The only question then is whether the sum of Rs. 12,000 awarded by the learned Judge is excessive. The principles on which compensation should be awarded in these cases is fully discussed in the latest edition of Mr. Bewan's well-known book on Negligence. The observations of Parke, B., in Armsworth v. South Eastern Railway Co. (1847) 11 Jur. 758 and of Brett, J., in Rowley v. London and North Western Railw...
Sri Sri Vikrama Deo Garu, K.C.L.E. Vs. Sri Rajah Tyadapusapathi Rudra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ284
ORDER1. No valid objection has been made to the judgment under appeal. But, the question being one of jurisdiction, we are constrained to decide on a ground not referred to in it, though it was considered by the Assistant Agent, that the suit, being one for land or immoveable property, could be filed in an Agency court without the Agent's previous permission.2. Agency Rule 10, clause 5, repeats the description 'suit for land or other immoveable property ', which occurs in the Letters Patent of this High Court, Section 12; and we have been shewn no reason why the authorities, in which that description was construed in the latter connection should not be considered also in the former. The decision of this court, like those in Calcutta, have given it a wide construction, as covering all suits, in which a decree is asked for 'operating directly on the land in accordance with the principle that all questions relating to lands should ordinarily be decided by the court, within whose jurisdict...
In Re: Appaji Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1918
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ253
ORDERAyling, J.1. I can see no reason for interfering with the conviction in this case or with the order directing the destruction of the cards. The real difficulty is in determining whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the order confiscating the money (12 sovereigns) found on the persons of accused 2 & 3.2. The order admittedly cannot be brought under the last paragraph of Section 3 of Act III of 889, inasmuch as the conviction was not under Clause (10) of the same section : and it can only be upheld if it is covered by Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code Clause 1 of which runs as follows:When an inquiry or a trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal of any property or document produced before it or in its Custody or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. 3. Mr. C. Narasimhachariar, who appeared for the Public Prosecutor has endeavo...
In Re: Appaji Ayyar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad644
Ayling, J.1. I can see no reason for interfering with the conviction in this case or with the order directing the destruction of the cards. The real difficulty is in determining whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the order confiscating the money (twelve sovereigns) found on the persons of accused Nos. 2 and 3.2. The order admittedly cannot be brought under the last paragraph of Section 3 of Act III of 1889, inasmuch as the conviction was not under Clause (l0) of the same section: and it can only be upheld if it is covered by Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, Clause 1 of which runs as follows:Where an inquiry or a trial in any Criminal Court is concluded the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal of any property or document produced before it or in its custody or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.3. Mr. C. Narasimhachariyar, who appeared for the Public Prosecutor, has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›