Chennai Court February 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.
The American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, by Its Attorney Rev. W.L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.859
Appeal No. 354.1. We accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge and in modification of his decree direct that the 1st defendant be allowed to retain possession of item No. 1 in the plaint schedule and that he be directed to pay to the plaintiff respondent the sum of Rs. 3,600, less Rs. 300 found binding on the plaintiff, with interest thereon at 6 per cent. from the date of the plaint till the date of payment. Each party will bear his own costs in this Court, including the costs of the finding called for. Plaintiff is entitled to his costs against the 1st defendant in the Court below. In other respects the decree of the Subordinate Judge is confirmed.Appeal No. 368.2. On the merits we think the Subordinate Judge has come to the right conclusion. The evidence has been discussed by him fully and we see no reason to differ from him. At the last moment an argument was advanced to the effect that the decree against the appellant is a nullity. The facts bearing on this point are these: The ...
Mamidi Appayya and ors. Vs. Yedan Venkataswami, Minor by His Next Frie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.597
Spencer, J.1. These civil revision petitions arise out of a suit in which there was a reference made by consent of the parties to three arbitrators and a decree was passed by the Court on the award of two of them.]2. The parties agreed to abide by the decision of the majority, but the petitioners seek to impugn the legality of the award which two out of the three arbitrators have signed because the arbitrators did not all meet together and deliberate upon the matter submitted to them, as appears from the 3rd arbitrator's separate award or report and from the 2nd defendant's affidavit. It is a well established principle in regard to arbitration that for the final award to be valid, it is essential that all the arbitrators should be present at all the meetings including the last, that witnesses should be examined in the presence of all, and that all should consult together as to the form that their award should take [vide Nand Ram v. Fakir Chand (1885) A.W.N. 139 , Thammiraju v. Bapiraju...
The Midnapore Zemindari Company, Limited Vs. Malayandi Appayasami Naic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.733
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Madura in a suit brought by the plaintiff as heir of the late Zemindar of Kannivadi to recover the Zemindari from the J at defendant, the Midnapore Zemindari Company, and the 2nd defendant claiming under it. The defendant Company, acquired the Zemindari for more than thirteen lakhs of rupees from the Liquidator of the Commercial Bank of India, which in December 1895 had advanced money on a mortgage to which the plaintiff's grandfather the then Zemindar and his son the plaintiff's father were parties, and had subsequently obtained a consent decree for sale, and brought the Zemindari to sale and purchased it after the death of the plaintiff's grandfather and the succession of his father to the estate. At the date of the Court sale in 1900 the Zemindari was an unsettled Palayam, but in 1905 the Bank succeeded in obtaining a permanent sanad under Regulation XXV of 1802 at the same Peishcush as had been paid without alteration fo...
In Re: K. Venkatarama Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.512
1. The first point taken is that the learned Judge has not found that plaintiff is the next reversioner. There is no suggestion that there are any other reversioners and I take the finding of the lower Court that plaintiff is the reversioner to mean that he is the next reversioner.2. It is argued that though the rent payable by the defendant is only Rs. 6 a month, the annual rent of the whole building of which defendant is occupying a part should be taken into consideration for deciding the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under Section 41 of the Act. Defendant having become a tenant of only one or two rooms, this suit has reference only to those rooms and it seems to me that as the rent payable by him annually is much less than Rs. 1,000, the suit comes within the cognizance of the Presidency Small Cause Court.3. It is also argued that the Small Cause Court should not have gone into any question of title but where the Court goes into the question to enable it to exercise its juri...
Maddipoti Peramma Vs. Gandrapu Krishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.308
Bakewell, J.1. Under Section 18 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the appointment of a Receiver vests the property of the insolvent in him, and under Section 20 it is the duty of the Receiver to realise that property and he has power to sell it. This power is exercised by virtue of the authority conferred by the Statute, and not of a decree or order of the Insolvent Court directing a sale. There was, therefore, no proceeding before the Court with respect, to such sale within the meaning of Section 47 and the rules of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the sale of property in execution of a decree or order do not apply.2. It is argued that under Section 18(3) the Court had power to remove a person in possession of property of the insolvent from possession, but this power is evidently intended to enable the Receiver to obtain control of the insolvent's property and not to provide for the determination of questions of title as between the insolvent and third parties. This is indicated by...
Subbaraya Goundan and ors. Vs. Muthayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ684
1. The plaintiff's husband by his will devised to her his one fourth share in a mitta which had fallen on partition to his brother and had been mortgaged by the brother's widow to the plaintiff's husband and to his three divided sons. A further agreement, Exhibit C, to which the widow, the plaintiff's husband and his three sons were parties, provided that on her death the mitta should be divided into four shares, of which the plaintiff's husband and his three sons should each take one share. The plaintiff's husband was the next reversioner and his sons were remoter reversioners, and they were none of them competent to transfer their reversionary interests. Consequently the agreement Exh. C. was so far void; and all that the plaintiff's husband had at the time of his death was a one-fourth share in the mortgage executed by the widow in favour of himself and his sons, as he predeceased the widow. It has been contended before us that in these circumstances the testator's mortgage interest...
Kompella Anantaramayya Vs. Chikkatla Tukkadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.147; (1918)34MLJ404
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. It is unnecessary in this matter to repeat the entire history. When the application for sanction for perjury was made to the Sub-Magistrate before whom the petitioners had given evidence he granted the sanction with reference to a particular statement made by the petitioner. That order was set aside by the Joint Magistrate, as in his opinion the, order granting sanction was wanting in definiteness. But he granted sanction with reference to another statement made by the petitioner before the same Sub-Magistrate. It appears that the respondent had applied for sanction with reference to the very statement with respect to which sanction was ultimately granted by the Joint Magistrate, Mr. Fotheringham, but the Sub-Magistrate instead of granting sanction with reference to that statement) granted sanction with reference to another statement; and Mr. Fotheringham as already stated set aside that order on the ground that it was vague.2. The question of law arises whether ...
Raghavalu Naicker Vs. Singaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1918
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ369
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. A complaint was made under Sections 352 and 504 Indian Penal Code before the 2nd Presidency Magistrate On the date fixed for the case the complainant was absent and the Magistrate discharged the accused. Then a fresh complaint was lodged with reference to the, same transaction before the 3rd Presidency Magistrate and he held that so far as the offence under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, was concerned the order of the 2nd Presidency Magistrate operated as an acquittal and that the case should be proceeded with only with reference to the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. We are asked to consider whether the order of the 3rd Presidency Magistrate that there has been an acquittal, within the meaning of the law with respect to the charge under Section 352 by reason of the previous order of the 2nd Presidency Magistrate, is right.2. The case relating to an offence under Section 352 is a summons case inasmuch as the punishment for such an offence is not more than 6 mon...
Kompella Anantharamayya Vs. Chikatla Tukkadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad787
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. It is unnecessary in this matter to repeat the entire history. When the application for sanction for perjury was made to the Sub-Magistrate before whom the petitioners had given evidence he granted the sanction with reference to a particular statement made by the petitioner. That order was set aside by the Joint Magistrate, as in his opinion the order granting sanction was wanting in definiteness. But he granted sanction with reference to another statement made by the petitioner before the same Sub-Magistrate. It appears that the respondent had applied for sanction with reference to the very statement with respect to which sanction was ultimately granted by the Joint Magistrate, Mr. Fotheringham, but the Sub-Magistrate, instead of granting sanction with reference to the statement granted sanction with reference to another statement and Mr. Fotheringham as already stated set aside that order on the ground that it was vague. The question of law arises whether the J...
Nataraja Pillai and Vs. Subbaraya Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.529
Oldfield, J.1. The lower Court's order was passed on the death of a minor to whose property it had appointed a guardian, and directed the handing over of the property by that guardian to one of those, who claimed as the deceased minor's heir.2. It is urged, first, that it had no power to pass such an order and should have directed the guardian to institute an interpleader suit. But it is not shown how it had the right to give him any such direction. Section 41 (3) of the Guardians and 'Wards Act (VIII of 1890) appears wide enough to cover the Court's action; and the Court in Murlidhar Natha v. Valahhdas Murlidhar 3 Ind. Cas. 172 appears to have acted similarly without objection being taken by the Appellate Court or the parties. In these circumstances I hold that the lower Court's action was within its powers.3. It is then contended that the lower Court used its discretion wrongly. It had materials before it which it apparently considered, and we are not prepared to say that its discret...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »